Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2023

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Detroit Lions seasons

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm hopeful that this will round out the Detroit Lions lists and be the tenth FL that I've been involved in. This is the first NFL team seasons lists that I've worked on, so I apologize if there are any issues with it. I used two recently promoted featured lists, List of Baltimore Ravens seasons and List of Houston Texans seasons, as reference points for this list. As always, I will do my best to respond quickly to any comments or concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "the last of which was in 1957" => "the last of these was in 1957"
• "with the Lions last post-season victory" => "with the Lions' last post-season victory"
• Think that's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  As always, thanks so much for taking a look and providing feedback @ChrisTheDude. I've made the suggested changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• Citation 5: Vintage Detroit seems to be a store rather than a reputable source.
• Citation 11: AP should be listed as the agency, not the work.
• Citations 25, 60, and 74: Unnecessary repetition of "Pro Football Hall of Fame" in the title.
• Citation 8 covers the Jacksonville and Houston sentences better than the P-F-R citations.
• Where are the awards sourced to?
• The notes in the table ought to be moved to the appropriate cell instead of being stuffed in between citations.
• Not a source thing, but shouldn't the "Head coaches" column be singular?

The majority of citations are to a reliable database, though I wouldn't mind seeing some more variety. SounderBruce 19:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Citation 5: Huh, yeah, I guess it is. I have friends that send me links from that site, so I guess they do do news stories, but being that they're an apparel company as well, it's clearly not a great source. I've removed it but not replaced it, as the fact it was verifying is backed up by a reliable source already.
• Citation 11: Why should AP be the agency and not the work in this situation?
• Citations 25, 60, and 74: Done.
• Citation 8: I've actually replaced the refs for that sentence altogether.
• Where are the awards sourced to? – Well here's fun news, that's actually a major screw up of mine, which I'm extremely glad you caught. For some reason I thought I had sourced the awards to the PFR pages, which is simply not true. I'm quite embarrassed I missed this and I've added sources for the awards now. I'll also be adding sources to the other season articles that I have prepped for FL nominations, because I'm definitely missing references based on this misunderstanding.
• The notes in the table ought to be moved to the appropriate cell instead of being stuffed in between citations. – I've moved some notes where I can, but the notes about the number of regular season games changing or strike shortened seasons seem best to be placed in the refs column at this point in time. I'm not sure I love it, but I understand the suggestion and I see how it can be more useful for readers.
• Not a source thing, but shouldn't the "Head coaches" column be singular? – You know what, you're right. Fixed.

Thank you very much for taking a look at this and reviewing it @SounderBruce. I think I've addressed all of your concerns except for citation 11 (now citation 9). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per changes made. I'm not too concerned about the formatting for the APnews citation, as it can go either way. SounderBruce 02:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @SounderBruce! I did update the ref as well to be "AP News" instead of bypassing to "Associated Press". Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

NØ

• Image review - pass: Images are all appropriately licensed, relevant, and with alt texts.
• Support on prose as well. No issues there!--NØ 21:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for the review and support! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Seattle Seahawks seasons

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 06:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The second in what I hope to be a series of FLs about Seattle sports seasons (after the Sounders). I'm not totally attuned to football jargon, so this was a more challenging weekend project, and one that was fun to work on. The list is similar in format and style to both the Sounders list as well as recent NFL season FLs. SounderBruce 06:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• I'll do a full review later, but one thing that immediately jumps out is that in the first sentence "The Seattle Seahawks are a professional American football team based in Seattle, Washington, that plays in the National Football League (NFL)" the subject changes from plural to singular mid-sentence -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Like many NFL team names, Seahawks is a collective noun that follows weird rules in American English. I've tried to fix up the discrepancies where I can, but years of writing soccer articles are hard to shake off.

More comments

• "The Seahawks were originally a member" - more plural/singular disagreement
  • The use of "a member" is as a singular collective and follows what most NFL writing would use.
• "has since had more success than their division rivals" - and here
  • Fixed.
• "as was early attempts" => "as were early attempts"
  • Fixed.
• "The team lost in the Wild Card round to the Miami Dolphins in their final AFC playoffs game, as Seattle would not clinch" => "The team lost in the Wild Card round to the Miami Dolphins in their final AFC playoffs game, after which Seattle would not clinch"
  • Fixed.
• "OT" in the table needs explaining
  • Added a tooltip.
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. I've fixed what I can. SounderBruce 04:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Image review:
  • Image(s) are relevant – Pass
  • Image(s) have alt text – Pass
  • Image(s) are appropriately licensed – Pass

• Source review:
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited – Pass
  • Consistent date formatting – Pass
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting – Mostly pass
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable – Pass
  • Spot checks on 11 sources match what they are being cited for – Pass

Issues:

• Ref 10: Missing author when one is available
• Refs 24 & 45: Add "|url-access=subscription"
• Ref 46: Is there any reason you use NFL.com as the work and National Football League as the publisher? It's my understanding you would only need 1 of these.

You do very good work and that continued on this article @SounderBruce:. Ping me when you resolve the above issues and I'll note my support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the refs that EN-Jungwon mentioned below, refs 4, 16, 17, 25, and 26 are also now prompting me for a subscription (sources from The Seattle Times). For whatever reason, ref 14 is not. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Another note, the awards and head coach columns are not properly sortable based on some cells are split between two coaches or award recipients, these should probably be designated as unsortable instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Replaced citation 10, added subscription/limited tags to all appropriate sources, removed NFL.com, and fixed the columns. SounderBruce 00:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• The colors in the table need to be identified by a symbol in addition to a color for accessibility.
• Ref 7 and 21 seems to be dead.
• Ref 11, 13, 24, 27, 29, 30 and 45 seem to require a subscription.
• Ref 19, 38, 43, 47 and 49 doesn't have a url link. Is this intentional?

The second and third point might be due to where I live or my browser so double check that before changing it. That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 16:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those additional subscription links that I missed in my above review, I've added a few more refs based on that. I wasn't being prompted when checking the links my first go through but I'll keep The Seattle Times in mind for the future. 11 and 13 not currently prompting me about a subscription. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: I have added the symbols to the table, fixed the dead links, and marked citations that require a subscription (either for all articles or after X free articles). The citations without URLs were primarily accessed from my library's NewsBank, which does not allow for straightforward permanent links; the ones they do generate tend to expire after a week. As such, I don't think it would be worthwhile to link them, especially since WP:SOURCEACCESS permits the use of offline sources. SounderBruce 00:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. I'll AGF on the offline sources. One more thing. I'd suggest moving the see also template at the beginning of the list to a new section. -- EN-Jungwon 15:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2023

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's that time of year again, when I nominate the outgoing year's list of US country number ones (yes, I realise there are still two and a half chart weeks of the year remaining, but you know you can trust me to add the correct info for those :-) ). This has been a really big year for country music in the mainstream, with no fewer than four country number ones also topping the all-genre Hot 100, including a song which debuted at number one on both listings by a guy with literally no prior chart history at all, which is pretty amazing...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• I feel like the fact that "Last Night" was number 1 for twenty-five weeks and was the first country song from a male singer to top the Hot 100 in decades is buried; that kind of fact should probably come earlier (maybe as the caption for the lead image).
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• "the year's longest unbroken run in the top spot of both charts, with 25 weeks at number one on Hot Country Songs" – implies all 25 weeks were consecutive, which isn't right
  • Dumb typo changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• Jelly Roll should sort by "J", not "R"
  • It does and always has done........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    •  Self-trout Forgot that Jordan Davis sorts by "D", not "J". RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty nitpicky with these, it's another really good list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: - thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• In August, Oliver Anthony went straight in at number one -- could it be written as it debuted at number one?
• The track was only the second duet by a -- the track became the second duet
• Got nothing else to quibble. Another solid work. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Pseud 14: - thanks - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

NØ

• Image review - pass: All of the images seem to be appropriately licensed. A lot of really high quality original uploads here, lol. But a reverse image search did not produce any uploads on other sites that predate the upload to wiki so all is good.
• Source review - pass: Billboard should be italicized in the titles of refs 1, 4, and 12. All sources cited are reliable and formatting is otherwise consistent.
• "Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay are charts that rank the top-performing country music songs" - Would it be okay to just say "country songs" instead of "country music songs"?
• I would suggest simplifying this bit: "Hot Country Songs ranks songs based on digital downloads, streaming, and airplay not only from country stations but from stations of all formats" as even just that would get the point across.
• "In August, Oliver Anthony entered the Hot Country Songs listing at number one with "Rich Men North of Richmond" (credited to "Oliver Anthony Music")" - Is the credit relevant enough to note in parenthesis? It is very similar to his real name. Perhaps, this could be simplified as "In August, Oliver Anthony Music entered the Hot Country Songs listing at number one with "Rich Men North of Richmond"
• "As of the issue dated December 23, Wallen has had the year's most country number ones, having had four songs top one or both charts." - This can probably be stated as a definite fact in past tense now since the one week left in the year is not enough for anyone else to overtake this achievement.
• "and another song which was considered controversial, "Rich Men North of Richmond" - It might be helpful to mention it was considered controversial by critics, since it is best to have some attribution for claims like this.
• That's it! Glad to see "I Remember Everything" performed so well on this chart.--NØ 22:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: - thanks for your review! All done bar the Oliver Anthony one. I would prefer to keep it as it is, to make it 100% clear that his surname isn't "Music" (you say that "It is very similar to his real name" but people reading this article in isolation might not know that his "real" name (which isn't actually his real name) is Oliver Anthony -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support--NØ 09:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Refs 17, 19, and 20 are all to Rolling Stones, but only one has the subscription icon. I don't regularly use the website, so I don't know, but is there a reason for this?
• Under see also, List of artists who reached number one on the U.S. Hot Country chart is a redirect, you should probably bypass that to List of artists who reached number one on the U.S. Hot Country chart

Great work as always Chris! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: - thanks for the review, both points addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Great stuff. Easy support as always :) Hey man im josh (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [4].

---

List of variations on Pachelbel's Canon

Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Pachelbel's Canon, notorious for its ubiquity to the point of annoyance in pop music... actually isn't all that ubiquitous! But it is the muse and inspiration of many a pop song, and this list gets into the what and why of that phenomenon :) bit of an unconventional push, but hope it's up to code regardless! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "Could add "(also known as the Canon in D)" to the first sentence. I think it's necessary to mention the piece's other name.
• Is this the best title for the page? Would "List of songs based on Pachelbel's Canon" be a better title? Variations implies a stronger connection to the original composition than merely being inspired by the original composition.
• "20th century revival". Can this be changed to "20th-century revival".
• I notice that the lead talks about a 20th century revival, but many songs listed are from the 21st century.
• Is Limelight referring to Limelight (magazine)? Can that page be linked? I have no idea since there is no publisher or publication place in the reference to Limelight.
• "Acts like Maroon 5 were able to sample the piece because it is in the public domain, and is no longer covered by copyright protection". This can be simplified to "Acts like Maroon 5 were able to sample the piece because it is in the public domain and no longer covered by copyright protection".
• "Each entry should include exactly one link to either the track, the album, or the artist." Is this something that is normally stated in mainspace for regular readers to read? Can't this be a comment?

That's all for now. Steelkamp (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Steelkamp! I've actioned everything but the second point in this edit; as to the second point, I think that it's reasonable to call these works reinterpretations of the Canon, as most if not all of them (having listened to nearly all of them) bring their own style to it, and very few of them copy the melody verbatim (which is something I experienced a lot as playing vars. on violin). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the 20th century comment, I was more referring to the sentence "in the latter half of the 20th century", which I think could be changed to "in the latter half of the 20th century and the 21st century." Steelkamp (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: changed to "since the 1960s" :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. I will leave you with one final suggestion for the page's title: "List of works based on Pachelbel's Canon". This isn't really in the featured list criteria so I will support nevertheless. Steelkamp (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "Maroon 5 were able to sample the piece" - "sampling" refers to incorporating a literal piece of another recording into your recording e.g. M.I.A. using an actual extract from the Clash's song "Straight to Hell" in her track "Paper Planes". If Maroon 5 simply incorporated musical elements of the piece into the composition of their song but performed it all themselves then that isn't sampling. I would suggest "interpolate" is probably the word to use -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Interest in Pachelbel's work ticked up some" - is this an American expression? I'm not familiar with it...
• "A few songs that reference Pachelbel's piece, such as Vitamin C's "Graduation (Friends Forever)" copy" => "A few songs that reference Pachelbel's piece, such as Vitamin C's "Graduation (Friends Forever)", copy"
• Wikilink Pete Waterman, as he has his own article
• ""Hook", from the Blues Traveler's 1994 album Four" - the band is just called Blues Traveler, not the Blues Traveler
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks a ton! Made this edit to address :) (also, i redid the sections here a bit per MOS:DLIST, hope you don't mind) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from Aza24

Not sure how much time I'll have to review but here are some quick glance comments:

• You need a date in the lead. I changed Baroque to "mid-Baroque" but we need a century or year range or something.
  • the Canon is famously difficult to pin to a timeline, so I'll just add Pachelbel's lifespan.
• "Pachelbel's Canon, a musical composition by Johann Pachelbel" sounds incredibly awkward. Drop the "musical"—in fact, I would just say something like "Johann Pachelbel wrote his Canon in D in the mid-Baroque.... and it has since been...". See what you think works, but the current redudancy should be avoided
• Its worth describing what a canon is somewhere.
• there are many terms that should be linked, intervals, "note", and things like revival of Baroque-era compositions (Early music revival)
• Who is on the Paillard recording? If its a ton of individuals, no need to list, but an ensemble should certainly be said
  • Maybe there's something about that in the sources relevant to this, but I didn't see it? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Your musicological analysis is rather confusing, although I can see you are working with a source by someone who doesn't seem to be a theorist (btw, music theory (analysis) is usually considered separate from musicology (history/sociology/etc.), there is some overlap, but theory will always be analysis whereas musicology will not). The canon's bassline is really not that extraordinary, theoretically speaking, its mastery is in the convincing melodic lines throughout. It is a Descending thirds sequence, which is the standard way of saying "with the first note in each pair dropping by a perfect fourth to the second note before the next pair starts elsewhere in the scale". In addition, iirc its relatively similar to the romanesca progression; these are both (the desc thirds sequence and romanesca) probably things that should be said.
• A brief tidbit about how Pachelbel was only really known for keyboard music might make the overshadowing of this work make more sense
  • Yeah, but I don't think that's directly relevant? It's important that it was forgotten, but the resurgence should take up most of the ink. If you have a source that connects the two, i can take a look? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Fair point, we don't want Synth here after all – Aza24 (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• I'm assuming its increasing use in weddings and other public events also inspired its use in songs, maybe worth a mention?
  • Couldn't find a source that explicitly connects the two that way, which sucks because I'm sure you're right :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Was probably a tough ask to begin with. I've been doing some research on Pachelbel (for a separate topic) and scholarship on him is scattered and super disorganized; the canon is also virtually ignored. Aza24 (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "from the Canon's violin melody" makes it sound like they took the whole 4 minute melody. Perhaps it should be clarified to be a snippet
• that's all I have time for I think, but thanks for tackling a cool list like this! Aza24 (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Aza24! Made some fixes and replies :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Aza24: Apologies for the poke – have the issues been resolved? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  • • Yes, I think so! I linked Sequence (music) since it is probably the main defining characteristic of the canon's underlying harmonies. Support – Aza24 (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [5].

---

List of Detroit Lions first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This would be my 9th FL overall and #21 in the FL series based on NFL franchise's first-round draft pick history. I based the formatting and structure on the other 20 lists at Wikipedia:Featured lists#National Football League. As always, please let me know if you find any issues or anything that can be improved upon and I will do my best to respond and make changes as quickly as possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by CaptainTeebs

• If I had a nickel for every time the Lions drafted one of the greatest skill position players ever and caused them to lose their passion for football and retire in their prime, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. I'll leave comments soon.--CaptainTeebs (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  @CaptainTeebs: The life of a Lions fan includes much misery and disappointment, at least for the last few decades. Never the less... I'm drinking the blue Kool aid. There is hope on the horizon that we may soon stop hearing about the Lions last playoff win being 1991 and that we've never won the division. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support Very well done with this list, don't see anything to fix. CaptainTeebs (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "Moved down the draft order in trade Kansas City Chiefs" - missing a word, I think
• Notes A and G do not need full stops
• That's it, I think - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Done! Thanks so much for looking over the list and providing feedback =) Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "The team which received this "bonus" pick forfeited its selection in the final round of the draft and became ineligible for another "bonus pick" after they were awarded the pick." I may have been responsible for this, but "after they were awarded the pick" can probably be replaced with "afterwards" since you have already established that it is in relation to the pick
• Do you think that somethinglike the sentence "Since the first draft, the Lions have selected 91 players in the first round." might be better as the first sentence of the article (with some amendments, but so it is clear from the beginning what the topic is)?

That's pretty much it from here. (For full disclosure: I offered Josh comments on this article off-wiki, on the discord prior to nomination).Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions @Eddie891 (both on and off-wiki), I very much appreciate it! I've implemented your first suggestion, which definitely flows better. As for the second point, I see where you're coming from, but I'm finding it difficult to find a place for it earlier in the lead without it feeling shoehorned in.

• First paragraph -> Intro to the team
• Second paragraph -> General overview of what the draft is (not yet team specific)
• Third paragraph -> More specific info about the draft in general (when it started, not yet team specific)
• Fourth and fifth paragraphs -> Team specific facts

I'm open to it but I'm just not sure how without doing a larger rearrangement of sorts which I think will read more clunkily. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess you're right, happy to Support Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• Is there a reason why the image of Calvin Johnson is in the footnotes section?
• Ref 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 36, 37, 40, 43, 44; add |via=[[Newspaper.com]]
• Ref 20; add |url-access=subscription
• Ref 23; add author Max Demara and date=22 April 2019
• Ref 30, 39; is there a better website name for this
• Some refs have missing authors and dates. PLease add them.

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 16:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon:

• Calvin Johnson picture image – No, I just wanted to add another image and I thought it fit well there. In hindsight, this section is essentially treated like a reference section, so it should not actually be included there. I've moved it.
• Ref 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 36, 37, 40, 43, 44; add – Done with "Newspapers.com" instead of "Newspaper.com" (now refs 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 35, 38, 39, 42, 45, 46). Thank you, I'll keep this in mind for future references I add from Newspapers.com.
• Ref 20; add |url-access=subscription – Done
• Ref 23; add author Max Demara and date=22 April 2019 – Done (now ref 25)
• Ref 30, 39; is there a better website name for this – (Now refs 32 and 39) There's nowhere I can find on-wiki to link to, but I have changed it from "=www.prosportstransactions.com" to "=Pro Sports Transactions". Is this acceptable?
• Some refs have missing authors and dates. PLease add them. – I believe I've added them wherever possible now.

On a related note, is there a better citation tool I could be using to help catch some of these things that I've missed? I find these critiques quite helpful, but after several hours working on an article I'm bound to miss one of these again if the citation tool isn't including them. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. I didn't use any tools to review this list. I just went through each reference one by one. -- EN-Jungwon 10:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Giants2008: I noticed this list is listed as needing a source review as of a couple days ago. Is this review by EN-Jungwon not enough for a source review? Or does someone need to explicitly state that a source review has been passed? Hey man im josh (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Yes, an explicit source review is what we need at some stage. @EN-Jungwon: was this specifically meant to be a source review? If so, please put a bold Source review or similar in the future so that the closers can see at a glance whether this part of the review has been completed. Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind moving forward, thanks @Giants2008. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This is more of a formatting review. I'm not sure how to do a source review so I'm no help there. -- EN-Jungwon 09:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• Major questions about the paraphrasing in this list:
  • Text: "is an annual event which serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment", ref 8: "is an annual event [...] which serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment". This is verbatim from Ref 8.
  • Text: "Detroit forfeited their 1966 first-round selection [...] to the Green Bay Packers as compensation for signing free agent Ron Kramer", ref 16: "1966 The Lions forfeited their first-round selection to the Green Bay Packers as compensation for signing free agent Ron Kramer". Again this is verbatim.
  • Text: "From 1947 through 1958 the first selection was awarded by a random draw. [...] By 1958 all twelve clubs in the league at the time had received a bonus choice and the system was abolished" Ref 12: "From 1947 through 1958, the first selection of the draft was [...] awarded to the winner of a random draw. [...] The system was abolished after 1958, by which time all clubs had received a Bonus pick.". The first sentence is practically verbatim, and the second is moving the clauses of the source around.

Unfortunately I think this source review is going to have to be an oppose (see below) for now, based on the repeated evidence of close paraphrasing and verbatim text-lifting. I have not spot-checked all sources, so the problems could be more widespread. This will need to be fixed in all cases before I strike this !vote. Sorry, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 22:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow that's embarrassing, thanks for bringing these up @Schminnte. I actually had issues with the text in the first and third quotes and that was the wording that was chosen in other lists that I had been using for reference, so I'll make sure to work on that today and, once it's been assessed as making sense and not a violation in any way, I'll replace the same phrasing in other articles. As for the second example, I do think that's a coincidence, as it's the phrasing I've been using for these types of lists, but I'll work on rephrasing it and ping again once all these issues have been resolved. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• "...is an annual event which serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment" – That text is taken from and used on National Football League Draft. That text, in that exact phrasing, has existed at the page since May 18, 2018, which predates the article that's used as reference (February 18, 2021). Do you still think the text should be changed?
• I've changed "Detroit forfeited their 1966 first-round selection [...] to the Green Bay Packers as compensation for signing free agent Ron Kramer" to "Detroit traded their 1966 first-round selection (No. 8 overall) to the Green Bay Packers for the right to sign free agent Ron Kramer.". This is arguably a more accurate reflection of the exchange and I've added a couple sources that help to support that. I didn't realize the previous text used was present in a completely separate reference than what I used for that note.
• I've reworked the paragraph that the quotes in the third bullet point are pulled from.

Hopefully this addresses all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, meant to send a ping to you @Schminnte. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm satisfied with that. I'll strike the oppose and continue the source review. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 17:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Source reliability looks fine apart from one query: what makes Pro Sports Transactions a reliable source?
• Could citations be standardised to either title or sentence case?
• Other spotchecks seem fine

I think that's all now. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 17:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte:

• Pro Sports Transaction has never been discussed as a reliable source on-wiki, at least as far as I could tell. It's a sports database which I don't tend to give enough weight to be the only source, but I use it to help verify some minor aspects of trades. To be more specific, the overall pick numbers for later round picks are often not included in trade summaries in newspaper articles, instead being referred to as a "seventh-round selection", and not specified beyond that. In instances where I use this reference, it's only meant to support what position in the draft that those later picks end up being, which are ultimately insignificant to the article's scope, but help to provide additional context (in my opinion). This is also often the case with teams listing their own draft history as well, which is part of what makes it frustrating when trying to find more well known sources. Hopefully that makes sense and answers the question adequately.
• It was my understanding that we don't typically look for standardization of the titles that the sources choose to use.

Thanks. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh:

• I'm more meaning about its reliability, not what it supports. The reason I ask is that it seems to be a self published source by Frank Marousek. Can you verify that he is a subject matter expert, or that the site has been used by other reliable sources?
• As I'm more used to FAC, I didn't realise that this wasn't common here. Still, per MOS:ALLCAPS, citations should be standardised for a consistent WP:CITESTYLE.

Hope this helps, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 17:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: I've replaced the references for Pro Sports Transactions until I hear back the site (I've reached out to them, as I would like to use this reference in the future). As for the reference formatting, I'm going to ping @PresN about the capitalization consistency of references, as I don't believe that's ever been something that we've looked for at FLC and I'd like to get clarification from them on this. Also, I don't believe I have any references that are all caps, just capitalizations that are inconsistent among the references because I took the capitalization of the titles used by the sources, which I thought would be more appropriate than changing the capitalization that they use. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

We enforce not having ALLCAPS/shouting, but that's it. We don't enforce a consistent title capitalization scheme in references; frankly neither do most people at FAC, I've only had someone bring it up to me once. I know it got into a guideline somewhere, but I personally find it a little strange to reformat ref titles to align to sentence case vs title case instead of following the actual source title capitalization. --PresN 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Funnily, I was asking since that's what I've been exposed to as well at FAC. Maybe I've fallen victim to a small sample size bias, my bad. Anyway, if that's not needed then I'm happy with the source review now, so this is a pass. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 08:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @PresN, appreciate the quick response and clarification. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [6].

---

Dutch Athlete of the Year

Nominator(s): Editør (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the featured list criteria. Editør (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment

Just a drive-by comment, but I noticed that the list does not currently meet MOS:DTAB. PresN has a boilerplate comment that they usually make about this which can be found here. That will need to be addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added col and row scopes for the tables, hopefully this is in order now. – Editør (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

And I've made some additional changes to the tables and the rest of the article. – Editør (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh, it is my understanding that this FLC needs additional votes to be promoted, so I wanted to ask if you would give it another look. – Editør (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk

• In recent years, the award was presented - since what year? "In recent years" is too vague

  I agree this is not very precise. I've copyedited the text so that it now describes the current state of affairs similar to the selection/voting procedure. – Editør (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• It was renamed to KNAU Cup - the KNAU Cup? If so, add "the" for everytime KNAU is mentioned

  I've added the article "the" before "KNAU Cup" in the running text. – Editør (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• The references should be properly formatted using Template:Cite web or Template:Cite news; this will ensure consistency and highlight any errors

  It seems that you've already formatted them, so I suppose this is no longer an issue. – Editør (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• On the topic of refs, the lack thereof is concerning to me- only six refs for this whole award? If there are so few sources about the award, is it notable?

  Source #5 is a chapter from a book about the history of athletics in the Netherlands. The chapter lists all the award's winners from 1933 until 1999. The source seemed reliable to me, so I haven't tried to find an individual source for each winner. The winners from 2000 until 2022 come from more recent overviews from the athletics federation organizing the awards (which contain some irregularities for the older winners). To independently demonstrate the subject's notability, I have added (recent) articles from three news organisations De Telegraaf/2022, NOS/2019, and Algemeen Dagblad/2021. Let me know if you think it requires additional sources. – Editør (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  On further inspection, I'm not so sure that the information in source #5 is entirely accurate for the period of the Sauer Cup, so I am looking into this now. – Editør (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've added individual sources for three tables, I intend to look at the fourth table (48 rows) later. – Editør (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've added sources for the fourth table, but it is still missing individual sources for 15 rows. – Editør (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Editør, all done, nice work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I will respond to them above. – Editør (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Editør, the citations are still not formatted as proper templates. See Wikipedia:Citing sources if you need. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you had formatted them, but now I see you've only added archive links. I don't believe that there is information missing in the citations nor that the suggested templates are obligatory, so I would prefer to leave it like this. – Editør (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Editør, using templates just cuts down on errors and makes it easier for bots to handle. Nos you've added many more sources, which is good, but why are some cells missing refs? Take the 1978 row in the "Herman van Leeuwen Cup and KNAU Cup" table: why is there no ref for this? Also, Ref column headers can use Template:Abbr for easier understanding: Ref. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added the abbr template. Regarding your question, it's work in progress, see also my comments above. – Editør (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I've filled the empty spots with generic sources until individual source are found or become available. – Editør (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough then- support now, great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "as the eponymous Sauer" - can we give this person's full name?

  It is not in the source that I found, and I have already searched for it, but I will look for it some more. – Editør (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've found another source (newspaper article from 1990) that mentions that the "Sauer" of the Sauer Cup was a member of the National Socialist Movement (N.S.B.), but no first name or initials are given there either (source, see at the end of the section "Onderscheidingen"). – Editør (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, if sources don't give it than you can't do any more -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Since 2018, this award is merged" => "Since 2018, this award has been merged"

  Changed it. – Editør (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• "while the award for junior male athletes continued as Albert Spree Cup" => "while the award for junior male athletes continued as the Albert Spree Cup"

  Changed it. – Editør (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Sprinter Tinus Osendarp was the first winner in 1933, when it was called Sauer Cup." => "Sprinter Tinus Osendarp was the first winner in 1933, when it was called the Sauer Cup."

  Changed it. – Editør (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• "In the years between 2011 and 2018, also a separate award for para-athletes existed" => "In the years between 2011 and 2018, a separate award for para-athletes also existed"

  Changed it. – Editør (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note 2 should not have a full stop as it is not a sentence

  Changed it. – Editør (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I will respond to them above. – Editør (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. As a note, it's not required, but it can be helpful for readers to add a |trans-title= with a translation of the title to references in non-English languages. --PresN 18:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [7].

---

List of sunbirds

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Our next bird list is the largest one yet, with 140 something species of really cute, shiny birds. The cranes list has three supports now, so I think nominating this is fine now. AryKun (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk

• A recent animal list article I reviewed (List of tarsiiformes) has a column titled "Size and ecology"- why does this list lack that column?
  • The bird lists don't have them, see discussion here.
• The use of parentheses around the birds' discoverer (namer? finder?) is inconsistent; the Mangrove sunbird uses "(Hartlaub, 1861)", but the Red-throated sunbird uses "Shelley, 1878", no parenthesis for the latter
  • The parentheses indicate that the species was originally described in a genus different from the one it is currently placed in. I'd add a note, but the tables are autogenerated from Template:Species table, so you'll have to ask PresN to change it.
• Sclater, WL & Moreau, 1935 - why does Sclater get initials but Moreau doesn't?
  • Following IOC's usage; it's because there's another Sclater that he could be confused with (who actually is also mentioned in the list). I've gone through the list and fixed any inconsistencies I saw between the IOC list and ours, so it should be fine now.
• Use of initials is inconsistent, too (e.g. C. H. B. Grant & Mackworth-Praed, 1943 but earlier there's Sclater, WL & Moreau, 1935, the latter having initials after)
  • Moved C. H. B. to after.
• In the Rufous-winged sunbird row, Jensen is a red link; may be intentional, but felt worth mentioning (ditto for the Lina's sunbird row)
  • Yes, intentional red-link; he seems notable enough for an article to me, having described several species of birds relatively recently.
• To be consistent with other journal citations, Winkler et. al. 2020 should be formatted as a cite journal template
  • Done.

AryKun, that's all from me, very nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk, see replies inline above. AryKun (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

SilverTiger

• ...and males are much more strikingcolorful than females,...
  • The source specifically says "striking"; also, striking and colorful aren't really synonyms, so it'd be a bit of OR to say this. AryKun (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• They inhabit a wide variety of habitats, from arid savannah to tropical rainforests, and can be found from sea level to an altitude of 4,900 m (16,100 ft). Sunbirds are generally small birds with long, thin, down-curved bills and brightly coloured, iridescent plumages. You use citation [2] at the end of both of these sentences; consider only having it at the end of the second.
  • Done. AryKun (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• Please add a cladogram (of the genera) if you can find one.
  • I can't find any phylogenies that treat the whole family; most of them are limited to specific genera or regions, and the only one that seems to deal with the whole family is over 15 years old, so it's really outdated and I'm not really comfortable putting it in. AryKun (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• Use "Democratic Republic of the Congo", not the abbreviated "DCR".
  • Done. AryKun (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

SilverTiger12, see replies above. AryKun (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I see the language has changed at some point in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking regarding whether countries should be linked, so I don't know what to say about Philippines, etc.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review).
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements, but this is not an image review.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: Clements dropped their 2023 update yesterday, so I've updated the article to reflect that (there's a split for olive-backed, a lump for metallic-winged, and a possible undescribed species from Tanzania). AryKun (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

At 140-something species, this was many, many images.

• There's an available picture of a dead Uluguru violet-backed sunbird, though not using it is understandable.
• All images are appropriately licensed.
• But, all images need alt-text.

Hopefully this list can be promoted before too much longer. Good luck and happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@AryKun:, did you see this? SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

SilverTiger12, yes, I'll try to finish it up in the next 3 or 4 days. AryKun (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@AryKun: how is work progressing on this? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Am working on it; I'm about two-thirds of the way through, will be done in the next 3 or 4 days (promise this time). AryKun (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

SilverTiger12 and Giants2008, after an unholy amount of procrastinating and an actual "One month later" meme, I've finally finished adding alts to all images. Very sorry for the delay. AryKun (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Pass image review. Thanks for putting up with my requests. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [8].

---

List of songs recorded by Tate McRae

Nominator(s): NØ 19:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the list of songs recorded by Tate McRae. You may have first heard of her when she was launched as a Billie Eilish copycat four years ago. She has been making bigger waves recently, with her more Britney Spears / Christina Aguilera-influenced pop music. She also highly uses TikTok as a marketing platform like, ahem, another pop singer-songwriter I take a lot of interest in. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 19:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "Canadian singer Tate McRae has recorded songs for two studio albums, two extended plays (EP), one mixtape, as well as some collaborative projects" => "Canadian singer Tate McRae has recorded songs for two studio albums, two extended plays (EP) and one mixtape, as well as some collaborative projects"
• "pursue dancing and singing careers parallelly" => "pursue dancing and singing careers in parallel"
• "McRae earned her first-ever Billboard Hot 100 chart entry" => "McRae earned her first Billboard Hot 100 chart entry"
• "Mcrae combined" => "McRae combined"
• "Mcrae has contributed songs" - as above
• "Billie Eilish O'Connell co-wrote "Tear Myself Apart"." => "Billie Eilish co-wrote "Tear Myself Apart"." (her surname is not part of her commonly-used name)
• That's it I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Should all be done now! Much thanks for the review as always :-) NØ 07:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support - funnily enough "Greedy" was playing when I turned my car radio on this morning..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Image review: Passed
  • Images are relevant
  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed

• Source review: Passed
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent publisher formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 8 sources match what they are being cited for

Looks good! My only nitpick is that there is no short description. Please include a short description of {{Short description|none}}. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Added the short description, Hey man im josh! Thanks a lot for your reviews. Greatly appreciated!--NØ 15:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support: Thank you for the word you put in @MaranoFan! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• McRae released a string of singles between 2017 and 2018 -- a string of singles sounds a bit informal. Perhaps use something like several or few, or something along those lines.

• I agree that "a string of" doesn't sound encyclopaedic, but, rather than using a vague quantifier, could we just specify exactly how many singles it was (eight, I think)? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• I am against using an exact number, specifically because the Apple Music source does not explicitly give one, and it cannot back up that McRae did not release additional singles that are unavailable on AM.--NØ 09:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• including singles "Greedy" and "Exes" -- including the singles.
• That's all I could find. Solid work. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Pseud 14: Many thanks for the comments. All addressed!--NØ 09:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment "Billie Eilish O'Connell is Billie Eilish's full name." I really don't think this note is needed. Billie Eilish O'Connell already pipes to Billie Eilish, and it's not like there are also notes saying "Cornell Haynes Jr. is Nelly's full name" or "Bryan Fryzel is Frequency's full name" or "Keegan Bach is KBeaZy's full name" or anything like that. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• The Eilish note has been removed.--NØ 09:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [9].

---

List of Black Singles number ones of 1982

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's my 40th nomination in this series. Hopefully this time round I have picked up all those niggly little things which kept getting mentioned at FLCs but which I kept forgetting to apply to subsequent lists. Can't promise anything, though :-) Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

NØ

• Image review - pass: The images are all appropriately licensed. AGF on the ticket on the Aretha Franklin image. I do notice there are less images on this one than other lists of this kind; if you decide to add more, would be happy to review those as well :-)
• "the chart has undergone various name changes over the decades to reflect the evolution of black music and since 2005 has been published as Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs." - Either adjustment with "since 2005" would be fine: additional commas or moving it to the end of the sentence
• "also reached the top position for the first time. Of the six acts who topped the chart in 1982 for the first time" - perhaps some variation is possible to avoid this in close proximity
• ""Sexual Healing" by Marvin Gaye spent eight weeks at number one during the year but would extend its run to ten in early 1983" - To be cohesive with the tense, the "would" phrasing could maybe be avoided.
• Very minor nitpicky comments from me this time. Really great job with this!--NØ 07:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: - thanks for your review. All done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support--NØ 09:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Is there any reason you use "Earth, Wind and Fire" as the artist instead of "Earth, Wind & Fire"? It looks like the article page, as well as the sources cited, use the ampersand.
• Formatting for the date in ref 13 is inconsistent with the rest of the references.

Other than that, looks good to me and passed a source review. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: - done the first one. Re: the second one, ref 13 doesn't have a date in it. Are you sure that's the one you meant? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I see what happened, I was editing a section (to look over accessibility), so it only showed the reflist for that section at the time. In the overall reflist it's reference 28. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: - gotcha, fixed now. I did look through all the refs to see if I could spot the offending one but I think my eyes glazed over after a while :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Extremely relatable lol. Suppport!. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Ref=Reference abbreviation in the table :)
• I think you may have missed the "sronly" hidden text for screen readers as in the table as well
• In the last paragraph, I think the statements that follow the semi-colon can be a separate sentence.
• Also, on those sentences, I recall from a review (perhaps FAC or FLC), that we should refrain from saying "the singer", instead use the surname or the appropriate pronoun.
• That's all I got! Very minor nitpicks, for an otherwise very solid work we'd expect from you. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Pseud 14: - see, I knew it was too much to hope I had fixed all those little things :-) Thanks for taking the time to review the article, and all the above is fixed now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Very minor and easy fix :) Looks good! Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review –

• Reliability looks fine across the board.
• Ref 17 needs en dashes to replace the hyphens in the title.
• The 1996 Whitburn book shouldn't be listed as it doesn't appear as a cite, unless I missed it in the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: - done. Either I removed/replaced the Whitburn 96 ref(s) or else it was a copy+paste fail from one of my other lists :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [10].

---

List of birds of Bouvet Island

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Another tiny island list; this is kind of a lazy nom because I'm procrastinating on the leads for the bird lists, but such is life. AryKun (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• What is sourcing the first two paragraphs of the lead? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  Huyser 2001, listed in General in the Refs section. It's the only good source for the island and cites basically the entire lead, so I haven't cited it inline, similarly to how Lepage and Clements et al. 2023 aren't cited inline. AryKun (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  ChrisTheDude, reminder. AryKun (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "Bouvet experiences average annual temperatures of −2.7–1.6 °C" - that looks confusing with the minus sign and the dash. I would change to "Bouvet experiences average annual temperatures of between −2.7 and 1.6 °C"
  • Changed.

• "There are 41 species of birds that have been recorded from Bouvet Island" => "There are 41 species of birds that have been recorded on Bouvet Island"
  • Changed.

• "and black-bellied storm petrel" => "and the black-bellied storm petrel"
  • Changed.

• "The following tags have been used to highlight several categories" - given that there's apparently only one category/tag, could it simply be incorporated into the prose
  • Done.

• "They are pelagic birds" - no idea what this means, is there a link?
  • Linked; I could replace with seabird, but pelagic has the additional connotation of mainly occurring on the open sea, instead of in coastal areas like sandpipers would.

• "and are the extremely small seabirds" => "and are extremely small seabirds"
  • Changed.

• General refs look better before specific IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I vaguely remember being told that the MOS requires specific before general in some previous FLC; I'm not sure if this is correct, though.

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Grungaloo

• Bouvet vs Bouvet Island - Both are used throughout the article, recommend sticking to one for consistency.
  • Changed all to Bouvet Island.

• "And two mammals known from the island" - Technically correct writing but for laypeople can sound odd and may imply that the animals were known because of the island.
  • Tweaked.

• "The most important breeding species" - what does it mean to be important in this context? Largest, most vulnerable, rarest?
  • They're the species mentioned by the source, I've tweaked it a bit to align more closely with that.

• "The commonly occurring native species do not fall into any of these categories." - Could maybe drop this. There's only one tag and it only applies to one species.
  • Done

• "They are pelagic birds and feed on a variety of animals, such as fish, bird eggs, and lemmings, by hunting, scavenging, or kleptoparasitizing them." - Lots of commas, suggest splitting into two sentences or putting "such as fish, bird eggs, and lemmings" into brackets or em-dashes.
  • Added em-dashes.

• The Skuas+Jaeger and Gull family descriptions don't start with "The" but the others do (the penguins, the albatrosses). Suggest making it consistent (personally I like it without "the").
  • Removed "the" throughout.

• Northern royal albatross binomial name should be Diomedea sanfordi. grungaloo (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• Serial commas - use is inconsistent. "Consists of heaps of boulders, lava and gravel" vs "one species of worm, and two mammals". Suggest switching to one or the other - I can list out all occurrences if needed. grungaloo (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think I've changed all to Oxford. AryKun (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- Looks great AryKun! grungaloo (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Dank

• Not sure if I have anything to add; let's try some questions first.
• "true" petrels: do reliable sources usually call them "the true petrels"? If so, we should create a redirect for "true petrel" (which we don't have now), and the article on them should describe them as "true petrels" (it doesn't now), and you should drop the quote marks. If not, then my recommendation is to avoid the term. (I understand that naturalists use the word "true" whenever they feel like it; I just don't think that's a good idea on Wikipedia, because I think the informal meaning will confuse a lot of readers.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Dank and Jimfbleak: the wording "true petrels" seems to have been used only on Wikipedia and other mirrors, so I've removed it. I guess it was introduced by whoever first mass-created the species lists, and that description was just copied to the other ones later on. AryKun (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Good sleuthing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to comment or edit. Nothing else is jumping out at me as a prose problem.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Jim

I agree with Dan regarding the petrels, otherwise all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Source review – Reliability of the references looks sufficiently strong across the board. One formatting issue should be looked at: the second general reference spells out the publishing/access dates, while the rest of the cites use YYYY-MM-DD style. These should be made consistent in whichever way is desired, likely by changing the formatting in the one reference that is different than the others. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Giants2008, standardized to YYYY-MM-DD. AryKun (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [11].

---

Nuovo Award

Nominator(s): The Night Watch (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the Nuovo Award, an award at the Independent Games Festival devoted to giving attention towards art games. I helped work on this list a few months back, and I believe that it is fully comprehensive and has all the information I could find for this award. This is my first FLC, so I would appreciate any advice on how to improve the page. Thanks for reviewing! The Night Watch (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude

• I think "Nominations for the award are made by the IGF's judges, and the winner is decided from among eight finalists through voting by an elected jury. The finalists are chosen by the jury from among the nominees, and a few others are given honorable mentions if they receive insufficient votes to become finalists" might work better as "Nominations for the award are made by the IGF's judges . Eight finalists are chosen by an elected jury from among the nominees and a few others are given honorable mentions if they receive insufficient votes to become finalists. The winner is decided from among the finalists by jury voting."
• Developer column needs to sort based on surname, not forename (where it's a person rather than a studio)
• Notes should go before refs, not after
• Note a needs a full stop
• that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comments! I'm just unsure on how to sort based on surname, I'm not the most experienced when it comes to designing Wikitables. Is there a specific way for me to sort them? The Night Watch (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  You would need to use a sorting template, so instead of having [[Daniel Benmergui]] you would have {{sortname|Daniel|Benmergui}}. This would still display the same in the table but would make it sort based on B not D. If the person does not have an article, add |nolink=1 before the closing curly bracket. Hope that helps!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I believe I have fixed it hopefully. The Night Watch (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  You missed the full stop on note a, but I added that and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

NegativeMP1

First time reviewing a featured X candidate, this is all that I was able to notice.

• In the 2010 row, wikilink Cactus to Jonatan Söderström. Since the citation provided doesn't specifically name Cactus to be Söderström, this article by RPS may have to be added as a citation unless I am mistaken.
• "Bientot l'Ete wikilink" → "Bientôt l’Été" (Correct the wikilink as well, since the latter is the redirect).
• Wikilink ib in 2023 to Ib (video game)
• The archive link for the 2023 citation pulls up the 2021 archive.

Think that's about it. NegativeMP1 03:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I got everything. The Night Watch (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay that should be it unless more stuff needs to be wikilinked that went under the radar, but overall I see no issues with the prose or anything else, so I'm happy to support this. NegativeMP1 18:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf

Same as NegativeMP1, first time reviewing featured anything, onlything I noticed was

• What is the significance of the dollar amount of the prize winnings? There's a chance I'm interpreting this wrong but WP:NOTPRICE seems to show that unless it's significant it generally shouldn't be mentioned.

If I'm interpreting that wrong then looking through it I didn't see any other issues. No problems with duplicate links (I checked with my tool and it found none) so if I'm wrong with my interpretation of that then I support. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 03:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say there is encyclopedic significance of the monetary winnings to justify its inclusion, since the published articles on the Nuovo award did mention its specific amount. Other FLs also do mention the specific monetary winnings for their awards such as List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates, List of Nobel Memorial Prize laureates in Economic Sciences, and some others. The Night Watch (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I had a feeling I was probably wrong about it but figured I'd mention it just in case. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 21:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [12].

---

List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2015)

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Explicit (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

After eight Music Bank related FLCs I am moving towards another South Korean music programs, Inkigayo. We'll be starting with the 2015 article. Explicit is the main contributor to these lists and I have got their permission to nominate these lists. -- EN-Jungwon 13:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "Up until February 1" => "Up until February 1, 2015"
• " Hwang Kwang-hee, Kim Yoo-jung and Hong Jong-hyun hosted the show together since December 28, 2014" => " Hwang Kwang-hee, Kim Yoo-jung and Hong Jong-hyun had hosted the show together since December 28, 2014"
• "starting the April 12 broadcast" => "starting with the April 12 broadcast"
• "alongside Yoo-jung and Jackson" => "alongside Yoo-jung and Wang"
• "and achieved a triple crown" - what does that mean?
• "Member Taeyeon ranked number one for the first time on the chart with her debut single "I"" - source for it being the first?
• "They ranked two other singles on the chart in 2015 achieved with "Ah Yeah" and "Hot Pink"" => "They topped the chart with two other singles in 2015: "Ah Yeah" and "Hot Pink"" ("ranked on the chart" could mean they appeared at any position, not just number one)
• I see that "Triple crown" is linked in the key. It should be linked (and briefly explained) in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude I believe this is done. Let me know if there is anything else to improve. -- EN-Jungwon 09:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk

• Might just be me, but what do the percentages in para 1 mean? Is it how much that category weighs their score? If so, clarify that
  • Removed the percentage and replaced it with the number of points for each category. -- EN-Jungwon 09:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Boy group Big Bang had four number one singles on the chart in 2015: "Loser", "Bang Bang Bang", "Sober" and "Let's Not Fall in Love", the most of any act in 2015. - that last "the most of..." is confusing me; if it's saying that Big Bang had more singles on the chart then any others, why does it come after the colon and list of the singles? Shuffle around a bit
• The latter achieved a perfect score of 11,000 points on the August 23 broadcast, making it the single with the highest points of the year. The four songs spent a total of eight weeks atop the chart, making Big Bang the act with the most wins of the year. - "making it the..." and in the next sentence "making Big Bang the..."- vary it up
• The single helped the group achieve their 100th music show award on Music Bank - what's Music Bank?
  • I have added a wikilink to the Music Bank article. Will this be sufficient? Or should I add something like "their 100th music show award on another Korean music program called Music Bank" -- EN-Jungwon 09:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• becoming the first artist to do so in South Korean - shouldn't artist be plural since it's a group?
• Should Inkigayo be italicized? If so, make sure it's like that throughout the entire article, because it's not in para 3
• went viral on South Korean social networking websites - do we need to clarify the websites are South Korean? The chart is from that country, after all
  • The sentence is actually talking about other social media sites in Korea. Like the Korean version of Facebook and Instagram. -- EN-Jungwon 09:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• They topped the chart with two other singles in 2015 - replace they with the groups name
• Their single "Dumb Dumb" would go on to debut - make this past tense, WP:INTOTHEWOULDS
• Boy group iKon achieved their first number one on the chart with "My Type" in September and would go on - ditto

EN-Jungwon, all done, lovely work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk I left some comments above. -- EN-Jungwon 09:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

All looks good- support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

The list repeatedly uses "Big Bang", but the band's article is BigBang (South Korean band). I notice that several links to songs also include "(BigBang song)" instead of "(Big Bang song)". Was including this space in the name intentional, and if so, how come?

Commas are inconsistently used in the lead for points totals (11,000 vs 6000), I think commas should be added where appropriate in the lead, as commas are also used in the table for the points totals.

• Image review: Passed
  • Images are relevant
  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed

• Source review: Pased
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent publisher formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Looks good, great job :) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I see you've made the changes, so I have no more criticism and I'm going to support. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It was very late when I made that edit so I forgot to reply here. The use of "Big Bang" with the space was cause the group's main article was previously at "Big Bang (band)". It was later moved to "BigBang" (no space). I was not sure if I should change it so I just left it as it was.
I have a query about the images. For the images of groups, I used imagemap to link each person in the image to their respective wiki articles. Is this acceptable or should these be removed? Thanks again for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 09:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 19:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [13].

---

List of Hot Soul Singles number ones of 1981

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

With 1979 just promoted and 1980 seemingly heading the same way, here's 1981. We've got a few all-time greats in this list but also Frankie Smith, who spent four weeks at number one and then literally never charted again (although he may have left a legacy in that the song may have been the origin of the "izzle" now associated with Snoop Dogg). Feedback as ever most gratefully received! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• A number of other artists reached number one for the first time later in the year -- suggest also reached
• Smith's track was followed into the top spot -- I recall from a previous review/reviewer that track is generally not suited, I believe it's either single or song.
• weeks at number during 1981 -- I think you're missing one (number one) in this statement
• Suggest alt text for the Vandross and Ross image
• That's all I have. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: - thanks for your review. All corrected now! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

NØ

• Image review - pass: All of the images are appropriately licensed!
• The close-proximity double link to Black music is present here as well. I'll stop bugging you about this if there's an explanation, really...
  • No other explanation other than that I am really dumb. I promise I will remember this next time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• "the chart has undergone various name changes over the decades to reflect the evolution of black music and since 2005 has been published as Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs." - Suggest commas before and after "and since 2005"
• I would suggest active voice for the second paragraph's first sentence: "In the issue of Billboard dated January 3, "Celebration" by Kool & the Gang spent its third week in the top spot."
• "In May, Ray Parker Jr. & Raydio topped the chart for the first time with "A Woman Needs Love (Just Like You Do)", and two months later Frankie Smith reached number one with "Double Dutch Bus", the only charting single of his career." - Suggest comma after "and two months later"
• In the third paragraph, the first sentence just says "The year", whereas the second sentence mentions 1981. You could switch these since I find it is often best to be more descriptive in the first line of a paragraph.
• "former labelmates of Ross with the highly influential Motown label" - True for sure but is it really necessary to call it highly influential?
• That's it!--NØ 08:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: - thanks! Done!! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support--NØ 09:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Ref 16 needs a publisher (Billboard), and the hyphens there could stand to be made into en dashes for style. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: - that's done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "the four weeks which "Celebration" spent at number one in January": This construction is in the process of disappearing in copyedited text. I recommend either "the four weeks spent at number one in January by "Celebration"" or "Celebration"'s four weeks spent at number one in January".
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing else is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. I see you have an image review already. The captions are fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Dank: - thanks! I went with the first option re: Celebration......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references are to reliable sources and appear to be formatted well. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 19:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [14].

---

List of chief commissioners of the Victoria Police

Nominator(s): ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because there are very limited number of Featured Articles that are members of WP:WikiProject Australian law and WP:WikiProject Australian crime and zero Featured Lists in either WikiProjects. It was also a fun/ tedious process verifying all the dates in the article with reliable sources and now that all the information is verified and a number of style and prose improvements have been made via a peer review, I am pleased to be able to nominate this article as a featured list. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

• File:Wa-police-commissioner.png seems to be for WA Police, not Victoria Police.
• The Minister for Police should have a lowercase M due to MOS:JOBTITLES
• I think linking Victoria Police under the words "police officer" might be contrary to MOS:EASTEREGG. Victoria Police should instead be linked where it is mentioned in the following sentence, and then the other link to Victoria Police in the following paragraph can be removed.
• "Under the Victoria Police Act 2013, chief commissioner..." should be changed to "Under the Victoria Police Act 2013, the chief commissioner..."
• Should "relevant government ministers" be linked to Executive Council of Victoria?
• Should "government agencies" be linked to List of Victorian government agencies?
• "The chief commissioner can be appointed for a maximum term of five years; they may be reappointed after their five year term expires." Is this saying that the term could be less than five years if the premier so chooses?

That's my review of the lead so far. My review of the table and references will come later. Steelkamp (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• The columns for portrait, number and notes should not be sortable.
• Could Simon Overland's image be cropped?
• Same potentially for Christine Nixon.
• I don't think "Incumbent" should be in bold or italics.
• "RETIREMENT OF MR. H. M. CHOMLEY". Citation titles with all capital letters like this should be converted to title case, as per MOS:ALLCAPS.
• The myweb.westnet.com.au reference is dead and also not reliable as its user generated.
• Reference 2, Victoria Police Act 2013, section 17., should be a full reference as its above reference 3.
• The Trove references could have via=National Library of Australia.

These are all my comments for now. Steelkamp (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: Thank you for your suggestions–

• File:Wa-police-commissioner.png seems to be for WA Police, not Victoria Police. - The two police forces have the same insignias (see the image in this new article). I am not sure of the best way to go about verifying that in the article, or should the insignia be removed all together?
• "The chief commissioner can be appointed for a maximum term of five years; they may be reappointed after their five year term expires." Is this saying that the term could be less than five years if the premier so chooses? - The source states that the "Chief Commissioner holds office for... (a) period, not exceeding 5 years... (and) is eligible to be reappointed" so in theory, that is the case, in practice though, the only chief commissioner to serve a term under the 'Victoria Police Act 2013' served 4 years and 361 days. Let me know if you think further clarification is needed in the lede.
• I have addressed all the other issues in the lede and table that you raised in this edit.

––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• The insignia image should be sourced somehow. I'm also confused how the author of the image can be a Wikipedia editor and not the WA/Victoria Police, who surely are the ones who created the image.

Steelkamp (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Some other things:

• Premier of Victoria should be lowercased as per MOS:JOBTITLES.
• "The longest-serving chief commissioner was Frederick Standish, who served from 3 September 1858 to 1 October 1880 for a total term of 22 years, and 28 days. The shortest-serving chief commissioner was the inaugural holder of the office, Sir William Mitchell, who served from 3 January 1853 to 24 January 1854 for a total term of 1 year, and 21 days in office." There should be a source for this.

Steelkamp (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: Thank you for your suggestions. I have removed the insignia as I also have doubts about its licensing. I fixed the case of Premier of Victoria to be lowercase and I also added references to the sentences you mentioned. (the edit). ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. Steelkamp (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• The lead seems a tiny bit "thin" as it stands. Could expand it by mentioning the longest-serving and shortest-serving office holders, the fact that Nixon was (as far as I can see) the first and only female office-holder to date, and any other interesting snippets.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• My only other comment is that "The 1853 Police Regulation Act established the role of chief commissioner which and held first by" seems to have either some words missing or some stray words that shouldn't be there -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Also, I don't think we need the template at the bottom of this particular article, as the links in it just duplicate the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: I have expanded the lede, fixed the syntax of that sentence, and removed the navbar from the bottom (this edit). Thank you for your suggestions! ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

• I had reviewed this at the peer review and now am more than happy to support this for FL. In my view, it meets the criteria. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Source review – Reference reliability looks okay throughout the citation list. One formatting issue I spotted needs fixing: reference 40 needs a publisher (Parliament of Victoria?). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Giants2008: For reference 40, I have added 'Community Advocacy Alliance' as the publisher, and have also added "via=[[Parliament of Victoria]]". Thank you for your source review. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 19:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [15].

---

List of accolades received by WandaVision

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer^talk 00:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

WandaVision premiered on Disney+ with its first two episodes on January 15, 2021, making it the first television series created for the streaming platform by Marvel Studios after over a decade of focusing solely on films. The series went on to be nominated for 112 awards, winning 31 times.

I'm nominating this list on the behalf of @Favre1fan93, who is one of the main contributors, after he asked if I could do so. -- ZooBlazer^talk 00:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer: - it says at the top of the FLC page Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. The first one you nominated (2012 NBA draft) does not yet have substantial support yet you have now nominated THREE more. I suggest you ask the co-ordinators to archive at least the two most recent...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh shoot, my bad. I'll work on getting it taken care of. -- ZooBlazer^talk 08:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem. BTW I will try to review the 2012 NBA Draft one later to try and give it a bit of a kickstart...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude If you have time, would you want to review this article now? One of my articles was promoted to FL and another archived, so this list is eligible to be reviewed now. ZooBlazer 18:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk

Nom issues aside, still happy to review. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Support - I'm very impressed to have no concerns with this, this is a Chompy Ace-level list. Wonderful work, and on such an excellent show! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Chompy Ace

Support: I have no concerns since this list is consistent with recent, modernized FLs, like List of accolades received by Avengers: Infinity War, List of accolades received by Skyfall, and List of accolades received by The Batman (film). Chompy Ace 19:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• Add alt text to the images in the infobox.
• List all the awards in the infobox in alphabetical order.
• I noticed that the award column in the table is aligned in the center. I looked through some of the lists that Chompy Ace linked above and they don't seem to have the column centered so I suggest removing style="text-align:center;" from that column.
• I counted 109 nominations and 28 wins in the table so fix that in the infobox.

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 13:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon Everything has been addressed. ZooBlazer 17:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Support -- EN-Jungwon 06:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review – pass

Hiya, I'll try not to screw anything up here (version)

Formatting

• Names of any award organisations should be unitalicised
• Same for the International Press Academy

  @Pamzeis As far as I can tell the only time either is italicized is in the ref template, which is automatic as far as I know. ZooBlazer

  Yeah, that was what I was referring to. You can use the |publisher= or |agency= parameters to unitalicise them. Pamzeis (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done. ZooBlazer

• fn 12: should bmi.com be Broadcast Music, Inc.? I'm not sure about this one

  Done. ZooBlazer

• fn 43 & 56: mark as |url-access=limited

  Done. ZooBlazer

Verifiability

• I think "Elizabeth Olsen and Kathryn Hahn received widespread acclaim from critics and audiences" in the Infobox needs sources per MOS:ACCLAIMED

  The acclaim is in this case is just talking about the number of nominations received for their acting, which each nomination is cited. ZooBlazer

  I ended up changing the wording after looking at other FL accolade articles. ZooBlazer

• Hopefully will do Spotchecks soon; ping me if I don't do them by Tuesday, 'cuz that's mean I've forgotten
• Spotchecks are clear. Pamzeis (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Reliability

• Is Goss.ie reliable?
• Same for La Opinión; it seems to be a tabloid

  Not sure if it's the best way to check, but the reliability plug-in doesn't mark either site as unreliable. They've been replaced. ZooBlazer

• I'm not sure ¡Hola! is reliable either, as it seems to be the Spanish version of Hello! (magazine), an unreliable source. Pamzeis (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  It was tough, but I found a better source. Not a whole lot of places listing the 2021 winners of those awards. ZooBlazer

OK, I think that's a pass for the source review. Pamzeis (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Other comments by Pamzeis

• "WandaVision is an American television miniseries created by Jac Schaeffer for the streaming service Disney+, based on Marvel Comics featuring the characters Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch and Vision." — this sentence has a lotta information, which has the potential to be lost. Can it be split?
• "and Evan Peters also starring." — a nitpick, but these could be interpreted as "also starring" credits, which are different from "starring" credits in television, I believe
• "was nominated by critics for two Golden Globe Awards" (emphasis mine) — AFAIK, the Golden Globes are presented by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which are an organisation of photographers and journalists. Or am I missing something?

  These three things have been addressed. Let me know if I need to do something further with any of them. ZooBlazer

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I think everything has been addressed. ZooBlazer 20:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pamzeis I've addressed the rest of the things you brought up. ZooBlazer 02:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "starring as well" reads a little oddly to me. I appreciate the comment above about the ambiguities of "also starring" but maybe say "and the cast also includes Debra Jo Rupp" etc?
• Infobox photo caption is missing a full stop
• That's it, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks for the comments. Both things have been changed. ZooBlazer 13:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Image review – Photo licensing for the images in the collage looks fine for both, and alt text is there, which is always nice. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.