Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log
Featured list tools: |
This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, with the most recent at the top. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log.
Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2024. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2024.
Full current month log
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hey, forgot to do one of these for a while. Here's another one for Heritage New Zealand's registry of historic sites; still got a long way to go to get through all of these! Upper Hutt is a small commuter town outside Wellington, but it has a suprising amount of cool historic architecture, including a number of fashionable houses by James Chapman-Taylor, one of New Zealand's most notable architects. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Alavense
- The table needs a caption.
- It has one, no? - G
- I don't think the sticky header is working.
- I realized I don't really need the sticky header for this one, since it's a fairly short list. - G
- No issues with the prose.
- Wouldn't it be better to use a <br> between "List" and "number"? There seems to be an excessive gap in between.
- Ooh good point. Fixed. - G
- In the source, it reads "Historic area". Why capitalize the "a" in the text and in the table?
- That's a good point, decapitalised. - G
- In the caption of the first image, again: is it necessary to capitalize "Historic Place"?
- Ditto. - G
- There's no reference for Remutaka Incline Rail Trail.
- Oops. Fixed. - G
That's all I saw. Nice and thorough work, Generalissima. Alavense (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alavense: Fixed! Thank you very much. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing, Generalissima. "Upper Hutt City is a city" reads a bit redundant. I think "Upper Hutt is a city" would be better. Thanks for your edits. Alavense (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Alavense Ah, good point! fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 09:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your prompt responses, Generalissima. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Alavense Ah, good point! fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 09:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing, Generalissima. "Upper Hutt City is a city" reads a bit redundant. I think "Upper Hutt is a city" would be better. Thanks for your edits. Alavense (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- " jail, private residence, and scouting center" - given that we are dealing with a Commonwealth country, I think the last word should be spelt "centre"
- Oop, yep. - G
- "although plaster and jarrah timber was also heavily used" => "although plaster and jarrah timber were also heavily used"
- Fixed. - G
- "the area became a mobilization camp" => "the area became a mobilisation camp"
- Fixed. - G
- "A veterinary center constructed " => "A veterinary centre constructed "
- Fixed. - G
- "It served as the main veterinary research center" => "It served as the main veterinary research centre"
- Fixed. - G
- "Now owned and managed by the Golder's Homestead Museum Society." => "It is now owned and managed by the Golder's Homestead Museum Society."
- Fixed. - G
- That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Thank you so much, fixed! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Let's Wikilink New Zealand in the lead
- Downcase "(Former)" in the name column
- Downcase "(Library)" in the name column
- Trentham isn't linked in the location column for the St John's Church entry, link it there for consistency
- Golder's House Food Store – Link Upper Hutt in the location column for consistency
Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh: Fixed! Thank you very much. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a new list for FLC: List of Green Bay Packers Associated Press All-Pro selections! This list follows the same format as List of Green Bay Packers Pro Bowl selections. As always, happy to resolve any issues in a timely fashion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "The All-Pro recognition is more prestigious" - suggest "The All-Pro recognition is considered more prestigious"
- "The AP All-Pro Team includes a first-team and second-team" - don't need those hyphens
- "Pro Football Hall of Famer Don Hutson in in 1940" - two things here. Firstly, he wasn't a Hall of Famer in 1940, secondly the word "in" is repeated
- "The most recent AP All-Pro selection for the Packers was kick returner Keisean Nixon for 2023 AP All-Pro Team" => "The most recent AP All-Pro selection for the Packers was kick returner Keisean Nixon for the 2023 AP All-Pro Team"
- "Don Hutson's six AP All-Pro selections were all on the first-team." - lose the hyphen again
- Note a: "The position which the player was selected as an All-Pro." => "The position for which the player was selected as an All-Pro."
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you ChrisTheDude, I think I have addressed all your comments here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable (note that Gonzo follows a different format, which I am trying to adhere to, as opposed to my standard format)
- Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
Various news agencies identified All-Pro teams dating back to...
– Should we consider something like "selected" as opposed to identified? It also contextually may make more sense.- This isn't a hard line for me, but I believe, in regards to ref 14, AP News would be a more appropriate link. I recognize Associated Press News is appropriate, but it was my understanding that that sect of the AP typically goes by "AP News".
That's all I've got. Good stuff! Please do ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Hey man im josh! I made the necessary changes. I must have copied that AP link from somewhere else, since it didn't really match my typical reference formatting. I changed it to website = APNews.com. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- For the years, where there are more than one players, the header cell's scope should be rowgroup. e.g. 1941.
- In the "Most selections" table, the "All-Pros" and "Team" cells in the header should have the colgroup scope. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks MPGuy2824, I think I got them all fixed! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support promotion on prose and table accessibility.
- I'd appreciate a comment at my FL nom, if you have the time and inclination. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks MPGuy2824, I think I got them all fixed! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's power on into the '70s in the history of Billboard's "music for the moms and dads rather than the kids" chart. In this particular year, the Beatles topped this chart for the first time just in time to split up, and a young woman with the voice of an angel and her brother began to establish themselves as one of the pre-eminent acts of all time in this sort of music. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and very swiftly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Staraction
- All images properly sourced & licensed
- All images captioned properly
- All images relevant to the text
- All images have alt text
Thanks for your wonderful work as always! Support on images and prose. Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- EN-Jungwon
- Ref 16 is missing an archive link.
That's all I could find. -- EN-Jungwon 01:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @EN-Jungwon: - I ran the bot again but for some reason it refused to archive that link..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and added it manually. Support -- EN-Jungwon 08:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @EN-Jungwon: - I ran the bot again but for some reason it refused to archive that link..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Two instances of "Simon and Garfunkel" should be "Simon & Garfunkel", based on the source and based on the article itself
- "Everything is Beautiful" in the lead, and in the image caption, should be capitalized to "Everything Is Beautiful", based on the target and for consistency with the table
That's literally it. Almost got me this time Chris, but I found something! Good stuff as always, support because I've interacted with you enough to confident you'll make the fix when you see this. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh: - thanks, I fixed those two points -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NØ
- "and in the same week moved in the top spot on Billboard's pop music chart" - Does "music" need to be part of the text? Feel like "Billboard's pop chart" gets the point across
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Thomas and Jones returned to number one later in the year with "I Just Can't Help Believing" and "Daughter of Darkness" respectively, and were two of the four acts to achieve two Easy Listening number ones in 1970." - Probably there should be a comma before "respectively"
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Let It Be" also topped the Hot 100, as did "Bridge over Troubled Water" by Simon & Garfunkel, and "Everything Is Beautiful" by Ray Stevens." - Second comma is not necessary
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the late review; been busy doing more on the content side lately.--NØ 22:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MaranoFan: - no need to apologise, I really appreciate the review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--NØ 13:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 01:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the discography of the Canadian electronic duo Crystal Castles, which has quite a cult following. This is my first ever FLC, so I believe there will be some mistakes, but I'll do my best to address them in the course of this nomination. Skyshiftertalk 01:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose & images (relevant to text, captioned, properly licensed, alt text present). Well-written & comprehensible to me. Only thing - maybe elaborate a bit on the abuse allegations? I had to dig a little more to understand those and it left a little more to be desired. Otherwise, great work and well done! Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support! So that's the main thing I'm unsure about, considering WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. I believe that it's relevant to cite the allegations, as that's why Glass left the band and why it is on hiatus. It's definitely important enough to be cited here. However, because of these policies I mentioned, I think going into detail would be too much. Skyshiftertalk 03:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- It reads a bit weirdly to say things charted in "Scotland and the United Kingdom" given that Scotland is part of the UK. It would be like saying a song charted in "Texas and the United States". But I can't think of a way round this........
- I'd say it makes sense, as Scotland and the UK have their respective national charts. I understand how it could be confusing, but like, it's not wrong..
- "Crystal Castles later released a cover of that album's "Not in Love"" - it's not a cover because it was their own song to begin with. You can only cover someone else's song. "Re-recording" would be the appropriate description.
- Fixed
- "charting in multiple countries and being certified gold by Music Canada." => "which charted in multiple countries and was certified gold by Music Canada."
- Fixed
- "The band has been on hiatus since Glass' abuse allegations against Kath in 2017" - appreciate you don't want to elaborate on this but the choice of wording makes it sound like the allegations have already been mentioned when they haven't. Suggest changing to "The band has been on hiatus since Glass made allegations of abuse against Kath in 2017"
- Fixed
- That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: All responded! Skyshiftertalk 21:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: All responded! Skyshiftertalk 21:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TechnoSquirrel69
One review coming up. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation numbers from this revision. Let's do this!
- Neither of the references after "... allegations of abuse against Kath in 2017." verify that the band is on hiatus.
- Changed to "inactive", which I guess is factual due to the band not releasing or saying anything since then. Apparently there are no sources explicitly saying that the band has not done anything since then, which kinda sucks, because it is pretty obvious.
- Yeah, it can be hard to prove a negative with things like this. Good change; it addresses my concern. —TS
- Changed to "inactive", which I guess is factual due to the band not releasing or saying anything since then. Apparently there are no sources explicitly saying that the band has not done anything since then, which kinda sucks, because it is pretty obvious.
- Might be worth a mention in the prose that the 2010 album was re-released as II and/or also known with the number in the title.
- Done
- Also, what a coincidence that I was listening to American Football, who also have multiple eponymous albums, while writing this up! —TS
- Good taste!
- What's the distinction being drawn between the "versus" remixes and the other ones? That stylization was used in electronic music circles back in the day to denote collaborations or remixes, but it doesn't seem to impart much information here.
- I think it's valid to mention how they were credited when there's a difference. Not all of their remixes from that era are like this, such as "Atlantis to Interzone", which is just "Crystal Castles Remix".
- Lists and tables are exempt from MOS:REPEATLINK, so I would encourage linking things like the singles and featured performers wherever they appear, which is generally considered beneficial for readers.
- Done
- Change the sub-sections in § Notes to use true headers per MOS:PSEUDOHEAD.
- Done
- In note (lowercase) a: Saying these singles are "sometimes referred to as EPs" is vague and opaque. Why is this the case? Which other songs featured on these EPs? Please add sources as necessary. It would also be nice to expand the initialism since we're in a footnote.
- Added sources and information
- Are the "To access ..." notes in citations 7 and 8 necessary? It's not exactly common practice to include navigational tips for the website in references.
- I think information like this is present in some chart references from {{Album chart}} and {{Single chart}}.
- Any reason why links to Ultratop are piped as "ultratop.be"?
- Changed
- I suppose the URLs are inevitable in citations 9 and 10, but "irishcharts.com" should be "irish-charts.com". I would also format them with the
|website=
parameter and add|publisher=Hung Medien
.- Done
- There seems to be more citations in title case than sentence case, so so I would make them all consistent to that. This script might be able to help.
- Good script! But other than two sources that I had forgotten, I've already made them sentence case, and all of them should be now. You might be referring to things like "Official Scottish Singles Chart Top 100", but I'd say these are proper names.
- In citation 19: remove the name of the website from the title.
- Done
- I don't think the exact stylization of the YouTube channel names are necessary, and would just format them with their proper names.
- Done
That's all I've got for now; I might be back with more comments after another read through. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TechnoSquirrel69: All responded! Skyshiftertalk 19:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
Now working from this revision.
- No further suggestions on the citation formatting, and the sources are all reliable enough to verify their claims.
- Assuming good faith for offline sources.
- Since this is the nominator's first FLC, I conducted some spot-checks. Citations 1–5, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 55–57 revealed no issues.
- Citation 18 doesn't verify the Flemish Heatseekers chart placement.
- It's on the archive; set "url-status" to "dead".
- Several links in citation 24, such as for "Air War" and "Courtship Dating" don't seem to verify their claims. "Baptism" is also listed with a peak at 87th, while the source claims 83rd.
- I don't know why some of these links refer to 2002... I'll fix these links later. Corrected placement for "Baptism".
- Citation 11 doesn't verify the chart placement of "Baptism".
- Removed
- "Sad Eyes" is listed at 139th, while citation 39 claims 89th.
- Fixed
I plan to do a more in-depth check of the sources, but I will have to oppose at the moment. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a bit more. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Responded; some changes pending. Skyshiftertalk 22:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TechnoSquirrel69: all fixed. Skyshiftertalk 00:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seen; thanks! Oppose struck, but I will be doing another full pass of the article on account of the number of errors I identified the first time around. I'm sure you're doing so already, but I'd ask that you do the same to make sure there are no further hiccups in the review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No further issues that I can find, so I'm going to go ahead and support conditional on the implementation of MPGuy's suggestions below. I would encourage another reviewer to check my work if they have the time to make sure nothing gets missed. Good luck with the rest of this candidacy, Skyshifter! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seen; thanks! Oppose struck, but I will be doing another full pass of the article on account of the number of errors I identified the first time around. I'm sure you're doing so already, but I'd ask that you do the same to make sure there are no further hiccups in the review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TechnoSquirrel69: all fixed. Skyshiftertalk 00:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- 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.! Year
becomes!scope=col | Year
. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use!scope=colgroup
instead. This is for the "Extended plays" and "Music videos" tables. Additionally, the "Peak chart positions" header cell (in quite a few of the tables) needs to have "colgroup" as its scope. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. Please ping me when you fix these issues. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPGuy2824: done! Skyshiftertalk 18:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support promotion based on prose and table accessibility. If interest and time permit, please comment at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A short list compared to my other FLC, this is a list about the medals earned by nations that competed at the 1956 Winter Olympics. Waiting for some comments, and etc etc! Arconning (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- In the image caption, I believe there is a word missing in "Toni Sailer of Austria won the gold medals at the 1956 Winter Olympics"
- "Overall, athletes from 13 nations received one medal" => "Overall, athletes from 13 nations received at least one medal" (unless literally every medal winner only won one)
- "At their debut, athletes from the Soviet Union won" => "At their first Winter Olympics, athletes from the Soviet Union won"
- "The Soviet Union's team won their nation's first Olympic gold medal" - they'd never won a gold in the summer? I think this sentence and the one after it are confusing as it's unclear if you mean these countries won their first Winter Olympic medals specifically or they won their first Olympic medals period and it just happened to occur at the winter games
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude I believe I'm done. :) Arconning (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude Pinging again. :) Arconning (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude I believe I'm done. :) Arconning (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MrLinkinPark333 verification/copyvio check
Lead
- "A total of 821 athletes from 32 nations participated in 24 events in 4 sports across 8 disciplines." - The sentence needs to be rewritten a bit to pass WP:LIMITED as it's too similar to the Olympics flying start source in terms of word order.
- The number of athletes differs between the sources. Olympics factsheet says 821. However, Olympics flying start says 923 total but the math doesn't add up there as 132+751=883. Which of these sources is correct?
- "while athletes from Finland came third with 3 gold medals and 7 medals overall." - The CBC source sorts the countries by the total number of medals, not gold medals. Therefore, third would be Sweden with 10 overall and 2 gold medals.
- "won their nation's first Winter Olympic gold medal and Winter Olympic medal of any color" - the sentence sounds like first Winter Olympic medal ever was a gold medal. However, this isn't the case as the first Winter Olympic medal for Soviet Union was bronze. Therefore, the sentence could be rewritten to something like "won their nation's first Winter Olympic medals in every color"
- "all three gold medals available in the men's alpine skiing events" - needs a bit rewording to avoid similar phrasing with The Los Angeles Times.
- "winning four medals with one gold, two silvers, and one bronze." - extra source needed here as CBC does not specify which medals Jernberg won, only that he won 4.
Medal table section
- "where a nation is an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee (NOC)" - This part can be removed as Sergeyev does not mention a NOC.
- "The number of silver medals is taken into consideration next and then the number of bronze medals." - This sentence was added in 2004, while Sergeyev's source is from 2014. Template:Backwards copy should be added to the talk page so this article doesn't get flagged as a copyvio of Sergeyev.
- Is the entire 30+ pages being used for the Contemporary European History source to verify "hesitation by the International Olympic Committee to recognize both National Olympic Committees formed by each nation"? If not, specific page/pages are needed instead.
- Also, it should be |issue=4 not |edition=4 for Contemporary European History. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MrLinkinPark333 I've removed the Olympics flying start source, I've also changed the medal table header. For the third comment, I don't see how it is an issue to use the CBC source as the article uses the IOC's method of arranging medal tables, it's sourcing the medal count for the nations? Other than that, I believe I'm done with the rest of your comments. :) Arconning (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to CBC, I'm confused in the wording of sentences it is cited for. The first sentence starts out with "athletes from the Soviet Union won the most medals overall". Therefore, I'd assume that the next sentence would follow the same format: Austria 2nd with 11 medals (4 gold) and Sweden 3rd with 10 medals (2 gold). If the sentences are supposed to be ordered as gold first then total, then I think the Soviet Union part could be reordered with 7 gold medals first then 16 total medals. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MrLinkinPark333 I have done this. Arconning (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a few more points left:
- "where a nation is an entity represented by a NOC." - neither source mentions a NOC. This quoted part could be removed.
- The first Unified team was at the 1956 Winter Olympics, not 1952 Summer Olympics. Per Olympia, only the FRG competed in 1952 even though "titularly a combined German team".
- "and the hesitation by the International Olympic Committee to recognize both National Olympic Committees" - This isn't exactly correct. FRG was recognized in 1950 while GDR was recognized in 1955 per Olympia. This would need rewritten as they started to compete as an Unified team after both NOCs were recognized.
- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MrLinkinPark333 Done. Arconning (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Still needs correction on when the first Unified Team competed per above.
- "National Olympic Committee of the GDR (East Germany) would be recognized if both nations competed in the same team at the Olympics" - Might need a little bit of rewording with the bolded part to pass WP:LIMITED
- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MrLinkinPark333 Done. :) Arconning (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - thank you for the changes. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MrLinkinPark333 Done. :) Arconning (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MrLinkinPark333 Done. Arconning (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a few more points left:
- @MrLinkinPark333 I have done this. Arconning (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to CBC, I'm confused in the wording of sentences it is cited for. The first sentence starts out with "athletes from the Soviet Union won the most medals overall". Therefore, I'd assume that the next sentence would follow the same format: Austria 2nd with 11 medals (4 gold) and Sweden 3rd with 10 medals (2 gold). If the sentences are supposed to be ordered as gold first then total, then I think the Soviet Union part could be reordered with 7 gold medals first then 16 total medals. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MrLinkinPark333 I've removed the Olympics flying start source, I've also changed the medal table header. For the third comment, I don't see how it is an issue to use the CBC source as the article uses the IOC's method of arranging medal tables, it's sourcing the medal count for the nations? Other than that, I believe I'm done with the rest of your comments. :) Arconning (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
- Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Ref 2 – It should be "Athletes, Medals & Results"
- Ref 4 – It's often annoying for me to tell whether I should be using CBC or CBC Sports, but I think CBC Sports is a better choice for this ref, given the author is listed as CBC Sports
- Ref 11 – The article requires a subscription or free trial in order to view the rest of the article. Please add the url-access parameter to the ref and specify it
- Ref 12 – Title in reference doesn't match the title on the page or the title when the page's tab is hovered over. Seems to have had some slight editorialization.
That's what I've got. Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk)
- Hey man im josh I believe I'm done. :) Arconning (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh Pinging again. :) Arconning (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh Pinging again. :) Arconning (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Tone 07:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Argentina has 12 WHS, including the Inca roads, Iguazú falls, and old Jesuit missions. Standard style. As the list for Sudan is already seeing support, I am adding a new nomination. Tone 07:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- MPGuy2824
- wikilink "calves".
- "The missions have different layouts and are in different states of conservation," End the sentence here.
- "around the spectacular Iguazu Falls" - Use a number (length/height/other) instead of "spectacular".
- "On the Brazilian side".
- "created by the hunter-gatherer communities." Remove "the".
- "In additional to" -> "In addition to"
- "The oldest art in the cave dates to the 10th millennium BP, while the youngest traces of inhabitants at the site were dated to around 700 CE." Since you are using an actual date in the end, I would suggest that the "10th millenium BP" be converted to "8th millenium BCE".
- "It is a breeding ground for the southern right whale and the conservation efforts have helped the recovery of the once widely-hunted species"
- "valley by the hunter-gatherer communities and early farmers," - Remove "the"
- "as movement
sof messengers," - "Clandestine Centre of Detention, Torture, and Extermination." - no need to capitalize any of those since it isn't part of the name.
- "and then by communities that engaged in agriculture"
- "of a 100 million year
sold" - That's all that i got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all, thanks! Tone 12:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "served as the clandestine" to "served as a clandestine" - unless you are sure that there was only one.
- Support in advance, since the above is a minor point which I'm sure you'll fix. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed that as well. Thanks! Tone 14:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all, thanks! Tone 12:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "at the 5th session of World Heritage Committee" => "at the 5th session of the World Heritage Committee"
- "and the works of Le Corbusier with six coutries" - last word is spelt incorrectly
- That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, that was easy :) Tone 23:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AK
- "Argentina accepted" I'd use ratified.
- "Argentina, and a further" Comma unnecessary.
- "ESMA Museum, in 2023" Comma unnecessary.
- "missions are listed as this World Heritage Site" to "missions are included in this World Heritage Site"
- "Iguazu Falls, spanning over" to "Iguazu Falls, which span over"
- "and the...widely-hunted species" to "; conservation efforts in the peninsula have helped the recovery of the once widely-hunted species"
- "245-208" en-dash.
- "include the early dinosaurs, such as the Eoraptor" to "include early dinosaurs such as Eoraptor"
- "plant species were identified" to "plant species have been identified"
- "unique insight into the life in the Triassic" to "unique insight into the life of the Triassic"
- "South America, that can" Comma unnecessary.
- "show only little erosion." either "show little erosion" or "show only a little erosion."
- "Ground sloths are a particular group represented." to "Ground sloths, in particular, are a well-represented group."
- "by the Russian Jews" "the" is unnecessary.
- 'literally "river of paintings"' Should be right after Pinturas River.
- That's what I got. AryKun (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I fixed those that I agree with, I think the others are fine ;) I've had ratified in some previous lists but reviewers preferred accepted, so I'm using that one now. Tone 09:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. AryKun (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I fixed those that I agree with, I think the others are fine ;) I've had ratified in some previous lists but reviewers preferred accepted, so I'm using that one now. Tone 09:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- EN-Jungwon
- Archive ref 18
- Ref 17 is showing a blank page for me. If that's the case then change the url status to dead.
That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 02:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, 17 was the tentative site which is now obsolete. I left it on the list back then because the new page has not been updated yet. Thanks for checking! Tone 09:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for
Good stuff. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) [7].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This list covers the live performances of Taylor Swift, who has recently become the first artist to headline a $1 billion-grossing tour. Kudos to Medxvo for assisting with removing NONRS. Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Would this still qualify for deletion to quality despite that the person who nominated it for deletion was the FL nominator? 48JCL TALK 20:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus at the AfD was keep so I really don't see the issue. Ippantekina (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14
- Swift's sixth studio album, Reputation (2017), was supported by negligible television performances -- suggest an alternative wording for negligible, or perhaps since she did little TV performances, you can lead into the Reputation tour directly.
- It is the first concert tour in history to surpass $1 billion in box score revenue. -- maybe some wording here can be piped to List of highest-grossing concert tours, since it is a notable record and one she currently tops.
- In the "Concert tours" table, I don't think we need to link the countries/territories (per MOS:OL)
- In the reference column for all your tables, I would update the abbreviation to "Ref(s)" since it is written as "Reference(s)" when hovered.
- Great to see this is finally on FLC. Nice work. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Pass
- Image has alt text
- Image appropriately licensed
- Image has succinct caption and relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Pseud 14: I've addressed all of your comments except the links to countries. I think while it makes sense to not link "common" countries like U.S., England... there are also "lesser-known" ones like Wales, Northern Ireland... so I decide to link them all to avoid potential demographic biases. Ippantekina (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems reasonable. Maybe just a minor nitpick but not a deal-breaker. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47
- For the lead's first sentence, shouldn't it be (American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift) rather than (The American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift)? Something about the use of the determiner seems off to me, but I could be wrong though.
- This list and all other articles within the T.Swift WProject adhere to WP:FALSETITLE, which is not an official MOS but a very helpful guide. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still not a fan of it, but I believe this falls under personal preference so it will not hold up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I switched it up a little. Ippantekina (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For the lead's second sentence, I do not think "various" adds much and can be cut as the focus seems to be more on the different venues where she has performed.
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance but I would use "television" rather than the acronym in this part (as well as on TV and radio). I would do the same for the "TV shows and specials" section heading.
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A link for opening act may be helpful.
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Taylor Swift albums discography is linked twice in the lead.
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead makes a point that The Red Tour was her last tour as a country artist, but it does not specify what genre she transitioned to after that for her subsequent tours.
- While I found no sources that described the 1989 Tour as a "pop tour", I added something about the genre shift. Ippantekina (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt that the countries need to be linked in the tables as most readers would be familiar with these areas. This kind of thing is brought up in MOS:OVERLINK. Also, since the table is sortable, there are instances where the first time the country appears is not linked. I would limit the links more so to cities and more specific areas like that. I respectfully disagree with your above "potential demographic biases" argument.
- I responded above to Pseud14 who has the same concern. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I did see that response, and your argument there does not convince me. Aoba47 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- While thinking this over further, this should not be a big deal since it was not a major concern for any of the other reviewers here. Aoba47 (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The linking for the tables is inconsistent. The award shows, such as the American Music Awards, are linked in every instance, but the television shows, like Good Morning America, are only linked on the first instance. On top of that, since the table is sortable, readers may encounter an unlinked term before getting to the actual link. To account for that, I would think that everything would need to be linked. Other examples of this would be Rascal Flatts being only linked once in the "As opening act'" table or the song titles only being linked once.
- Awards shows are linked to the yearly ceremony and thus each link is different. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for that, and thank you for your clarification. I should have checked the awards links more thoroughly. That being said, my other point still stands. Since the tables are sortable, it cannot be controlled which entry a reader may encounter first. Things like songs are currently linked on only the first instance if no sorting is done, but if a readers does sort, they may through multiple, unlinked entries before getting to the link. As I said above, I would think that every item would have to linked in each instance to account for this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It makes sense as WP:DL does say that duplicate links are allowed in tables. I'll implement this shortly! Ippantekina (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for that, and thank you for your clarification. I should have checked the awards links more thoroughly. That being said, my other point still stands. Since the tables are sortable, it cannot be controlled which entry a reader may encounter first. Things like songs are currently linked on only the first instance if no sorting is done, but if a readers does sort, they may through multiple, unlinked entries before getting to the link. As I said above, I would think that every item would have to linked in each instance to account for this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the performed songs portion blank for the University of Phoenix Stadium entry? I have the same question for the Country Radio Seminar entry later on.
- That is because the cited references do not include this information. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For the One World: Together at Home part, I would include a note that it was done virtually and also include where she filmed her performance if it is known.
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be consistent with either using title case or not in the citation titles.
- Should be done now. Ippantekina (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation 27 (here), Citation 28 (here), Citation 31 (here), Citation 32 (here), Citation 33 (here), Citation 35 (here), Citation 49 (here), Citation 138 (here), Citation 227 (here), Citation 255 (here), and Citation 265 (here). are no longer active. The CMT ones in general seem to have issues as most just redirect to the home page.
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation 55 (here) should specify that it is in Japanese.
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would avoid putting words in all caps like in Citation 71 (here).
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For Citation 79 (here), I would use the press release citation formatting instead.
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation 121 (here), Citation 123 (here), Citation 133 (here), Citation 154 (here), Citation 220 (here), Citation 247 (here), Citation 248 (here), and Citation 275 (here) are missing the authors. I would honestly check all of the citations without author credits for this. I also believe that Citation 275 should be Time not Time Magazine.
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation 163 (here) is still active for me so I do not think the archived version needs to be used. Same for Citation 166 (here) and Citation 274 (here).
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The archive for Citation 224 (here) does not support the information provided. Also, the song title should be in single quotation marks as it is presented in the citation title.
- Citation 231 (here) requires a subscription. That should be noted in the citation template. I would make sure any other instances of this are noted as well.
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I oppose this list for promotion, primarily because of errors in the citations. I have also noticed inconsistencies with how linking is handled in the tables, which would not be as big of an issue by itself. Apologies again, and I would be more than happy to revisit this review once my comments are addressed. You have always done great work so I hope that this does not come across as too harsh or anything overly negative. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks @Aoba47:, I believe your points are actionable and will act on them. In the meantime I've replied to some of your points above. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Take as much time as you need. I have replied to your responses above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Aoba47: for the refs. could you kindly specify the article revision that you reviewed so I could better keep track of them? Ippantekina (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for not including this earlier. I honestly did not think of doing that, but it makes sense as things will likely change during revision. I believe this version was what I was looking at during the time of this review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47: Thank you for your patience. I believe I've addressed all points that you raised above :) Let me know if anything remains unsatisfactory. Ippantekina (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for responding to everything. It all looks good to me. My only remaining point is that the citation for the first Nova's Red Room performance does not support the songs. The archived citation (at least for me) goes to an overview of different articles on the site. I do see a link to an article about her performing "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" there, but that does not appear to be archived. Once that has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find a replacement ref anywhere so I'll remove that until a reliable source is found... Ippantekina (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I had a feeling that would be the case. I tried to either get access to a better archived version of the original source or to find a different citation, but I did not have any luck with either. Removing it would be the best option. I approach this kind of list as containing all of the notable live performances of a particular artist, rather than being an exhaustive list so since I think that it is okay that this performance does not make it due to a lack of a citation. I did not look through newspapers so maybe that would help, but I think this is the right choice for now.
- Apologies for the long response, but I do support this FLC for promotion based on the prose and I have struck my oppose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I did look through Newspaper.com, ProQuest for potential news sources to no avail. I'll try to continue looking for a replacement ref anyways. Thanks so much for your constructive feedback :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am just glad that I could help. Thank you for your patience with my review. Best of luck with finding a replacement reference. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I did look through Newspaper.com, ProQuest for potential news sources to no avail. I'll try to continue looking for a replacement ref anyways. Thanks so much for your constructive feedback :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find a replacement ref anywhere so I'll remove that until a reliable source is found... Ippantekina (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for responding to everything. It all looks good to me. My only remaining point is that the citation for the first Nova's Red Room performance does not support the songs. The archived citation (at least for me) goes to an overview of different articles on the site. I do see a link to an article about her performing "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" there, but that does not appear to be archived. Once that has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47: Thank you for your patience. I believe I've addressed all points that you raised above :) Let me know if anything remains unsatisfactory. Ippantekina (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for not including this earlier. I honestly did not think of doing that, but it makes sense as things will likely change during revision. I believe this version was what I was looking at during the time of this review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Aoba47: for the refs. could you kindly specify the article revision that you reviewed so I could better keep track of them? Ippantekina (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Take as much time as you need. I have replied to your responses above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (ec with last editor)
- "She has additionally performed in various festivals, awards shows, benefit concerts, and sporting events" - unless usage in US English is different, I would suggest this should be "She has additionally performed at various festivals, awards shows, benefit concerts, and sporting events". Certainly in the variety of English spoken in my neck of the woods, one does not perform "in" a music festival. But, as I said, maybe US usage is different......?
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "which supports all of the albums in Swift's discography." => "which supports all of the albums in her discography."
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "to surpass $1 billion in box score revenue." - box office revenue surely, unless this is a US usage of which I am unaware
- "Boxscore" is actually a term used by Billboard [8] but I removed it altogether as it might be jargon-y. Ippantekina (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tour names starting with "The" should sort based om the next word in the name
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason why the first three tables have the name of the event first and the dates second, and then suddenly it switches to the other way round?
- I followed other examples like List of Lady Gaga live performances, and if I rationalize that myself, each concert tour (the content of the first 3 tables) is a combination of various concerts and hence the tour names being listed first makes more sense; plus dates are presented in rage so including them first is confusing imo. Meanwhile other events (TV, radio, awards) are one-off events so it makes more sense to sort it chronologically by including the event date first. Ippantekina (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Did she not perform any songs at "Trails West!" and some of the others, or is it just unknown what she performed? If the latter, I would suggest putting "unknown" or similar, as the dash honestly looks like it means "none"
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any value in that songs column being sortable given that it will only ever sort based on the first song listed?
- I can think of the number of songs but that is not the most helpful. Do you think the "Performed song(s)" column should be unsortable? Ippantekina (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- TV show titles starting with "The" should sort based om the next word in the name
- done. Ippantekina (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are some of the benefit special titles in italics and others not? For example, Children In Need (a UK telethon) is in italics but Stand Up to Cancer (also a UK telethon) is not
- As Stand Up to Cancer is a telethon I italicized it. Other concerts were not broadcast on TV/radio so they're not italicized :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Chris, thanks for the comments. I've replied to your points above. Ippantekina (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, one thing I missed. TV show titles should also sort based on the next word if they start with "The". Currently this seems to be the case for some but not all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got that sorted out. Could you double-check? Ippantekina (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, one thing I missed. TV show titles should also sort based on the next word if they start with "The". Currently this seems to be the case for some but not all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Chris, thanks for the comments. I've replied to your points above. Ippantekina (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
Most sources in the article are reliable. Some are acceptable primary sources (i.e. iHeartRadio source to confirm a show at the iHeartRadio Music Festival). Some are long-established local newspapers related to the city where Swift played. However, there are some sources that don't appear to be reliable at a first glance.
- PopCrush is listed as unreliable at WP:A/S.
- Is it possible to replace Bustle, Newsweek, and Us Weekly with better sources? They aren't considered generally reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES.
- What is the reliability of the following sources: Linfonerealtv, The Boot, Pure Charts, British Comedy Guide, and Canoe.com?
- Swapped Linfonerealtv with Cosmopolitan
- The Boot is published by Townsquare Media who also publishes music review sites listed in Metacritic like BrooklynVegan and XXL. Writers that contributed to The Boot include Annie Zaleski for example ([9]) Ippantekina (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pure Charts (fr:Charts in France), British Comedy Guide and Canoe.com are all news portals so they should suffice in their usage as reports on live appearances. I don't see issues with them. Ippantekina (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't done spotchecks, but I checked one source, [37], and it doesn't confirm the August 18, 2007 date.
Skyshiftertalk 21:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Swapped with another source. Ippantekina (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll get back to you asap. My preliminary comments are that while Bustle, Us Weekly are not the most reliable for BLP or commentary, in this usage as reports of popular culture they should suffice. Ippantekina (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey @Ippantekina. No rush, just following up on a number of FLC comments at the moment. Just pinging to see if the concerns have all been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh: @Skyshifter: hey, I've responded above. Let me know if anything needs further adjustments :) Ippantekina (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey @Ippantekina. No rush, just following up on a number of FLC comments at the moment. Just pinging to see if the concerns have all been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Skyshifter didn't do spotchecks, I used a random number generator to check 10, and found some consistent problems:
- 23, 67, 218, 236 - good
- 72, 125, 155, 189, 248 - does not explicitly state the date
- 48 - does not explicitly state the date, does not say it's part of the Fearless tour, implies she sang more than the two songs listed
I do believe that the information given is accurate; why wouldn't it be. But over half of the randomly selected refs don't actually say the date for the event they're citing, as far as I can see, which I feel is problematic. Please see what you can do to address this in general (presumably this is an issue for more than just these specific refs). --PresN 00:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally news coverage of awards shows/TV like 72, 125, 155 are published pretty much immediately after the events happen; of course articles that explicitly mention the dates do exist so I hope to find alternatives asap. 48 does imply she sang more than the 2 songs listed but since it doesn't say more, why would we include more; plus the "Part of the Fearless Tour" is cited by ref 35. Ippantekina (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: update, I'm running through all refs again to make sure they mention the exact dates. For refs that fail this verification and there are no replacement news/articles/reports, I use {{Cite episode}} or {{Cite AV media}} which are a little on the nose but the second best thing we can go for.. Will update you once it's done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: I've conducted a run-through of the references (phew!) Let me know if it looks better now :) Ippantekina (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: update, I'm running through all refs again to make sure they mention the exact dates. For refs that fail this verification and there are no replacement news/articles/reports, I use {{Cite episode}} or {{Cite AV media}} which are a little on the nose but the second best thing we can go for.. Will update you once it's done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, promoting! --PresN 20:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC) [10].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you like songs from movies and stage musicals? Then you will find something you like in the list of Billboard's easy listening chart-toppers of 1969. Alternatively, maybe you like songs about how mankind is going to die out in the future, there's one of those in there too....... As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Alavense
Excellent work, ChrisTheDude. I only have one question: does it really make sense to have the key that way? If "Hurt So Bad" topped the Year-End but doesn't even feature in the list, I think it would be best to have it mentioned on the prose, wouldn't it? The way it is now, it feels as if the reader would expect (at least I did) to find something highlighted in yellow on the chart and then they don't. Alavense (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alavense: In all honesty I don't really see the need to have it mentioned in the article at all but "it was like that when I got here, your honour" ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, then. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NØ
- "The chart, which in 1969 was entitled Easy Listening, has undergone various name changes and since 1996 has been published under the title Adult Contemporary." - My Grammar checker is recommending commas before and after "since 1996"
- "The longest unbroken run at number one by a song was eight weeks, achieved by the orchestra leader Henry Mancini's "Love Theme from Romeo and Juliet"." - There does not currently seem to be a source in the article verifying he is an orchestra leader, unless I'm missing something?
- Stellar work, and I enjoy the great pictures in these lists as always.--NØ 19:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MaranoFan: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and pass on source review, as all the sources are reliable and/or primary ones that verify the facts :) NØ 10:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Staraction
- All images relevant to the text
- All images appropriately captioned
- All images have alt text
- All images have proper licensure (AGF on first image, which was own work)
Thanks and wonderful work as always, @ChrisTheDude. Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for
The only feedback I have is to consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|July 2024}}
template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been. Support, great stuff Chris! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh: - thanks for your review, I have added that template! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan620
Marking down a spot for a prose review, most likely to follow sometime tomorrow or the day after. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is great work as expected and I'm not finding much to criticize, though I do have a couple comments:
- a track which peaked at number 2 – per MOS:NUMERAL, shouldn't all numbers below 10 be spelled out? I would also recommend using a non-breaking space, as the word "number" and the position are appearing on separate lines on my laptop.
- Addressed but in a different way. I decided that the specific position at which the song peaked isn't actually that important, the only important thing is that it didn't reach number one... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In the third paragraph, the sequence that follows Five songs topped both listings during the year reads a little awkwardly to me. I feel like removing the "and" before the 5th Dimension's mention and the "as well as" before Zager and Evans would result in a smoother flow.
- Done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dylan620: - thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC) [11].[reply]
- Nominator(s): – Relayed (t • c) 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I have nominated an article/list, but here I am with another, List of SB19 live performances! This list documents the live performances that the Filipino boy band SB19 have done since their debut, including tours, one-off concerts, awards shows, television, and more. I began revamping this list last February, but only progressed much later in May, and I finally finished it this week. This has to be the hardest list I have got my hands on revamping; sorting their performances, working with multiple sources, and the size of the article is definitely a pain.
The revamping of lists like this is part of my efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of SB19, hopefully getting them to have their featured topic soon! I believe I have improved the list pretty significantly from its previous state with the criteria in mind, and I think this list is deserving to be promoted as a featured list. I would be happy to address all your concerns, suggestions, and feedback; they are much appreciated. I sincerely thank the reviewers in advance who will put their time and effort here. – Relayed (t • c) 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review and accessibility review
- All images have alt text
- All images are in public domain or appropriately licensed
- All images are relevant to the article
- All images are captioned appropriately
- All of the tables meet MOS:DTAB, along with the infobox.
Support on image and accessibility review. 48JCL 14:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and for being here, 48JCL! – Relayed (t • c) 14:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Vaughan J.
Placeholder. Full table review coming soon! — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 10:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{N/A|—}}
→{{N/A}}
– The template has the dash "—" already applied. Ditto for the next few sections.- Done; thanks for spotting that!
Would it be better to add rowspans? Except the show numbers. See List of Regine Velasquez live performances. Ditto for the next few sections.- I prefer avoiding rowspans for this list because I think the extra cell borders make it easier to read information row-by-row, especially since there is a lot of similar information in the tables, which can be quite difficult to navigate if rowspans are in place. Also, I use some of the "Virtual" cells with notes for additional information as to where the footages of their performances were recorded.
{{Abbr|Ref(s).|Reference(s)}}
→{{Abbr|Ref.|Reference(s)}}
per this and this review. Ditto for the next few sections.- Done
That's all the concerns I have for this review. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 10:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for being here, Vaughan J.! I have addressed your concerns. Let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Everything else is sorted. For the second concern, that does makes sense, so I'm crossing that out. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 07:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, Vaughan! – Relayed (t • c) 08:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Everything else is sorted. For the second concern, that does makes sense, so I'm crossing that out. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 07:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "They also attended several virtual music festivals" - "attended" makes it sound a bit like they were in the audience of just hanging about. Suggest changing to a word which makes it clear that they actually performed.
- "Additionally, SB19 have also performed at the 2023 Asia Artist Awards and became a featured act at several music festivals" => "Additionally, SB19 have also performed at the 2023 Asia Artist Awards and been a featured act at several music festivals"
- For things like the UP Fair: Hiwaga, I would put "unknown" under "songs performed", as the dash makes it look like they performed no songs
- "Dunkin' Presents: SB19 was initially scheduled for March 19, 2020, with the title Dunkin' Presents: Give in to SB19,[35] until postponed to April 23, 2022" => Dunkin' Presents: SB19 was initially scheduled for March 19, 2020, with the title Dunkin' Presents: Give in to SB19,[35] but was postponed to April 23, 2022"
- That's it I think - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, ChrisTheDude! Thanks for having a look! I have addressed all your comments. Let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 11:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support! – Relayed (t • c) 11:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MyCat
I was offline in July- sorry for missing your message! Happy to review now that I'm back MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The band co-headlined another online concert, Forte: A Pop Orchestra Concert, with 4th Impact in October 2021, for the benefit of music scholars - not sure what "for the benefit of music scholars" means
- the Aurora Music Festival 2024 in Pampanga and two outside the Philippines, the Round: ASEAN–Korea Music Festival 2023 in Indonesia and Pistang Pinoy sa Korea 2024 in South Korea. - I don't think "two outside the Phillipines" is needed, just "the Aurora Music Festival 2024 in Pampanga, the Round: ASEAN..." would suffice
I see nothing else of concern, great work as usual MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, MyCatIsAChonk! Glad you made it! It's alright. I apologize for making you review as soon as you have returned. Thank you for reviewing BTW. I have addressed all your concerns. (I have been busy lately, which is why I was not able to take action on them sooner.) Let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All good, happy to support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, MyCatIsAChonk! – Relayed (t • c) 07:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All good, happy to support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC) [12].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of the upcoming Olympics, I started to working on this and it's actually my second non-American football related list nomination ever. It's based on 2022 Winter Olympics medal table, which was promoted May 14, 2023. As always, I will do my best to quickly respond to and address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images review by Staraction
- Two images (the ones not in the infobox) require alt text
- All images are relevant to the article
- All images are appropriately licensed (AGF on self-published works)
- All images are captioned appropriately
Thanks for your work as always! Staraction (talk | contribs) 21:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Rookie move josh, rookie move. Thanks for catching @Staraction! I've made the changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Four new disciplines in existing sports were introduced to the Winter Olympic Games program in Pyeongchang, including" - the use of "including" implies that the examples listed are going to be a subset of the total but in fact all four are listed, so I would replace "including" with a simple colon
- "Athletes from Germany and Norway tied [...] tying the record" - maybe change the second one to "equalling" to avoid repetition?
- Freestyle skiing guys image caption doesn't need a full stop
- Maybe a footnote to explain "Olympic Athletes from Russia"?
- "After the testing of the B sample that was also positive, the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed that they were instituting the formal proceedings" => "After testing of the B sample that was also positive, the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed that they were instituting formal proceedings"
- That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for the helpful review! I've implemented all of your suggestions, except that I tweaked your last suggestion to remove "that" from "that was also positive". Oh, I did also remove the period from Marit Bjørgen's photo, which I'm sure she would appreciate =) Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- MPGuy2824
- I assume that DSQ means disqualified. It might be worth creating a template for that, with a link to Ejection (sports). If not a template, then at least the link can be considered.
- Just chipping in to say that IMO I don't think that would be the best link to use in such a template. That article covers the concept of players (in various sports) being required to leave the match/event while it is going on because of an offence. What the "Changes in medal standings" table covers in this and similar articles is competitors who completed the event but then had their results revoked days, weeks, or even months after the event had finished. It's not really the same concept..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, it doesn't look like there is a good wikilink for that concept. Given that, Josh can use the {{Abbr}} template. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You could merge the last two shortish paragraphs of the lead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the abbreviation template, that's a good call on that. I don't loooove merging those last two paragraphs, as they do feel a bit disconnected, but I also think it's a bit off to have those two sentences as their own paragraph, so I've combined them. Thank you for the review @MPGuy2824. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the abbreviation template, that's a good call on that. I don't loooove merging those last two paragraphs, as they do feel a bit disconnected, but I also think it's a bit off to have those two sentences as their own paragraph, so I've combined them. Thank you for the review @MPGuy2824. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and citation check from Arconning
- Caption in image: Marit Bjørgen (pictured) won five medals at the 2018 Winter Olympics.
- The caption in the image of the world map doesn't need a full stop.
- Ties are usually mentioned in the medal table section of the article, based on other FLs of medal tables (to retain consistency).
- Could mention the sport where Hungary won their first gold.
- Will get to the source review tomorrow, just claiming it in advance. Arconning (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey @Arconning. I've made the changes to the image captions. I also expanded the sentence to call out the event for Hungary. As for the ties, I actually believe the mention that countries are sorted alphabetically if they're tied to be redundant. I don't believe there's really any other method we'd use to sort them in a tie, is there? In regards to Hungary's competition, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- COC - Reliable, though just wondering why the date's August 10, 2011?
- IOC - Reliable
- Reuters - Reliable
- CNN - Reliable
- BBC Sport - Reliable
- IOC - Reliable
- NBC Olympics - Reliable
- The Guardian - Reliable
- NYT - Reliable
- Yahoo! - Reliable
- AP - Reliable
- BBC - Reliable
- IOC - Reliable
- ESPN - Reliable
- New Zealand Herald - Reliable
- POCOG - Reliable
- IOC - Reliable, but I'm just wondering what is this used for? If it's to be kept, change the hyphen in the title to an endash.
- The Guardian - Reliable
- Daily Mirror - A bit dodgy per WP:RSPSS, but the topic isn't contentious so I'm doing a conditional pass on this one.
- ESPN - Reliable
- IOC - Reliable
- CBC AP - Reliable
- Telegraph - Reliable
- Inside the Games - Reliable
- CAS - Reliable
- BBC - Reliable
- IOC - Reliable
- @Hey man im josh If it's part of the criteria, mentions in sources citing the International Olympic Committee, Canadian Olympic Committee, and POCOG, should be non-italicized. Also refs 8, 18, 21, and 22 could use archive links. If not, then I think it's good for me. Arconning (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 1 – Absolutely a mistake. I just tested it in my sandbox to see how I made this mistake and it turns out the autofill from RefToolbar filled in the date as August 10, 2011. I didn't expect there to be a date, so I didn't click the "Show/hide extra fields" button. I missed that and now been removed, good catch!
- Ref 17 – I did so to reinforce that the sorting method wasn't just a one time thing. In hindsight, this is definitely overkill and unnecessary. Ref 16 is literally perfect for verifying that. I've removed this ref.
- Archive links – All have been archived. I had to wait a little bit after triggering the archiving on them, but they're all there now.
- Italics – Why? My understanding is it doesn't particularly matter so long as it's consistent. As far as I'm aware, and I'd absolutely appreciate being corrected if I've misunderstood, it has nothing to do with the titles of the articles themselves, it's just the style of the type of citation.
- @Arconning: Thank you so much for the source review! I hope I've addressed all of your concerns and, if not, I do intend to iron the rest out after your response. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, nice work!! Arconning (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, nice work!! Arconning (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Birdienest81
- As the editor who promoted the 2022 Winter Olympics medal table to featured list status, I think you should also add a table of official changes in medal standings by country similar to the ones in 1984 Summer, 2012, and 2020 ones.
- Since the parent article 2018 Winter Olympics uses a day-month-year format, all dates indicated in the list should use the DD-MM-YYYY format.
- --Birdienest81talk 19:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- While I think the table in this context is useless and adds nothing of value (it was 1 medal taken and 1 given to another), I've added it anyways. I also don't see an issue with the date formatting, as it's consistent. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Birdienest81: Following up to see if the dates are a deal breaker for you. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- On rethink, the dates don't actually matter to me. I've made the change and I hope you'll support this nomination @Birdienest81. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Darn, they haven't been online in five days. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, about the slow response. I'm busy preparing for a camping trip, but yes, it's all good. So, I'll give it a support. Birdienest81talk 08:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Darn, they haven't been online in five days. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- On rethink, the dates don't actually matter to me. I've made the change and I hope you'll support this nomination @Birdienest81. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Birdienest81: Following up to see if the dates are a deal breaker for you. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- While I think the table in this context is useless and adds nothing of value (it was 1 medal taken and 1 given to another), I've added it anyways. I also don't see an issue with the date formatting, as it's consistent. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 13:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC) [13].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After taking a break to focus on other projects, I'm back with the sixth timeline nomination in an ongoing series. This particular timeline documents the 2014 Pacific hurricane season, one of the most active ever recorded in the basin. It included a Category 5 behemoth, the basin's strongest known May hurricane, a rare landfalling system on the Big Island of Hawaii, an infamous hurricane that devastated large swathes of the Baja California peninsula, and twelve other hurricanes for a total that tied an all-time record set over 20 years prior. Until this past week, portions of this listicle (especially from §September onward) were nearly a decade out of date, and a Scary Orange BoxTM was placed eight years ago alluding to this issue, which has now been resolved. I look forward to the community's feedback and will address any concerns as promptly as possible. (Nerdy mathematical aside... 2+0+1+4=7, and if this nomination passes, it will be my seventh featured list.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- MPGuy2824
- "and an atypically strong upper-level divergence" - Is there a good wikilink for "divergence"?
- The distances for Genevieve seem very large. Wouldn't it be better to show distances from some point in Hawaii, instead of Baja California? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you MPGuy2824 for your feedback. Replies below:
- Adding "an" in front of "upper-level divergence" wouldn't really work because "divergence" is an uncountable noun, at least in this context. Surprisingly, divergence (meteorology) is a redlink; the closest existing article I can think of would probably be convergence zone. Ultimately, I decided to condense the sentence in question to remove mention of divergence, as part of me worried that it was a little too in-depth for casual readers.
- Regarding Genevieve, I thought about how long some of those distances are. I had originally decided to stick with Baja California as a reference point because it is explicitly mentioned by the Tropical Cyclone Report for Genevieve. By contrast, no specific location in Hawaii is mentioned; it only refers to the Hawaiian Islands as a group. I've adjusted the location references beginning with Genevieve's second dissipation—where Hawaii is first mentioned in the TCR—with distances inferred from 21°30′N 158°00′W / 21.5°N 158.0°W / 21.5; -158.0, which is the location point in the upper-right corner of the Hawaii article itself. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 12:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support promotion based on prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
At first glance nothing seems to be unreliable. So Ill take the source review. Everything is archived Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue I see is that Ref 28 should be marked as being in Japanese.
Ill get on with the spot checks soon.
- The only issue I see is that Ref 28 should be marked as being in Japanese. – Thank you for pointing this out; taken care of! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 10:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all of the odd numbered sources for a total of 20. Everythng checks out.
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [14].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the Gem State. Hopefully I've improved this article enough for it to be considered a gem here at Wikipedia!
Other FLs in the vein of this one include those for Indiana, Utah, Hawaii, and Connecticut. I've also nominated Arizona, currently another FLC that has gained support from the two reviewers who have reviewed it.
Thanks for taking a look, and I appreciate any feedback that y'all give! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive-by comments
- You'll have to split the "1913–present" table into two since it is wrong (from an accessibility perspective) to have two rows of headers, one of which is in the middle of the table.
- "last Democrat to have represented Connecticut" - Idaho, not Connecticut. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPGuy2824 Hi, thanks for the comments! I've fixed both - for the first one, is it weird to have both tables in the same section like I have it now? Or should I split it into two different sections? Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 11:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is it weird to have both tables in the same section like I have it now?
Nah, looks fine to me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPGuy2824 Hi, thanks for the comments! I've fixed both - for the first one, is it weird to have both tables in the same section like I have it now? Or should I split it into two different sections? Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 11:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Since Idaho became a U.S. state in 1890, it has sent congressional delegations to the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives, beginning with the 51st United States Congress in 1889" - 1889 is not since 1890
- The sentence starting "The longest-serving senator from Idaho" is quite long, maybe split it into two?
- "He was instrumental in the passage of the Sixteenth and the Seventeenth Amendments, but opposed the Nineteenth Amendment." - maybe add a few words on which each of these covered, as I doubt many people would know without looking them up......?
- "Frank Church, who similarly served for 24 years on the Foreign Relations Committee" - similar to what? Nobody previously has been mentioned as serving on this committee
- "such that each election, around one-third" => "such that at each election, around one-third" would be better I think
- "who also had served as Idaho's first territorial governor" => "who had also served as Idaho's first territorial governor"
- That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude Hi, thanks for your comments! I've resolved all of them except for the one about Frank Church - both Borah and Church served on the Foreign Relations Committee. Does that sentence need more clarity? Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - don't worry about the Church sentence, I misread it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- EN-Jungwon
- Archive all references
- Same as the previous list, link the websites/publishers wherever possible
- Add categories;
[[Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Idaho| ]]
and[[Category:United States senators from Arizona| ]]
. This keeps it consistent with the other four featured lists of this series. - Ref 1 add date July 03, 2020
- Ref 3 has the date "September 15, 2021" but I couldn't find the date in the source.
- Ref 5 add date April 26, 2021
- Ref 7 the date is May 24, 2023, not February 1, 2024. Is one of the authors Suzanne Bates. I am unable to confirm whether this Wikipedia article is talking about the same person or not. Please double check before linking the author.
- Ref 17 change title to "Member Profiles"
- Ref 18 add date July 12, 2022
- Ref 20 add date January 27, 2019
- Ref 21, 40 requires subscription
- Ref 25, 38 add a retrieval date
-- EN-Jungwon 03:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @EN-Jungwon, thanks for the review, it is very appreciated! I believe I've fixed all the issues you've pointed out. I don't think Suzanne Bates is the same person as the one who wrote the article for ref 7. If there's anything else amiss please let me know! Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a few unarchived links. I went ahead and archived those. Happy to support now. -- EN-Jungwon 01:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Gonzo_fan2007
- Section 2 of the US Constitution sets the bar that every state must have at least one rep in the House, regardless of population. This should be added to the lead where it references apportionment based on population (and should be added to all similar lists).
Currently, the dean, or longest-serving member of Congress from Idaho, is Mike Crapo, who was elected to the House of Representatives in 1992 and has served in Congress ever since, serving in the Senate since his election in 1998.
this sentence is set-up weird by leading with "dean". I would recommend reordering to something likeMike Crapo has served in the Senate since 1998. As the longest tenured Senator, he holds the honorary title of Dean of the United States Senate. Prior to his tenure in the Senate, he served three terms in the House of Representatives.
- I'll note too that the sentence I quoted above is word-for-word the same sentence under the "Current delegation" section. Whatever you do, there shouldn't be word-for-word regurgitation between the lead and body of the article.
to serve Idaho in the Senate
"serve" sounds a little strong here. "represent" is more appropriate.which prohibited restricting the right to vote on account of sex
appears to be grammatically correct but reads as double negative to me. Could we be in the affirmative here and sayrecognized the right of women to vote
?including two years as chairman, in addition to serving as chairman of the Church Committee
this is a run-on sentence. Recommend adding a full stop after the first instance of "Chairman"- You have a "current delegation" section yet under the Senate and House sections, you still mention the current delegation. Seems repetitive and not needed. This would also make updating the article easier, not having to update multiple instances after elections.
Nice work. Please ping me when you have responded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for your comments @Gonzo fan2007 and apologies it took so long to respond! I've fixed every issue except for a couple, noted below:
- The concept of the dean of a specific congressional delegation is a little murky. There does not exist a Wikipedia page for the dean of a particular delegation but as far as I can tell it does not relate directly to either Dean of the United States Senate or Dean of the United States House of Representatives. Instead, the congressional delegation of each state has its own dean, which is defined as the longest-serving member of Congress from that state. It appears to be an honorary title and is referenced in many news articles, so it's relevant. I've made some changes to not lead with the word "dean" but what do you suggest as a more permanent solution to this issue?
- Gotcha, sorry I misunderstood what you were referencing. It's fine how it is. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed "prohibited restricting the right to vote on account of sex" to "prohibited disenfranchisement on account of sex". Technically speaking the text of the amendment did not "[recognize] the right of women to vote"?
- That works. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the reference to Idaho's "current senators" in the body of the article; I'm unable to find the one referencing the House. If it's still there, please let me know!
- Looks good. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again and I'm looking forward to see your responses! Best, Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One other thing, links to William Borah and Republican Party are duplicated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Gonzo fan2007, I have essentially one mention of William Borah linked each section, except for in the United States Senate section, where it is linked in both the caption and the text. Is that okay per WP:LINKDUP? I think I've fixed the duplication of Republican Party. Please let me know if the article still needs work in duplicated links or anywhere else! Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, support. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Gonzo fan2007, I have essentially one mention of William Borah linked each section, except for in the United States Senate section, where it is linked in both the caption and the text. Is that okay per WP:LINKDUP? I think I've fixed the duplication of Republican Party. Please let me know if the article still needs work in duplicated links or anywhere else! Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One other thing, links to William Borah and Republican Party are duplicated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [15].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it offers a well-written and well-sourced overview over the most successful Romanian music released. It is the first list of its kind here on Wikipedia, but I believe it meets the required criteria. I am happy for any comment. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive-by comment - alt text is needed for the images in the article. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Unusual and very interesting topic for an article. Here are my comments:
- "Over the years, several songs and albums released by" - first three words are a bit vague. Maybe "Since the 1970s".....?
- "The first documented instance are the works of nai player Gheorghe Zamfir." - I doubt that there any instances which are not documented, so I would change this to "The first Romanian artist to chart in such markets was the nai player Gheorghe Zamfir."
- "soprano opera singer Angela Gheorghiu started charting multiple albums" => "soprano opera singer Angela Gheorghiu charted multiple albums"
- "and in a few other European countries" => "and in European countries"
- "both of which stand as two of the " => "which stand as two of the "
- ""Musica" (2011) by group Fly Project " => ""Musica" (2011) by the group Fly Project "
- "as well as "I Need Your Love" " => "and "I Need Your Love" "
- Notes: "This article lists all music releases, where there is at least one Romanian artist or act credited among the lead or featured artist(s)." => "This article lists all charting releases, where there is at least one Romanian artist or act credited among the lead or featured artist(s)."
- "has annualy published" => "has annually published"
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Many thanks for your comments! I solved them. Let me know if you support the nomination. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47
- This is fairly nitpick-y, but I do not think "several" in this part, (several songs and albums released by), is needed. It comes across more as a filler word in this context and in my opinion, it does not add that much for the reader.
- Removed
- I would remove the links for studio albums and singles as I believe that they are examples of overlinking. The rest of the links look good to me so these are the only two that I would unlink as most readers would be familiar with both of these concepts.
- Removed
- I am uncertain about the wording for this part, (the only documented Romanian song to chart in Brazil). The "documented" part makes it seem like there are gaps in information about Brazil's music charts and that there may be other Romanian songs that could have appeared on the Brazilian, but they are just not "documented". Is that the intended meaning? Would anything be lost or changed by removing "documented" from this part?
- "Documented" is needed here since Brazil is not a country that has an easily searchable chart archive. "Stereo Love" is the only song we can prove charted there, but my personal opinion is that at least the other big international hit "Mr. Saxobeat" charted there too (it's just we don't have the archives).
I am glad to see you back on Wikipedia! Great work with this list. This is an interesting topic, and I do not think that I have seen a similar type of list in the FLC space (although I have not been particularly active in the FLC process or with FLs or lists in general for some time now). I only have three comments, and they are rather nitpick-y. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this list for promotion. Hopefully, this review will encourage others to take a look at this FLC. Have a great rest of your day and/or night (whichever it is when you are reading this lol). Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47: Thank you very much for your comments :) I'm here more rarely now and only for special projects. Thank you so much for your words as well :) Done everything, except for one comment I left. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am glad that I was able to help out with this FLC. Your reply about the Brazil chart makes sense to me. Best of luck with your future work on here. I hope everything is going well for you overall. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47: Thank you very much for your comments :) I'm here more rarely now and only for special projects. Thank you so much for your words as well :) Done everything, except for one comment I left. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments & thoughts
- There's a dynamic list template at the top of the article. Per #6 Stability at WP:FLCR, not sure if this is allowed but worth pointing out
- I have seen other dynamic lists being promoted to FLC status, including my own List of certified albums in Romania. In my opinion, the status of being a dynamic list doesn't affect the stability. Even if this list is probably not complete (since I occasionally add entries I find out about), I would say the "content does not change significantly from day to day" since it already covers the majority of works that have charted.
- "were certified multiple times platinum by Music Canada" -> should this be: "were certified platinum multiple times by Music Canada"?
- This is how you refer to music recording certifications. For example, you would also say "It was certified two times/double platinum" rather than "It was certified platinum twice".
- "in selected regions" -> maybe use different word (maybe "in a number of regions"?)
- I ended up using "some"; "in a number of regions" implies it was successful in several regions, which is not the case.
- For reference #47: "Dance Club Songs". Billboard. 3 October 2015. Archived from the original on 21 April 2022. Retrieved 4 July 2024.(subscription required), there's a parameter in the
{{cite web}}
template for source access level so a separate subscription template shouldn't have to be used
- Done
- Apply the above for any other refs if there are any other and in general go through the refs to make sure everything's consistently formatted, no unused params, etc. (I'm not too familiar with the way these refs are done so the final say with that's probably best left for the source reviewer
- Unused parameters give off a warning when you try to edit the article; in this case, no warning appears, so this indicates there are no parameter problems. There was one more ref with a subscription template, which I have fixed.
- Completely optional but I think it'd be good to add in the Inter-language links (
{{ILL}}s
) for the album and song titles where there isn't an English wikipage for the album/song already
- Done
- "She would go on to have two more top ten hits in Italy around the same time as group Akcent experienced moderate success in some European countries with their single "Kylie" (2005)." -> "She went on to have two more top ten hits in Italy at around the same time as the group Akcent" (personally, I also think the tone here might be slightly too informal but I'll leave it to others to decide on that)
- Done
- "would establish itself as part of the international mainstream over the course of the next few years" -> "established itself as part of the..."
- Done
- Go through lead and make sure that it uses the past tense when talking about the past (e.g. take out "would go on to")
- Done. No other instance found.
- "which stand as two of the most" -> maybe just say "which are two of the most"
- Done
- "Furthermore, Inna would go on to score two top ten hits" -> "Inna also scored two top ten hits" ("furthermore" isn't really necessary and doesn't fit with the tone imo)
- Done
- "The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has annually [...] throughout the years." and "West Germany until 1990" should have in-line refs like the rest of the notes
- I don't think references are needed here. In the first note, I link to the List of largest recorded music markets, in which all the IFPI reports that have been published yet are sourced. In the second note, I link to West Germany, which sources the fact that Germany was "West Germany" until 1990.
- Consider adding a See also section with links to List of Romanian artists and/or other similar articles/lists
- Done
Well that's everything I have. Interesting list and many thanks for nominating it! :) Ping me on reply if I'm needed. Cheers, Dan the Animator 00:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dantheanimator: Hi there Dan. First of all, many thanks for spending time reviewing my nominee. I have answered all your comments. Let me know what you think. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Cartoon network freak!!! :) Everything looks good except for the references on the IFPI & West Germany notes, which only needs a ref that verifies "annually published the ten largest recorded music markets...[since] 1996" and a ref that verifies West Germany became Germany in 1990.
- In general, while it's true that many readers would just click on the links if they wanted to verify the info, I think in the spirit of WP:V, it's always better to make it as easy as possible for a reader to verify non-obvious info (especially specific details like years which most people don't know/remember), which is easiest when that source is linked in a footnote next to the claim and which is why a lot of FA and FL articles will duplicate refs throughout the article to backup different info and data (so a reader doesn't have to sift through to figure out which ref is backing up which source).
- Also, its best imo to assume the average reader doesn't know any specific details like years or data. Really recommend taking a look at WP:ORIENT which although a wiki essay, does a much better job than me explaining why adding footnotes for these things is a good idea. Once the refs are added, I'll add my support for promoting this to FL. Cheers, Dan the Animator 01:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dantheanimator: Thank you again for your further comments. I have in the first case linked to the 1996 and 2024 IFPI reports, while in the second case, I have linked to the 1990 treaty that united West and East Germany to what is now Germany. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Cartoon network freak! The refs work great and it looks like that covers the last of it! Support promotion to FL status. Awesome work! :) Dan the Animator 00:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dantheanimator: Thank you again for your further comments. I have in the first case linked to the 1996 and 2024 IFPI reports, while in the second case, I have linked to the 1990 treaty that united West and East Germany to what is now Germany. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dantheanimator: Hi there Dan. First of all, many thanks for spending time reviewing my nominee. I have answered all your comments. Let me know what you think. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [16].[reply]
- Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second and final stop at FLC for a good topic I'm working towards. Still waiting on quite a few GA reviews before I can get there (plus two articles I still need to do some expansion on), so I thought I'd get this FLC going in the meantime. This is the episodes page for a popular UK television series. It has set quite a few records in terms of viewership so there were enough sources to write a pretty engaging lead so I spent a few hours tonight expanding it. I look forward and thank you all in advance for any reviews! :) TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "directed towards BBC Two[3] which" - I would recommend a comma after Two
- "in over ten years[12] leading" - also a comma after years
- "The series has been nominated for several awards[29] also gaining" - comma after awards
- "Additionally, Craig Parkinson,[45] Jessica Raine,[46] Jason Watkins,[47] and Anna Maxwell Martin[48] also star" - I don't think you need to say both "additionally" and "also". Is there a way to reword this?
- "special mini-episode written by the Dawson Brothers" - our article says the group is called Dawson Bros.
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You strike again as my first reviewer!
- I fixed the first four comments.
- For the fifth: I considered listing them as Bros. based on our article, but the source I cited the credit to lists them as the Brothers (specifically "
The virtual pantomime has been written by the Dawson Brothers, the comedy writers behind this year’s hilarious Line Of Duty Sport Relief Special [...]
") The mini-episode didn't actually have any credits, which is what we list ours from most of the time. That said, I don't have any objection whatsoever to changing it if you still think it should be changed, I just wanted to mention my thought process first? - Thanks again, TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- MPGuy2824
- Series overview table: The "Originally aired" cell should have scope as colgroup, not col.
- 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. All the tables are missing captions.
- * 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. A few of the header cells in the "Viewing figures" table are missing scopes.
- That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added captions to the series overview and episode tables.
- As for all the scopes, if I'm not mistaken, this would be a far larger issue that I need to raise at the template talk pages? It's not something I can fix at this page specifically. Template:Series overview for example is used on over 8,000 pages, at least 55 of these are featured lists. Some of which, just passed FLC this year. I'd be willing to raise the issue on the template talk pages given that I'm not a template editor (and because it uses LUA, so I wouldn't be able to fix it myself if I were), and I'm not sure how soon it can be addressed, but I just wanted to mention that it is not something that is directly within the scope of my control on this list.
- TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've posted messages on Template talk:Television ratings graph and Template talk:Series overview. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPGuy2824: Just curious if you add any further comments on this, or were even potentially willing to support it given that it's expanded outside the scope of this article and the discussion on the template's talk page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the issue in the {{Television ratings graph}} template, and have made an edit request for the {{Series overview}} template since it is protected. I think we can wait a few days for this to happen. In any case, this FLC still needs a source review before it will be considered for promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit request for the {{Series overview}} template was processed. I can now support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the issue in the {{Television ratings graph}} template, and have made an edit request for the {{Series overview}} template since it is protected. I think we can wait a few days for this to happen. In any case, this FLC still needs a source review before it will be considered for promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dantheanimator
- For all the Series tables, I think a ref should be included in the Directed by and Original air date column headers
- The Line of Duty image next to the lead has no caption/borders/anything. Not sure if this standard but thought I'd comment on it just in case
- Consider adding a See also section with links to similar lists/articles (maybe List of police television dramas?)
Just a quick pass for now, probably will put any additional suggestions later today if I'm feeling up for it... Dan the Animator 21:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Series three surpassed viewership of the first series" -> "Series three surpassed [the] viewership of the first series" (add "the")
- "Around this time, a restructuring of BBC television networks occurred causing BBC One and BBC Two to now be controlled by the same person." is "this time" referring to around the commissioning of the new series in April? (would help to specify for clarity imo) who's the "same person" who gained control of both BBCs? (would be helpful to name them, especially if they have a wikipage); also would recommend rewording the sentence in general to something like "Around the time of the commissioning of the new series, a restructuring of BBC television networks occurred, causing ownership over BBC One and BBC Two to become consolidated under [businessman/insert profession name] [insert person's name]."
- "The decision was made to promote" -> for better flow imo: "Following these changes, the decision was made to promote"
- The article for Sport Relief has it italicized but here its left in normal text. Would recommend italicizing it in all instances if that's how it should be
- "The series has been nominated for several awards, also gaining a cult following and becoming the subject of critical acclaim" -> one way it can be reworded: "The series has since been the subject of critical acclaim, receiving nominations for several awards and gaining a large cult following"
- "as AC-12 officers Steve Arnott and Kate Fleming" -> "as AC-12 officers Steve Arnott and Kate Fleming[, respectively]"
- "be in a large conspiracy" -> "be [involved] in a large conspiracy"
- Optional: For the Line of Duty : UK viewers per episode (millions) table near the bottom, add a note/footnote/something briefly indicating what "–" means (I think its fine as-is tbh but I thought it was kinda helpful having a note about it in another FL I looked over recently)
- For ref #73, I'm getting a: Cite error: The named reference Sport Relief Dates was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- If it's possible, I recommend trying to consolidate refs #31-34 (next to "subject of critical acclaim") into one reference similar to how ref #55 is a "multi ref" reference; check out Mission: Impossible – Fallout for lots of good examples of how this is done using the note template (see the notes section in that article)
That's everything I got! Awesome work TheDoctorWho (talk)!! :) Dan the Animator 07:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a reference for the air date columns. I also added a border for the image in the article. The directors are credited within the episodes via on-screen credits, so I believe that this would semi-fall under the same guidelines as MOS:PLOTSOURCE (in that the information is sourced to the work itself). I can probably still put together for sources for it if it's absolutely necessary to gain your support. I do also question how well that link would serve readers in a see also section. In the parent article possibly, but from the list of episode page it doesn't quite feel as necessary. Similar to the last point though, I'd also compromise and add it if necessary for a support !vote. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks and don't worry about it! I think the changes help but its perfectly fine not having the ref for the credits column! For see also, its completely optional so up to you if you want to add it! I like to suggest it though since most articles usually have other articles that aren't linked in the body but would be interesting for readers (also feel free to choose any relevant articles... definitely doesn't have to be List of police television dramas which I found through a quick browse in the categories). Please ping if I can help with anything and great work Gallifreyan! ;) Dan the Animator 07:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dantheanimator: I've addressed everything you left in your full review, bar the optional one. The "–" denotes that an episode with that number doesn't exist within the series (some series have more episodes than others). I started to add a note attempting to explain that, but it seemed to get confusing quickly when I say that episodes don't "exist" when they were never planned to be created in the first place. Thank you so much for the review!
TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that was quick! Might as well reply now before I head to sleep... I support this being promoted and strongly believe its ready for FL! Thanks again Doctor for your great work (both on wiki and across the realm of timey wimey stuff :) Dan the Animator 08:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dantheanimator: I've addressed everything you left in your full review, bar the optional one. The "–" denotes that an episode with that number doesn't exist within the series (some series have more episodes than others). I started to add a note attempting to explain that, but it seemed to get confusing quickly when I say that episodes don't "exist" when they were never planned to be created in the first place. Thank you so much for the review!
- Thanks and don't worry about it! I think the changes help but its perfectly fine not having the ref for the credits column! For see also, its completely optional so up to you if you want to add it! I like to suggest it though since most articles usually have other articles that aren't linked in the body but would be interesting for readers (also feel free to choose any relevant articles... definitely doesn't have to be List of police television dramas which I found through a quick browse in the categories). Please ping if I can help with anything and great work Gallifreyan! ;) Dan the Animator 07:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [17].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time nominating FL, and I hope this meets all the criteria of FL. One reason I am nominating this for the featured list is because it is a complete list of Johnson solids, along with the surface area and volume, as well as the symmetry. As for the background for someone who does not comprehend mathematics, especially in geometry, the Johnson solids were in the list proposed by Norman Johnson, and he conjectured that there were no other solids, after which was proved by Victor Zalgaller. I think I can give three examples for the exhibition:
There are actually 92 of them, but I would not exhibit them a lot here. I hope this could be the next FL of WP:WPM, and it could be the first FL of sister WikiProject, WP:3TOPE. Anyone, including someone interested in it, can review this. Many thanks for the comments and suggestions. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense
Claiming a spot here, since I think it's a great article and I still want to properly go through it like I promised. Remsense诉 07:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sgubaldo
- Prose
- "It is also includes the number of vertices, edges, and faces, symmetry, surface area...." ==> "It also includes the number of vertices, edges, and faces, symmetry, surface area..."
- Removed an ungrammatical word. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "attaching prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation, respectively." ==> "attaching a prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation respectively."
- I thought a comma would be supposed to be, but oh well, removed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is also includes the number of vertices, edges, and faces, symmetry, surface area...." ==> "It also includes the number of vertices, edges, and faces, symmetry, surface area..."
- Sourcing – This is not a source review, just some things I spotted
- For "Daniele Barbaro’s Perspective of 1568", the author's first name is 'Cosimo' not 'Cosino'.
- Renamed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Cromwell's Polyhedra book is missing an ISBN, which you can find here.
- Added. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Zalgaller's source is missing an ISBN and the publisher looks wrong. I found this page on Springer
- Nice. Added. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For "Group Theory in Solid State Physics and Photonics: Problem Solving with Mathematica" and "2D and 3D Image Analysis by Moments", the publisher is called 'John Wiley & Sons', not 'John & Sons Wiley'.
- My mistake. Renamed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikilink Canadian Journal of Mathematics.
- Wikilinked. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been told you can either wikilink publishers or leave them unlinked as long as you're consistent. You've wikilinked Cambridge University Press but none of the others; it would be good if you could either delink Cambridge University Press or wikilink John Wiley & Sons, Springer, Academic Press, American Mathematical Society and Dover Publications.
- Wikilinked all, just in case. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the authors have their full first name and some only have their initial; I believe this can be done in one way or the other but it has to be consistent.
- @Sgubaldo. Sorry, I do not understand here. Are you saying the author's initial name should be either abbreviated or fully named in all of the sources? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. For example, have all of them either lik "Cromwell, Peter R." or like "Diudea, M. V." Sgubaldo (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to think about the efficient way, it would be best to abbreviate at all, rather than finding out their first full names. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. For example, have all of them either lik "Cromwell, Peter R." or like "Diudea, M. V." Sgubaldo (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sgubaldo. Sorry, I do not understand here. Are you saying the author's initial name should be either abbreviated or fully named in all of the sources? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For "Daniele Barbaro’s Perspective of 1568", the author's first name is 'Cosimo' not 'Cosino'.
@Sgubaldo. I think I have complete all of the suggestions above. Let me know if there are any remaining missing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice one, I'll have a full read-through later. In the meantime, I've added some urls/other missing author links myself. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through and made some copyedits. Feel free to revert an edit you're not happy with it.
- Here are some more commments:
- The passage
- These solids may be used to construct another polyhedron with the same properties, a process known as augmentation; attaching a prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation respectively. Some others are constructed by diminishment, the removal of those from the component of polyhedra, or by snubification, a construction by cutting loose the edges, lifting the faces and rotate in certain angle, after which adding the equilateral triangles between them.
- is a bit confusing to read because I'm not sure what 'those' is referring to. I'm reading it as you attach the prism/antiprism to any of the first six Johnson solids, but it's not very clear.
- Is defining area and volume necessary? I'm specifically taking about the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width, and the surface area is the overall area of all faces of polyhedra that is measured by summing all of them. A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." I understand you have to consider WP:TECHNICAL but perhaps you could just include how the volume and surface area are calculated for a polyhedron and remove the definitions themselves.
- Is the sentence "one case that preserves the symmetry by one full rotation and one reflection horizontal plane is
of order 2, or simply denoted as
" also necessary? You already explain the
group and this is just one example
- The passage
- Sgubaldo (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Re "defining area and volume necessary": This is on purpose to make readers (for non-mathematicians, students, or anyone who is interested in it) recap the meaning of area and volume. If it does not exist, readers may search them on the previous wikilinked. I am aware that one problem here is our articles is somewhat technical, making readers even much more confused. Take an example of Surface area, stating that "a measure of the total area that the surface of the object occupies". This is not only to help readers to understand the definition, but rather to give the meaning of the object specifically. Here, I wrote the surface area of a polyhedron specifically as the total area of all polygona faces. So to put it plain, this is intended to summarize them specifically about the polyhedron's characteristics. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern was more whether the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width" and "A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." were necessary, but if you think they are per WP:TECHNICAL, then I'm fine with their inclusion. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dedhert.Jr Anyways, final comment on this part: "The volume of a polyhedron is determined by involving its base and height (as in pyramids and prisms), slicing it off into pieces after which summing them up...." – I'm slightly unsure as to what 'involving its base and height' means here. Could you clarify? Sgubaldo (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is just like saying that volume of a prism and pyramid is the product of height and its base, with an exception that pyramid is one-third of it. The inside bracket is meant to show the merely examples. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dedhert.Jr, could you rewrite the sentence a little to clarify that? I think it's still hard to understand in its current state. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm trying to say that volume of a polyhedron can be calculated in different way. Take examples as in the prism and the pyramid. The volume of a prism is the product of base and height
. The volume of a pyramid is one-third of the product of base and height
. From all of these examples, their calculation only involves the base
and height
. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dedhert.Jr. Thank you, I understand now; these will be my final comments then, after which I can support.
- What do you think about tweaking the relevant part of the sentence mentioned above to something like: "The volume of a polyhedron may be ascertained in different ways: either by decomposing it into smaller pieces, such as pyramids and prisms, calculating the volume of each component, and then computing their sum, or......"
- When you say "meaning their construction does not involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids", is that intending that it doesn't involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids at the same time or that it involves neither of the two. If it's the former, then it's fine. If it's the latter, I think it should be changed to "meaning their construction does not involve neither Archimedean nor Platonic solids"
- Sgubaldo (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Re "tweaking": What? This means something different. My interpretation is that you pointed the polyhedrons such as pyramids and prisms can be defined their volume by decomposing it into smaller pieces.
- What I meant about those facts is that every polyhedron's volume is different to finding them. One example that I already explained is involving the produvt of base and height. However, not all the volume of polyhedrons can be done in that way. We can see an example of Triaugmented triangular prism in which constructed from a triangular prism by attaching three equilateral square pyramids onto its square faces. To find its volume, we need to slice it off into a triangular prism and three equilateral square pyramids again. Finding their volume, and then add up the volume again, and the volume of a triaugmanted triangular prism is total of those. But this method is not working for sphenomegacorona, and the alternative way is by using root of polynomial, as described in OEIS. That is what I meant also in the previous copyedit. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Re "elementar": The definition by not involving Platonic and Archimedean solids was copyedited from the previous meaning in several articles of Johnson solids. However, Cromwell and Johnson gives different meaning, so I'm going to copyedited the rest of them. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sgubaldo Update. This was already discussed after I changing the definition; you can see my talk page. Feel free to ask. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel really silly, I was misreading the sentence about finding the volume and couldn't see there were three different methods. The changes to the definition look good. There were a couple of minor prose issues I had, but to not enter a WP:FIXLOOP, I tried making the changes myself. Please do check and revert if you disagree with anything.
- Support promotion, I hope this becomes one of the few mathematics-related FLs. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sgubaldo Update. This was already discussed after I changing the definition; you can see my talk page. Feel free to ask. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dedhert.Jr. Thank you, I understand now; these will be my final comments then, after which I can support.
- What I'm trying to say that volume of a polyhedron can be calculated in different way. Take examples as in the prism and the pyramid. The volume of a prism is the product of base and height
- @Dedhert.Jr, could you rewrite the sentence a little to clarify that? I think it's still hard to understand in its current state. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is just like saying that volume of a prism and pyramid is the product of height and its base, with an exception that pyramid is one-third of it. The inside bracket is meant to show the merely examples. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dedhert.Jr Anyways, final comment on this part: "The volume of a polyhedron is determined by involving its base and height (as in pyramids and prisms), slicing it off into pieces after which summing them up...." – I'm slightly unsure as to what 'involving its base and height' means here. Could you clarify? Sgubaldo (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern was more whether the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width" and "A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." were necessary, but if you think they are per WP:TECHNICAL, then I'm fine with their inclusion. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Re "
": Not expert in symmetry here. As far as I'm concerned, the symmetry
is explicitly stated in the source [18], consisting of identity and mirror plane, and this can be denoted as
. Is there something wrong? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an expert either. What I was trying to say was that you explain the symmetry group
with the sentence "The symmetry group
of order
preserves the symmetry by rotation around the axis of symmetry and reflection on horizontal plane", but then also go into specific detail about
, which seems to be a specific case of
. My concern was whether this was necessary, since no other examples of a symmetry group are explored in the article. Is it because it needs to be shown that
is denoted as
? Sgubaldo. It is a mirror symmetry, merely. (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Our articles says it is involution group symmetry, as it is shown in List of spherical symmetry groups,. The notation is in Schoenflies notation. If it's possible, let me ask this in WP:WPM to gain more precise meaning ensurely. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Our articles says it is involution group symmetry, as it is shown in List of spherical symmetry groups,. The notation is in Schoenflies notation. If it's possible, let me ask this in WP:WPM to gain more precise meaning ensurely. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an expert either. What I was trying to say was that you explain the symmetry group
- Re "these solids". It means that the first six Johnson solids can be used to construct more new Johnson solids by attaching the uniform polyhedrons (as it is included in the article), and those constructions are already mentioned above, with some exceptions that snubification does not need them basically. Some of the Johnson solids cannot be constructed without them. I think I will fix this one, but I have to be careful my writing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying. I've made some minor edits here too and I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Re "defining area and volume necessary": This is on purpose to make readers (for non-mathematicians, students, or anyone who is interested in it) recap the meaning of area and volume. If it does not exist, readers may search them on the previous wikilinked. I am aware that one problem here is our articles is somewhat technical, making readers even much more confused. Take an example of Surface area, stating that "a measure of the total area that the surface of the object occupies". This is not only to help readers to understand the definition, but rather to give the meaning of the object specifically. Here, I wrote the surface area of a polyhedron specifically as the total area of all polygona faces. So to put it plain, this is intended to summarize them specifically about the polyhedron's characteristics. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- 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.! Solid name
becomes!scope=col | Solid name
. 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.| 1
becomes!scope=row | 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 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Implemented them all. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder
This is already 20 days, almost three weeks, and there are no responses from the reviewer. Pinging @Sgubaldo, @Remsense, and @PresN. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't ping you with my last reply, but I supported above. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I will have remarks by the end of tomorrow, apologies. Remsense诉 14:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Remsense: Just pinging to see if you're still planning to follow up with a review. Ideally, a source review would be very much appreciated if you're at all familiar with the subject matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sending a ping again to @Remsense. Please at least just let us know if you're no longer interested in doing a review. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll withdraw, as I don't think I'm presently qualified for this. Deep apologies. Remsense诉 15:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Remsense. That's fine. I merely waited for someone reviewed the article; otherwise, the nomination would start over again because of inactivity by reviewers. @Hey man im josh. Do you mind if you can review the article? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, this isn't an area I'd be comfortable reviewing. One thing not to clear me, at a passing glance, is what verifies what's actually in the table? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh. Sorry, I can't comperehend your words. Can you clarify? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind @Dedhert.Jr. I was asking what verifies the formulas in the last column, but I missed that there was a reference in the column header. Though, if you were referring to the first part of the comment, I'm not comfortable enough with the subject matter to review it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh Well, I'm now worried that this nomination will expire. I am tired of repeating nominations in the same situation. I already saw this when I looked up the FAC. Should I ping members on related topics WikiProject, or are there alternative ways? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to share your nomination at a relevant WikiProject, but we're pretty patient with nominations. There are currently 8 people nominations that are older than yours and I promoted one yesterday that was over two months old. For a source review, I think someone from a relevant WikiProject would be excellent. Perhaps a message asking if anybody is a subject matter expert and could provide a source review at the nomination? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh That's a good idea. Thank you. But how long does the nomination will be expired? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no hard established hard deadline. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay then. I have invited the members, but I doubt that some of them will ignore it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no hard established hard deadline. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh That's a good idea. Thank you. But how long does the nomination will be expired? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to share your nomination at a relevant WikiProject, but we're pretty patient with nominations. There are currently 8 people nominations that are older than yours and I promoted one yesterday that was over two months old. For a source review, I think someone from a relevant WikiProject would be excellent. Perhaps a message asking if anybody is a subject matter expert and could provide a source review at the nomination? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh Well, I'm now worried that this nomination will expire. I am tired of repeating nominations in the same situation. I already saw this when I looked up the FAC. Should I ping members on related topics WikiProject, or are there alternative ways? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind @Dedhert.Jr. I was asking what verifies the formulas in the last column, but I missed that there was a reference in the column header. Though, if you were referring to the first part of the comment, I'm not comfortable enough with the subject matter to review it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh. Sorry, I can't comperehend your words. Can you clarify? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, this isn't an area I'd be comfortable reviewing. One thing not to clear me, at a passing glance, is what verifies what's actually in the table? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Remsense. That's fine. I merely waited for someone reviewed the article; otherwise, the nomination would start over again because of inactivity by reviewers. @Hey man im josh. Do you mind if you can review the article? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll withdraw, as I don't think I'm presently qualified for this. Deep apologies. Remsense诉 15:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sending a ping again to @Remsense. Please at least just let us know if you're no longer interested in doing a review. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Remsense: Just pinging to see if you're still planning to follow up with a review. Ideally, a source review would be very much appreciated if you're at all familiar with the subject matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dantheanimator
- "The points, lines, and polygons of a polyhedron are referred to as its vertices, edges, and faces[,] respectively" <- add in comma (shown in brackets)
- "they do not share the same plane, and do not "lie flat"." <- I think the comma here can be removed
- "the faces are regular and they are vertex-transitivity" <- from my non-expert understanding/reading of this sentence, I'm guessing it probably should be reworded as "the faces are regular and the vertices have vertex-transitivity"
- "they are the Platonic solids and Archimedean solids, as well as prisms and antiprisms" <- the way I read it, it sounds like these are examples/types of uniform polyhedra right? If that is the case, I think a better way to word this sentence would be "A uniform polyhedron is a polyhedron in which the faces are regular and have vertex-transitivity; examples include Platonic and Archimedean solids as well as prisms and antiprisms."
- Since the nationality of Zalgaller is mentioned, for consistency, "after mathematician Norman Johnson (1930–2017)" should be reworded as "after American mathematician Norman Johnson (1930–2017)"
- "create two small convex polyhedrons" <- shouldn't it be "create two small convex polyhedra" since its plural?
- "The Johnson solids satisfying this criteria are the first six—equilateral square pyramid, pentagonal pyramid, triangular cupola, square cupola, pentagonal cupola, and pentagonal rotunda—as well as the tridiminished icosahedron, parabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, tridiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, snub disphenoid, snub square antiprism, sphenocorona, sphenomegacorona, hebesphenomegacorona, disphenocingulum, bilunabirotunda, and triangular hebesphenorotunda." <- this should probably be divided up into at least a few sentences (e.g. keep it as "The Johnson solids satisfying this criteria are the first six—equilateral square pyramid, pentagonal pyramid, triangular cupola, square cupola, pentagonal cupola, and pentagonal rotunda" and then have the next sentence saying something like "The criteria is also satisfied by eleven other Johnson solids, specifically the tridiminished icosahedron, parabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, tridiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, snub disphenoid, snub square antiprism, sphenocorona, sphenomegacorona, hebesphenomegacorona, disphenocingulum, bilunabirotunda, and triangular hebesphenorotunda." (would be great to divide this second sentence more but I'm not sure what the best way to do that would be (maybe group them up by their Johnson numbers (e.g. "satisfied by eleven other Johnson solids, with [insert name] and [insert name] in the Johnson number range 60 to 70, [insert name], [insert name], and [insert name] in the Johnson number range 70 to 80, ..." (I didn't actually check the numbers for how many elementary polyhedra there are in each Johnson number range so don't copy my sample verbatim)
- also, just a note, the reason I think some additional, probably not too helpful, text should be added to the above sentence is due to MOS:SEAOFBLUE
- "in various processes" <- this might be completely wrong but would "through various mathematical procedures" be a better way to phrase this?
- "Augmentation involves attaching them onto one or more faces of polyhedra" <- for clarity, recommend replacing "them" with "the Johnson solids"
- "prism or antiprism respectively" -> "prism or antiprism[,] respectively" (add in comma)
- "may be composed in a group, alongside the number of elements, known as the order" <- not sure if this is necessary/beneficial but would it be a good idea to rewrite this as: "may be composed in a group, alongside the group's number of elements, known as the order"
- "In two-dimensional space, these transformations include rotating around the center of a polygon and reflecting an object around the perpendicular bisector of a polygon." <- also not sure if this is needed but might help to clarify whether the rotation and reflection are based on same polygon or they can be different polygons
- "known as the axis of symmetry, and reflection relative to perpendicular planes passing through the bisector of a base" -> "known as the axis of symmetry, and the reflection relative to perpendicular planes passing through the bisector of a base" (add "the")
- Consider adding a See also section with links to similar lists/articles (maybe Table of polyhedron dihedral angles?)
Well that's everything I have! The table looks perfect and the article is just overall really well done! Thanks for bringing this to FL Dedhert.Jr and excited to see this get promoted! :) Dan the Animator 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dantheanimator I have accomplished most of your comments, but not of them.
- Re "in various process": to be honest, what I meant that is those Johnson solids can be constructed by literally attaching them. I think there is no guidance procedure of how to construct by attaching mathematically unless it describes the construction with Cartesian coordinates.
- Re "in two-dimensional space": it was intended to describe the cyclic group and dihedral group in two-dimensional space, to understand the analogy symmetry in three-dimensional space.
- Re "See also": I don't mind that, but I'm aware that the table has already had many problems if I looked at it. Will think about it later.
- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Dedhert.Jr! Everything looks great now though for the See also, don't worry about choosing that article! I just spotted it from a cursory glance of Category:Polyhedra and thought it look/sounded similar to Johnson solids. Feel free to chose any article/list you know of with an English wiki article that isn't already linked in the article that you think would be helpful for readers interested in Johnson solids. If it helps, here's the link to the guidelines with tips for making see also sections. Many thanks again for your work on this list! Dan the Animator 06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, almost forgot... I now fully support promoting this nom and think once its source review is completed, it should be ready for FL! Dan the Animator 06:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Your welcome. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, almost forgot... I now fully support promoting this nom and think once its source review is completed, it should be ready for FL! Dan the Animator 06:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Dedhert.Jr! Everything looks great now though for the See also, don't worry about choosing that article! I just spotted it from a cursory glance of Category:Polyhedra and thought it look/sounded similar to Johnson solids. Feel free to chose any article/list you know of with an English wiki article that isn't already linked in the article that you think would be helpful for readers interested in Johnson solids. If it helps, here's the link to the guidelines with tips for making see also sections. Many thanks again for your work on this list! Dan the Animator 06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support
- support: Most of the problem have been solved, we shouldn't delay for a long time.--金色黎明 (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [19].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did an overhaul of the article a few days ago and I think it's ready for the review process. The Ukrainian language wiki version of the list already has selected list status (which is their equivalent of FL) so don't see why this can't be promoted too. Expect there'll be a few things that can be added and some minor improvements but I'm confident based on the state of the article that I'll be able to get this promoted. Also hoping to use this article as a general framework for additional "list of cities in oblast" articles after the review. Cheers, Dan the Animator 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought I'd put my thoughts about this in case it helps future reviewers. While the article as-is I think covers the subject well, I've been considering adding in a column for the establishment years of the cities (which both the Ukrainian and Russian wiki articles have). That said, the main List of cities in Ukraine just sticks with admin. subdivision and population and I also don't want to overload the table with too much info so not sure if this would be a good addition. Also was thinking of adding into the lead a few sentences about which are the oldest cities, that many were created as part of industrialization and are tied to the mining industry, and maybe also some comments about the current status of some of the cities (e.g. the fact that Bakhmut, Mariupol, Avdiivka, etc. have been mostly destroyed during the full-scale invasion) but not sure if it makes sense here since these already fall in the Donetsk Oblast article's scope. Feel free to let me know y'all's thoughts on these and hopefully they help with ideas but happy to make whatever improvements I can to the article! Cheers, Dan the Animator 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- No article should start with "this is a list". Take a look at some other FLCs and come up with a more engaging opening sentence.
- Before nominating, I tried searching to see if there's other similar list of cities articles that're FL and found this: List of United States cities by population. Not the exam same type of article but it also starts off with "this is a list." If it helps though, I could take out that sentence and reword the next sentence to say:
There are currently 52 populated places in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine, that have been officially granted city status...by the Verkhovna Rada, the country's parliament.
- That list was promoted over 15 years ago and standards have changed massively since then. Your alternative suggestion sounds good for an opening -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it based on the above. Thanks again ChrisTheDude! :) Dan the Animator 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Before nominating, I tried searching to see if there's other similar list of cities articles that're FL and found this: List of United States cities by population. Not the exam same type of article but it also starts off with "this is a list." If it helps though, I could take out that sentence and reword the next sentence to say:
- "As of 1 January 2022, the largest city in the oblast is" => "As of 1 January 2022, the largest city in the oblast was" (2022 was two years ago)
- Fixed
- Other verbs in that sentence should also be in past tense
- Also fixed
- That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks ChrisTheDude! :) Dan the Animator 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Drive by comments
- Just like the first comment above saying no article should start with "this is a list", no article should have a reference to the list outside of the list itself. The sentence "The below list shows the English name, Ukrainian name, raion, 2001 census recorded population, 2022 population estimate, and population percent change for each city." does not seem to serve a purpose.
- Fixed
- "currently" not needed in first sentence.
- Fixed
- What do the numbers in the first column mean? Why is this column there?
- Fixed? when overhauling this article, I tried to base it on conceptually similar articles, primarily List of cities in Ukraine and others like List of cities in Australia by population and List of cities in Kansas. From my understanding and the way I've always used it, the column is a type of number ranking which allows readers to sort tables and have number rankings for each row, which can be quiet useful for finding out things like what's the 10th largest city in 2001/2022, how many cities saw 10%+ pop. change, etc. In case it helps, I added one of the template's title options "#" on the top of the column with some extra table code. That said, I saw other list articles such as List of cities in Canada and List of cities in the United Kingdom don't use it so I don't mind taking it out. The template also allows for the title "No." but I think "#" works just the same. Let me know what you think about it though.
- It's not common to have a link to a portal in the see also, would suggest removing both portals from the see also section.
- Removed
- Image alts could be more descriptive (for accessibility reasons)
- Fixed? Tried to make them more informative but let me know if I should reword/shorten/expand them.
- as could image captions (for example, "the largest city in Donetsk")
- same as above
- table completely unsourced, need refs for population columns in header.
- Fixed 2022 column; for the 2001 census results, I'm currently searching for a Ukrainian gov. website to add to that column though haven't had luck with finding a gov. source that lists all of them. I'll make sure to send a follow-up update when I find it!
- No need for external links subheading, just external links is fine
- Fixed
- Normally estimates would not be encyclopedic, but given the extenuating circumstances and lack of any recent census, I suppose this makes sense until the next census? Other than these points above, the article looks quite good! Many of them are vital before being promoted.
Mattximus (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, the Next Ukrainian census doesn't seem like it's happening anytime soon and with the current war, I don't think the statistics would be as useful anyways since they've been changing a lot frequently. Let me know if there's anything else I can do and many thanks Mattximus for all the comments!!! :D Dan the Animator 05:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, just two outstanding issues. First, it is critical to have a citation for the 2001 census populations, it cannot pass without this. Second, I do like your change to alphabetize the list (that makes it easier to update when the next census actually comes out), but I think the table should not include the number column as it doesn't serve the purpose beyond a count. Since it is a list of cities, the cities column should be the same colour as the headings. Mattximus (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Still working on the 2001 census citation but for the number column, I removed it. About the cities column shading, I haven't seen any table in a "List of cities" article that has it like that. I've looked through at least a dozen varied similar articles (also highly recommend checking out this to see how other articles do it) and they all use the same general shading (the only column that gets fully shaded in any of the tables I've seen is the number column (which I removed from this article per above) and not the cities column. Also don't think it would conceptually make sense to have that shading since both the English and Ukrainian name columns are both "cities columns" imo (and they both are exactly the same in functionality/formatting). Let me know though if I'm missing something and thanks again with the comments! :) Dan the Animator 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this is a requirement for the nomination, I just checked all featured lists of cities have it. I clicked on one at random: Cantons of Costa Rica which was one I put up for promotion. I know this is a requirement because I was asked to do it many times. Mattximus (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus can you post a link to other, more recent past FLs of cities (as many as you know of)? I don't think the article for Cantons of Costa Rica is a good comparison to this article since the Ukrainian equivalent of that article would be List of hromadas of Ukraine (or Raions of Ukraine depending how you look at it). Would help to see maybe some of the other FLs tho, especially if they're more recent (I noticed your FLN for Costa Rica is from 2016 but was wondering if they'd changed it since then). Thanks!!! Dan the Animator 17:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes this has been a policy for at least 8 years (it's in the MOS somewhere), common format for all featured lists in general. You can check out User:Mattximus and click on any of the 45 featured lists of cities/municipalities (the ones with a star beside them), there is also a more comprehensive list when you click on featured lists and scroll to find the cities lists. I clicked randomly to a whole bunch, and can't find any that didn't fit this standard, so I think it is a necessary change. Mattximus (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus can you post a link to other, more recent past FLs of cities (as many as you know of)? I don't think the article for Cantons of Costa Rica is a good comparison to this article since the Ukrainian equivalent of that article would be List of hromadas of Ukraine (or Raions of Ukraine depending how you look at it). Would help to see maybe some of the other FLs tho, especially if they're more recent (I noticed your FLN for Costa Rica is from 2016 but was wondering if they'd changed it since then). Thanks!!! Dan the Animator 17:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just for now based on missing citation for the entire 2001 census column (the link failed verification as it has similar but not identical numbers as the table here). And the format for the table seems to be incorrect. Specifically ,city name should be same colour as headings, and tables needs captions (|+ <caption_text>, or |+ <caption_text> if that text would duplicate a nearby section header). Table captions allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables, without having to read all prior text to provide context.). Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mattximus: Completely fixed the table/formatting issues. For the citation, would either of these sources (source A, source B) be acceptable? It's alright if not but given the complete 2001 census data increasingly seems like its not available online (and thus would probably be a book citation) and the Ukrainian language wiki page (which has recognized article status) uses the former source (the mashke.org one) in their version of the list, I wanted to ask. Many thanks again with everything and let me know if there's any other issues I can fix (and if the formatting for the table is alright now). Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Table is completely fixed, good work, but the one last citation problem remains. Is there anyone who can help find where these numbers come from? The links you provided give different numbers, and don't seem to come from any official document. But surely this document exists. Maybe another user has an idea? 19:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, Ymblanter, Mupper-san, Shwabb1, Yulia Romero, and Микола Василечко: pinging in case y'all have any advice about this (wasn't sure who to ping so sorry in advance for the bother!!!) Dan the Animator 00:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not particularly well-versed in the discussion, so do forgive if this isn't what is being talked about, but given the fact that mashke.org has an unclear source and (at least according to Firefox for me) has an unsafe connection, I would personally use the numbers included alongside the currently-used sources, as they're official documentation. As citypopulation.de cites mashke.org, I also wouldn't include it.
- Perhaps, it would be possible to e-mail Mr. Bespyatov (the owner of mashke.org, judging by the copyright at the bottom) and ask him for a source? Although I'm not quite sure.
- Mupper-san (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Mupper-san! :) I agree with the concerns for the two sources though the only official Ukrainian government source I could find lists the 2001 census results for only 28 of the 50+ cities in the oblast. Also, although my guess is he got the numbers from the physical records in Kyiv, I think contacting Mr. Bespyatov is a great idea! I'll send him an email in a moment and reply here if he follows up. Dan the Animator 04:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's on the 2001 census website. Go to Publications, download the file kl_2001.rar under "Кількість та територіальне розміщення населення України" (The number and territorial distribution of the population of Ukraine). Open the file 5.xls, you'll see the breakdown of population by raion/city/urban-type settlement. The data for Donetsk Oblast starts on row 552. Be aware that the names are before the decommunization laws (e.g., Artemivsk instead of Bakhmut). Shwabb1 (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Shwabb1!!!!! :D It worked perfectly and I accessed all the stats (only one of the numbers was off on the article thankfully tho). @Mattximus: I think that about finishes everything? Take a look and let me know if there's anything else to do. Dan the Animator 17:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall looks good, I only see two small mistakes: Krasnoarmiysk should be Krasnoarmiisk using official romanization (per WP:UAPLACE), and in the first citation "urban-type settlements" are mistranslated as "towns". Shwabb1 (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Shwabb1!!!!! :D It worked perfectly and I accessed all the stats (only one of the numbers was off on the article thankfully tho). @Mattximus: I think that about finishes everything? Take a look and let me know if there's anything else to do. Dan the Animator 17:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good now I will strike the oppose. I think there should be a heading "notes" just like references below and the note can go there instead of floating kind of below the table. I think the format of the reference needs a bit of work (I believe you need filetype for something like a rar?), but nothing here to oppose over. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Mattximus and Shwabb1!!!! :) I think I fixed basically all the above suggestions! For the new reference's formatting tho, I wasn't sure exactly how much needed changing but I added the
|format=
parameter in with a link to RAR which hopefully helps (feel free to let me know if there's anything else I can do tho). Dan the Animator 01:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Mattximus and Shwabb1!!!! :) I think I fixed basically all the above suggestions! For the new reference's formatting tho, I wasn't sure exactly how much needed changing but I added the
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- 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.! [[City|City name]]
becomes!scope=col | [[City|City name]]
. 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.|[[Amvrosiivka]]
becomes!scope=row |[[Amvrosiivka]]
, on its own line. 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 18:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: Done! The table should be completely fixed now. Let me know if there's any other formatting/other issues that I can fix. Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mattximus and PresN: after going through the article meticulously (with sourcing, formatting, and everything in between), completely addressing all the comments here and applying the feedback from my other related FLN for cities in Luhansk Oblast to this article as well, and considering that this list was nominated a month ago and hasn't received any new comments since June 11, I think it should be finally ready to pass. If there are any remaining issues with this article, please let me know but otherwise, I think its time to take this article out of the queue and promote it! Also pinging FL director for their insight @Giants2008:. Apologies all for the bother and many thanks for all the support! :) Dan the Animator 00:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the box at the top of WP:FLC: "The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus." This nomination currently has only a single support, which is not typically considered a consensus to promote. Unlike FAC, we don't typically archive nominations that don't get a lot of attention but instead let them stay a little longer, so don't worry, but please do be patient. --PresN 03:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks PresN for the reply! I was hoping when I pinged that you and Mattximus would give supports to this nom, which would bring the support count up to 3 which I think is the minimum needed for consensus? That said, I'm not too much in a rush; rather, since I have to take a semi-Wikibreak not long from now (in July) where I'll be able to edit but not too much, I was hoping to get this list as thoroughly checked and improved as possible so that when I nominate the remaining lists for this series, I won't have to make any major edits on those articles (they're all relatively similar too so whatever change I make one list likely would have to be made on the others, which is easier to do before those articles are created). I understand you all are busy so no worries about promoting but it would help a lot to know if I should expect to make additional changes. Cheers, Dan the Animator 23:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the box at the top of WP:FLC: "The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus." This nomination currently has only a single support, which is not typically considered a consensus to promote. Unlike FAC, we don't typically archive nominations that don't get a lot of attention but instead let them stay a little longer, so don't worry, but please do be patient. --PresN 03:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mattximus and PresN: after going through the article meticulously (with sourcing, formatting, and everything in between), completely addressing all the comments here and applying the feedback from my other related FLN for cities in Luhansk Oblast to this article as well, and considering that this list was nominated a month ago and hasn't received any new comments since June 11, I think it should be finally ready to pass. If there are any remaining issues with this article, please let me know but otherwise, I think its time to take this article out of the queue and promote it! Also pinging FL director for their insight @Giants2008:. Apologies all for the bother and many thanks for all the support! :) Dan the Animator 00:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: Done! The table should be completely fixed now. Let me know if there's any other formatting/other issues that I can fix. Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still getting an error on the citation for the 2001 census, is it just me? One more small change:
- Fixed? I think I accessed it using the link about a week ago but you're right! Don't know why both the archived and normal link stopped working. I switched it with the permanent, webpage link and added instructions on the ref of how to access the numbers. Let me know if its good now.
- The image captions seem to be incorrect, the are not the largest or smallest cities, as no land area was given. They are the most populous, least populous, have the second largest population, wording like that is more correct.
- Fixed
- That's it!
Mattximus (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Mattximus! :) Let me know if that fixes everything! Dan the Animator 16:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Things look great, but I still can't access the source for the 2001 statistics. I do believe this article needs a source review so whoever does that will give the go ahead and I'll agree with them since I'm not an expert on sourcing. Mattximus (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks @Mattximus:! :)
I saw that the Luhansk list is already in queue for a source review but not this one so not sure if there'll be a source review soon.About the source tho, how does it look on your end? Is it the link to the ukr gov stats website that doesn't work (it's an unsecure site so might help to check browser settings) or is it the RAR file download link that doesn't work (the instructions on the wikiref are supposed to help with this)? Dan the Animator 00:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks @Mattximus:! :)
- Things look great, but I still can't access the source for the 2001 statistics. I do believe this article needs a source review so whoever does that will give the go ahead and I'll agree with them since I'm not an expert on sourcing. Mattximus (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Staraction
- All images are relevant to the article
- All images are usage tagged properly (AGF on own works)
- All images have alt text except for the map in the infobox. Suggestion: the alt text has citation numbers (ie. [22]) for some images, those probably do not need to be in the alt text
- All images have relevant captions
Thanks for your work @Dan the Animator! Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by FL nominator
- @Mattximus, Steelkamp, Dajasj, and Chipmunkdavis: Many sorries for the bother but considering y'all's contribution to the other, very similar FLN for List of cities in Luhansk Oblast which got promoted a few days ago, and my completion of applying all the suggestions from that nom to this article, I thought I'd ping y'all in case any of y'all are interested taking (or retaking) a look at this list now and hopefully providing comments so the nom can advance. @PresN: thanks for doing the source review on the Luhansk list!!! :) Thought I'd ping here in case you're interested in doing this one too; also, they share about 70% of the same exact refs (plus a lot of shared content too) so most of the source review for this article you already technically did with the Luhansk review which I thought might make this one a lot easier/quicker to get through. Sorry again for any bothers and looking forward to any additional feedback and to getting this nom completed! Dan the Animator 03:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support from CMD
As the nominator noted above, I made comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities in Luhansk Oblast/archive1 which appear to have already been actioned here.
- Prose/lead.
- "...occupied all cities located..." might be clearer with a number, "...occupied all X cities located..."
- A number may also be helpful at "Additional cities were...", which may provide a route to reword/remove the "...while an additional two cities (Lyman and Sviatohirsk) have been recovered..." wording, as I am not sure "addition" is clear in meaning. Having numbers for both invasions and the counteroffensive means that there is no need for an "As of X date...", which might quickly appear dated.
- The final sentence is a tad confusing. Firstly, "occupation of the three reformed raions" is an odd pipe, all of the raions were reformed (removing "the" may solve this problem). Secondly, "including the cities of Bunhe, Chystiakove, Kalmiuske, and Khrestivka" is unclear, I assume those four are former cities of regional significance, but the preceding clause already states "reformed raions" so I would assume they are included by default. Lastly, "the three raions[b] and four cities' new names have only de jure status" seems to imply that the cities under Russian control outside of the 2015 occupation zone de facto use the new names, which would surprise me. It also reads oddly that the raion names are specifically pointed out, this list isn't about the raions and noting names specifically as de jure suggests that the raion otherwise operates de facto, which would also surprise me.
- Comprehensiveness: Comprehensive.
- Structure: Is one table, sortable.
- Style: Not necessarily my strong point, but the decorative images are all licenced as is the locator map. There is a "Jump to table of cities" for mobile access. Alt text is present on all images bar the infobox, which does not seem to have the feature encoded.
- Stability: Stable.
As with the previous review this is a novel interwiki usage, but I don't see how it affects the FLCR. I do think this article (and similar ones) would be served well by dropping the locator infobox and replacing it with a map of the Oblast showing the various city locations, but that is also not a FLCR requirement. In summary, questions for FLCR1/2 and no questions for the other FLCR. CMD (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks @CMD: for the review! I think all the suggestions should be addressed. I applied some of the rewording and moved some of the other confusing content into efn notes. Also, thanks for the suggestion with the map! Added it and I think it turned out perfect! (props to Tone for their exceptional work on the UNESCO FL maps which helped a ton with creating this map)! :) I'll also apply these edits to the other lists if you think they're alright CMD but let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve these lists! Thanks again! Dan the Animator 04:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The suggestions were addressed, the efn notes help and nice work finding relevant sources. Hopefully more secondary sources emerge on the topic, it is an area not currently well covered on en.wiki. I had a look and could not find a source linking the 2020 raions with the 2015 era occupation (the current primary source used does not support "by 2015"). However, I did find this source, which mentions the DPR and LPR continuing to use the old names (page 10), and has a list of renamed places and whether they are occupied (pages 84-89). It uses the old raions, but it has relevant dates and names that can supplement the existing sources for "by 2015" and those in the efn notes. CMD (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks CMD! I added in your source into the names efn together with some additional sources. I added a complementary source for the primary ref I think you're talking about (the "About the boundaries and list of raions...temporarily occupied" ref): journalist's David Gormezano France 24 piece characterizes the main Donbas war phase as "April 2014 – February 2015" and also says in that section "On February 12, 2015, the so-called Minsk II agreements formalised the de facto partition of Ukrainian territory...In the years that followed, and until the full-scale Russian attack on February 24, 2022, small-scale attacks and artillery fire hardly ever ceased, without the line of contact between the forces really moving." which should be enough imo to back up the 2015 year (most of the cities were actually occupied in 2014 but due to Debaltseve, I think the wording "by 2015" is more accurate. To sum up, the "About the boundaries" ref verifies which cities were occupied during the Donbas war while the France 24 piece backs up the claim that the occupations of cities during the Donbas war happened between April 2014 and February 2015.
- About the use of the 2020 raions when talking about the 2014-2015 occupation: its mostly done out of concision than any actual connection between the two (technically, the new raions' boundaries were decided with consideration of what territories were occupied by DPR/LPR forces at the time so the area could be easier to govern (at least as far as I know) but aside from that, there isn't any actual meaningful connection between the new raions and what areas are occupied). Using the new raions saves on words and makes it easier to understand since there's no caveat to which cities in the raions are occupied and which aren't (for the older raions, since many of the cities are also municipalities, there'd be a need to either list all 21 cities occupied or separately list all the occupied city municipalities and raions, both of which would be unduly and more confusing imo). Let me know if it'd help to find a source mentioning/discussing this rationale for the boundaries for the new raions.
- Let me know if there's anything I'm missing or anything else that can be improved and whether this list is ready for promotion! Thanks, Dan the Animator 23:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have an issue using the new raions, just wish there was more research on the matter. More sources would help of course, surely someone somewhere has looked up how the de facto raions function in reality and what provisions are in place for the raions that don't exist in reality yet? But, for the purposes of this article the sources are now enough that the list is ready for promotion. CMD (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah got it. I definitely agree more research should be done regarding Ukrainian administrative laws and reforms. About the de facto/de jure raions, as far as I understand it, the de facto raions function as they've always had in the pre-2022 occupied territories while for newly occupied territories, my guess would be it mostly affects the number of Russia-appointed representatives certain administrative entities get, what sort of government websites/digital representation the Russian government gives those entities, how the areas subordinated to those entities are referred to in Russian law, and, at least on paper, how much money/funding goes to each district (although I think its fair to say a lot of that money gets siphoned off by those Russia-appointed representatives or by Russia itself). Probably also a few other miscellaneous things but those are the main "practical effects" of the de facto raions. For de jure raions, its mostly just having websites in some cases (I remember reading a law regarding Crimea's new raions which mandated creating representation of the raions, which would likely include websites), and how the territories subordinated to new raions are referred to in laws (both in Ukraine and by others).
- I think one of the reasons why there hasn't really been any research into the "prospective" raions is because they didn't actually exist, either de jure or de facto, until relatively recently (the "occupied terr. admin. reform date" efn note elaborates on this caveat a bit more). And with the ongoing invasion and considerable budget strain of the Ukrainian government, I doubt they've been able to do anything meaningful in the way of these raions imo. Not sure if my reply really answers your question or helps too much but hope its interesting. Thanks again for the review and great suggestions (and the source)! :) Dan the Animator 02:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have an issue using the new raions, just wish there was more research on the matter. More sources would help of course, surely someone somewhere has looked up how the de facto raions function in reality and what provisions are in place for the raions that don't exist in reality yet? But, for the purposes of this article the sources are now enough that the list is ready for promotion. CMD (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The suggestions were addressed, the efn notes help and nice work finding relevant sources. Hopefully more secondary sources emerge on the topic, it is an area not currently well covered on en.wiki. I had a look and could not find a source linking the 2020 raions with the 2015 era occupation (the current primary source used does not support "by 2015"). However, I did find this source, which mentions the DPR and LPR continuing to use the old names (page 10), and has a list of renamed places and whether they are occupied (pages 84-89). It uses the old raions, but it has relevant dates and names that can supplement the existing sources for "by 2015" and those in the efn notes. CMD (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC) [20].[reply]
We are trying to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made some excellent changes to this article and together we would like to create a template that can be used on the other Spanish provinces, eventually bringing them up to featured list status. This one may require some significant peer editing as it is the first one for Spain, but it will pay off as it can be replicated in the other Spanish provinces. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- There seems to be a mish-mash of US and UK English used, given that I can see both "The organisation of the municipalities" and "Municipalities are categorized". As the subject matter relates to a non-English speaking country it probably doesn't matter which type of English is used, but whichever one it is should be consistent throughout.
- Found this one instance and fixed, but are there others? Should be consistent now.
- "A further concejal is added for every additional 100,000 inhabitants, although the figure can never be an odd one" - does this not contradict the previous sentence, which sets out the different levels of concejales based on population and every figure is an odd one?
- I assume it means you can never add an odd number as that would make the total even? I will try to reword.
- That was my fault. I meant actually the contrary, that the final figure can never be an even one because that would allow for draws when voting any matter. But I don't think it's correct now either. I'll try to explain. We have 25 at 100,000. At 200,000, we add one and we should have 26, but, given that it's an even number, we get an additional one (27) to solve the issue. When the population reaches 300,000, a further concejal is added, so we get 27 again. I think the current wording would mean that we get 27 at 200,000 and 29 at 300,000, which is not the case. Can we maybe twitch it, Mattximus? Alavense (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust you guys to figure this out between you :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my fault. I meant actually the contrary, that the final figure can never be an even one because that would allow for draws when voting any matter. But I don't think it's correct now either. I'll try to explain. We have 25 at 100,000. At 200,000, we add one and we should have 26, but, given that it's an even number, we get an additional one (27) to solve the issue. When the population reaches 300,000, a further concejal is added, so we get 27 again. I think the current wording would mean that we get 27 at 200,000 and 29 at 300,000, which is not the case. Can we maybe twitch it, Mattximus? Alavense (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes my wording is incorrect. I reworded it. Does this new wording make sense? Mattximus (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I meant, Mattximus. Now it's fine. We are happy now, ChrisTheDude. Thanks. Alavense (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Both concerns addressed! Mattximus (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Staraction
- All images relevant to the article; consider replacing the gallery with images to the side of the table? If so, just adding the four most populous municipalities might be a little too bland. Maybe have images of other municipalities that are interesting in other ways featured as images. Although - this comment is mostly just from personal taste.
- I'm not sure about this one. I think being the most populated municipalities in the province also makes them the most relevant and the ones that should be highlighted with the images.
- Placing images on the side does cause some accessibility issues on small screens like phones I believe. Mattximus (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about this one. I think being the most populated municipalities in the province also makes them the most relevant and the ones that should be highlighted with the images.
- Captions relevant to the images (maybe for the second, black-and-white map, "Map of municipalities in the province of Albacete"?
- Done.
- All images have alt text except for the second, black-and-white map, captioned "Municipalities in the province of Albacete"
- Done.
- All images under appropriate license. AGF on self-published works.
Thanks for your good work @Mattximus & @Alavense! Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review, Staraction. I've made the changes you suggested, except for the first one, because I'm not sure about that. Kind regards. Alavense (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks fine! Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
- "Municipalities enjoy a large degree of autonomy in their local affairs." "in their local affairs" is to vague, Maybe "in local administration".
- Agreed, made change.
- "elected by universal suffrage on a list system". You need to give details of the list system used.
- I will let Alavense respond to this one, I'm only party sure it means the registration list alluded to early in the article where everyone registers to a municipality. Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the information about that, Dudley Miles. I hope it's now easier to understand. Alavense (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "junta de gobierno local". A translation would be helpful.
- did a translation but not sure if 100% correct, will defer to Alavense's Spanish.
- I'm happy with that - Alavense.
- It would make the article more attractive to have more photos.
- Added two more, any more required?
- I suggest putting a selection of images on the right of the table. It is a narrow table compared with many, so should cause less problems on phones provided a fixed width such as px is not used. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really see how this can be an improvement, Dudley Miles. How many images should we add? Amongst the most recently promoted lists, I see some with fewer (or even no) images than this one. Anyway, we already had a map highlighting the province inside Spain, another map with every single municipality located and a selection of images for the most populous municipalities in a tidy row. Now, we have more images, but it's still an arbitrary selection. However, they are not in a tidy row anymore. Besides, I think it's less comfortable for those readers using the mobile app, because they have to scroll to find a table (which is, after all, the most important thing in the list) which has sunk further down. Alavense (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All three items in 'Works cited' have error messages.
- I tried these and they all work for me, but maybe Alavense knows?
- The error messages go to Category:CS1 maint: date and year. There is a script which displays the errors, but I cannot remember which one. You should be able to get advice at User talk:Trappist the monk. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't be able to use a computer until at least tomorrow, but I tried to fix it. Is it okay now? - Alavense.
- OK. The error messages have gone now. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'External links' links heading for commons looks odd and is better deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Mattximus (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I disagree on images, but that is a matter of personal preference. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – All of the references appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and no problems were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC) [21].[reply]
- Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A high-level overview of Green Bay Packers team records. Note, per WP:NOTSTATS, I tried to stick to the most notable and commonly reported records, and avoided to the best of my ability to dive too much into sports almanac or statbook territory. As always, happy to address any concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
Drive by comments, I'll be back for a full review later on:
- A number of these year ranges use 4 digits for the second part of the range while others only use 2 digits.
- Under the team achievements section, most of the items in that should be changes to title case (I'll call it out more specifically in the full review depending on what changes are made before I get to it)
- "Single season" vs "single-season" – You used "single season", but most refs tend to use "single-season". I believe "single-season" is correct.
- Rushing touchdowns in a single game, needs an "&" when listing the people
As mentioned, I'll be back for a thorough review. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh, I addressed all of them except the title case, which I will wait for your full review. Note that if a date range covers a transition from 1999 to 2000, the years should be expanded to 4 digits. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Ref 6 – Should be Green Bay Packers 2023 instead
- Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of refs – Shouldn't these be "Green Bay Packers (2023)" instead of "Green Bay Packers 2023"? This isn't a ref format I'm super comfortable or confident in, but, given the source listed above as "Green Bay Packers (2023)", I thought it best if they matched
- No, per the {{Sfn}} template, this is how it is supposed to be. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't particularly LOVE FootballDB.com as a source, but I recognize that PFR is lacking in some of the stats they provide for free. Has footballDB.com ever been evaluated for reliability at any of the relevant boards? I would appreciate a recognized reliable source outside of PFR for statistics.
- I replaced that FootballDB sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Team achievements table:
- Downcase "Titles" to "titles" in all of these headers
- Downcase "Wild Card Berths" to "Wild card berths"
- Downcase "Playoff Appearances" to "Playoff apperances"
- Downcase "NFL Title Game Appearances" to "NFL Title Game appearances"
- Downcase "Super Bowl Appearances" to "Super Bowl appearances"
- Downcase "All-time Record" to "All-time record"
- Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Single-game records -> Kicking -> Field goals made – Wikilink Ryan Longwell and Mason Crosby
- Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A number of these "seasons leading the league in xyz" under the notable records section could be wikilinked to the annual lists in Category:Lists of National Football League annual leaders, particularly for the instances where it's an NFL record.
- Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you calling out ties for NFL records? I see ties / most recent person to accomplish a feat listed for non-records. I'm looking at most safeties in a season specifically, where there's apparently been 19 other players who have also accomplished 2 safeties in a single season. Another example would be longest reception (99 yards).
- I am not doing that. Do you think it is necessary? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Other notable records -> Offense -> Most seasons leading league in lowest interception percentage – Should call out minimum number of attempts to qualify.
- The source doesn't provide this. My assumption is that each season had to qualify, but that would likely be OR. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Other notable records -> Offense -> Most seasons leading league in receiving yards – Stray "pg 292" in text which looks like it was meant to be in the ref
- Deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note i, for sacks becoming an official stat in 1982 – Can you tweak this note to state whether this is counting that or not? I know we have stats available for 1960–1981, and though these are unofficial, we both know the NFL and teams often count them as if they were. Could be a useful clarifying point, though, it looks like it doesn't make a difference to who holds the record.
- Clarified. The Packers restrict these totals to post-1982, so I will here too. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Career records -> Special teams -> Yards per punt (net) – What's the threshold to qualify? I'll note that PFR uses a threshold of 250 punts for career punting stats, which would mean it probably should be Tim Masthay for this as well
- Added threshold and fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Single-season records -> Offense -> QB rating – No qualifying threshold stated.
- Added threshold. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Use "&" instead of a comma to separate the two players, as it looks like that's what you're trying to do throughout.
- Single-game records -> Offense -> Passing -> Attempts
- Single-game records -> Offense -> Passing -> Yards
- Single-game records -> Special teams -> Punting -> Punts
- Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Other notable records -> Offense -> Most consecutive seasons leading league in total touchdowns – Close the brackets
- Brackets closed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's all I've got, good stuff Gonzo! Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thorough review Hey man im josh. I have addressed everything except two items, where I provided responses. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't necessarily think it's necessary to call out when something noted as an NFL record is a tie. I think it might be nice to have it as T-NFL record in the bracket to make it clear, but I won't be a stickler for it. Source review passed, support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Staraction
- All images have alt text
- All images are appropriately licensed (WP:AGF on self-published works)
- All images are relevant to the article
- Captions:
- "Blake Martinez set the Packers' record for most tackles in 2019 with 203." -> "Blake Martinez set the Packers' record for most tackles in a single game in 2019 with 203."
- "Billy Howton had 257 receiving yards in a 1956 game, the Packers' record for a single-game."
@Gonzo fan2007 I think that's it from me! Thanks for the nomination, as someone who doesn't follow American football very closely it was an interesting read. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the image review Staraction! I fixed both captions, although Martinez's record was for a single season, not a single game :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good! Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 13:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Alavense
- Since entering the NFL, the team has won 13 championships (the most in NFL history), including nine NFL Championships prior to 1966 and four Super Bowls, which is inclusive of two additional NFL Championships won during the AFL–NFL merger. - As per MOS:NUMNOTES, "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".
- 40 years later - Figures at the beginning of a sentence should be avoided.
- "phenomena" is the plural of "phenomenon", so a relatively recent phenomena doesn't make sense.
- In the first table, it should say "Ref." as there's only one. Please include the "." and maybe you can use {{abbr}}.
- over a two season period - "a two-season period".
- I see a lack of consistency when it comes to the saxon genitive: Donald Driver holds the Packers record but Davante Adams set the Packers' single-season receiving records. There are several instances of this.
- In the notes, Minimum one attempt per game to qualify but Minimum 1 kick return per game to qualify.
That's all I saw, Gonzo fan2007. Nice work. Alavense (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review Alavense! I implemented the first five bullets and the last one. Regarding the saxon genitive, does there need to be consistency? I often try not to be repetitive, so there is some purposeful change to sentence structure and diction. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the edits. Support. Alavense (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.