Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Flc)

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved in a timely manner; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached after significant time; or
  • reviewers are unable to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting.

Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure
  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  3. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.
Reviewing procedure

Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. Supports are weighted more strongly if they are given alongside justifications that indicate that the list was fully reviewed; a nomination is not just a straight vote.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. Please focus your attention on substantive issues or inconsistencies, rather than personal style preferences. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed, and nominators are encouraged to use {{reply to}} or other templates to notify reviewers when replying. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so, rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

Source reviews needed

The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Nominations

[edit]

List of songs recorded by the Pogues

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After countless lists of number ones, I thought I would try something different for my next FLC. I'd just been listening to the new 40th anniversary deluxe edition of the Pogues' debut album and decided to have a go at this one. I added a lead, images, and (I think) pretty much doubled the size of the list by adding all the songs that were not on the original versions of their seven studio albums. A couple of things I was not 100% certain about (and couldn't really find any guidance on) and am happy to change if people think I should:

  • Many songs were released only on singles (this is a band whose entire recording career took place when music was actually released physically, kids ) but later added to re-issued versions of albums anything up to 20 years later. I showed the album for these as "none" as their first release was not on an album, but I can change that and show the album (maybe with "20XX re-issue" in brackets) if that would be better.
  • Several dozen songs here were unreleased until they appeared in a 2008 box set. For all of these I showed the date as 2008 as that is when they were first released, but I can change that to the date they were recorded, although this might be inconsistent with others as (for example) all the tracks on an album released in January 1988 (as one of theirs was) were almost certainly not recorded in 1988.

Let me know your thoughts on the above and on anything else you think needs fixing. I've never worked on one of these lists before so there may be quite a lot that needs finessing...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

Excited to review this soon!--NØ 09:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Kyrgyzstan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tone 08:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyzstan has three World Heritage Sites and two tentative sites. Short and concise. Standard style. The list for Chile is already seeing support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 08:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities of Morelos

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it going. Here is one more list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 50 (!!) lists of municipalities all around the world. Inspired by these real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standard, the project is taking shape. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews! Mattximus (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]
  • "The largest municipality by land area is Tlaquiltenango which spans 543.90 km2 (210.00 sq mi), and the smallest is Hueyapan with 19.20 km2 (7.41 sq mi)." I recommend commas be placed like so: "The largest municipality by land area is Tlaquiltenango, which spans 543.90 km2 (210.00 sq mi), and the smallest is Hueyapan, with 19.20 km2 (7.41 sq mi)."
  • Cuautla in the lead should be linked.
  • "responsible for providing all the public services for their constituents". Is it really true that all public services are provided by the municipality. The following sentences seem to say that the state and federal governments provide education, emergency fire and medical services, environmental protection and maintenance of monuments and historical landmarks. Could this be changed to ""responsible for providing public services for their constituents"?
  • "On November 9, 2017, the state legislature approved the creation of four indigenous municipalities (Coatetelco, Xoxocotla, Hueyapan and Tetelcingo), effective on January 1, 2019. However, due to objections by authorities in Cuautla, it was decided on July 26, 2018 that Tetelcingo would not be included in the list of new municipalities." This should be reworded to say the most important part up front: that these are the newest municipalities in Morelos. Otherwise one wonders why four seemingly random municipalities are being mentioned.
  • The incorporation date for the three municipalities created on January 1, 2019 should be sourced in the table as well. The current source at the column heading only goes as far as 1995.

That's all. Steelkamp (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chivas USA managers

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this list for FL, continuing my streak of Major League Soccer-related lists. This one covers managers for the defunct Chivas USA, which had an unbelievable nine managers across ten seasons. This list follows the same format as List of New England Revolution seasons, with a written summary of the managerial history as well as the list of managers with results. Brindille1 (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "competed in Major League Soccer (MLS) from 2005 until it folded after the 2014 season" - this wording could be interpreted as meaning that Major League Soccer folded in 2014. Suggest rewording to "competed in Major League Soccer (MLS) from 2005 until 2014, after which the team folded"
  • "Chivas USA introduced their introductory" - can you change one of these words so the language is less repetitive?
  • "at a press-conference on September 23, 2004" - there is no hyphen in "press conference"
  • "and with the team at a 1-8-1 record, " => "and, with the team at a 1-8-1 record, "
  • can you clarify within the article what a "1-8-1 record" is? To me, as a European, it means one win, eight draws, and one defeat, but it appears that in America it means one win, one draw and eight defeats
  • "he became team's sporting director" => "he became the team's sporting director"
  • There's an issue with the ref template after "losing in the first round each time"
  • "Before hiring their next coach, both Shawn Hunter (the chief executive) and Stephen Hamilton (the vice president of soccer operations) departed the club" - Hunter and Hamilton left the club but then hired its next coach? That doesn't make sense. I think the initial clause needs changing, as presumably the subject of that clause is the club.....
  • "with the team in last in the Western Conference" => "with the team in last place in the Western Conference"
  • "a lawsuit against the club alleging discrimination for not being Latino." => "a lawsuit against the club alleging that they were discriminated against for not being Latino."
  • "Sanchez Sola not always followed" - as this is apparently a direct quote, can I just confirm that the statement contained this grammatical error?
  • Wilmer Cabrera image caption needs a full stop.
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Apologies if I duplicate anything from ChrisTheDude above.

  • There needs to be a comma after Carson, California
  • Disastrous in the heading seems a little too much editorializing. Just "Debut season"
  • All the records need to have en dashes (i.e. 1-8-1 should be 1–8–1) I would recommend {{Win-loss record}} actually
  • end of the season, he announced comma isn't needed
  • within a month, but was hired as the manager comma isn't needed
  • national team, and stepped down comma isn't needed
  • one season, and was fired comma isn't needed
  • filed a lawsuit against the club alleging that they were for not being Latino. they were what? "Fired"?
  • as well as by Chivas USA." quote mark goes before the period
  • to a 3-6-12 record, and on comma isn't needed
  • its last match, and it ceased operations the next day --> its last match, ceasing operations the next day
  • Match results contain all league games as well as MLS playoff matches. "as well as" should just be "and"
  • The use of {{Abbr}} for "Win%" isn't correct. I think you are shooitng for a footnote here, which can be done using {{sfn}} and {{Notelist}}

That's all I got Brindille1. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of emperors of the Ming dynasty

[edit]
Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about list of emperors of the Ming dynasty. I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it meets all the FL criteria and it is an important part of the series of articles on the topic of the Ming dynasty that I am currently improving. Min968 (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this should be a WP:Featured list candidate rather than a WP:Featured article candidate? TompaDompa (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have fixed it. Min968 (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike

[edit]

Staking out a spot here, if I haven't responded within a week please ping me. Toadspike [Talk] 19:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the late 1620s, a peasant uprising erupted in northern China – link to Late Ming peasant rebellions.
  • A total of sixteen emperors ruled over China proper for 276 years. During their reign, China experienced a long period of economic growth and political stability. Specify that this refers to the Ming dynasty. (Philosophical note: I believe paragraphs and most sentences in the lead should be able to stand on their own, especially since search engine previews tend to take them out of context, so I think making them technically correct is important.)
  • continued to rule over the south of the country – I would prefer "continued to rule over southern China". The definition of country is very vague. It's okay that you use the phrase again later in the paragraph.
  • To defeat the rebels, the government troops in the north invited the Manchu-led Eight Banner armies of the Qing dynasty to come to the Central Plains. The Manchus then occupied northern China in the same year. "the government troops in the north" – clarify. I think this is a summary of the Battle of Shanhai Pass that could be misleading. Wu Sangui, for better or worse, is seen as a rogue general. The current wording suggests that the Ming government somehow condoned his decision. The use of "invited" is also probably inaccurate, phrasing using "coerced" is probably better. "Eight Banner armies" could be shortened to "Eight Banners", though this is not obligatory. Northern China should be linked. I prefer "that same year" over "in the same year".
  • a similar complex in Nanjing should link to Ming Palace.
  • according to the Hongwu Emperor's decision is vague and begs the question "which decision?" I think there's a name for it, it's been a while since I've read about this period but he did set down some kind of constitution/code of conduct for future emperors. Maybe it's the Great Ming Code I'm thinking of.
  • the successor to the throne was always the eldest son of the emperor and empress, or his heir if he had none, followed by younger sons of the empress. I'm not sure what you mean by "his heir if he had none". Could you clarify this, please? Does it mean that if the eldest son had a son and died, that grandson would be the successor? Also, something in this section should link to or be replaced with Taizi – probably the first use of "successor" or "heir".
@Toadspike I have removed some content from the article. In the near future, it may be included in another more suitable article or a new article specifically about the Ming emperors. Min968 (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General point: The lead seems pretty long to me. Some of the content (e.g. "Court and family", "Burial traditions") seems much more suited for the main Emperor of China article or a new Ming emperors article. I don't mind much for now, but in the long run that would be the best move.

Drive-by comment
I suggest referring to the List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty for formatting, as it recently became and FL itself and is, to me, easier to understand than this list. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Min968, I second what SilverTiger12 said. The formatting should generally match previous FLs unless there is some need to be different. Seeing as List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty is a FL and looks really good, I would convert to that format. Please ping me when you have responded and made the changes, and I will do a full review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, I have made quite a few revisions not only based on the List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty but also of the Song dynasty and of the Han dynasty. Min968 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007 @SilverTiger12 @Toadspike Min968 (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Men's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year

[edit]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because following the successful promotions at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive2 in July and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Women's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive1 earlier today, I think this is a good candidate. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • MOS:ALLCAPS: all the reference titles need to be converted to title case
  • MOS:ACRO1STUSE: all of the states should be written out in their first use; that said, you can utilize {{abbrlink}} to accomplish the same thing and save space
  • each have one Academic All-American of the Year for each division "each" is not needed in this sentence
  • and three of them have been recognized with this award a total of four times unclear who "them" is referencing

That's all I got. Nice work TonyTheTiger! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hampshire County Cricket Club grounds

[edit]
Nominator(s): AA (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have substantially expanded the article with prose, providing an overview of the history of Hampshire's use of different grounds, and I have reformatted the list so that it more closely matches other English county cricket grounds FLs. Any comments welcome! AA (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Nice work AssociateAffiliate! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of myotines

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 19:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bats list #6 and mammal list #47: Myotinae. Now that we got the giant vespertilionine list out of the way, the rest of the family Vespertilionidae is easier: this subfamily is a third of the size, with only 3 genera to keep track of. Still just another 121 tiny bats, but a few of these guys have decided that when they swoop down to pluck bugs off of the water, they're okay with snagging a fish while they're at it. Also, in contrast to the angry little guy of the past list, this list has the Yuma myotis down at the bottom who's just done with it all and ready to go home. In any case, as always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I don't know if I missed this on previous lists but......"Members [plural] of this subfamily are called a myotine [singular]" - maybe "A member...."....?
  • "neritic marine" - is there a link for this? I don't think it's a common/well-known term
  • Guatemalan myotis - habitat is blank
  • That's it - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007

[edit]

List of places in the Northern Territory by population

[edit]
Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since I created this page back in 2022, I've been thinking about nominating this list for FL. I've finally got around to doing so now! This is a list of places in Australia's Northern Territory, the least densely-populated part of Australia, making for a very small number of places with a population above 200. This article includes a list of Urban centres and localities, as defined by the ABS, and a list of local government areas, as defined by the Northern Territory. Places listed range from the city of Darwin to small Aboriginal communities with only a few hundred people. I look forward to all comments. Steelkamp (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • The lead seems a bit sparse at just four sentences. Could you incorporate some stuff about how there are only N settlements with over 1000 people, what the largest is, etc?
    • I've added some prose to the lead and also before each table. Hope that's good.
  • Why do some places have dashes for their 2011 population in the first table? Did they not exist?
    • Apart from Minyerri, which I have fixed (the 2011 census used a different spelling), those places did not have a high enough population at the time, or otherwise did not meet the requirements to be a UCL. I checked using the map at [1].
  • Why do some places in the second table have an asterisk rather than a rank?
  • Note a needs a full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.

Thanks for the comments ChrisTheDude! Steelkamp (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

[edit]
  • Remove "The tallest building is 100 metres in height." from alt text of Darwin skyline image (irrelevant detail)
    • Done.
  • "self governing" → "self-governing"
    • Done.
  • "built up" → "built-up"
    • Done.
  • No need to say there are 17 local government areas twice in quick succession – remove one mention
    • If you keep the second mention, "seventeen" should be "17" for consistency
    • Done.
  • In the second table, Local government in Australia#Unincorporated areas may be a more useful link for "Unincorporated areas" (the link in the introductory prose is fine)
    • Done.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review RunningTiger123! Steelkamp (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • The most recent census for which data has been released is the 2021 census. should just be merged into the second sentence, like It has a population of 232,605 as of the 2021 Australian census, the most recent for which data has been released, and occupies...

No other comments. Nice work Steelkamp! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks Gonzo fan2007. Steelkamp (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of pholidotans

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hello, the name is Wolverine X-eye, a first-timer. I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria. The list is about pangolins, perhaps one of the weirdest creatures out there. They have rough scales around their body, and are the most trafficked animals in the world according to some estimates. And that's all I really have to say about that, so I hope you enjoy it. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Matthewrb

[edit]

Welcome to FLC, Wolverine X-eye!

This is a new one on me, a FLC that hasn't even been patrolled by NPP yet...

  • Your lead image needs alt text per MOS:ALT.
    • Done
  • Is there a reason there isn't a "See Also" section? While not required, it would be useful. WP:SEEALSO
  • Does Commons have a category for this family? I found commons:Category:Manidae after a search. If so, could you add {{Commons category-inline}} to a new External Links section at the bottom of the article so readers can view more pictures if they would like? MOS:ELLAYOUT
    • Done
  • According to Talk:List of manids, this article is classified as a redirect. Is there a reason for that, or should we classify it as list-class?
    • It's list-class for me

And finally, this article was blanked and then reverted five minutes later, less than an hour before I started this review. I'm not sure if this violates WP:FL? criteria #6, since it was a one-time thing. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Respectfully PresN, you were part of the merge discussion and have taken a position on that discussion. I would request that another @FLC director and delegates: take a look. WP:FLCR #6 requires stability, and I would argue that an ongoing merge discussion precludes stability. Either someone closes that merge discussion or this should be archived and brought back when things are settled. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon episodes removed from rotation

[edit]
Nominator(s): Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list focuses on Pokémon episodes that have been removed from rotation for reasons including removal from airwaves, being banned from airing, or being unaired entirely. I have rewritten this list from scratch from its current state and made sure to source everything in order to verify the article's content. I believe this meets the FL criteria due to the scope of coverage and overall quality.

I am aware this article uses a reference from Screen Rant, a usually marginally reliable source. I have included it as it and other similar quality sources are the only sources to discuss "The Tower of Terror" being removed from air. To ensure the comprehensiveness of the list, I have elected to include it, but I have only used it once for the sole purpose of this episode's verification. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

[edit]

Saving a spot. Ping if I haven't said anything by Tuesday. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realise it's going to be Tuesday and I still haven't written anything. I'll get on this tomorrow. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgubaldo just pinging to remind you in case something's happened. If you're still busy on your end then take all the time you need, but I did just want to double check as to your status. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prose – Banned Episodes
Prose – Unaired, postponed, and temporarily removed episodes
Source Formatting

Sorry for the delay. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Before I do a full review, I want to express some concerns of mine:

  • First, I am concerned this doesn't meet WP:LISTN. I really don't see many sources discussing this topic as a whole. The title itself is really ambiguous. "Removed from rotation" seems like a way to try to inflate the number of entries past just those which are "banned". (WP:FLCR 3(c)). I also don't know how to tell if it is comprehensive, as there is an infinite amount of markets out there. Is this truly every single instance that an individual market has pulled an episode from rotation? FLCR 3(a).
  • Second, disregarding the first part, I think this is more appropriate for WP:GAN. This is primarily written as a true article on a topic and not a standalone list.

@FLC director and delegates: , do you mind chiming in with an opinion on these issues before I dive in for a review? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007 You can also ping me, given I'm the nom.
I didn't focus too hard on overall sources since enough existed to show the topic was discussed in a wider context, but I didn't need to use many in the article. A few examples: [2] This Polygon source covers the history of this subject and includes a vast majority of the subjects. [3] This Newsweek source, covering the Passimian episode, highlights other past examples of banned episodes. [4] This Bloomsbury published book contains a brief synopsis on these banned episodes and ties them to the perceived "moral panics" during the franchise's early days and in television as a whole. (Though I'm admittedly not quite sure how best to incorporate this one into the article) [5] This Duke University Press published book mentions some of the fan outcry regarding some of these episodes being banned initially. (Added info from here to the article)
I disagree that this isn't a list. It very much is. There's a lot of prose, but this is still inherently just a list of subjects with explanations provided. I don't see why this isn't a list, given it isn't something like another article I've worked on, Pokémon fan games, which is primarily an article with a list tacked on, rather than the article being a list in its entirety (Disregarding the lead).
The scope is something that shouldn't be a concern. I've searched for every example of an episode removal I could find, and I've covered everything that's covered in reliable sources, which, for the comprehensiveness criteria, is all that's needed. While the above sources I mentioned only cover a selected group of banned episodes (Primarily since a bulk of these were published before some of these even existed or had key details known), per LISTN: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The episodes were all removed and/or banned from air due to controversial real-world circumstances; it's hard to class that article scope in one satisfactory title, hence why I've elected to use the title that's been used for a decade. If you feel the title could do with a move, that shouldn't impact page content and can likely be determined in a process outside of FLC. If you feel particular episodes should be removed from the list and have their content shifted elsewhere, then that can be included in your review, where this can be discussed further. I hope this is a satisfactory response to both your concerns; let me know if you feel anything else needs to be clarified. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you had this page on your watchlist. I was just requesting some more experienced eyes on it. I do think the naming is problematic. Based on the first link you provided, "banned" seems fine. This would constrain the scope of the list and likely satisfy some of my concerns. I do still feel like the way this is written it more appropriate for WP:GAN. Happy to hear other opinions though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007 Ah, fair enough. In terms of the title, it can either be changed to better suit the current scope, or episodes can be shuffled in or out of the list if you feel certain ones don't belong. The scope of this tends to be episodes banned for a given reason; I've mainly based it on what the sources say. I'm not sure if a page move is allowed during an FLC, but I'm unopposed if you feel something like "Pokémon episodes banned from airing" or something similar would be better for the scope.
I'll let if this is better done as a GA or FL up to the coords. I've said my piece and can elaborate if need be, but I feel we're gonna have to agree to disagree until an outsider determines which is better for the scope of this list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States

[edit]
Nominator(s): MikeVitale 00:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have significantly expanded its content to meet the reasons why it was removed from its previous FL status. Its content now at least mirrors (if not improves upon, though that's subjective of course) List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada, an existing FL. --MikeVitale 00:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "however, by 1997, the American team had improved" => "by 1997, however, the American team had improved"
  • "and in their head-to-head match up" - pretty sure (unless this is an ENGVAR thing) that "match up" should have a hyphen
  • "at the Olympic Winter Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea" - seems weird to link the whole of "the Olympic Winter Games in Pyeongchang" to the article on the games. I would link just the first three words to that article and link the city name to the article on the city (especially as I don't believe it is a well-known city on a global scale)
  • I know they are mentioned in the lead but I think a key above the tables for abbreviations like "USHHOF" wouldn't hurt, especially as in that particular example you don't show the abbreviation in the lead
  • External links should be below refs, not above them
  • That's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, ChrisTheDude. I believe that I have addressed all of them! --MikeVitale 01:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Matthewrb

[edit]

That's all I've got. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 04:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Matthewrb.
I have already fixed the CS1 error. Then I started looking into the Commons Category thing. Sure enough, there's no CommonsCat for Ice Hockey players. Can you help me understand the difference between a Wikipedia Category and a Commons Category? Would creating a category on English WP automatically create a similar category on Commons? Are they two completely separate things that would need to be maintained separately? Is the Commons Category linked by Wikidata (which is something else I need to learn more about)?
I'll look further into the a11y fixes later.
--MikeVitale 12:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the CS1 error!
Wikimedia Commons is a sister project, so creating a category on en.wiki would not transfer to Commons. The goal of having a Commons category would allow our readers to find images of all of the women's ice hockey players from the US, since Commons is a free media repository. I'm not familiar how commons categories link to Wikidata, as I only have really worked on article changes in WD. For more info, here are some links:
Please feel free to ping me when you're done with the DTAB fixes or if you have more questions about Interwiki links. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 19:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DTAB fixes are now in place.
I'll start looking into the Category / Commons Category thing. --MikeVitale 01:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second reply:
I found commons:Category:Olympic ice hockey players from the United States and added it as a sub-category of commons:Category:Olympic sportspeople from the United States by sport. I then added a {{commons category}} link to the External links section of the List. --MikeVitale 01:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthewrb I've added the {{commons category}}, and I've further added all members of the US Olympic teams through the years who already have their own category on commons to the category.
Is there anything else that needs to be done? --MikeVitale 02:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MikeVitale: Looks amazing! One final thing: your scope="row" on the tables aren't working properly. You need to replace the pipes (|) with exclamation points (!) right before the word "scope" - does that make sense? MOS:DTAB has example code if you need.~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 03:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthewrb That's an easy fix -- that's already fixed. Thanks. --MikeVitale 03:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Support ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 03:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • The Canadians again won gold in Sochi at the 2014 Winter Olympics, in a 3–2 overtime win against the US team. comma isn't needed.
  • Link "shootout" (Overtime (ice_hockey)#Shootout). Also, I don't think shootout should have the hyphen.
  • National teams are coordinated by USA Hockey and players are chosen by the team's management staff. recommend moving this to the first paragraph after the second sentence

That's all I got. Nice work MikeVitale. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations

[edit]

List of vespertilionines

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 20:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bats list #5 and mammal list #46: Vespertilioninae. This list wore me out: I try to make it one list per family, but the parent family (Vespertilionidae) had so many bats that the page stopped rendering partway through. Even cutting it down to this subfamily is still pushing it, as with 278 species it's almost as big as the entire order of Carnivora, which was covered by the first ten lists in this series, and nearly 5% of all mammal species in one go. It's all done now, though, so here we are: nearly 300 tiny, tiny little bats. Really, what got me through it was the picture for the first bat: he's been captured by a giant, and he's so very mad about it. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently on pretty slow wifi, so what I got when the page started loading was the alt text of the lede image, which is incredible. And the pallid bat image is, indeed, very cute. So smol, so angry. Anyway, I'll try to give a prose review of the top parts.
  • A few extinct prehistoric molossid species have been discovered, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed. Molossids? Huh?
  • Considering your reported problem of page length, this rendered decently quickly for me on slow wifi. Good job!
Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverTiger12: Whoops, fixed! --PresN 02:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I think the lead image could be made larger
  • "Main article: Murininae" is randomly floating between two tables and doesn't look like it's meant to be there.......unless I am wrong......?
  • That's it - amazing work. Your dedication to long and heavy-duty lists is to be admired! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Generalissima

[edit]

Holy moly, that's a lot of bats!

Mainly cited to the IUCN red list, which seems like quite the reputable source (and match your previous FLs in this field). I'm going to have to assume good faith on All the Mammals, but I checked a dozen of the IUCN cites and they all checked out, as did the one Nowak cite and Ibanez et al. Sources are consistently formatted, and every entry has its own cite. I would personally put Ibanez et al. in the bibliography itself rather than in the citations, but its your list and consistency is what matters here. The uncited portions in the lede, conventions, and classification are supported by the sources in the tables themselves, so all is shipshape here.

Support, everything seems fine by me. :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • My only comment, not impacting my support, is that "regularly" and "also" in which regularly also eats small birds cancel each other out. I would just choose one.

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers award winners

[edit]
Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the lists I have brought to FLC, this was the most challenging from a development perspective. As always, happy to implement any edits or answer any questions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
MPGuy2824

In the "Most Valuable Player" table:

  • "Player of the year award" should have "colgroup" as the scope.
  • Images are missing alt text.

I found the same issues in the next section too. Please fix this over the whole page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824, got them both, thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824, if you have the time for a full review, I would really appreciate. No worries either way! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more comments here:

  • Consider linking "playoffs" somewhere. Maybe in the lead.
  • There is an unexplained overlap in the "Team awards" section: "NFL champion (1920–35)" and "NFL champion (1934–67)". Please fix.
  • "quarterback rating" needs a wikilink or an explanatory note.
  • George Halas, who played, coached and owned the Chicago Bears Maybe "played with" or "played in" might work better.
  • A few of the refs are missing archive links.

I didn't see any other problem with the prose or table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MPGuy2824, I really appreciate it! All comments addressed. Let me know if there is anything else. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • I will do a full review at some point, but one point that jumps out is repeated use of "the first Packers' player" / "the only Packers' player" / etc. There should not be an apostrophe there, because "Packers" is being used adjectivally, not possessively. If you used the first part of the team name rather than the second you would not say "he became the first Green Bay's player to do [whatever]".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude, I think I got them all here. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude if you are able to complete a full review, I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks for any insight you may have. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I forgot all about this. Here's my comments......
  • "four Super Bowls, which is inclusive of two additional NFL Championships won during the merger of the NFL and American Football League (AFL), since then." - is the qualifier between the commas really needed? It makes the sentence a bit long and hard to unpack.....
  • Write out MVP in full on first use in the body as well as the lead
  • "In 2014, Rodgers has another season" => "In 2014, Rodgers had another season"
  • "The awardee is selected near the end of the game by electronic fan voting" - presumably only since a certain date.....?
  • "Holmgren's award came during first season with the Packers" => "Holmgren's award came during his first season with the Packers"
  • "after increasing the teams' record from 4–12" => "after increasing the team's record from 4–12"
  • In the notes, I think "Rookie of the year awards are only eligible for first-year players" is the wrong way round and should be "Only first-year players are eligible for Rookie of the year awards"
  • Also in the notes, odd capitalisation in "SN awards their player of the Year award"
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1978

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With 1976 having been promoted and 1977 having some support, here's the next in this series. This was the final year in which the chart was published for the entire year under the by-now rather outdated and "square" title of Easy Listening. This year saw the first number one for Billy Joel, who would go on to be a regular at or near the top of this chart for decades, and the only number one for Chuck Mangione, who only had a brief chart career but would (apparently) go on to achieve fame with a new generation in a cartoon which I have never watched...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Amazing work Chris, I couldn't find anything to criticize. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]

I'll review images and prose in a sec. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All images are correctly-licensed CC or PD. They have alt-text and are appropriate for the list.
  • Sources are consistently formatted.
  • Billboard and Whitburn are the most cited, and they seem like quite reliable sources for this. I don't have access to Whitburn, but the Billboard sources sure check out.
  • Other misc sources seem appropriate for context and also match what they're used for. Seems good to go here! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wait. i forgot i was doing a prose review lmao. let me do that too - I could find no errors in regards to that, so Support on that front too! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

List of towns in British Columbia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cos (X + Z) 19:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another BC municipalities list that I have done work on. I hope you enjoy. Cos (X + Z) 19:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Lead image could be made larger
  • "Towns, cities, districts and villages in British Columbia are referred to as municipalities and all are included in local governments in the province, which may be incorporated under the Local Governance Act of 2015." - this sentence is confusing - what does the "which may be" refer to? The province? The local governments?
  • "In order for a municipality in British Columbia to be labelled as a town" - "labelled" implies something that people just informally call something. I would use a more formal verb such as "categorized"
  • "Although the population of Port McNeill fall below this threshold, and all the populations except for Princeton, Lake Cowichan, Golden and Gibsons go above this threshold, they are still categorized as towns" - I would redo this whole bit as "Although the population of Port McNeill falls below this threshold, it is still categorized as a town, as are nine settlements with populations greater than 5,000."
  • " while the province's newest town is View Royal on December 5, 1988" => " while the province's newest town is View Royal, which incorporated on December 5, 1988"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude I have resolved your comments. Cos (X + Z) 14:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Generalissima

[edit]

I'm judging things here by the basis of List of cities in New Brunswick, a recently promoted and similar FL; it appears you based the body off of this, good choice.

  • Optional: Add the variable "abbr=on" to your convert template in the lede; with the large numbers already, we gotta do what we can to shorten it.
    done
  • You should cite every instance of the regional districts in the list; because the list can be rearranged by the reader, "first usage" doesn't really apply.\
    done
  • I would take a leaf (heh) from the New Brunswick article and put the whole population through density columns under a first order "2021 Census of Population" column. Makes the population density unambiguous.
    done
  • Give units for the population density. 1,103.2 per what?
    km2. clarified.
  • Are there any sources that talk about the structure of local governments for towns? Do they have mayors, councils, what? Those would be good to include for context.
    all municipalities have councils.
  • Like in the New Brunswick article, you should also have a column for the province as a whole so you can see what percentage of people live in a town (I assume a very small number here.)
    done.
  • Former town section looks good.
  • The one image is relevant and correctly formatted.
  • Were any of these settlements villages before they became towns? If so, which date does "Incorporation Date" reflect?
    The Incorporation Date reflects when the municipality got promoted to a town. clarified.

@CosXZ: That's my piece. Thank you for your good work. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima I have resolved your comments. Cos (X + Z) 19:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CosXZ This looks great! Support. Optional, but it could be good to indicate if a settlement was previously a village or unincorporated before it became a town. maybe just adding (from village) in parentheses after the date? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (source review)

[edit]
  • The first and second sentences should be flipped. The second sentence lists the topic of the article pretty directly.
  • I would also drop the "As of 2024", which seems silly for something that doesn't really change very often (the last one was in 1988)
  • became a town on October 31, 1987[7] and then amalgamated with the Northern Rockies Regional District on February 6, 2009 to you need commas after each year in this sentence
  • Is there a reason to use amalgamated instead of a more common English like "combined"?
  • In the table, text should either be centered or left justified, but definitely not right justified
  • Source review:
    • Refs 2, 4 and 5 all cite the Government of BC. Ref 4 has this italicized, while the others dont.
    • Ref 9 is a dead link for me
    • In the table, where is the "Regional district" information sourced from? I can't find it in Ref 3
    • All other spot checks look good.

CosXZ, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007 I have resolved your comments. Cos (X + Z) 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

I know I'm being repetitive with this comment, but isn't this page a fork of List of municipalities in British Columbia? In that the table is entirely a subset of the table from there? Mattximus (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made the table styled like List of cities in New Brunswick. Cos (X + Z) 21:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2019 Pacific typhoon season

[edit]
Nominator(s): —JCMLuis 💬 13:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2019 Pacific typhoon season was the costliest season ever recorded, due to several very destructive tropical cyclones that occurred. The most destructive of them all was Typhoon Hagibis, which made landfall over Japan in October and became the most damaging typhoon on record at the time, while also directly killing 118 people. Besides Hagibis, Typhoon Lekima brought havoc over China in August, becoming the second-costliest typhoon in the nation's history at the time, and Typhoon Faxai made landfall over Japan in September, becoming the costliest disaster of the year until Hagibis. In terms of activity, the season was above-average, with 29 named storms forming, of which 17 became typhoons. The season also featured the most powerful typhoon to occur in February, that being Typhoon Wutip.

This is (probably) the first attempt to get a Pacific typhoon season timeline into FL status. While making this timeline, I asked Dylan620 (talk · contribs), who made several Pacific hurricane season timelines that became featured lists, for help with the formatting and alternative texts. I will try my best to respond to any concerns with the timeline. —JCMLuis 💬 13:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, with the caveat that I have helped out at certain points (as Luis mentions in his nomination statement). I'd argue that Luis's work with this timeline is more impressive than the EPAC and Atlantic timeline FLs I've helped to promote this year – not only because of the sheer quantity of systems (the WPAC is typically the most active of all the world's tropical cyclone basins), but because this timeline thoroughly includes information from not just one, but two major warning agencies. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]
  • The 2019 Pacific typhoon season consisted of the events that occurred in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation over the western North Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea. --> The 2019 Pacific typhoon season was the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation over the western North Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea, primarily in 2019. or something similar.
    • Changed. I'm assuming the "primarily in 2019" part is because of Pabuk forming in 2018.
  • which wrought damage to Japan wrought comes across as a little unencyclopedic. "Inflicted" or "caused"?
    • Changed to inflicted.

Wow, no other comments. Really nice work JCMLuis. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: I have addressed your concerns. —JCMLuis 💬 21:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Chile

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tone 09:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chile has 7 WHS, including Easter Island (Rapa Nui), and 17 sites on the tentative list. Standard style. The list for New Zealand is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 09:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Generalissima

[edit]

Oh, and since I know image reviews can take some time;

Comments

[edit]
  • the Settlement and Artificial Mummification of the Chinchorro Culture in the Arica and Parinacota Region, in 2021. comma not needed
  • What is the World Heritage Committee? This should be elaborated a bit.
  • around 300 by a group not clear that you mean a year by "300". 300 AD? The 4th century?
  • The Jesuits arrived to the islands in the early --> "came to the islands"
  • and Hippidion. as well as still existing species such as guanaco.-->{{tq|and Hippidion, as well as still existing species, such as guanaco.
  • a port town that made fortune in the 19th century add "a" or "its" before "fortune"
  • pictured.} remove stray bracket

That is all I got. Nice work Tone! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Fixed all. I linked the WHC, that should work. Tone 19:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flo Milli discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing and making this at least FL quality and formatting it for a bit of time and now just deciding to nominate it. Have looked at recent FLs and do believe it reaches the maximum that I can improve it for. So have at it and have fun! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and were a breakthrough hit" - this doesn't make sense grammatically, as it says that the artist herself "were a breakthrough hit". Assuming you mean the songs, how can two songs be "a breakthrough hit" (singular)
  • "Due to the success of her first two singles, Flo Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records after gaining popularity on social media" - so was the success of her singles down to "gaining popularity on social media"? Currently you are giving two different reasons for her signing
  • "Flo Milli released her debut mixtape, Ho, Why Is You Here?, the following year." - as you haven't mentioned any years up to this point, saying "the following year" is meaningless
  • "In 2021, her debut singles "In the Party" and "Beef FloMix"" - by definition an artist can only ever have one debut single, not multiple
  • "started working on her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho? which was" => "started working on her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho?, which was"
  • "number 46 in Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums[4]. " - refs go after punctuation, not before
  • " "Conceited", one of the singles in You Still Here, Ho?, had been certified gold " => " "Conceited", one of the singles taken from You Still Here, Ho?, was certified gold "
  • "Between You Still here, Ho? and her latest album, Fine Ho, Stay, Flo Milli had released multiple singles" => "Between You Still here, Ho? and her latest album, Fine Ho, Stay, Flo Milli released multiple singles"
  • "such as "Einstein", "No Love Shemix", "Anything Flows" " => "such as "Einstein", "No Love Shemix", and "Anything Flows" "
  • "as a part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven[5]," => "as part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven[5]," (also note again that refs go after punctuation)
  • "In late 2023, she released "Never Lose Me" as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay and reached number 15" => "In late 2023, she released "Never Lose Me" as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay, which reached number 15"
  • "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay and debuted and peaked at number 54 on the Billboard 200" => "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay, which debuted and peaked at number 54 on the Billboard 200"
  • Singles which did not chart will all need references to confirm that they were released/exist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:, Fixed everything except the additional sources which I will be adding soon, gonna look for secondary sources but most are most likely gonna have to be primary sadly .Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
[edit]
  • "Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and were both a breakthrough hit" - this isn't grammatically correct. It should be "and both were" not "and were both", and also two songs can't be "a hit" (singular). I would also suggest that an act can only have one "breakthrough hit" as after that they have already broken through.
  • "After the success of her first two singles, Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records after gaining popularity on social media" - this still doesn't make sense to me. Is it meant to suggest that the two singles were successful, then she gained popularity on social media and then she signed with those labels?
  • "her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho? which was released" => "her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho?, which was released"
  • "as a part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven" - as I said above, this should be "as part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven"
  • ""B.T.W." as a cover of Blow the Whistle,[6] "Fruit Loop", "Chocolate Rain", and "BGC"." - firstly, is "Blow the Whistle" a song? If so, it should be in quote marks. Also, you say that one song was a cover of four different songs - this isn't possible. Do you mean it contains elements of all those songs? If that's the case, it would also be worth saying who those songs are by, as just saying "BGC" (a song which I have personally never heard of and which appears to have no article to fill me in) doesn't really give any context
  • "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay which debuted " => "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay, which debuted " -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:, For the fifth bullet point, I think you had it mixed up. It's supposed to be a list of her singles that she released in between her mixtape and her second album, not that the one single has elements of the others as Fruit Loop, Chocolate Rain, and BGC are her singles. I've added semicolons instead of regular commas, does it read better now?
@ChrisTheDude:, @IanTEB:: Gonna ping you both here because I am getting mixed responses from both of you on the same thing. In her early career, Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and both were breakthrough hits. After the success of her first two singles on social media and the gain of popularity, Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records are the sentences in question and I am getting one way how to do it and another way saying that I should do it this way and it's like hitting a rock into a brick wall.. it ain't gon do nothing.
My only issue with those sentences is that I don't believe it is possible for an artist to have multiple "breakthrough hits". Once they have had one "breakthrough hit" then by definition they have already broken through and can't break through again. I don't see that IanTEB has said anything which contradicts that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:, ive changed it to "both were successful hits". does that read well?
I think that the vast majority of people would consider a "hit" to be a song which got in the charts, and as far as I can see neither of these songs did, so I would avoid the word "hits". I think it would be worth being a bit more specific on how they were "successful" given that neither actually charted. I'm assuming they became popular on TikTok or something.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

Review is based on this version of the page.

Source review: Pending

  • Wikilinking to websites/publishers/sources is inconsistent (some linked, some not), please add wikilinks where appropriate
  • Use YouTube as the capitalization instead of Youtube
  • Ref 1 – Add subscription status to reference
  • Ref 6 – Currently all caps, which is not desirable, and the source uses a different capitalization
  • Refs 9 and 11 – Duplicate ref, merge them
  • Refs 10 and 67 – Duplicate ref, merge them
  • Ref 12 – Remove "(News)" from the website field. Alternatively, use Template:Cite press release
  • Ref 25 – Uses "Fader" instead of "The Fader", like refs 64 and 70. This is also a duplicate of 64, so they should be merged.
  • Ref 28 – Link is dead, mark is as such
  • Ref 29 – Target article for the website is Uproxx, match this capitalization (also for consistency with ref 69)
  • Refs 30, 91, and 100 – Require subscription access, mark as such
  • Refs 32 and 34 – These show the website as "Revolt TV", whereas there are 11 other references that simply use "Revolt"
  • Ref 51 – Seems link an incorrect link, perhaps this is what you were looking for?
  • Ref 55 – Shift from all caps to title case
  • Note B – "I Am" did not enter Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, but peaked at number 19 on R&B/Hip-Hop Digital Song Sales.[51] – The source in my above comment shows it peaked at 15
  • Refs 76 and 77 – Website is currently listed as "RapUp", but should be Rap-Up based on the target (and to match ref 100)
  • Ref 86 – Shift from all caps to title case
  • Refs 91 and 101 – Website should be Rolling Stone, not "RollingStone"
  • Ref 95 – Add subscription status to reference

That's what I've got for now, please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all except Ref 10 and 67 from your version which were two different sources, one is a Billboard link and one is a Revolt link. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping: @Hey man im josh:
@Cowboygilbert: Is there a reason you chose to remove the wikilinks instead of adding them to sources? It seems you chose to go with linking the first occurrence of a source. If sources are added at a later point in time, ahead of the ones used, then your wikilink could come after another one. This is why I typically recommend to wikilink the publishers entirely. Though, if your formatting is consistent, this isn't technically required, but in a discography of an active artist I would expect it to become problematic at some point. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually.. it looks like you went too far in removing links because Vulture has no links now. Also, a quick look over and I noticed that Hypebeast is linked multiple times, Billboard is linked a couple times but not consistently, HotNewHipHop is not linked at first occurence but linked elsewhere. This is the problem that I was talking about with the inconsistent linking and the related concerns I have about it. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh:, added all wikilinks
@Cowboygilbert: Pings do not work without a signature added afterwards, so I did not get this ping. I'll try to find time to finish my review on this today. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sorry for the delay. I did some cleanup of a few things that were leftover. The only thing I'm hesitant / hung up on is the usage of "That Grape Juice", which refers to itself as a blog and is not used very much as a source on wiki. Can that reference be replaced or is there a claim to why they're a reliable source? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IanTEB

[edit]

I also have a FL nomination open for Gen Hoshino discography, so if you'd like to leave any comments it would be greatly appreciated.

First paragraph

  • In her early career, Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and were a breakthrough hit - I would reword this a little bit, here's a suggestion: 'Flo Milli released her debut singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party", in 2019, which were successful.'
  • Due to the success of her first two singles, Flo Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records after gaining popularity on social media - this feels a little contradictory, since it attributes her signing to both her debut singles and popularity on social media, but presents these in different parts of the sentence which makes it a little bit confusing. Maybe just replace 'Due to the success of her first two singles' with 'Subsequently'?
  • In 2021, her debut singles "In the Party" and "Beef FloMix" were certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America - I don't think these don't need introduction again when they were mentioned only a few sentences earlier. In my opinion, this information should be moved into their earlier introduction.
  • After releasing her debut mixtape Milli started working on her debut studio album - if my previous point is addressed, this should be reworded to something along the lines of: 'After its release, Milli started working on her debut studio album [...]'
  • By the way, usage of the artist's name in the first paragraph feels a little repetive to me. Try to switch it out for pronouns if appropriate
  • and peaked at number 78 in the Billboard 200 - 'in' should be 'on'
  • Citation after Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums should be placed after the fullstop.
  • 'Conceited', one of the singles in You Still Here, Ho? - album name doesn't need to be repeated; this could just say: "'Conceited', one of its singles, [...]"
  • had been certified gold by the RIAA - 'had' should be 'has'

Second paragraph

  • Citations after 7-Eleven and Blow the Whistle should come after the comma
  • Fine Ho, Stay should be linked on the earliest mention; currently its linked on the second
  • and reached number 15 in the Billboard Hot 100 - 'in' to 'on'
  • In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay and debuted and peaked at number - 'and debuted' → 'which debuted'
  • Information about her second album seems a little all over the second paragraph. Meghan Trainor discography might have clues for improving the flow a bit

List

  • Shouldn't the first instance of 'Digital download' be linked to Music download?
  • Text should be added above the Singles tables like all other sections
  • List of music video appearances, indicating, where applicable, the associated album, directors, and other performers - 'indicating, where applicable,' could be removed since this is assumed. Like all tables, "List of music videos, with ..." would be more concise.

Most of these should be easy fixes. Hopefully nothing is of much difficulty. IanTEB (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IanTEB:, Question: For your fifth bullet about the second paragraph, it doesn't make sense to me what you mean by "all over the place". The information about her second album is in just the last two sentences. But other than that issue, should all be fixed. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the article again and I'll leave a bit explanation + a few remaining comments:
  • The second mention of You Still Here, Ho? in the lead does not capitalize the 'h' in 'Here'
  • After the success of her first two singles on social media and the gain of popularity - wouldn't it make more sense to say 'After the success of her first two singles,'?
  • Between You Still here, Ho? and her latest album, Fine Ho, Stay - I personally think it would be better to specify timespan her. What year/s?
  • I find the list of singles in the second paragraph a little difficult to understand on first read. It might be better to divide it up
  • Is "B.T.W." a cover of "Blow the Whistle"? If so, link in the Singles as lead artist list and maybe change the wording, e.g. to 'she covered Too Short's "Blow the Whistle" on the single "B.T.W." '
  • What I mean by the fifth bullet point you mentioned is that the second album is mentioned throughout most of the second paragraph, when that information should be more collected. My suggestion would be to alter In late 2023, she released "Never Lose Me" as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay to remove mention of the album. Then change the sentence after to: "Never Lose Me" supported her second album, Fine Ho, Stay (2024), which [...]
I hope this clarifies. IanTEB (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IanTEB:, ive done some more tweaks and changed the semicolon list back to a comma list and moved some of the items to make sure that there is no confusion on the cover for Blow the Whistle like in Chris' original comment. thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias

[edit]

About damn time Flo Milli articles are getting editors' attention. Doechii next, perhaps? :thinking: anyway, @Cowboygilbert, comments below; ref numbers from this version

  • Recommendation: if you can, run IABot on all the archivable links
  • Re. release years, include the ones for "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party", and remove the second mention of the release year for Fine Ho, Stay
  • "Flo Milli released two singles, 'Beef FloMix' and 'In the Party' and both were successful hits" since " 'Beef FloMix' and 'In the Party' " is an appositive, there should be a comma after "Party"
  • "...And both were successful hits. After the success of her first two singles on social media..." this is redundant. Remove the first part
  • "as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay (2024) which reached number 15 on the Billboard Hot 100" this gives the impression that it was Fine Ho, Stay that charted on the Hot 100; perhaps rewrite as "...Fine Ho, Stay, reaching number 15..."
  • For ref 16, you have not indicated the single whose peak is cited to the first reference
  • For ref 48, you use "Recorded Music NZ" as the source for the first ref but "Official New Zealand Music Chart" for the other. Which is it?
  • Where are the references for the "Guest appearances" section?
  • Name stylizations (jetphynx, $not) should not apply; replace with Jetphynx and Snot instead. If "DUH" in "DUH!" doesn't stand for anything, the same applies.
  • If a single didn't chart anywhere or wasn't certified for anything yet (e.g. "Not Friendly" or "Eat It Up"), the entry should come with a citation
  • Re. the generic "remix" parentheticals/descriptors in entries like "Hot (Remix)" or "Conceited Remix": these should be decapitalized and moved outside the quotation marks. Per MOS:MUSIC#Popular music: "For titles of works and releases, purely descriptive phrases in parentheses or after dashes, such as 'remix', 'acoustic version' and 'remastered', should not be considered part of song titles"
  • Similarly, "extended" should be decapitalized and deitalicized

Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 04:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Cowboygilbert in case they missed this feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PSA:, I will be getting to this tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday whenever I am back online. Too late as of rn. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 07:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:PSA, I have finished the bits about content and formatting. Gonna be getting to the refs soon still. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • and has since been certified platinum by the RIAA --> and certified platinum by the RIAA

That's all I got. Nice work Cowboygilbert and good reviews by the previous reviewers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboygilbert, just a courtesy ping. You have a number of outstanding comments from multiple reviewers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1990–91 snooker world rankings

[edit]
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Davis's seven-year run at the top of the rankings was ended by Stephen Hendry. As usual, Alex Higgins was in trouble with the snooker authorities: he was docked 25 points which dropped him from 14th to 97th. All improvement suggestions are welcome, and relevant extracts from offline sources can be provided to reviewers. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EnthusiastWorld37

[edit]
  • "but was docked 25 points and banned from competing for ten months, in July 1990" - please state the reason(s) for this

Comments (source review)

[edit]
  • other than world championship into account, and several additional the comma isn't necessary
  • only take account of results over two seasons, and the rankings for 1990–91 same as above
  • was too rapid, and said that same as above
  • for ten months, in July 1990 same as above
  • Source review: Passed
    • All references look reliable and consistently formatted.
    • All online source spot checks look good. AGF on offline sources.

Nice work BennyOnTheLoose! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Gonzo_fan2007. I've removed the commas per your comments above. Let me know if anything else is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Jojo Rabbit

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For my seventh accolades FLC, I have the 2019 film Jojo Rabbit by Taika Waititi. As usual, the style is the same as other existing FLs of this kind. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
Added. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I'll do a full review later but the infobox has a hide/show option that doesn't seem to be working Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to work in Vector 2010, but probably none of the other skins. See this discussion. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just following up to see if you're still intending to do a full review @OlifanofmrTennant. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all of the off the odd numbered (with the exception of non-English ones) sources and found consistency.
Why are "Madame fait son Cinéma" and "UK-China Film Collab" reliable?
UK-China Film Collab – I had another source for the Golden Panda Awards, but it came from WP:CGTN, so it's a no. What's left is this from ChinaDaily and the current source; it's hard to find sources on Chinese topics. UK-China Film Collab is an NGO based in the UK and was the best I could find. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Madame fait son Cinéma – An invididual critics' website, doesn't seem necessary unreliable; it was the only thing I could find for the Grand Prix this year. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 9 is missing a website
Added. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 6, 8, and 24 include publisher information while all other refs are just the name of the website. Any reason for this?
I usually include publishers for Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo (or use the publisher for the various critics associations/film festivals), but not the various online websites/newspapers like Variety or Hollywood Reporter. Let me know if I need to action anything. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minor inconsistancys in dates being using slash's or being written out. I would recommend using User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js to fix it.
Done. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I found! Ping me if needed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant; done a couple, some responses above. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything seems good except Madame fait son Cinéma, it doenst seem all that reliable, looking at the website it doenst seem to meet the criteria for being a acceptable use of SPS Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant, I've just removed it then. I tried, but I can't find another source that's reliable for this. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's this, but it doesn't seem any better than the Madame fait son Cinéma one. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Drive by comment by Birdienest81

[edit]

The only comment I have for now is all titles of films and TV shows should be italicized per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. If you have the time could you review 76th Primetime Emmy Awards for featured list promotion?

--Birdienest81talk 07:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got around to this, @Birdienest81. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Great job.
--Birdienest81talk 04:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • In the second sentence, where you name the actors, you also name their characters for Davis and for Hitler, but not the others. I think it would read better and make sense more if you also list the name of his mom and Elsa. So it would read something like who finds out that his mother, Rosie (Scarlett Johansson), is hiding Elsa, a Jewish girl (Thomasin McKenzie), in their attic.
  • In the table, Ref(s) can just be Refs.
  • You use British/New Zealand English spelling (humour) but not British date format (d/m/y). Jojo Rabbit uses American English, so I would recommend {{Use American English}} for the article page and changing to humor. I would also recommend {{American English}} for the talk page.
  • For the Austin Film Critics Association listing, you have d/m/y date format.

That's all I got Sgubaldo. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, @Gonzo fan2007. All done. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipalities in Ciudad Real

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)[reply]

This list is one more step in our quest to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made considerable changes based on our last nominations which currently has 3 supports. This one should go smoothly as we are always building on previous suggestions, but we are happy to make any recommended changes. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The Statute of Autonomy of Castilla–La Mancha also contains provisions concerning the relations between the municipalities and the autonomous government of Castilla–La Mancha" - is this meant to be in here, given that we are not talking about that province......?
  • That's it I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude: The province of Ciudad Real is part of the autonomous community of Castilla–La Mancha, so those provisions do apply. The autonomous community is the first-level administrative division and the province is the second-level one. Alavense (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
Hi, MPGuy2824. As stated in previous nominations, it's impossible to archive many of the references, given that they are selections of data from the general set of municipalities. I archived those I could, but the ones which provide population figures cannot be archived, I'm afraid. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (source review)

[edit]
  • Done I think I did this correctly
  • Image review: all images are free, captioned and used appropriately.
  • Source review:
    • All references are consistently formatted.
    • All references appear reliable for what is being cited.
    • Ref 1 appears to be a dead link
      • Fixed.
    • Ref 2 appears to be a landing page. Please provide more specific locations for the info cited. As an example, Ref 2 is supposed to support and the 3rd largest by land area, spanning 19,812.81 square kilometres and yet that info isn't on this page.
      • I did fix the link to address this specific concern. But for other links and landing pages, I'm not sure if direct links are possible. I will try pinging Alavense to see if they know. Otherwise all your comments have been addressed! Mattximus (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • All other ref spot checks look good. I will note that I am a basic level Spanish speaker and using that and a combination of Google translate, I feel comfortable that the Spanish sources are good.

Nice work Mattximus. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus, did you address Ref #2? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus so it looks like Ref 19 is the only one still going to the landing page. Can you link directly to a list by land area? We typically don't cite pages where the reader has to actually search for the information. As an example, I work a lot on Green Bay Packers articles; I can't cite to Packers.com and then force users to click around to find the information. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After some searching, it appears that is actually the correct page, but you need to click on download zip file to see all the data. Any ideas how I should cite that? Mattximus (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus can you copy the download link>? You can right click in Chrome and "View page source" and try to find the link to the downloaded data. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried the view page source and inspect mode, but I cannot for the life of me find the link. I will have to defer to Alavense as they know the source. Mattximus (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of constituencies of the Punjab Legislative Assembly

[edit]
Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My 10th FL nom and the 6th in the constituency series. I've improved the lead and history sections, cleaned up clutter from the table, and brought the table accessibility to FL-standards. Similar, recent FL: Madhya Pradesh -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by Comment

[edit]
I am quite busy this week, but I'll try do a full review. Ping if I haven't said anything by Friday. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink The Times of India for Ref. 6
  • Ref. 5 and 25 has no website or publisher?
  • Refs. 10 and 14 have had their publisher accidentally written into the title parameter.
  • Why are you using term_length in the infobox rather than term_limit like with the Madhya Pradesh list?
  • Capitalise 'North India' in the first line?
Sgubaldo (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgubaldo: You're right: term limit is more accurate than term length. Fixed that and the rest that you pointed out. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ref. 1 should use |website= rather than |publisher= for India Today, but other than that, support. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Nice work. That's all I got MPGuy2824. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Table legend change: I've added more specific anchors to the definitions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. I've fixed these in the previous FLs too.
  • Lead paragraph needing citations: I've added a couple and I think the rest of the statements aren't as challenge-worthy, but I'm happy to look for refs if you disagree with that.
  • Fixed the rest.
Thanks for the review, Gonzo fan2007. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pau Grand Prix winners

[edit]
Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pau Grand Prix is a motor race held on the Circuit de Pau-Ville street circuit in the commune of Pau in southwestern France. Famous names such as Lewis Hamilton, Alberto Ascari, Juan Manuel Fangio, Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart, René Arnoux and Tazio Nuvolari have won this race that has been held to the rules of various racing categories over the years. All comments are welcome EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
MPGuy2824
  • While sorting the table, the years when the race wasn't held sometimes comes on top. You'll have to ensure that it sorts at the bottom.

I couldn't find any other problems with table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • city street track in the centre of Pau, in the Pyrénées-Atlantiques department of southwestern France. the sentence structure here is weird for me, but maybe that is because I am American and just used to "CITY, STATE". Maybe adding a commune would achieve what you are trying to say in a little bit clearer way?
  • The ACBB was first inspired to hold the race in 1933 after the success of the Monaco Grand Prix as well as other races in Nice and Nîmes I believe you need a comma after "Prix"
  • on a podium seems superfluous and I would recommend deleting
  • for the longest wait between two victories change "wait" to "period" or something similar, implies he was just waiting around
  • Signature have the most wins of any team with seven shouldn't it be "has". Its a team, right? So "The Signature Team has".

EnthusiastWorld37, nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of chronic pain syndromes

[edit]
Nominator(s): IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is an important topic and I've put a lot of time into it. I know medical pages can be scary for some but this one is hopefully a bit more straightforward. I have PDFs of all the publications used if needed. I chose to use SFNs to make reviewing easier. I chose not to use tables for this list as it didn't seem appropriate. I tried my hardest to simplify all the medical information but if anything is unclear please let me know. I did struggle a bit with rewording things in a way that wasn't too close to the source but still kept the original meaning so if my wording seems awkward at times please let me know and I will try my hardest to reword things. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense: you haven't completed all the steps to nominate this for FL as laid out in WP:FLC. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it makes sense why I haven't gotten any input then. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser

[edit]

I'm pleased to see this fully IASP/ICD-11-compliant article. I was at a lecture series hosted by the Swedish Pain Society earlier this year, and they seemed quite proud of this new development. I'm no expert on the use of articles in English, so take the following suggestions with a grain of salt:

  • or the anatomical system in which it affects.
done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sentences in a row begin The IASP Task Force could that be tweaked?
I changed the second sentence to start off as This task force, does that look better? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • affecting at least three to four four of five body regions - according to the source.
done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Body quadrants are defined as the upper, lower, left and right sides of the body. - and my preference would be for an overly careful explanation ("upper left, upper right...").
Changes to Body quadrants are defined as the upper left, upper right, lower left, and lower right quadrants of the body, let me know if that looks better. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronic widespread pain cannot be attributed to a nociceptive process in these areas.
done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any non-technical alternative to "distally" in english? Otherwise we could wikilink it.
It could be changed to outwardly but that sounds odd in my opinion. For now I wikilinked it. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronic post traumatic pain is pain that develops are worsens after an injury - needs fixing
changed are to or. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to list all the possible causes of chronic secondary headache or orofacial pain?
The reason I listed all the causes is that I felt that the classification for secondary headache was a little more obscure than say cancer-related pain. If you think it would look better without the causes then I can remove them. FOr now I trimmed it a bit. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm unfamiliar with the FLC-process, could anyone tell me what the standards for a source review is? I might want to attempt one.

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source review for FLC's is pretty similiar to that of FAC but pinging Hey man im josh since he has more experience in the area. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, if someone is familiar with source reviews at FAC you can do the exact same thing here and it'd be an excellent source review. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
[edit]

The sources used are all appropriate and compliant with both WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:MEDRS. Spotchecks show that the phrasing has been altered as much as possible to avoid simply parroting the sources, but for technical definitions you can't change the wording more than this and still comply with WP:V. Overall this looks like a pass, and I have but a few pointers:

  • I wonder if we can add something about the autonomic dysfunction present in CRPS without getting to technical? It tends to be taught as the hallmark of the disease, alongside pain-out-of-proportion.
I did find this [6] article which states "The autonomic nervous system (ANS) is involved" and "inflammatory changes and autonomic dysregulation". I could change Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. to Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. CRPS also involves changes to the autonomic nervous system. as that doesn't seem overly technical and still includes the ANS. Let me know what you think. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that works, but I don't think we need a new source since that much is covered by the one we've got. I'm wondering if we shouldn't call it "dysfunction" and specify that it is also a local one. /DB
The source I originally used [7] states "Complex regional pain syndrome is further characterized by signs indicating autonomic and inflammatory changes in the affected body region that may vary between patients and over time" I'm thinking of changing Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. Complex regional pain syndrome is divided into two types, type 2 requires evidence of peripheral nerve injury, while type 1 does not. to Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. The sites affected by complex regional pain syndrome experience autonomic and inflammatory changes. Complex regional pain syndrome is divided into two types, type 2 requires evidence of peripheral nerve injury, while type 1 does not.. Does that wording sound good? IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that "other" as a category has been omitted from several pain types, and I must admit I'm not sure exactly what to do with that category either. Maybe we can just state that this residual category exists for many pain types (unless that's already stated somewhere and I missed it)?
In my original draft I did include the other categories but decided to omit them as it just felt odd. I could include something along the lines of "each classification of chronic pain includes an "other" category to account for pain syndromes which do not fall into the current diagnostic criteria" to address this. What do you think? IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds lika an excellent solution. /DB
This source [8] states "ICD-11 automatically adds a category “other” at each level to catch any cases that might have been missed" which I think could be worded as "The ICD-11 also has an "other" category, such as "other chronic cancer pain", to include chronic pain that does not fit into other categories but let me know if I should tweak that wording. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think the deal here is that we've got a list of categories, but it hasn't been established in the lede that these categories contain neatly defined sub-categories, "other" being the odd one out in each bundle. Using the "such as" example hints at this, but if we talk about it as one of several sub-categories first and then follow up with the example I think that might be better. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this look better? IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to state that Chronic postsurgical or posttraumatic pain as a whole, not just posttraumatic pain, includes referred pain from deeper structures to corresponding dermatomes.
I agree but I'm not sure how to include this. The source I used [9] states "The pain has to be localised to the surgical field or area of injury, projected to the innervation territory of a nerve situated in this area or referred to a dermatome or Head’s zone (after surgery/injury to deep somatic and visceral tissues)." which I think may be what you are trying to touch on but I'm not sure. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and since this is true for both types of pain we need to state so earlier, i.e. under the "Chronic postsurgical or posttraumatic pain"-heading by expanding the sentence that now says The pain is localized to the site of injury or surgery. /DB
I'm struggling on how to word this without sounding overly technical so let me know if you have any ideas. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best I can do rn is: "..or extends to other areas through damaged nerves or referred pain." Which is a bit of a stretch since the source is not explicit about nerve damage. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I currently have The pain is restricted to the surgical field or injury site, projected to the innervation region of a nearby nerve, or referred to a dermatome. which is more technical than I would like but does clarify this a bit. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably gonna need a few more days to think carefully about possible changes to the current phrasing, but that's a prose issue, which means the source review is a pass. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thank you! IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Toadspike

[edit]
  • Links are not always linked in the right places. The term "autoimmune" is linked twice, in extremely similar contexts, but the two links point to different articles. "Infection" is linked only on its second appearance. "Rheumatological disorders" should link to Rheumatism (I just created a redirect from the former). Pelvic pain is linked at least twice, but Pelvis doesn't seem to be linked at all. There's a gadget somewhere to check for double linking; maybe the nominator would like try it, and also skim the article again to check that all technical terms are appropriately linked.
I fixed the two cases you pointed out but I'll go back and look for more areas where this could be improved. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming the list is meant to be exhaustive, which seems like a challenging task. May I ask, for instance, why cluster headaches are not listed?
That is because Cluster headaches are a type of Trigeminal autonomic cephalgia which is listed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point :) Toadspike [Talk] 22:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar note, I doubt the "Chronic postsurgical pain" section can possibly be complete, since I'm pretty sure any surgery can and will result in postsurgical pain. The bulleted list in this section (and other similar ones) should probably be qualified with "Examples include:" or words to that effect.
I mean if you check out the source I used [10] I did include all of the classifications. Of course, any surgery or trauma can cause chronic pain but the classification system is just meant to give names to the most common types. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wonder if it would be possible to make this more clear. Currently the lead says "The ICD-11 category for chronic pain includes the most common types of chronic pain..." and it is implied that the article reflects the ICD-11 categories. Either this LISTCRIT should be explicitly stated in the prose, or the article should be moved to a title like ICD-11 categories of chronic pain. Toadspike [Talk] 22:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I want this list to be a list of chronic pain syndromes not just the ICD-11 categories. I also combined the IASP classification with the ICD classification for this list so that wouldn't really work as a title. The point isn't to list the ICD11 chronic pain syndromes it's just that there is no other accepted classification (unless you can find one). IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: To clarify the inclusion criteria and why the ICD-11 was chosen as the main source for this list, I suggest changing:

In order to create a classification system for chronic pain, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) collaborated with the World Health Organization (WHO) to form the Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP Task Force was made up of pain experts. This task force developed a new model to classify chronic pain for the ICD-11.

To something clearer and more upfront on the importance of the ICD-11:

The [current/newest] standard model for classifying chronic pain [is/was created for] the ICD-11. The ICD-11 classification was made by the Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain, a group of pain experts formed by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) in collaboration with the World Health Organization.

Feel free to word this better. By the way, since you never use the abbreviation "WHO", you shouldn't mention it. Toadspike [Talk] 14:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "post cancer" should probably be "post-cancer", unless most reliable sources disagree. Similarly, the spacing within terms like "posttraumatic"/"post traumatic" should be consistent. (I think "post-traumatic" is best.)
I chose to go with that spacing and style because that us what the sources and ICD use which is kind of the main source for this kind of thing. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the sources cited for the postcancer and posttraumatic sections, neither uses "post cancer" or "post traumatic" with a space. Regardless, you should be consistent between different instances of the same term ("posttraumatic" and "post traumatic" should not both exist in the same Wikipedia article), and I would prefer if you were consistent between different instances of similar terms ("postcancer" and "post traumatic" should not both exist in the same Wikipedia article). Apologies for the pedantry, this should be an easy fix to make the prose look cleaner. Toadspike [Talk] 22:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The post cancer and post traumatic with the space are from the ICD. I’ll take a further look when i’m on my laptop and make those fixes. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source uses "posttraumatic" and "postcancer" [11] [12] but the icd uses "post traumatic"[13] and "post cancer"[14]. I'm unsure which to use. Do you have a preferance? IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spaced versions ("post traumatic") just seem wrong to me, but try as I might, I cannot find anything in the MOS that says so. I prefer "posttraumatic", but since reliable sources use both, it's up to you. Just be consistent! Toadspike [Talk] 14:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although our article on Psychosomatic medicine is quite underdeveloped, it is likely relevant to this topic. In fact, the image in the lead mentions the related idea of Somatization. I'd appreciate if you could look into that and perhaps add something to the prose – otherwise readers might get the impression that all chronic pain has an obvious, known cause :)
I've thought over my response to this a lot so I hope you can understand what I am trying to say here. The reason I didn't go into depth about this is because I don't really go into depth about the mechanisms of pain other than when it is directly relevant (such as with post cancer pain). The section "Chronic widespread pain" states Chronic widespread pain cannot be attributed to a nociceptive process in these areas. which I believe covers your point about not all chronic pain syndromes having a clear cause. Somatization isn't the main mechanism behind chronic pain (in fact through my research I've kinda learnt that there isn't any one main cause) so going into great detail about somatization in particular may look unbalanced. I hope that makes sense. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked through several sources now, I see several mention that a major flaw of ICD-10 was that "Diagnoses did not reflect the biopsychosocial model of pain" – mentioning this issue in the lead might also be worthwhile and is closely related the above comment.[1][2]
The reason I didn't include this was because I don't want this article to focus too much on the ICD classification (although we may be past that point) however I could add something like "the new classification system tries to approach chronic pain from a biopsychosocial model" (wording would be different) if you think that would be appropriate. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be perfect. Toadspike [Talk] 14:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you could tack it onto the end of: This new classification system emphasized the cause of pain, underlying mechanisms, and body sites. Not sure if this is better though. Toadspike [Talk] 14:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: I've checked for appropriate licensing and alt text on all images. I believe this FLC passes criterion 5 of the WP:FLCR.

I think that is all from me. If the nominator can address the few remaining points above, I'll be happy to support this nomination. Toadspike [Talk] 22:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think I have covered all the different point you brought up! IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of my comments have been adequately addressed. I support this FLC! Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • General comment: I see differing uses of the Oxford comma. Choose one style and make sure the whole article is consistent
  • It continues past normal healing times and therefore does not have the same function as acute pain. Acute pain serves to signal the body that there is a threat so the body can avoid future danger. --> recommend combining, something like It continues past normal healing times and therefore does not have the same function as acute pain, which is to signal that there is a threat so the body can avoid future danger.
  • The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) defines pain as "An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with, actual or potential tissue damage". should be the second sentence of the article.
  • Chronic pain, on the other hand, does not serve this purpose. Does chronic pain have a purpose? This is a weird thing to state, as you already basically said that in the first few sentences. Just delete this.
  • Chronic pain is considered a syndrome because of the associated symptoms that develop in those experiencing chronic pain. change the last "chronic pain" to "disorder"
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph should clarify these statistics are for the entire world
  • Chronic primary pain is pain that affects one or more anatomical sites-->Chronic primary pain affects one or more anatomical sites
  • can't -->cannot
  • such as difficulties at work, difficulties with sleeping, or difficulties with social activities.-->such as those at work, with sleeping, or with social activities.
  • and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma delete "the pain"
  • Pain may initially be a symptom of a disease however it can need a comm abefore "however"
  • doesn't-->does not
  • Should posttraumatic have a hyphen in it?

That's what I got IntentionallyDense. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made most of the changes you suggested, however I'm a little confused about Your suggestion of Chronic pain is considered a syndrome because of the associated symptoms that develop in those experiencing chronic pain. change the last "chronic pain" to "disorder" as that would read as Chronic pain is considered a syndrome because of the associated symptoms that develop in those experiencing disorder. which doesn't sound right to me.
I regards to the whole hyphen thing, The source [15] uses "Chronic post-traumatic pain" in the subheadings then "Chronic posttraumatic" in text and the ICD uses "Chronic post traumatic pain" However the source spells "Chronic postsurgical pain" without the hyphen or space so for consistansy I decided to just go with no hyphen or space even tho it looks kinda ugly. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 20:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant this disorder. Trying to avoid the repeat of "chronic pain". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I made the change. Feel free to revert if you disagree with it. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the review! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gen Hoshino discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): IanTEB (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on Gen Hoshino articles for around a year. Though there are several more topics I've yet to cover, I thought it would be useful to expand upon this discography page for an outline, and have decided to nominate it for FL. Though I've contributed to a few GAs, this is my first experience with the featured content process. I'm sure there’s many issues that I am unaware of and any/all feedback would be appreciated.

I don't know if I'm making this nomination description too long, but a few of the Japanese sources used I believe are new to featured content nominations on enwiki, so I'd like to explain my usage rationales for a few. Active since 2013, Real Sound is (in my experience) an authority source on Japanese music. They have interviews with high-profile artists (including Hoshino) and have several writers I recognize from other sites, some of which also with articles on Japanese Wikipedia. Rockin'On Japan is the website of a print magazine running since 1972. Similar case to Real Sound. I’ve used the online CDJournal on almost all my GAs without issue. They have an editorial team that publishes reviews for CD singles and albums, spanning several years. I see them sort of as the Japanese AllMusic.

I'll try my best to fix any issues brought up. Any comments are appreciated! IanTEB (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • It took me a while to figure it out but when you say "For double A-side singles, the first two columns refers to the A-side tracks, and the third column refers to chart positions, sales, and certifications for the double A-side release", I think what you actually mean is "For double A-side singles, the first two rows refers to the A-side tracks, and the third row refers to chart positions, sales, and certifications for the double A-side release" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you; I've amended the article. Having such a note is from the start a little unusual, but it's the best solution I could come up with since there's instances of one double A-side having three different peaks on a singular chart. IanTEB (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which decisively opened at first" => "which debuted at number one"
  • "on the Billboard Japan Hot Albums and" => "on the Billboard Japan Hot Albums chart and"
  • "Sixth place on Billboard Japan's year-end ranking for 2016" => "Placing sixth on Billboard Japan's year-end ranking for 2016"
  • Why do you list the full track listings for the two indie releases but not for any of his official albums? I would suggest that the norm is not to show it for any album
  • Do his most recent three albums not have Japanese titles?
  • Never seen "streaming playlists" in a discography article but I guess in this day and age it's valid........?
  • "though it would still peak at number 40 on the chart in December 2016" => "although it still peaked at number 40 on the chart in December 2016" (same for other similar sentences in the footnotes)
  • That's all I got, I think...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: I've fixed the issues with the text and removed the track listing. I based the latter off of Meghan Trainor discography, which includes track listing for independent releases. My reasoning was that these will never have articles, so this would be the only place to include that information, but I've removed it anyways since I agree with your comment. Streaming playlists comes from Taylor Swift albums discography. I wasn't sure if I should include them but thought I might as well. I'd have no issues removing if anyone sees it as an issue. His three most recent albums are titled in English.
    Thank you for the comments. Please let me know if you find any other issues. IanTEB (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup statistics

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not many FLs in cricket statistics pages, trying make this an Exemplary list. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

The text shouldn't begin with This is the list of. I recommend you have a look at other featured lists for similar topics, because they will come in handy when trying to write a good lede for this one. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the lead paragraph now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • I see that this issue has apparently now been resolved, so I will do a full review in due course. One thing that jumps out at me is that there's no context provided for some of the stats or any indication of what they actually mean. For example, there's a table of players with the best strike rate, but no explanation of what strike rate is or even a link to another article that explains it. I personally know the basics of cricket but have no idea what strike rate is and the article doesn't provide me with any way to find that out. I appreciate that within an article we can assume a certain level of basic knowledge of a subject (i.e. I wouldn't expect a football article to need to explain what "scoring a goal" means) but some of the items listed here seem to go way beyond that basic level and we ought to at least afford people the opportunity to find out what these things are if they don't know, without having to resort to Google..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, I'll be honest until a few hours ago even I didn't know how Average/ Strike rate were calculated, I just assumed they were somehow calculated. I've just read the relevant articles and I'll complete adding a one-line description of what they are, Thanks! Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude All done, you can carry on with the review now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Would it be okay if the equations for strike rate, average etc. is removed... there's already a written explanation and link to its page. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Arconning

[edit]
  • File:Hardik Pandya in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
  • File:Shai Hope.jpg - CC BY 3.0
  • File:Fazalhaq Farooqi.jpg - CC BY 3.0
  • File:Arshdeep Singh in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
  • File:Tim Southee 3.jpg - GFDL
  • File:2018.01.21.14.55.22-Roy c Finch b Cummins-0001 (40183230984) (Cummins cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:Prime Minister Of Bharat Shri Narendra Modi with Rishabh Pant.jpg - GODL-India
  • File:Aiden Markram (cropped).jpg - CC0
  • File:Virat Kohli in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
  • File:Prime Minister Of Bharat Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi with Shri Rohit Gurunath Sharma (Cropped).jpg - GODL-India
  • File:Jasprit Bumrah in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
  • Images have suitable captions and licenses
  • Images need alt text^^
    I'll add them tomorrow. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arconning All done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Arconning (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup was the ninth edition of ICC Men's T20 World Cup" => "The 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup was the ninth edition of the ICC Men's T20 World Cup"
  • "Following is a list of major statistics and records from the tournament; most lists contain only the top five tiers for each record." - this is just moving the sentence mentioned above from the start to a later point in the article. In all honesty I don't think it's needed.
  • The lead still feels a bit short. Can you work in some of the "highlights" from the article?
  • "Dates given for single-match records/stats is the date fixture took place" => "Date given for single-match records/stats is the date fixture took place"
  • "the first English player to take hat-trick in T20 World Cup." => "the first English player to take a hat-trick in T20 World Cup."
  • "most wins as Indian Captain in T20Is" - captain is not a proper noun so does not need a capital C
  • "Niko Davin became the first batter to be dismissed retired out in a T20 World Cup match" - link "retired out" if an appropriate target exists
  • "6 June 2024; He was later surpassed by Rohit Sharma." - no reason for capital H in the middle of a sentence
  • "Played in the men's T20 World Cup for the first time with the virtue of being a co-host.." => "Played in the men's T20 World Cup for the first time by virtue of being a co-host." (only needs one full stop at the end, not two)
  • "the 5th highest total in the history of T20 World Cup" => "the 5th highest total in the history of the T20 World Cup"
  • " the 2nd and 3rd lowest totals in the history of T20 World Cup respectively" => " the 2nd and 3rd lowest totals in the history of the T20 World Cup respectively"
  • "the top two lowest match aggregates in the 2024 tournament" => "the two lowest match aggregates in the 2024 tournament" (can't really be "top" of the list given that it was a "negative" record)
  • Most runs - player names should sort based on surname, not nationality
  • Highest scores - player names should sort based on surname, not nationality
  • ....and so on for every other table containing player names
  • "The "batting average" is the total number of runs they have scored" => "The "batting average" is the total number of runs a batter has scored"
  • Pandya image caption needs a full stop and also the word "the" before "highest batting average"
  • "Hardik Pandya of India had highest batting average in the 2024 tournament (48.00 – 144 runs from 6 innings with 3 dismissals)." => "Hardik Pandya of India had the highest batting average in the 2024 tournament (48.00 – 144 runs from 6 innings with 3 dismissals)."
  • Hope image caption needs a full stop
  • "they were both tied at the 5th place" => "they were both tied in 5th place"
  • Farooqi image caption needs a full stop
  • ....and so on for every other image caption
  • "The "bowling average" is the number of runs they have conceded" => "The "bowling average" is the number of runs a bowler conceded"
  • "The "economy rate" is the average number of runs they have conceded per over bowled." => "The "economy rate" is the average number of runs a bowler has conceded per over bowled."
  • "The "Hat-trick" occurs " - no reason for capital H in the middle of a sentence
  • I can't see any value in the "batsmen out" column of the "hat-tricks" table being sortable
  • In the partnerships tables, use "and" not "&" per MOS:AMPERSAND
  • Image caption : "Indian Captain Rohit Sharma was named as the captain for team of the tournament" => "Indian Captain Rohit Sharma was named as the captain of the team of the tournament."
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude I have made all the changes and expanded the lead. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: regarding sorting the players in the table, which of the following would be suitable for listing a player...
    Which of these would be the appropriate way? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would personally go for the second one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude All done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canada, Uganda and United States made their T20 World Cup debut, with US progressing to the Super 8 stage in their first T20 World Cup" - you state that it was the first World Cup for the US twice in the same sentence. Also, it should be the US, not just US
  • "or if no overs remained (or are able) to be bowled" => "or if no overs remained (or were able) to be bowled" (so the tenses agree)
  • "(5/40) indicates that a bowler has captured five wickets while giving away 40 runs" => "(5/40) indicates that a bowler captured five wickets while giving away 40 runs"
  • "Shakib Al Hasan became the first bowler to take 50 wickets in the T20 World Cup history." => "Shakib Al Hasan became the first bowler to take 50 wickets in T20 World Cup history."
  • "became the first English player to take a hat-trick in T20 World Cup" => "became the first English player to take a hat-trick in the T20 World Cup"
  • "India also broke the record of the longest time between successive tournament wins (17 years), breaking the record of 12 years set by England" => "India also broke the record of the longest time between successive tournament wins (17 years), surpassing the 12 years set by England" (would avoid saying "break the record" twice in the same sentence
  • "were the top two lowest match aggregates" => "were the two lowest match aggregates" (can't really be "top" of a list of the lowest figures)
  • "2024 tournament became the 2nd T20 World Cup to have" => "The 2024 tournament became the 2nd T20 World Cup to have"
  • "Hardik Pandya of India had highest batting average " => "Hardik Pandya of India had the highest batting average "
  • In the best economy table there's a random bracket before Lockie Ferguson
  • Is there a reason why, in the player of the match tables, the "player" column is the only one that's not sortable?
  • "Indian Captain Rohit Sharma was named as the captain of the team of the tournament." - "captain" is not a proper noun so does not need a capital C -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude All done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I will list the sources in order that they appear:

  1. Good. Supports 2.
  2. Good. Supports 1.
  3. Needs the author adding. Please user |first=Jonathan|last=Healy.
  4. This source is a little random, it doesn't really support "This was the first major ICC tournament to feature matches played in the United States with Grand Prairie Stadium, Texas and Nassau County International Cricket Stadium, New York hosting their first ever T20I matches, with the latter being subject to criticism due to the pitch quality."
  5. Supports "...with the latter being subject to criticism due to the pitch quality".
6A. Supports "Canada, Uganda and the United States made their T20 World Cup debuts...", however a further source for the USA reaching the Super 8 stage is needed. The author also needs crediting, please use |first=Roddur|last=Mookherjee.
7A. Good.
8A. Good.
9. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Kingshuk|last=Kusari.
10A. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Rahul|last=Chalke.
11. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.
12. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Mike|last=Peter.
13. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Sampath|last=Bandarupalli.
7B. Good.
14. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.
15. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Megha|last=Mallick.
16. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Aditya|last=Kumar.
17. Good.
8B. Good.
18. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.
6B Good.
19. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.
20. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Sabyasachi|last=Chowdhury.
21. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Aakash|last=Sivasubramaniam

Cont...

22. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.
23. Good.
24. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.
11B. Good.
25. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Rahul|last=Sadhu.
26. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.
9B. Good.
27. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Sandeep|last=G.
28. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.
29. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Saurav|last=Mukherjee.
30. Good. The publisher is The Hindu, so will need |location= after the work/publisher.
31. Good. The publisher is The Hindu, so will need |location= after the work/publisher.
32. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.
11C. Good.
33. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Andrew Fidel|last=Fernando.
34. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.
7C. Good.
7D. Good.
35. Good.
36. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.
37. Good. The publisher is the Hindustan Times, so needs |location= after the work/publisher.
38. Good.
39. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.
40–45. Good.
46. Does not back up the sentence as it is the same as Ref 42. Good.
47. Good.
48. Good.
49. Acceptable. It does require the reader to access the source and decipher this themselves? Is there an alternative source which directly mentions this?
50. Good.
51. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Kartikeya|last=Date, plus the date of publication using |date=.
52–56. Good.
57. Have you manually added the total number of fours? If so, are there any written sources which discuss this number? Just worried manually adding the total could venture into WP:OR. Acceptable in light of there being no sources directly referencing his. Tally adds up.
Comment. Most fours scored in 2024 T20WC also needs Ref 57 applied to it.
58. Same concerns with Ref 57. Acceptable in light of there being no sources directly referencing his. Tally adds up.
9C. Good.
59. Good.
60. Good.

All of these references need a second look taking at the "retrieved dates". |date= should be the date the work was published (if given), and |access-date should be the date you retrieved the work. Please look at these again and amend to match. Cont...

61. Good.
62. This source references pages 42–49, though I can't find anything about bowling averages in that section (unless I have just missed it). Just talks about the various laws around batsmen dismissal.
63. Good.
64. Good.
65. Good. (Corr, that Southee economy rate is mint).
66. Good.
10B. Good.
67–72. Good.
  • Comment. "Sherfane Rutherford and Gudakesh Motie achieved a partnership for the 10th wicket of 37*. This was the highest partnership for the 10th wicket in a T20 World Cup." This will need a reference.
73. Good.
74. Good.
75. Dead link. This link is dead, and the archived page sends you to a sponsorship page.
76–78. Good.

@Vestrian24Bio: I will look through some more later! AA (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate, I have made these changes now. I am not exactly sure about how the |location= is used so I have added it to only a few; once you review them, I will do it for the rest as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 19:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio: |location= is for the location of the publication, for example: {{cite news|url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS303379183/TTDA?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=2fba20cb|title=Brig.-General R. M. Poore|work=[[The Times]]|location=London|issue=48027|page=18|date=15 July 1938|access-date=22 May 2024|url-access=subscription|via=Gale|archive-date=6 October 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241006130842/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=TTDA&u=wikipedia&id=GALE%7CCS303379183&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-TTDA&asid=2fba20cb|url-status=live}}
Hope that helps :)
I will try and review a few more tomorrow, around some other things I have to do. AA (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it now, thanks Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio:. I've gone through refs 22 to 60 this evening, have left comments/suggestions. Having a look at the news outlet based ones, as a rule of thumb, they could be {{cite news|... and not {{cite web|... As above, access-dates and the date of publication of written works needs checking. AA (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate: have added |location= along with authors and other above-mentioned things. ref 46 fixed, added another source to support ref 49; ref 57 & 58 unfortunately are WP:OR . Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, replaced {{cite web}} with {{cite news}} for news sources. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I will just run with 57 and 58, the tallies add up. New reference is good. AA (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate: What does Corr, that Southee economy rate is mint mean? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just remarking how he had an economy rate of 3, that's impressive! AA (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done here, except for the dead link - I could not find any other source on the internet; we could remove it and,
  • Leave everything the way they are as each match is linked to its scorecard on its corresponding page or,
  • Give links to ESPNcricinfo scorecards for each match...
@AssociateAffiliate: What are youe thoughts... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 20:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finished review: comments and suggestions

[edit]

@Vestrian24Bio:, please find above my comments for the final references. I'll list some suggestions below.

  • For the table "Most fours scored in 2024 T20WC", please insert the following reference once you have reviewed the other references (I haven't inserted this reference as I didn't want to muddle the order of my review):
{{cite web|url=https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/tournament/batting-most-fours-career/icc-men-s-t20-world-cup-2024-15946|title=Most fours For ICC Men's T20 World Cup, 2024|website=ESPNcricinfo|access-date=15 November 2024}}
  • On the subject of tables, I'm don't think you need "2024 T20WC" to be included in them, as it is clear the article is about the 2024 T20WC.
  • I'd not bother with the Jasprit Bumrah 'Player of the tournament' table, as he is the only subject. Just rewrite the opening sentence for that section, something like "...with Jasprit Bumrah being named as player of the tournament, having taken 15 wickets at an average of 8.26. Rohit Sharma was named captain of the team."
  • Where possible, combine images. The 'Backgound' section of the Lord's article has an example of this. It might help to make the photos more compact and organised better within their sections.
  • When linking sources, e.g. BBC, IndiaToday, ESPNcrinfo, only the first occurrence needs to be linked. Same with locations, so for example, only the first mention of Mumbai needs to be linked to the corresponding wiki article.
  • In the lead, link "bowler".
  • After the first mention of International Cricket Council in the lead, put "(ICC)" after it.
  • One last minor point, not a biggy! Some of the references are in a muddled order, with different parameters in different places. Making them uniform makes them easier to modify and looks neater. I tend to go for this order:
{{cite web/news|url= |title= |first= |last= |author-link= (used if the person has an article on here) |website/publisher/work= |location= |page= |date= |access-date= |archive-date= |archive-url= |url-status= live/dead}}
Might be worth just reordering them, but like I said, not a biggy! AA (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate About the first point, would it be fine if all the sources are moved to the tables' captions??? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't be a problem :) AA (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All points on this section is done except for the last one. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 20:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Awesome, all points covered. I found a different archive for 75. AA (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Clarify the use of British or American English (i.e. {{Use British English}} and {{British English}})
  • In the second paragraph of the lead, you start out four consecutive sentences with "PERSON became...". Can you change the wording up a bit?

That's all I got AssociateAffiliate. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: I've added American English tags now and I'm not sure what do you mean by the second point... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 20:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the mix-up on the nominator Vestrian24Bio. Re the second point, you have Pat Cummins became... Shakib Al Hasan became... Rohit Sharma became... Niko Davin became in four straight sentences. The repetitive use of "became" should be improved by changing word use or sentence structure. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Funny enough, I do have an FLC on the go! ;) AA (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: I have copy-edited the paragraph now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of works on Georges Méliès

[edit]
Nominator(s): Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I prepared to rewrite "Georges Méliès", I became very intimidated by the literature. To get a better grasp on it and kill two birds with one stone, I expanded this bibliography. Much of it is based on his entry in Oxford Bibliographies, but where applicable, I supplemented it with book reviews and an annotated bibliography by Elizabeth Ezra. All suggestions are appreciated, and I hope to address them as soon as possible! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]
  • his name often appears in the titles of books, chapters, or articles, not necessarily - Lose the last comma, the one before "not".
  • the film career of his brother - He's not mentioned before, so maybe the film career of his brother Gaston?
  • Same for his mistress and first wife --> his mistress and first wife, Jehanne d'Alcy. And maybe the link could just blue the name.
    Whoops, "mistress" and "first wife" intended to refer to different people. Now with both names included, this is much clearer. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Alavense (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as a chapter of Film Before Griffith - Could something else be said about Film Before Griffith. It feels a bit disconnected.
  • and U.S. and U.K. - and US and UK, I think, per MOS:US.
  • Maybe use {{ill}} to link Il Castoro?
  • as a chapter of Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative - Maybe it's worth saying the book was edited by Thomas Elsaesser?
  • and a translation of a forum about him hosted by the Commission de recherche historique of the Cinémathèque Française, Tsivian describes - I think a full stop would be better than the comma.
  • finds that he criticized colonialism that results from an obsession with quicker modes of transportation - I think there's something wrong there.
    To be more nuanced, Ezra believes that, in a time when new forms of transportation were prospering, his films satirized the resulting prejudice, colonial expansion, and minset of "conquering the unknown". Most famously, the astronomers in A Trip to the Moon, as taken from its article, are presented as bumbling pedants merciless for Selenites. I tweaked the sentence's wording with all this in mind, but let me know if you still have an issue. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that reads better now. Alavense (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can link Joan M. Minguet.
  • Ditto with Archives françaises du film.
  • and within it, - Lose that comma.

That's what I saw. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: All fixed, with two replies of clarification. Thanks for having a look! I'd be happy to review one of your noms; expect comments within a few days. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits. Support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • The opening sentence reads too much that this is an article about the person. Recommend combining the first two sentences: Georges Méliès (1861–1938), a French filmmaker and magician, was the subject of various written works, including biographies, essays, and monographs.
    • Done.
  • The professor Frank Kessler "the" isn't needed.
  • and materials related to them in 1949 clarify who "them" is. Her mom and Georges?
    • "Them" was in reference to his films. I tweaked the sentence to hopefully make it clearer.

Nice work Averageuntitleduser! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: All fixed. Many thanks for the review! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads of government of Liechtenstein

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheBritinator (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating this for FL since it's rejection several months ago. I have taken time to significantly improve it to fit the criteria, mostly taken from experience in my other successful nomination, and I believe it is now ready to reviewed again. TheBritinator (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments
  • All images need alt texts.
  • Please clarify that you've incorporated all the feedback from the last time this was nominated.
  • I would remove the images from the Monarch columns. Its a bit distracting.
  • Scopes need to be on the header cell. e.g. in the deputy heads table, the scope is present on the image cells. It should be on the number cell. Also, if the header cell spans multiple rows, then the scope should be "rowgroup". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I have addressed these comments. TheBritinator (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I've left a notice about this nom at WP:WikiProject Liechtenstein. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that WP is inactive. TheBritinator (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The appointed head of government is typically the leader of the political party with the most seats in the Landtag or a coalition of parties, but is not required to be a member of the Landtag themselves, although they should meet the eligibility requirements for that office." - source for all this?
  • "The title was changed to 'Governor'" - what was it before, then? You don't say......
  • "People are numbered according to periods served by the same person. For example, Carl von In der Maur served as State Administrator twice in two non-consecutive terms, yet is still counted as the second" - this doesn't really make sense as written. Change it to "People are numbered according to periods served by the same person. For example, Carl von In der Maur served as State Administrator twice in two non-consecutive terms, but is counted only once"
  • Any particular reason why the head of government table has the start and dates squished into one column and a duration column but the deputy heads table has the start and end dates in two separate columns and no duration column? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually coincidentally fixed the second one earlier today while working on something else. I will get on the rest tomorrow. TheBritinator (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feger's first row in the deputies table looks odd with the "duration" being half blank - is the 91 days only the time he served under Ospelt? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I merged it because he technically still had the role during his time as acting prime minister. TheBritinator (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

[edit]

Will try to look at it this weekend. Ping if I haven't said anything by Wednesday. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose:

  • Note a ('Defunct from 1936') probably needs a citation. Also, reading the article, it seems like it merged with a separate minor party. Perhaps this could be added to the note?
  • "In 1921, a new constitution was ratified in which the office was replaced by that of Prime Minister" ==> "In 1921, a new constitution was ratified in which the office was replaced by that of the Prime Minister"?
  • "The role originated as Landvogt when Michael Menzinger applied for the creation of the role in 1833, which served as the head of the district office, and was the first office-holder" ==> This is one sentence saying two different things at once; I also am not entirely clear if the role itself is what served as the head of the district office. If so, consider changing to something like: "The position originated as Landvogt in 1833, when Michael Menzinger applied for its creation. The role functioned as the head of the district office, with Menzinger serving as the first office-holder."
  • "... One of the cabinet ministers is appointed to this position by the prince of Liechtenstein upon the proposal of the Landtag of Liechtenstein." ==> Since this is the first time you're mentioning the prince and landtag in the body, you could probably wikilink both again?

Tables:

  • Text and references are centered in the State Administrator table, but not the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister ones.
  • I'm not sure if it's a visual glitch or an issue with the table code, but the Josef Büchel box has some weird doubling of the lines.

Source Formatting:

  • Ref. 1 doesn't comply with MOS:ALLCAPS
  • Add an archive link for Ref. 2 and 3?
  • Minor nitpick but some references have opaque names like :1 or :122, when it would be better to have more descriptive ones.

Sgubaldo (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, removed the excessive capitalization. Will work on archiving later. TheBritinator (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgubaldo All comments have been addressed. However, I am having a bit of difficulty in getting the party colour bar to line up and can't seem to get it to work. Also, internet archive appears to be down again for the time being. TheBritinator (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but do archive the sources when the IA is back online. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Toadspike

[edit]

I have gone over all of the comments provided by myself and others in this FLC and checked the list for appropriate fixes. I believe they have all been addressed and I support this FLC. Toadspike [Talk] 22:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Source review by Toadspike (passed)
[edit]

Most of the list is cited to source 5, which is reliable as a publication of the Landesarchiv.

  • Source 5 does not mention some of the early acting governors/PMs or Michael Menzinger, doesn't list election dates, and doesn't have specific term start and end dates, only years. I will check the other sources for those later.
  • It does list Prinz Karl as being "provisorisch" (temporary, acting) from 1918 to 1920 – any reason he isn't listed as such in the table?
  • It lists acting PMs Feger and Gubelmann as being from the VP and FBP respectively – they are marked as "Independent" in the table.
  • Otherwise, all PMs' start and end dates are verified.
  • Source 5 lists Alfons Feger as being deputy PM three times and lists his total time in this post as 1922-1928. The table says that the post was vacant under Gubelmann in 1922 – this should say that Feger held the post during that time period. Also, his party is listed as VP in the source, but the table says that he's independent.
  • The red bar showing that the deputy MP was from the VP has a small gap between Nigg and Büchel. Probably some table syntax issue. I think it stems from trying to overlap PM Frick's last few months in office with the new deputy.
  • The remaining Deputy PMs also check out.

Source 1 is really interesting. It is, however, some kind of opinion containing proposed changes to the constitution of Liechtenstein, not actually the constitution itself. I appreciate the commentary where relevant (see below), but I am wondering if there's a better (unaltered, unannotated) version of the constitution you could cite for the uncontroversial stuff, like the first sentence.

  • I noticed that the sentence Under this constitution, the eligibility for becoming head of government was changed to require residency in Liechtenstein. is inaccurate, since it implies that rule existed in 1921 when the constitution was ratified. The source says that the 1921 constitution required holders of several high offices to be "natives" of Liechtenstein (I'm pretty sure this means "born in Liechtenstein", like the "natural-born" requirement for the US presidency), and that in/after 1992 the Government held that the rule is unenforceable or similar.
  • This source calls the "cabinet" the "Government". I prefer the term government – any reason why "cabinet" was chosen instead? (This is probably a COMMONNAME issue and I haven't looked into all the sources yet.)
  • Otherwise the source backs up everything it's cited for.

The third sentence of the lead is uncited. I assume you have a cite floating around for that somewhere? Sources 2 and 3 do not back up the start of the second paragraph, which says "The position originated as Landvogt in 1833, when Michael Menzinger applied for its creation. The role functioned as the head of the district office, with Menzinger serving as the first office-holder." It seems the sources may have been misread. Source 3 explains that the position of Landvogt existed from the 16th century until 1848, when it became the "Regierungsamt". Source 2 explains that Menzinger was the Landvogt from 1833 until his firing due to a financial scandal (sound familiar?) in 1861. The long sentence

Während die fürstlich-liechtensteinischen Beamten in Liechtenstein in der Regel ein Exil sahen, das sie möglichst bald verlassen wollten, hatte Menzinger, der vorher nicht in liechtensteinischen Diensten gestanden hatte, im März 1833 bei Fürst Johann I. um das Amt des liechtensteinischen Landvogts angesucht.

translates as:

While most officials of the princely domains of Liechtenstein saw Liechtenstein [the region that forms the modern country] as an exile [a backwater posting that no-one wanted] which they sought to leave as quickly as possible, Menzinger, who had never served under the Princes of Liechtenstein, applied for the position of Landvogt with Prince Johann I in March 1833.

Basically, Menzinger was remarkable in that he actively sought out the role. However, he did not create the role – it had existed since the 16th century. His role in Liechteinstein history does seem very important, though, so I will not dispute his inclusion in the list itself. The first half of the next sentence is easily verified by source 3. The second half is not entirely verifiable in the sources cited – probably finding the text of the 1862 constitution would be ideal.

Toadspike [Talk] 12:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the party alignment of Feger and Gubelmann. Working to address the rest. TheBritinator (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike For the Menzinger part, how would you recommend rewording it? TheBritinator (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to write something by Monday – currently extremely busy. Toadspike [Talk] 21:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll take a crack at it in the meantime. TheBritinator (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBritinator I've reorganized/rewritten that paragraph to fit exactly what the sources say. I hope my directly editing the article isn't some major impropriety in the FLC process. Toadspike [Talk] 20:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my source review. A few notes:

  1. The third paragraph of the lead is verified by the sources cited, except that claim that There are currently five living former prime ministers. I'm assuming this was synthesized from other sources, which I am personally okay with and will not dispute, but if a source could be found that says this explicitly that'd be great. (Also, source 6 says "Government", not "cabinet", getting back to that commonname point I made above).
  2. It looks like the birth/death dates and specific dates when each leader took/left office are based on this source [16], currently relegated to the External links section. I think this website would not generally be considered a reliable source (if I am mistaken, please let me know). I know it's a ton of work, but I strongly advise TheBritinator to go through the articles for each person at the Historisches Lexikon and properly cite these dates to that reliable source. For more recent politicians, newspaper articles might have to be found. Toadspike [Talk] 22:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, there used to be a direct list on the Liechtenstein government website that had the direct dates of each head of government, but for whatever reason it was taken down and I was not able to find any archive. It was quite similar to the PDF I replaced it with but that just has the years instead. I may be wrong but I do believe that is what the source was before I picked up on it over a year ago.
What I'll do is cite the individual lekiton articles with the dates for each person, though this may take a little bit of time. I'll get on it either today or tomorrow. TheBritinator (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike It is done now. The dates for the latter PMs were harder to verify as the lekiton annoyingly didn't state them like the rest. TheBritinator (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing this, I'm checking the new citations. Comments thus far:
  1. The link to Source 22 is live, so "URL status" in the citation should be set to "live". Currently the first link in the citation goes to the Internet Archive; you can't see the full article from there.
  2. The worldstatesman.org source I previously objected to is still cited a few times. I understand that it's hard to find citations for some specific dates, but in the meantime I have learned that that website is deprecated at RSP, so I strongly encourage you to replace all citations to it.
I noticed that the Lexikon cites some sources in the "Nachrufe" section at the bottom of each article. For instance, you can find the date when Batliner became head of state here. You could also search that website, eliechtensteinensia.li, to find sources.
Best, Toadspike [Talk] 22:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll get on that. TheBritinator (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike Ping. TheBritinator (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'm still going over the sources and dates. There's a small discrepancy around the end of Schädler's term and the start of Prince Alfred's provisional term – the Lexikon says Schädler's entire government resigned on 15.6.1928, and Alfred was provisional head from 24.6. to 6.8.1928. Based on this, I would change the end date of Schädler's term and the start of Alfred's term to 24 June. Toadspike [Talk] 09:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TheBritinator (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alfred's Lexikon page also says that he was in office until 6 August, not 4 August, so his end date and Hoop's start date should be adjusted accordingly. (The Lexikon should be reliable, but maybe the book I sent you has more info on the specific transfers of power?) Toadspike [Talk] 09:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Lexikon is wrong, newspaper articles from the time confirm the date of Saturday, 4 August 1928 for the opening of the Landtag and the election of Hoop. [17] I recommend can citing this in the refs box for Hoop and not the Lexikon article for Alfred. Toadspike [Talk] 08:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing spotchecks and I can't find a source for the end of Brunhart's term and the start of Büchel's term. The date currently listed, 26 May 1993, is several weeks after 1989 Liechtenstein general election the election. Same goes for Hilbe and Kieber. This looks like the same problem I brought up earlier with the state archive's list. At this point it might be better to simply state a year instead of giving a specific date which cannot be verified that originated from a deprecated source. (Alternatively, you can try finding more news articles from the time.) Toadspike [Talk] 10:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the positive side, the more recent transitions are cited to newspaper articles, which is awesome! I also won't go into detail in the dates for the deputies, since I'm assuming these are always the same as the ones for the head of government except for a few cases sourced to the Lexikon. Toadspike [Talk] 10:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try. TheBritinator (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now re-checked everything and this list is fully sourced and verifiable. I would like to thank TheBritinator's hard work on this. The source review is passed. Toadspike [Talk] 22:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Per WP:BOLDAVOID, I think you are better off avoiding bolding in the first sentence, since you aren't restating the "list of" part.
  • Seeing as "Landtag" isn't a common English term, it would be good to provide context ("parliament")
  • Originally an undesired post, Michael Menzinger applied for the role in 1833. the first part of this sentence doesn't match the second. Maybe add something like that changed after Michael...
  • Re the See also section, "Prince of Liechtenstein" is already linked in the lead. Probably isn't necessary.

That's all I got TheBritinator. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For point 3, would It was originally an undesired post within the court; this changed after Michael Menzinger applied for the role in 1833. be better? Toadspike [Talk] 18:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadspike Yep! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. Toadspike [Talk] 20:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the see also. TheBritinator (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBritinator and Toadspike: Looks like the first two points are still outstanding? Any thoughts on those? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a clarification about the Landtag, but I would like to keep the bold. Any thoughts on this? TheBritinator (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with it. Support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for removal

[edit]

List of counties in Maryland

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Maryland, WikiProject U.S. counties, nominator is long-inactive

2007 promotion, fails FLCR 3b with several citation needed tags and an unsourced section. Also fails 5c; flag and seal should not be sortable and the former counties table does not have column and row headers. Talk page concerns went unanswered. charlotte 👸♥ 03:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach season 1

[edit]
Notified: Erachima, Sephiroth BCR, WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Television

Following the recent FLRC for 30 Rock season 1 and a discussion regarding expectations for TV season articles, this list appears to fall clearly short of current-day FL standards. High-quality season articles (whether FLs or GAs) are generally expected to cover production, reception, etc. in addition to providing plot summaries. Sourcing is also poor, relying heavily on primary sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note: seasons 2–10 of the show are also FLs and I plan to nominate those for FLRC later for similar reasons, but it's only fair that each FLRC get due consideration, so barring any notes to the contrary (and to avoid flooding FLRC), I plan to nominate them one at a time. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't even close to being complete. At best this is a C level article. Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original editor left Wikipedia years ago Tintor2 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know that both the nominator of this season's list and the nominator for most later seasons left, so please let other people know about this FLRC if they are in a better position to help or provide feedback. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – poorly sourced, and generally not up to standard. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove all of the relevant information simply being formatted into a lead section is a poor format and extremely unencyclopedic. As those above have said, we expect more from articles of this type than we did in the past. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Introduction to the ICD-11 chronic pain classification" (PDF).
  2. ^ Barke, Antonia; Korwisi, Beatrice; Rief, Winfried (2022-12-15). "Chronic Pain in the ICD-11: New Diagnoses That Clinical Psychologists Should Know About". Clinical Psychology in Europe. 4: 1–20. doi:10.32872/cpe.9933. ISSN 2625-3410. PMC 9881113. PMID 36760323.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1258137988"