Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list statistics Wikipedians by promoted featured list nominations Today's featured list This month's queue TFL submissions TFL statistics Featured lists that have appeared as TFL Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log

This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, with the most recent at the top. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log.

Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2025. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2025.

Full current month log

view - edit - history

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) 00:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [1].

---

Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been attempting to streamline the figure skating national championship articles lately so they all appear uniform. The Ukrainian article has been fully audited and verified to sources. I have gone through and personally verified every entry. I believe I have properly formatted all of the sources in a uniform style. (This was an issue with my previous nomination a while back.) If anyone can suggest a bot or an automated method to archive the sources, please let me know. All of the tables are properly formatted and meet Wikipedia's MOS requirements. While I have made strong headway on many countries' respective articles, the Ukrainian article is one of only two which are fully complete and sourced through the present day (the other, BTW, is Estonia). Additionally, due to the current situation in Ukraine, I believe this subject may be of heightened interest. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns, or if you have any suggestions on how to improve this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Anastasia Gozhva 2024 Worlds Short Program 5.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Sofiia Holichenko & Artem Darenskyi 2024 Worlds Short Program 9.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Ivan Shmuratko at the 2022 CS Finlandia Trophy.jpg - CC BY 4.0, link the exact site
• Images and captions are relevant to the article, they require alt text though.
  • Here are my comments. Arconning (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    •  Done I believe I figured out how to add the alt-text to the gallery properly. Please let me know if it is not correct. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

      Support Arconning (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is too short. It should be expanded to include things like who has won the most gold medals.
• The lead is also unreferenced.
• That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I did expand the lead per your recommendation. Still working on the rest. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Done I believe this should be more to your liking. Pinging ChrisTheDude. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Why do you include red links sometimes and not others? I'm fine with red links, but I find the inconsistecy confusing, even when it's the same name. One example of this is the senior men's singles table, in which Andrey Kokura is linked in 2020 but not in 2019.
  •  Done Personally, I remove any redlinks older than, say, five years, because the chances of them being developed into a Wikipedia article at that point are slim. More recent competitors still might develop a body of work to justify an article. I can see why that might be confusing if the same name is blacklinked in one cell and redlinked in another; I'll fix that. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• I haven't dug into it in depth, but for pair events, is the woman always meant to be listed first? Just checking that this is the norm, as that seems to be what I'm seeing and I wanted to verify this is intentional before trying to spot instances when this didn't happen.
  •  Done The standard is to list the female partner's name first. Now, some countries like Canada have changed their rules to allow for same-gendered partnerships, but that does not extend to international events, and considering the snail's pace at which the International Skating Union evolves, this is not a bridge we will need to cross any time soon... Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Was there no senior pairs event in 2023? I'd suggest a row in the table to indicate it wasn't held if that's the case
  •  Done See below.
• No senior ice dance in 2023/2024? Why?
  •  Done I don't know why. Pairs is the least contested event worldwide, as you can see from the table. I have added gray strips indicating that there were no competitors in those events. Unfortunately, official results coming out of the Ukraine for the last few years have been sketchy at best owing to the current state of what's going on over there right now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• No junior events in 2006, 2007, and 2014? It would be good to call this out, possibly above all 4 junior medalists tables with an explanation so you don't need to repeat the information. I do think a row indicating it wasn't held would also be helpful for these.
  •  Done I'd already addressed 2014 below, but there apparently weren't junior championships in 2006 or 2007 either based on their absence from the event calendars. I also checked other FS sources (Tracings, The Figure Skating Corner, Skating Scores), and they have no indication of junior events, so I've added a gray strip like I did with 2014. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• No junior pairs or ice dance event in 2023?
  •  Done See above. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Was the 2014 Ukrainian Open meant to be a senior or junior event? Could help to clarify this.
  •  Done Okay, the 2014 Ukrainian Open was a senior-only event. It also doubled as the Ukrainian National Championships that year. There apparently were no junior championships that year, as evidenced by its absence on the event calendar for that year. I have clarified the prose ahead of the 2014 Ukrainian Open section at the bottom, as well as used two sets of sources: one which included all international competitors for the Ukrainian Open, and one which included only the Ukrainian competitors for the Nationals. I believe this is now more clear. I have also added a gray strip to the junior tables clarifying that there were no 2014 championships. The Why? will have to remain a mystery. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Article currently lacks significant coverage, not that I doubt its notability, but it does need some
• Can sources be added to the lead?
  •  Done I have expanded the lede and added sources. I also added some (sad) details regarding the current state of the Ukrainian Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• I think renaming the senior/junior medalists sections to senior/junior championships could be a better descriptor
  •  Done Senior/Junior medalists is the standard for all figure skating event articles. Besides, while there are three medalists for each discipline, there is only one champion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• I think tables being renamed to something like "Senior men's event medalists" instead of "Ukrainian medalists (senior men)" would be an improvement. It's implied they're Ukranian based on the subject of the article, except for the section which highlights it's not strictly Ukrainians.
  •  Done That doesn't make any difference to me at all. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

That's what I have for now. Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Pinging Hey man im josh. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Totally unrelated, the link to the Ukrainian Figure Skating Federation at the bottom of the article is showing that I am blocked. Is everyone unable to access the site, or is it just me? I'm guessing the former. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Good improvements @Bgsu98, but can you add a reference for the entries that mention there were simply no competitors, as opposed to the event itself not being held? For the junior championship events I like what you did, which includes a reference. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

    Hey man im josh, I did that for the junior events, but the 2023 and 2024 senior events lack an overall score posting as had been typical for the other seasons, and all we have are the individual score sheets, which are posted by discipline. So, I can't post what's not there, if that makes any sense. It's all part of the difficulty in hosting the events given the current situation.

    Skate Ukraine does not have the results for the senior championships for either 2023 or 2024. I will try to go through the UFSF website when I get home, but not being able to speak Ukrainian (or any Cyrillic language, for that matter), this might be difficult. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

    Hey man im josh, I've gone through the UFSF website, and I cannot source to something that's not there. The drop-down menu lists Men's, Women's, and Pairs results for 2024, but no Ice Dance. Sadly, they do not have the results all tabulated and posted in one handy spot. As for 2023, we are stuck with just the one posting that is already linked as the source, as it refers only to the men's and women's entrants. I can maybe see using that as a source to prove that there were no pairs or dance entrants, but that seems disingenuous. I don't know what else to tell you. Let me know! Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Edited to add: I did find a source which referenced the 2024 championships and specifically stated that Ukraine's dance team (who trains in Canada) did not make the trip to compete. I also added the 2023 source to the pairs and dance rows for 2023; it's not great, but it's what I have. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Hey man im josh, have you had a chance to re-examine this candidate article yet? Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  As mentioned on my talk page, I do not have any other criticisms. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TheDoctorWho

I can't say I know much about this topic, but the nominator reached out to me looking for additional reviews. My review will remain neutral however, as I have no personal stake or attachment to this list. This review also includes a few comments on references but is not meant to take the place of a full source review.

• Is "2014 Ukrainian Open" actually a redirect to this article? If not I'm assuming it shouldn't be bolded in either location, but I don't see why a redirect would hurt. If one is created, it should only be bold in the lead or its specific section per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT.
  •  Done It is a redirect. I've removed the boldface from the lower section. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Ukraine were obviously disrupted - "obviously" feels a little less neutral to me, almost like you may be talking down to the reader. The sentence doesn't loose any meaning with this word removed.
  •  Done Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Newsweek sources post-2013 aren't considered reliable, so ref 67 should be replaced (WP:NEWSWEEK).
  •  Done That's unfortunate to hear that Newsweek is no longer considered reliable. I have substituted another source. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• I noticed some references switch between title and sentence case, no preference on which is used, but it should be consistent. This script should help with that.
  •  Done Thank you for the tip; this will help on future projects. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• I also noticed at least two incorrectly formatted dates. There's also a script for this.
  •  Done See above. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• The "See also" section should come before the "External links" section per MOS:ORDER.
  •  Done Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I know it's not much, but I hope this review is helpful. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• •  Done Thank you for your suggestions, TheDoctorWho. I would think the FL project would want impartial reviewers. You wouldn't want a bunch of skating fans reviewing these articles; they wouldn't be able to see the forest through the trees. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

    I was more lowkey thinking they'd ice skate right into the trees 😂. Looks great though, nice work, happy to support! TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:02, 26 February 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [2].

---

List of municipalities in Washington

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 06:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

One of my bucket list items is to visit all 281 cities and towns in my home state of Washington, so I thought it was high time to improve the massive list before I reach the 100% mark (which is only a few road trips away from being accomplished). This list follows the format set at other recent lists of municipalities, especially those from Mattximus, and I believe it is ready for review. SounderBruce 06:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You've added the scopes but the line needs to start with a "!" not a "|".
  • Fixed.
• Some of the number columns are right aligned, but not all. All the ones which have a varying number of digits should be right aligned. The year column can be left as is.
  • Fixed for the center-aligned columns.
• The order of precedence seems to be first-class city > second-class city > code city > town. It would be great to have that column sort in this way. I'm not sure where the unclassified city would fit in there.
  • The current sorting uses the most common order that these classifications are listed in (code city, 1st class, 2nd class, unclassified, town) by the government and MRSC.
    • I didn't mean the default sorting order, but order encountered when the table is sorted on that column. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      • @MPGuy2824: I was referring to the order when sorted by "Type"; the sortkey is "City X" for the types, which is alphabetical (code, first, second) and coincidentally aligns with the preferred ordering. SounderBruce 03:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

        I read through the Classification section again and it looks like my previous assumption was wrong. The order of precedence seems to be code city > first-class city > second-class city > town and the column sorts correctly. Support on accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Many of the refs are missing archive links. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I will be adding archived links once the bot is finished with its run (which typically takes a few days). SounderBruce 08:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Bot has been run and picked up most links; a few seem to be blocked (Reuters) or too new for it. SounderBruce 03:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments - I did a mini-review prior to nomination and all my recommendations were made. I believe this list is at the featured level. I can find only one issue. There is a paragraph on mayor and manager and a mention in the lead, but no mention in the table. I wonder if there is a way to incorporate this into the table without a new column because I like the table as is. If there are only those two, and only a few managers, could a note be made for those which says all others are mayor? Or is there another creative solution? It would be a shame to just remove that paragraph which is another option. Mattximus (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mattximus: I'm not sure if a new column would fit, nor would a separate notes system be warranted. I have added a sentence with the MRSC statistics, which show 227 mayor–council municipalities and 54 council–manager municipalities. MRSC also notes that the systems aren't fully separate, as some mayor–council cities have administrators who have powers similar to a city manager. SounderBruce 03:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Well if nobody else has an issue with the mayor/manager being in the lead/text and not in the list, I will Support based on everything else which is excellent. Mattximus (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Spot checks dont find anything wrong
• Links and dates are consistent
• Why are none articles redlinked?

All I found, just need the redlink question cleared up. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The redlinked articles are entities that should be notable but I simply have not found time to write about. OFM in particular is tricky because they have a lot of results where they're simply the source, rather than the subject. SounderBruce 18:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: Fixing the ping. SounderBruce 18:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Cowboygilbert

• @SounderBruce:, I am going to do some checks.
• The key colors pass on other skins blue link colors ( ) but does not pass on the Vector 22 skins blue link color ( ). You can do your own test at the WebAIM constract checker if you don' trust me. So you should change the colors.
• 2020 and 2010 census under population should be flipped to show the rise in populations more easily.
• That's all I really have, lol. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  • @Cowboygilbert: Good catch on the color contrast; since I don't use Vector 22, I didn't see that. It seems like this might be a bigger issue than just for this list, as the purple color is the default for navbox headers and would need to be changed. I've used this app to find colors that seem to pass the WebAIM test. As for the ordering of the population years, listing the more recent year first is the standard for other state/province municipality FLs and I don't think readers would be that confused by the current placement. SounderBruce 02:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
    • @SounderBruce: The colors are bolded in navbox titles and seem to pass the WCAG 2.0 AA but not WCAG 2.0 AAA, I'll figure out a palce to bring this up further. Thanks for catching that. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
      • @Cowboygilbert: Are we good to go with the checks? SounderBruce 09:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

        Just following up to see if all of your concerns have been addressed @Cowboygilbert. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

        • I have been at work the last couple days but Support Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TheDoctorWho

• Considering this list is about Municipalities in Washington, would it make more sense to put that image first?
  • Done.
• You specify a highlight color in one image but not the other; both images only contain one highlight color, this should be consistent.
  • Removed.
• Also seems like that caption on the second map could be simplified, perhaps "Map of Washington with incorporated cities and towns highlighted in yellow" -> "Map of Washington with municipalities highlighted in yellow"
  • Simplified.
• "The municipal government generally provides policing, fire protection, emergency services" - are there other emergency services outside of the two that have already been listed? If so, perhaps specifying "other" emergency services since we've separated the two, otherwise it can be dropped.
  • Removed.
• "grants home rule powers" - what are home rule powers? A brief explanation wouldn't hurt, or at the bare minimum, a piped link to Home rule in the United States.
  • Added the link. A fuller description probably belongs in the subarticle.
• "In 1994, the minimum population to incorporate a municipality was raised to 1,500 by the state legislature, which has prevented the creation of new towns. - what was the minimum population required before it was raised?
  • Added.
• There are some issues with reference titles switching between sentence and title case, I suggest running this script to help clean those up.
  • Moved to title case to match the majority.

Not much else to say here, nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: Thanks for the suggestions, I have implemented them all. SounderBruce 09:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Great job, happy to support! TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Ref 1 / 8 – You link to the United States Census Bureau in reference 8, when my understanding is you typically try to link on first occurrence, meaning it should be linked in reference 1 instead
  • Fixed.
• Ref 8 – Downcase 2010 United States Census to 2010 United States census to match the target
  • Fixed.
• Ref 17 – Add via=Issuu
  • Added.
• Ref 16 – Shouldn't this be a publisher of "Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington" based on page 2 of the source?
  • The "of Washington" is not in common usage; the long form is rarely used and should be treated similar to corporate designations that are omitted per WP:CS1.
• It actually looks like several of the sources should be "Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington" instead actually.
  • See above.

That's what I've got, please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Replied above. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 22:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Support. I see now that the article is at Municipal Research and Services Center, lending credence to the common name mention. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2025 (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, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [3].

---

1952 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm excited to say this is Olympic medal table #9 for me (Summer Games nom #6). It's a relatively short nom, but it's interesting in that 12 countries participated for the first name and it was the first time the Chinese NOC competed as the People's Republic of China. As always, I will do my best to respond to all comments as quickly as possible, and I appreciate any and all feedback that is given. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• I would be tempted to join the final one-sentence paragraph of the lead to the one before
• That's it, I think - great work as ever!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  I felt mixed about it, but I said screw it and went ahead and did it. In a way I liked them split because one was about the countries who had success and the following was about the people who had success. But a single sentence shouldn't necessarily be its own paragraph. Sorry for the delay in replying, accidently cleared my watchlist I think. Thanks for the review @ChrisTheDude! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Nina Ponomaryova 1960.jpg - Public Domain
• File:Asnoldo Devonish 1952 Helsinki.png - Public Domain, source link needs to be fixed.
• Both images have alt text, suitable captions, and are relevant to the article.
  • Here are my comments! Arconning (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  What if the source link cannot be fixed because it's gone offline and the archives don't seem to have properly grabbed the picture @Arconning? Pinging uploader @Kingsif. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Using the archive link should still be acceptable, there’s enough documentation to say the image was there. As I understand it, the only issue as it is for the original link being dead would be WP:V, so effective proof that the link existed is good. Otherwise, you’re looking for an alternative source altogether. Kingsif (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh, considering archive links have enough documentation that say the image was there... I'll support based on image review. Arconning (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Source review from Octave

Reviewed special:diff/1274315826

Reliability – one question

• Britannica articles are used appropriately (Netherlands Antilles in particular seems to be written by SMEs)
• Wondering if there's a better source than one via the China Internet Information Center, a state-controlled media outlet
• Other source reliability looks fine

Formatting consistency – clear

• I believe it's all good here, kudos

Other comments – couple comments

• Could do with page numbers for the Olympic factsheets?
• Ref 2: include author
• Ref 8: include authors
• Ref 14: incorrect date
• Ref 17: drop "Factsheet" like you do in other factsheet references
• Ref 18: if kept, should probably mention it's via China Internet Information Center
• Ref 19: link Pacific Affairs; specify "Autumn 1985"; would like a more precise page number, 17 pages is a substantial range
• Ref 27: byline date says a different date; link William Grimes (journalist)

Spotchecks – 25% of sources (round up to 10),

• Ref 1: pass
• Ref 5: pass
• Ref 9: pass
• Ref 10: pass
• Ref 17: "including the Olympic debut of women's gymnastics events", unless I'm missing something, women's artistic gymnastics debuted at the 1928 Summer Olympics
• Ref 23: pass
• Ref 26: pass
• Ref 31: pass
• Ref 34: pass
• Ref 35: pass

Thoughts

• Just a few comments above, nothing major. Nice work Josh. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @UpTheOctave!, I've addressed all of your points, and the only ones I think I need to reply directly to are the following:

• Ref 17: "including the Olympic debut of women's gymnastics events", unless I'm missing something, women's artistic gymnastics debuted at the 1928 Summer Olympics – After rereading and looking into it, the it was women's individual events that were introduced at the 1952 games, whereas previously it was only the all-around event for women. A breakdown of events by year can be viewed Gymnastics at the Summer Olympics#Women's events. What's now ref 16 also reflects this, by saying In gymnastics, individual events for women were introduced. – I clearly misunderstood this mention.
• Wondering if there's a better source than one via the China Internet Information Center, a state-controlled media outlet – I struggled, a lot, with the situation and wording where I used this source. It was surprisingly neutral for the bit that I used it for, and substantiated by other sources, but it would have required 3-4 sources for the information I used in one source by using this one.

Thanks so much for the quality source review! I always enjoy when you give source reviews at WP:FLC and I hope that you continue to do so :) Please let me know if I've missed anything or if you've seen anything more. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm happy to sign off on this given your explanations: pass for source review. Nice work Josh. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments from LEvalyn

I thought I'd take a peek over at the world of featured lists, but after carefully reading this list several times, I feel almost silly creating a section here with so little feedback to give. I keep typing things and deleting them once I figure them out! For example, a non-suggestion: I sometimes forgot what an NOC was, but this was clearly explained and often well-reinforced by context, and I particularly appreciate the tooltip in the table. Nonetheless, two notes:

• The paragraph in the lead about China is leaving me uncertain as to whether I've correctly understood the information at hand. It was 1952 which first allowed both PRC and ROC to compete, thus being the first PRC olympics? Was 1952 also the first year that ROC represented non-mainland-China athletes? I think putting in one more date -- like 1949 as the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War -- might help 'ground' this for those (like me) with too little background knowledge. And/or, perhaps move the parenthetical about the ROC into its own sentence, placed in the chronological flow as something which occurred before the IOC's decision?
• It's redundant to say "In addition" and "also" for the line about pesäpallo. I also wonder if this sentence would flow better at the end of paragraph 2, but it works where it is too.

Otherwise, I have no changes to suggest. I hope these comments are helpful. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Never feel bad about saying you reviewed something and didn't find much to comment on @LEvalyn. It still helps the promoters to know that people made the effort.

Regarding the China issue, yes, it was the first time that mainland China competed as the People's Republic of China. I've made a change that I hope clears things up.

I've also removed the word "also" from the sentence you mentioned and moved it, but I chose to combine the first two sentences because of this change. Thank you very much for taking a look over the list and providing feedback! Outside perspectives, especially from those are not regular reviewers, are very valuable for those of us who get tunnel visioned on a series. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, and speedy edits! The new version of the China paragraph is definitely an improvement, but I feel that there's still a logical gap in spelling out that PRC = mainland and ROC = Taiwan. Something like, "claimed to be the proper representative party of China, retaining the ROC designation" ? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Progress is progress, I added some verbiage so it needs read "the IOC granted the ROC designation to the group in Taiwan and allowed both the PRC and ROC..."

I did struggle with the wording of this paragraph putting it together, so I definitely understand the feedback and appreciate it. Whatever makes things clear while being as concise as appropriate. Lemme know what you think @LEvalyn. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this version fully clarifies it! And much better than what I’d been thinking. Thanks, and I’m happy to support. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:01, 26 February 2025 (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, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [4].

---

1936 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Seventh Olympic list, I'll never get tired of these lol. Thanks to Hey man im josh for giving me some random boost of energy! As always, ping me so that I can address comments! :) Arconning (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Source review and addiontal notes

• Everything is archived
• Spot checkes don't find anything
• Dates are inconsistant some use DMY and some use MDY
• Images have alt text and are from commons
• Link Christl Cranz in image 2
• Foot note b seems redundent
• "middle-" Why the dash? It's not connected to anything
  • Jumping in to say....it's connected to "distance". It's a contraction of "middle-distance and long-distance". Removing the hyphen would change the meaning to indicate that he was a "middle runner", which isn't a thing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

That's what I found ping me when done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant Done with your comments, did not remove note b as the Newspapers.com source beside it confirms Cranz's win while the other sources in the note confirms that the other events came after it. Arconning (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "being held after from 1 to 16 August 1936" - there's a stray word in there
• ", with Sapporo hosting the Winter Games and Tokyo hosting the Summer Games but were both" - firstly you need a comma after "Summer Games" to match the one before "with" and close off the subordinate clause, and secondly "were" and "both" are the wrong way round
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Done! Arconning (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Ref 2 – Add page number
• Ref 4 – Use "The Washington Post" instead of "Washington Post"
• Refs 7, 10, 11, and 12 – I believe you have a Newspapers.com account, could you clip the relevant portions?
• All first time medalists properly reported (only 1 country getting gold, no countries getting their first of any kind)
• Australia, Bulgaria, Greece, Liechtenstein, Spain, and Turkey particiapted for the first time. Could be worth a mention.

Not that it's worth mentioning, but I was curious where the other 5 of the 11 team increase came from. Estonia, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands participated in 28 but not 32, while Latvia and Yugoslavia participated in 24 and 28 but missed 32.

That's what I've got, please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Donezo! Arconning (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:02, 26 February 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [5].

---

Sakurai Prize

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The Sakurai prize is one of the many prizes awarded by the American Physical Society, honoring "outstanding achievement in particle theory". Sgubaldo (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• "commonly also referred to" -> "also commonly referred to"
  • Done. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• "just the Sakurai Prize is a prize -> "just the Sakurai Prize, is a prize"
  • Done. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• "and a first citing their contributions." needs to specify that what they get is a certificate citing the contributions.
  • Done. I have no idea how I managed to misspell 'certificate' as 'first'. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• "Society's April meeting, and honors" -> "Society's April meeting and honors"
  • Done. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• There is a free picture of Gribov at File:Vladimir Gribov 244.jpg, which should be used.
  • Good catch, done. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@History6042, all done, many thanks. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Good job, support on grammar and prose. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I have a bit more;

• "$" should not be linked, I'm pretty sure.
• It should also be specific that it is USD and no other dollars in the infobox.
• The picture, File:Jean Iliopoulos (Ecole Normale Supérieure) - Philippe Binant Archives.jpg, can be used for John Iliopoulos.History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Specified USD and added picture. I think it's fine to link. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The MoS says "Do not link the names or symbols of currencies that are commonly known to English-speakers ($, €, £)". See the Currencies section for other relevant guidance. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I see. That sentence is present in the main manual of style page, but it doesn't appear in MOS:CURRENCY itself, which is what I'd been looking at. Removed the link, @Gog the Mild. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment

• Mikhail Shifman doesn't sort correctly
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  Now sorts correctly, @ChrisTheDude. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

IntentionallyDense

Source Review

• I checked all the sources and they are all appropriately reliable for the topic and all text is verified. Good work. Pass for the source review. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:08, 22 February 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [6].

---

List of Seattle Sounders FC draft picks

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 05:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I have returned with another sports list, but this time in an entirely new category: American soccer draft picks. I was inspired by the FLs on NFL draft picks by team and decided to create an equivalent from scratch; the MLS SuperDraft historically had importance for roster-building, but has largely become a clearing house for reserve players these days. The list quickly describes the draft procedures and history while devoting most of its space to standardized tables divided by year. SounderBruce 05:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "The team has participated [...] since they joined MLS" - team switches from being treated as singular to plural mid-sentence
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for taking a look, I have pluralized the first use. As always, American sports grammar is weird and keeps me on my toes. SounderBruce 08:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - if it's any consolation we can't really keep it straight over here either. I've seen plenty of edit wars over whether articles should start "Arsenal [or whoever] is an English football club" or "Arsenal are an English football club"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ref 21 – Note as subscription access
• Ref 20 – Based on your ref formatting scheme, I think this is meant to have a wikilink to Seattle Sounders FC

That's all I've got. Good stuff SounderBruce! Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Both fixed. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 19:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Image review - Passes

Quick and easy image review as there is only one image - File:Zakuani vs Dallas 2.jpg. It has the correct licensing, alt text, and the inclusion of the image makes sense in the article. Image review passes and I also support. -- ZooBlazer 08:00, 6 February 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Toronto

Nominator(s): History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria and has more than 8 items. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• The references as the last row looks a bit odd. Maybe you can move each ref to after the year that it corresponds to in the respective header cell. so it becomes "2024^[4][5]".
• Most of the refs are missing archive links. Use [8].
• "Greater Toronto Area (GTA)", since you refer to GTA later.
• Is there a good wikilink for "Destination Toronto"?
• A phrase to explain Bib Gourmand would be nice.
• Also, I guess you are going to be nominating Michelin-star lists for FL for some time. If so, you can consider making a template that includes the color as well as the stars. That would guarantee consistency across all lists. This advice isn't a showstopper for this list though. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

   Done, except archive bot is lagging very badly and won't work for me and I couldn't find a wikilink for Destination Toronto. I put in a request for the template you suggested. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  Pinging @MPGuy2824. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  • I see that your edit to take care of my first point was undone. This isn't a part of the FL criteria, so it isn't a cause for an oppose. The last line reads "Reference" now, but it should be "References(s)" since one cell has two refs.
  • Move the key above the table per MOS:LEGEND.
  • Regarding the template, you might have better luck at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Michelin Guide task force.
  • Support on prose and accessibility (in advance since I trust you'll get these done). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

     Done and thank you for the review. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

    The key is still below the table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

    See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Michelin_Guide_task_force/Style_Guide#Key_(Legend)_table. @MPGuy2824. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

    Sadly, that Task force style guide clashes with MOS:LEGEND. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

    @MPGuy2824,  Done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

    The style guide has been updated to reflect MOS: LEGEND

    Expandinglight5 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "with a Michelin-star rating" - remove hyphen and link Michelin star
• "The Toronto Michelin Guide was originally planned to launch in 2020, but it was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic.[6] The guide launched in September 2022" => "The Toronto Michelin Guide was originally planned to launch in 2020, but it was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic,[6] and instead launched in September 2022"
• "The GTA also has 23 restaurants with Bib Gourmands.[9] A Bib Gourmand is an award that Michelin gives out for good quality meals with cheap prices" => "The GTA also has 23 restaurants with Bib Gourmands,[9] an award that Michelin gives out for good quality meals with cheap prices"
• The Pine should sort under P, not T
• "city doesn't need outside recognition" => "city does not need outside recognition" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

   Done, except I can't get the sorting to work. I tried using "! scope="row"| data-sort-value="Pine" | [[The Pine]]", but it didn't work. @ChrisTheDude History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, never mind, all done now. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Is there an MOS that discusses sorting not using T for The? Expandinglight5 (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the review. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

IntentionallyDense

Source review

• At times you wikilink publishers/websites and at times you don't. For consistency I'd stick with one or the other.
• No issues with reliability of references.
• Suggestion but not required, for paywalled sources it's nice to have a archived link so others can view the source easier.
• White Lily Diner is listed in this source[9] but not on your list, is there a reason for this?
• Spot checked some of the other sources and didn't find any other issues. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 09:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done all except archiving paywalls since IA bot isn't working for me and neither is the Internet Archive website, thank you for the review. @IntentionallyDense, White Lily Diner got a Bib Gourmand and a green star, not a Michelin star. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah i see, I didn't know the difference.

• Pass for the source review. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:19, 16 February 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [10].

---

List of Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) episodes

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Magnum P.I. is the 2018 reboot of the well-known 1980–1988 televisions series of the same name. While I haven't seen the original, I first became interest in the reboot after it was developed by the same person who oversaw the 2010 reboot of Hawaii Five-O, one of my favorite television series. Anyways, I have been (very slowly) working my way towards a GT for the rebooted Magnum and so comes another stop at FLC. This is the list of episodes page for the series and is complete with a full list of the five seasons and a lead with an overview of the program. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

ChrisTheDude

• "The remainder of the cast is made up by" =>"The remainder of the cast is made up of"
• "Season three was delayed as a result of the COVID-19 impact on television." - this doesn't read very naturally. Maybe just "Season three was delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic"
• "Despite being a top-25 rated series, CBS cancelled it six days later" => "Despite it being a top-25 rated series, CBS cancelled it six days later" (current structure indicates that CBS itself was a top-25 show)
• "NBC picked the program up for an additional 20-episodes" - no reason for that hyphen there
• " the performers contracts" => " the performers' contracts"
• "Magnum P.I. shares a fictional universe with the 2010 reboot of Hawaii Five-O, and the 2016 reboot of MacGyver; the former of which, Magnum P.I. had a crossover event with in 2020" => "Magnum P.I. shares a fictional universe with the 2010 reboot of Hawaii Five-O, and the 2016 reboot of MacGyver; Magnum P.I. had a crossover event with the former in 2020"
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennat

Checked 25 sources any everything checked out

Date formatting is consistent on the main article

The transcluded portions of the season articles are also consistant

Sources in the lead are consistantly linked while sources on the tables aren't

That's all I got Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 10:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• @OlifanofmrTennant: Fixed the linking in the tables, thanks for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• The series overview table needs a caption.
• Per MOS:COLHEAD, column headers should not be used in the middle of a table. "Part 1" and "Part 1" in the Season 2 and Season 5 tables.
• The logo in the lead is missing alt text. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824: Added alt text and caption. Are you saying that per COLHEAD that {{Episode table/part}} just shouldn't exist altogether for accessibility reasons? This feels like it should be part of a wider MOS:TV/WP:TV discussion as these are the standard for this type of list (including featured lists: List of Cobra Kai episodes, List of Better Call Saul episodes, List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989), List of Call the Midwife episodes, List of Arrested Development episodes). TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  @PresN, our resident accessibility expert, for comment on the COLHEAD point. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's straight up a violation of COLHEAD, just in a template rather than bare template code. Screen reader software hits that row and goes "34, Prod code, MPI216. 34, US viewers (millions), 7.05. No. overall, Part 2. Part 2, No. in season, Part 2. Part 2, Title, Part 2. Part 2, Written by, Part 2. Part 2, Original release date, Part 2." etc. It reads as a multi-column episode number, not as a header. I am aware that I haven't caught them all in previous FLCs (some of those are older, but Cobra Kai and Better Call Saul were last year), for which I apologize. --PresN 12:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 and PresN: Thanks for the additional clarification, I've addressed the issue in this list. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support on accessibility. A few of the refs are missing their archive links. You might have to manually fix them since IABot seems to be acting up. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Jpeeling

• It appears episode 11 and 13 of series 1 are in the wrong order.
• TV viewers figures picked from the 'Programming Insider' source are inconsistent with the figure used, episodes 87, 88 and 92 use the 'Live + Same Day ratings' which looks to be in in-keeping with prior sources, episodes 93 to 96 use the first first hour figures instead and episodes 89 to 91 use a figure that doesn't match either.
• Series 2, episode 1 is listed as "Payback is for Beginners" but appears to be titled "Payback for Beginners" on some sources, can this be checked
• Inconsistency points - Alexandra La Roche or Alexandra LaRoche, Ruba Nadda or Rubba Nada

JP (Talk) 13:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jpeeling: I've fixed the first two points. I couldn't find an official source on point three (it's actually listed both ways depending on the source), so I added it as an alternative title.

Alexandra LaRoche/La Roche and Ruba Nadda/Nada are based on the press releases for the episodes (for Alexandra: this one uses La Roche, but this one uses LaRoche; for Ruba: this one and this one use Nada, but this one and this one use Nadda). When there's a discrepancy like this, we typically go with what's credited on-screen, but unfortunately the series isn't streaming right now, so I can't personally verify. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review from Octave

Saw this needs a source review, happy to help. Expect comments this week: if I procrastinate, feel free to holler or poke. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewed diff/1275133142

Reliability – some questions and notes

• What makes TVSeriesFinale a reliable source?
• What makes Programming Insider a reliable source?
• I usually gripe with WP:VALNET sources, are there any better sources that could cover the Collider references?
• Noting that Metcalf and Salem appear to be SMEs for the sake of the Showbuzz Daily references

Consistency – a trio of queries

• Inconsistent use of archives, see below
• Some editors disagree, but I see a common use of title or sentence case as part of citation style
• Inconsistent blend of Surname, Forename and Forename Surname

Other comments – a few formatting issues and missing parameters

• Ref 2: reduce double quotes to single quotes
• Ref 9: add archive
• Ref 10: add archive
• Ref 17: add archive; The Wrap -> TheWrap
• Ref 22: add archive
• Ref 24: link Michael Ausiello
• Ref 25: incorrect date
• Ref 119: add archive

Spotchecks – checked 25% of listed sources (40 references)

• Ref 2: pass
• Ref 4: pass
• Ref 6: pass, although I'd recommend also using the full name for those unfamiliar with the show
• Ref 9: pass
• Ref 10: pass
• Ref 23: pass
• Ref 25: it's a small passage, but I'm a bit uneasy on the similarity of the gloss "a loophole that allowed the studio to avoid" of the quote "a loophole that allows [...] studios [...] to avoid"
• Ref 26: pass
• Ref 27: the source says the part wrapped up that week, not explicitly the 23rd
• Ref 32: pass, although these refs could be placed directly in the table to avoid bundling
• Ref 33: pass
• Ref 38: pass
• Ref 40: pass
• Ref 50: pass
• Ref 56: pass
• Ref 57: pass
• Ref 58: pass
• Ref 59: pass
• Ref 64: pass
• Ref 65: pass
• Ref 69: pass
• Ref 71: pass
• Ref 78: pass
• Ref 79: pass
• Ref 81: pass
• Ref 85: pass
• Ref 86: pass
• Ref 89: pass
• Ref 90: pass
• Ref 94: pass
• Ref 97: pass
• Ref 99: pass
• Ref 100: pass
• Ref 101: pass
• Ref 102: pass
• Ref 105: pass
• Ref 112: pass
• Ref 117: pass
• Ref 118: pass
• Ref 120: pass

Thoughts

• A few comments, nothing major. Ping me when you're done. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@UpTheOctave!: Thanks for the review! I believe I've addressed all of your comments. The only reason I have ref 32 bundled is for use in {{Television ratings graph}}. TVSeriesFinale and Programming Insider both have long-term histories of providing widely used and reliable information for use on WP. Both have transparency with full/partial staff listings (TVSeriesFinale, Programming Insider) and their credentials, former publications for authors across both sites are from other trusted sources. The sources are only used for Nielsen data, which isn't made directly available to the general public, essentially making them repeater sources, for lack of a better term. Since it was also mentioned, Metcalf is a former television executive ([11], [12]), which should meet the requires laid out at WP:EXPERTSOURCE. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I've made a quick formatting change (found another occurrence of "The Wrap"). Happy with fixes and justifications, this is a pass on sourcing. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 17:57, 19 February 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [13].

---

List of Hot Adult Contemporary number ones of 1985

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

With 1983 having just been promoted and 1984 in a good place, here's 1985. Number ones this year included a charity juggernaut which just recently got a bunch of publicity for its 40th anniversary. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• Sade Adu's image needs to be dated ("pictured in ").
• Couldn't find any other issues, so support in advance, on prose and accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ref 8 – Note that a subscription is needed to access the article in full
• Ref 17 – Wikilink to the NYT
• Ref 5 – Could we replace this with anything else? WP:MEDIUM is listed as generally unreliable. Unless the author of course has been proven to be a subject matter expert, in which case, I have no issue with them. If they have been, it may need to be noted that I can't access this reference in full without signing up.

Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: - all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Kool & the Gang - Leverkusener Jazztage 2017-1716.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Strasbourg-1981-10-28-26 (4135979027).jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:George Michael.jpeg - Public Domain, source link needs to be fixed.
• File:Sade Adu 1 (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• All images have alt text, suitable captions, and are relevant to the article.
  • @ChrisTheDude: Here are my comments! Arconning (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
    • @Arconning: - I changed the picture of George Michael for a different one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

      Image is now File:George Michael circa 1984-1985.jpg, which has a proper source link from Flickr and has a proper license for it to be used. Support based on image review! Arconning (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

NØ

• "In the year's first issue of Billboard the number one song was "Do What You Do" by Jermaine Jackson, which was in its third week at number one." - I believe there should be a comma between "Billboard" and "the number one song"
• "It held the top spot for a single week in 1985 before being replaced" - obvious from the antecedent
• Looks good to go other than that!--NØ 04:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support--NØ 08:44, 6 February 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [14].

---

1932 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Olympic table to follow the trend... Arconning (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Sgubaldo

Lead

• "...officially known as the III Olympic Winter Games, was an international multi-sport event..." ==> 'were' instead of was?
• "These games were the first time that the Winter Games were held outside of Europe, with the prior Winter Games being held in Chamonix, France, and St. Moritz, Switzerland" ==> "These Winter Games were the first held outside of Europe, with prior editions held in Chamonix, France, and St. Moritz, Switzerland"
• "Hungary's team won their first Winter Olympic medal of any color," ==> is 'of any color' not implied by the part of the sentence immediately following this one?
• "...tied for the most gold medals won for an individual at the games, with two gold medals" ==> the second 'gold medals' is redundant
• "Bobsledder Eddie Eagan of the United States became the first and only person to win a gold medal at the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics..." ==> That's not true: Gillis Grafström had already done this (figure skating in 1920 Summer Olympics and then 1924 Winter Olympics), but Eagan was the first to win gold medals in different disciplines. I'd tweak the sentence above and then add a footnote to mention Grafström (for example, "Bobsledder Eddie Eagan of the United States became the first and only person to win a gold medal in different events at the Summer and Winter Olympics,..." with a footnote like "Gillis Grafström also won gold in both the Summer and Winter Olympic Games but in the same event: figure skating, which had been contested in the 1920 Summer Olympic Games."
• "...after winning the gold medal in the four-man event at these games and winning the gold medal in the men's light heavyweight event in boxing at the previously held 1920 Summer Olympics in Antwerp, Belgium" ==> "...after winning the gold medal in the four-man event at these games and in the men's light heavyweight event in boxing at the 1920 Summer Olympics in Antwerp, Belgium"

Infobox

• "Jack Shea of the United States tied for most gold medals won at the 1932 Winter Olympics, winning two gold medals in men's speed skating." ==> second 'gold medals' also redundant here i feel

Medals

• Link obverse?
• "Instructions to use De Baillet-Latour's version of the practice were sent out by the IOC to the organizing committees of the 1932 Summer Olympics and 1932 Winter Olympics, with Shea becoming the first Olympic champion to be awarded a medal on top of a podium after winning the gold medal at the men's 500 metres event in speed skating." ==> This sentence is very long and could be split in two: "Instructions to use De Baillet-Latour's version of the practice were sent out by the IOC to the organizing committees of the 1932 Summer Olympics and 1932 Winter Olympics. Shea became the first Olympic champion to be awarded a medal on top of a podium after winning the gold medal at the men's 500 metres event in speed skating"

Other

• The page number for Martin&Gynn is not necessary in the bibliography since it's already in the sfn.
  • @Sgubaldo: I'm done with your comments! Arconning (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "8 NOCs[a] less than the last Winter Games in St. Moritz, Switzerland" => "8 NOCs[a] fewer than the last Winter Games in St. Moritz, Switzerland"
• "cross-country skier Veli Saarinen of Finland, and speed skaters" - no need for that comma
• "did not send athletes at these games" => "did not send athletes to these games"
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Donezo! Arconning (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Shea became the first athlete to win multiple gold medals at the same Olympic Winter Games. – Clas Thunberg won multiple golds at both the 1924 and 1928 games, while Johan Grøttumsbråten won two golds at the 1928 games.
• Refs 6 – Needs to be marked as live, defaulting to the archive link instead
• Ref 8 – It appears you have a newspapers.com account, could you snip this instead?
• Ref 8 – Says "Wallace H. Ward" as the author, so please include the "H." for the author
• Consider linking "sports" to Winter Olympic sports in the lead paragraph

It's interesting there were no ties, no first time countries competing, and no first time gold medal winners. This is what I have for now, please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Done, I think... Arconning (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2025 (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, 21 February 2025 (UTC) [15].

---

List of Station 19 episodes

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I'm back with another episode list, this one for the Grey's spin-off series Station 19. This is a series that I absolutely adore both for its connection to Grey's Anatomy as well as its storytelling and representation. After an expansion of the lead and a cleanup of templates and sources, I believe that this list is more than comprehensive enough to be added to be featured quality. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

Production codes unsources. You can usually find them on the WGA website.

I understand that the ratings graph can only hold up to 100 episodes, but why are the ratings tables split?

Season headings need prose

"Station 19 is an American action and procedural drama created by Stacy McKee and based on Grey's Anatomy" As in an adaptation? Clarify that its a spin off

"who had since been cast in the spin-off as a series regular" wording seems off here

Private Practice has the years it aired next to it while Grey's Anatomy doenst. Any reason for this?

Several sources need archiving

That's all I got ping me when done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• @OlifanofmrTennant: "based on" was in reference to the actual credit within the show, but given that you weren't the only person it confused, I've clarified this.

When you say "Season headings need prose" are you referring to a summary of the season's arcs, similar to what's done with DW articles? This show doesn't exactly follow the same format, its "arcs" can span anywhere from two to three episodes, or often begin in one season and end in another, which makes it harder to summarize in the same format. This series also has a large ensemble cast of 15 members, compared to the 2–5 present at one time in DW, which would quickly turn into excessiveness. I'll also point out that these types of summaries aren't the standard for LoE pages, even FL's which can be seen by a quick glance of similar lists at WP:FL. A few simply list the broadcast dates, but that also feels unnecessary given the series overview and the table itself.

As for the ratings graph, you've answered your own question. The table physically won't display if there are more than 100 episodes, and this series has well... 105. It was either split or exclude, wasn't sure which way was better here. IA Bot has also been a bit buggy lately with adding archive links lately, but I confirm that most are in the Wayback machine. I can manually add the remaining if it's a requirement for support, though? TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure that the ratings table can’t handle 100+ episodes? It works on List of Brooklyn Nine-Nine episodes, which has 150+, just fine. As for the prose I think was thinking something similar to the B99 list or List of Community episodes but since it’s not the standard I won’t oppose over it. And yes do archive the remaining refs manually Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 10:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: Apologies, I meant to say that the graph won't display if there's over 100. The purpose of {{Television ratings graph}} existing (to me anyways) is the graph. The ratings already exist in the episode table, so if only the table was to be displayed, I'd just remove the second template altogether for duplication of information. So to get the graph to display, I had to split in two. Everything has archive links now. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "based on Grey's Anatomy," - I don't think it's really "based on" it, as that would suggest it is a remake of Grey's
• "were also held as mid-seasons replacements" => "were also held as mid-season replacements"
• "Its premise was first introduced trough" - last word is spelt wrong
• "Stefania Spampinato also stars as Dr. Carina DeLuca, who was also first introduced in Grey's Anatomy" - I would move this to before "the remainder". it feels a bit odd to list the rest of the initial cast, then mention people who joined later, and then randomly mention Spampinato
• "Rhimes production company." => "Rhimes' production company."
• "Rhimes as showrunners, the two had also been co-showrunners on Grey's Anatomy" - comma should be a semi-colon
• "Vernoff was also overseeing production Grey's Anatomy" => "Vernoff was also overseeing production of Grey's Anatomy"
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: As I noted above "based on" is what one of the actual credits within each episode reads, but given the confusion I've clarified. Everything else has been addressed! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• "as mid-seasons replacements." -> "as mid-season replacements."
• "was first introduced trough" -> "was first introduced through"
• "overseeing production Grey's Anatomy." -> "overseeing the production of Grey's Anatomy."
• In the series overview section the viewer count should be made into US viewer count as that is the metric for every other table
• "over seven seasons, between March 22, 2018" doesn't need a comma.
• "March 22, 2018, and May 30, 2024." doesn't need a comma.
• If these are fixed then I can support on prose and grammar. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• @History6042: Addressed everything other the last two, per MOS:DATERANGE "Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation" which is the case here. This comma format is also built into the {{Aired episodes}} template and applies automatically, it's essentially used on every Wikipedia List of Episode page I've come across, including other featured lists. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042: The last three have actually been semi-addressed because that template has been removed per the below comment. That said, all of your concerns have been addressed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  Support then. 12:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC) History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  A bit more;

  • In the Prod. code section headers, is there a way to make the inline citations not have a white box around them, I am not sure its ideal to fix it however?
  • In the Seasons 5–7 section the reds are very similar, should one be changed to a different color?
  • In Series overview, Average U.S. viewership (in millions), has an in before millions but nowhere else does, this should be fixed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 03:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042: I've updated the series overview and the color for season 7. Unfortunately there's not a way to remove the white box, this is built into the template for accessibility reasons. Because the citation text is blue rather than black/white, the white box aids in readability against certain background colors. This is why some tables have the white box and others do not. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• The WGA has a different production order than currently listed from The Futon Critic, and I'm not sure which is accurate. Might be better to omit that column entirely for now (if it just matches the broadcast order, it's pretty redundant).
  • If The Futon Critic links remain, give the references in each table the same name so they will combine correctly. You just need to make sure the references match exactly to avoid an error (see H:CERDK).
• "airing on the American Broadcasting Company" sounds clunky – perhaps "aired by the American Broadcasting Company"? (could just be me)
• "the ninth entry in Shondaland" – this isn't a shared universe, so "entry" isn't a good word; just say something like "the ninth series produced by Shondaland"
• Last paragraph in the lead is unnecessary; just add the only new detail (105 episodes total) somewhere else and cut that sentence
• Show titles in "Main article" links should be un-italicized (WP:ITHAT)
• Are episodes named after songs? I couldn't find a source confirming that, but it sure seems like they are – might be a nice detail for the lead (only if you can find a source).
• 1x02: "to" should be lowercase
• 2x16: "the" should be lowercase
• 6x14: "It" should be capitalized
• 7x06: "Of" should be capitalized

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: I compared WGA and TFC side by side for all 105, it appears that the production codes were actually the same, but that whoever originally built the templates didn't input the information correctly. The only discrepancy I found was in season 4 between episodes 11 and 14. That has been rectified.

Everything else has been addressed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 22:03, 20 February 2025 (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, 21 February 2025 (UTC) [16].

---

1980 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This is Olympic medal table #8 for me (Summer Games nom #5). It was the first Olympic Games held in a communist country (USSR) which caused a massive boycott by 60+ countries, leading to Soviet domination of the event. It was an interesting one for me to research. As always, I will do my best to respond to all comments as quickly as possible, and I appreciate any and all feedback that is given. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

• "stemming from an unprecedented boycott" labeling the boycott unprecedented seems better fit for the first mention of it.
• Also unprecedented seems somewhat WP:LOADED, so is there a citation that specifically describes it as such?
• Table appears to be missing row scopes
• Table also appears to be missing column scopes
• Alt text is present in the first two images but not the third
• All images are commons.
• In image two's caption put "pictured in 2018" in parentheses for consistency with lead image.

Ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Some templates actually include the row and column scopes, making it unnecessary/redundant to define them in the tables. This is part of what the award tables template does.
• Added alt text to third image
• Hm, I could have sworn I didn't pick that word for no reason, but I can't seem to find a ref that phrases it close enough for my comfort. I've changed it to "large-scale" instead

I hope this has addressed your concerns, and thank you for the review OlifanofmrTennant. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

ZooBlazer

• In the caption of the Alexander Dityatin image, italicize "pictured in 2018".
• You can probably move the ref after 80 National Olympic Committees (NOCs) participated to right before the next ref after 1956.
• there was a two-way tie for first and a two-way tie for third - maybe rewrite as "there were two-way ties for first and third". Or "...for first and third, respectively"

That's all I have. Nice job. -- ZooBlazer 02:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• Is there a reason we would italicize a bracketed pictured in x year? I haven't had this brought up to me before in past nominations, so if there's a good reason to be doing it, I'd like to of course apply it across all the lists where applicable and keep it in mind for the reviews that I do
• You can probably move the ref after 80 National Olympic Committees (NOCs) participated to right before the next ref after 1956. – Perhaps it's just my style, but I prefer to leave the reference after the sentence has completed instead of putting it in the middle of the next sentence. You did however make me realize that my fourth reference there is redundant, as it mentions that it was the fewest number of teams to have participated since 1956, so I've re-used the reference there as well. Again, I think it's a stylistic thing for me. If it was after two full sentences, I'd absolutely agree, but it being in the middle of the second sentence to also verify the first sentence just feels weird to me. Feels isn't necessarily the best reason to not do something, but I think a ref at the very end of the sentence, then re-using the same reference in the middle of the next sentence, makes it more clear what the various references are meant to verify.
• there was a two-way tie for first and a two-way tie for third - maybe rewrite as "there were two-way ties for first and third". Or "...for first and third, respectively" – Ah yes, much less clunky, went with the latter suggestion.

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this and providing feedback @ZooBlazer! I hope I've addressed all of your points. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, you're the second one to bring up the italicizing thing to me in reviews lately. Maybe I got bad info or something. I've been doing it since my FAC last year when I was told to do it, so I thought it was a rule for featured content. If no one else has mentioned it in the past, then I guess don't worry about it here. Maybe it's only for Today's Featured content? Because every time I've had anything involving (pictured) it gets italicized before it runs on the main page.

Nothing left to do for me except support! -- ZooBlazer 16:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, please do reach out if you ever find any more info about the italicizing stuff, I'd love to be doing things more proper if there's an option to do so. Thanks again for the review @ZooBlazer! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "This was the fewest number of participating NOCs since 1956,[4] which included seven teams making their Olympic debut at the Summer Games; Angola,[5] Botswana,[6] Cyprus,[7], Jordan,[8] Laos,[9] Mozambique,[10] and Seychelles" - the ordering makes this a bit hard to parse. I'd suggest maybe "This included seven teams making their Olympic debut at the Summer Games; Angola,[5] Botswana,[6] Cyprus,[7], Jordan,[8] Laos,[9] Mozambique,[10] and Seychelles, but was the smallest number of participating NOCs since 1956.[4]" (note also the change from "fewest number" to "smallest number" - "fewest number" doesn't work grammatically)
• The image caption doesn't need "(pictured)" as obviously it's him pictured
• "bronze medals being awarded to each of the competitors who lost their semi-final matches, as opposed to taking part in a third place tiebreaker." => "bronze medals being awarded to each of the competitors who lost their semi-final matches, as opposed to them taking part in a third place tiebreaker."
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  • I went with ...representing 80 National Olympic Committees (NOCs) participated, which included seven teams making their Olympic debut at the Summer Games; Angola, ... I then moved the sentence after the list of countries and tweaked it to read "smallest" instead of "fewest".
  • The image caption doesn't need "(pictured)" as obviously it's him pictured – Done
  • Example text – Tweak made, I'll go back and do this for other lists that include the same verbiage.

  Thanks as always for the helpful review @ChrisTheDude! I hope I've addressed all of your points and welcome any more than you may have. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Source review from Octave

Saw this on FLC urgents, will provide a review soon. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to do the source review @UpTheOctave! I look forward to the valuable feedback that you typically provide. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewed diff/1273713710

Reliability – all good

• Noting that Encyclopædia Britannica is used according to WP:BRITANNICA
• Noting that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is used according to WP:RFE/RL

Consistency – couple of minor issues

• Inconsistent archive use, see below
• Inconsistent access date use, see below
• You know how I feel on title/sentence case, but as always I'll let it slide ;)

Other comments – few comments

• Ref 1: you are linking to a version from 17 January 2025 but citing a version from 19 November 2024
• Ref 3: add author Michael Scollon (see the bottom of the page)
• Ref 12: missing archive
• Ref 13: link Stephen G. Smith (writer); correct name is "Time", not "Time Magazine"; lack of space after comma in the title probably falls under MOS:TYPOFIX; missing access date
• Ref 14: link Ron Fimrite
• Ref 15: missing archive
• Ref 17: author is "Bryan Murphy" not "Brian Murphy"
• Ref 21: missing access date

Spotchecks – 25% of listed sources (eight references)

• Ref 1: pass
• Ref 2: "the games featured 203 events in 21 sports across 27 disciplines" is not fully verified, this source only mentions the events total
• Ref 3: the source says the boycott benefitted the Soviet Union, but not East Germany
• Ref 7: pass
• Ref 9: pass
• Ref 10: pass
• Ref 13: pass
• Ref 31: pass

Thoughts

• Good work as usual. My checks turned up some verifiability and formatting issues, but nothing that can't be fixed. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@UpTheOctave!: All of your points have now been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy with these fixes, this is a pass for sourcing. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 22:03, 20 February 2025 (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, 17 February 2025 (UTC) [17].

---

List of accolades received by Loki (TV series)

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer 03:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I took a break from FLC, but I'm back with my second accolades article for an MCU TV series, this time for Loki, one of the few MCU series to get multiple seasons. -- ZooBlazer 03:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Staraction

• based on Marvel Comics featuring the character of the same name. -> based on the Marvel Comics television show featuring the character of the same name, potentially? I'm not very familiar with the article subject but I would imagine Marvel Comics is an adjective.

  Done

• and two Writers Guild of America Award -> and two Writers Guild of America Awards

  Done

• Loki was nominated for four Critics' Choice Television Awards and in genre awards, the series won one Critics' Choice Super Award and one Saturn Award, and was nominated for a Harvey Award, a Hugo Award, and a Dragon Award. -> Loki was nominated for four Critics' Choice Television Awards and in genre awards, a Harvey Award, a Hugo Award, and a Dragon Award, and won one Critics' Choice Super Award. potentially? As it stands the sentence feels overly long.

  I did a mix of what you did, and also just ended up splitting it into 2 sentences.

• The image provided is under a compatible license, has proper alt text and captioning, and is relevant to the article.
• Sources used look reliable, and it looks like citations use CS1 and M D, Y formatting throughout although another source review is needed, at least for WP:HIGHQUALITY, since I'm not familiar with source quality for films. (This is also my first ever source review, so someone should probably go through and make sure I'm not missing something!)
• Source spot check of eight refs, randomly selected:

• Ref 13 checks out.
• Ref 37 checks out.
• Ref 7 checks out.
• Ref 40 checks out. Although, this source potentially is better since it includes the date of the ceremony as well?

• The date of the article in this case matches the ceremony date.

• Ref 29 checks out. Although, this source from the same publisher potentially is better since it clarifies that Loki did not win and includes the date of the ceremony. I'm also unsure about the high quality-ness of Comics Beat, which looks to be a blog (but again, I'm not familiar with sources for this subject). Perhaps you could use the winners and nominees pages for that year instead? Let me know your thoughts.

• I'm not a main editor of accolades articles, but it seems that if the award is not won, then the ref remains the nomination ref.

• Ref 47 checks out.
• Ref 23 checks out.
• Ref 10 checks out.

Well done @ZooBlazer; let me know once you've gone through my feedback, and if you disagree or would like to discuss any of it! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@Staraction Thanks for the review! I think I replied to everything above. -- ZooBlazer 06:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good; support on images and prose, and the source review parts that I did. Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sgubaldo

Putting myself down. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• You seem to be missing some awards; From a quick skim of this IMDB page, I found one more Hugo Award, one more World Soundtrack Award, one more Set Decorators Society Award, one International Film Music Critics Award, two more Hollywood Professional Association Awards. I'd go through and see if there's anything else missing.
• In the table, the scope for header cells which cover more than one row should be "rowgroup", not "row".
• Could you center the references (e.g. style="text-align:center;" | <ref name="ArtDirectorsAwards2022"> or just align="center" | <ref name="ArtDirectorsAwards2022">)?
• All movie titles/tv show titles in the references should be italicised as far as I'm aware; see the fourth bullet point of MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
• Ref. 32 missing wikilink to HMMA.
• Ref. 20's website has changed the way they presented the content. Either remove url-status=live or change title, etc.
• Ditto with Ref. 43.
• 2024 Golden Reel Categories categories missing wikilink in the table.

I don't have any prose concerns. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo Thanks for the helpful comments. I think I've addressed everything. Let me know if something else needs dealt with. -- ZooBlazer 23:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Two more:

• You've repeated the same HPAA ceremony date twice.
• The people's names in the "recipient(s)" column should sort based on surname, not forename (the surname of the first person listed if there's more than one). Sgubaldo (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo Both things should be addressed now. -- ZooBlazer 01:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Just one final comment that Ref. 47 has the wrong date (July 16 instead of July 18 on the website), but I can support already. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for the support! -- ZooBlazer 01:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Entries in the "receipient" column which start with a quote mark should sort based on the first actual letter/word
• One instance of Gugu Mbatha-Raw sorts under G rather than M
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Regarding your first point, are you saying for example that "Race to the Ark" should be sorted by Race instead of the first person listed's name? -- ZooBlazer 09:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that's how I have always been advised. Worth noting, though, that if you intended it to sort based on the first listed person's name then it doesn't currently work either because you have characters before the "sortname" template, which trump the template...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Alright, I think I addressed both points correctly. For sure the Gugu one. Or maybe not since the sort is by the quotation. -- ZooBlazer 09:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe it's correct now? -- ZooBlazer 09:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  I sorted it (no pun intended) and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Source review from TheDoctorWho

I see this list has been awaiting a source review for a minute, so I figured I'd hop in here:

• Ref 20: BAFTA still has a live link up, just needs swapped out and re-archived
• Ref 28: Tor.com --> Reactor (magazine)
• Ref 37: missing an author
• Ref 50: Deadline --> Deadline Hollywood
• Ref 53: web.archive.org can take PDF links that are online, archive probably just needs to be manually added to this article
• Spot checked references: 3, 10, 12, 17, 23, 27, 31, 38, 45, 49, 54, and 60; all the awards seem to check out.

Great work, just a few things to address here! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho Thanks for the review! I think I've addressed all of your comments. -- ZooBlazer 16:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Made two minor fixes to 20 and 28, source review passes. Nice job! TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:09, 16 February 2025 (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) 12:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC) [18].

---

Leader of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia

Nominator(s): --TheUzbek (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is my comeback nomination and, hopefully, my last comeback as well :) I did most of the work but also got invaluable help and insights from @Vipz:. As for why I did not nominate the article earlier, I could never find the membership year of Miroslav Ivanović, the last leader. But as far as I am concerned, that information is lost to history. I've tried to track it down, but I've been at a loss. As for the quality of the article itself and its worthiness for FL, I will note that it is obvious. It both covers a very important historical topic and covers the topic as well as it can do with the sources at hand. --TheUzbek (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima

• Done Shouldn't events before it was renamed to LCY call the party by its period name?
  • Sure, but what specifically are you referring about? One has the "Institutional history of the highest-standing office of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia" table as well as the headers "Political secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia" and "Organisational secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia" for the period up to 1937 and "|Leaders of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia" for the period up to 1991. Or am I missing something you are seeing and not me? :)
• Done Rather than focusing on the names used for the position overtime, I think it'd be better to focus on the evolution of the position's power (and esp. give context for Tito's rule and rise to greater power!)
  • Classical communist institutions are rather vague when it comes to specific powers. For example, the general secretary of the Soviet communist party was not mentioned in the party charter until 1966. The same could be said of earlier stipulations in the Yugoslav party. It is only with the 1966 reforms that the LCY tried to develop a set of institutions different from its Soviet counterparts based on rules. THat is why the article has more information on the post 1966 years than the years before.
• Done Tito needs to be wikilinked at his first mention in the body.
  • Done
• Done Since you wikilink Tito's death in the lede, you should also link it in the body.
  • Done
• Done Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia, Switzerland and the Soviet Union do we need this big list of country names? We can just say "various other countries" or something.
  • Done, shortened it to "Soviet counterpart" as that was the most important one.
• Partially done The LCY's article says it wasn't renamed to the Communist Party of Yugoslavia until the 2nd congress; that might not warrant a separate entry on the tables, but maybe a footnote could be helpful.
  • I have added in the text that the party was renamed at the 2nd and 6th congresses.
• Done Tito's position as leader factored into his command of the resistance during World War II, right? That should be given a good mention.
  • I will try to find information on that. Formally, the partisans were under the control of the Unitary National Liberation Front and the Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia, two institutions the party controlled. The KPJ Central Committee also appointed him commander-in-chief of the resistance, but I don't think they did it formally speaking because he was general secretary. I will try to ascertain it.That is, of course they nominated him because he was the sitting general secretary, but I am not sure that they did that because of the institution he held or because of the immense power he held in practice. Does this make sense? Even so, I will try to use the power of Google!
• Done The article currently doesn't state the point where the party (or the leader for that matter) actually held power in Yugoslavia. A brief mention of the NKOJ and the abolition of the monarchy in 1945 would probably be warranted.
  • Good point, will work on it!
  • Come to think of it, this should at least mention the early political situation, that its leaders led it into the 1920 elections and all
    • Maybe? It's not necessary to know about the institution of the LCY leader, but at the same time, a sentence won't hurt either.
• responsible -> accountability seems like overlinking.
  • Done
• Partially done It's unclear to me whether the President of the League had more power or not than the General Secretary position
  • The general secretary had more informal powers by dominating and leading the secretariat, but the secretariat was abolished in 1966. The powers of the presidents were formalised into clear rules, which never happened to the general secretary. The post-1966 reforms also tried to strengthen the political powers of the Presidency by turning it to a political-executive organ (merging the powers of the Politburo and the Secretariat). In communist systems, the general secretary (most notably Stalin) successfully bypassed the politburo, the highest political organ, by dominating the secretariat, the highest executive organ. I will clarify.
    • As written above, communist politics is de-institutionalised. No clear formal rules on the remit of the general secretary exists.
• Done On the "Institutional history of the highest-standing office" table, probably would be easier to read if you merged the two "1st Congress" cells.
• Done It might be good to add a sentence or two about what led to the foundation of the party with the SSDP and all.
  • Good point!
• Done What was the seat before the Ušće Towers? Also, the towers don't seem to be cited or mentioned anywhere in the text.
  • I will try to find info on this!
• Done This is a pretty minor gripe, but the text in "Institutional history" are in big blocks that are a bit hard to scan. Maybe break it up into slightly smaller paragraphs and add an image if there's any applicable ones?
  • Will do.

@TheUzbek: That's my bit. Sorry if any of this seems too nitpicky - feel free to reject or ask for clarification on anything! Generalissima (talk) (it/she)

@Generalissima: You made great comments, and I will try to address all you're comments by Friday or Saturday :) Thanks for taking the time to review the list! --TheUzbek (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheUzbek: Things look great so far, though I wanted to check if you're done with your fixes or not. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: I have now responded to all you're comments; what do you think? :) --TheUzbek (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Will you ever get back? :) TheUzbek (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Generalissima, is this review finished? History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry! Yes, support - I had completely forgotten about this, I'm so sorry. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

History6042's comments

• "movement by creating on all-Yugoslav" -> "movement by creating an all-Yugoslav" History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• "incumbent political secretary Milan Gorkić as general secretary" -> "incumbent political secretary, Milan Gorkić, as general secretary" History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Capitalize all instances of "politburo" History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• "abrogating the responsibilities of the politburo and centralised power" -> "abrogating the responsibilities of the politburo and centralising power" Make the tense consistent. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• "later re-confirmed by the 11th LCY Congress," -> "later reconfirmed by the 11th LCY Congress," History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• That's all I've got. If these are fixed then I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• @History6042: :Done! Thanks for reviewing the article! TheUzbek (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

TheAstorPastor's comments

Bold words signify that those word(s) have been added or changed

• when it was replaced by the office of president of the LCY. → when it was replaced by the office of the president of the LCY.
• the 14th Congress rejourned and elected → the 14th Congress reconvened and elected
• established as a people's democratic state and established a communist form of government → established as a people's democratic state and adopted a communist form of government
• elected by the congress and was accountable it, the conference → elected by the congress and was accountable to it, the conference The AP (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) I will check the list too; but now nap time!
  • @TheAstorPastor: Thanks, done and I am waiting for you're further comments:) --TheUzbek (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Will you ever get back? :) TheUzbek (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheAstorPastor, is this review finished? History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone, I got caught up with my list—this is all I have for now. I'll be inactive in the next few days, so I don’t think I have much more to add at this point. The AP (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Support on prose The AP (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Cowboygilbert

These are (mostly) small fixes but:

• Looks like you used !scope="row" on other tables except the one that immediately follows the lead?
• Placeholder images should be removed as that method of usage is mostly depreceated. The placeholder image that you used wasn't meant for usage in the mainspace but was for a project namespace project.
• Each of the congress pages should have {{ill}}s (interlanguage links) to Serbian Wikipedia as that project has all the congress articles. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 03:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Fixed scope rows
• Removed images
• Added ill links on all the table mentions of the congress articles. I plan to create all of these articles here on En WP, and I've already started on 12th Congress of the LCY.

TheUzbek (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• @TheUzbek: Scopes are still not showing up, you need to remove the "align=left" parameters that are before the "scope="row"" and add "plainrowheaders" at the top next to the "wikitable" parameter. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 10:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Done (I think)! TheUzbek (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• @TheUzbek: I went ahead and fixed it, you forgot the exclamation point (!) that goes in front of it. I'll do a final sweep when I get home from work around 11 PM EST. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• I am going to go ahead and Support. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed (as much as I can dig in to); promoting. --PresN 01:33, 13 February 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [19].

---

List of nycterids

Nominator(s): PresN 15:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Mammal list #51 in our perpetual series and bat list #10: Nycteridae, or the slit-faced bats. With only 14 species, this is one more small step in our bat journey, just a few more small bats with oddly-shaped faces. Though at least we have a fierce-looking dude for our lead image. This is the last small list for bats, as we're almost done- just one more big list, one overhaul of the fruit bat FL to match the rest, and our final capstone list. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support - all good! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• The images in the table are missing their alt texts.
• The ref for the extinct species (last line of the lead) is for a sister genus, Emballonuridae. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• @MPGuy2824: Whoops, knew I forgot something- now fixed both. --PresN 12:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

ZooBlazer

Source review

• All refs are reliable, with most from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
• Consistent formatting
• Spot checks
  • [2] - checks out
  • [6] - both uses are supported
  • [7] - ditto
  • [10] - all good
  • [13] - supports the info
  • [16] - supports the info
  • [18] - all good

Source review - passes so that's also a support. Nice job with the article! -- ZooBlazer 04:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Jpeeling

• The IUCN site lists 16 in the Nycteris genus, Nycteris madagascariensis and Nycteris vinsoni not appearing on this list, are they the "few extinct prehistoric nycterid species" mentioned or are there other reasons for their omission? JP (Talk) 12:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Jpeeling: No, they should be there- they're not in the ASM, but they were in MSW3 so they should be included. Now added. --PresN 13:56, 29 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [20].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Bini

Nominator(s): Royiswariii Talk! 04:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The Filipino girl group Bini have a numerous awards and nominations from first day until now. I believe that deserve have a featured list here on Wikipedia just like on SB19. Although, I tried to nominate the girl group single Cherry on Top and it was unsuccessful, it may be have a chance here on Featured List (and i will nominate COT soon). Note: I cited a YouTube channel which is a Official Verified Channel and can be treated as reliable sources per WP:RSYT. Royiswariii Talk! 04:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Remove wikilink of Bini above infobox. Wikilink instead first mention of Bini in lead.
• Image used in infobox should have alt text and not use a fixed px size.
• Wikilink first mention of ABS-CBN in lead.
• Mention the individual members of Bini. (Ex: The Filipino girl group Bini, composed of...)
• They began their career in 2020 with the release of their pre-debut single, "Da Coconut Nut", a cover of Ryan Cayabyab’s song., this could be written better (Ex: ...with the release of their pre-debut single, a cover of Ryan Cayabyab's song "Da Coconut Nut". )
• That same year, Bini became the first Filipino group to win Best Asia Act at the 2024 MTV Europe Music Awards[12] was also honored with the Rising Star Award at the Billboard Philippines Women in Music., I'm guessing there should be an "and" after source 12.
• For their efforts in promoting healthy lifetsyles among the youth,, quite vague, could this be better explained?
  • @Royiswariii:, here are my comments. Arconning (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hello, @Arconning! Thank you for you comment!

  • Remove wikilink of Bini above infobox. Wikilink instead first mention of Bini in lead.

  Done.

  • Image used in infobox should have alt text and not use a fixed px size.

  Done.

  • Wikilink first mention of ABS-CBN in lead.

  Done.

  • Mention the individual members of Bini. (Ex: The Filipino girl group Bini, composed of...)

  Done.

  • They began their career in 2020 with the release of their pre-debut single, "Da Coconut Nut", a cover of Ryan Cayabyab’s song., this could be written better (Ex: ...with the release of their pre-debut single, a cover of Ryan Cayabyab's song "Da Coconut Nut". )

  Done.

  • That same year, Bini became the first Filipino group to win Best Asia Act at the 2024 MTV Europe Music Awards[12] was also honored with the Rising Star Award at the Billboard Philippines Women in Music., I'm guessing there should be an "and" after source 12.

  Done. (I just forgot to add "and" lol)

  • For their efforts in promoting healthy lifetsyles among the youth,, quite vague, could this be better explained?

  According to the video, the National Youth Commission (Philippines) appointed The Star Hunt Academy Trainees (which is Bini (girl group) included here) as ambassador in 2019 to promote Fit Fil Youth Against Drugs campaign. Removing due to WP:EXCEPTIONAL, 'cause it's not covered on some news articles.Royiswariii Talk! 12:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Royiswariii Another comment. Multiple sources differ on the spelling of "P-pop Awards", the official awards are entitled the "PPOP Awards". This should be fixed. Arconning (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Arconning Done. Royiswariii Talk! 16:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Mentions of "P-pop Music Awards" and other similar statements need to be replaced with "PPOP Music Awards" as that is the original name based on the official site. Arconning (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  WP:ALLCAPS and MOS:TMRULES should be applied here, right? The word "PPOP" is the short term for Pinoy pop, the popular music in the Philippines. It is not an acronym. Conventionally, it is written as "P-pop", similar to K-pop and other pop music genres. The accolade uses the word to pertain to the fact that they honor Filipino acts in the Philippine popular music. AstrooKai (Talk) 20:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @AstrooKai @Royiswariii Ah I see, I'd suggest to remove the hyphen to stay true to the original award's name while abiding by these, put a note clarifying this to differentiate it with the word "P-pop". Arconning (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Arconning Done! Royiswariii Talk! 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  Follow-up notice on this change. I removed the footnote since the accolade's name is unlikely to be confused since "Ppop" and "P-pop" are acceptable forms. While the hyphenated version is grammatically correct, clarification seems unnecessary in this case since both pertains to the same topic. AstrooKai (Talk) 10:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support. Arconning (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you! Arconning Royiswariii Talk! 12:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Arconning, I think I will agree to AstrooKai because it maybe violates the WP:ALLCAPS and MOS:TMRULES? Royiswariii Talk! 08:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

More comments

• "The Filipino girl group Bini, composed of Aiah, Colet, Maloi, Gwen, Stacey, Mikha, Jhoanna and Sheena have received" => "The Filipino girl group Bini, composed of Aiah, Colet, Maloi, Gwen, Stacey, Mikha, Jhoanna and Sheena, have received"
• "They began their career in 2020 with the release of their pre-debut single" - how can they have had a "pre-debut" single? Surely their first release was their debut....?
• You have "The Filipino girl group Bini [...] have received" and "In 2024, Bini released their first extended play", where the group name is treated as plural, but later you have "Bini [...] was also honored", where the group name is treated as singular
• in the table I can see both "P-Pop" and "P-pop" - which is correct?
• Recipients that start with a quote mark should sort based on the first actual letter/word
• "12 Christmas Song Covers You Should Listen to This 2024" - this doesn't make sense
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hi @ChrisTheDude! Just passed by this FLC discussion. I'm one of the significant contributors to this list and other articles related to the group, so I'm gonna answer one of your comments while the nominator—@Royiswariii—is away.
  
  

  How can they have had a 'pre-debut' single? Surely their first release was their debut....? Pre-debut singles are common in the K-pop industry (considering that idol groups like Bini in the Philippines are primarily influenced by the K-pop industry of South Korea) and is increasing in the P-pop industry. Bini's pre-debut single, "Da Coconut Nut", is an electropop remake of Ryan Cayabyab's song with the same title. On the other hand, "Born to Win" is the debut single of the group, released few days before their official debut. Few example of other pre-debut singles by music groups include:

  • "Kaya" by Kaia
  • "Dash", "Salamat", and "Lovey Dovey" by Hori7on

  AstrooKai (Talk) 15:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  @AstrooKai: - why is "Born to Win" regarded as their debut single if they had already released a single before it? That's what I don't understand..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Born to Win" is considered Bini's debut single because it was the song officially released when the group officially debuted on June 11, 2021, while "Da Coconut Nut" was released as a pre-debut single before their official introduction to the public. AstrooKai (Talk) 16:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hello, @ChrisTheDude!

  I think the purpose of the "pre-debut" is to prepare the members for their official debut while building anticipation and an initial fanbase. So, that's why Bini have a pre-debut before the release of their official debut "Born to Win". Royiswariii Talk! 16:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  • "The Filipino girl group Bini, composed of Aiah, Colet, Maloi, Gwen, Stacey, Mikha, Jhoanna and Sheena have received" "The Filipino girl group Bini, composed of Aiah, Colet, Maloi, Gwen, Stacey, Mikha, Jhoanna and Sheena, have received"

  Done.

  • in the table I can see both "P-Pop" and "P-pop" - which is correct?

  P-pop and P-Pop (known as Pinoy pop) are the same meaning its either, PPOP,P-pop, P-Pop and Pinoy pop can be called on this. However, on WP:BOLD it should be called as "P-pop", so I changed it.

  • "12 Christmas Song Covers You Should Listen to This 2024" - this doesn't make sense

  Actually, it's included in listicles because it's a staff editorial picked from Billboard Philippines which they're also love the song or adding it to listen it because that time is Christmas and they added the song "Joy to the World (Bini song)".

  This will i can answer for now, the other questions or suggestions, i will update it once I added your suggestions. Royiswariii Talk! 17:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe I didn't write it as clearly as I could, but what I meant was that "12 Christmas Song Covers You Should Listen to This 2024" does not make grammatical sense in English. You can't say "this 2024" like you would "this Tuesday" because by definition there was only one 2024 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Never mind, I can see that that actually is the title of the source. It makes no sense in English but I guess we have to go with how the source is titled ..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hi again! Roy gave me the green signal to contribute to this FLC. So I'll help in the other comments.

  • You have 'The Filipino girl group Bini [...] have received' and 'In 2024, Bini released their first extended play', where the group name is treated as plural, but later you have 'Bini [...] was also honored', where the group name is treated as singular

  This is a complex one because the group's name is a collective noun, which can be considered singular or plural depending on the context or its use in the sentence. Hence, the group may be referred to singularly or plurally. A similar practice can be seen in SB19's (another P-pop group) list, List of awards and nominations received by SB19, which is a featured list. In the list, it can be seen that SB19 was referred to plurally (The Filipino boy band SB19 have received...) and singularly (In 2021, SB19 was nominated...). Personally, I can't decide whether to use singular or plural throughout since the group's name usage varies in context.

  • Recipients that start with a quote mark should sort based on the first actual letter/word

  Done. See revision 1267458158.

  AstrooKai (Talk) 05:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Mentioning @ChrisTheDude Royiswariii Talk! 05:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hello, ChrisTheDude!

  I'm pinging you again if this your review is complete? and if you are support or oppose? Royiswariii Talk! 07:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I still don't understand why you swap between referring to the group as singular and plural. You have both "The Filipino girl group Bini [...] has received" but "Bini released their second studio album". In UK English, a group name is treated as plural ("Coldplay are"/"Coldplay have released"). In US English it's treated as singular ("Aerosmith is"/"Aerosmith has released"). I don't know what the norm is in Filipino English but it surely must be one or the other and not a random mixture of both......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Resolved. See revision 1268347141. To avoid further complications resulting in prolonged discussion, which can be time-consuming, I have standardized the referencing of the group's name as a singular entity. Since the article uses Philippine English, which adheres to the American English convention, collective nouns are treated as singular. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks mate! This is duly appreciated! AstrooKai (Talk) 09:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042's comments

• "have received numerous awards" -> "has received numerous awards" This is talking about the band, the band is one thing so it should use has not have.
• "first extended play Talaarawan," -> "first extended play, Talaarawan,"
• "Indicates the year of ceremony." -> "Indicates the year of the ceremony."
• There is no inline citation for "National Outstanding P-pop Female Group of the Year"
• Ping me when done and I'll support unless more issues arise. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042, Done. See revision 1268273705. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Alright then, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, History6042! Royiswariii Talk! 06:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  A bit more,

  • Why are some of the songs having quotes around them and some are italicized, please make this consistent?
  • I don't think YouTube is a reliable source
  • Neither is Facebook.
  • Some things still need to be archived. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Can you point out which song title is italicized? And the YouTube source that is a concern? Because one of the YouTube source points to a video snippet of a news broadcast from News5 that announces the winning of this group in the accolade. The other is an official post of the nominees of an accolade, published by the accolade body themselves.

  As for Facebook, the reason is that Bini was not mentioned by any news articles back when the nominees of the award was announced, probably because Bini wasn't known that time and was given minor perspective. The Facebook posts are published by the awarding body themselves.

  Before I added these sources (the Facebook ones), I discussed this with another editor that is already familiar with this situation since they have done it before (nominating a list like this for SB19 to FLC with similar situation at hand). They said that these are acceptable and are considered "statement of facts" per the WP:PRIMARY policy:

  A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. — WP:PRIMARY

  I guess this can be applied to the other YouTube source too. AstrooKai (Talk) 14:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, the fact that Facebook and YouTube was discussed makes that okay. The italicized titles were a mistake, I just realized those were albums, sorry. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  No worries. I appreciate raising the concerns! AstrooKai (Talk) 22:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Jpeeling

• Table lists it as "Ppop Music Awards", lead/infobox as "P-pop Music Awards", choose one and stick with it
• Within the table, the "nominated" for the 2022 Awit Awards does not have the pink background like the others in that column, any reason?
• Within the table there is no reference for the Ppop Music Awards - 2022 - P-pop Girl Group of the Year nomination
• In the infobox, there is inconsistency on whether wins are also classed as nomination totals, for example the single win at Acervo Awards is included in the nomination tally but for P-pop Music Awards it is 13 wins and 4 nominations so the wins are not counted as nominations.
• In the infobox, Myx Music Awards is listed twice
• In the other accolades section, "The 15 Best Albums and EPs of 2024" isn't centred
• In the other accolades section, some of the Billboard Philippines references are entitled "best x of 2024 (so far)" and were published mid-way through the year, is it accurate to list them as annual accolades without that "so far" cavaet, were any of these accolade lists updated by Billboard Philippines at the end of year?

JP (Talk) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello,Jpeeling!

I'm apologize for not responding due to participating on NPP January Backlog 2025 and my semester and school was back, and it's Done see revision 1269781155.

• In the other accolades section, some of the Billboard Philippines references are entitled "best x of 2024 (so far)" and were published mid-way through the year, is it accurate to list them as annual accolades without that "so far" cavaet, were any of these accolade lists updated by Billboard Philippines at the end of year?
  • I check the ref of Billboard Philippines where have a "(so far)", I think it was a final and I don't see any changes, however, I suggest that do not remove the "(so far)" ref title to avoid misrepresent or confusion, I guess.

If you have any questions, just ping me. Royiswariii Talk! 10:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Royiswariii:, sorry if I wasn't clear regarding my final point, an article written in June or July with a "best x of 2024 (so far)" portrayed as "best x of 2024" is misleading. As you can see with the "The 15 Best Albums and EPs of 2024" (written in June) -> "The 50 Best Albums and EPs of 2024" (written in December), a lot can happen in half a year. Either the table should include the "(so far)" bit or were there end of year lists for Standout Songs or Music Videos that can be used instead? I also think points 1, 3 and 4 of my comments remain unresolved. JP (Talk) 11:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Jpeeling! @Royiswariii has allowed me to take over this one and address it on their behalf.

• Table lists it as "Ppop Music Awards", lead/infobox as "P-pop Music Awards", choose one and stick with it

Done, see revision 1269786544. I have sticked to "Ppop ..." since it's the official styling (no hyphens) of the accolade's name.

• Within the table there is no reference for the Ppop Music Awards - 2022 - P-pop Girl Group of the Year nomination

Done, see revision 1269787293.

• In the infobox, there is inconsistency on whether wins are also classed as nomination totals, for example the single win at Acervo Awards is included in the nomination tally but for P-pop Music Awards it is 13 wins and 4 nominations so the wins are not counted as nominations.

Done, see revision 1269786205. Wins are also considered nominations, Roy may have probably misunderstood your point.

As for the Billboard Philippines listicles, I have removed the partial year listicles since they were already completed by December 2024.

• 24 Standout Songs of 2024 --> The 50 Best Songs of 2024
• 10 Best Music Videos of 2024 --> The 50 Best Music Videos of 2024
• The 15 Best Albums and EPs of 2024 --> The 50 Best Albums and EPs of 2024

Let me know if there's anything else needed to be addressed. AstrooKai (Talk) 11:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you AstrooKai, all my comments are resolved, happy to Support. JP (Talk) 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That is good to hear. Thank you! AstrooKai (Talk) 13:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "The formation of the group began in 2018 when ABS-CBN's Head of Entertainment Production, Laurenti Dyogi, selected the members from a talent search to undergo training." → I'd recommend rewording this by starting with "In 2018, ABS-CBN's Head of Entertainment Production, Laurenti Dyogi..." as the previous sentence also starts with "the"
• "The group gained wider recognition" → "Bini gained wider recognition" (avoid overuse of "the group")
• "where Aiah, Sheena, and Jhoanna also won individual awards." → unlink the names of the members per MOS:DL
• Link extended play
• "The group also won several awards at the 2024 P-pop Music Awards" → "At the 2024 P-pop Music Awards, the group won several awards"

That's all from me! Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Sebbirrrr!

Done see revision 1269783858 Royiswariii Talk! 11:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Support. Sebbirrrr (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Royiswariii Talk! 05:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

I'll do the source review for this, numbers from this revision Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is WatchMojo worth inclusion? It was deemed unrelaible as recently as 2020

Ref 10 what is Philstar Life?

Refs 11 and 50 link to Billboard Philippines for consistancy

Refs 20 and 21 list Awit Awards as the writer and not as the website

Ref 44 and 45 list Preview when the source labels itself as Preview.PH

Date formatting is inconsistent some use MDY some use DMY some use dashes

A few MOS:DASH violations

Given the amount of nonlinked Awards some of these it raises the question of WP:UNDUE

Several refs are lacking archives

That's all I got ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, OlifanofmrTennant! Thank you for reviewing this.

• "Why is WatchMojo worth inclusion? It was deemed unrelaible as recently as 2020"
  • Removed, I apologize for citing this, I really don't know that WatchMojo are not reliable.
• "Ref 10 what is Philstar Life?"
  • Philstar Life is a lifestyle platform under the Philippine Star. it is a English newspaper in the Philippines, their content is entertainment, fashion beauty, travel, health etc. (You can read their about us)
• "Refs 11 and 50 link to Billboard Philippines for consistancy"
  • Done.
• "Refs 20 and 21 list Awit Awards as the writer and not as the website"
  • We copied this on List of awards and nominations of SB19 an FL and a Filipino boy band group, you might check it out on ref 20 it's similar to Refs 20 and 21. I will not change for now until you comment again.
• "Date formatting is inconsistent some use MDY some use DMY some use dashes"
• "Ref 44 and 45 list Preview when the source labels itself as Preview.PH"
  • Done I name "Preview Philippines".
  • We don't use Mdy in Philippine article, I'll manually adding dates without a dash.
• A few MOS:DASH violations
  • per above.
• "Given the amount of nonlinked Awards some of these it raises the question of WP:UNDUE"
  • Some articles are not here in wikipedia due to WP:VERI, WP:GNG and WP:NPOV (but mostly are failed from WP:SIGCOV and GNG). I can't create a article because it might be deleted, so, I'll pass to other editors who are willing to create a article.
• Several refs are lacking archives
  • Done

I'll update you once I finish the dates on the refs. ROY is WAR Talk! 06:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, OlifanofmrTennant

I already done to fix the dates of mdy see revision 1273464083 ROY is WAR Talk! 12:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, @OlifanofmrTennant, is there any update for this? It's been 3/4 days on my reply and you haven't reply for this. ROY is WAR Talk! 15:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

PresN, I am asking if can be promoted now? since it reaches consensus and it's 1 month since the nomination. If not, I can be patient more. Thanks! ROY is WAR Talk! 05:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Royiswariii: 1 month isn't unusual, especially given the amount of feedback that's been given on this nomination. Each of the coords typically checks a couple times a week for nominations eligible for promotion, and often times we may have to conduct our own reviews based on things we may be concerned about or suspect may have been missed. So long as you address all concerns that are brought up (which you have), it's usually just a matter of timing. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Review is based on this version of the article.

• Ref 1 – Change "Philippine Star to "The Philippine Star" to match the target and other references
• Refs 3 and 25 – Requires an account or subscription to read in full, reference should note it as such with the url-access parameter
• Ref 4 – Link is dead, mark it as such
• Refs 17 – Why is the Philippine Star listed as the publisher in these, unlike the other references?
• Ref 16 – Should link to ABS-CBN News instead of ABS-CBN Entertainment. It's the same domain as the news references, and under the heading it says "ABC-CBN News". Also make it as work instead of publisher
• Ref 16 – Author is formatted improperly
• Ref 17 – Author formatted incorrectly
• Ref 11 – Missing author
• Ref 11 – Date I see says December 4, does it displaying differently for you based on a timezone?
• Ref 33 & 34 – Why is one using publisher and the other is using work? Make consistent by using the work parameter
• Refs 21 and 21 – Awit Awards should not be listed as the author, it should be listed as work in this case, but still listed as via Facebook.
• Ref 38 – Change to GMA Integrated News, as that's what said on the site
• Ref 14 – Change to GMA Integrated News, as that's what said on the site
• Ref 28 – Change to GMA Integrated News, for consistency
• Ref 41 – The author name used does not match the source
• Ref 42 – Author formatted incorrectly
• Ref 45 – Tag Media Chicago should be the work, not the author
• Ref 50 – Missing author
• Ref 51 – Missing author
• Ref 56 – Name is backed, it's D. Mariah, not Mariah D.
• Try to run iabot and see if you can archive more sources

That's what I have for now. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey Josh! Thanks for taking the time to check the references. Here's my address to these issues:

• Ref 1 – Change "Philippine Star to "The Philippine Star" to match the target and other references

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Refs 3 and 25 – Requires an account or subscription to read in full, reference should note it as such with the url-access parameter

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 4 – Link is dead, mark it as such

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Refs 17 – Why is the Philippine Star listed as the publisher in these, unlike the other references?

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 16 – Should link to ABS-CBN News instead of ABS-CBN Entertainment. It's the same domain as the news references, and under the heading it says "ABC-CBN News". Also make it as work instead of publisher

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 16 – Author is formatted imrpoeprly

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 17 – Author formatted incorrectly

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 11 – Missing author

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 11 – Date I see says December 4, does it displaying differently for you based on a timezone?

Done. Changed it to December 4. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 33 & 34 – Why is one using publisher and the other is using work? Make consistent by using the work parameter

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Refs 21 and 21 – Awit Awards should not be listed as the author, it should be listed as work in this case, but still listed as via Facebook.

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 38 – Change to GMA Integrated News, as that's what said on the site

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 14 – Change to GMA Integrated News, as that's what said on the site

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 28 – Change to GMA Integrated News, for consistency

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 41 – The author name used does not match the source

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 42 – Author formatted incorrectly

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 45 – Tag Media Chicago should be the work, not the author

Done. I have set Tag Media Chicago as the publisher since they published it on YouTube. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 50 – Missing author

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 51 – Missing author

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 56 – Name is backed, it's D. Mariah, not Mariah D.

Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Try to run iabot and see if you can archive more sources

I ran it multiple times yesterday, but it's not archiving the other sources. We may try manually archiving them later. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I have also used appropriate {{Cite ...}} templates for the citations. Let me know if there are still needed. Feel free to reply to each bullet point for specific problems. Thanks again for the time reviewing it! AstrooKai (Talk) 23:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh Done per AstrooKai addressed all your concerns. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

There were issues with a couple more authors, but I went ahead and fixed those. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! We appreciate it. AstrooKai (Talk) 22:44, 7 February 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [21].

---

Svalbard discography

Nominator(s): Chchcheckit (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I am about 1 article away from setting up a "Svalbard studio albums good topic" (4 albums); this is basically the reason this page exists. And because I think I've covered most/all bases in terms of their releases. Yeah. // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: all 4 studio albums are at GA status. // Chchcheckit (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Noting that you had failed to transclude this page to WP:FLC, but I've just done so @Chchcheckit. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

ah. Facepalm // Chchcheckit (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support from MFTP Dan

Hello! I just have a few comments, mostly about sourcing.

• The band's formation story should be tightened for a discography page. How they met Lilley is not important here, especially considering this source is borderline and admissible probably only because of the circumstances of types of sources available to cover the band at the time. So, less is better here.
• I would recommend briefly highlighting in the lead how The Weight of the Mask was the band's first album to chart.
• Refs 26, 29, 35, and 36 are all attributed to Kerrang!. How come 26 and some others have an author placeholder? I don't think it's necessary myself, but if you must insist on adding something to that spot in the absence of a writing credit in the source, please do it to all such citations. You do it to at least one other source, too. Just make it consistent.
• What makes ref 5 and 15 - Circuit Sweet - a reliable source?
• What makes refs 7 and 18 - Idioteq - a reliable source? In all reality it's probably fine but I've never used it before and I don't remember if I ever have heard of it.
• Ref 12 should be reformatted to read Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles.
• Ref 38 - thePRP - is not my favorite. Is there anything better covering this information?

Other than that, good job. Look forward to seeing this and the albums promoted. mftp dan ^oops 14:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan Hi again. Comments:

• "this source is borderline and admissible probably only because of the circumstances of types of sources available to cover the band at the time" is an issue I recognize. I have tried to avoid primary sources where possible. im cureently looking for alternative sources to circuit sweet & idioteq in case ig:
  • If it helps, here's another reference confirming the release date of Flightless Birds
• lead cut down w/ note.
• Fixed Kerrang inconsistencies.
• Brave Words reformatted
• Regarding thePRP: I was trying to find a source which stated the director name. The only other one I can find with a google search of "to wilt beneath the weight" "fraser west" [sic] is this, if this is (though i don't think it is) any better.

I've never done one of these before so ig i got things to learn lol // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I find Thrash Hits preferable to Circuit Sweet, for what it's worth. It's certainly more recognized in the scene. mftp dan ^oops 22:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's certainly more recognized in the scene. // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

if consensus then consensus nonetheless // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan alr, see anything else that needs patching up? // 22:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Chchcheckit (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

In the absence of anything otherwise suitable, the official video currently lists the director in the YouTube description. mftp dan ^oops 22:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

i'll just do that then. Chchcheckit (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked into thePRP more - I'd prefer if you removed it actually, wookubus claims to be the only person running the place and I don't like the idea of using a self-published source here. After that, I will support, that about does it. mftp dan ^oops 00:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Aok Chchcheckit (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan done. plus copyedits Chchcheckit (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• You largely treat the band name as a plural, which is correct for British English, but as an outlier you have "Svalbard self-released its eponymous debut extended play in May 2012"
• "Svalbard developed a relationship with Pariso" - are Pariso another band? If so, maybe say "Svalbard developed a relationship with the [some sort of description] band Pariso"
• "release of their third album When I Die, Will I Get Better?." - as the title ends with a punctuation mark, there is no need for that full stop
• "Format: 7"" - suggest "Format: 7" vinyl" for total clarity (same on other similar rows)
• That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude All points have been addressed. // Chchcheckit (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "Svalbard self-released their eponymous debut extended play in May 2012" → "Svalbard self-released their eponymous debut extended play (EP) in May 2012"
• "The band's fourth album" → "Svalbard's fourth album"
• All tables need a caption
• Are the music videos included on the albums?
• Shouldn't the year for ref 4 be 2015 as that is when Discography 2012–2014 was released?

That's everything from me! Sebbirrrr (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sebbirrrr:

• Done
• Done
• Done
• Are the music videos included on the albums? Confused: Please clarify what you mean by this
• Ref 4 is the 2016 reissue/remaster, which I own. I use this reissue specificially (as opposed to the 2015 original and 2022 Church Road pressing) because it has detailed liner notes on when EP's/songs were released, pressing quantity and recoridng credits. The other reissues do not include such credits.

// Chchcheckit (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

(note: the original catalog number for the 2015 issue is HRR130CD, as opposed to HRR164) Chchcheckit (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait.

• "Svalbard self-released their eponymous debut extended play (EP) in May 2012" Isn't that kinda redundant since "extended play" is already mentioned above??

// Chchcheckit (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chchcheckit: Apologies for the extended play comment, I skipped over the first sentence but "(EP)" should be added after "six extended plays" as the acronym appears later. Regarding the music videos, I meant to say that if they were not put on the album alongside the songs, then the album section is redundant. Thanks for clarifying my ref 4 confusion. Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

How is that redundant? The song the video was filmed for belongs to the album, I don't see how that really implies what you're saying it does. mftp dan ^oops 17:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

i don't personally think they matter but aghhhhhh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ // Chchcheckit (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry! I just thought that column is better suited only for the singles but now I think it's fine to leave it as it is. Just don't forget about adding EP in the first sentence and that should be all! Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

ok Chchcheckit (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sebbirrrr done Chchcheckit (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Great work! Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review from TheDoctorWho

I can see a few comments on sourcing have been made above, but this is still listed as needing a formal source review.

• Not a sourcing issue, but the image needs alt text
• "V13.net" -> "V13 Media"
• The following comments apply to multiple sources:
  • Is "csweet" just an abbreviation for Circuit Sweet? If so, this should be removed as there doesn't appear to be a listed author on the source.
  • Is "anon" just an abbreviation for Anonymous? If so, same goes above.
  • Same goes for "admin".
  • Several sources are still live, but contain no archive.
• Spotchecked references 3, 8, 11, 16, 21, 24, 36, most appear to support their statements, bar the two below
  • Ref 21 doesn't appear to support that "Ripped Apart" was released in 2014
  • Ref 36 doesn't appear to support that Phelan directed "Silent Restraint"

Great work! Just a few issues to address. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho Thank you!!

• done
• done
• done
• done
• done
• internet archive botted
• Is Ref 21 an issue because it says "streamed"?
• Ref 36: "Whilst putting these clips together I realised that, to me, this video represents positivity and togetherness in a time when we've never been further apart," says Liam. [...] Thanks to everyone who contributed. I had a lot of fun putting it together." ah. i see. editing is not directing??? "n/a"-ed.

// Chchcheckit (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The issue with source 21 was that I wasn't seeing a date (like essentially there was no way for me to tell if the article had been published in 2014 vs. yesterday). I checked the archived link, and it had the publish date, it's just something that's been removed in the live version of the source. Regardless, I'm satisfied with the archive link. Source review passes and I'm happy to support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• I think the singles and music video tables could be vastly improved by moving the references to their own columns. I recognize that the studio album table may not need this, as the current format is typical of album tables.
• Studio album table is missing some column scopes
• Music videos table is missing all column scopes
• "Kerrang!" as the website is not consistently wikilinked in sources
• Ref 29 – Leave out "Kerrang! Staff" as the author. It's assumed its the site/company's staff when no author is listed, hence the website parameter.
• Ref 7 – Same as above, remove "Rock Sound" as the author
• The music video sources, in a spot check I did, were not actually verifying the directors that are mentioned
• The ref for Ripped Apart under the singles table doesn't verify the year

Please make sure that the refs appropriately verify the information, that scopes are added where necessary, that the publisher/website is linked where possible in references, and then I'll provide a further review. Please ping me when that has been addressed. I do also have some concerns about the reliability of some sources used, but I'll address that in further feedback once the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi;

• What are the missing column scopes? Sorry, not clear/don't understand what you mean here (i understand)
• Krrang staff (ref29) and Rock Sound (ref7) removed
• The music video sources, in a spot check I did, were not actually verifying the directors that are mentioned. I have a good idea of what you're gonna say. Should the director credits (mostly found in the music videos/youtube sources) be kept separate from the general references for the music videos?
• "Ripped Apart": archive URL used instead. this issue was noted by TheDoctorWho also.

// Chchcheckit (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Okay, done all suggestions? I've added a column for references like you suggested. // Chchcheckit (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Also: removed citations that were not directly verifing music videos directors Chchcheckit (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh ping

Chchcheckit (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

sorry for the delay @Chchcheckit, I missed the first ping and don't typically edit on weekends.

• Scopes appear to have been resolved.
• For the Sake of the Breed don't verify the directors
• Looking at Dispartiy, is "Video by Liam Phelan" supposed to be interpreted as the director? This would also apply to a couple other videos.
• What makes "Already Heard" considered a reliable source?
• Same question about Circuit Sweet
• Can we do better than an independent record store in Ohio for reference one? I'd imagine the date of formation, members, and the fact they went through multiple bassists could be sourced from elsewhere
• Brooklyn Vegan is listed as a blog, and their editor in chief seems to just go by "Dave" has it ever been discussed at RSN?

I think that's all I have for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Hi! thanks.

• ive been using the "video by" (disparity, open the cages, ftsotb, eternal spirits, faking it, to wilt beneath the weight) as director credit. idk a workaround for that it's the closest i have gotten to credit
• id say BrooklynVegan's wikipedia page offers enough cred behind them?? page also states that founder/editor "Dave" is David Levine. Ive also used BV on various GAs with no issue, though as an FA idk the difference. elaborate/explain if i don't understand sorry :)))
• circuit sweet is no longer cited/replaced by other refs
• redone w/out "bassists" line.
• would it be better to use something like their archived bandcamp page as a reference for what was released as a single, versus what was released as a music video only??? In doing so, I would probably get rid of "ripped apart" as "stream" is not clear as a web/site exclusive or smth else and get rid of already heard and the video announcement for "open the cages" (there aren't many sources about the announcement).

// Chchcheckit (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Your last point may be best addressed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music or WP:ALBUMS, but I don't believe Bandcamp would be considered an appropriate source. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Clarification: not to cite it, just to use as a means of deduction. // Chchcheckit (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

oh. // Chchcheckit (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Okay uhhhh I removed the instance of bandcamp and replaced it w/ another source. What's left. Chchcheckit (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll go ahead n support. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

thank you!!!!!! // Chchcheckit (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [22].

---

List of Kristen Bell performances

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Worked on this a while back then I never finished it because I forgot to... so i've finished it and believe that it should pass FLC Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on this version of the article.

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Table needs column scopes Done
• Table needs a title for accessibility Done
• You used row=scope instead of scope=row, which needs to be fixed Done
• When the rowspan is 2 or more, you should use rowgroup as the scope instead Done
• There's a couple instances, such as 2005 and 2010 in the film table, where there's efforts to set the scope twice Done
• Gossip girl row under television says 21–2023, I assume this was meant to be 2021–2023 Done
• Image needs alt text Done
• Ref 2 – Needs publish date Done
• Ref 2 – Says it was published by Jen Juneau, not Jim Done
• Refs 6, 11, 64, 75, and 77 – Change to TV Guide instead of TVGuide, to match the target Done
• Ref 20 – Add Associated Press as the agency Done
• Ref 20 – Add publish date Done
• Refs 23, 52, 53, 59, 63, 70 – "ScreenRant" -> "Screen Rant" to match the target Done
• Ref 29, 31, 67, 115 – (The New York Times sources)Add the url-access parameter to note that this story is accessed in full with a subscription by adding |url-access=subscription Done
• Refs 38 and 88 – "The Los Angeles Times" -> "Los Angeles Times" to match the target Done
• Ref 40 – "The Independtf" -> "The Independent" Done
• Ref 46 – Add url-access parameter (The Atlantic) Done
• Refs 82, 121, 122 – (Rolling Stone)
  • What about them? Done

That's what I've got to start and I'll have more feedback after this has been addressed. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Done with everything except the last one Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh sorry, the last one was meant to indicate it also needed the url-access parameter @OlifanofmrTennant. I'll try to go through for more feedback today.. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this.

• You were missing a number of scopes still, but the cells were led with an exclamation point, making the first cell in a row grey, which sometimes makes people mistakenly think a scope has been defined
• Some of the scopes were row when they should have been rowgroup, fixed
• There were duplicate exclamation points in a spot
• There were duplicate scope definitions in the same spot
• I fixed the above issues, but please try to more diligent and careful about the scopes in future noms

The rest of the review is based on this version of the page.

• Refs 5 and 72 – One uses "E!" and the other uses "E! Online" Done
• Ref 34 and 41 – Cinema Blend appears to be showing up in my source highlighter as not reliable, any thoughts on its reliability?

• Cinemablend is published by Future plc, this FAQ breifly touches on their editorial policy and a little more detail can be found on their about page.

• Ref 35 – Author is listed as Joseph C. Lin instead of Joseph Lin. Typically we'd want to use whatever they list themselves as instead of cutting it short, since some authors do opt to include a middle initial for various reasons. Done
• Ref 38 and 88 – Mark as a subscription required (Los Angeles Times) Done'
• Ref 40 – Needs author and publish date
• Ref 43 – Add publish date Done
• Ref 45 – Add publish date Done
• Ref 48 – Needs a publish date Done
• Ref 55 – Add author Done
• Ref 56 – Add publish date Done
• Ref 60 – Add author and publish date Done
• Ref 73 – Add author Done
• Ref 81 – Add publish date Done
• Ref 87 – Add publish date Done
• Ref 90 – Add author Done
• Ref 92 – Change "TIME" to "Time" - match target / be consistent withref 35 Done
• Ref 92 – Add author Done
• Ref 103 – Mark as subscription required (The Boston Globe) Done
• Ref 107 – Add publish date Done

That should be the gist of what I got (ping me when done). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: done also to explain the first half, I didn't alter the table manually to use scopes I used the find and replace tool. Didn't think it would have such a poor result so I will not be using it going forward Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Titles starting with "A" or "The" should sort based on the next word in the title
• Eleanor Shellstrop should sort under S
• That's it I think - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - not sure what is expected on this type of list but a bit concerned regarding the role column generally lacking sourcing. The table lists full name of the roles, when many of the references identify the first name of her character only which might be as much as you could expect, however some references don't list a character name at all - 'Safety Not Guaranteed', 'Stuck in Love', 'The Boss' and 'CHiPs' for example, can alternative sources be found? The reference used for 'Big Mouth' only mentions her role in 'Central Park'. The reference used for 'Gracie's Choice' doesn't even mention that film at all, except for in the comments, so can't identify if Gracie Thompsom is a typo. JP (Talk) 14:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Replaced the Gracie's choice citation but as for the role, in my experience, all you need is a source confirming the actor appeared in the film, the role is confirmed by the movie/show. Similar to how you Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Jpeeling: forgot to ping Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Jpeeling, just wanted to see if you had more feedback and to see if @OlifanofmrTennant addressed your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  No further feedback, my original concerns remain but the nominator disagrees with them. JP (Talk) 13:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TheDoctorWho

• "and appeared in a Broadway revival of The Crucible the following year" - what is the following year? An initial year is never stated. Done
• "appeared in a Broadway" -> "appearing in a broadway" Done
• "lead role of Eleanor Shellstrop on the critically acclaimed NBC comedy series" - 'critically acclaimed' is loaded language and requires multiple high quality sources to support it. While I don't disagree, such sources aren't attached to the statement, you either need to remove them or add sources. MOS:ACCLAIMED/WP:PUFFERY. Done
• Can I ask about the reliability of Moviefone? It appears that they once referred to their authors as "bloggers" ([23]) and Monika isn't listed there at that time.
  • The bloggers labeled appears to be a branding thing, I'll see if its replaceable.
• There's quite a few listings in the television section that specify a number of episodes. WP:FILMOGRAPHY requires many of these to be directly sourced - "Do not list the number of episodes if the role is a starring or major recurring role unless it is sourced. If the role does not cover the entire run of a television program, list the seasons involved instead." - can I ask if this advice is followed? Done
• Why is the role field empty for The Tiny Chef Show? Added
• The role in A Man on the Inside is uncredited per the source - any reason why uncredited roles are noted in some places and not others?
  • As far as I'm aware all roles that are un-credited are listed as such, I didnt create the table only sourced it. I don't really want to check the credits of 100 or so different projects
• It appears that there are some web sources that are still live that haven't been archived. Done
• There are also some MOS:CURLY quotes in reference titles
  • Which ones? I tried a script but nothing came up
• And at least one incorrect date format.

I think that's all I have, great work!TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead an ran them, but this is my preferred dumb quote converter, this for dates. No worries about checking 100 credits, but I would at least go ahead and add the uncredited mention to the single credit I mentioned. I can see you've already run IA Bot and I know it's been a little pesky lately, so I'm satisfied with that as well If they the "bloggers" is a branding thing, it's not an issue, I just wanted to check. Just the "critically acclaimed" and filmography number of episodes to go before I pass the sources. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• @TheDoctorWho: done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  Happy to support, great work again! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [24].

---

List of Hot Adult Contemporary number ones of 1984

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

With the 1982 list having just been promoted and the 1983 list having significant support, here's the 1984 list. In this particular year, two of the guys behind one of the most famous heavy rock songs of all time made their first appearance on a chart historically more used to the likes of Barry Manilow and the Carpenters and went all the way to number one. Feedback as always will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• The three images in the list section need "pictured in xyz" since all of them are more than a decade from 1984.
• Billboard magazine does have an ISSN: 0006-2510. You can consider adding that to the relevant refs, if you want.
• Didn't see any other problems with prose or table accessibility. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I added the "pictured in". Unlike me to omit that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

I got nothing. Great stuff Chris. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

Table has row scopes

Table has column scopes

Table has a screen reader only caption

All four images have proper alt text

Everything sorts properly

Several refs are missing archive urls

Ref 6 needs the "|url-access=subscription" parameter

Sources are consistantly linked

All but ref 4 are consistently using the MDY format

Probably use the "Use MDY dates" template.

Spot checked 15 sources and everything lined up.

In the Stevie Wonder image shouldnt Academy Award be linked?

That's all I got ping when done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: - date and access parameter fixed. I have run the IABot on this article five or six times and some of the refs it simply refuses to archive, no idea why -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah sometimes IAbot just doesn’t work. Try manually archiving the refs but I won’t hold on that Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 08:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

ZooBlazer

I was going to try to be nitpicky just to find some sort of issue, but everything looks good already. Well done yet again with this series of lists! Support. -- ZooBlazer 07:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

NØ

Support - Seems like there has been a good amount of feedback already. Great work as usual! I have an FAC somewhat struggling to gain traction in case you are interested.--NØ 05:59, 31 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [25].

---

List of songs recorded by SZA

Nominator(s): Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 05:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Having returned from a pretty chill holiday break, I've found myself in a better headspace to work on major projects. Inspired by the release of SZA's most recent album, I'd like to present the list of songs recorded by SZA. This was a daunting page to complete, but I hope with your comments, this list is brought to its best possible condition. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 05:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Glaston2024 2806 300624 (157 of 173) (53837667841) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Pulitzer2018-portraits-kendrick-lamar.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Isaiah Rashad Feb 2014.jpg - CC BY 2.0, original source shows a different tag or am I missing something?
• File:Travis Scott - Openair Frauenfeld 2019 08.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Cardi B 2021 02.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Doja Cat Planet Her Day Party 1 (cropped).jpg - CC0
• File:Glasto2023 (181 of 468) (53009327490) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Deshaymephi.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:RobBisel–NicKhang1 (2) (cropped) (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• Captions, alt text, pictures, all relevant.
  • Just have the one inquiry^ Arconning (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Arconning, the image was originally uploaded on Flickr under CC BY 2.0 (it seems the user who reposted it to Commons erroneously used CC BY 4.0). The Flickr license changed to CC BY-ND 2.0 in 2018, but that was two years after the license review Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 02:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

      Ooh I see, Support then. Arconning (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments on lead only

• "Psychedelic, lo-fi instrumentals and an urban musical style with "feminine inflections" characterize SZA's early songs" - "psychedelic" is an adjective, not a noun, so you can't say that "Psychedelic [...] characterize[s] SZA's early songs"
  • ....thinking about it, is it meant to mean "Psychedelic lo-fi instrumentals"? If so, then lose the comma as it causes confusion (to me at least, it seems ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I changed the comma to an "and" (to prevent sea of blue issues)
• "As time passed, the media started to consistently label SZA in publications" - last two words are redundant I think - where else would the media label her thus?
  • Good point
• "SZA has appeared on dozens of soundtracks" - really? she has appeared on 25+ soundtracks? That seems a lot for an artist who released her debut album less than 8 years ago.....
  • That was definitely a stray phrase I forgot to remove before moving to mainspace. My bad.
• "her label's manager Punch said that leaks of the sort could cause" => "her label's manager Punch said that leaks of this sort could cause" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Pinging @PSA for followup. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you Josh for the reminder. Apologies that this totally slipped my mind. @ChrisTheDude, I hope the replies have addressed your concerns. Regards, Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 02:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hello @ChrisTheDude, just wanted to know if you have anything else to add. Thanks, Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 03:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Apologies, I will endeavour to revisit later today -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "Feminine inflections" is a quote and should be attributed accordingly
  • Removed; I figured it made the sentence way too long
• "Dear Evan Hansen soundtrack" → "Dear Evan Hansen: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack"
• "Space Jam: A New Legacy soundtrack" → "Space Jam: A New Legacy (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)"
• "Trolls World Tour soundtrack" → "Trolls World Tour: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack"
• "Insecure soundtrack" → "Insecure (Music from the HBO Original Series)"
  • Any reason why all of these four should be changed?
    • Those are the names that the soundtrack albums were released under and thus it would be appropriate to label them as such in the table. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• "SZA co-wrote one SOS track with Lizzo" → "SZA co-wrote "F2F" with Lizzo" per WP:EASTEREGG
  • Removed the link instead
• Wouldn't it be better to have a separate column for the refs in the unreleased songs table?
  • I do not think so. Moving all the references to another column will (1) make the column very cluttered and (2) make it hard for readers to determine which source supports which fact
    • Didn't think of the latter but it makes sense. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• The acronym DSPs is invoked several times but it doesn't say anywhere what it stands for
  • Now defined in the "Back Together" entry

That's all I have! Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Sebbirrrr. responses above. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 02:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@PSA: Thanks for the ping, just one more inquiry. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sebbirrrr done (for consistency with the For the Throne entry) Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on this version of the article.

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ref 12 – ASCAP and BMI shouldn't be listed as the authors, but as work/publisher or something similar
• Ref 12 and 106 – Typically we only do via Internet Archive when they're the host of said info, like a book or something.
• Ref 106 – ASCAP should be listed as the website or work instead of the author
• Ref 117 – Link American Songwriter
• Ref 118 – Missingauthor and publish date
• Ref 118 – Is there a reason you don't link to People (magazine) and pipe it as "People"?
• Ref 120 – No website listed

Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @PSA for follow up on this and the below comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Hey man im josh, and sorry for the wait. I believe I've addressed everything. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 08:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

More comments

• "They are former Top Dawg labelmates" - source?
• "He and SZA are current labelmates." - source?
  • Hello, @ChrisTheDude. Apologies for the wait. I have added citations for both facts Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 07:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• The unreleased songs section contains several songs which were apparently released.......?

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• • "Unreleased" refers to songs that neither SZA, her label, nor her collaborators released. Perhaps changing the header to "Unreleased music" will clarify things? If you're referring to "Die for You" and "Calling My Phone", then you'd be correct, but there were demo verses by SZA that were intended for the final songs and leaked online. That was what I meant by unreleased. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]}
    • In that case I would suggest "Songs not officially released" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

    @ChrisTheDude, done Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 15:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [26].

---

List of Billboard Latin Pop Albums number ones from the 1990s

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It's been a while since I posted any FL nominees, sorry about that, been fighting my personal demons. Anyways, this is a continuation of List of Billboard Latin Pop Albums number ones from the 1980s. As always, I'm open to any address any issues brought up on this list! Erick (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• "has since became a sub chart" -> "has since become a sub chart"
• "established on the same week" -> "established in the same week"
• "requiring to have 70% of its content" -> "requiring it to have 70% of its content"
• "Latin albums in the US" -> "Latin album in the US"
• "Ricky Martin, Luis Miguel, dubbed" -> "Ricky Martin, and Luis Miguel, dubbed"
• "credited for reviving mainstream interest" -> "credited with reviving mainstream interest"
• History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 Fixed all that you addressed, thanks for the comments! Erick (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support on prose/grammar. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "The chart was published on a fortnightly basis" - when? Just in this decade? Or always?
• "The methodology for the chart was amended on the week of July 10, 1993" => "The methodology for the chart was amended with the effect from the week of July 10, 1993"
• "Additionally, the chart is now published weekly" => "At the same time, the chart began to be published weekly"
• "has since become a sub char of Top Latin Albums " - when did this happen? Also "chart" is spelt wrong
• "Billboard also imposed a linguistic rule of an album requiring it to have 70% of its content in Spanish" => "Billboard also imposed a linguistic rule requiring an album to have 70% of its content in Spanish"
• "which had been in the top spot since the issue dated November 18, 1989." - source?
• "Other female acts to reach number one on the chart include" => "Other female acts to reach number one on the chart in the 1990s included"
• "Luis Miguel had the most number one album of the decade" => "Luis Miguel had the most number one albums of the decade"
• "His album Romance (1991), was" - no reason for that comma
• "spent 16 weeks on the apex of the chart" => "spent 16 weeks at the apex of the chart"
• "also reached number-one" => "also reached number one"
• " Macarena Non Stop (1996) by Los del Río, Macarena Mix (1995)" => " Macarena Non Stop (1996) by Los del Río and Macarena Mix (1995)"
• "It would be the band's only number one album on the chart" - which band? You listed five in the last sentence.
• "Three non predominately Spanish-language albums" => "Three predominately non-Spanish-language albums"
• "Although Supernatural topped the chart on the week of July 3, 1999" => "Although Supernatural topped the chart in the week of July 3, 1999"
• "Los del Río (pictured in 2009) acheive their only number one on the chart" => "Los del Río (pictured in 2009) achieved their only number one on the chart"
• The top album on Billboard's year-end chart isn't necessarily the best-selling Latin pop album of the year. It's the best charting based on a methodology which allocates points based on its position each week. I would reword to "Indicates the number one on Billboard's year-end Latin pop albums chart"
• The note should probably have a bullet point before it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks as always Chris! Let me know if I missed anything! Erick (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• "and has since become a sub char" - chart is still spelt wrong and "since" still doesn't specify when it became a sub-chart. Other than that, all looks great! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, I think I nailed it down. The same week that the Top Latin Albums chart was established was also when the Latin Pop Albums became a sub chart of it. I fixed the sentence to the best I could, how does it look? Erick (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on version of the article.

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ricky Martin image has no alt text
• Ref 7 – It looks like your approach is to link the first instance of a source in references, so with that said... Link to the LA Times
• Ref 7 and 9 – Need url-access parameters added, as they request a subscription to read
• Refs 12, 15, and 16 – Your referencing practices seem to be to link the first time a source appears in the references, so only link Recording Industry Association of America in ref 12
• Ref 17 – First time AllMusic appears, so link it
• Refs 18, 20, 21, and 22 – For consistency with ref 17, it seems these should be using the website or work parameter for AllMusic instead of the publisher one.

That's what I've got, and you've got nothing to apologize for regarding any type of absence. I'm just thrilled whenever a FLC regular returns or sticks around. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Hey there, thanks for your kind comments! The only changes I couldn't fix were the {{Certification Cite Ref}} to disallow multiple to the RIAA and for AllMusic, I corrected the name and moved all of them to publisher since AllMusic is an online music datatbase. Erick (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: Makes sense, so long as the AllMusic references are consistent. I'm a bit hung up on the consistency for linking though, as that is one of the main things that I look at when doing reviews. Perhaps you could swap to a different citation template, or link to the source in all references (would be quick with the built in find and replace tool)? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh If I understand what you're saying, I can just link to the RIAA database and from there, the information can be verified with its searchable database? Erick (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: I see now what the purpose of that template is in regards to auto generating the reference. Yeah, that complicates things a bit, but linking to just the search itself isn't an improvement. This is what I meant when I suggested you convert the references so that the linking can be consistent. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ohhhh, whoops, heh, my bad. I'll keep that mind next time I do a FLC for these kinds of lists. Thanks Josh! Erick (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Jpeeling

A few reference bits spotted:

• Current references 55, 81, 86, 87, 125, 206, 230, 391 and 398 all link to wrong date of Billboard charts
• "February 15, 1997" is a repeated row
• References 308 to 310 link to correct date but use wrong year in the title of the reference
• References 115, 368 links to correct date but wrong date in the title of the reference
• Second use of reference 5 (Ana Gabriel chart history) placed after statement regarding Selena's 44 weeks at number 1, should this be to Selena's chart history?

JP (Talk) 10:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jpeeling Thanks for catching those! Let me know if I missed anything else. Erick (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2025 (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) 12:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [27].

---

1960 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This is Olympic medal table #7 for me (Winter Games nom #3), and it's the the shortest one I've worked on so far. There were no NOCs as a first time medalist or first time gold medalists, no stripped medals to mention, and only a single first time participant. It was a relatively run of the mill event, with high stakes of course. As always, I will do my best to respond to all comments as quickly as possible, and I appreciate any and all feedback that is given. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "665 athletes representing" - I would suggest "A total of 665 athletes representing" to avoid that whole "starting a sentence with a digit" thing which, while probably not technically wrong, always looks a bit "off" to me
• Infobox image caption needs a full stop
• "Athletes presenting 14 NOCs" => "Athletes representing 14 NOCs"
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Done! Thank you as always for the feedback @ChrisTheDude. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Dates are consistantly formatted

Everything is linked

Spotchecked all sources and everything lines up.

Support unrelated but "California, United States" violated MOS:GEOLINK I'm assuming this will be fixed so happy to support. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh boy am I grateful to have gotten a quick source review, thanks @OlifanofmrTennant! I've addressed the MOS:GEOLINK issue, which I appreciate you pointing out. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

BP!

Placeholder. If you have a moment or are willing to review my FAC Ethan Winters, I'll also appreciate it! Unfortunately, it is not flc. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• The 1960 Winter Olympics, officially known as the VIII Olympic Winter Games and also known as Squaw Valley 1960, were a winter multi-sport event held from February 18 to 28, 1960, at the Squaw Valley Resort (now known as Palisades Tahoe) in Squaw Valley (now known as Olympic Valley), California, United States. This seems to be a long ass sentence. Can you maybe reword/rephrase it?
• Can you bundle those 4 citations together so that the article will look better?
• Can you maybe capitalize the "D" from the surname "De Bruin"? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  • This seems to be a long ass sentence. Can you maybe reword/rephrase it? – Long as the sentence may be, it's following the standard format, and there's nothing technically wrong with it from my perspective.
  • Can you bundle those 4 citations together so that the article will look better? – I typically do not bundle citations unless there's five of them. My opinion is that this does not negatively affect the readability or make the article look worse.
  • Can you maybe capitalize the "D" from the surname "De Bruin"? – The source does not capitalize it, and if you look at De Bruin, you'll see it's a fairly common thing not to do so.

  I appreciate you taking a look over the article and providing a review @Boneless Pizza!. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just following up to see if I've addressed all of your points or whether there's any outstanding issue(s) @Boneless Pizza!. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hi. I don't see any other issues at the article now. So, I'll Support this nom. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

ZooBlazer

• Image has alt text, appropriately licensed, and the caption fits the article. So I guess with just one image, the image review passes
• Do you need all 4 of the first references together, or is it possible to cut it down one or two?
• Not sure if it's something absolutely needed or not, but based on reviews of my lists in the past, I've been told to include |+ {{sronly|TEXT HERE}} for the tables, so maybe add that.

Overall the article looks good! My comments are mostly nitpicking. It's crazy how many more medals are awarded these days compared to this Olympics. -- ZooBlazer 22:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer: Thank you for the review! To address your points, I tried very hard to find the appropriate references to not use 4 refs on the lead sentence, but due to the name changes and the variety of information contained in the lead sentence, I was unable to. As for the suggested template, the purpose of that is to add a table title for screen readers. In that template, that heading is meant to only be displayed for screen readers. This is not necessary when there's already a title added to the table, but some people opt to hide a table title while others choose to include it. In this case, and in the case of most Olympic medal tables, it makes more sense to include the caption with the source as the top 10 entries for the table are often transcluded into the main Olympics article.

Never feel bad nitpicking any of my noms, it only serves to make them better and pushes me to consider various aspects of what I'm doing when I'm doing them! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

All good then. Happy to support! -- ZooBlazer 17:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Matthewrb

• I have spot-checked the references and the medal totals look good.
• I believe a link to Category:1960 Winter Olympics would be worth a {{Commons category}} under the See Also section.
• Would it be worth adding an External Links section? There is an official site

All of these are minor nitpicks, list looks good otherwise. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 21:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the review @Matthewrb! It's my perspective that the official site link is better shared from the main article, which it is shared from. I also feel the same way about the commons category, since this is, in a sense/from my perspective, a subset/subtopic of the event. If there were a relevant sub topic of the commons category I think I'd be on board, such as Commons:Category:Sportspeople with 2024 Summer Olympics medals or Commons:Category:Podiums at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, that does make sense. Since all of my concerns are addressed, I support this nomination. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 18:12, 29 January 2025 (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) 03:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

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