Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

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


List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Alain Prost

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 09:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Until Michael Schumacher broke his record in 2001, Alain Prost had won the most Formula One Grands Prix. He won 51 in total, on his way to four world championship titles. He also developed a famous rivalry with Ayrton Senna that got quite nasty at times. This list follows the style of existing FLs, List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher and List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna. I have an open FLC, but it has three supports and no outstanding concerns. As always, all feedback gratefully received. Harrias talk 09:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments A WikiCup submittable review.

  • "in 1980 with" not keen on the easter eggs. At the least I think you should write out the first one fully.
  • Image caption needs a full stop.
  • McLaren is mentioned six times in the first five sentences, mildly repetitive.
  • "world championship with" plural.
  • " featured particularly notable race incidents and collisions occurring between the two" probably no need at all for "particularly notable".
  • "He missed out on the world championship in 1990 " quick repeat of "in 1990", maybe "that season" instead?
  • A little odd for me, you cover his world titles before his first win, yet this article is about his wins. I wonder if it'd be better the other way round.
  • "won seven races in 1993 to win" won .. to win... again, a bit repetitive.
  • ", at both of which he won five times" maybe "winning five times at both"?
  • You could mention that he won one of his races by a mere fraction of a second?
  • "Autodromo Nazionale Monza" our article calls it "Autodromo Nazionale di Monza"
  • Not sure Phoenix Street Circuit should be thus capitalised, it's just a "street circuit" in Phoenix, not like a track.
  • "Circuit Zandvoort" doesn't need to be piped to a redirect back to itself.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

List of counties in Washington

Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 22:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We have 21 other county lists as FLs, hope this one, being up to date with additional information, can make it 22! Should be pretty straightforward but there may be other information that could be mentioned or revised. Reywas92Talk 22:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica episodes

Nominator(s): I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 20:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

In Summer 2018, Deidaramonroe nominated List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica episodes for FLC status. It failed. However, I, self-named I'm Aya Syameimaru!, was influenced by Deidaramonroe's actions to take this back here. I responded to TompaDompa's comments in the 2018 review and fulfilled it well. Now I nominated this FLC status, so this should succeed. I'm Aya Syameimaru! I 文々。新聞 20:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Support: Nicely sourced, good intro and summaries. Great work! DarkFallenAngel (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Rugby League World Cup hat-tricks

Nominator(s): WDM10 (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it contains everything needed to become a featured list such as a good lead and a clear table. WDM10 (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments I shall submit this review to the WikiCup.

List of international cricket centuries at Eden Gardens

Nominator(s): Dey subrata (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

After working with many other lists and helped some list to become Featured Lists, I improved the article with all required information, citations and structure. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria per WP:WIAFL and has a scope of getting FL status. I welcome to all comments and suggestions regarding this nomination. Dey subrata (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson on screen and stage

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson is an American actress who has starred in films such as Lost in Translation, and more recently in Marriage Story and Jojo Rabbit. Her most prominent role to date is as Black Widow in the highly successful MCU film franchise. This is a list which covers all of her screen and stage roles to date. As always I welcome all constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC) and Hwy43 (talk)

After a several year hiatus, we return with our 11th (out of 13) municipalities nomination with the goal of bringing the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status and eventual featured topic. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We have also taken suggestions from the previous 10 nominations into account for this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thanks for your input. Mattximus (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I appreciate that this one does not have duplicate pages with cities/towns in redundant articles.
  • I like the map a lot
  • The line about St. John's population and area is states twice within three sentences of each other at the end of the lead and start of cities
  • I believe the lead is considered independent of the body, and must summarize the body, no?
  • Yes, but avoid having the same sentence with the same words duplicated twice in a row.
  • I think I might be missing something but the St. John's population is mentioned twice. Once in the second to last sentence in the lead, and once again in the second sentence of the first section. These two sentences are similar but are not duplicated. Which is what the lead should do. Please let me know what I'm missing, this is pretty much standard on all pages I can think of...
  • How is this? I am partial to still somehow mentioning St. John’s status as provincial capital in the Cities section, so long as in a manner that duplicates how presented in the lead. Hwy43 (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The BC list has a short paragraph about municipal elections and government, might be good to list something like that showing the difference between how cities and towns work
  • This is not terribly detailed. It follows the Municipal Elections Act which is simply mayor and councilors elected in a general election. No difference between town or city I believe. I added the slight difference in Inuit communities already (which is the same, but different terminology for mayor). What do you think?
  • Okay I looked at the act and it didn't seem very interesting. Reywas92Talk 19:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps have some notes on the distribution of municipalities, e.g. how many on Labrador vs Newfoundland
  • Added phrase on the 13 towns in Labrador, and all Inuit communities.  Done
  • Scratch that, it wasn't in the source provided... hmm... Ok found the source, and it matches the map so it should be good.  Done
  • "total population" would be better than "cumulative population" since it's a simple sum, not counting up from a certain point
  • Nice catch.  Done
  • Surely there's a more interesting picture than that of Paradise
  • Traditionally we pick an image from the largest municipalities to place above the table, in this case I couldn't find *any* images of either Conception Bay South or Mount Pearl so had to go to the fourth and fifth largest, Corner Brook and Paradise. I'm more than happy to replace those images if something better is found.

Reywas92Talk 20:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick comments! I've addressed all comments above, most are complete and a few require your input. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • The last change works fine, just felt weird reading the same facts twice in three sentences. Nice work, support! Reywas92Talk 19:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Reywas92. Hwy43 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I can't find anything to pick up at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Emilia Clarke

Nominator(s): -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it contains all up-to-date awards and nominations with correct sourcing. The tables also adhere MOS:DTAB. As always, I would appreciate any comments. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Source check

  • PR Newswire isn't an RS
  • Inconsistent linking of the publisher/owner
  • Inconsistent use of the publisher/owner
  • Inconsistent linking of the publication

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Guerillero, I believe I addressed all of the sourcing comments. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Torrens Trophy

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the Torrens Trophy, an award given to those who improve the status of motorcycling in the United Kingdom. I believe this list meets the criteria to become a featured list and am welcome to all comments regarding this nomination. MWright96 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from CAPTAIN MEDUSA
  • In the table, change "No award" to Not awarded.
  • Add a short description.

After you have made these changes, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimers: I don't know what I'm doing, but I'll probably claim Wikicup points anyway.
  • It may be that I'm not up to speed on table formatting ... but
Year Image Recipient Nationality Citation Ref(s)
1982– 1989
Not awarded

seems prefereable to

Year Image Recipient Nationality Citation Ref(s)
Not awarded
    • FLC criteria:
    • 1. Prose is good to go.
    • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
    • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
    • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
    • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it's not a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
    • 4. It is navigable.
    • 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but this isn't an image review).
    • 6. It is stable.
  • Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thinking about it, it would be more aesthetically pleasing with the "no award" rows merged.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    • MWright96, if that works for you, I can make the changes. (It's a little tricky, it needs something like width="3%" to keep the first column from expanding.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

England cricket team Test results (1975–1989)

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 20:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The next in the series, follows the format established in the previous FLs. I have hopefully applied all the comments and feedback from those lists into this one, but I'm sure you'll all find plenty to bring up nevertheless! As always, all feedback appreciated. Harrias talk 20:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Forgot to mention: IMO this doesn't need a short description, because the article title covers it, but YMMV. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I genuinely can't see anything to pick up on. Nice one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments I'll add this to my WikiCup submissions.

  • Hey Guerillero, Is this a source review? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 06:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
    @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: I think so. I didn't do a dive into if the citations back up the statements, just looking at the overall constancy of the citation style and the reliableness of the sources. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Guerillero, for letting me know, added to awating promotion. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1977

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The latest in my lists of country number one songs. So far 40 of these have been promoted to FL and another one looks on its way, so here's the potential #42, covering a year in which Waylon Jennings had the year's biggest hit with a song celebrating a town which a few years earlier had a population of 3 people and an alcoholic pig called Oink Van Gogh (true story - allegedly.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Forgot to mention: people are increasingly asking for short descriptions these days ... but in this case, it seems to me that the article title has all the information you'd want in a short description. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – all comments addressed. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Older nominations

Jennifer Aniston filmography

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Aniston is mostly known as the 'Rachel'. She has appeared in many films, telefilms, video games, etc. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Support, thank you for addressing. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured listing as a companion piece to Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire, which became a Featured List last year. Together, I think they may be the only Grade I and Grade II* listed building county lists for England and Wales which have articles and images for every entry, although it's quite possible I'm wrong about that. With over 240 entries, this is obviously a major collaborative effort, but I'd like to record particular thanks to KTC, who began the list, and Tryptofish, sadly no longer editing, who helped me enormously when my head was throbbing over some devilish coding issues. Any and all comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: It's a beautiful list. Ping me if this doesn't pick up a support in the next two weeks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That’s very kind. It provided a wonderful excuse for visits to a county I love very much. We’ll see how it fares and you can expect a ping! KJP1 (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Bilorv

(Planning to submit this review for WikiCup points.)

Bilorv - Many thanks for the review. Very helpful and I shall get right on to these. KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Bilorv - Aside from the three questions above, I hope I've addressed all of the concerns. Could you take a look and let me know if you're satisfied. Thanks once again for the detailed review. KJP1 (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Couple of typo fixes here. Responded inline to anything that still needs addressing; everything else is fine. — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Bilorv - Had a go at rewording Llanarth Court. Any clearer? KJP1 (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this is sufficient. No outstanding issues so it's a support from me, noting that I haven't reviewed criterion 5(b) (image licenses), nor done a specialised source review. — Bilorv (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks indeed - for the review and the Support. KJP1 (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Sources all appear reliable and are what you'd expect for such a list. Some spot checks of online sources did not uncover any issues. buidhe 07:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe - Many thanks indeed for reviewing the Sources. KJP1 (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by TRM

(Planning to submit this review for WikiCup points.)

The Rambling Man - TRM, many thanks indeed, for the review and the Support. I’ve asked RexxS to advise on accessibility issues, and will pick this up again if he has the chance to do so. KJP1 (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by RexxS

I've tidied the css markup for the rows: classes and styles are best marked up separately.
I can't see why Church Farmhouse, Caldicot should be class="without_image", so I've set it to class="with_image". Please reset that if I've misunderstood. By the way, those classes don't actually seem to do anything at present.
I've added all 218 row headers with proper scopes, and I've reset the font-weight of the header cells to normal weight on the assumption that is what is desired. I can easily remove the font-weight:normal if you would prefer your row headers to contain bold text. Below is a quick accessibility review while I'm here. In brief: acceptable accessibility given the constraints of a list article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
RexxS - Hugely appreciate the time, and the infinite trouble you've taken. You didn't misunderstand Church Farmhouse at all. It was one of the last five or so shots I added, after a trip down a few weeks back (that seems a looong time ago now!), and I forgot to reset the class to "with image". Many, many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Accessibility review
Topic Comments MoS link
Text Size: No text is below 85% of the basic font size. MOS:FONTSIZE
  • Information: No information is given by colour alone.
  • Contrast: All text meets WCAG AAA standard.
  • Caption: There is no caption, but the table is placed immediately after a relevant heading, making a caption less important.
  • Structure: The table is arranged as simply as possible.
  • Headers, Scopes: The table has column and row headers, and scopes are correctly indicated.
  • Alt text: The alt text is simply the name of the building, not terribly helpful to a screen reader, but better than having them hear the filename.
  • No fixed size: The images in the table are constrained to a maximum of 150px in either dimension, but images in a list are not likely to benefit from scaling via users' preferences.

Comments from SN54129

Bloody nice looking thing this, KJP1, and very little left for me to say. Just to clarify Bilorv's point wrt copyright, Cadw is under the auspices of the Welsh Government who release the contents under n Open Government License ([2])), which—with minor exceptions—is compatible with our CC-BY-SA requirements. I know you resolved the matter for now, but it might come in useful if you undertake a similar project in the future.

This is a technical thing, and maybe RexxS knows (I'm sure he does!), but is it possible to make each image the same width, flush in its box? Apologies if that's a perennial noob question :)

Should the ref Clark, Arthur (1980) be swapped in position for the 1979 cite?

More of a psssing rumination, but I've never quite understood the philosophy of using harvard referncing for books but full refs for web pages. Why not, for example, Sfn, for example. But I have to assume it's a done thing if others do it!

Is there a reason (perhaps customary, apologies again of this comes up all the time) that Listed buildings in Wales and Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire are "See also", rather than linked on first use? It strikes me as being rather more useful to the reader to know what he's reading about before he starts the list than after...

Also on the "See also", alphbetise the list?

I wonder if it's possible to give the reason for listing each building/structure? The obvious answer is age, but that being the case, say how old. For example, a couple of times you mention "dating from..." or "14th-century...", nt in most cases there's no indication of age.

Hope this is OK with you KJP1, feel free, as ever, to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about : ——SN54129 13:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 and KJP1: it's a trivial matter to make all of these images the same width (give or take a pixel or two): you just replace 150x150px with 150x200px in each row of the table. The image syntax is designed so that the numbers indicate the maximum size of <width x height> that the image will be scaled to. Since almost all of the images have close to a 4:3 aspect ratio (as far as I can see), they are currently either <150px by 112px> or <112px by 150px> – so they have the same area regardless of whether they are portrait or landscape. If you change to maxima of 150x200px, the landscape images will stay the same and the portrait ones will enlarge to 150px by 200px – same width, but they will look bigger. It's an aesthetic decision: same width or same area. I've made a demo so you can compare at User:RexxS/CADW demo. You can see there are a few portrait images that need to be slightly taller because they are 3:2 aspect ratio (try setting 150x225px). See what you think. --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129,RexxS - First, 54129, thanks very much indeed for taking a look. It's appreciated. I shall go through your helpful suggestions, but it will be tomorrow before I can get to them. Second, thanks RexxS for the demo. Personally, I like it a lot, even though it does highlight the fact that some of the images, many of which are mine, are more foliage than building! Some of those, private, homes are damn difficult to get to. I'd be very grateful if RexxS could make the change on the article itself, but perhaps let's wait a bit to see if there are any contrary views. I'll ping in a few days. Hope both of you, and yours, are keeping well in these challenging times. KJP1 (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comment - note 2 seems a bit meta to me. I'd be inclined to remove it, and in cases like Gunter Mansion just put something like "Comprises three separate listings" followed by the three refs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Britney Spears

Nominator(s): Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I am resubmit this nominating for featured list of List of awards and nominations received by Britney Spears because the last time I've been here in December 2019 and it takes me about 3 months long to improve my work and I think this page maybe already near the FL criteria better than my last time. Let me know which part that still I need to be solve and make improvements. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Drive-by comment - the lead seriously needs editing by someone whose first language is English and who isn't such a Britney superfan. Stuff like "She received the MTV Video Vanguard Award [...] for her Iconic Performances, Iconic Career, Huge Influence, and Impact On Music, Great Discography and Breath Taking Music Videos" is completely unencylopedic and not really coherent English, and "she became the First Teen female artist in history" is just nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • More specific comments on the lead
    • "Spears is regarded as a Pop Icon, World Princess of Pop, Fashion Icon, and Pop Legend and is credited by critics with influencing the revival of Teen Pop during the late 1990s." - all unsourced and wholly inappropriate and unencyclopedic PR-type nonsense. I find it hard to believe that many people really think of Spears as a "fashion icon", and the other three basically all mean the same thing.
    • "She is a pioneer." - of what? Completely meaningless.
    • "Besides, Princess of Pop is an honorific nickname most commonly associated with Britney Spears" - unsourced, completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia and debatable whether it's even true.
    • "she became the First Teen female artist in history" - unless there are quite a few words missing, this is just nonsense
    • "garnered honorific titles including the "Queen Of Pop", "Empress Of Pop" and "The Ultimate Femme Fatale Pop Icon."" - more PR rubbish which does not belong in an encyclopedia even if sourced
    • "No. 1 at the US Billboard 200 chart[1]." - "on the chart", not "at", also the ref should do after the punctuation
    • "The album spawned worldwide massive hits" - peacock terms which really need to be re-written
    • "all the 5 singles in this album peaked at Billboard 100 chart" - doesn't make any sense
    • Why is Grammy Awards in italics?
    • "the album also was nominated for Grammy Awards in the Best Female Pop Vocal Performance and holds the record for[...] best-selling teenage artist of all time" - how can an album hold this record?
    • "fastest most no. 1 in UK chart" - I don't even understand what this is meant to mean
    • "holds the record for [...] 5th Best Selling Female Artist in Music History" - you can't hold the record for being fifth best at something
  • TBH, given that I found all of those issues in less than two paragraphs, I think the article needs such a major overhaul that at this point it's an oppose from me........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – agree with Chris. Get this copyedited by someone efficient in English and isn't a superfan. Plus, date formats are inconsistent, lead is a mess, many refs don't seem like RS's ( obviously seems like a fan site), among other things. – zmbro (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to the director/delegates - the nominator has attempted to archive this nom him/herself, which I am pretty sure isn't allowed, so I have reverted, but he/she clearly wants to withdraw it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Noted. I've fixed it as described by ChrisTheDude and zmbro. First, lead is a mess and I've made a whole new lead which is better than before. Secondly, all the dates now are consistent. Again, let me know which part that I need still to fix it. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johhnyfrankie13: as suggested before, please please please get someone whose native language is English to copy-edit the lead (I suggest trying WP:GOCE). I counted at least 10 grammar errors in the first two paragraphs....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I've already put the copy-edit template on the top of the award's page, but it's been 4 days since I put the template and nothing has changed. I'm sorry if I was wrong because I'm still new to Wikipedia. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem, let's see if you get a response -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Giorgio Moroder

Nominator(s): Leo Mercury (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the article mentions all the most important awards won by the artist and it meets the criteria. Leo Mercury (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

List of countries by Human Development Index

Nominator(s): ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I've done some substantial work here and would really like to see this very important list with two million readers annually promoted to a featured list. I've never been through GA/FA/FL before so this is all new to me, but I will happily put in the necessary work to improve the article. It has improved a ton since 2009 when it was removed as an FL and the concerns at the very short FLRC have been addressed. Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: FLs do not begin with "This is a list of..." – zmbro (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Fixed by Chidgk1 (Thanks!) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The lede needs quite a bit of work work. Also, please see MOS:ACCESS --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 22:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for the comments! I am not that good a prose writer and would appreciate some more specific suggestions for the lede, Chidgk1 made some improvements, but I'm sure it could be improved further. Regarding accessibility I have gone through the entirety of MOS:ACCESS and found some potential issues. First of all there is WP:RESOL which I believe it passes as it doesn't require any horizontal scrolling at 1024×768 and well smaller than that as well. There were some issues with MOS:COLOR such as low contrast colored text for the low/medium/high HDI labels which I have made black to avoid the issue. The maps could also have a more accessible color palette and I plan on changing the color palette to be better for color blind people using Color Brewer 2.0 this weekend. The tables follow WP:DTAB with the header scopes well defined and both tables being used for appropriate purposes. Images have alt text and captions as appropriate and the information in the maps are also available in the main table. I am currently also installing a screen reader to see how it works. If there was anything I missed please tell me and I will do my best to address it. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Chidgk1:
  • If you put the actual rank and actual HDI columns next to each other, and the change columns next to each other I guess that would reduce the sort symbols by 2 but would it be better?
  • Once you have it in good shape you could document how to best update it with next year's figures - either on the talk page or as hidden text in the article.
  • It would be interesting to have a note to say whether the regions and groups are fixed over time - for example if countries move in and out of the "least developed countries" group presumably the HDI for the group is not comparable over time.
  • Re accessibility when I changed the list below I could not see any way to automate making it accessible but just pasted in the necessary stuff.
I have edited the lede slightly but it probably needs more added - for example about countries going up and down the list, such as when a civil war ends does it typically go up quickly or slowly. Also if you have time could you point out my mistakes in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 Chidgk1 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The inequality-adjusted HDI is probably the better index and in an ideal world would be used more then normal HDI, but I chose this list due to it's order of magnitude greater page views believing any improvements would benefit more people. I don't think changing the column order would be an improvement since it at least in my opinion would be slightly less intuitive. I don't have any particularly strong opinions on the matter though and would happily switch it if you think it's better. Regarding the Groups and regions there should definitely be some explanatory text there. I will deal with it tomorrow though. When all improvements are all done I will also make a pinned section on the talk page with instructions how to update the list, including some regular expressions I've made when improving the list. I'll return to you about the expansion of the lead, but mentioning some of the trends would be an improvement. Thanks for the comments and thanks for improving the lead! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI already provides both this original HDI and the admittedly better IHDI. While I agree with your focus on the more-seen article, these are duplicative and I think merging them would be appropriate for an even better FL. The table is not that big and more information in a two more columns would be appropriate. Reywas92Talk 23:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
    Reywas92 That's an interesting idea and if only two columns would be added that would probably be my preference, but in reality there should probably be more. I think IHDI rank change in IHDI rank, IHDI value, change in IHDI value and IHDI/HDI ratio should all be included in a FL class IHDI list with the only redundant columns being countries and HDI. That many added columns would result in an overwhelming amount of information being display and probably cause some confusion. Having two articles with one table each would make the information density a lot more manageable. I will probably improve List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI as well after this review is over. If you want we could start a merger discussion however. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    Actually at least for the current article, the "Rank Change from previous year" column should be deleted. Moving up or down one or two spots tells you nothing of use and can be easily inferred from the change in HDI. That column is pretty useless too though, only a few countries had a change of any substance. Now if this were change compared to maybe five or ten years ago it would be more meaningful, but the 2018-2019 difference isn't a valuable use of space for an FL. Perhaps only merge the IHDI and (longer) change in IHDI, but remove both rank change columns? While we're talking about merges though, List of African countries by Human Development Index, List of sovereign states in Europe by Human Development Index, List of Latin American countries by Human Development Index, List of countries in Asia and Oceania by Human Development Index (all in the see also) could easily just be redirected, I fail to see why the content is duplicated just to show subsets...more work to update... Reywas92Talk 19:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    Reywas92 That's also fair. I think some sort of trend column is important but a one year change is perhaps too short of a time period. The human development report contains average annual HDI growth between 2010 and 2018 which could replace that column. A merged table would then have rank, country, average annual HDI growth, IHDI, IHDI rank, average annual HDI growth. Thinking more about the IHDI/HDI ratio probably shouldn't be included either as thats just how well a country supported on one of the dimensions assessed. If it was included the education, economy and health dimensions should be included as well. Having two rank columns (HDI and IHDI) would be a bit weird, but probably the best solution. The by region pages should probably be redirected as well, ping to creator JackintheBox. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I did not create any of the above pages, but did do extensive updates and developments for some of the by region pages about a year ago, and created choropleth maps for them. I personally think the by region pages could be retained as they allow for convenient comparison of HDI countries in different continents/regions, and judging by the view counts there are quite many people who read these articles to see countries' values and standings within their regions. I prefer these articles to be retained and included under 'See also' in List of countries by Human Development Index. JACKINTHEBOXTALK 03:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

List of procyonids

Nominator(s): PresN 01:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Fourth in my ongoing series of "animals in a family" (felids, canids, mustelids), we continue through Carnivora with Procyonidea, aka "raccoons". It's the smallest family so far, at 14 species, and doesn't have named subfamilies or tribes, partially because modern research has shown that all prior divisions based on appearance were wrong. The animals are less diverse than other families, generally being 1-2 foot-long forest-dwelling psuedo-omnivores with really long tails, but as the lead image shows they can be pretty cute. The list format is based on the prior lists and reflects FLC comments. As always, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

(I'm getting faster at these (mainly because my script now pulls information directly from Mammal Species of the World, Wikidata, the IUCN, and Animal Diversity Web to generate the tables in the first place), so mustelids isn't promoted yet, but has supports already.)

  • By and large would be happy to support this (seems just as high a standard as the previous iterations) but I do have a query about the paragraph of text just before the tables ("The following classification …"). It seems uncited and contains a few assertions which indicate that information may be contested; could this be cited? For example, if there are proposals to reclassify "some island populations of raccoons to full subspecies", perhaps we should be specifying where this proposal has come from. But aside from that I see nothing else to query. Images are all used appropriately, sourcing seems consistent. I haven't spot-checked sources for accuracy but can do so if required. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Grapple X: Easy enough to cite the studies that broke out those species (can also add the IUCN pages as sources too if you think I should); not sure about the last sentence about things not being included- they're instances where there's no strong sources that support the change and MSW3/the IUCN don't support it. I put it in the first list mostly as a reader guide to indicate why some taxonomic change they may have read about somewhere else wasn't included; it is pretty weak, though, and I'm not sure how to cite it as a negative assertion. I'm willing to remove it if you think I should. --PresN 15:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say you need to cite a negative assertion; there's no need to cite why you have organised the tables or information as you have, but I would at least specify one or more of the proposed classifications that the list specifies that it doesn't abide by--so either "There are several additional proposals which are disputed, such as promoting some island populations of raccoons to full subspecies,[cite one or two of these here] which are not included here", or even "There are several additional proposals which are disputed, such as XYZ's proposal to promote some island populations of raccoons to full subspecies,[cite the specified proposal here] which are not included here" would be sufficient. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 15:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Grapple X: Okay, fixed- now lists a specific, cited example of a proposal that is not included. --PresN 16:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Happy with that. It just avoids the case of saying "these things exist, but I offer no proof of it". I'm happy to support this. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 10:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Drive-by comment

I think there's a copy-paste issue in the last sentence of the Prehistoric procyonids section....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. --PresN 13:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Drive-by comments

In British English we don't use "preys on" with "fruit". But maybe that is normal in US English? If not maybe change to "eats". And "hunting" to "diet".

Consider changing "In addition to the extant genera, Procyonidae comprises 19 extinct genera, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed. Extinct species have also been placed into some extant genera; around 40 extinct Procyonidae species have been found, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed." to something like "As of 2020 around 40 extinct species and 19 extinct genera have been discovered: although some extinct species have been placed in extant genera research is ongoing, so the extinct Procyonidae may be recategorized in future."

P.S. If you have time to do a bit more which might help a smidgen to save the animals from climate change could you point out my mistakes in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: This is the second time someone's commented about the "preys on" (though I think the other time was also you); I've gone ahead and changed it to "eats" and changed the template to say "Diet" instead of "Hunting", to better accommodate non-carnivorous species. I've also changed that sentence to "In addition to the extant species, as of 2020 Procyonidae comprises 40 extinct species placed in both extant and 19 extinct genera, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed." --PresN 16:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1976

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The latest list of country number one songs by year. Thus far this little project of mine has produced 40 FLs, so here's the potential #41, covering a year in which everyone was crazy for CB radio and Johnny Cash built a mad car in song, after which some guy built it for real......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review (pass)

  • File:One piece at a time cropped.jpg I would be amazed if the copyright adopted from File:One piece at a time.jpg is right on this one. Do we have any evidence to support that this is actually the work of "Abernathyautoparts~commonswiki"?
    • Well, Abernathy Autoparts is the name of the firm that built the car, according to the source........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. Could you overhaul the image description page: the date needs to reflect the original date of the image (April 1976), though keep the upload date too, and in the author expand on the uploader details, along with the fact that they were the firm that built the car. That should suffice, unless we find anything else out. Even if it isn't the right tag, it would probably be covered by {{PD-Pre1978}}, I don't know if that is worth mentioning? Harrias talk 10:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
        • @Harrias: let me know if I have done it correctly/sufficiently -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
          • That suits me. Harrias talk 10:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The other three images are all appropriately tagged. Harrias talk 09:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review (pass)

  • The article is well-sourced to reliable sources.
  • Sources are formatted appropriately and consistently.
  • No dead links.
  • Ref #2 needs an endash, rather than hyphen in the year range in the title.
  • Same with ref #4.
  • Ref #13 needs a page number.

--Harrias talk 09:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Hey, if Harrias gets a subsection, so do I. I really enjoy your Hot Country Singles lists, Chris, takes me back ... I listened to a little bit of everything back then, and some of these crossed over.
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing. Which is especially problematic when we've got a nominator who does know what he's doing. Oh well.
  • Chris, I don't know what your position is on archiving using IABot. On the upside, it's just one click to do them all, but on the downside, it adds a lot of characters for not much benefit. Your call.
  • YMMV, but for my taste, the second sentence is a little long and winding. You could lose "in 52 issues of the magazine" without any harm, I think.
  • "Maggard, real name Jay Huguely, would": Any objection to "Maggard (real name Jay Huguely) would"?
  • I'm checking all the non-ref links in the table ... so far, I've avoided one redirect. (Some people find that useful for titles ... feel free to revert.)
  • "Waylon & Willie": I don't get why it's not Waylon Jennings & Willie Nelson.
  • FLC criteria:
    • You make excellent use of images, but this isn't an image review, per se.
    • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
    • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
    • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources (but this isn't a source review). All retrieval dates are present.
    • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it is not a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
    • 4. It is navigable.
    • 5. It meets style requirements.
    • 6. It is stable.
  • Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. I might or might not claim 5 points in the Wikicup for this sad little review. (In my defense, there wasn't much to do!) - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you most kindly for your review -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Good for me. – zmbro (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – all comments addressed. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic Bishops of Hong Kong

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other lists I have successfully nominated to FL and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank:

  • Hi Bloom. Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing. All this excludes Chris's comments above. I may or may not get 5 points in the Wikicup for this review.
  • In the WP:FLC for List of felids, one FLC delegate recommended, and the other implemented, a suggestion to add alt text to the daggers: {{dagger|alt=Extinct}}. I'm not sure what that means, but perhaps you should add alt text in the same way to your double-daggers.
  • "Hong Kong": duplicate link in the next-to-last entry in the last table
  • "Antonio Feliciani": His Wikipedia article calls him Anthony. All other names in the tables check out.
  • Someone must have anglicized his name here, because that's how it appears on the Diocesan website (under general ref), the diocese's archive (ref 14), and this source from the Holy Spirit Study Centre (unofficially affiliated to the Holy See). —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "from 1949–51", etc.: from 1949 to 1951. It's a WP:MOS thing.
  • I think MOS:DATERANGE permits two-digit ending years for "infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column)". —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's at MOS:RANGE: "Do not mix en dashes with between or from. ... from 1961 to 1962, not from 1961–62". - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • My bad – I overlooked that. Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • FLC criteria:
    • You make excellent use of images, but this isn't an image review, per se.
    • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
    • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
    • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources (but this isn't a source review). All retrieval dates are present.
    • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it is not a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
    • 4. It is navigable.
    • 5. It meets style requirements.
    • 6. It is stable.
  • Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your review! —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. Added a reply above. Also, I've heard we're supposed to announce it if we're claiming points in the Wikicup ... this will go towards your Wikicup total, right? - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, I will be counting this towards my WikiCup total (if this gets promoted before I get eliminated). But a WikiCup competitor only has to mention their intention to claim points when they are reviewing a FA or FL candidate, not when they are nominating one. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah, my mistake. - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

List of The Mandalorian characters

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 00:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a comprehensive list of all the characters from the Star Wars television series The Mandalorian. It is my hope that it will eventually be the anchor of a good topic on this subject. I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. I modeled it in part after the excellent List of Alien (film series) characters (and I'd like to give a shout-out to DarthBotto for his work on that one). Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 00:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Made c couple of little tweaks, now happy to support - thanks for bearing with me while I went through this bit by bit :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much ChrisTheDude. Your thoroughness was much appreciated! — Hunter Kahn 00:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

List of highest points reached in the Tour de France

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 00:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I created this list after putting together Souvenir Henri Desgrange as a future FLC. I needed to confirm what the highest point of each Tour when I couldn't find one single source. The red stage links will eventually be sorted, hopefully soon. BaldBoris 00:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just now thought it might be better for it to be instead named List of highest points reached by the Tour de France. BaldBoris 01:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias talk

Really interesting work, thanks for creating this.

  • "It was founded by French sports journalist and former professional road racing cyclist Henri Desgrange.." To avoid a false title, add "the" before "French".
  • "The 1907 Tour took the race higher up to 1,326 m.." I think you need a comma after "higher".
  • "The race first reached high altitude on the.." Add a note, either parenthetical or footnote, explaining what "high altitude" means, in addition to the wikilink.
  • "..which summited 2,556 m (8,386 ft) higher.." Saying it was "2,556 m higher" makes it sound like it was at 2,115 m + 2,556 m (4,671 m). I would remove the word completely.
  • Ref #12 needs "pp" instead of "p".
  • Ref #36 has "Gallicae" rather than "Gallica".
  • Image is appropriately tagged and licensed, with a suitable caption.
  • The image requires alt text.

Overall, a really nicely presented and interesting list, well done. Harrias talk 18:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

All sorted, cheers Harrias. BaldBoris 22:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, all looks good to me now. Harrias talk 07:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Just a note: I am taking part in the WikiCup, and will be claiming points for this review. Harrias talk 07:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

List of largest cruise ships

Nominator(s): Ahecht (TALK
) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have spent some time cleaning up this list line-by-line, and I believe it is accurate and fully referenced enough to qualify as a featured list. A peer review only uncovered a minor copyediting detail, which has been resolved. Ahecht (TALK
) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Needs an actual lead. Consider mentioning info from Timeline of largest passenger ships in it. Looking at just the source for Symphony of the Seas, "Double" and "Maximum" passengers needs to be clarified as guests vs. including crew. This can be done in the lead, but is this consistent? Citation 9 for the Costa Smeralda does not appear to mention 5,224 in it: citation 10 says 6,554 passengers and 8,200 passengers and crew. These were the only two I even checked... Reywas92Talk 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Reywas92: I've expanded the lead a bit. Both "Double" and "Maximum" are under a heading that says "Passenger capacity", hence why the Smeralda lists 6554. Symphony of the Seas (and all the other rows, as far as I know) only list passenger capacity, excluding crew. By default, double occupancy is twice the number of cabins unless specified otherwise (some ships have "single" rooms that are not doubled when counting double occupancy), but I'll clarify that in the lead. Not sure what's going on with passenger citation in the Smeralda line however -- I could've sworn that the passenger citation was to the manufacturer (Meyer Werft), I must've kept the wrong one when I was pruning. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 03:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

  • The paragraph above the first table is not really a summary of the table, but it appears to be footnotes of the table itself, but in paragraph form? Suggest moving "Year indicates the year the ship originally entered service, which in some cases may not the year it started service under the listed cruise line or with the listed name." to a footnote beside the year column. The remainder can be a footnote for appropriate sections for example "Registro Italiano Navale only list length between perpendiculars, not length overall," should be a footnote for every ship in which this is true.
  • Phrases like "The following is a list of cruise ships" is no longer considered acceptable for featured lists as it is tautological, and should be removed. The entire second paragraph reads like the same description of the table itself, not the contents of the table, which is what the lead should be. Once this information about the list is moved to footnotes or legend where appropriate. After this there is not much of a lead left. A lead should summarize the contents of the table. And needs quite a bit of work.
  • The on order section requires similar work, there is no paragraph describing the contents of the list, just another footnote related comment.
Overall, there is a serious lack of information in the lead, and in the two subsections, both of which are required for featured list. Remember the lead is to provide context, and summarize the contents of the table, not instructions on how to read the table itself.

Oppose for now, as there requires quite a bit of work to bring this up to standards. The table itself is pretty good though, so I can scratch my opposition once the lead and two subsections contains some prose. Mattximus (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Thanks for the thoughtful review. One quick question: WP:SALLEAD says that the lead should make direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. Do you have any advice on doing this without a "The following is a list of..." sentence? --Ahecht (TALK
) 20:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That link provides a checklist of exactly what is missing...!
  • begin with a lead section that summarizes its content (maybe what is the largest current ship, or any other ship of significance, you need to talk about the ships from your tables, especially in relation to their size)
  • provides any necessary background information (this could involve history)
  • gives encyclopedic context (including linking to other pages)
  • Makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected - to answer your question, something like this "There are x cruise ships over x tonnes currently in service" is better than "this is a list of cruise ships over x tonnes". This should be done before each table.

Mattximus (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Nashville Xpress all-time roster

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it merits recognition as a list of high quality. Though it is a list of a minor league team's players, it is an exemplar of what major league all-time rosters could look like. Yes, this is its third nomination. I withdrew the first nomination amid consensus that the list was too thin. The second nomination of the much-improved list received only one comment/support before being archived. I have since further improved it. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - I made one small tweak but that's all I could find -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Harrias talk
  • In the table, expand the year ranges out to 1993–1994, per MOS:YEARRANGE.
  • Space doesn't appear to be at a premium, why not expand the "Position" abbreviations in the table, there is plenty of room.
  • If Baseball-Reference is italicised in the references, it also should be when mentioned in the first note.
  • Ref #6 misspells Larry.
  • Be consistent whether you use "City" or "City, State" in the references, there is a mix at the moment.
  • All images are appropriately tagged and licensed.
  • Alt text is provided for images, and they have appropriate captions.

Overall, a good piece of work, with very little wrong with it. Harrias talk 17:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Support, nice work. Harrias talk 18:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Just a note: I am taking part in the WikiCup, and will be claiming points for this review. Harrias talk 07:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Cardiff City F.C. records and statistics

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

One of the Cardiff lists I haven't got around to until now finally being brought to FLC. I've based the format on the other promoted lists of club records and believe it's up to the same standard. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Maybe mention the number of Phil Dwyer's appearances in the second paragraph of the lead; the other two players have theirs included. - Done
  • I'd recommend applying an upright value to the lead image, possibly |upright=1.2.- Done
  • "The club won its first trophy under the guise by winning the Bevan Shield in 1905." Shouldn't it be "...under the guise of winning..."? Otherwise it sounds like "guise" means "name".
    The guise was meant to signify that the trophy was won under the name of the club's original name of Riverside. If that's not clear, I'm happy to amend. Kosack (talk) 07:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "The last honour won by the club was the Championship title during the 2012–13 season." Maybe make it "The most recent honour..." since they haven't finished playing. (Optional suggestion)- Done
  • Under the "League titles" and "Cups" headings, each win or runners-up is followed by a colon and an en dash before the years (i.e. "Champions: – 1912–1913"). I don't think both punctuation marks are necessary; just a colon (i.e. "Champions: 1912–1913") would be my preference.- Done
  • Also, the first Southern Football League's championship years can be combined "1912–13" as are the subsequent two-year ranges.- Done
  • I'd link the first instance of "Cwmparc". Even though there seems to be no team article, the the unusual spelling stopped this American reader in his tracks wondering if the was a misspelling or an un-capitalized acronym. (Optional suggestion)- Done
  • There's a stray period at the end of "Most goals conceded in one season: 105, Third Division South, 1933–34."- Done
  • Standardize the use of either "vs." or "vs" as the use varies throughout.- Done
  • If this is a list of team records, I'm not sure the ground attendance set between the Wales and England national teams should be included.
    This has crossed my mind, but the ground was owned by the club and is regularly listed on the club's official records pages so I did include it. Kosack (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The tables are missing row and column scope for accessibility. See MOS:DTAB.- Done
  • {{Abbr|No.|Number}} sould be used instead of # to indicate number in four tables. See: MOS:HASH.- Done
  • Under "Longest run of consecutive league appearances", I'd replace "position" with number as in my previous bullet point and change "Years" to "Dates" since months are also included.- Done
  • Under "All time leading goalscorers", adjust the column width of "Years" to keep it from wrapping the text.
    I'm editing on mobile so the layout is a little different. I've adjusted the column size but it may need checking on a desktop. Kosack (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • In the "Transfers" tables, you'll need to apply sortkeys to each player and club; they currently sort by the name of the country in {{flagicon}}.
    I've removed the player flags completely, I don't think they have any baring on the transfer records. Kosack (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The "Notes" column heading should probably be changed to "Reference" or {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference}}- Done
  • References 10 and 36 are dead, but you can add the archived version (or the current correct location).- Done
  • All else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
    @NatureBoyMD: Thanks for the review, I've addressed all of the points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Kosack: Everything above looks fine, but I did notice a few more things:
  • The transfers tables still need sort keys on the clubs as they currently sort by the flag rather than club name.
    Meant to take those out too for the same reason as above. They're gone now. Kosack (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Regarding my comment on resizing columns to avoid wrapping, it might be best to eliminate forced width altogether and go with their default sizes.
    Nice idea, works much better now!. Kosack (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There is some inconsistency with text alignment across tables—one has every column centered, while others mix centered and left aligned. Decide on a consistent style and apply to all tables.
    I was basing that style off the other promoted records and statistics page, all of which have the names left aligned like List of Birmingham City F.C. records and statistics. Kosack (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's looking nice. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    @NatureBoyMD: Added my comments above. Kosack (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support That works for me. Well done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

  • Silly, nit-picky point, but the title is called "List of Cardiff City F.C. records and statistics", but the article starts "Cardiff City is a Welsh professional association football club.." Let's be consistent, and make that "Cardiff City F.C. is a Welsh professional association football club.."
  • What was/is "the Bevan Shield"; context needs to be given.
  • No need to capitalise "(First Tier)", "(Second Tier)" etc.
  • Why isn't the Longest run of consecutive league appearances table sortable?
  • The Progressive scoring record section needs the title to make it clear that refers to goals in a single season. Somehow.
  • In the Bibliography, "Grandin, Terry (2010)" has a warning: "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGrandin2010." If you are not using it in any inline citations, remove the "ref=harv" parameter.
  • "Lloyd, Grahame (1999)" and "Stead, Phil (2013)" use a different citation style to the other four, make sure you are using a consistent style.
  • Ref #40 italicises "BBC Sport"; the rest don't.
  • Ref #32 needs changing to a normal citation template to give the title, and full citation details.

Overall, a good solid piece of work, well done. Harrias talk 16:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  • @Harrias: Thanks for taking a look, I've addressed all of the points above. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I've made a couple of little tweaks, and am happy to support, nice work. Harrias talk 19:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
And the mandatory note that I will claim WikiCup points for this review. Harrias talk 19:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Old Wykehamists

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this list of notable pupils of one of the United Kingdom's oldest schools for featured list because it is now a mature article. I gave it its present structure some years ago, adding many of the citations and images. The list will continue to grow (rather slowly) when people from the school become notable. I hope reviewers will find it interesting and informative. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I made a few little tweaks and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

Hi Chiswick Chap - long time no see, hope you're keeping well. You're certainly keeping busy with this labour of love. It certainly meets the FL criteria to my mind and I'm pleased to support. A few comments below that don't stand in the way of this.

Many thanks for the comments and support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Order of names within century
  • what order are you following? It's not chronological as, for example, Richard Pace, c.1482, postdates William Horman, c.1440, who sits below him. Would alphabetical not be easiest for the reader?
It's meant to be chronological; Pace's estimated date has changed. Reordered those two.
Sixteenth century
  • John White/Thomas Bilson/Arthur Lake - not sure why their bishoprics need capitalisation? You don't elsewhere.
Eighteenth century
  • William Douglas, Duke of Queensbury - much though I like rake and gambler, it’s not really an occupation! Aristocrat and gambler? Landowner and gambler?
  • Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth - not actionable, but interesting Winchester's produced only one PM, and that the ineffectual Viscount Sidmouth. "Pitt is to Addington...." Actually, you could action it by replacing the image of Williamson with that of the school's only PM (see Images below)!
  • Philip Lutley Sclater - link Zoogeographer? It's a new one on me.
  • Samuel Rolles Driver - lower case Biblical?
  • Frederic Thesiger, 1st Viscount Chelmsford - you've got him in twice, here and in the 1880-1889 section (10th down). He belongs here, I think, but I think you should put in the notability you have below, i.e. governor and viceroy.
Good catch, fixed.

Down to 1870. Will need to stop and come back. KJP1 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

On we go. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Jack White - being picky and old-fashioned, I'd go for uncapitalized trades union organiser but our main article doesn't so feel free to ignore.
Said on first three British expeditions there.
  • John William Fisher Beaumont - don't think The Bombay High Court needs a capital T.
  • Spencer Leeson, Headmaster and bishop - as above for H
  • Godfrey Rolles Driver, Biblical scholar as above for B
  • George Jellicoe, aka Viscount Brocas, soldier-statesman, businessman-diplomat - not sure about these hyphenated jobs. Just commas?
  • Alasdair Milne - link BBC?
  • Michael Howard, 21st Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire - link Berkshire Earldom as well as Suffolk?
Victoria Cross and George Cross holders
  • "one Old Wykehamist won the George Cross in military circumstances and another Old Wykehamist won the George Medal in military circumstances" - the close repetition is a bit jarring. Perhaps, "one Wykehamist won the George Cross and one the George Medal, both in military circumstances/situations"?
Thanks, done.
  • And, any reason you're not listing the George Medal holder? I'm assuming he's in here somewhere, List of recipients of the George Medal, 1940s? Although he may not have an article, he surely warrants a mention and minimal redlinks in lists are permissible.
Let's think about that one, but good to hear that it's feasible at a pinch.
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Richard Williamson (bishop) - absolutely get that Wikipedia's not censored but, given the abundance of choice, does this repellent, anti-Semitic nut job deserve the prominence of a photo?
My feeling is that we show the rough with the smooth.
Absolutely take the point. I was pleased to include John Vassall, the gay spy, in the list of my alma mater’s alumni! But Vassall’s dead and Williamson is, at least to my mind, regrettably alive. And, while I’d of course agree he should be in the list, the choice of photos is selective. Anyway, I’ve made my point and it’s not a criteria issue, so I’ll just get back to the list. KJP1 (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Right - that's my nitpicking over. It's a grand list, fully meriting the bronze star. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Hennepin County Library branches

Nominator(s): —Collint c 21:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Paul2520 and I have been working on this list of library branches in Minnesota's largest library system for a few years. We both, but especially Paul, have journeyed all around the county to collect images of all 41 branches and have attempted to develop the most complete list in existence of the openings of the extant Hennepin County libraries. We are excited to work with any further comments and suggestions towards making this article a featured list, and appreciate all feedback. If promoted, we believe this would be the first List of library branches article to make FL status and hopefully serve as a useful template for future efforts to improve coverage of libraries worldwide. Thanks kindly! —Collint c 21:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Review by Reywas92
  • This is a very nice list, but it should be merged to Hennepin County Library. That is quite a short article and the lead content is duplicative, so a split is not at all warranted. I'm not sure this passes WP:LISTN since there don't appear to be sources that cover the topic of branches rather than the library generally. NYC is the only other list of branches but that's a different animal.
  • "the borders of" is extraneous
  • "across 24 cities and towns" -> "in..."
  • "located" is extraneous, readers know "in" is a locator adverb here
  • "Four of the branches" -> "Four branches"
  • Bloomington is missing wikilink
  • Only the second Minneapolis in the table is linked; link all or only the first
  • Notes column shouldn't be sortable
  • Southdale: "between" requires an "and"
  • North Regional's note is rather random: of course a public building would take a few years to go from proposal to construction completion
  • Rewrite "In late 1800s, opened in Fletcher–Loring Flour Mill"
  • and "Original 1889 was"

Reywas92Talk 07:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Reywas92! Helpful feedback. I've addressed most of your comments.
I'm still mulling over the North Regional note (I agree, it should be updated). Updated the note, per Benidt reference.
Re: the merge, nice idea! I will discuss with Bobamnertiopsis. = paul2520 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I would also suggest a merger, as the main article has very little additional content (other than the lead it essentially consists of a less-detailed list of locations). The merged article would still really be a list, though, so I don't see why the FLC couldn't continue...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

  • Yes, agreed that this is an attractive and useful list, and that the main article is so slight that it would be better to merge it with this, and that the merged article would be appropriate for WP:FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

List of Under-19 Cricket World Cup centuries

Nominator(s): Bharatiya29 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that it has the quality expected from an FL. Bharatiya29 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

  • "..and is held once in every two years.." Remove "in".
  • "As of the 2020 edition, a total of 130 centuries have been scored by 115 players from 18 different teams." and then "Out of the 31 teams that have participated in the championship, players from 18 teams have scored at least one century." We don't need this fact repeated twice.
  • Use {{asterisk}} instead of *.
  • Ref #2 needs an endash, rather than a hyphen in the title. Also, replace "" with CNN-News18.
  • That aside, the references are all to reliable sources, and are formatted in an appropriate, consistent style.
  • That's a pretty rubbish picture of Dhawan, isn't there a higher quality image we could use instead?

Overall, not much wrong with this one, nice work. Harrias talk 12:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Iceland

Nominator(s): Tone 13:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The land of fire and ice (insert your favorite GoT pun - but hey, they filmed it there as well!). A new nomination from Northern Europe, following the FLs for Norway and Denmark, and Finland is getting support. Medium-term plan is to get all the countries covered so I can nominate a featured topic, let's see. Tone 13:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I would make the bit in brackets a separate sentence starting "The existing site...."
  • "From around 930 AD to 1798, Þingvellir has served" => "From around 930 AD to 1798, Þingvellir served"
  • "as a venue of Althing" => "as a venue for the Althing"
  • "Althing is also the oldest surviving parliament in the world" => "Althing is the oldest surviving parliament in the world"
  • "Fragments of around 50 booths built from turf and stone are visible though the remains" => "Fragments of around 50 booths built from turf and stone are visible, although the remains"
  • "off the South coast of Iceland" - no need for capital S
  • "in view of biodiversity, the fish" - change the comma to a semi-colon
  • "The shape and functions of these houses were changing over time" => "The shape and functions of these houses changed over time"
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Fixed, thank you. --Tone 21:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

I saw this now. The general list is so-so, since it mostly includes copy-paste descriptions from the UNESCO sites, has no maps, and provides little content related to the tentative list. So, if there are enough entries on either list, a separate article makes sense. I'll address the other comments later. --Tone 10:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I probably have time for just one review of these, so I'll go have another look at Finland. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Chidgk1

  • Perhaps add an article description
  • Perhaps shorten the beginning to something like:

"The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Sites are places of cultural or natural importance; as described in the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, accepted by Iceland in 1995. Natural sites Surtsey and Vatnajökull National Park were added in 2008 and 2019. Þingvellir National Park was listed back in 2004 as a cultural site, and is now on the tentative list both for nature and as a part of a new transnational Viking heritage nomination."

  • Then maybe add more in the lede about the other tentative list sites and/or something else - such as how locals and tourists feel about the list
  • I made a few minor copyedits but these 2 sentences are confusing me: "The turf house tradition was brought to Iceland by the first settlers and has evolved from the longhouses built from timber and covered by turf. The shape and functions of these houses changed over time, adapting to local climate and the needs of the people." So were the first ones in Iceland the longhouses,or were those the ones in the settlers previous homeland but there was no timber in Iceland, or maybe they started with the original style but ran out of timber? Maybe also add an example of how they evolved.

If you have time to do a bit more which might help a smidgen to save a few glaciers from climate change could you point out my mistakes in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 Chidgk1 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Thank you for the edits. I rewrote the turf part which was indeed confusing. I would stick with the intro as it is in the standard form considering other lists, and I usually even get complaints that they are too short. What locals feel about the list is perhaps out of the scope here, or at least some good sources would be required. I'll have a look at the coal power stations soon. --Tone 09:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey

Nominator(s): Chidgk1 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because these power stations are the main contributor to greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey so it would be great if someone at COP26 could discuss them. As this is my first attempt to get anything featured I suspect there may be a lot I need to improve.Chidgk1 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Very nice list, hopefully it'll be deleted someday for being empty.

Thanks. I got the idea from List of active coal fired power stations in the United Kingdom and List of coal fired power stations in Australia and once this one is featured I hope others will copy the format. Although Global Energy Monitor have a useful world list I guess they have to put most of their effort into the biggest countries like China and are not able to include the smaller power stations.
  • The hatnotes links can be included as in-line or see also links, not needed at the very top for disambiguation
  • -> "so the plants are the largest"
  • I could follow the note on searching the main source, but perhaps you could give the translations for the selection names and/or link directly to a translated version. Not sure if there's a guideline for this.
Done (but when I tried to search from the translated version it just hung)
  • Three say local coal – I see this is what the database says but should be lignite right? All the same for the Soma plants.
You are almost certainly right but I have not yet found a source to cite to confirm that
  • What's the point of having the license number? Seems like internal data of no use to the public.
This is because the names can change with change of ownership or in sources can sometimes be confusingly different for the same plant or confusingly similar for different plants (for example Soma and Bekirli)
  • "Note:" is not necessary
  • The linked page doesn't actually have details about capacity payments: The table marks a number and eligibility but I don't know how to interpret it.
I can easily change the column heading from "Capacity Mechanism Payment (₺m)" to "Capacity Mechanism Payment (millions of lira)" or somesuch if you think that is clearer.

Reywas92Talk 20:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything more I need to improve on this please?Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to resolve the discrepancy in [Note 1] at the top, but otherwise I don't see any further issues. Reywas92Talk 23:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I am afraid I don't have update access to government websites! I just checked the Turkish page and it says 68 "santraller" which definitely means "plants" not "units". But I cannot believe that is right. If you like I will write to the ministry and ask but I doubt they would reply.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
However I wonder if we should have a row for each unit like the Global Energy Monitor database. Does anyone have an opinion on that? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice list and great graphic. You might consider some of the following: G. Moore 23:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I analyzed the page for dead links. This added some archiving of 47 links
Thanks - I have never done anything with archiving - if anyone thinks automatic archiving might not be enough let me know and I will read up on manual archiving.
  • I think that the first cell in each row would look better if it was left aligned, ie adding

|scope="row" style="text-align: left"|

  • Format external links and add accessdate, i.e.
    • "Interactive map of coal plants: Global Energy Monitor". Retrieved March 5, 2020.
Formatted but I think the access date in the licence query and co2 refs is enough as those will change over time.
  • Notes column might be better as the last column. I would also include any references in this column.
Moved to second from last because very few people will need to read licence number - re refs if I put them all in that col it would not be obvious which cell they refer to e.g. the ref that Çan-2 type is combined cycle.
  • the year and CO2 emission columns would be better right justified. Use a break, if there is additional text required. Generally, all numbers should be right justified.
Right justfied. Re additional text - should I have a row for each unit does anyone think?
  • The open street maps link does pull up anthing because there are no coordinates on the page.
Removed co-ord mapping box as it seems not to find the co-ords in the map source
If you want the Open Street map to work, you would have to include the coords in the table. See List of plantations in North Carolina for an example. G. Moore 14:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - I think I may use that in individual articles about each plant rather than here as the map gives a general idea.
Done thanks

List of mustelids

Nominator(s): PresN 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Third in my ongoing series of "animals in a family" (felids, canids), here is "List of mustelids", containing all of the animals in the Mustelidae family- otters, badgers, weasels, and more such long creatures with legs. It's a diverse set of animals, widely varied in size and habitat, and much bigger than the cat and dog families. The format is based on those other two lists, and like with canids I've included a section on prehistoric species; unlike with canids, there's no generally accepted authority on how to arrange the species, so I've gone with the Paleobiology Database's categorization, which is a bit messy but at least doesn't contradict itself. As always, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass
  • Hmm, unclear- the image was uploaded by the Internet Archive to Flickr as explicitly in the commons with permission from the rights holders, and it's taken from [3] - the image itself is not copyright that journal, but from the Canadian government, and it's unclear how old it is (the sea mink went extinct 125 years ago). --PresN 17:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, maybe it is from pre-1970 and Canadian crown copyright has expired? I suppose Internet Archive can be trusted. buidhe 23:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I used it on sea mink which is an FA, so it's fine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Likely, dropped. --PresN 17:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Other images appear to be free. buidhe 05:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • 17-cm and 1.8-meter need hyphens
  • Not seeing any other issues at first look, great work! Reywas92Talk 20:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Reywas92: Half-right, it turns out: MOS:HYPHEN - Values and units used as compound modifiers are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word; when using the unit symbol, separate it from the number with a non-breaking space ( ). So, 17 cm, but 1.8-meter. --PresN 22:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Reywas92: Anything else? --PresN 17:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks great, so many cute little guys in this family! Reywas92Talk 17:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


  • I'd never heard of doing this, but in talking to other editors it seems it's a frequent interpretation of MOS:CONFORM in the biology space, so, done.
  • Instead of having "Population figures rounded to the nearest hundred. Population trends as described by the International Union for Conservation of Nature" as a note and using it a bunch of times, you could just put that into Conventions, and you already cite the IUCN after every population trend, so you don't really need to declare that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Maybe you could put notes for more specific population details given by the IUCN. For example, for the giant otter, there are some population estimates for specific regions (like 2,000–5,000 in the Pantanal)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer not to, for a couple reasons: for one, the data is very uneven between species, which limits how useful a comparison table is; mostly, however, it's because without context the subpopulation figures aren't meaningful- in the example you give, is the Pantanal a region in which the Giant Otter is mostly found? Is it just one small area? There's no way to know, and most of the numbers would be that way- an animal with a population of a million might only have a firm number of 2,000 on one island, or I might have an estimate for one country without any indication of how representative that is (for example, the raccoon is found in North America, but there's an introduced population in Germany, but that's the only place I've found a population number for; does knowing that there's 1 million raccoons in Germany tell you anything about the global population count?). It's possible to give these contexts sometimes, but it quickly becomes too much text for this kind of list, and is better kept to the animal's article.
@Dunkleosteus77: Done, replied inline. --PresN 17:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • For the captions in Prehistoric mustelids, wikilink them and provide the genus name too   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
You don't have to ping me by the way, I'm watching the page (also whenever I get a ping I always get worried that I did something wrong)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Added to captions, though I'd like to come back later and make range maps that don't have those subspecies divides. --PresN 22:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent showing/hiding of subspecies lists (for example, the European pine marten defaults to closed, but the Japanese marten defaults to open)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's purposeful; they're only hidden if it's long enough to stretch the box vertically when opened (given normal image sizes), which means 5 and fewer are shown by default. --PresN 22:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • At the size of the current image in the lead, that image is unparseable- the words are not close to readable, and the animals are about the size of the text "xxxx", and not really identifiable. It's a useful image, but I'd rather not use it in this space. --PresN 22:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you, not sure how I missed that. Fixed. --PresN 04:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed, missing the 'File:'. --PresN 16:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


  • "went extinct in 1894" sounds a bit passive. How about "was hunted to extinction in 1894" or "was hunted to extinction before the 20th century" or "had been hunted to extinction by the end of the 19th century"
  • @Chidgk1: Changed to your first option. --PresN 04:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: as I trust you to consider and if necessary fix the following minor points:
  • Done
  • Do we need all the "consisting of" and "containing" in the lead? Or could the sentences be something like: "The 23 genera and 59 species of Mustelidae are split into 8 subfamilies: Guloninae, martens and wolverines; Helictidinae, ferret-badgers; Ictonychinae, African polecats and grisons; Lutrinae, or otters; Melinae, Eurasian badgers; Mellivorinae, currently only the honey badger; Mustelinae, weasels and minks; and Taxidiinae, currently only the American badger. Three former subfamilies are now extinct: Leptarctinae, Mustelavinae, and Oligobuninae."?
  • Done
  • Canids are mentioned in "conventions" - perhaps a leftover from a previous article
  • Whoops, done
  • Hunting: "preys on fruits" and other things which are not live animals sounds strange.
  • It's a little odd, yeah, but none of these species are herbivorous, so they all have an animal type they "prey on" in addition to any plants; if fruit or similar comes first it's because the prey types are in order of amount, if possible
  • some of the "Europe" headings are for maps which also include parts of Asia
  • Fixed
  • a pity not all the weasels have pics
  • It really is, but nothing I can do about it, as I'm stuck with free-use images- the Amazon weasel and Malayan weasel are very poorly studied, the Indonesian mountain weasel, Colombian weasel, and Bornean ferret-badger have tiny and remote ranges, and the Vietnam ferret-badger has literally only 2 specimens ever recorded. --PresN 04:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • Why are some families shown as having "currently only" one species? It sounds to me a bit odd as if another species could evolve tomorrow. I take that you mean that there are other extinct genera, but the same applies to other families.
  • Why is American badger not linked? I see it goes to the same link as Taxidiinae, but so do Mellivorinae and honey badger, and they are both linked. Why is grison not linked? The choice of what to link seems unclear.
  • There is an error message: "date= / |doi= mismatch" on refs 15, 21, 25, 58, 101
  • A first rate list. Just a few niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

WCW Light Heavyweight Championship

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 16:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully the third time's the charm for this one, which was archived after drawing no responses on its previous two candidacies. It's another short-lived pro-wrestling championship from the early 1990s. I'm aware that there's a degree of overlap between this and List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions, but this is a more thorough look at a separate entity which is only in hindsight considered one and the same with the latter so I don't believe that's going to be an issue. The article was given a copy-editing tag-team by Zppix and Baffle gab1978, and follows the same layout as the FL WCW International World Heavyweight Championship. Thanks for looking at this to anyone who takes the time. GRAPPLE X 16:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  • As the opening paragraph is only one sentence, I would merge it with the next one
  • "WWE, who purchased WCW's assets in 2001" => "WWE, which purchased WCW's assets in 2001"
  • "Morton and Pillmen contested" - typo
  • "Pillman successfully defended the championship against Tom Zenk at the May 17 WrestleWar event in Jacksonville, Florida; before being defeated" - that semi-colon should be a comma
  • "would depict any maneuver performed from the top rope of the ring as illegal and resulting in disqualification; this effectively ended the appeal of the light heavyweight style" - I don't think it's quite right to say it ended the appeal of the style, as the style would still have been appealing but essentially wasn't allowed to be used. I would say "effectively ended the viability of the light heavyweight style"
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look. I've addressed anything you have raised here. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 09:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

The crossover is with List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions (1991–2007) and WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1991–2007), rather than the List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions article you linked, as far as I can tell. I appreciate your comment that it "is only in hindsight considered one and the same". But our current articles treat them the same, and I struggle to see why the prose and brackets can't be merged into WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1991–2007), especially given the current short length of that article, while the list entries are already provided at List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions (1991–2007). It seems to me to contravene 3(c) pretty obviously. Can you convince me otherwise? Harrias talk 12:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately no policy here would give a definitive answer on this and really boils down to which company's opinion we follow--WWE, who currently own the video rights to the content involved, or the historical WCW, who created and managed it. It seems clear to me that the intention behind the creation of the 1996 WCW Cruiserweight title was to have a clean start with a new and separate lineage, and personally I would be in favour of treating it the same way. For what it's worth I think the prose detail here on the Light Heavyweight belt would be undue if merged with the WWE list, which would then essentially have to summarise three different title lineages and explain two partially-recognised merges. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 14:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I have some sympathy with that approach. If that is the case though, I think Wikipedia needs to treat them as separate entities: remove them from the List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions (1991–2007) list (which is an old FL, which needs some work to meet the current standards anyway). That last can just note that the WWE also consider the earlier WCW Light Heavyweight Championship to be one and the same, but direct readers to this link for more information. Similar changes would be needed at WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1991–2007), and the titles of both would need changing to "WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1996–2007)". If we make this distinction clear on the encyclopaedia, then I think this can be considered as a standalone article. Harrias talk 15:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense. Some page moves would be involved (to use "1996–2007") but I assume that would be uncontroversial. I'll make a start with those two articles tonight to highlight the delineation. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 20:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I removed the duplicated content from the earlier list, adding a "see also" for this one. In the parent article for that list I added a hatnote and a bit of extra prose to delineate the two more clearly. I hope this helps. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 23:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Deadliest Catch

Nominator(s): CYAce01 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the award nominations and wins that Deadliest Catch has accrued over the years showcases its place in television popular culture. The show continues to draw an audience and bring entertainment to millions. The list also meets criteria. CYAce01 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Done, done, done, and done. CYAce01 (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll retract my oppose since a lot of work has been put into this but I still don't think it's ready yet. I think looking at the recently promoted List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones would be helpful:
  • Saying Deadlist Catch under every single nominee is complete overkill. We know what the page is about so we don't need to be reminded of that with everything we read. I suggest ditching those
  • Do keep episode titles since those are important though
  • Ditch the production companies, etc... Basically, anything bulleted in the table that's not an episode title. Complete overkill
@Zmbro: Most of the redundancy is just to list credit where credit is due (and as shown in the sources). E.g.: Say the production company employees made a visit to the Deadliest Catch pages and didn't see their company on the nomination/win lists. The companies/people might see that as an insult. Therefore, I was just writing the credits shown in the sources. The exception was for the Emmy Awards where excessive numbers of individual personnel credits were shown, hence the disclaimer (it seemed that everyone and their pets were listed—clearly not within the scope). CYAce01 (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • All the Deadlist Catch episode: entries can just be shortened to the episode names
  • No refs are archived, which they should be. I'm also positive some of these are missing authors
That's it for now. – zmbro (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll take another look when I get a moment. Thanks for the notes. CYAce01 (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the tale
  • People's names should sort based on their surname, not their forename (eg Bruce Hanifan should sort under H, not B)
  • Done
  • Rather than saying (eg) "Editors: Kelly Coskran & Ed Greene" say "Kelly Coskran & Ed Greene (editors)" so that it sorts based on name, not job title (in this case it should of course sort under C)
  • Done

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Good catches. Thank you! CYAce01 (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - looks OK to me now, nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball single-inning home run leaders

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other baseball lists I have successfully nominated to FL and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo

  • The title of this list seems odd, but I'm not sure there's really anything you can do about that. I personally think "List of Major League Baseball players who have hit two home runs in one inning" sounds better, but not only is it a longer title, every other baseball record list follows the same title format. Just wanted to point out that the title is kind of awkward to read.
  • Duly noted. The Baseball WikiProject decided a couple of years ago to standardize the wording of titles. So I don't really have much say over this title, unfortunately. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think you should mention in the first paragraph how there are two different ways of hitting a home run, either hitting the ball past the outfield fence or an inside the park home run
  • The MLB definition (which is what I used to write the first sentence) should suffice. I don't want to get into tedious details, since the specifics of the home run is not the point of this list (otherwise I'd also have to mention that a player must touch all bases for the home run to count]]. The reader can click the wikilink if they want to learn more. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • One decade later, Alex Rodriguez set the single-inning American League record for RBIs with seven when he hit a three-run home run and a grand slam in the sixth inning for the New York Yankees on October 4, 2009. Link RBI.
  • Linked the earlier reference in the sentence that immediately preceded the one above (i.e. "… Tatís became the only player to hit two grand slams in the same inning and established a new major league record with eight runs batted in (RBI) in a single inning."). —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Did any of the players on this list get one of their home runs via an inside the park home run? If so, I think you should mention that. If not, ignore this comment.
  • Not to my understanding. And unfortunately, the box scores do not differentiate between a home run on the fly vs. inside the park. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Overall this list looks solid. Table looks properly formatted, images have alt text, the few references I checked were good. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: thank you for your feedback. I hope I've addressed your comments in a satisfactory manner. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

  • Support – Very interesting read and very good list. Happy to support. Great job to you. – zmbro (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from NatureBoyMD

  • When first mentioning runs batted in, the abbreviation "RBI" is introduced. In the next sentence, "RBIs" is used. I know there is much discussion over the proper abbreviation, but usage here should be consistent. Either make both instances "RBI" or "RBIs".
  • I'll strike this, too, as a common baseball abbreviation. NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Per WP:CAPFRAG, italics should not be used in the lead image caption.
  • Not an issue in the 20 other lists I've took to FL, because these italics "would apply if it occurred in the main text". —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • But italics would not be used if "(left)", "(center)", and "(right)" were present in the main text. Why would they? NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think I actually would use italics in the main text for those bracketed one-worded descriptions that I'm trying to signify are not part of the sentence. Just like I would if they were Latin terms, or a word I wanted to place emphasis on. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • As I read MOS:ITALIC and MOS:IT, they should not be italicized as they are not foreign words or needing emphasis. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Right, but they are one-worded descriptions are not part of the sentence – that would justify italics. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Per WP:ASL and MOS:FNNR, the general references should be placed after the specific references.
  • I think I'm reading the MOS differently. Specifically, the part that reads, "Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last." In this list, there are no explanatory footnotes (for example of such, see List of Major League Baseball single-game hits leaders#Notes), nor any short citations. There are only full citations/general references. I've just separated them into generic and specific ones. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I could see it that way. I guess you're right. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Some references are in title case (i.e. 1, 4, and 12) others are in sentence case (i.e. 2, 3, and 5). They should be formatted in consistent case.
  • I follow the exact title capitalization used in the respective articles. This has never been an issue in the 20 lists I've successfully took to FL. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Per WP:CITESTYLE, "...Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." (My emphasis added.) NatureBoyMD (talk)
  • And that consistent style which I am employing in every one of the articles I edit is following the capitalization given in the articles. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll strike this based on the same inconsistent style being used in other recently-promoted lists. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Everything else looks great. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I have struckout all of my comments. All-in-all this is a well-written, well-organized list, but I will refrain from supporting or opposing. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your feedback! And no worries. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

  • Replace § with {{Section-sign}}, and find another accessible symbol to replace the ^: maybe * ({{asterisk}}) or Up-arrow ({{up-arrow}}). Otherwise the table looks good.
  • Replaced § with & – I find it looks better than Section-sign, which causes the cells in those entire 2 rows to be enlarged (even when superscripted). I've replaced ^ with *. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "..due to the stellar offensive performance." In this context, "stellar" is not encyclopaedic language.
  • Replaced with "prodigious". I'm open to using other alternatives (e.g. outstanding, exceptional, etc.). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Seattle Mariners is linked twice in the lead, remove the link in the third paragraph.
  • Prose is otherwise good.
  • Images are all appropriately licensed and tagged. Alt text is provided.
  • In the image caption of Morales: I'm not sure that "to homer" is encyclopaedic language?
  • Fixed. Changed to "… to hit home runs from both sides …". —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Overall, a well-written list with very few issues, nice work. Harrias talk 11:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: thank you for your comments. I hope they've all been addressed satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, nice work. Harrias talk 16:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Just a note: I am taking part in the WikiCup, and will be claiming points for this review. Harrias talk 07:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Harrias: Thanks! P.S. if you are planning to claim WikiCup points from this review, then it should be mentioned here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@PresN: I think a consensus has now been reached. What do you think? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

List of local nature reserves in Berkshire

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Local Nature Reserves and is in the same format as FLs such as Kent and Suffolk. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Source and image reviews —pass

No issues. Sources are reliable for what they're used for and images are free. A few source checks did not uncover any problems. buidhe 00:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Drive-by comment - the two FLs which you link above have leads of over 1500 characters, whereas this one is only 900, which seems very short. Can it be beefed up a bit.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. Added information about the county. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - I guess the flora thing makes sense now that you have explained it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Only one issue for me, there are repeated linking of the same borough like Workingham, Bracknell Forest etc. Link once per MOS:OVERLINK and merge the row of brorough if repeated in the consecutive rows. Like the first two site are in Workingham, so merge both row of brorough into one. Otherwise the article looks fine to me. Dey subrata (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review Dey subrata. The reason for the repeated links is that reviewers of previous lists have advised that links should be repeated in sortable lists as sorting on area, for example, would put different links first in the list. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Billy Wilder filmography

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Billy Wilder was one of the greatest American filmmakers. Known for film noirs such as Double Indemnity (1944), Sunset Boulevard, and the comedies Some Like It Hot (1959) and The Apartment (1960). As always I welcome all constructive comments to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Support - Jimknut (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "while there he co-directed" => "where he co-directed"
    • "French language version of Scampolo" - seems odd to have this much further up the table than Scampolo, prompting me to initially think "what's Scampolo?" Either move Scampolo above this one, or else remove the note here and instead put a not against Scampolo saying it's a German version of Un peu d'amour.
  • Think that's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Made the above amendments, I don't know why I had put the French version so far from Scampolo. Cowlibob (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Washington College alumni

Nominator(s): Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after much research I think I have listed all of the notable Alumni of Washington College. I modeled the formatting and organization after several existing FLs and I think this lives up to the MOS --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support – My comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Mexican National Tag Team Championship

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has the appropriate quality for a Featured List, it has actually been through an FLC before, but failed due to lack of participation sadly. I have kept this up to date, make sure to do format improvements as our FLs evolve. I have pushed 17 lists to FL status and each time I have learned a little. This latest list is the sum of everything I have learned and hopefully produced featured content. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Further comments
    • Note d - should be "changed" not "changes"
    • Note j needs a full stop
    • Note k has a random capital I in Vitoria
    • Note l has Guerreras spelt incorrectly
    • Ref 35 has a missing [
    • So does ref 41
    • And ref 64
    • Refs 60-63 start with "#ReferencesLucha" which doesn't seem right
    • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
      • ChrisTheDude - thank you for catching these, I have addressed them all. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • You hadn't quite fixed all the Observer links correctly, but I have sorted that for you and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Harrias talk
  • Is there an alternative phrasing to avoid the SEAOFBLUE in " a national Mexican professional wrestling championship controlled.."?
  • Foreign language terms, such as "Campeonato Nacional de Parejas", should be in a {{lang}} template, not just in plain italics, per MOS:LANG.
  • "..Comisión de Box y Lucha Libre Mexico D.F. (Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission).." Should have the foreign language term in a {{lang}} template, per above, and the English translation in plain text within the parentheses.
  • " two man tag teams only." No need for "only", and it should be "two-man".
  • "..was created in 1957 and promoted regularly until 2003, and intermittently until 2011.." Trim an "and": "..was created in 1957, promoted regularly until 2003, and intermittently until 2011.."
  • Put "Empresa Mexicana de Lucha Libre" in a {{lang}} template.
  • "..until February 19, 2020 where CMLL.." Two points: first, it should be "when", not "where". Second, you haven't defined CMLL; I assume it is "Comisión de Box y Lucha Libre Mexico D.F."?
  • The first paragraph, which provides an overall summary, should mention the fact that the championship has been restarted.
  • The lead states that EMLL controlled it until 1992, but the infobox says until 1991, when CMLL took over for a year.
  • The Title history table needs row and column scopes as per MOS:ACCESS and detailed in MOS:DTT. This will require changes to {{Professional wrestling title history top}} and {{Professional wrestling title history middle}}.
  • Manually adjust the sorting in the date column to make sure it corresponds with the No. column: at the moment, when sorted by date some of them appear in the wrong order.
  • Using "N/A" for Unknown is misleading; the information is not "not applicable", it is unknown. Change it to just that: "Unknown".
  • The Combined reigns and By wrestler tables also need row and column scopes as per MOS:ACCESS and detailed in MOS:DTT. These are much simpler cases.

That's all from me at the moment. Harrias talk 11:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC) (Harrias based on the definition in the N/A article it can stand for not applicable,[1][2][3][4] not available[3][4] or no answer, in this case "Not Available", so it seems to be within the definition of N/A. I am working on the remaining issues. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I have addressed the majority of the issues, only the "N/A" and the row/colscope issues in the template itself. I'll work on the template to get that introduced. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Fair shout on the N/A issue; I hadn't considered that. Let me know how it goes with the row/column scopes. Harrias talk 15:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, I've made a few minor edits, but generally, that looks great to me. Good work. Harrias talk 16:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Just a note: I am taking part in the WikiCup, and will be claiming points for this review. Harrias talk 07:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for catching those issues and thank you for your support. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Justin Moore discography

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Just as a disclaimer, my work at this page has been limited to quite recently, although this is because I've only been a user since November. I've been a regular updater at this list since. I believe this list meets, or is very close to meeting, the featured list criteria, and I have compared it formatting wise to other featured lists and the formatting seems consistent with them. Hog Farm (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by BTS

Nominator(s): DanielleTH (Say hi!) 18:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a list of awards and nominations received by the K-pop group BTS. A group of editors (including myself) did an overhaul on this page back in August to fix all sources and essentially come up with a format that meets FL standards and works for K-pop articles. This list wasn't nominated due to issues with the lead but the format was used by List of awards and nominations received by Exo which passed FL. After making some changes to the lead and speaking to that editor group I got the go ahead to nominate this. This list is long, so the deciding factor on which awards to omit and those to keep was based on WP:GNG; if the win got significant enough coverage for the award show to be notable, it was put on here. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 18:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Holocaust transports from Slovakia

Nominator(s): buidhe 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a comprehensive list of all transports that deported from Slovakia between 1942 and 1945, carrying most of the Slovak Jews to their deaths. It is a pair with The Holocaust in Slovakia, headed to FAC soon, and I believe it meets the FLC criteria. Copyediting was recently done by Twofingered Typist of GOCE. This is my first FLC nomination. buidhe 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  • The first sentence feels a little weird since you're trying to have that first link; I'd suggest "During the Holocaust, most of Slovakia's Jewish population..." and link The Holocaust in Slovakia another way
    • Done
  • The lead has "In 1944" but doesn't mention the rest of "and 1944–1945". Does that 13,500 include the 1945 transports?
    • Yes it does—fixed
  • The 1942 destinations all repeat "concentration camp" but the 1944 ones do not; see if there's a better way to word for conciseness.
    • I'm not sure there is. In 1942 it's needed for clarification because destinations were concentration camps, ghettos, or extermination camps, but in 1944 all the destinations were concentration camps so it's not needed. I'll have to think about it.
  • I know sources can't all be perfectly accurate and consistent, but here it says around 67,000 died, but The_Holocaust_in_Slovakia#Aftermath has 68,000 to 71,000.
  • "The logical solution"???
    • Reworded
  • Wikilinks for the source cities like Trnava
    • Done, on first mention.
  • Is there reason some have the citation in the date column and others in the Source column
    • Yes, sources differ on the dates because some sources are giving the departure date, others the date of crossing the border, and more the arrival date. So where sources differ I cite that in the date column. For the third table, the source location is cited inline because it isn't mentioned in the main source (Büchler).
  • HSĽS is not defined
    • Fixed

Great job, thanks for your work on this important topic. Reywas92Talk 00:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

    • Reywas92, thanks so much for your comments. I think I have addressed most of them and the others I'm not sure how to fix. buidhe 01:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Excellent, I support! It wouldn't hurt to expand the lead a bit but overall it's great. Reywas92Talk 01:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Minor point: The Auschwitz list could have one or two columns sortable and I guess the notes columns in all the tables could be set to be "unsortable".Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Done both. Thanks for your review. buidhe 18:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I wonder if it should have an article description.Chidgk1 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
    plus Added buidhe 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "which resulted in large numbers of them becoming impoverished. Manufactured Jewish impoverishment was a pressing social problem for the Slovak government". "Manufactured" is an odd word to use here and I do not think you need to repeat "impoverish". How about "This became a pressing social problem""?
    •  Done
  • "In 1939, the Lublin Reservation". I would add "in Poland".
    • Done
  • "Judenberater (Jewish adviser)". This translation implies that he was Jewish, but you mean the opposite. Can you find a different translation?
    • Done
  • "Transports were timed to reach the Slovak border at Čadca at 04:28;[21] they left Patrónka,[22] Poprad,[23] and Nováky in the evening,[20] and Žilina at 03:20.[24] In Zwardon" This will mean little to readers no familiar with the geography. Also were the timings so the local population would not know what was going on? If so you should say so, and if not there is no point in mentioning them.
    • I believe you're right, but none of the sources say so. I've simplified this and put some of the detail in a note, because some readers may want to know this information.
  • Many of the figures are obviously estimates, but you do not say so unless I have missed it. This should be clarified.
    • This is a bit complicated, because most of the sources do not discuss their methodology much if at all. If it's not stated to be an estimate, I shouldn't assume it is. Furthermore, round numbers are not necessarily
  • Putting an image about 1944 in the section on 1942 is confusing.
    • I know, but the few images that exist of the ramp as it appeared in 1942 are under dubious licensing. (This image is unlikely to be free so I nominated it for deletion.) Would a different image be better?
  • I do not think you need an image in every section. I would delete the map about the uprising as less relevant and move the 1944 image to to its correct place. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done buidhe 08:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • In the 1942 section, it would be helpful to repeat the year when giving dates at the start of the Lublin and Auschwitz sub-sections.
    • Done
  • "Between 25 March and 20 October 1942, about 57,000[91][92] or 58,000[93][94] Jews (two-thirds of the population) were deported.[91][92] (According to records, the number was exactly 57,628[20] or 57,752.)" "According to records" is too vague, and in any case you do not need to go into such detail about minor differences in the figures. I would delete the discussion and just say approximately 57,700.
    • Done
  • "been deported or had fled to Hungary" I assume that they fled to Hungary because at that stage Jews were safe there, but it would be helpful to clarify.
    • Done
  • "Attempts by Germany and Slovak People's Party radicals to resume the transports in 1943 were unsuccessful" Why?
    • This is explained more fully in the linked article, but I've added a brief explanation.
  • An interesting but very harrowing article. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review! buidhe 02:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Bandai Namco video game franchises

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the third time I have decided to nominate this for FLC. This is a comprehensive list of all video game franchises created by Bandai Namco Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Banpresto and B.B. Studio, alongside those from both Namco and Bandai created prior to the merge. All entries contain references from reliable sources that prove it is a series, all of which meet WP:V. This list has been a personal project of mine that I have worked hard on improving and fixing, and I hope to see this finally become a Featured List. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle

Third time's the charm, let's take a look:

What is Wiki.RIP There is a free information resource on the Internet. It is open to any user. Wiki is a library that is public and multilingual.

The basis of this page is on
Wikipedia. Text licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License..

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is an independent company that is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation).

Privacy Policy      Terms of Use      Disclaimer