Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2024

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC) [1].

---

Pokémon episodes removed from rotation

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

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

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

• Noting that this nomination has just now transcluded to the nominations page. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry about that! Thought I had done the transclusion process and didn't realize until now that I hadn't yet. Will try not to make a repeat of that in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sgubaldo

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

I realise it's going to be Tuesday and I still haven't written anything. I'll get on this tomorrow. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo just pinging to remind you in case something's happened. If you're still busy on your end then take all the time you need, but I did just want to double check as to your status. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Prose – Banned Episodes

• "The episode focused on protagonist Ash Ketchum, who had to fight a Porygon creature...." ==> remove 'creature'?
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• "To do this,Ash travels to cyberspace...." – missing space
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• "...causing an explosion that flashed red and blue lights rapidly" ===> "...causing an explosion that resulted in rapid flashes of red and blue lights"
  • Changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Although red and blue flashes are shown earlier in the episode, a technique called "paka paka" makes this scene especially intense,[3] as paka-paka uses alternating rapidly flashing lights to convey a sense of tension in a scene." ==> "Although red and blue flashes are shown earlier in the episode, a technique called "paka paka" makes this scene especially intense,[3] as it uses alternating rapidly flashing lights to convey a sense of tension."
  • Changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Japan's Fire Defense Agency reported a total of..." ==> "Japan's Fire Defense Agency reported that a total of"
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Many elements were removed from the series to prevent any possible recreation of the incident, and the station only reran the first 37 episodes of Pokémon until it returned on April 16, 1998, when it aired "Pikachu's Goodbye", which was the only episode promoted during those months." ==> "Many elements were removed from the series to prevent any possible recreation of the incident. The station only reran the first 37 episodes of Pokémon until it returned on April 16, 1998, when it aired "Pikachu's Goodbye", which was the only episode promoted during the hiatus."
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• " In the episode, protagonist Ash Ketchum and his friends Misty and Brock accidentally destroy a boat" --> remove 'protagonist', already mentioned above.
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• "This requires them to work at the owner of the boat's restaurant to collect the amount of money needed to pay him back." ==> "This requires them to work at the boat owner's restaurant to obtain the money to pay him back."
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• "After the villainous Team Rocket diverts customers to another establishment,[15] Professor Oak informs the protagonists of a beauty pageant taking place in town, and Misty competes to get the prize money." ==> "After the Team Rocket diverts customers to another establishment,[15] Professor Oak informs the protagonists of a beauty pageant taking place, which Misty competes in to win the prize money."
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• "U.S localizers deemed the episode to be too controversial...." --> full stop missing after S
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• The K in 4Kids should be capitalised (three instances of this).
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• "To further this goal, he made a costume greatly resembling Passimian, and used black makeup to resemble Passimian's face." ==> "To do, he wore a costume resembling Passimian and used black makeup to mimic Passimian's face."
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Prose – Unaired, postponed, and temporarily removed episodes

• "....featured the Pokémon Tentacool and Tentacruel with the latter of which, in a giant state, destroying several buildings." ==> "....featured the Pokémon Tentacool and Tentacruel with the latter, in a giant state, destroying several buildings."
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Both episodes was later reinstated and aired on...." == "Both episodes were later reinstated and aired on...."
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• "The episode "Battle of the Quaking Island! Dojoach vs. Namazun!!," which would have been released..." ==> comma should be outside of the quotes
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• "The sinking of MV Sewol ... broadcast. The episode was aired officially on November 20, 2014." ==> "The sinking of the MV Sewol ... broadcast. The episode was officially aired on November 20, 2014."
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Source Formatting

• Ref. 8 link doesn't work and names of the authors are formatted weirdly.
  • Link works fine so I'm not sure what's up on your end. Author names I didn't catch originally but I assume it's cited this way because the site only lists them as "Radford B" and "Bartholomew R". I was able to do some digging and found the actual names of the authors, so this is clarified now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ref. 15 doesn't have any page numbers attached.
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ref. 21 (it's Screen Rant, not attached and could be wikilinked).
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ref. 27 is in Japanese, probably should include the language parameter.
  • Ref 27 is in English already, so I'm a bit confused by what you mean here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• There are several references you can archive (Internet Archive is back online).
  • Will get these archived as soon as possible. IA was down when I did edits on this so I wasn't able to archive at the time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

• @Sgubaldo: No problem, thank you for the review. Addressed the above concerns. Let me know if I need to do anything else. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  A couple more nitpicks:

  • Ref. 23 and Ref. 27 have TV Tokyo as website and publisher; make consistent?
  • "....the wake of the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, an aspiring child beauty queen...." ==> "the wake of the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, a child beauty queen"
  • "Due to this, it was speculated that the episodes were never aired due to the destruction's similarities to what was caused by the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami." ==> "Due to this, it was speculated that the episodes were never aired due to similarities to the destruction caused by the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami."

  These are minor and I trust they'll be done, so I can support already. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry about the delay, just finished them up. Thank you for the review. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

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

@Gonzo fan2007 You can also ping me, given I'm the nom.

I didn't focus too hard on overall sources since enough existed to show the topic was discussed in a wider context, but I didn't need to use many in the article. A few examples: [2] This Polygon source covers the history of this subject and includes a vast majority of the subjects. [3] This Newsweek source, covering the Passimian episode, highlights other past examples of banned episodes. [4] This Bloomsbury published book contains a brief synopsis on these banned episodes and ties them to the perceived "moral panics" during the franchise's early days and in television as a whole. (Though I'm admittedly not quite sure how best to incorporate this one into the article) [5] This Duke University Press published book mentions some of the fan outcry regarding some of these episodes being banned initially. (Added info from here to the article)

I disagree that this isn't a list. It very much is. There's a lot of prose, but this is still inherently just a list of subjects with explanations provided. I don't see why this isn't a list, given it isn't something like another article I've worked on, Pokémon fan games, which is primarily an article with a list tacked on, rather than the article being a list in its entirety (Disregarding the lead).

The scope is something that shouldn't be a concern. I've searched for every example of an episode removal I could find, and I've covered everything that's covered in reliable sources, which, for the comprehensiveness criteria, is all that's needed. While the above sources I mentioned only cover a selected group of banned episodes (Primarily since a bulk of these were published before some of these even existed or had key details known), per LISTN: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The episodes were all removed and/or banned from air due to controversial real-world circumstances; it's hard to class that article scope in one satisfactory title, hence why I've elected to use the title that's been used for a decade. If you feel the title could do with a move, that shouldn't impact page content and can likely be determined in a process outside of FLC. If you feel particular episodes should be removed from the list and have their content shifted elsewhere, then that can be included in your review, where this can be discussed further. I hope this is a satisfactory response to both your concerns; let me know if you feel anything else needs to be clarified. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I assumed you had this page on your watchlist. I was just requesting some more experienced eyes on it. I do think the naming is problematic. Based on the first link you provided, "banned" seems fine. This would constrain the scope of the list and likely satisfy some of my concerns. I do still feel like the way this is written it more appropriate for WP:GAN. Happy to hear other opinions though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007 Ah, fair enough. In terms of the title, it can either be changed to better suit the current scope, or episodes can be shuffled in or out of the list if you feel certain ones don't belong. The scope of this tends to be episodes banned for a given reason; I've mainly based it on what the sources say. I'm not sure if a page move is allowed during an FLC, but I'm unopposed if you feel something like "Pokémon episodes banned from airing" or something similar would be better for the scope.

I'll let if this is better done as a GA or FL up to the coords. I've said my piece and can elaborate if need be, but I feel we're gonna have to agree to disagree until an outsider determines which is better for the scope of this list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've seen episode articles go both ways depending on their structure, but I have to say that this one strikes me as more of an article than a list, and I am in agreement with Gonzo fan that GAN seems like a more natural place for it. It would be too bad for FLC purposes, since I find this to be a most interesting topic from the Pokemon universe, but I have to call them like I see them. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussed this with Hey man im josh, and we're also falling on the "article" side. So, unfortunately, going to close this nomination. --PresN 16:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC) [6].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Kyrgyzstan

Nominator(s): Tone 08:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

Tone, I am leaning towards opposing this based on WP:FLCR 3(c), as I don't believe this meets the criteria for a standalone list. With just 3 entries (or 5 depending on how you look at it), this could fairly easily be covered in a few paragraphs in Kyrgyzstan#Culture with this article redirected there. Would you help me understand why you think this is long enough to warrant a standalone list? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree on that front. It's also quite neatly covered under List of World Heritage Sites in Northern and Central Asia. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, my cutoff is always 3 sites on the main list. Botswana is a FL even if it has two, but I was the co-nominator there. Latvia has 3+3. The problem with the general sites is that they are poorly maintained, have no descriptions, as well as no map. Until recently, sites with less than 3 sites typically did not have stand-alone articles but some editors decided to change that. I propose to keep 3 as a cutoff. Tone 08:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not sure I would support the other two lists you mentioned thought, although at least Botswana has 7 tentative sites. I am going to keep this on my watchlist but hold off on reviewing until more people have chimed in. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Brindille1, replying up here so as not to clutter your review. I will note that both of the examples you provided had concerns raised about length, while the counties one was promoted 17 years ago (some thoughts have evolved since then). The EUFA one I can somewhat understand, an annual competition that is going to grow, part of a Featured Topic, etc. I think I am going to stay neutral on this one, noting my concerns about length but not being opposed to others supporting or the coords IAR. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Oppose per Gonzo. I just don't think this meets "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

I disagree with the other comments opposing this on the basis of WP:FLCR 3(c). I think this is too detailed to be cleanly contained within Kyrgyzstan#Culture, and the argument that it should be contained in the regional list could apply to most of the World Heritage Site country lists. It also has five entries, which is comparable to some other World Heritage Site FL's, List of counties in Rhode Island, List of UEFA Conference League finals, and presumably other lists too.

• Western Tien-Shan in lead should be wikilinked, as should China, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan
• The Sulayman Mountain and the Silk Roads are cultural sites, the Western Tien-Shan is a natural site. -> The Sulayman Mountain and the Silk Roads are cultural sites, while the Western Tien-Shan is a natural site.
• Silk Road is an ancient network -> The Silk Road is an ancient network, which would be consistent both with this list and the linked article on the Silk Road

Good work, Tone. Brindille1 (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. I tend not to link countries with shared sites for some reason but I forgot what the reason was :) Tone 17:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Brindille1 (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

I do have concerns that this list is too short. While we don't have an absolute hard number of entries as a requirement, the general rule of thumb has been about 8 or more entries for FLC. Pinging PresN for their opinion on this, but I'm tempted/leaning towards marking this as unsuccessful based on not number of entries. I will of course happily defer to PresN if they believe it's fine at its current size, but I'm just not so sure. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Delegate comment

As per Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Codification of existing rule: 8 items minimum, unfortunately, this list is too short to qualify as an FL. We've had an unofficial standard of 10 items for a long time, which we made an official standard of 8 items; at 5, this is too short either way. This does not imply that it needs to be merged into another list/article, but does mean that we'll be closing this nomination soon. --PresN 16:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hm, fair enough, I'll keep this in mind for future nominations. Shall I withdraw it or will you close it using the bot? Tone 20:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Tampa Bay Mutiny seasons

Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Continuing my series of nominations for MLS-related lists, I'm nominating this list of the seasons for the defunct Tampa Bay Mutiny. This list follows a similar format to List of Chivas USA seasons and List of New England Revolution seasons. This is my second active list candidate, but the other (List of Chivas USA managers currently has two supports)). Brindille1 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• Many of the header row cells in the main table are missing scopes.
  • Fixed
    • Two were still missing the scopes. I've added them.
• I would think that the symbol for the golden boot would go next to the player's name and not the number of goals.
  • Rearranged this
• Minor point, but there is no need to explicitly bold text in the header cell of any particular row (1996 and so on).
  • I believe this is part of the template for header rows.
• The main article for the team does not start with "The".
  • I've corrected the main article here. It's standard to refer to this team (and a lot of US franchises with similar names) with "The", see http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/us_sport/1750024.stm and https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/09/sports/soccer-major-league-soccer-eliminates-two-teams.html?searchResultPosition=1
• "Major League Soccer" to "Major League Soccer (MLS)" in the first sentence.
  • Done
• "before the franchise went defunct." => ", after which the franchise went defunct."
  • Done
• Many of the refs are missing archive links.
  • Done
    • The Roy Lassiter ref is still missing an archive link. Get it fixed before the source review.
• That's all that I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Addressed your comments, MPGuy2824. Thanks for the review! Brindille1 (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Currently you are just using colour (pink) to denote "last place". This isn't compatible with accessibility requirements so you will need to use a symbol too
  • Added a dagger too
• Why is one of the attendance cells coloured green? This is not in the key
  • It indicates the team's best attendance season. In a sortable list, I don't think that's needed- removed.
• Write "PK shootout" out in full in the notes
  • Done
• Notes c and e need full stops
  • Done
• That's what I got in addition to the above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review ChrisTheDude, I've addressed your comments.Brindille1 (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Delegate comment

As per Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Codification of existing rule: 8 items minimum, unfortunately, this list is too short to qualify as an FL. We've had an unofficial standard of 10 items for a long time, which we made an official standard of 8 items; at 6 + a total, this is too short either way. This does not imply that it needs to be merged into another list/article, but does mean that we'll be closing this nomination soon. --PresN 16:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@PresN: - apologies, I was not aware of that before supporting -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC) [8].

---

Flo Milli discography

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

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

• I am withdrawing this FLC for now but may nominate it again later. I am too busy right now in real life and don't have the time to edit as much as I want to now. Thank you for the responses from @ChrisTheDude:, @PSA:, @IanTEB:, @Hey man im josh: and @Gonzo fan2007:. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 22:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @FLC director and delegates: see above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and were a breakthrough hit" - this doesn't make sense grammatically, as it says that the artist herself "were a breakthrough hit". Assuming you mean the songs, how can two songs be "a breakthrough hit" (singular)
• "Due to the success of her first two singles, Flo Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records after gaining popularity on social media" - so was the success of her singles down to "gaining popularity on social media"? Currently you are giving two different reasons for her signing
• "Flo Milli released her debut mixtape, Ho, Why Is You Here?, the following year." - as you haven't mentioned any years up to this point, saying "the following year" is meaningless
• "In 2021, her debut singles "In the Party" and "Beef FloMix"" - by definition an artist can only ever have one debut single, not multiple
• "started working on her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho? which was" => "started working on her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho?, which was"
• "number 46 in Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums[4]. " - refs go after punctuation, not before
• " "Conceited", one of the singles in You Still Here, Ho?, had been certified gold " => " "Conceited", one of the singles taken from You Still Here, Ho?, was certified gold "
• "Between You Still here, Ho? and her latest album, Fine Ho, Stay, Flo Milli had released multiple singles" => "Between You Still here, Ho? and her latest album, Fine Ho, Stay, Flo Milli released multiple singles"
• "such as "Einstein", "No Love Shemix", "Anything Flows" " => "such as "Einstein", "No Love Shemix", and "Anything Flows" "
• "as a part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven[5]," => "as part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven[5]," (also note again that refs go after punctuation)
• "In late 2023, she released "Never Lose Me" as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay and reached number 15" => "In late 2023, she released "Never Lose Me" as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay, which reached number 15"
• "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay and debuted and peaked at number 54 on the Billboard 200" => "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay, which debuted and peaked at number 54 on the Billboard 200"
• Singles which did not chart will all need references to confirm that they were released/exist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:, Fixed everything except the additional sources which I will be adding soon, gonna look for secondary sources but most are most likely gonna have to be primary sadly .Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and were both a breakthrough hit" - this isn't grammatically correct. It should be "and both were" not "and were both", and also two songs can't be "a hit" (singular). I would also suggest that an act can only have one "breakthrough hit" as after that they have already broken through.
• "After the success of her first two singles, Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records after gaining popularity on social media" - this still doesn't make sense to me. Is it meant to suggest that the two singles were successful, then she gained popularity on social media and then she signed with those labels?
• "her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho? which was released" => "her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho?, which was released"
• "as a part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven" - as I said above, this should be "as part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven"
• ""B.T.W." as a cover of Blow the Whistle,[6] "Fruit Loop", "Chocolate Rain", and "BGC"." - firstly, is "Blow the Whistle" a song? If so, it should be in quote marks. Also, you say that one song was a cover of four different songs - this isn't possible. Do you mean it contains elements of all those songs? If that's the case, it would also be worth saying who those songs are by, as just saying "BGC" (a song which I have personally never heard of and which appears to have no article to fill me in) doesn't really give any context
• "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay which debuted " => "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay, which debuted " -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:, For the fifth bullet point, I think you had it mixed up. It's supposed to be a list of her singles that she released in between her mixtape and her second album, not that the one single has elements of the others as Fruit Loop, Chocolate Rain, and BGC are her singles. I've added semicolons instead of regular commas, does it read better now?

@ChrisTheDude:, @IanTEB:: Gonna ping you both here because I am getting mixed responses from both of you on the same thing. In her early career, Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and both were breakthrough hits. After the success of her first two singles on social media and the gain of popularity, Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records are the sentences in question and I am getting one way how to do it and another way saying that I should do it this way and it's like hitting a rock into a brick wall.. it ain't gon do nothing.

My only issue with those sentences is that I don't believe it is possible for an artist to have multiple "breakthrough hits". Once they have had one "breakthrough hit" then by definition they have already broken through and can't break through again. I don't see that IanTEB has said anything which contradicts that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:, ive changed it to "both were successful hits". does that read well?

I think that the vast majority of people would consider a "hit" to be a song which got in the charts, and as far as I can see neither of these songs did, so I would avoid the word "hits". I think it would be worth being a bit more specific on how they were "successful" given that neither actually charted. I'm assuming they became popular on TikTok or something.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Review is based on this version of the page.

Source review: Pending

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

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

Fixed all except Ref 10 and 67 from your version which were two different sources, one is a Billboard link and one is a Revolt link. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to ping: @Hey man im josh:

@Cowboygilbert: Is there a reason you chose to remove the wikilinks instead of adding them to sources? It seems you chose to go with linking the first occurrence of a source. If sources are added at a later point in time, ahead of the ones used, then your wikilink could come after another one. This is why I typically recommend to wikilink the publishers entirely. Though, if your formatting is consistent, this isn't technically required, but in a discography of an active artist I would expect it to become problematic at some point. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually.. it looks like you went too far in removing links because Vulture has no links now. Also, a quick look over and I noticed that Hypebeast is linked multiple times, Billboard is linked a couple times but not consistently, HotNewHipHop is not linked at first occurence but linked elsewhere. This is the problem that I was talking about with the inconsistent linking and the related concerns I have about it. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh:, added all wikilinks

@Cowboygilbert: Pings do not work without a signature added afterwards, so I did not get this ping. I'll try to find time to finish my review on this today. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, sorry for the delay. I did some cleanup of a few things that were leftover. The only thing I'm hesitant / hung up on is the usage of "That Grape Juice", which refers to itself as a blog and is not used very much as a source on wiki. Can that reference be replaced or is there a claim to why they're a reliable source? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

IanTEB

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

First paragraph

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

Second paragraph

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

List

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

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

@IanTEB:, Question: For your fifth bullet about the second paragraph, it doesn't make sense to me what you mean by "all over the place". The information about her second album is in just the last two sentences. But other than that issue, should all be fixed. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I read through the article again and I'll leave a bit explanation + a few remaining comments:

• The second mention of You Still Here, Ho? in the lead does not capitalize the 'h' in 'Here'
• After the success of her first two singles on social media and the gain of popularity - wouldn't it make more sense to say 'After the success of her first two singles,'?
• Between You Still here, Ho? and her latest album, Fine Ho, Stay - I personally think it would be better to specify timespan her. What year/s?
• I find the list of singles in the second paragraph a little difficult to understand on first read. It might be better to divide it up
• Is "B.T.W." a cover of "Blow the Whistle"? If so, link in the Singles as lead artist list and maybe change the wording, e.g. to 'she covered Too Short's "Blow the Whistle" on the single "B.T.W." '
• What I mean by the fifth bullet point you mentioned is that the second album is mentioned throughout most of the second paragraph, when that information should be more collected. My suggestion would be to alter In late 2023, she released "Never Lose Me" as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay to remove mention of the album. Then change the sentence after to: "Never Lose Me" supported her second album, Fine Ho, Stay (2024), which [...]

I hope this clarifies. IanTEB (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@IanTEB:, ive done some more tweaks and changed the semicolon list back to a comma list and moved some of the items to make sure that there is no confusion on the cover for Blow the Whistle like in Chris' original comment. thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Elias

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

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

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

Pinging @Cowboygilbert in case they missed this feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@PSA:, I will be getting to this tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday whenever I am back online. Too late as of rn. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 07:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@User:PSA, I have finished the bits about content and formatting. Gonna be getting to the refs soon still. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC) [9].

---

List of national flags of sovereign states

Nominator(s): ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems that you have no identity unless you have a flag.

— Alfred Znamierowski

I am nominating this for featured list because I have spent a lot of time making it and adding all the sources which I believe are reliable in this case. I have attempted to include all relevant information on every flag of every sovereign state of the world, including an image, a description, a date, a designer, and an aspect ratio. I have received much positive feedback (and even a barnstar) for this endeavor, so I feel confident in sending this as my first featured list nomination. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Due to personal circumstances, I am of the belief that I will no longer be able to edit the list substantially enough, in the present moment and the near future, such that it fulfills the criteria necessary for its promotion to FL status. I may revisit this list at some other point in time, but I am unconfident that such edits will be made within the timeframe of the present review. I may pepper the article with minor edits from this moment onwards, but remain cognizant of the fact that I leave the task of ensuring the fulfillment of the FL criteria to some other editor. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The flag of Tonga is missing from the list. 69.124.56.171 (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed this now. Thanks for notifying me. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Airship

• The article has almost 900 citations and over 218kb of content. With that in mind, the lead is far too short: I would expect three paragraphs. As it stands, the prose is still a little clunky, but I think that would improve with increased detail.
  • I'm not exactly sure what is supposed to be put in the lead that isn't already included in the Background and definitions (B&D) section. Would you prefer if I just removed the section header so that "Background and definitions" forms a part of the lead?
    • No, that would be too excessive. See WP:SALLEAD: the lead should summarise the contents of the B&D section and the list. Three is actually excessive, two would do, but one is definitely on the short side.
• "In vexillology, Polish vexillologist Alfred Znamierowski defines" little repetitive, why is the definition specific to vexillology?

• I've removed the Znamierowski definition. It should have been cut out a while ago.

• " governments have used them to promote and create bonds within the country, motivate patriotism" what non-patriotic bonds have been promoted/created?
• See MOS:ANDOR

• Switched to just "and". I think it means the same thing in this case.

• Please provide specific page numbers for the relevant sentences in the sources you cite, as readers should not have to hunt through forty-page articles for verification; considering the current citation format, {{rp}} would probably be best.

• I'm not sure which sources you are talking about here. Could you give an example or two?
  • Cerulo 1993, Tóth 2022, Becker et al. 2017

• Given the emphasis in "Background and definitions" on flags symbolising and representing various things, I am surprised that the descriptions seem to actively steer away from describing them, and instead focus (very robotically) on the colour/layout arrangements. Can you explain this choice?
  • I've considered adding a "symbolism" column previously. But it might not be a good idea considering that many flags have complicated or even disputed symbolisms which would be better explained in its respective article (we only have limited space in the columns). Layout descriptions are objective and can be explained (relatively) straightforwardly. It isn't necessarily impossible, but we can't have both a layout description and a symbolic description without making the list very bloated. Since you do feel surprised by B&D not mentioning general layouts of flags, should I include a passage relating to this?
    • I think that would be a good idea. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Otherwise, great work. Ping me when you've replied to/dealt with the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:

(This is my first FLC nomination I'm not exactly sure how the process works but I'll try my best to reply to all your comments)

Thank you for the feedback, I hope to receive more in the future. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realize you would nominate this so quickly but it's great work! The references column is way too big, it's 8 citations wide! I'd suggest merging these into the description column, but there are also way too many references in general. Like you could just say the books in the bibliography are general references without 200 footnotes to each one. Is there anything specifically taken from these books that aren't already in another reference anyway? I mean, there are a lot of flag books and sites out there so this feels like Wikipedia:Citation overkill especially since they aren't available online through the GBooks link. Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Wait you can just do that on wikipedia? Just add a general bibliography instead of citing the books every time? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing_sources#General_references - although that mentions "underdeveloped articles", I think it's different for lists, particularly here when there are other citations that maintain "text–source integrity". I wrote these FLs a long time ago but I used them in United_States_Secretary_of_Transportation#References and List_of_governors_of_Indiana#References. You can also put a broadly used citation in the column header like in List of counties in Washington, or just list related books in a bibliography without calling them references. I know doing these wouldn't include the specific page numbers, but it appears a lot cleaner and it's not like it would be hard to find the relevant verification if you had the book in hand with a TOC or index. Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In this case, I have cited at least two books (Znamierowski encyclopedia and DK guide) and two websites (CIA World Factbook and Whitney Smith's flag articles on Britannica) for every entry on the UN countries list (excluding citing the World Factbook for State of Palestine). How should I go about mentioning these citations broadly? Should I include the link to the list of flag articles that Whitney Smith wrote for EB and the CIA's flag profile directory? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If I am understanding this correctly, here is what the "general" citation would look like.

Refs.

References

―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: I've just noticed your comment above about possibly not having time for this nomination. I understand you haven't received reviews in a while, but are you still interested in pursuing this? It's fine if so, I was just going to ping the two people above for an official support if you are still interested. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not interested in pursuing it further at the present moment. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Archiving. --PresN 22:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC) [10].

---

List of Dutch (in)formateurs and scouts

Nominator(s): Dajasj (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a very simple table, yet enables users to quickly find information. Do you want to see who were the (in)formateurs and scouts for a given formation, that's easy to spot right away. Do you want to know how many times Herman Tjeenk Willink has been (in)formateur, it is easy to sort. The longest serving informateur, also easy to sort. The lead gives a quick overview of what the roles are, and some facts that are relevant to the table. The table has references to easily accessible online resources as well as more detailed offline sources (where available). It is an essential part of my project to - in the long term - have decent articles about all Dutch cabinet formations, and I believe this specific part of my project is a suitable featured list candidate. Dajasj (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed all comments (except for the suggestion to merge, which I believe is not desirable). If anyone has other comments, please let me know. (Otherwise I'll just accept it won't be promoted to FL) Dajasj (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Per MOS:CHRONO, the list should be in chronological order, not backwards -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed! Dajasj (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Another drive-by: the name most assuredly does not meet our naming guidelines. I don't see "(in)formateurs" as a literal term in my searches. This should likely be List of Dutch formateurs and scouts, with a note that "scout" has become the new term for "informateur" after 2012. I am not an expert on this topic, so happy to consider other naming, but as it stands this naming convention is not the WP:COMMONNAME. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Gonzo fan2007, thanks for the reply. The informateur does still exist (I have clarified it in the lead), so it would be List of Dutch formateurs, informateurs and scouts. Would that be desirable? Then I'll move it :) Dajasj (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that would be preferable. Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed! Dajasj (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if these page can be merged with List of Dutch cabinet formations. These are closely related topics with some overlap. Reywas92^Talk 16:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  In theory, yes, they are closely related indeed. However, if would want to avoid losing relevant information, you would have to add five columns to List of Dutch cabinet formations. Personally, I think that would be too wide and be too chaotic, while most reader's questions will be answered by either one of the two lists. I would love to hear your thoughts. Dajasj (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  You would get something like this: User:Dajasj/sandbox/Informateurs. But obviously way longer. Dajasj (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I actually think that looks really good. It could be somewhat narrower if the start and end dates are in one column and the reference within another as well. Reywas92^Talk 01:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm. It is still relatively easy to compare information about informateurs, but really hard to compare information about formations. Sorting on length of formations becomes really chaotic imo, and for longer formations, only one fits on my (mobile) screen, so its not easy to see in a glance the top 5 longest formations. Dajasj (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Quick comment

After reading the lead I'm still very confused as to what these three role actually do. The lead needs to be much more clearly written for this to pass. Mattximus (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Mattximus for the feedback. I realise I was too focused on historical background, without including information for those not familiar with the topic. I have rewritten the lead. If you have the time, I would love to hear if this is clear now and if not, what is not clear. Thanks in advance! Dajasj (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Certainly better, but the order is all mixed up after the first sentence. The list ends with scouts but the first sentences is scouts? Then goes back in time, then forwards in time? Still quite confusing, but improving. Mattximus (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I fixed this. I also moved some information to a separate section. It still gives background, but now makes clear that these paragraphs have another chronological order. Dajasj (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This nomination has been open for over two months without any supports, so I am going to unfortunately close it. Feel free to renominate, but consider requesting reviews from relevant editors or projects. --PresN 22:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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