Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and at peer review at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Object''' or * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature, rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

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

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


SZA discography[edit]

Nominator(s): ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 07:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SZA. You might know her from "Kill Bill" or "Snooze", or the fact that she has a whimsical name that rhymes with sizzle and scissor, or the dozens of passe jokes about how she lies all the time. She has been in the game for over a decade, changing the contemporary R&B (and now pop) scene as she goes with her highly acclaimed works. Her first two albums are in Rolling Stone's GOAT list, and the first one (2017) has never left the US charts. Dive into her relatively short discography here. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 07:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Zimbabwe[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 10:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zimbabwe has five sites on the list and two tentative sites, so this list is on the shorter side. Standard style. The list for South Africa is already seeing support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 10:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MPguy2824's comments
  • "One site is transnational, the Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls is shared with Zambia." seems a bit odd. you can either replace the comma with a semi-colon OR go with "Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls is the only transnational site (it is shared with Zambia).
  • Consider linking "dry season".
  • " In dry season, the floodplains are an important refuge to large mammal communities, including African elephant, hippopotamus, African buffalo, waterbuck, zebra, together with the predators such as lion, leopard, cheetah, as well as Nile crocodile." to " In the dry season, the floodplains are an important refuge to large mammal communities, including the African elephant, hippopotamus, African buffalo, waterbuck, zebra, together with predators such as the lion, leopard, cheetah, as well as the Nile crocodile."
  • "Eastern black rhinoceros lived here at the time of inscription but the remaining animals have since been moved for safekeeping elsewhere." to "Eastern black rhinoceroses used to live here at the time of inscription, but the remaining animals have since been moved for safekeeping elsewhere."
  • Will do a full prose review later. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks! Will wait for a full review before fixing, easier this way :) Tone 15:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • with trade links to China, Persia, and Kilwa Kisiwani. Kilwa Kisiwani doesn't seem to as important as the other two large areas. If it is important to keep, then add ", in present-day Tanzania" to the end of that sentence.
  • "abandoned around 1450" to "abandoned around the year 1450"
  • "Like the latter, it was built in dry stone technique in a similar architectural style" to "Like the latter, it was built using the dry stone technique and in a similar architectural style".
  • "and was an important regional centre of trade, with porcelain form China and Spain found among archaeological remains" - split this part into a new sentence and correct "form" to "from".
  • "Along the border between Zimbabwe and Zambia, the Zambezi river creates massive waterfalls, with the width of 1,708 m (5,604 ft) and the maximum height of 108 m (354 ft)." to "Along the border between Zimbabwe and Zambia, the Zambezi river creates a massive waterfall, with a width of 1,708 m (5,604 ft) and a maximum height of 108 m (354 ft).".
  • "Falling water creates" to "The falling water creates".
  • "created in millions of years of erosion" to "created over millions of years of erosion".
  • Wikilink "Kopje".
  • "in different manners" to "in different ways".
  • "the life of foraging people" to "the life of the foraging people". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed all, thanks! I changed the link of Kilwa Kisiwani to the Kilwa Sultanate, since this was a power that ruled most of the east African coast at the time and is thus important. Tone 17:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "the predators" - remove "the".
    • "Kilwai Sultanate." to "Kilwa Sultanate, on the east coast of Africa."
    • "cut into a basalt rock" - Remove the "a"
    • See MOS:CIRCA and use in all the places where it applies (I noticed 2). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Done, thanks. I haven't been using the MOS:CIRCA style earlier but it is convenient for future reference :) Tone 15:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of James McAvoy performances[edit]

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria for FL everything I spent a bi of time painstakingly sourcing everything on the page. I reached out to another editor (@Lady Lotus:) to co-nominate this with me and they agreed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • I'll do a full review later, but as a drive-by comment I can see both "shared role with" and "shared roles with". Pretty sure it should be the former every time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


More comments[edit]

  • "The following year, he starred in Kevin Macdonald's drama film" => "The following year, he starred in director Kevin Macdonald's drama film" Done
  • "the collective title of three films split into three parts" - so the three films were each split into three parts? For a total of nine films? I don't think that's what you mean...... Done
  • If you sort on any other column and then re-sort the "year" column back to chronological order, "TBA" jumps to the top, which isn't right. Until such time as it has a confirmed date, you'll need to use a sorting template to make it sort last.
  • "The Sandman" sorts incorrectly in the TV table
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

In addition to Chris's comments above

  • I would drop The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and link it to 1950s novel instead so it won't appear repetitive. Done
  • In most cases I'm guilty of this too, but avoid WP:OFTHESAMENAME as much as possible -- McAvoy was cast as Charles Xavier, based on the Marvel Comics fictional character would be better Done
  • I would also refer to X-Men First Class as where he was cast in the role first. i.e. -- McAvoy was cast as Charles Xavier, based on ..., in the superhero film X-Men First Class, or somewhere along those lines.
  • In the next sentence, you could then state that he reprised the role or he returned to play the role in the film series installments and list them... Done
  • Stephen King's 1986 novel of the same name. -- Stephen King's 1986 novel or the 1986 novel by Stephen King are possible ways to write it. Done
  • I was wondering why there is only one line in the last paragraph discussing his stage credits. Perhaps this can be expanded and lumped into the lead, as he appears to have at least four Laurence Olivier nominations among the many roles he played, which suggests that it may be notable and perhaps worth including.
  • That's all from me. Great job on this. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1970 NBA expansion draft[edit]

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer 18:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm continuing my journey of improving articles related to the Portland Trail Blazers. This was the fifth expansion draft in the NBA, featuring the newly founded Buffalo Braves, Cleveland Cavaliers, and Portland Trail Blazers selecting players for their inaugural seasons. I'm hoping to make this just the second NBA expansion draft article to become a featured list, with the other being 1966. -- ZooBlazer 18:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • I would link NBA in the infobox
    Oops, rookie mistake by me. Done. -- ZooBlazer
  • but folded the following month -- perhaps an alternative word choice for folded as it is a bit informal.
    It was surprisingly harder to find an alternative even after a Google search. I think I managed to figure something out though. -- ZooBlazer
  • After each round, where each of the expansion teams had selected one player each -- I think the second or last instance of each can be dropped, as it sounds a bit repetitive and would still convey the same. I'm leaning towards the second instance.
    I ended up just dropping both of the last two instances. -- ZooBlazer
  • briefly before he was waived -- Perhaps link waived
    Done -- ZooBlazer
  • Worth linking trade on the first instance
    Done -- ZooBlazer
  • That's all from me. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Pseud 14: Thanks for the comments! I think I've addressed them all. -- ZooBlazer 17:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Changes look good. Support. Also, if interested, would appreciate a prose review on an older FLC here. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MPGuy2824's comments


  • "Buffalo, New York, Cleveland, Ohio, and Portland, Oregon were awarded the expansion teams" - is there a way to word this so that it doesn't sound like six different places were awarded teams? Maybe remove the states and just link the cities?
  • "Houston, Texas was also [...] had to end their pursuit" - Houston changes from being singular to plural mid-sentence
  • "the existing teams added another player to their protected list" => "each of the existing teams added another player to their protected list"
  • "However, Howell was immediately traded to the Philadelphia 76ers in exchange" => "Howell was immediately traded to the Philadelphia 76ers, however, in exchange"
  • "However, Ohl retired from playing prior to the start of the season and" => "Ohl retired from playing prior to the start of the season, however, and"
  • "However, Hetzel was waived without playing a game for the Blazers and" => "Hetzel was waived without playing a game for the Blazers, however, and"
  • The order of the table seems to be alphabetical by team and then player. Would it be useful to list them by order of draft pick if this info is available?
  • "No reliable single source listing the drafts, so all of them are cited separately" - this reads a bit "meta" to me. I don't personally think discussion of reliable sourcing or lack thereof belongs in an article. Maybe circumvent this by changing that note to "The previous expansion drafts took place in [year], [year], etc"
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Seattle Storm seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 09:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For this Leap day, I am nominating a list that involves some leaps, or rather jumps. The Seattle Storm are one of the most successful WNBA teams, with four championships to their name, and have played through 24 seasons since their debut in 2000. This list of those seasons is modeled after existing FLs on NBA team seasons as well as more recent FLs on team seasons from other sports; it is also the fourth in my series of Seattle sports team lists after the Sounders, Seahawks, and Mariners. I believe it meets FL standards but am happy to make sweeping changes where necessary. SounderBruce 09:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
    • Your date formatting is good and consistent, but could you add {{Use mdy dates|date=February 2024}} under the short description? That way if anybody adds sources later on it should still end up properly displaying whatever date formats they use in refs.
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
    • Seattle Times is subscription based, please use the url-access parameter to indicate this
    • Washington Post is subscription based, please use the url-access parameter to indicate this
    • Ref 17 – Work parameter should be "The News Tribune", not "The New Tribune"
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 11 sources match what they are being cited for
    • Fixed all of the citation issues and added the mdy template. SounderBruce 17:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other comments:

  • Season sorts funny. The cells that have a background colour are sorting to the top.
    • Added a hidden sortkey to fix it.
  • I'm thinking the rounds in the playoff results column could and probably should be sentence case instead of capitalized.
    • I am following the project norms for basketball rounds and think the title case works better here; as this issue has been particularly contentious as of late, I don't want to pick a side until the discussion is resolved.
  • What determines what order you put put names into the award column? I'm looking at 2018 specifically and it looks like they're sorted by first name, whereas 2010 doesn't follow this.
    • The sorting is based on the name of the award, which has the added bonus of putting the most important award (MVP) first.
  • Not a deal breaker at all, but would you consider adding abbreviation links in the awards column using Template:Abbrlink?
    • Added.
  • Is there another picture or two you could add?
    • I don't think there's enough room for another picture, since the table is full width on a lot of lower resolution screens.

That's all I've got. Good work! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Thanks for the review. I've replied to your comments and made the appropriate changes to the list. SounderBruce 17:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I just have a large screen and see extra space for images! Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from ZooBlazer

Overall the article looks pretty good, so I have just a few small things that I think need addressed.

  • I recommend adding archives to all the refs
    • Waiting until all of the links do get archived, as the article is new and hasn't been picked up by the bot crawlers.
  • but the team were eliminated in the Western Conference Semifinals - Should it be the team was eliminated? I know it can be kind of weird with sports teams, but "were" would make sense if it said "the Storm were eliminated", but using team, "was" definitely sounds more natural to me.
    • To maintain consistency in the use of plurals, "were" works best here.
  • I'm not sure adding the 2024 season to the table adds much at this point. At least from what I've seen from other team seasons articles, that would make more sense to add after the 2024 season
    • Removed.

That's all I have. Like I said, overall it looks good. -- ZooBlazer 01:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ZooBlazer: Thanks for the review, I've replied to your above comments. SounderBruce 03:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the only thing not done is the one that can't be done yet, I'm happy to support since archives can easily be added when possible. Good work. -- ZooBlazer 03:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Ben&Ben[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With my earlier nomination gaining substantial supports and a source/image review completed, here's a list of awards and nominations from a Filipino band. Ben&Ben started out as a duo before expanding into a nine-member ensemble and have released two studio albums and an extended play. Since their career began in 2016, they have earned multiple accolades for their work. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
    • Ref 2 – Needs a publish date
    • Ref 2 & 7 – Same source, please combine them
    • Ref 9 – Suuuuper minor, but can you add a period after the author's "P" initial?
    • Ref 29 – Needs an author
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 8 sources match what they are being cited for
Thanks for catching all this silly lapses. I've fixed all Ref formatting concerns. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other comments:

  • You used a scope of "rowgroup" in a number of places where you should have only used a scope of "row". Use rowgroup when rowspan is used and just row when it is not.
You're right, I missed to change this bit. Should be fix now.
  • "Susi" (from the Eddy Award row) is not sorting properly
  • "Tuloy Na Tuloy Pa Rin Ang Pasko" is not sorting properly
  • Consider running iabot, as it appears a number of the sources are down (and appropriately tagged). Would help to future proof in case more sources end up no longer being at the destination.
I ran iabot and yielded
Links analyzed: 44
Links rescued: 0
Links tagged: 0
Links archived: 0
I think the CNN Philippines source is the one that is inactive now, as it has since shut down. But the archive still works though.
  • Could you add anymore pictures? There's a lot of room beside the table and a couple of them there could be a significant improvement (not a deal breaker).
Unfortunately, there is very little in Wiki Commons to choose from. For awards list, from what I've checked, we generally do not add more than one image, as I think it tends to condense the width of the table (even those that use the collapsible infobox). [1] [2]. I think the exceptions for adding more images are list of songs, filmographies, discographies (but then again this is not a hard-and-fast rule)
  • Year column might make more sense centered (in my opinion), but not a deal breaker
I kept this one as is, since all my previous awards list, the years have not been centered, and I've also looked at similar tables of more recent FLs and they seem to be (from what I can see) acceptable even if not centered. Hope this is fine. [3] [4] [5]

That's all I've got for now. Good stuff! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your review Hey man im josh, and for catching those slips. I've addressed all comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Hope all is well. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, I'm satisfied with all the answers. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Lead: "It spawned the singles" to "It included the singles"
  • Lead: "It was nominated for two Myx Music Awards with its accompanying music video" - add a comma after Music Awards. Also, "associated" or another synonym might read a bit better than "accompanying".
Dropped accompanying altogether since I think it still reads better without anything preceding it
  • Lead: "In 2023, the band was recognized with a Best Choice Award – Music at the Asia Artist Award." "Asia Artist Awards".
  • Is there a better ref to replace #18, which is a post on the group's facebook page? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, none the I could find which lists every (21) nominated work. Not even in the official awards page on Facebook where this is usually posted. For some reason, in 2022, the awards org announced the nominees via a live concert event and it wouldn’t be ideal to comb through an almost 2-hour long video.
Thanks for your review MPGuy2824. I’ve addressed your comments and provided my responses. Let me know if there’s anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 04:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I made a couple of tiny changes which it was easier just to make than to list here and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for editing and reviewing ChrisTheDude! I still miss those plural forms eh, even after working on three different articles on them, thanks for catching that. Appreciate your support as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Green Bay Packers draft history[edit]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently reworked this list and split out the individual selections to Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969) and Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) due to page size and accessibility issues. The goal of this list is to provide a high-level summary of each Packers draft. Happy to address any issues or concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "became the Packers first draft selection" => "became the Packers' first draft selection"
  • No need to link American football twice in the lead
  • "the Canadian Football League [CFL] was also included" - use normal brackets not square brackets
    • Is there a style guide related to this on Wikipedia? Most style guides recommend avoiding nested parentheses and state to use brackets on the inside of parentheses. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The number of rounds peaked to 30" => "The number of rounds peaked at 30"
  • "over a 7 year period" => "over a 7-year period"
  • "selected All-Pro Dan Currie and Pro Football Hall of Famers " => "selected future All-Pro Dan Currie and future Pro Football Hall of Famers " (current wording could be taken to imply that they were already in the HoF when drafted)
  • "in 1957 with the aforementioned Hornung" - I think just "in 1957 with Hornung" is fine
  • Because the table is sortable, you need to link to List of second overall National Football League draft picks both time the Packers drafted second, not just the first time
  • "The Packers have only had the first selection in a draft twice, in 1957 with the aforementioned Hornung" - this contradicts the table, where it says they drafted 5th in that year
    • Their normal draft order that year was 4th, however as the recipient of the last "bonus lottery pick", they got a bonus 1st round pick. This is mentioned in the lead. Let me know if you think it warrants a note in the table itself (note, fifth was a typo, they were 4th). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - the CFL in square brackets still looks odd to me but I guess it's no big deal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey man im josh

Source review criteria and status: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Source review notes:

  • I noticed Encyclopedia Britannica is Wikilinked, as are a number of other publishers. Could you Wikilink the first instance mentions for websites to keep it consistent?
  • Ref 18, 19, and 28 – All use the same publisher as the source but each one uses a different variation, one with an underscore, one with a hyphen, and one with just spaces. Please make them consistent and unlink the latter two to be consistent with your wikilinking.
  • Ref 23 – No publisher listed
  • Ref 7 – Seattle Times is subscription based, needs url-access parameter
  • Ref 7 – Add publish date

Other comments:

  • Infobox has a link to "List of first round draft picks" but the target is List of...first-round draft picks"
  • Earl Girard redirects to Jug Girard. Perhaps you should list this name there instead?
  • Vito Parilli redirects to Babe Parilli. Same comment as above.
  • Your date formatting is good and consistent, but could you add {{Use mdy dates|date=February 2024}} under the short description? That way if anybody adds sources later on it should still end up properly displaying whatever date formats they use in refs.

That's what I've got. I found this formatting to be interesting for draft history and preferably over a whole list of picks at that article title instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man im josh, thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed all your comments except the first. This may be personal preference, but generally when I use {{Cite web}}, I use the website field and write out the literal website without linking. However, if I use {{Cite magazine}} or {{Cite encyclopedia}}, the link is ancillary (imho), as the work itself isn't necessarily digital. So typically in that case I would write out the work itself and link it (i.e. Sports Illustrated), because there is some relevance. {{Cite web}} says the work or website field is Name of the work containing the source; may be wikilinked if relevant. All this to say I think there is some wiggle room to leave the encyclopedia linked while not wikilinking anything that ends in ".com" or similar. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: I respect that it's personal preference and we that we more or less focus on aiming for consistency in the formatting, but I didn't realize the logic you were using was based on the type of cite. Just for my own clarity so I know how to properly evaluate your lists moving forward, you're wikilinking in every ref that this applies to, or just the first occurrence in the type of references this applies to? I imagine some of these sources do strictly post some of their content online, but I get what you're getting at. Regarding Sports Illustrated specifically, any thoughts on the fact citation expander, in my experience, has always changed references I've used that use Sports Illustrated to cite magazine instead of cite web? Lastly, maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel be Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey man im josh, re Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, my bad. I always confuse Green Bay Press-Gazette and MJS on which has the dash. My general process (and I am sure I'm not 100% on this) is that if I am using {{Cite web}} to cite an exclusively online source, I typically don't link to the article (so and not ESPN). For other sources which were primarily offline, like magazines, newspapers, or encyclopedias, I will link every occurence in each citation (so Green Bay Press-Gazette for each citation). Does that make sense? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I noticed the one use of, I fixed that to {{Cite magazine}} and linked the magazine field. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I understand better now about your process and stylistic choices so it should be more to the point in any future lists you nominate. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from ZooBlazer

The article looks pretty good overall already, so my comments are probably mostly nitpicks.

  • The Packers have only had the first selection in a draft twice - You can remove "only"
  • and Tony Mandarich in 1989. The selection of Mandarich has been much maligned over the years. Of the first five picks of the 1989 NFL draft - Mostly just curious if there's a reason throughout the article why you technically link the second instance of a draft year instead of the initial one? I think in the context, readers would understand the link is for the draft, and not 1989 for instance. Not a big deal if that's just what you prefer or if that's how it is handled in NFL articles in general or something, but I figured I'd at least mention it.
    • My mo is that if I am just generally statin something happened in a year, I don't use a piped link, especially if later in the same sentence I actually state out the full name of the draft. That way the reader is clear on the link and there is no easter egg/surprise involved. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • selected over a 7-year period - Aren't single digit numbers usually spelled out?
    • Per MOS:NUMBERS, Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently. Since 10 comes a few worts earlier, 7 stays as a number. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • over 7 rounds - Ditto
  • I bring the last two points up because in other parts of the article, you do write out the numbers such as with picks three, four and five

That's all from me. Like I said, at this point these are mostly nitpicks. Great job on the article. -- ZooBlazer 17:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline of the 1993 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 18:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I waffled a bit on whether now was the right time to submit this – I currently have another timeline FLC outstanding, which admittedly hasn't progressed as much as I would've hoped by now – but I am confident enough that this timeline meets the FL criteria that I have decided to submit it anyway. One of the things that makes the 1993 Pacific hurricane season stand out is how many of its storms went on to reach high intensities; out of 15 total storms, a whopping 60% became major hurricanes! Two of these reached maximum sustained winds of 150 mph (240 km/h), the highest of any storm this season, at the same time. While there was unfortunately some adverse impact – most notably from Hurricane Calvin, which was a disastrous event for the Manzanillo area – there were also several long-lived and powerful hurricanes that largely remained out to sea with no harm to life or property. That kind of storm is, I would like to think, any meteorologist or storm tracker's favorite type of hurricane.

This timeline was largely modeled after the 2018 and 2020 Pacific hurricane season timelines, both of which are FLs. I have worked to apply feedback from the other FLC to this timeline as well. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 18:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Pending

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Source review comments:

  • Refs 7, 9, 10, 16, 22, 23, 24 – These refs are defaulting to the archive link in sources instead of the source that's still live. Please add <code>|url-access=live</code> to the references.
  • Ref 10 – Wikilink National Hurricane Center
  • Ref 16 – For consistency with ref 1, wikilink Miami, Florida
  • There are 34 instances where the references list "(GIF) (Report)" and 5 instances (refs 7, 10, 22, 23, and 24) where the "(GIF)" portion is listed next to the link to the original source while the "(Report)" part is listed next to the archive link. In all these instances the original sources is still live but needs that designation. For consistency, this should be fixed so that all 39 refs that use "(GIF)" and "(Report)" do so consistently.

Thanks what I've got. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for reviewing this, Josh! I believe I have addressed your comments. I actually noticed the issues you brought up in your first and fourth points in my other FLC as well, but couldn't figure out how to resolve them; I'm glad to have solutions! Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 23:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

50th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 09:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating the 1982 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81talk 09:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Consider linking ABC in the lead.
  • "comedian Bob Hope hosted for the" => "comedian Bob Hope hosted the ceremony/show for the".
  • "viewers in the United States" Should end with a full stop.
  • Vanessa Redgrave is first mentioned in the "Winners and Nominees", but isn't linked there.
  • "was held at the same exact location and the same date 50 years later of the first meeting by the organization." => "was held at the same location as the first meeting by the organization, exactly 50 years later."
  • "controversy from Jewish group for its anti-Israel commentary". which Jewish group?
  • "both Jewish Defense League protestors burned" makes it seem that there were only two protestors.
  • "The Color Purple has since equaled this record with 11 nominations and no wins." to "The Color Purple later equaled this record with 11 nominations and no wins, in 1986."
  • Rest looks fine. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @MPGuy2824: Done - I've ready your comments and made the appropriate changes to each comment.
--Birdienest81talk 07:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "acting, directing, screenwriting for the same film" => "acting, directing, and screenwriting for the same film"
  • "And we couldn't think of anyone better than anyone better suited" - some repeated words there
  • "In celebration of both the fiftieth anniversary of both the Academy and the Oscars" - don't need to say "both" twice
  • That's all I got in addition to what MPGuy picked up -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The lead section contains original information and does not summarise the entire article. It summarises the winners but there is nothing about Redgrave's speech and the reception.
  • The article is inconsistent in its use of words and numerals for numbers. It says "50th Academy Awards" and "40th ceremony" but "nineteenth time" and "fiftieth anniversary". Considering the article title, you should probably stick to all numerals, with the exception of film titles and 0-9 (per MOS:NUMERAL).
  • The info about the original works in Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium is not on the page. You need another source.
  • The original works are inconsistently linked: the ones with a different title from the movie get a link, but not Equus (play) which also has an article.
  • Change Pentimento (book) to Pentimento: A Book of Portraits to avoid redirection.
  • Add a piped link for La Femme et le pantin/The Woman and the Puppet or change to the English title, which the Wikipedia article is under.
  • ...Redgrave remarked in her acceptance speech,"And I salute you, and I pay tribute to you, and I think you should be very proud that in the last few weeks you've stood firm, and you have refused to be intimidated by the threats of a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums." There is a space missing. It's unclear who Redgrave meant with "you" here; this could be resolved with some explanatory word or by quoting more of the speech. The quotation is cut off. According to other sources, the sentence continued: "...a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums whose behavior is an insult to the stature of Jews all over the world and their great and heroic record of struggle against fascism and oppression." Either expand it to the full sentence or make it clear that it is not the full sentence.
  • Remove unnecessary words like "moreover" and "additionally".

Nothing more that I can spot, other than the things others already have mentioned. The sources I looked at check out, with the exception of the part with the original works, and assuming good faith for all the ones I can't access. (You've written 1982 in the nomination, but the article is about the 1978 Oscars.) Ffranc (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of New England Patriots first-round draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is my 5th nomination in the NFL team's first-round picks series and I hope for it to be the 25th list in the series promoted. This is also my second nomination of an AFL team (the first being the Buffalo Bills) and, of the 9 lists I've nominated / prepared for nomination (I've got another 3 ready to nominate), this has the second most notes (to List of San Francisco 49ers first-round draft picks), which I found interesting for a team that's only been drafting since 1960.

I will, as always, do my best to respond quickly and address all comments, questions, and criticisms. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "The Patriots played their home games at various stadiums throughout Boston, including Fenway Park from 1963 to 1969 until" => "The Patriots played their home games at various stadiums throughout Boston, including Fenway Park from 1963 to 1969, until"
  • In the 2016 row there's a space in "Pick forfeited [AL]", unlike in the other rows
  • Maybe "as punishment for Deflategate" should be "as punishment for the Deflategate scandal".....?
  • That's all I got. You're certainly in a high-quality groove with these lists! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you so much for the feedback and kind words @ChrisTheDude! Gonna need to find a new set of lists once I'm done with these runs :P Hey man im josh (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MPGuy2824's comments
  • Lead image caption: " was the most recent Patriots player to be the drafted first overall." should probably be "to be drafted first overall" or "to be the first overall draft pick". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Using multi-column rows in tables ("Boston Patriots (1960–1970)" and "New England Patriots (1971–present)") really messes with their sortability. If I remember right you are supposed to add that info as a multi-row column. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @MPGuy2824: Thank you for taking a look at the article. The lead image caption you mentioned was definitely a mistake, which I've now fixed. Are you having issues with the sortability? I added a parameter to automatically sort the New England Patriots and Boston Patriots rows to the top when someone tried to sort a column. From what I understand this is normal and appropriate behaviour with sorting, similar to how the "No pick" rows automatically get sorted as a 0 value. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    MOS:COLHEAD was what I was referring to. But, if the way you've done it is the current FL norm, then maybe we should look into updating the MOS? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Interesting, this hasn't been brought up to me before @MPGuy2824, and this isn't the first list I've included this type of split in. I think the problem is that I wanted to differentiate between the seasons under the two names, but I also want to keep the table sortable and combined. I'll go ahead and remove it Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support LGTM -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pleased to see my home team at FLC! I'll try to get an image review done ASAP. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 22:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looks good for the most part. The images add encyclopedic value and are positioned well; the captions are generally well-written and the alt text is sufficiently descriptive. Licensing checks out. A couple of the images had dead links for sources, so I took the liberty of heading to Commons and replacing the dead URLs with Wayback Machine archives. There are a couple things that need to be addressed before I can outright support on images:
    • During that time [Wilfork] was five-time All-Pro and five-time Pro Bowler. – according to the source, he was only All-Pro once. (An "a" would help this flow more smoothly as well.)
    • The above "during" clause, as well as During [Bledsoe's] nine seasons with the team, should be followed with commas
  • Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 00:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Dylan620: Thank you for the review! I definitely missed the "a" in Wilfork's blurb, I've fixed that. As for the Bledsoe blurb, I've reworded it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Hey man im josh: No prob! I'm satisfied with the Bledsoe change, but there still remains the issue of the Wilfork caption not quite matching the source – specifically, the caption states that he was a five-time All-Pro, but according to the page used as a source, Wilfork was a one-time All-Pro. (I also still believe that a comma should be present after During that time, although I wonder if that may just be stylistic preference.) Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 14:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Dylan620: Oops, sorry, missed replying to that part of your comment. I understand why you're saying that about the five-time All-Pro part, it's because of the badge at the top right of the page. That badge only refers to Associated Press first-team All-Pro selections, whereas the Pro Football Hall of Fame recognizes a number of selectors. If you scroll down on the source linked you'll see an All-Pro Teams section which shows entries for five separate years. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Hey man im josh: Ahhhhh I see that now, my bad! Issues resolved/clarified; support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 15:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Queen of Hearts[edit]

Review coming sometime in the next three and a half hours. Queen of Hearts talk
20:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @Queen of Hearts, not sure if you're still interest in providing a review, but I thought I'd send a ping in case you were. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of premiers of Victoria[edit]

Nominator(s): GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a list containing so much information and history about Australian/ Victorian politics. There are very few FAs and FLs in the Victorian Politics wikiproject. (peer review) GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Most of them are fine, but the three sub-headers (Took office, etc.) need the !scope=col, and the Term of office cell should use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • 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. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! rowspan="2" style="background:{{party color|Independent politician}};" scope="row" | 1 becomes !scope=row rowspan="2" style="background:{{party color|Independent politician}};" scope="row" | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. Along with that, you currently have two cells per row set as the header- the Premier cell should have a | instead of a !.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 03:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Done –––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Consider moving the Electoral district/constituency to its own column. The name column is quite cluttered right now.
  • Consider mentioning that Allan is only the second woman to hold the post.
  • If you make the table sortable then List of premiers of Victoria by time in office can just be redirected here as you can get the same information by sorting on the relevant column.
  • Don't see any problems with the prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Wanderers F.C. FA Cup-winning players[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wanderers F.C. was an absolute powerhouse of the first two decades of organised association football, winning the FA Cup, the sport's earliest competition and one which is still contested and regarded as highly prestigious, five times in seven seasons before fading from the scene in the 1880s. This is a complete list of all the players who won the cup with the club. A full list of every Wanderers player can probably never be compiled due to the often ramshackle organisation and sometimes sketchy reporting and record-keeping of the early days of football, but these players who played in the cup final with the club are undoubtedly the notable ones. Comments as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man im josh

After giving this a good look, I have a few notes:

  • "Ref(s)." should probably just be "Refs" since every cell in that column contains multiple references.
  • Is there any reason the appearances column is not sortable?
  • "Finals" -> "Final(s)" for the column name?
  • Ref 3 – There's a typo which links "Tha Guardian" instead of "The Guardian".
  • Is "Full back" meant to be "Full-back"? I ask because Full back (association football) redirects to Defender (association football)#Full-back which contains a hyphen.
  • Similarly, what's the deal with "half back"? Of the 3 players with this designation, 1 doesn't mention "half" at their article, another says "half back", and the third says "half-back". The target of the link for Half back (association football) is Midfielder#Wing-half, which doesn't help with determining the proper hyphenation.
  • Source review: Passed – all sources appear reliable enough for the information cited and the reference formatting (once that typo is fixed) is good.

Great stuff Chris! Hey man im josh (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hey man im josh: - thanks for your review, all addressed I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support! Hey man im josh (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • and later went on serve as the president of the FA -- and later went on to serve as president of the FA
  • Although not an image review (my unfamiliarity with licensing for older images), suggest including alt text on the images.
  • That's all I got. Great to see another sport series from you on this side. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- Pseud 14 (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • SupportIdiosincrático (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Cobra Kai episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because as a streaming television series this series has beat all the odds. Television series that are sequels to former film series typically don't fare well, which can be seen with the animated Karate Kid TV series. Those that do, rarely feature large appearances from the original cast. It was also essentially cancelled by YouTube yet managed to find a new service to stream on. On top of that, it survived COVID-19 and the double strikes of 2023. As the original film approaches its forty-year anniversary it feels like the proper time to nominate this. I recently expanded the lead on this, and with the addition of the sixth season table, I believe it should be a featured list. TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "Cobra Kai is an American comedy-drama and Martial arts television series" - no need for capital M on martial
  • "the first four films in The Karate Kid (franchise)," => "the first four films in The Karate Kid franchise,"
  • "picks up 30 years after 1984 titular film" => "picks up 30 years after the 1984 titular film"
  • "The series first season" => "The series' first season" (or "The first season of the series")
  • "The series first season premiered [....] and released a second season the following year on April 24" - the first season did not release the second season, so this does not make sense grammatically
  • "on the then renamed YouTube Premium" => "on the renamed YouTube Premium"
  • "as Daniel LaRusso and Johnny Lawrence, respectively" - that comma isn't needed
  • "After the series concludes, Sony is" - this doesn't really work grammatically. If I have understood the context correctly, I would suggest "Sony is developing a sixth feature film to be released after the series concludes"
  • "a sixth feature film that chronologically includes the 2010 reboot film" - the sixth film will not include the 2010 film, so this doesn't work grammatically
  • "Cobra Kai has received critical acclaim[31][32][33] receiving" - comma needed after "acclaim"
  • "with each respective seasons release" => "with each respective season's release"
  • "As of September 9, 2022, 50 episodes" - that date was nearly 18 months ago, is the sentence still accurate? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All done. The sentence is still accurate, per the template instructions that date should only be updated when new episodes air/release. That is the release date of the most recent season. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. For the template you're using (in the season lists), visual captions can be added by putting |caption=caption_text in the Episode table template; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 03:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Added, thanks for the reminder! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from ZooBlazer
  • this was delayed to 2024 - The season was delayed to 2024
  • the end of the first while Thomas Ian Griffith - Add a comma after first
  • As of September 9, 2022, 50 episodes of Cobra Kai have been released, concluding the fifth season. - This can be moved to the beginning of the episodes section.
  • It should also be sourced.

That's all I have. Good work on the article. -- ZooBlazer 18:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've addressed your first two points as well as the last one. I'm hoping the third one won't keep you from supporting? I'll move it if I have to, but it's common practice across most List of Episode pages to use this template near the end of the lead. See [6], [7], [8], and [9] which are all featured lists and have this sentence in a similar location. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's all good. Support -- ZooBlazer 18:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Colorado state symbols[edit]

Nominator(s):  Buaidh  talk e-mail 18:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this list for featured list because it is a complete, fully referenced, and well organized presentation of the symbols of this state. This list has been peer reviewed at Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_Colorado_state_symbols/archive1#List_of_Colorado_state_symbols Thank you,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 18:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Why is the lead only one sentence? Speedy fail of criterion 2. WP:FL#United States state symbols has six that are featured, those can be starting point examples.
  • I'm not sure why this particular stamp is considered a state symbol; I found at least five other stamps [10][11][12][13][14] that are for the state. I'd remove, as well as the quarter (America the Beautiful quarters also has one for CO).
  • USS Colorado (1856) is named after the river, not the state
  • I don't think any of the List of United States Navy ships named after US states are state symbols anyway.
  • Is there a reason the "image for the motto" is just the motto in all caps, bold, and "V" for the "u"?
  • "The Centennial State" is also not an image, just use a dash if there isn't a suitable free image.
  • The citation for this nickname does not address the adoption of the nickname.
  • I would not include coat of arms as a symbol unless there is good sourcing specifically for it beyond its implicit use as part of the seal's design.
  • Footnote 1 is not loading for me.
  • I'm not sure why "United States Department of Agriculture" is the 'Adopted' for the soil. Does that mean the USDA chose this soil on the state's behalf?

Reywas92Talk 22:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments. You've done a great job with the List of Indiana state symbols.
  • I've added to the lead. I'm not sure the list lead needs to contain information that is also included in the list entries themselves.
  • This is still not adequate, surely there can be other ways to summarize the topic like in the other examples.
  • I don't know what you mean by that. This stamp was issued to celebrate the state's centennial. My first linked stamp was issued to celebrate the state's 75th anniversary. I'm not convinced stamps are considered state symbols, at least not only this one in particular. The 50 State quarters honored each state with an issuance, but these also aren't the same kind of state symbols as the rest of the list, and none of the other FLs include them.
  • The entry for the USS Colorado (1856) explains that the ship was commissioned before the creation of the Territory of Colorado.
  • Right, so again, why is it listed here as a state symbol? It was named after the river, not the state, so it's not a state symbol by any stretch.
  • includes List of U.S. state ships, which are ships respective state legislatures have named as their official state ships. It's not just any ships that were named after states, a common practice by the Navy. Colorado has not designated a state ship, and I don't think the ones named after it are necessarily state symbols.
  • The state motto is in Latin and classical Latin had only one letter V. The letter V was not separated into the letter V for the consonant sound and a new letter U for the vowel sound until the Middle Ages.
  • Yes, I know that but why did you put that here? Are there any Colorado-related sources that spell it this way? Moreover, that's not an image, so why are you just restating what's in the Symbol column in the Image column?
  • I think the nickname text is adequate.
  • It says "Centennial State" in the Symbol column and then "The Centennial State" in the Image column. But that's not an image so what's the point of duplicating it?
  • I think the explanation of the nickname origin is adequate.
  • No, it's not. The citation there is simply the proclamation that verifies the date Colorado became a state, but it doesn't verify when the nickname was adopted. Did people immediately start calling the state that – What's the origin there? Also the wikilink redirects to Colorado so it's not very useful.
  • I think the explanation of the adoption of the coat of arms is also adaquate.
  • No, because when I look up CRS 24-80-901 in Lexis cited there, it just describes "Size and description of seal", not that a coat of arms was adopted. Just taking those elements from the seal doesn't mean the state has ever used a coat of arms itself, and I don't think the implicit design should be considered a symbol separate from the seal without the state having ever designated it. I add a cn tag to Seal_of_Colorado#Coat_of_arms; what use has there been besides in this 1876 book?
  • Thank you for letting me know about this. I've updated Footnote 1.
  • The Department of Agriculture has designated a state soil for each state. Please see State Soils. The Indiana state soil is Miami Soil.
  • That says "Each state in the United States has selected a state soil, twenty of which have been legislatively established." I'm assuming Colorado is not one of the legislatively established states, but that still implies the state selected it, not USDA.
  • Also, I don't think license plates count as state symbols either, these can change regularly. Reywas92Talk 15:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, thank you for your suggestions. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 04:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !width=140px| Type becomes !scope=col width=140px| Type. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • 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. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |[[Historical armorial of U.S. states from 1876|Coat of arms]] becomes !scope=row |[[Historical armorial of U.S. states from 1876|Coat of arms]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 03:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drive-by comment

The lead is still too short I'd say. I don't believe you saw that Reywas92 mentioned this (they didn't sign the comment, so I understand missing it) after your initial response to them. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of constituencies of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly[edit]

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've brought this list up to the standard of the Tripura FL. Criticisms and suggestions for improvement are welcome. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm going to take a closer look at this in the coming days. I do have a couple comments for now:

  • and the Constitution lays down the general principles of positive discrimination for STs.[4][2]: 35, 137 – it seems a little odd that ref 4 appears before ref 2 here.
  • Mizoram was converted into a state, and the number of constituencies for its legislative assembly was increased to 40. – this should be directly followed by a source to back it up, especially since it's at the end of a paragraph.

Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 22:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed these two. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Hot Black Singles number ones of 1988[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the FLC for the 1987 list has been open for a couple of weeks and has a couple of supports, here's 1988. More Michael Jackson, more Freddie Jackson (no relation) and the usual mix of all-time greats and hot newcomers..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support couldn't find any issues with the text or table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

  • Great work on 1988, as usual for this series. I do not have any comments as I did not notice anything that required further improvement. I support the FLC for promotion based on the prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Image review: Passed
    • Images are relevant, have alt text, and appropriately licensed
    • Optional: Perhaps the main image could have been Michael Jackson's as he did have the most number ones that year. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Source review: Passed
    • Reliable for the information being cited
    • Consistent date formatting
    • Consistent and proper reference formatting
    • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
    • Links are archived
    • Ref 5 might need fixing on how the URL is written so the article link appears. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looks good now. This passes image and source review. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I really tried to find something, but there's no issues at all. AryKun (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Teratix[edit]

A well-prepared list – but not quite flawless yet ;)

  • African American-oriented genres (1) → "African American–oriented genres" (dash, not hyphen) (2) shouldn't this link to African-American music, not black music?
    • 1 - changed. 2 - probably yes, but I didn't realise the former existed. Now changed.
  • the chart has undergone various name changes over the decades → "the chart's name has changed over the decades"
    • Changed
  • In the issue of Billboard dated January 2, Michael Jackson ... He also spent time atop the chart in 1988 I would move mention of the year to the very beginning of the paragraph, so → "In the issue of Billboard dated January 2, 1988, Jackson ... He also spent time atop the chart in 1988"
    • I feel that removing the year would make it ambiguous, as it could refer to (for example) the whole of the rest of his career
      • OK, not a major issue either way.
  • taking the total number → "taking the number"
    • Changed
  • Pebbles, Bobby Brown, and Freddie Jackson (no relation to Michael) also topped the chart wouldn't hurt to write "all also topped the chart" to clarify they were all separate acts.
    • Changed
  • There has to be a better way to talk about the artists topping the chart for the first time that just listing all twenty-odd in a single comma-addled sentence.
    • I have broken a bunch out into separate sentences
  • rapper Roxanne Shante → "the rapper Roxanne Shante"
    • Changed
  • "Tumblin' Down" by Marley and the Melody Makers was the year's final number one significance? surely the year-end number one is what we're interested in?
    • Removed
  • Take the full stop out of the link in Sweat's caption
    • Changed
  • Jackson's caption needs a full stop
    • Changed
  • Why use Houston's 2011 picture instead of his 1988 picture?
    • I presume you mean Michael? If so, changed
      • Yes, not sure what I was thinking there!
  • Any particular reason to call Houston British? Our article has him as English.
    • English is a subset of British so both are equally valid. As the article is in an American context I didn't think it was necessary to be as specific as saying he was English
      • Englishness vs. Britishness can be contentious and it has come up on Michael's talk page before (1, 2). However, I did have a look at Britannica and a few other major sources and there seems to be about a 50/50 split, so probably not a big deal in this particular case either way.
  • Wanted to note I support using D'Arby as the lead image, as one of the major aspects of this year's chart seems to be the many artists topping for the first time
  • This list introduced me to Template:Screen reader-only – very useful.
  • Not too much to improve here. – Teratix 03:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Teratix: - thanks for your review. All addressed above....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @ChrisTheDude: that was quick!
      • Michael Jackson's "The Way You Make Me Feel" and "Man in the Mirror" and "Get Outta My Dreams, Get into My Car" by Billy Ocean reads like Jackson also did "Getta Outta My Dreams"
        • Fixed
      • I guess the last question is whether we can be more specific (and neutral) with the number of first-time chart-topping artists than just "a large number"? I know there's complications with Shante and Osborne... – Teratix 09:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey man im josh
  • "Nice 'N' Slow" redirects to "Nice 'n' Slow". I see that the sources also capitalize the N. Do you think the article is at the wrong title or should it be downcased in this list?
  • I too looked over the refs and found no issues
  • All images have appropriate alt text
  • All images appear to be appropriately licensed
  • Image review passes
  • The second and third items in the see also section are redicts. It probably makes sense to bypass those and list the current titles of those articles.

You make it really difficult to find things to criticize! Good stuff as always =) Hey man im josh (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hey man im josh: - thanks for your review. I changed all the links to avoid redirects. The actual sleeve of the Freddie Jackson single shows the 'N' as a capital but then the whole title is shown in capitals, so there's probably no right or wrong answer...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. Well thanks for taking care of this quickly! Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of UEFA Champions League hat-tricks[edit]

Nominator(s): Atlantis77177 (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had nominated this article in 2022, but it failed the criterea due to an issue in the table formatting. Now, with that sorted, I believe thee article is ready to be nominated for a Featured List spot. Special thanks to @Sdkb and @WhatamIdoing for your guidance and contributions Atlantis77177 (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

@ChrisTheDude: I hope you are content with the list now--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Atlantis77177: - at this point I have literally looked at nothing except the image captions. If I get a chance to look at the rest I will do so, but it would definitely not be accurate to say that I am "content with the list now" simply because full stops have been added to the image captions -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I perfectly understand you @ChrisTheDude:. I just wanted to let you know that the problem has been sorted. Besides, this archive has been dead for like 2 weeks--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "Ronaldo for Real against Bayern on 18 April and Atlético Madrid on 2 May 2017, the shortest gap between hat-tricks at just 14 days." – not a complete independent clause
  • "first teenager to score a hat-trick on his debut" – not sourced (the lead says he was the youngest, but other teenagers could have come before him)
  • If ref. 7 is "as of 29 November 2023", the access date should be on or after that date
    • Looks like you fixed this in one spot but not another? Refs. 7 and 23 are now the same link and should be combined with the new date (ref. 23 is the one where the access date actually matters). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The following names sort incorrectly: van Basten, Cole (1), Inzaghi (1), van Persie
  • Use headers in table for multiple hat-tricks by player and by club
  • No need for UEFA Champions League as a "See also" link (it's used in the article)

RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Could you explain the header point more. I didn't get it. Rest sorted. And thanks for pointing out the Rooney one. Seems, he wasn't a teen when he scored.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The hat-tricks by nationality use cells with headers (they start with ! instead of |) – the tables by player and by club should do the same. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RunningTiger123: Sorted.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Image captions could have a "(pictured in xyz)" where xyz is the year, at least when the photo isn't from the era of the hat-trick. If it is within 10 years of any particular hat-trick, its probably ok.
  • Most folk seem to use the abbreviation template for "Ref." I don't know if that's a deal-breaker though.
  • Add a header for the main table. Wrap it in the sronly template, if you don't think it needs to be shown. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPGuy2824: I'm not entirely sure what you meant for the last 2. Could you check if the problem is sorted.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The caption format needs to be changed to "Name (pictured in xyz) ..." where that phrase is mentioned
  • I've done this.
  • You've added "Hatricks Scored in the UEFA Champions League". This is what I meant. The word "scored" should be in lowercase though. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPGuy2824: Done.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the key table "Number of times player scored a hat-trick" isn't exactly right. It is a number showing that Player X did their n-th hattrick then. I'm struggling to put this in simple words that can be used in the key table though. I think you'll be to find the right words, so I support this list on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MPGuy2824: I have a few lines. not sure what to select. Personally, I believe the original line explains it best. But here are some of the others.

  • The player's hat-trick sequence. (Only for players who scored multiple hattricks.)
  • The count of the hat tricks scored by the player. (Only for players who scored multiple hattricks.)--Atlantis77177 (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In cricket FL's (e.g. List of Indian Premier League five-wicket hauls and List of Indian Premier League centuries), I've seen (1/2) or (2/3) being used, with no entry in the key table. See if that works better. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MPGuy2824: Done.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool, I've already supported promotion. If interest and time permit, please take a look at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Buffalo Bills first-round draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is my fourth nomination in the series of NFL team's first-round picks and I hope it will be the 24th featured list in the series. I've based it on my past successful nominations, with the difference being that this team spent 1960–1967 in an independent league that later merged with the NFL whereas my other nominations spent their entire history with the NFL. The third paragraph is new when compared to my other nominations because I had to explain the difference between the AFL and NFL drafts and make mention of the merger. As such, please do pay attention to this paragraph and provide criticism and tweaks to this, I plan to use the same explanatory paragraph in other AFL team nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "The team has (singular), since 1973, played their (plural) home games"
  • "Then, teams agreed" - I think "Teams then agreed" would read more elegantly
  • " one of whom, Carl Eller" => " one of these, Carl Eller" ("one of whom" doesn't work given that the semi-colon started a new clause)
  • "The Bills used an addition two first-round picks" - presumably that should say additional?
  • "First-round was territorial selections" - no need for that hyphen
  • That's what I got - great work as ever!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for the review @ChrisTheDude! I've made all the changes you suggested and checked my other WIPs for similar issues :) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Alt text included
  • Captions are relevant and no MOS issues.
  • Pass for image review. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

  • All-America Football Conference (AAFC) -- I believe we only use the parenthetical with the acronyms if it is repeated in the rest of the article. I think this can be dropped, as AAFC is only used in the first instance.
  • Same with AFC
  • (with each of the eight teams receiving one of those players) -- I think this can be written as a statement instead of being in enclosures.
  • That's all from me on the lead. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for the review @Pseud 14! I was focused on a standard lead so much I missed that I defined acronyms I didn't even re-use, woops! I've made changes that I believe address all of your comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looks good. Support on prose. Btw, if you have time and interest would appreciate a prose review on my current FLC. Hope all is well. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Queen of Hearts[edit]

Hey man ill get to this soon. Queen of Hearts talk
23:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "The Bills' name is derived from an All-America Football Conference franchise from Buffalo..." - All-America Football Conference franchise from Buffalo is a sea of blue; I'd unlink All-America Football Conference
  • Same quote, I'd say "The Bills' name is derived from a Buffalo All-America Football Conference franchise" to avoid a double "from"
  • "... the Bills chose Utah tight end Dalton Kincaid..." - another SOB; I'd unlink tight end

I think that's it — great work as always. Queen of Hearts talk
20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the review @Queen of Hearts, I appreciate it! I'm not sure there's anything in that first sea of blue that I'm comfortable unlinking, as I think it's relevant to link the AAFC as they were a competitor to the league at one point. I've tried to reword this, but I'm having difficulty in doing so. Sea of blue mentions when possibly, but I'm thinking this is a case where it's not an improvement to do so. I'll keep thinking about how to possibly reword it and keep the flow good. I also think the suggestion for the replacement quote would either also be a SOB or would force me to unlink either the AAFC or the team that the Bills are named after.
Unfortunately, I also don't think it's useful to unlink tight end in the Dalton Kinkaid mention, as this is the format that's used across a number of first-pick lists. It's also the first mention of the position and the cleanest way to list the pick Hey man im josh (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Queen of Hearts: Just following up on this. How strongly do you feel about this? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hey man im josh: very sorry for the delay. I don't feel very strongly about it; SOB does say "when possible" after all. Your explanations sound reasonable; still happy to support. DD (main account | talk) 06:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of heads of government of Liechtenstein[edit]

Nominator(s): TheBritinator (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the past year I have worked to improve this list to it's fullest potential by filling a great deal of the biographies, images and accurate information. While my work is not quite done, and may not be for a while, I believe this article fits the FL criteria in recognition of my efforts. TheBritinator (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Lead is too short and should be expanded
  • "The head of government [....] is the title of the head of government" - this wording is quite clumsy.
  • If the title of the head of government is "head of government", where does the title "prime minister" fit in?
  • "Provincial administrator (1861–1921)" - if the translation of the German title is "state administrator", why is the heading "provincial administrator"?
  • In the Provincial administrator (1861–1921) table, why are there dashes not numbers against two of them?
  • Why are two of the cells in the first column of that table coloured?
  • "Prime Minister (1921–present)" - why is this the heading if the title of the post is "head of government"?
  • In this section, why do some of the rows not have numbers in the first column?
  • Why are some of those cells coloured?
  • Why do some of the rows have a buff-coloured background?
  • In the Deputy head of government table, what does FBP stand for? VP? VU?
  • Why is there a dagger against Nigg's date of leaving office?
  • There's only one ref in each of the first two sections - does each ref really source everything in each section?
  • There are no refs at all in the Deputy head section
  • Ref 1 has an "author" of "www 20minuten ch, 20 Minuten, 20 Min,", which obviously isn't the name of the person who wrote it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alright noted, those are mostly left before my time and untouched by myself, but I can get to work on that no problem. As for the "dagger", it's a cross to indicate death in office, I didn't add it, but I've also seen similar things done is contemporary articles so I paid no bother to it, could be made into a note instead however. The two administrator's with dashes were due to them being provisional or unofficial, this could also be made into a note if nessesary.TheBritinator (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude I have attempted to address most of the things you have pointed out, may you give an updated opinion? Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The head of government of Liechtenstein (German: Regierungschef), or informally as Prime Minister is the" Seems weird, maybe "The head of government of Liechtenstein (German: Regierungschef), known informally as the Prime Minister is the" works better.
  • "It is appointed by the sovereign". I think "They are appointed by the sovereign" works a bit better.
  • "the Landtag of Liechtenstein and is to command the confidence of both the prince and Landtag." "should command" or "is expected to command" works a bit better.
  • "but is not required to be a member of the Landtag themselves, only eligible." to "but is not required to be a member of the Landtag themselves, although they should meet the eligibility requirements for that office." or "although they have the same eligibility requirements for that office", depending on which is more accurate. Also, add a ref for this.
  • All tables need to have captions. Use the sronly template, if you think it isn't appropriate to show the caption.
  • The table in the "Deputy head of government" section could have the name column converted into a row header.
  • The use of the phrase "born-died" isn't consistent across the tables. Is this phrase even needed. Please look at a few recent-ish FLs on a similar theme and use what is used there.
  • The Monarch column in the PM section isn't the most important one and shouldn't be the row header. Maybe the name column
  • That's all I got for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some problems still remain:
    • The monarch column is still a header in the List of PMs.
    • In some tables the political parties have their colors next to them, while some don't. This should be consistent across the whole page.
    • In the list of deputy PMs, one of the "Independent" cells doesn't not have the right color which matches the other similar cells. You can consider using the Template:Full party name with color to keep colors consistent.
    • The first table says "born-died", while the other two say "Birth-Death" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! rowspan=2| {{abbr|No.|Number}} becomes !scope=col rowspan=2| {{abbr|No.|Number}}. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • 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. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | bgcolor="{{party color|Independent politician}}" |'''1''' becomes !scope=row bgcolor="{{party color|Independent politician}}" |'''1'''. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 03:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PresN I have taken the time to add these things as you have recommended. In addition, I have fixed most of the wording and citations that were pointed to me by @MPGuy2824. May you verify that I have done this correctly? I believe I have as I checked other recent FLs, but I would like to make sure. Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You missed a couple things, which I've fixed. --PresN 01:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you. TheBritinator (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Older nominations[edit]

List of accolades received by Eat Bulaga![edit]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 23:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this another diverse topic from the Philippines since 24 Oras accolades list. Chompy Ace 23:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "Since its premiere, Eat Bulaga! is the longest-running variety show in the Philippines" - first three words are redundant as obviously it can't have been the longest-running before its premiere
  • "in the creation of the international spin-off programs" - saying "the" international spin-off programs suggests that you are going to name them. So either name them or lose the "the"
  • "and the global popularity on social media" => "and global popularity on social media"
  • "Eat Bulaga! garnered awards and nominations in various categories" "has garnered" would be more appropriate if the show is still ongoing
  • "It won nineteen awards" => "It has won nineteen awards" (as above)
  • "The show received twenty-one" => The show has received twenty-one" (as above)
  • This might be accurate, but did the show really not win any awards at all for the first 21 years of its existence and then suddenly start receiving multiple awards pretty much every year?
  • On the PMPC Star Awards for Television > 2012 > Best Male TV Host row, the recipient's name sorts incorrectly
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ChrisTheDude, all done except the seventh point which I believe that the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s did not have circulation on Philippine media for the show's awards, as did some years of the 2000s (e.g. the 2004 PMPC TV ceremony or the nominations of the 2006 PMPC TV ceremony). This should be addressed as well. Chompy Ace 15:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ChrisTheDude, are you there? Chompy Ace 23:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but (although it may sometimes seem otherwise) I do have a life away from WP and yesterday evening I was not at my computer. I will look at this one again later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - I guess if there are genuinely no sources for any awards prior to 2000 then I guess we either have to assume that the show didn't win any or that the ones it did weren't notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho[edit]

  • "It has won nineteen awards from the Box Office Entertainment Awards." -> "It has won nineteen Box Office Entertainment Awards.", avoids duplication of "awards" and aligns it with the other awards named/linked.
  • There's one place in the table where you linked Eat Bulaga! in parenthesis and five where you didn't. Whether you link the other five or unlink the one, I'd make it consistent.
  • I'd link God Gave Me You in the awards table.
  • Reference 8 has an author
  • Link Philippine Entertainment Portal in reference 14 just for consistency with the rest
  • Reference 38 has the publisher cited as Philstar while all other references from this url list the website as The Philippine Star. Any reason for the difference?

Not much else for me to say, the prose is pretty short and the list itself seems largely complete. TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TheDoctorWho, done. Chompy Ace 08:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good, has my support! TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Critical Role (campaign two)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second time nominating; since the previous nomination closed, all outstanding suggestions have been incorporated (plural verbs fixed, links to monsters/concepts added in episode summaries, additional images). In terms of major new additions, the Production and format section has been expanded with a new paragraph on filming/set design (to go with corresponding image) and there's a new subsection on the 3 specials that have since aired (with corresponding images). There are 3 new plot sums (for the specials) and the Reception section has a new paragraph on set design & objects used in play. I'm really hopeful that the episode list will be promoted this time. Looking forward to the reviews! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho
  • "Dungeons & Dragons web series Critical Role" is a MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
  • Same with "Critical Role Productions' Twitch".
  • Any particular reason why the lead doesn't list Apha alongside Twitch and YouTube?
    • When addressing the blue links above, I rephrased to include Alpha. Let me know if it is unclear. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is a unique article in that it uses "campaign" as a disambiguator rather than "season" or "series", I'd consider removing the season number parameter from the infobox and adding |season_name = ''Critical Role'' (campaign two) to override it, just so the infobox title matches the article title.
  • I'd also suggest adding the cast members to the infobox using the |starring= parameter.
  • The networks should be broken up using {{plainlist}} per the infobox instructions.
  • In the first sentence of the production section you utilize military time, but the lead uses twelve-hour time. I'd make it consistent either way.
  • Just to clarify, was there a YouTube livestream on Critical Role's channel, or was it only available there after the Twitch broadcast? If there was a YouTube livestream:
    • Was the Twitch overlay only available on Twitch or was it also available on the YouTube livestream? If it wasn't available on the YouTube livestream I'd change that portion of the sentence to read something along the lines of "but it is not available on the YouTube platform or Twitch video on demand (VOD) viewers."
      • There was a YouTube livestream so I've clarified on Twitch overlay. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Did the YouTube livestream have auto-generated captions as well? If so, "VOD" in that sentence should be replaced with "broadcast".
  • "Mercer is positioned behind a gamemaster's screen In the inset portion" de-capitalize "In".
  • Portions of the first few paragraphs in the production section don't feel like production information? It is relevant, but perhaps would be better suited in a "Release" or "Broadcast" section per MOS:TV.
    • Moved paragraphs 1 & 4 into a new Broadcast section. Slight rephrase. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The image referencing the four-camera setup needs alt-text.
  • Wikilink Skeleton crew in the COVID section.
  • I assume DM in this section refers to Dungeon Master? If so, I would add that as an abbreviation in parenthesis in the cast section ("Campaign Two had eight cast members—seven players who form an adventuring party and the Dungeon Master (DM)").
  • Underneath the Episodes section header add {{see also}} and point to List of Critical Role episodes.
  • The episodes lists should utilize |LineColor = #FFDD00 so that the line color matches the table color.
  • Wikilink Streamy Awards in the Accolades section.
  • An additional link to the 11th Shorty Awards may be useful here, perhaps "Shorty Awards (11th)" or something along those lines.
  • Wikilink spin-offs in the adaptation section.
  • "sourcebook Explorer's Guide to Wildemount" is another BLUESEA.
  • References:
  • Add the following categories: Category:2018 American television seasons, Category:2019 American television seasons, Category:2020 American television seasons, Category:2021 American television seasons, Category:Television productions postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Category:Television productions suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic
  • This article isn't about the channel itself, so I'd remove Category:YouTube channels launched in 2018

The amount of prose in this article almost leads me to suggest that it should be at WP:FAC instead, and I'd likely insist if it was a typical series with ~15-20 episodes. But with, 141 episodes I can see why it's here instead. Regardless, I commend the work that's been done here so far and want to say good work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review! I somehow missed it in my watchlist but I'll take a look now and start updating over the next few days. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not entirely sure how to add alt text to the 4-cam image since that's not parameter in Template:Image frame; the example uses |base_alt= but that didn't work when I tried it. If I have time tomorrow, I'll take a look at some of the image template options to see how to fix it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you set it up like this: [[File:Critical_Role_C2E98_"Dark_Waters"_screenshot.png|250px|thumb|right|Four camera layout during an ocean battle scene in the Episode: "Dark Waters".***INSERT CITATION HERE (''I had to take it out of the code box due to errors, it's the same citation currently cited in the article'')***|alt=InsertAltTextHere]] it should work. The "thumb" in the link makes it a thumbnail identical to the frame template. Unbulleted list appears the same as plainlist, and is given as an option in Infobox instruction so that works for me! That said, it doesn't need updated to plainlist, but if you're curious; I believe the only reason that plainlist didn't work for you is because the bulletpoints (*) have to be flush with the left side of the code editor, you can see an example with this article and can see how it appears in the editor. Given the updates made, I'm inclined to support assuming that the alt text and references sections are dealt with. Once again, fantastic work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for explaining the code issues! I always forget that the bullet points can be persnickety. I've updated the image format & added the alt text. I'll ping when I'm done with the references. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: I believe I fixed all the refs (except 46 which doesn't have an author). I relied on ctrl-f to find the ones you called out but I sometimes transpose lines when working in the source so I would appreciate a double check to make sure I didn't miss any. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks great! Apologies on 46, not sure what happened there. Striking what I said above since all of my comments have been addressed to reiterate my Support. Best of luck with any future reviews! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. For the template you're using, visual captions can be added by putting |caption=This is a caption in the Episode table template; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 03:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PresN: I looked at the tutorial but I'm not entirely sure if what I did is enough. I added |caption={{sronly|List of episodes in 2018}} in the first episode table which is similar to the caption in the episode table at Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (season 1). If that caption is enough, I'll replicate it in the other tables. But if not, I would appreciate additional guidance. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yep, that works fine, though it turns out this template works differently than others, and the "sronly" isn't needed, as the caption is always hidden- so you can do just "|caption=List of episodes in 2018" if you want. --PresN 04:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Cool! I removed the "sronly" & added captions to all of the episode tables. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in South Africa[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 16:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

South Africa is the country with the second-highest number of WHS in Africa (Ethiopia, with one more, is already seeing some support, so I am adding a new nomination). Standard style. 10 sites and two tentative ones, so this is a medium-sized list. Again, suggestions about which list to nominate next are welcome ;) Tone 16:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "The San people who lived in the area for more than four millennia, created" => "The San people, who lived in the area for more than four millennia, created"
  • "Kingdom of Mapungubwe was" => "The Kingdom of Mapungubwe was"
  • "The area is remarkably rich in biodiversity, even if it covers less than 0.5% of Africa, it is home to 20% of plan species of the continent." => "The area is remarkably rich in biodiversity: even though it covers less than 0.5% of Africa, it is home to 20% of plan species of the continent."
  • "Vredefort Dome (satellite image pictured) is the" => "The Vredefort Dome (satellite image pictured) is the"
  • "Even if the structure has been deeply eroded" => "Although the structure has been deeply eroded"
  • "a lifestyle that has been in past much more widespread" => "a lifestyle that was in the past much more widespread"
  • "provide insight in the time where the first" => "provide insight into the time when the first"
  • "The rocks document lave flows" => "The rocks document lava flows"
  • "around 200 000 years ago" => "around 200,000 years ago"
  • "provide insight into life of these people" => "provide insight into the life of these people" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Fixed all, thanks! Tone 16:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Did a c/e to fix more minor issues.
  • "the anti-Apartheid activist, who later became the president of the country" to "the anti-Apartheid activist and future president of the country"?
  • "not appropriate for agriculture" to "unsuitable for agriculture"?
  • That's all I have, nice work on this list. AryKun (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for checking! I fixed the agriculture as you suggested, for Mandela I think the original wording is somewhat better. Tone 16:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support on the basis of prose from me. AryKun (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

54th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 10:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating the 1982 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81talk 10:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comments - my only comment is that after the "Multiple nominations and awards" heading, there's an absolutely colossal whitespace, more than the entire height of my laptop screen, before the actual content of the section. Any way to avoid this? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've asked about this before, and it seems to be because the images and tables are floating objects; the objects on the left side (the tables) can't appear until the objects on the right (the images) finish. (See WP:MFOP.) The easiest solution is to reduce the number of images – I think the Big Five winners plus Supporting Actor/Actress, and maybe one or two others if some of those are missing, are plenty. (I feel like this used to be normal and recently there's been more of a push to add more images? Or maybe it's just me.) Another option is to use div elements like at 91st Academy Awards, though this will end up sending the images way down the side of the page. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done - I removed some images that seemed a bit not proportional in a 4:3 portrait ratio to determine which images to keep and ones to delete. It's fine to have images of winners, but as per Wikipedia:Gallery and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not designed to be a repository or college of images and galleries should be used sparingly and in a proper format and context.
--Birdienest81talk 20:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Link Marty Pasetta in infobox
  • "Reds earned the most nominations with 12; On Golden Pond came in second with ten." – spell out both numbers or write both as numerals
  • "her last win for On Golden Pond, set the record" – no comma needed
  • "'The Academy is fortunate..." – missing the closing quotes
  • The Tonight Show should be italicized and probably linked
  • Johnny Carson should be linked
  • "However, in February 1982..." – remove "However" since it doesn't contrast the immediately preceding sentence
  • "A maximum of seven films eligible would be needed for the award to be handed out." – maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this doesn't seem right to me. Shouldn't it be presented if a minimum number of films are eligible?
    • I found the source and the article didn't really match what it described, which was part of the issue. I've reworded it; feel free to adjust as needed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sabulis's review is used twice
  • "sputtered in others." – period should be a comma?
  • This is a broader issue, but it came up during a separate FLC so I'll mention it here: The background colors in the table headings need to be lighter to meet the WCAG AA contrast ratio of 4.5:1 (MOS:COLOR). Currently, linked text (#3366CC) on the gold background (#EEDD82) gives a contrast ratio of 3.9:1 (3.83:1 if the link has been clicked). Give me a little bit and I can propose some colors that might work better.
    Update: Maybe #F9EFAA would work? (Example: Would go from  Best Picture  to  Best Picture ) RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @RunningTiger123:: Done: I have read your comments and made the necessary changes to the article.
--Birdienest81talk 19:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Linking consistency of works/newspapers is a bit strange, should either be on of the three: link all, link none, link on first mention
  • Looks good overall, I adjusted some small things in the biblio
  • No issues. Some smaller local sources, but they're mostly for quoted critic reactions
  • Checked a few, no issues
Comments from TheDoctorWho
  • Remove 9pm EST from the lead per MOS:TIMEZONE. If the eastern time is relevant only for the broadcast it should be moved to that sentence (something like "The ceremony, televised in the United States by ABC beginning at 9:00 p.m. EST, was")
  • The infobox lists two producers but the lead only mentions one?
  • "One week earlier, in a ceremony held at The Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, California, on March 21, the Academy Scientific and Technical Awards were presented by hosts Lloyd Bridges and Fay Kanin." feels a bit odd here. The lead should summarize the article, but there are no further mentions of these anywhere in the page. I fail to see the significance of the sentence and don't lose any understanding by skipping it.
  • "However, in February 1982", the word "however" should be removed, I see it was mentioned above, but it seems like it may have slipped through that support.
  • Link Harold Schindler in critical reviews section
  • "which was a 6% increase from the previous year's ceremony." the source does not directly support this statement. It only gives the top ten broadcasts and the 1981 broadcast isn't listed there.
  • The reference following that sentence returns a 404 page not found error. The url needs updated to this.
  • Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is only linked in reference 3 and 12, either delink or 12 or link in 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 23, and 34 (MOS:REFLINK)
  • Link The Washington Post in reference 6
  • Link Variety in reference 11
  • Add "|author-link=Janet Maslin" to reference 19
  • Reference 21 should be changed to {{Cite press release}}, it was authored by Don Morgan
  • Link Los Angeles Times in reference 22
  • Add "|author-link=Harold Schindler" to reference 28
  • Link Anthony Holden, Robert Osborne, Mason Wiley, Damien Bona in the bibliography
  • Dependent upon my third comment, the related external link may need removed

Great work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been nearly a week with no response from the nominator. Gonna have to oppose unless these are addressed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @TheDoctorWho: Done - I have read your comments and made the necessary changes to the article.
--Birdienest81talk 10:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've taken care of bullet point 4, which for the second time was not addressed and is simply a grammatical error that is not up for debate. Points 5 and 14 were not addressed, but that won't keep me from supporting for now. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Image review from Dylan620
  • The sole non-free image present, the poster for the ceremony, has an adequate FUR and is used appropriately in the infobox. All other images are free-use or otherwise compatibly licensed.
  • I like the vertical gallery that goes along the right side of the main awards table. Unfortunately, it seems to be contributing to a great wad of empty space that starts this section. Is there a way this can be addressed?
  • The photos themselves are all excellent, each one contributing encyclopedic value. Props for incorporating two FPs.
  • For that entire gallery, and again for Johnny Carson's photo later on, the alt text doesn't say anything more than "x actor in year xxxx". This is worthwhile information to include in alt text, but it leaves some detail to be desired. What is each actor wearing? Are any of these photos black and white? Is there anything worth writing about the poses or hand gestures?

Once my points regarding whitespace and alt text are addressed, I will be comfortable supporting on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 18:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Dylan620: I don't see any whitespace near the vertical columns. I already removed several pictures as noted above in previous comments. I viewed the page on Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome, and no whitespace appears. RunningTiger123 or SNUGGUMS, do you see any whitespace?
  • As for the alt text, according to Wikipedia:ALT#Importance of Context, alt text shouldn't describe what kind of clothes the person is wearing or what action the person is doing unless this is a fashion article. The Queen Elizabeth II examples says, Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the alt text for this image of Elizabeth II should not be "an elderly woman wearing a black hat". I've used to do that for former articles, but someone pointed my errors in this previous FLC (see comments under FrankBoy fifth bullet point).
--Birdienest81talk 07:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Birdienest81: I've struck my comment about the whitespace. I looked at the area on mobile this morning, both logged in and logged out, and didn't see any whitespace of concern. I just briefly logged out now to look at the area on my laptop, and didn't see any whitespace in that case either. Maybe it's just an issue with using the MonoBook skin on my laptop? Regarding the alt text, that's interesting to note. I've been trying to get Not Strong Enough (Boygenius song) to FA and used the Bad Romance article as a template for alt text; there, each image of a person has alt text which contains a rough description of what that person is wearing. Also, I recently reviewed a few sports-related FLCs – in each of those lists, images of players have alt text giving a loose description of their clothing (generally team uniforms). Any black and white images on those lists were also denoted as such in the alt text, which is what informed my suggestion to do so here. Knowing now that a previous FLC of yours was opposed in part because you did basically what I was asking you to do here, I'm willing to accept that I may have been a bit overzealous in my comments regarding alt text. Support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 20:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of songs recorded by Ben&Ben[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After a short break from working on list articles, and previously working on Filipino solo music artists, I decided that taking on a band would be a nice change. It started with expanding their main article, until I've finally gotten to their list of songs. Filipino indie folk band Ben&Ben is a nine-member ensemble whose music is known for its anthemic quality and emotional engagement that appeals to a wide range of audiences. Their songs have been featured in films, television shows, and soon on stage (Philippine theater!) Regarded as prolific songwriters, the band is also the most-streamed Filipino artist of all time. The band's discography was brought to FL status by GWL a while back, so I thought I'd work on the their song list this time. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "They then renamed and released their self-titled EP" - as written this indicates that they renamed their EP, which I don't believe is what you mean. I would change it to "They then changed their name and released their self-titled EP"
  • Back for a full review later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the initial review. Made the change as suggested. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More comments[edit]

  • "Filipino indie folk band Ben&Ben has recorded.....They have collaborated with" - is the band singular or plural?
My bad. Should be plural, I've made the changes, and parts of the lead as needed to be consistent.
  • "By 2018, two singles from the EP were featured" - both films seem to have come out in 2018, so change to "In 2018, two singles from the EP were featured"
  • "and the brothers' assistance on writing" - this reads a bit strangely. Did they help someone else (Verona?) write the songs? The articles on the songs suggest they just wrote them by themselves......
I've removed the phrase so it's not ambiguous. Hopefully that reads better.
  • "lyrics that delve on" - you can't "delve on" something in English. I would suggest "lyrics that deal with"
  • "The band members have co-written some of their songs" - on this album specifically or generally?
Just for the second album, tweaked so it specifies that.
Thanks for the additional comments ChrisTheDude. All actioned. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your support and edits. Appreciate your time in reviewing as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Images are all CC or PD. Positioning is fine on both my desktop and mobile views.
  • Infobox image is not ideal as it appears on the page, but seems to be the best of a limited selection of free-to-use images available. I wonder if it's worth making a cropped version to make the band members a little clearer?
Thanks for doing the image review. I thought about cropping it initially, but found the cropped version to be much lower quality, since this is a screen capture from a free-to-use video upload. The better quality, seems to be making use of the wide-angle shot. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Images and their captions are relevant and I didn't see any MOS issues.
  • Alt text is included.

Source review[edit]

  • There are many uses of Spotify for factual and, I would assume, uncontroversial information. It looks from discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#Spotify and elsewhere at RSN that editors are mostly happy with Spotify as a source for uncontroversial information. (Co-ords, please correct me if necessary)
  • There have been a few discussions about BandCamp at RSN. Like for Spotify, my reading is that this source is fine if used for uncontroversial content, as it is here.
  • The YouTube source used is the official channel for Studio Three Sixty so seems fine here.
  • Spot check on "embraced themes of romance and positivity" - no issues.
  • Spot check on "move towards sociopolitical themes reflected in lyrics that deal with social justice, mental health, and individualism" - no issues.
  • I think "sparse instrumentation, harmony, and handclaps" should either be attributed as a direct quote, or rephrased.
Thanks for doing a review of sourcing as well BennyOnTheLoose. I have rephrased the quotation instead. Let me know if that works. Look forward to the rest of your comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No copyvio or close paraphrasing issues found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector or in a couple of spot checks.
  • Pass for source review as it looks fine to me now. Regards, 22:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey man im josh

I've wanted to review this list, but I've been hesitant because the citation highlighters I use are showing a whole lot of red in the reference section (Spotify and YouTube).

I believe that's been covered per Benny's source review above, where there was a discussion linked that Spotify is acceptable for informational and non-controversial use, i.e. song credits, date/year of release, etc. The same goes with YouTube where official accounts are used (i.e. for trailers, music videos, lyric videos identifying musicians and songwriters). Per WP:RSPYT: Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. I think this verified content also applies to official uploads from film studios, production companies or television networks. In my experience, I believe, these sources have been considered acceptable within the FL spaces with regard to its use in FLs for List of Songs, Discography, etc.
  • Has there been past consensus that Spotify is an acceptable source for lists such as these?
Answered above.
  • "Autumn" is not sorting properly, it's being sorted as "Could autumn" for some reason.
Thanks for catching, should be fixed now.
  • "The Ones We Once Loved" is sorted as "Ones We Once Loved" but "The Way You Look At Me" is sorting as "The Way You Look At Me". These should be consistent, in that, they either both use "The" as part of the sort name or neither does.
Also fixed.
  • Needs to be more consistent with linking in the notes. Note U and AC for example link to the song whereas notes F, N, and R do not.
For note F, I believe the song article on wiki is a different one, For note N there isn't a article to link from what I've checked, and note R has been linked.
  • Ref 2 – add a publish date
  • Ref 9 – Wikilink

That's what I've got for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your review Hey man im josh, I've addressed all comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support – Sorry for the delay in supporting since your last response @Pseud 14. I missed this in a flurry of notifications. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries at all Hey man im josh. Thanks for your support and patience in reviewing. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from ZooBlazer
  • as well as rock opera-inspired music.[13][12] - Flip the ref order

I tried to find other issues, but I think everything has mostly been covered already. So in the end, I ended up with this one measly thing. Great job with this article. I think I've only briefly heard of Ben&Ben, so it was fun to actually learn a bit about them. -- ZooBlazer 18:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ZooBlazer: that was exceptionally fast :) And thanks for the review and kind words. I've made the change per your comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had already started looking at it when i saw you mentioned it in my FLC. Happy to support. -- ZooBlazer 19:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your support. Look forward to reading more of your work. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Relayed

Salute to you for how fast you can work with multiple articles in just a short time! I am happy to review.

  • Lead: The band formed in 2016 as The Benjamins composed of Paolo and Miguel Benjamin Guico.The band formed in 2016 as The Benjamins, composed of Paolo and Miguel Benjamin Guico. – add comma
  • Lead: "The Way You Look At Me" by Christian Bautista,"The Way You Look at Me" by Christian Bautista, – capitalization of title of works
  • Lead: "Tuloy Na Tuloy Pa Rin Ang Pasko" by the APO Hiking Society,"Tuloy Na Tuloy Pa Rin ang Pasko" by the APO Hiking Society, – capitalization of title of works
  • Lead: 2007 drama One More Chance will feature Ben&Ben's discography, and is scheduled2007 drama One More Chance will feature Ben&Ben's discography and is scheduled – remove comma
  • Table: {{Anchor}} templates are not placed properly in the table, particularly for entries that start with letters B, D, and T. {{Anchor|B}} was placed next to Ebe Dancel instead of the song title, {{Anchor|D}} was placed next to the title of the second "D" song entry, and {{Anchor|T}} was placed next to the title of the second "T" song entry.
  • Table: Ben&Ben (with Clara Benin and Bea Lorenzo) – It appears that "Di Na Muli" is a Clara Benin and Bea Lorenzo song that features Ben&Ben, so perhaps it should be written as Clara Benin and Bea Lorenzo (featuring Ben&Ben)?
  • Table: "Nakikinig Ka Ba Sa Akin""Nakikinig Ka Ba sa Akin" – capitalization of title of works
  • Table: "SUNRISE""Sunrise"MOS:ALLCAPS
  • Table: "Tuloy Na Tuloy Pa Rin Ang Pasko" and "The Way You Look At Me" − ditto (Don't forget the notes and references too)
  • Table: Two songs in the table are not sorted properly by title:
  • "Di Na Muli" → "Doors" → "Di Ka Sayang" should be "Di Ka Sayang" → "Di Na Muli" → "Doors"
  • "Upuan" → "The Way You Look At Me" → "War" should be "Upuan" → "War" → "The Way You Look At Me"
  • Ref 18: "Ben&Ben, Belle Mariano collaborate for "Autumn's" duet version". "Ben&Ben, Belle Mariano collaborate for "Autumn's" duet version". ABS-CBN. — The source appears to be from the corporate website of ABS-CBN, not ABS-CBN News.
This came up in a previous source review, and as a matter of consistency all news originating from ABS-CBN I have cited to appears as (whether Entertainment, Corporate, News, etc). Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see; crossed out
  • Ref 31: Ben&Ben. "Di Na Muli (feat. Ben&Ben)".Lorenzo, Bea; Benin, Clara. "Di Na Muli (feat. Ben&Ben).
  • Ref 33: Ben&Ben. "Di Ka Sayang]".Ben&Ben. "Di Ka Sayang". − unwanted bracket
  • Ref 37: Arias, Jacqueline (May 28, 2021). "Hear Ben&Ben and DAY6 memberArias, Jacqueline (May 28, 2021). "Hear Ben&Ben and Day6 memberMOS:ALLCAPS
  • Ref 41: SB. "Mapa (Band Version)".SB19; Ben&Ben. "Mapa (Band Version)". − incomplete author name, probably it is worth adding Ben&Ben too
Added Ben&Ben; note that writing SB19 in full yields a cite error, so it is listed as just SB. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume you are referring to the maintenance error on numeric names. However, you can bypass the error if "SB19" is surrounded by double parenthesis as ((SB19)) and would render it as "SB19" without yielding an error. Consider doing that. – Relayed( Abacusada) (t • c) 15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ref 50: Ben&Ben. "SUNRISE".Ben&Ben. "Sunrise". − ditto (MOS:ALLCAPS)

I think that is all I got for now. Good luck! – Relayed( Abacusada) (t • c) 07:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Relayed. All done, unless otherwise stated. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pseud 14 Thanks for responding. Only left would be my suggestion above, and once that is sorted out, I will be happy to support.
@Relayed: done. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support – Good work! Good luck for the rest of your nomination. – Relayed( Abacusada) (t • c) 22:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline of the 1991 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): ''Flux55'' (talk), Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 00:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This timeline was created by Flux55, a promising new user who has already done a lot of good work. 1991 was a quiet year for Atlantic hurricanes, but don't tell that to anyone in New England! Hurricane Bob caused extensive damage and over a dozen fatalities when it scraped up the East Coast and plowed into Rhode Island at Category 2 strength—it's still the most recent New England hurricane landfall. Also of note was the infamous Perfect Storm, which became a large, powerful, and damaging nor'easter after it ate Hurricane Grace for dinner... and then itself became a hurricane before making landfall in Canada as a weakened system! I'm proud of the work Flux and I put into this, and we look forward to the community's feedback. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 00:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment A spot check found multiple distance and location Statements which are not stated or supported by the referenced source. If a TCR or other reliable secondary source does not mention something the statement needs to be removed. Drdpw (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drdpw: I understand where you're coming from. I was attempting to follow the standards of the Timeline of the 2020 Pacific hurricane season (which, according to the featured list log, is the most recent season timeline to be promoted to featured status). There, every single event in a system's life—be it formation, change in category, landfall, peak intensity, or dissipation—is given a location compared to a city, island, or other landmark, even if such comparisons were not explicitly drawn in the TCRs for those systems. I have also observed this being the case, from a spot-check of a few timeline details, with the 2020 ATL and 2018 EPAC timelines. If removal of the details in question from the 1991 ATL timeline is required, then I am willing to do so, but I was under the impression that I had been following recent best practice. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 19:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I've asked this before and was told it was a matter of WP:CALC to measure the great circle distance between two points, using the NHC's coordinates for storm location. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 22:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can use, for example, NOAA's Latitude/Longitude Distance Calculator to calculate the distance between two points. But we cannot state that a system is about "X" miles from "Y" land point unless that land point is specifically mentioned somewhere in the referenced article. The 2023 Atlantic and 2023 Pacific hurricane season timelines, currently undergoing revision as new TCRs are published, are good examples of how TL content can be limited when limited information is available. Drdpw (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drdpw: Got it, that makes sense; I'll go back and make adjustments after breakfast and coffee. Should be able to finish this evening. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC) (updated 17:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC))Reply[reply]
@Drdpw and KN2731: Okay, I think I've got it all—how's it look now? Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 00:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drdpw and KN2731: Just making sure you've seen this – would appreciate your feedback on the fixes I've made. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 21:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did; you have addressed issues that would be cause for immediate dismissal of candidacy by a reviewer. It looks ready for a reviewer's examination. Drdpw (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by AndrewPeterT

Hello, Dylan! This is Andrew444 from Wikia! It is so nice to see you again after all these years still interested in tropical cyclones! Anyway, I am going to do my best to evaluate this list for featured criteria. I would ask that other comments elaborate on the points I bring up wherever possible:

1. Prose - I appreciate that there is plenty of meteorological jargon appropriately used in the timeline, yet the language remains accessible for everyone. I also see no obvious grammatical errors, and the page "feels" objective and encyclopedic when I read it. I would also like to offer the following content-related feedback:

  • I notice that the four-digit pressure readings are written with commas. This is not the stylistic preference I see from the National Hurricane Center in their advisories and tropical cyclone reports. What is the rationale for including commas in these measurements?
    I stated above that I tried to model this timeline after 2020 EPAC – I observed the minimum pressure statements in that one and thought, "huh, I guess we're adding the commas now!" Of the three promotions which preceded it (in reverse order: 2020 ATL, 2018 EPAC, 2019 ATL), only 2018 EPAC excludes the commas. In other words, I kept the commas so as to follow what I perceived to be recent convention. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are no links to the Tropical Storm Danny, Tropical Storm Erika, and Tropical Depression Ten sections of the 1991 Atlantic hurricane season article in the timeline prose. Could these links be added for consistency?
    Done, done, and done. I'm not sure how I missed the lack of links for Erika and 10L – good catch! A link to Tropical Storm Danny (1991) (which redirects to the relevant section on the season article) had been present, but I switched it out with a direct link per your comment; I've also done the same with Claudette and Fabian. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I note that the prose insinuates that Tropical Storm Erika became extratropical as a tropical storm. Yet the track image shows that Erika weakened into a tropical depression before becoming extratropical. Which of these scenarios actually occurred?
    I'm a little embarrassed to have not picked up on this discrepancy myself. This appears to be a case where the TCR (the source provided for the text of this event in the timeline) is at odds with HURDAT (the source for generating the track maps). A discussion at Talk:Hurricane Luis#Winds a few years ago seemingly concluded that the TCR takes precedence over HURDAT. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2. Lead - I defer to another editor on whether or not the first few paragraphs satisfy the fine print of WP:MOSLEAD. However, I can say that the page nicely includes the "standard explanatory text" for hurricane season timelines. I also really like how the second paragraph summarizes the major impacts of Hurricane Bob and the 1991 Perfect Storm. That being said, I do have the following feedback:

  • Unlike some other season timelines, the lede does not define what an "average Atlantic hurricane season" entails. Could a footnote be added explaining this terminology?
    Footnote added. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we add somewhere in the last two paragraphs that one-minute sustained winds are used to measure the wind speeds of North Atlantic tropical cyclones?
    I've added a brief mention near the end of the lede. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Even though the lead should be a summary, I do feel that the sinking of the Andrea Gail by the 1991 Perfect Storm is too significant to ignore. Perhaps a sentence can be added explaining how a book and film were made about this event (as to engage readers with little background in tropical cyclones)?
    Sentence added. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3. Comprehensiveness -

(a) In general, the page does a great job describing when each tropical cyclone "changed" Saffir-Simpson scale categories and made landfall. Pass on this criterion.

(b) I do not see any statements that must be cited per WP:MINREF. However, I would like to contest the following claim made in the timeline:

  • In the July 6 entry, it says that

Tropical Depression Two makes landfall near La Pesca, Mexico with winds of 35 mph (55 km). Its only known barometric pressure measurement of 1,007 mbar (29.74 inHg) is taken around this time.

The corresponding cited source from the National Hurricane Center only states the 1007 mbar reading. It never says this reading was the only measurement taken from the depression. Could either another source be found for the latter sentence or the latter sentence be removed altogether?

I worded this the way I did because HURDAT does not list any pressure values for the system; neither do the advisories, with the sole exception of the one cited as a source for the measurement. I've rephrased this to remove the statement of the measurement being the only one, while still keeping mention of the 1,007 mbar value. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(c) I will defer to other editors on whether this page meets the criteria of WP:STANDALONE and WP:CFORK. That being said, I can say that while some large chunks of language do seem to be very similar to other Atlantic hurricane season timelines (e.g. that of 1992), I can tell that the specific wording is customized specifically for the 1991 season. Finally, because of how much specific detail is present about formations, dissipations, and other key events of all the storms, I would argue content would be lost if we tried to merge the timeline into the general season article. With that, I say pass on this criterion.

4. Structure - I greatly appreciate the consistent layout of the timeline. Readers like me can easily follow along as the days and months of the 1991 season progress. Pass on this criterion.

5. Style - I defer to other editors on whether your work fully meets the criteria of the WP:MOS. However, I can say the following:

(a) Visual appeal - I am happy to see the lack of red links. Also, the visual timeline, like it does on other WP:WPTC articles, provides a great and simple color-coding scheme for readers to digest and visualize different storms' intensities. Pass on this criterion.

(b) Media files - Great work providing images with concise captions scattered throughout the list, especially the visual of the Perfect Storm absorbing Grace! And since all the images are free use, no need to worry about non-free use rationales! That being said, I would like to see a satellite image or track of Tropical Storm Danny somewhere in the article. Also, what is the rationale for some storms having satellite imagery but others having tracks?

I've added a satellite image of Danny, while also switching out Ana's image for its track and Fabian's track for an image of the storm. I included both satellite images and tracks pretty much just for variety's sake, though I did try to prioritize track images for storms which lacked location comparison points in their TCRs. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

6. Stability - Looking through the edit history, I notice that most of the edits from the past month are revisions that you have made, several of which are in response to the feedback Drdpw and others gave above. This page seems satisfactorily stable for a FL.

I will offer my formal support once all of my concerns have been addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. I wish you and Flux55 the best with this process. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One last piece of feedback for now: In your nomination blurb, I would encourage you to clarify that the Perfect Storm eating Hurricane Grace is a reference to the Fujiwhara effect. Not everyone may understand that figurative language. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Andrew, it's great to hear from you – I never knew you had a Wikipedia account! Thank you so much for taking the time to review this! I have a busy day in meatspace today, but I'll try to address your concerns after work tomorrow. Regards, Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 13:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "The third tropical depression of the season forms from an area of low pressure offshore the Bahamas" - is this a valid Americanism? In UK English we would say "off the shores of the Bahamas" or simply "off the Bahamas" but never "offshore the Bahamas". But maybe it is valid in American English.......?
  • Prince Edward Island is mentioned but never linked
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers Pro Bowl selections[edit]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review this nomination. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time a "Pro Bowl selection" by team list has been nominated at WP:FLC, and the table layout is updated to make it sortable. With all that said, I would appreciate any feedback or input, and will address any issues quickly. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Figured I'd help out with this one after my comments at the Packers MVPs list.

  • "Northern Division" – never heard this usage, "North division" or "NFC North division" is probably better
  • "until 2014, until the NFL" → "until 2014, when the NFL"
  • "the highest voter-getters are named starters" → "the players with the most votes were named starters"
  • "the common thread" – don't think this is the right wording since the whole point is that it changed a lot; maybe try "a common option"
  • "every year since 1950 except for ten seasons" – I count nine? (Ten if you count the All-Star Games)
  • Spell out 10, 9, 8, and 4 in the last paragraph in the lead (MOS:NUMERAL)
  • Image captions are complete sentences, so use periods
  • "also playing in the January 1939 All-Star Game" – the Packers played in the 1940 game
  • "possibly best known in his role blocking for the famous Packers sweep" – citation needed or remove
  • "only selected for one Pro Bowl in his career after the 1964 NFL season" – wording is awkward and implies he was picked for more games before 1964
  • "a dynamic pass-catching duo in the 1960s" – citation needed or at the very least "dynamic" should not be used in WP:WIKIVOICE
  • "three of them he was the only Packers player selected" – "he was the only Packers player selected for three of them"
  • "became the third member of the Matthews family to be selected for a Pro Bowl..." – citation needed or remove
  • "Packers only representative" → "Packers' only representative"
  • Footnotes shouldn't have spaces between them and the word they follow (MOS:REFSPACE)
  • Refs. column should not be sortable
  • MVP background colors are too dark – need a 4.5:1 contrast ratio between link text and background to meet WCAG AA (MOS:COLOR)
    • Current ratios are 1.67:1 (game MVP) and 3.54:1 (league MVP) using Vector 2022 link colors – the lighter link colors mean backgrounds have to be very light to work and may need some trial-and-error (not trying to ramble but this is easily my least favorite part of the skin)
  • "NA" → "N/A" (MOS:ABBR)
  • Sort keys need to be set to enable correct date sorting in All-Star Game table (dates are automatically sorted correctly, but not when written as month-year only)
  • 1982 and 2004 seasons: Fix reference rowspan
  • Davante Adams' selection for the 2022 game was his fifth, not fourth
  • Optional: "# of All-Star Games/Pro Bowls with Packers" might look better in key instead of header

RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RunningTiger123, thanks for the review. Two comments: (1) regarding the 10 seasons without a selection, that included 2024 originally, but Kenny Clark just got announced. When I updated the table I forgot to update the lead. (2) Will you check the colors to see if they are good? All other comments have been addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Colors are closer, but still not enough. I suggest #88FFFF instead of #00FFFF and #AFFFAF instead of #00FF00 . RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done RunningTiger123. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man im josh
  • Only includes the position that the player was selected for inclusion in the Pro Bowl. – This feels a bit clunky, what about something like "The position which the player was elected to the Pro Bowl for"?
  • None of the refs contain Wikilinks to the website/publisher. Some people choose to link in every ref while others choose to link the first mention
  • Ref 103 links to 2029 instead of 2019
  • For the image of Clay Matthews, perhaps you could end the sentence after Bruce Matthews, then start a new sentence to state that "Jake Matthews, the son of Bruce and cousin to Clay, later became the fourth." Just feels like it could be a bit better to start a new sentence than to stick that in brackets.
  • References don't verify that Henry Jordan (1961) was Pro Bowl MVP (the other Pro Bowl MVPs are verified)
  • Spot check on 15 (other) sources match what they are being cited for (spot checked more than I normally would based on the above)
  • I checked out the Green Bay's media guide and I wanted to note that this also confirms note E about John Martinkovic being a Pro Bowler in 1955 (page 481).
  • Do you think a separate table of "Most selections while with team" could be useful? I'd imagine an inclusion threshold of 5+ selections, which would be 14 players.

That's all I've got for now. My only issue is really just the ref formatting, otherwise it passes a source review. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review Hey man im josh. I have addressed all of the above except the following:
  • I don't link websites when using the "website" field. Maybe just a personal preference, but my understanding is that the only requirement is consistency.
  • I contemplated trying to add a new column for "Total selections", but with the sort function it doesn't really look very nice. I also contemplated a separate table, but it's already a long page as is. Idk, I guess I don't feel strongly either way, but lean towards not making the page any longer. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: Fair enough about the ref formatting, the references do include all of the relevant information from the targets, it was just the website/publisher aspect I was focused on, which you've of course addressed. Yeah I don't think a separate column for total sections would be ideal. I think the only way it works out is if you do it similar to the annual statistical leaders lists we have for the NFL, such as this. But like you said, it's a long page already and I understand the hesitance towards including such a list.
  • I see that you added a reference for the Henry Jordan bit I mentioned. Did you notice that it mentions "most-valuable lineman", as opposed to Pro Bowl MVP? What do you make of this? I found this from the NFL that mentions a back and lineman being selected, which is why Fred Carr received it it seems. Then I found this ref from 1962 Pro Bowl, which does confirm that he was selected. Not sure what to make of this, except that it does seem like two players were selected from the 1957 through 1972 Pro Bowls, with the exception of the 1962 Pro Bowl on PFR, which is clearly missing Henry Jordan. Do you think we need to make a clarification or explain a bit? I'm just looking into it now because I didn't understand the history of the Pro Bowl as well as I do now after reading this article and I had some questions.
  • 1970 should include ref 5 instead of 1969, as the 1969 row doesn't need any addition refs for verification while the 1970 does (I missed this, as I was checking the page against MVPs originally)
The clarification regarding the Pro Bowl isn't necessary for my support, but I'm kind of just musing based on some of our past discussions. Thanks. 16:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed. Jeez, the whole "Pro Bowl occurs the year after the season" has killed me with this list. Regarding the MVP, would a note suffice? Something explaining that Pro Bowl MVP was selected differently throughout the years? I'll contact PFR on Henry Jordan. They are usually pretty quick to reply. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just as extra, the note would say something like From 1951 to 1956, the MVP of the Pro Bowl was called the "Player of the Game". From 1957 to 1971, MVP Awards were given to two players: the best back and the best lineman. From 1972 to 2007, the award was again called the "Player of the Game". Since 2008, a Pro Bowl MVP Award has been given and starting in 2013 the MVP Award was handed out to two players: the best on offense and the best on defense. I would obviously need to cite it all, which isn't a small order, but you get the gist. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense to me. This is definitely a pain to clarify, that much I understand. Sorry for the excess work load but it's definitely been educational for me to review this list! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey man im josh, I have added the note. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good. Source review passed. Support! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm starting an image review now. If I don't finish tonight, then I should be able to get it done tomorrow morning or early afternoon. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 00:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As promised:
  • I appreciate how well-illustrated this listicle is; I count 22 images! The only caveat is that I'm not certain if a second image of Aaron Rodgers is really necessary, although I understand why a second would be included, considering he holds the team record for most Pro Bowls.
  • Even taking the above minor reservation into account, each image adds encyclopedic value.
  • The caption for the lede image reads like a full sentence, and punctuation should probably be added accordingly. (There should be a period at the end, and I personally think it would be a good idea to add a comma before with 10 as well.)
  • Alt text checks out for the most part, although I think first names should be included alongside surnames.
  • Licenses and image sources mostly check out as well. The source for the James Lofton image is a dead link for which I can't seem to find an archived URL, but I did find the image on an Etsy listing which provides a year that corroborates with the license provided. I do have a couple reservations:
    • The alt text for the Eddie Lacy image states that he is riding a bicycle. This can indeed be seen in the original Flickr upload, but there is no sign of the bicycle in the cropped image which is used in the listicle. Maybe replace riding a bicycle with holding a sports drink bottle?
    • The caption for the Davante Adams image states that he was selected to four straight Pro Bowls. This is technically true due to the 2021 Pro Bowl's cancellation, but could be confusing because the table shows five consecutive selections for Adams. Maybe this caveat should be added to the caption, whether in writing or in reusing the footnote from 2021's row in the table?
Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 17:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Dylan620, I believe I have addressed all of your comments. The Adams caption was a typo, should be "five", fyi. The 2021 Pro Bowl was cancelled, but that didn't cancel out his selection as a Pro Bowler. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good to me Gonzo fan2007. Image review passes; support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SB19 discography[edit]

Nominator(s):Relayed( Abacusada) (t • c) 17:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After a successful FL candidacy for List of songs recorded by SB19, I am attempting to have another, yet again, SB19 list gain featured status. This time, it's their discography page! It contains albums, EPs, and single releases from 2018 up until now from the beloved P-pop group SB19. After using existing FL discographies of Filipino and international artists as guides, I think the discography list of who made people move on TikTok satisfies the FL criteria.

All suggestions and feedback are welcome and much appreciated. I sincerely thank the reviewers who will put their time and effort here. – Relayed( Abacusada) (t • c) 17:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "named one of the first successful and leading acts for promoting P-pop music" - "successful" and "leading" mean the same thing. I would say "named one of the most successful acts in promoting P-pop music"
  • "The EP spawned singles, "What?", " => "The EP spawned the singles "What?", "
  • "By the end of the year, the boy band released" => "Later in the year, the boy band released"
  • "and got featured" => "and was featured"
  • "which reached the top 10 positions in the Philippines" => "which reached the top 10 in the Philippines"
  • "denotes chart does not exist upon the song release" => "denotes that chart did not exist at the time of the song's release"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for your comments, ChrisTheDude! I appreciate it as always. I have actioned all your comments; let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed( Abacusada) (t • c) 16:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your support! – Relayed( Abacusada) (t • c) 16:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Vaughan J.[edit]

Chris reviewed the prose (as seen above), so I'll review do the tables for you!

  • "Album details" → "Details". Ditto for "Extended plays" section.
  • {{Abbr|Ref(s).|Reference(s)}}{{Abbr|Ref.|References}}. Ditto for "Extended plays" section.
    I have been told before that Ref(s). should be used if multiple references are used in a cell (which I agree with). Changed it to {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference(s)}} instead. Let me know if that is okay.
  • That sounds fine to me!
  • Refs should be joined together, instead of it having a line break.

Those are my only concerns. Everything else seems fine for me! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 02:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Vaughan J.! Thanks for taking a look at the list. I have gone through your comments and left comments above. Let me know if you have anything else. By the way, congratulations on your first FL! – Relayed( Abacusada) (t • c) 08:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – Everything is sorted out the way I like it. Also, thank you very much dude! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 08:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks for the support, Vaughan! (P.S. Also, thanks for adding the signature. I am used to replying with visual editor recently, but this thread had to be done with the source editor, which I forgot to do.) – Relayed( Abacusada) (t • c) 17:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snooker world rankings 1982/1983[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The latest in the series of Snooker world rankings articles. Alex Higgins lost out on the top spot for playing Space Invaders (allegedly), while normal service was resumed by Ray Reardon being at number one. There wasn't as much commentary in sources about this list as in some previous years. As ever, all improvement suggestions are welcome and I'm happy to share relevant extracts from offline sources with reviewers. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • No pictures?
  • I've added one. Unfortunately there is no free to use image of Reardon. There are a couple of pictures of Higgins on Commons but I think the 2008 one is not representative enough, and I'm not convinced that the 1968 ones are genuinely free to use. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The player who Reardon replaced as number one" => "The player whom Reardon replaced as number one"
  • "when was late returning" => "when he was late returning"
  • Refs 4 and 9 should have all the same parameters as ref 1
  • Ref 10 needs "via" to be consistent with similar refs
  • Support - could have sworn I saw a picture of Reardon on at least one previous article that passed through FLC or FAC - was it found to actually not be free to use and deleted? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. The source image for the Reardon file was deleted for "no permissions" at Wikicommons. I had removed a few instances on Wikipedia and have now removed the other instances on earlier ranking lists. I've also made a nomination for deletion at Wikicommons. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) - I believe we only use the parenthetical with the acronyms if it is repeated in the rest of the article. I think this can be dropped, as WPBSA isn't use more than once.
  • except the 1981/1982 one -- perhaps this can be phrased as except during 1981/1982
  • 1982/1983 season -- the other snooker seasons are written with an endash (i.e.76–77, 82–83), perhaps this should be consistent with the rest
  • The top sixteen players in the rankings were seeded through to the main stage of the 1983 World Snooker Championship. -- any reason why this one sentence is written separately? Also, seeded can be unlinked, as it is already wikilinked on the first instance.
  • That's all from me. Great series and I enjoyed reading this list. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Many thanks, Pseud 14. I've incorporated all of the above comments; let me know if there is anything else. Regards, 00:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Arsenal W.F.C. seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arsenal Women, formally Arsenal Ladies, is the women's team of Premier League giants Arsenal F.C. This is a list of their seasons since the club's formation in 1987; the club are the most successful domestic women's side in England.

It's worth noting that there is literally no wholesale coverage of women's football statistics from the 20th century as virtually every team was an amateur side; and those sides which were semi-professional or were affiliated with men's sides didn't last long. There are no books or dedicated databases focusing on Arsenal's history; unlike the men's side, which has 100s. The RSSSF has only recently updated its pages on women's football which allowed this list to flourish, and the stats that were missing from RSSSF could be filled with other sources such as Arsenal's offical match day programme from the 90s. I look forward to your comments :) Idiosincrático (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "Arsenal Women Football Club is an English professional association football club based in Holloway, North London, it is the women's...." - this should be broken into two sentences
  • "which was founded in 1886." - source?
  • "Originally formed as Arsenal Ladies in 1987, the club became semi-professional in 2002 and later adopted its present name in 2017." - source?
  • "Arsenal are the only English side to win Europe's women's football competition, the UEFA Women's Champions League" - source?
  • "Arsenal are also the most successful team in the now-defunct Women's FA Community Shield." - source?
  • Why are the seasons which were played within one calendar year referred to as 20XX-YY? Surely if every game was played in say, 2016, then that's the 2016 season not the 2015-16 season.....?
I did this under the assumption that Arsenal played in the FA Cup in both years, after a quick look turns out not to be the case. I submitted an RMassist to move the incorrectly titled season. Idiosincrático (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • These lists normally include the top goalscorer for each season. Appreciate this won't be available for early seasons, but any chance it could be included where known?
We had a short discussion on the talk page about including the known top scorers, but there isn't any sources available yet which list these players. @Cpg12: guessed that we could probably collate top scorers until the year 2000, but it would involve shoehorning an impractical amount of citations. Instead we opted to wait for a solid reference to emerge such as a book or data base in the near future. Idiosincrático (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)