Knowledge (XXG)

< Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates‎ | Featured log

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Reywas92 04:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This article was originally just wikilinks to the trails, and there were three separate pages with simple tables for the scenic trails, historic trails, and recreation trails. I suppose I could have gotten a couple FLs and a couple GAs out of that, but sources mainly cover the system as a whole and I thought they'd be better presented together (as I do for many topics), so here they all are with descriptions, history, and details! Learned a ton of history reading way further into these than I needed to to write a few sentences each. I've hiked segments of five NSTs and a handful of NRTs and been to historic sites on five NHTs and the NGT, but now I need to see some more (Ala Kahakai next month!). My other open nomination is ready to be closed, and I appreciate your comments. Reywas92 04:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment

• "Due to extent of construction of route realignments" => "Due to the extent of construction of route realignments"?
• Under El Camino Real de los Tejas, I suggest wikilinking proselytization, as it's quite an obscure word (I only know what it means because my son learnt about it in an RE lesson literally a few days ago and asked me if I knew what it meant. I didn't ;-) )
• "Native Americans whose land they intruded" => "Native Americans upon whose land they intruded"
• "Six year into the Revolutionary War" => "Six years into the Revolutionary War"
• That's all I got. Fabulous work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • All done, thanks! Reywas92 17:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The table needs a caption (e.g. "|+ National Scenic Trails" or, if you'd prefer it to only show for screen reader software, "|+ {{sronly|National Scenic Trails}}"
• Trail photos need alt text
• --PresN 03:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Ugh I knew that! Y Reywas92 19:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• You have Washington, D.C. for ref 12 but not the others—should be for all or none
• generally all caps should be avoided for titles (ref 51)

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• (optional) Recommend archiving links with the bot
• Seems fine in general Aza24 (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Y I'll look into how to call the bot. Thanks! Reywas92 00:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• • Pass for source review. By the way, the bot is super easy to use if you're interested. Just go to "view history" — "fix dead links" — (you might have to login here) — "Add archives to all non-dead references" and "analyze". Aza24 (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Links to external sites in main text are forbidden and should be changed to citations.
  • You mean the laws? Those are built into a template rather than citation formats and are permitted.

• But Template:UnitedStatesCode says "This template links to an external site, the Cornell University Law School U.S. Code database. External links should not normally be used in the body of an article". Nikkimaria can you advise please? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• That's correct, ELs are not normally used inline. However, there has been some discussion around using this particular template as an exception to that rule. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think that in this case the templates for the acts should be moved to be citations. As things stand, the last two sentences of this paragraph are unreferenced. Do the acts support the second to last sentence? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Looking through the uses of this template it's very widely used inline, which I think is a reasonable exception to what is normal. I moved both to footnotes though, but further guidance about the use of these may be warranted. Yes, that sentence is supported by section 1244. Reywas92 14:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Since 1968, over forty trail routes have been studied for inclusion in the system." I would leave this out. It is the trails actually created which are of interest to the reader.
  • I do believe this is relevant because these studies are ordered by Congress as part of the National Trails System Act and are part of the process for creation, with a study ordered before full designation (though some did not receive that ). It could be worded in better context though.
• "Most of the trails are continuous non-motorized long-distance trails". This implies that some are open to motor vehicles. It would be helpful to give an indication of how many, if available.
  • An IP just changed that last month and I don't know why... Done.
• "this trail dating to the 1920s sees around a thousand thru-hikers each year,". No change needed, but do you know the standard time it takes to do the whole trail?
  • About six months, I know someone who's done it and someone on the trail now!
• "They represent the earliest travels in the country in Chesapeake Bay and on Spanish royal roads". Presumably only the earliest by people of European origin?
  • Ah yes; I just somewhat changed what was there before I started but have added "European".
• "Associated sites along the trail, extended in 2019 to include their preparation along the Ohio River, include their starting point Camp Dubois near Gateway Arch National Park". The second "include" looks wrong to me. I would delete it.
  • Ah no, the middle part of that is a separate clause: Camp Dubois, etc. wasn't part of the extension, which only included their preparation trip. Changed the first one to "encompass" if that's clearer.
• So no trails follow traditional native American routes?
  • No, two do: Natchez Trace NST and Ala Kahakai NHT.
• A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Reywas92 23:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I think it would be better to move the templates for the acts to citations, keeping to the rule of no external links in main text, but it is not a deal breaker. Dudley Miles (talk)

Image review

Lots of images, but most are from Flickr or uploaded by the commons user.

• File:Yorktown VA NPS 18-pdr cannon.jpg and File:US National Trails System, 50th Anniversary map.jpg – should probably have {{PD-USGov-NPS}} rather than {{PD-USGov}}
• File:NRT Logo.gif – It is a copyrighted file with Non-free media use rationale. It seems to meet the 10 Non-free content criteria policy. I'll suggest to add these links in source of the rationale (1, 2)
• Rest all images are fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Reywas92 14:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Pass for image licencing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support on prose. I made minor tweaks, but this is top-notch work, IMO. Eddie891 _Work 20:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks! Reywas92 14:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): TheWikiholic (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Nominating this for the featured list because I think it has greatly improved from its previous failed nomination. The page was copy-edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. I've also fixed the other issues pointed out during the previous reviews. I hope to fix the remaining issues the way I recently did with this successful nomination. Looking for comments and suggestions. Warmest Regards...— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "in 1990; ." – assuming this is a typo; is there a clause that needs to be added there?  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Tables need captions at the top using either |+ your caption or |+ {{sronly|your caption}}  Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Move the code for each of the images to the start of the relevant decade instead of listing them all at once. Otherwise, on mobile devices, there will be a long list of images before the tables, and the tables and images won't match up like they do on desktop. RunningTiger123 take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Rowspans for the years 1989 and 1997 need to be fixed  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Descriptions for video albums are incomplete sentences and therefore shouldn't have periods  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Bullets for album details for Video Greatest Hits – HIStory appear broken  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Production of Stark Raving Dad → Production of "Stark Raving Dad"  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Sources 127–130 should use "Last, First" instead of "First Last" for authors' names to match the other citations.  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC) This isn't a source review, but after a quick scan I think source 9 should be improved (connecting the patent to the video is a bit too much OR). Also, I'm not sure how it got there, but source 18 should be fixed...  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC) — RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Everything from earlier looks good; just two more quick fixes I noticed. In the lead, use Michael Jackson's Ghosts instead of "Michael Jackson's Ghosts".  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Last row in video albums table is still an incomplete sentence with a period — RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "It featured Macaulay Culkin, Tess Harper, and George Wendt and Jackson" - the two "and"s read a bit oddly here

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The singer's first music video as a solo artist, shows" - no reason for that comma

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• "It was filmed on the 800 Stage stage" - Stage stage?

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Darryl wants to prove to his friends private school has not changed him" => "Darryl wants to prove to his friends that private school has not changed him"

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Image captions that are complete sentences, like "Paula Abdul appears in the "Liberian Girl" video", need full stops. Those that are not complete sentences don't.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• "reporting on the his eccentric behavior" - there's a stray word in there

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support As I see no other issues. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review – A few issues could stand to be worked out: The publisher of ref 18 is listed as EW. If this is Entertainment Weekly magazine, the publisher should probably be spelled out and italicized.  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC) What makes Rap Dose (ref 99) a reliable source?  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC) What makes Documentary Heaven (ref 113) reliable?  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Please check this link for websites that are being flagged. The link-checker does come up with some false positives, but some of these are old links and it's worth seeing if any need archived versions or replacements. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Giants2008 I'm not seeing any suspicious or dead links there. Please let me know if you think any one of these sources needs an urgent replacement. Thanks.— TheWikiholic (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have all been addressed. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, going to straight to the succeeding year after List of Billboard Tropical Airplay number ones of 1994 and 1995 just became FL. After this FLC, I plan to zigzag with the Latin pop and tropical #1's of each other with the same years. Here goes nothing! Erick (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Víctor Manuelle and Jerry Rivera achieved their first chart-toppers in 1996 and had two number ones in the year" - I would say "Víctor Manuelle and Jerry Rivera achieved their first chart-toppers in 1996 and each had two number ones in the year" for total clarity
• ""Loco de Amor" by Rivera held this position for the longest with seven weeks in a tie Frankie Ruiz's song "Ironía"" - better, I think, to say ""Loco de Amor" by Rivera held this position for seven weeks and tied with Frankie Ruiz's song "Ironía" for the longest run at number one"
• "which also the final number one of the year" => "which was also the final number one of the year"
• Think that's it from me - nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks as always! I got everything you brought up. One of these days, I have to return the favor by reviewing one of your Country #1's FLC. Erick (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Source 3 only proves "Nadie Como Ella" was on the chart for one week in 1995, not two weeks as the line suggests. The source goes to an online database. Since it mentions it being three consecutive, readers just have to click the following to verify it. I don't think it's really needed to put another footnote for an online database. But if it's absolutely necessary, then I'll do it. + I don't think it's good to make readers verify it themselves, so more sourcing is needed. But you could also just link the next week by itself, since it confirms that the song was number 1 both that week (December 30) and the previous week (December 23 – aka the week currently cited). "Gilberto Santa Rosa" should sort by "Santa Rosa", not "Rosa" "Santa" is his middle name, not his first-two last names (Rosa-Cortes is his last name). The article for Gilberto Santa Rosa uses "Santa Rosa" as his family name, and a quick perusal of the sources cited in that article backs that up. As the article notes, "In this Spanish name, the first or paternal surname is Santa Rosa and the second or maternal family name is Cortés." I'm not convinced that the photo of Jerry Rivera is acceptable – the watermark makes me suspect someone uploaded it and claimed it as their own. I would suggest replacing the picture. Replaced picture. Page title for source 26 is wrong Fixed. – RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: I'll get to work on this tomorrow. Thanks for the comments! @RunningTiger123: I have fixed the latter two problems and commented on the first two. Erick (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Comments above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: Gotcha, I think that about covers it? I really appreciate the help you provided in your feedback. :) Erick (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• No issues (impressively!)

Reliability

• Fine; the established convention is already using Billboard sources for Billboard lists

Verifiability

• No issues
• Welp, not anything to say. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing much to say, except giving my Support for promotion of this nomination as a Featured List, mainly on basis of the prose. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone! With 72 of these lists now promoted to FL, here's what I hope will be #73. Notable events in this year include only the third song ever to enter the Hot Country Songs chart at #1, a superstar assemblage of country singers from multiple generations. As ever, I will respond as soon as possible to feedback...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Florida Georgia Line caption needs a period.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comma needed before and Brett Eldredge topped Country
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Is which topped both charts. supported by ref 8?
  • No, but I didn't think that phrase needed a citation, as it's self-evident from the table..... - ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah, okay. ~ HAL333 15:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

That's all. Great work as usual. ~ HAL333 22:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• @HAL333: - responses above :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 15:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I fixed two double redirects, so you might want to check for other double redirects.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 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 isn't 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. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Everything looks good with this list. I made some very minor edits, which were very nitpick-y, but otherwise, I cannot find anything that requires further comments or revisions. I support the article for promotion. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed – this – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• No issues.

Reliability

• Seems fine to me. Most of the citations are from Billboard, appropriate for these type of lists.

Verifiability

• Suggesting to archive all citations. This one was easy to check. Source review – pass – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I've been working on this page for a bit–taking after United States congressional delegations from Utah, I added language and citations, added photos by the lists, updated the tables to look nicer, added notes, and cleaned up/culled templates that didn't make sense anymore, and I think this fits the FL criteria now. This is my first FL nomination, so I am and always will be happy to take suggestions! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "meaning that each seat a class determining in which years the seat will be up for election" - think there's either some words missing or too many words here, as this doesn't make sense
• At the start of the House of Representatives section, the exact same paragraph appears twice
• "the first woman of color to serve in the United States Congress from any state" - source?
• "Spark Masayuki Matsunaga" vs "Spark Matsunaga" - any reason for the variation in name?
• That's all I got on a first pass - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:  Done Changed the language on that sentence, deleted the extra paragraph, added a source (thanks to the article Patsy Mink for providing a ref to steal), and corrected the variation (it was preserved from the previous table)–thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The tables needs a caption, e.g. at the top of the table code add "|+ <table_caption_text>" or, if that caption would duplicate a nearby header, you can make it only for screen reader software like "|+ {{sronly|<table_caption_text>}}". Captions allow screen reader software to jump to tables by name.
• Column headers need to be marked with colscopes, e.g. "! colspan=2 | Class 1 senators" should be "!scope=col colspan=2 | Class 1 senators". Colscopes and Rowscopes (below) allow screen reader software to properly read out tables verbally.
• The primary cell of each row should be marked with rowscopes, e.g. "| rowspan=9 | Hiram Fong (R)" should be "!scope=row rowspan=9 | Hiram Fong (R)" --PresN 02:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: I have been away from my computer for a while, but it appears all of these have been  Done by others in my absence. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: sorry, second ping here- what's happening with this nomination? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

FLC nominations need more reviewer attention than this before they can be closed; there seems to be a lull in activity this month, but I'd recommend reaching out to relevant wikiprojects and editors to see if anyone is willing to review the list. --PresN 14:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments, Image review and Source review from Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

;Comments I have seen this list listed here from almost a month without any review. Maybe I can help. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC) And just to be clear, I made 2-3 edit in the article some weeks ago, but those were made just to address the accessibility review comments by PresN. With 1% authorship, I don't consider myself a major contributor of the list (and thus can review it). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Image review File:Hawaii Congressional Districts, 113th Congress.tif – The source link is dead. Probably replace it by this archived link File:Hiram Fong.jpg – Source required File:Daniel Inouye Official Photo 2009.jpg – Source link dead. Probably replace it with this link File:Brian Schatz, official portrait, 113th Congress 2.jpg – Add this link as the source on commons. File:Mazie Hirono, official portrait, 113th Congress.jpg – Everything looks fine here File:Robert William Wilcox 1900.jpg – Everything looks fine here. Add link of the book/journal if you can find it.  Done theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) File:Elizabethfarrington.jpg – Source required File:John A. Burns 1966.jpg – Replace source link with this link. File:Patsymink.jpg – I'm not sure about this, but the source doesn't has the exact same image. It looks like it's just a different background–I couldn't find the source for that exact image either, but it looks like the sources hold up regardless. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) File:Neil Abercrombie.jpg – Everything looks fine here. File:Tulsi Gabbard by Gage Skidmore.jpg – Everything looks fine here. File:Ed Case, official portrait, 116th Congress.jpg – Add the source link for this image. @Theleekycauldron – Ping me whenever you have addressed those issues. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC) @Kavyansh.Singh: I wasn't sure what to about Patsy Mink's image either, but everything else seems to be  Done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Source review Version reviewed — 1 Formatting Ref 1 - Link is dead. Add this archived link, and link The New York Times Although not necessary, I suggest adding this link to the reference stating "U.S. Constitution, Amendment XVII" Add "Chris Cillizza" as the name and "December 17, 2012" as the source date in Ref 3. Also, link The Washington Post and add url access level as "subscription". Ref 4 - Link is dead. Add this archived link and link Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Ref 5 - Spell out date (1990-04-16 → April 16, 1990) to maintain consistency. Ref 7 - Replace "hawaii.gov" by, maybe Government of Hawaii. Ref 8 - The source link redirects to another web-page. Add this link as the archived link. Ref 9 - Although not necessary, I suggest replacing the citation by this one, as it can be accessed by the reader, while no link is available with citation in its current form. I appreciate you making the clip. :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) Ref 10 - Although not necessary, I suggest adding this link to "U.S. Const. Art. I, § 2". Ref 11 - Add link to American Factfinder Ref 12 - Source link has 404 error. Please check, and add link to Hawaii State Capitol. Ref 13 - Source link stated that the document was released on November 15, 1960. Ref 14 - Add link to Democrats.org. Also, Washington D.C. is the only location with citation in the article. you may wish to remove to for maintaining consistency. Ref 15 - Spell out date Ref 17 - Add link to Associated Press, spell out date, and add url access level = "subscription". Ref 18 - Spell out date, and add link to NPR. Ref 19 - Spell out date, and add url access level = "subscription". Ref 20 - Add link to NPR, and add January 5, 2010 as source date. Ref 21 - Add July 21, 2016 as Source date, and link NBC @theleekycauldron – Sorry for the long list of quibbles, but these are just minor errors, which can easily be fixed. Ping me whenever you fixed these, so that I can proceed with the Reliability and review. I suggest adding links to all the news organizations/newspapers/websites,etc. Also, archive all the citation links through this tool. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Fixed the citations! No problem on the nitpicks- i'll update when I've added image sources. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Reliability No issues. All sources seem to be from reliable sources. Verifiability Overall the verifiability looks fine, but I would still prefer a citation for the following statements. Since Hawaii became a U.S. state in 1959,.... The current dean of the Hawaii delegation is Mazie Hirono,.... Couldn't find a good source for this, curiously enough–i'll go digging around more but it's strange. Sources on deans of delegations seem to be few and far in between. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) The first delegate, Robert William Wilcox,.... Everything else should be  Done General comments Add Alt text for all the images. There appears to be no images lacking alt text that aren't purely decorative. Maybe it would be informative to add that Patsy Mink was the first East Asian-American woman to seek the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. (Source) Insider seems like a biiiit too shaky of a source for me, but I'm not rigid on that one. Also, Mink's caption is pretty length already–I think its best to leave as is. In my opinion, there should be a "See also" section, however, it's completely upto you and is not a big deal. Added! The images from Congress seems to be correctly licenced, however, I still doubt Patcy Mink's image. Maybe you can replace it with this image Switched! @theleekycauldron – Apart from those minor issues, great work overall! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC) @Kavyansh.Singh: thanks so much! I changed most of it- I couldn't find a source for Hirono's deanship and didn't think the line about Mink should be added. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron – That's fine. I have made an edit to add some links. In my opinion, all the major issues have been resolved. The only issue I see is the grey color rectangles in the senate table, between the Class I senators and the congress column (they didn't existed in the previous version). Maybe, that needs to be removed/re-formatted. Else, everything seems to be fine. I have done the Image Review and the Source Review. Since the remaining issue is a minor one, I feel I am ready to Support this article for promotion as a Featured List. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I did United States congressional delegations from Indiana long ago so I'm happy to see this one!

• one from both -> one from each
• In caption you can use Map instead of Geographical location. Not a complete sentence so no period. And technically that map didn't take effect until 2013
• ndash after 2012 should have spaces around it or be an emdash
• No comma after House
• I think the lead could include more facts like that Matsunaga, Akaka, and Hirono all served in both houses. Maybe include a count of people who've served in each house and total, like the Utah and Indiana lists. Since the delegation is so small you could even mention all of them, not just Hirono. Up to you what else you can think of but the lead's a bit short.
• "Hawaii's senators are elected in classes 1 and 3." but then the table says Class I and Class II.
• "from 1963–2012" -> "from 1963 to 2012"
• "The territory initially consisted of the Hawaiian Islands, with the exception of Baker Island, Canton Island, Enderbury Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, and Midway Atoll." I don't understand this sentence, these aren't part of the Hawaiian Islands so they're not exceptions.
• "to be succeeded" -> "succeeded"
• There's a stray semicolon before ref 13, seems like the "Hawaii had one seat" sentence belonged there instead of the end of the paragraph.
• "both of Hawaii's representatives to the United States" -> "both of Hawaii's representatives"
• The first two tables had (D) and (R) in the key but this one doesn't, be consistent
• "from 1986–1987 and from 1991–2010" see https://style.mla.org/words-with-dash-in-range/
• All of the see also links are in the article already so the section should just be removed
  • For this point, instead of removing the section, you may add other lists like United States congressional delegations from Indiana, Utah, etc. But it doesn't matters much, and could also be removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Template at the bottom missing {

Reywas92 16:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Thanks! Apologies for the delay. Almost everything on the list is  Done, but I want to talk to another user about the party abbreviations—I'm not sure if they're so necessary in general. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks great, Support once the abbrevations are resolved for all or none of the keys. Any comments at Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/National Trails System/archive1 would be appreciated. Reywas92 15:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I removed all of the party abbreviations–with the keys at the top of every table, I don't believe it to be necessary. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

They were re-added per MOS:COLOR so i made it consistent. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed (I fixed a couple date formats and removed the "english" language parameters as that field is only for non-english languages); promoting. --PresN 18:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list after working on getting the singer's list of songs and awards to FL status. It has gone through a copy-edit to improve the lead. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated.

A pre-emptive comment re sourcing – I've struggled with finding reliable sources for music videos specifically dating back in the 80s and 90s (e.g. MTV, Billboard and the likes). Unlike in the U.S., the Philippine music scene is quite devoid of music video promotion and charts. I utilized a website/artist page that compiled a screenshot of videos released, which perhaps can be an acceptable substitute. As well, I have used verified/official YouTube channels (per WP:RSPYT) for the more recent ones. I’ve sought guidance before nominating and Aza24 was kind enough to provide clarity. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• In the film table, "Mars Ravelo's Captain Barbell" sorts under C for Captain. If the title of the film was Mars Ravelo's Captain Barbell, it should sort under M

Film title corrected, it was in fact released as Captain Barbell in 2003. Same correction made under music videos too.

• The notes in the stage table are not full sentences, so they shouldn't have full stops

Removed full stops

• Same for the notes in the video albums table

Done

• Description column in the commercials table should not be sortable

Fixed

• Some of the refs in the commercials table have the company (eg Ariel (detergent)) as the author. These should be shown as the publisher, not the author.

Done for the refs noted, switched from author to publisher

• That's all I got - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review ChrisTheDude! I have addressed the above comments, let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Much appreciated! Pseud 14 (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and support, ChrisTheDude! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your patience with my review. I support this list for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current peer review on a more obscure singer. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate your review and support Aoba47! Happy to look at your peer review this week. Take care Pseud 14 (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 00:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

* She went on to appear in a series of supporting roles in the comedies Pik Pak Boom (1988) and Elvis and James 2 (1990) --> "She went on to appear in supporting roles in the comedies Pik Pak Boom (1988) and Elvis and James 2 (1990)" Done Her first leading role on television came in 2000 in an episode of the IBC-13 anthology series Habang May Buhay --> "Her first leading television role was in a 2000 episode of the IBC-13 anthology series Habang May Buhay" is more concise. Done In 2003, the next two films she starred in were the romantic comedy Pangarap Ko Ang Ibigin Ka and the superhero film Captain Barbell. The use of "next films" suggests that the previous films were also in 2003. Reword. Reworded To make the lead a little less repetitive, I would replace a few instances of "played" with "portrayed". Done Reword a FAMAS and a Luna Award nominations. Reworded The caption Filipino actor Piolo Pascual appears in the music video for "Paano Kita Iibigin". needs a source for him being Filipino. Changed caption to "Piolo Pascual appears in the music video for "Paano Kita Iibigin" instead, which is supported by the existing source, and consistent with how other images are captioned under music videos. That's all. ~ HAL333 22:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC) Thanks for your review HAL333! The above comments have been addressed. Let me know if there's anything amiss or needs revision. Much appreciate your input. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 00:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks HAL333! Pseud 14 (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions- e.g. at the top of each table code put `|+ table_caption_text`. If this text would duplicate a nearby section header, you can hide it from visual browsers like |+ {{sronly|table_caption_text}}. This allows non-visual screen reader software to jump straight to a named table without having to read out all the text above it to find it. --PresN 16:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PresN, I missed this one. Done per these changes. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed:

Formatting

• Is "Journal Online Ph" the People's Journal? Would link if so
• Ref 9 missing link to work

Reliability

• Considering the subject matter, fine overall. The potential issue already discussed (and explained in the nom statement)

Verifiability

• Checked a few for statistical information—no issues
• The two issues seem far too minor to prevent a source review pass. I would still attend to them at some point though. Aza24 (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Aza24, I have addressed the two points above. Appreciate your time in doing the review. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Closing; promoted. --PresN 18:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Eddie891 _Work 23:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been working on this on and off across the past few months or so. I think it is more or less at FL level, though it's been rather a while since I worked on lists. I found the topic super interesting, and hope you will too. I've created or rewritten articles on 10 of the memoirs in addition, increasing the proportion of articles substantially. Any comments welcome. Eddie891 _Work 23:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

A fascinating list! Doing this now. Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Right now there are three different ways of formatting dates in the refs—they should be standardized to one or the other
  • this should have gotten them
• ref 7 missing retrieval date
  • Removed ref, it's cited in the other sources (which came out after the release)
• ref 1 should be in a template like the others
  • Converted to cite news, which is what I think you're looking for
• the Guardian should be capitalized ('The)
  • Done
• Hmm pretty sure "AP NEWS" should be "AP News"—maybe just do "Associated Press" to be safe?
  • Done
• ref 9 missing author
  • added
• the ", 1962" seems to be missing from the title of ref 12
  • Added
• Deadline should probably be the "work" for ref 7
  • Cut as mentioned above
• Recommendations:
  • Put the further reading into a template so the formatting is the same as the books in the refs
    • Done
  • Perhaps put Reuters as the author for ref 8 since it's clear that its not just an NBC staff member writing it?
    • • Converted to cite news, work=Reuters via= NBC News. Does that work?
        • Yeah that works too, good idea!
  • Archive the links with the bot
    • Loosed the bot

Reliability

• Looks good

Verifiability

• Sorry to be a nuisance, but I'm not sure its clear where the publisher and year information for the individual books is coming from Aza24 (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I was intending the identifiers to supply sufficient information to identify the book-- we allow, for instance the books to cite themselves in 'bibliography' sections of FAs, I think-- I was thinking of it like a spread-out cite book template, though I could just cite separately if you want. Let me know. Many thanks, Aza24, should be all handled. Eddie891 _Work 00:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Hmm okay, I suspected something like that. For the OCLCs I don't see a huge deal, since they link directly to World Cat which has all the information. But the ISBNs don't, making verifiability a bit hard since the reader wouldn't know what to click from there. Part of me wonders if you should include both... any ideas or thoughts? Also, I'd add a retrieval date to ref 6, since you have ones for the other ISSN and JSTOR refs. Aza24 (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Aza24 I mean, it's been done on FLs such as List of Maya Angelou works... I'd be happy to add OCLCs (and potentially LCCNs) to all if you think that would be better (as at Madonna bibliography). Let me know. Eddie891 _Work 01:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
        • For verifiability's sake, the OCLCs would certainly be helpful. LCCNs might be overkill, but up to you in the end. This isn't a huge point (and I'd be happy to pass the source review regardless), but the OCLCs are such a direct way to the information cited, it seems a waste not to include. Aza24 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

          Aza24 Better? Cheers, Eddie891 _Work 23:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

          • Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is very short, I'd be tempted to merge it with the history section (and move the image to the top)
  • Done-- does it look OK still?
• "....FLOTUS had memoirs published in their lifetime" - why not "FLOTUS had memoirs published in her lifetime"? They are all women.....
  • Done
• "Every first lady after Betty Ford has published at least one memoir." - not true - you specifically note later in the article that Melania has not published a memoir
• "Since then, every first lady has written and published at least one memoir about their life" - again, not true
  • Switched the two to "most first ladies"
• Several names are linked multiple times in the history section, they only need to be linked once each
  • Done
• Jill Biden's memoir was published before she became FLOTUS. Any others in this category? Worth mentioning in the text?
  • Just biden, I think, had memoirs published prior to, though Clinton and Roosevelt definitely wrote about their careers outside of being FLOTUS. Sources don't really mention it, but I've added a note.
• Notes which are not full sentences should not have full stops
  • done, though I may have over-corrected
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, ChrisTheDude, all points responded to, what do you think now? Eddie891 _Work 13:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh.Singh

• Add Alt text to the image.

Done (correctly, I think)

• In note 7, "FLOTUS" should probably be replaced by "First lady of the United States", or just "First lady".

Done

• There is an issue with the sorting. Hillary Clinton (with the book What Happened) is sorted between Julia Grant and Lady Bird Johnson.

Done

• Add links to newspapers, websites or journals in the Citations (various like The Washington Post, USA Today, etc.)

Done, I guess

@Eddie891 – Ping me whenever you address those issues. Thanks for your work so far. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Kavyansh.Singh, what do you think now? Eddie891 _Work 19:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891 – The changes look good. Overall, the list seems fine, and the only image is in Public Domain (published before 1926). I have made an edit to the list, making minor changes. I feel, I am in position to Support this list for promotion as a Featured list. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Why would the very first sentence mention published correspondence if these are not memoirs and not included in the table? Fair to discuss Adams in the lead but that shouldn't be there if it's not elsewhere too.
  • Cut the mention of correspondence in the lede
• The second paragaph has weird organization, going from who the first lady is to Adams's correspondence to a book that wasn't even real letters(?).
  • Rearranged somewhat, is it better? Also, the source does say that Cutts was the author, but upon further research this seems to be an oversimplification, I've attempted to clarify. There's definitely a stand alone article there.
• "several First Ladies" be consistent with capitalization since this is lowercase elsewhere
  • -> lowercase
• "After Taft, several First Ladies wrote their own memoirs, including Edith Wilson, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Lady Bird Johnson. In the 1930s Grace Coolidge published her memoirs as several articles in The American Magazine." This is weird, why are those three just listed by name, while Coolidge, who was between Wilson and Roosevelt, has her own sentence?
  • Combined Coolidge, the list of people is all first ladies to Betty Ford
• "Memoirs by presidential spouses were uncommon until the publication of Betty Ford's in the 1970s." This seems like it should go earlier in the paragraph; you've already listed the exceptions to "uncommon" before this statement. Maybe move the first part earlier, and then say "Most first ladies since Betty Ford..."
  • Reorganized. Better?
• Why isn't there a citation for "bright, witty, delightfully entertaining reminiscences" since this is a quotation? This alone also doesn't support the previous claim that they were trivial or for women.
  • It's in the cite that follows (the WaPo article). I'm not aware of there being a requirement that citations immediately follow quotes, but I've duplicated anyways. The WaPo article specifically comments on how Wilson and Taft's were considered not super revealing and specifically highlights the contrast.
• "was criticized for excessively" also unsourced
  • Ditto
• "Early published memoirs...for instance" speaks broadly, but Taft's and Wilson's were the only early published memoirs, so since the paragraph describes both it's not like you're just giving an example of several.
  • Removed "For instance"
• Then it describes Roosevelt making a shift to politics from personal life, but her first memoir This Is My Story (memoir) is still personal and pre-politics content so maybe give that in this context.
  • I mean the memoir was published in '37 when FDR had been president for four years and that isn't really what the source says; it describes all four memoirs as not emphasizing personal life.
• Barbara Bush can be linked in the lead
  • Done
• Use "Memoirs" or something desciptive as the section header instead of just "List"
  • Done
• No issues with the table! Very interesting overall.

Reywas92 16:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Pinging Eddie891 just to ensure that they saw the above suggestions. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping I somehow missed this. Thank you very much for the comments, Reywas92, what do you think about my responses? Eddie891 _Work 13:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

    Support All addressed well, thanks, great list! Any comments for Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/National Trails System/archive1 would also be appreciated. Reywas92 17:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Closing; promoted. --PresN 18:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that these types of lists on United States presidential elections have a great potential to be FL, and promotion of this list would help me in modifying 50 other similar lists. I almost completely re-formatted the list, added a lead, and key for political parties. It lists all the elections in which the state of Arkansas participated, with votes and percentage. I intend to make similar changes to all the lists within this series but first wanted to finalize the structure of the list, which would be best done during this process. I would respond to every comment, and try to bring this nomination to FL standards whenever needed. Check this page for progress. Thanks! (49 states + Washington D.C. more to go) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "In the realigning election of 1860" - what's a realigning election? Added link for realigning election. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC) "10 slave states that didn't provide" => "10 slave states that did not provide" Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC) "lead to the dominance" => "led to the dominance" Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Sorting on the first table has some issues. Van Buren should sort under V, not B, and Cass sorts between Pierce and Polk for reasons that I cannot figure out Fixed the sorting issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Refs against 1864 are in the wrong order Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC) La Folette should sort under L, not F Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Maps could do with explanation. Presumably all the tiny subdivisions are counties? What about the colours - what do the different colours/shades represent? I tried to answer those questions by adding a Explanatory Footnote. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Note a is a complete sentence so needs a full stop Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC) "are on third place in Arkansas" => "were in third place in Arkansas" Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC) "Due of its strong desire" => "Due to its strong desire" Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC) For ref 1, if the authors are "The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica", those words should be shown in the correct order, not the weird format it currently has Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC) That's what I got on a first pass...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude – I have made the necessary changes in these edits. Please let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Changes look good, but before I support I would like some input on the maps from somebody who knows more than me about accessibility issues - are there any concerns, for example, about people with eyesight issues being able to distinguish between light blue and light red, for example? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Sure, I'll wait for an accessibility review by PresN or any other willing editor. I just took these maps from all the Arkansas election articles. Would definitely consider any possible alternative/solution for the maps. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Hi @ChrisTheDude – I have removed all the map images due to concerns about sources for the election results in each county. I guess, rest all of your concerns are resolved. Please let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Passed image review by (t · c) buidhe 07:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

;Image review Comment on the images: Right now I don't have time to check each of the election maps for copyright issues, although I'm concerned that the maps don't cite sources for the election results in each county. If you feel that the maps are adding significantly to the article, I would strongly suggest integrating them into the table where they can be seen along with the other information about each election, and adding discussion of regional variations in presidential elections in Arkansas. (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC) @Buidhe – About copyright issues, I guess there wont be any big issue as all the maps are created by Knowledge (XXG) commons users, so they are published with a suitable licence. I too was curious about knowing the source for counties, which I had asked a user, but didn't get a response. I have contacted some more users who created maps for elections. Probably they can help. About integrating maps in the table, I think that can be done (like in this version), but I am concerned about the width of the table. Still, would try. Thanks for your help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC) @Buidhe – I have removed all the images of maps from the article due to lack of reliable sources (for exact county result). The only remaining image is a US map with Arkansas highlighted. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Pass for image licensing (t · c) buidhe 07:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Fair warning: Since you've expressed an interest in modifying the other states' election articles to match this, I'm going to be a lot more nitpicky just so the standard is set in the right place. Hopefully, this will make any future nominations easier. Definitely – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Lead Arkansas should be linked in the lead sentence Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) all the six electoral votes of Arkansas → all six electoral votes of Arkansas or Arkansas's six electoral votes Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Don't link Union (the article links to the same article earlier in the lead) Also, either capitalize all appearances of "Union" or don't, but don't mix "Union" and "union" as it currently does Done both – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Both words should be capitalized in "Democratic Party" and "Republican Party" Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Link presidential election of 1968 for consistency Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Link Bill Clinton for consistency Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) won Arkansas by 53.21% → won Arkansas with 53.21% (saying someone won by a given percentage implies the difference between their vote percentage and the runner-up's is that percentage, not that they received that percentage) Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Since source 10 is only about Arkansas, I doubt it verifies that Arkansas was the only state in the presidential election of 1992 to be won by a majority of the popular vote. Changed the source – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) I would suggest adding a semicolon instead of a period before the new source 10 so it is obvious that Clinton's results in the following line are for 1992. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC) won Arkansas by comfortable margins – original research Removed that part – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Now says won Arkansas by in – a word needs to be removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC) If the infobox is going to note the times Arkansas has voted for the winning or losing candidate, the winner should probably be marked in the table Done, added double dagger in the table to represent the national winner – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) The wording for the note in the key is a bit awkward. I would suggest A double dagger (‡) indicates the national winner. (or something similar). Also, I would suggest placing the double dagger after the candidate's name and party in the table instead of before.RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC) Tables I would suggest moving the 1864 election to the same table as the 1860 election, for two reasons. First, this puts the Civil War-era elections together, offering more justification for creating a separate table. Second, since the 1860 table isn't sortable, there won't be sorting issues caused by having a cell span multiple columns. Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Not a fan of placing the graph between tables – move it to the end Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) This is not a source review and I did not carefully check each cell, but there are some entries that are blatantly wrong. For instance: Streeter did not win 59,000+ votes in 1888 Benson did not win 48,000+ votes in 1916 Hamblen did not win 177,000+ votes in 1952 Johnson did not win 380,000+ votes in 2016 Done, fixed all the three. These were typos! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Please double-check all numbers to make sure they match what is listed here. Schmitz's 1972 vote count needs a comma Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Suggest adding Template:Abbr to the party affiliation in the table (i.e., (R) instead of (R)) so readers don't have to keep scrolling to the key Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Footnote e: What happens if multiple candidates each meet at least one requirement, as in the 1912 election? That's possible. If that's the scenario for any other state, the candidate on the third position would be mentioned. (and maybe the candidate on the fourth position would be mentioned in an Efn.) Okay, then the footnote needs to indicate which criteria are prioritized over others. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Made the necessary change in the footnote. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC) I agree with Buidhe's concerns about the images' reliability; there are no sources on the images' pages to verify the county-level data, so it is currently unsourced information and fails WP:FLCR #3B. Other "Work cited" heading should be "Works cited" Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Citations for Brill 1997 and Guide to U.S. Elections 2009 should use same date format as other sources (Month Day, Year). Additionally, both of these sources link to Google Books but have no preview available, so it would be better to omit the URL. Books don't need a URL; as long as there is an ISBN, it's cited correctly. Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC) — RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC) Hi @RunningTiger123 – I have fixed almost everything in these edits. I do want to discuss some issues. Firstly, there is considerable disagreement between the sources about the exact vote totals. I have thoroughly checked all the sources and prepared this table (here). The data from 1976 to 2020 is safe, as it is taken directly from Secretary of State of Arkansas' website (i.e. official certified result) Some of the older election (1880, 1920) have different results in different books. I have taken only those values in the article, which were verified by 2 or more sources. So, do I need to cite the sourced which disagree with the vote total? And, do I need to mention the same in the article? Secondly, the data for maps (counties results) could be verified by this website, which have county result of all the elections. These are the sources which that website has consulted. Should I go ahead and mention this as the source for the map files? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC) For your first point, as long as the sources in the table match the information in the table, it's fine. (In other words, there is no need to list the disagreeing source unless you want to point it out.) For your second point, I would suggest reaching out to the people who created the maps and seeing where they got their data, then link to that on the file pages. I would not recommend adding the source you provided unless that is where the users got their data. Other comments are included above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Hi @RunningTiger123 – I guess I have made all the changes as specified, except the map sources. I had already asked some users who created the maps, but didn't got any response on sources. I have reached out to another user, hopefully they help me. If not, I will consider removing all the maps. Thanks for your review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC) Hi @RunningTiger123 – I decided that the best possible alternative is to remove all the map images as (a) they don't cite sources for cross-verifying the shading (b) concerns regarding whether people with eyesight issues being able to distinguish between shading (c) purely decorative, I added images just because they were available, and doesn't really add up much to the article. Rest all of your concerns are resolved. Please let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support – this seems like a good template for other lists, and if you choose to keep pursuing them, that would be a great addition to Knowledge (XXG). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – Very interesting topic for a list. If this is going to be a series in the future (which I'd love to see), one thing that might be useful is noting any home-state candidates. For Arkansas, I know about Bill Clinton off the top of my head and there may be others I'm not aware of. If nothing else, mentioning this would help explain how he got a majority in 1992. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Giants2008 – Thanks! I have added in a footnote that Arkansas was the home state of Bill Clinton (couldn't find any other candidate). Would surely consider mentioning candidates with home state in other lists. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Reywas92 21:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

;Comments The lead consistently uses "in the presidential election of " but there's a reason we put the year before "presidential election" in the article titles, so I'd suggest doing that. I see you did do that in the Utah list. Done – Made the change in this list. Will do in others too. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I really don't like tooltips created by {abbr}, that's what the color and key (or a wikilink) are for. Maybe keep those for third parties, but it's really overkill to have it for all of the dozens of instances of (D) and (R). I also expect readers to know what % means, this doesn't need a tooltip for "percentage". I have added party in parenthesis just to comply with Knowledge (XXG)'s MOS for colors. As to the Abbr template, it wasn't added initially. But RunningTiger123 suggested to add them, asserting that "readers don't have to keep scrolling to the key" . I agree with his point. As to using that template only in third parties, that would be inconsistent (In my opinion) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Okay well you still don't need it for %, that's a universal symbol, clear by its contents. Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC) This is a nicely compact table, the second table of contents for the years seems excessive. I guess that the TOC for years is fine. For Arkansas, we have elections from 1836 onward, but some states like Virginia have 57 elections. If I were to add TOC in Virginia list, I have to add here too for consistency in the series. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC) It's not needed in the Virginia list either, it's only the slightest scroll between narrow table rows. This isn't what a table of contents is for and is excessive. Done – I have removed the Navbox –Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC) I don't quite get the three criteria for the Other candidate column – in which elections if any is the person listed not the third-place candidate in the state? This just lacks clarity. Done – Good catch. I fixed the criteria, and now it includes only the third place candidates. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC) United States presidential election is linked in the lead and shouldn't be in the see also too. Elections in Arkansas is linked in the navbox so I'm not sure the section's needed at all. I changed the links there. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Not that these links are bad, but I'm not sure why these in particular are most relevant to this list. Among the several in Template:United States presidential elections, List of United States presidential election results by state would be the best Done – Changed the link – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Why are Roosevelt and LaFollette pointed out in notes and in the key when no other candidates are? Both are from the Party with the same name and same color ("Progressive"). It might confuse many. And there are some other "Progressive" Parties too (like Henry Wallace - 1948). I feel that footnoted are required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Aren't these colors arbitary? Progressive Party (United States, 1912) says its color is red. There's also two populist parties. There's a few others like Liberal Republican and Populist-1984 that are only affiliated with one person so I'm still more confused why these two are pointed out when the separate listing in the key are clear enough they're not the same thing. Done – I agree with your assertion. I have now removed the Footnote listing both the candidates. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Something else for the lead could be the fraction of elections that Arkansas voted for the winner. That is in the infobox. I have included this in the Washington, D.C. list as it has voted from loosing candidate more than the winning candidate. Else, I think it would just be a repetition of facts. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Ah missed that. Reywas92 01:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Reywas92 21:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC) @Reywas92 – Responded as above. Thanks for reviewing – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC) @Reywas92 – Hi there, I have tried to address the issues raised. Please let me know if you have any other comments of follow-ups. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC) @Reywas92 – Fixed almost all, and replied above. Will do the same in other lists too. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC) @Reywas92 – Done all in this as well as other list which I have modified. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support Any comments for Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/National Trails System/archive1 would be appreciated. Reywas92 21:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• @PresN – Hi! Can I mark this nomination in the grey box on WP:FLC as a Source review is required? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Kavyansh.Singh: Please do! --PresN 18:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Passed source review from Aza24 (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

;Source review Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Version reviewed: Formatting Works cited Be consistent about whether you include locations for publishers (I would unlink Baltimore, Maryland as well, as it seems unnecessary, but completely up to you). References Ref 2 needs a publisher/website/work or something Hmm, in general, I think the "Guide to U.S. Elections" and "Presidential elections, 1789–1996" in the references should be italicized throughout—if this is something you'd agree with, you can do so fairly quickly with the find and replace under advance tools (top right of source editor, go to the magnifying glass, I believe) Reliability Seems fine in general Verifiability Ref 8 needs a page number or specific page range Same with both ref 30s Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC) @Aza24 – Thanks a lot for taking a look. I have made all the changes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• @FLC director and delegates: – The nomination is now open for a month. With three comprehensive reviews, all resolved, and a passed image and source review. "Is there a consensus for promotion of this nomination?" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  @PresN – Sorry for another ping, but "Is there a consensus for promotion of this nomination?" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) and Coyatoc (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to nominate another list of municipalities in Mexico (9, nearly 10, states already have their municipality lists featured using this standardized format, along with dozens of other list of municipalities in North America). We are continuing our goal of bringing all lists of municipalities in Mexico up to a consistent, high standard. We have updated the information to reflect the most recent census and tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations. The page should be pretty standardized but there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Opening sentence could do with a comma after "seven municipalities" to break up the flow a bit Done
• In the second sentence, twenty-fourth is spelt incorrectly Done
• "The largest municipality by population is Benito Juárez, with 911,503 residents" - no need for that comma Done
• "Cozumel is fourth largest municipality by population." => "Cozumel is the fourth largest municipality by population." Done
• The state capital indicator is against the municipality. Should it be against the city? Surely it is the city that is the capital? Done
• Note a contains "in 2011" twice, no need for both  Done
• Think that's all I've got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisTheDude for the review! All changes were made, no questions, all easy fixes. Mattximus (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Southeast should be lowercase if it's just directional and not a named region  Done
• "is the 19th largest"  Done
• Can you clarify "administratively autonomous of the state" for me, is it any different from us counties? Can't tell from the responsibilities so I'm not sure why it would be stated that way
• Cite to the handbook doesn't work, but I don't think slaughterhouse regulation needs to be enumerated, seem oddly specific among types of facilities

• Darn, the link died. As it is a book I believe it's still acceptable without a link. Unfortunately there is no archive of the page either. Mattximus (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Othón P. Blanco isn't the state capital, Chetumal is, right? I see this is consistent across the states but it seems the municipality shouldn't be highlighted for these.  Done

• I moved the dagger to Chetumal so it matches the legend, is that sufficient?

Otherwise nice as usual. Reywas92 02:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• • • Support Reywas92 14:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• It appears that Reywas's review is proceeding nicely ... I'll check back to make sure in a few days.
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. Most reviewers frown on linking countries (Mexico) ... I can see a reason for linking it once, and I'm not complaining, but if any other reviewer objects, then I'll agree that the link should go. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. ("rowspan=2" is unexpected, but it's not screwing anything up.) I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 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 isn't 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. The images add a lot, and aren't problematic.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list nominations every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "of Benito Juárez in " overlinked.  Done
• "by a plurality voting system who heads" because of parenthetical interruption, this reads weird, like the "who heads" relates to the voting system, suggest a gentle re-word.  Done
• You could link Federal government of Mexico.  Done
• "and user fees" what does this mean?

• I think it refers to fees to use municipal facilities or programs, but I'm not sure. This was translated from Spanish by someone else so as a non-Spanish speaker cannot tell if there is an elaboration on this point or not...

• "The largest municipality.." suggest this is caveated with "As of 2020..."  Done
• "12,939.30 km2 (4,995.89 sq mi)" probably don't need second decimal place of accuracy, plus the table has "4,995.5" as the sq mi conversion, so something's not quite right here.
• I don't see all those incorporation dates in ref 9.  Done

  Amazing catch! The pdf link was linked to the wrong page, easy fix, but great find! Mattximus (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Table has more than two sort outcomes for each numerical column for me.  Not done

• Same for me, and I have no idea how to fix this, I've never encountered this problem before, any ideas? Mattximus (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Seems strange to have two columns for area but to have both units in a single column for population density.

• Yep I don't have a strong opinion. I formatted this off of someone else's style but then I standardized it to dozens of featured lists, so they are all like this now. I'm hesitant to change just this one so it's different from the dozens of others just like it....

• Ref 1 needs en-dash in title, not spaced hyphen. Done
• Retrieval date formats in refs should be consistent. Done
• ISBN formats should be consistent. Done
• Ref 4, PDF is ~250 pages, so page numbers required.

• This is an interesting one, the reference is for the state having it's own constitution, not a specific page from the constitution. Any thoughts?

• Ref 8 needs en-dash.  Done
• As does ref 11. Done

That's enough on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• I see you have a trans-title for ref 7, for consistency and verifiability I would recommend adding to all  Done
• for refs 3 and 4 it is a little odd that the Article/Act names are only in English, while the title is only in spanish. I would recommend using both (like the titles above)

• I think I see what you are saying. To use Artículo instead of Article? I agree with you but the template provided spits out English regardless of initial language. Any thoughts? Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I'm not really sure what I was thinking with something this minor—it seems fine how it is, and would perhaps be a little silly to add "artículo"! Aza24 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• ref 11 is missing a publisher/work  Done
• You have "Mexico:" for ref 9 but not for any of the other INEGI refs  Done

Reliability

• Seems fine

Verifiability

• recommendation: add "trans-title=" to non-english sources  Done
• Is there a page number(s) available for ref 4? Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is an interesting one and you are the second reviewer to ask this. I cited this reference to show that the state has it's own constitution. I don't refer to any not a specific page from the constitution, just the fact that it exists and if anyone wants to read it they can click it. Any thoughts? Mattximus (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ah I see, thanks for the clarification. I would see maybe add a "See" before the template, e.g. <ref>See {{cite... </ref> perhaps? Not really an issue either way now that you've explained the reasoning. Aza24 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the source review! I've completed all the recommendations but I have 2 questions outstanding for you. Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies, I'm not sure how I missed this (twice now!). I've left responses to both items in question, but neither issue is pertinent enough to prevent a pass. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you! I'm ok with adding "see" or not, doesn't really matter to me, there is no see in the other noms so it may be easier to leave as is. But thank you for the review! Mattximus (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• This nomination appears to have stalled, I do have two supports, but just pinging Reywas92, The Rambling Man, Aza24 who have done a review but have not indicated if their recommendations have been completed to their satisfaction. Thanks for the reviews! Mattximus (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• "municipal council (ayuntamiento) responsible for providing all the public services". But it seems not all as you say the council only assists in education etc.  Done
• "The municipal council consists of a variable number of trustees and councillors" This ambiguous whether you mean variable within councils at different times or between different municipalities. Are the trustees nominated? If so, maybe "The municipal council consists of nominated trustees and elected councillors"

• You may be correct but I'm not sure myself of how they are nominated/elected so I can't with certainty change the wording, but to answer your first case variable number of trustees/ councillors. I'm happy to change this any other way, but I just want to be sure that it is accurate.

• Maybe just "The municipal council consists of trustees and councillors". Dudley Miles (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Done

• "although more funds are obtained from the state and federal governments than from their own income." This seems wrong as funds from govts are also income. "than locally".  Done
• Having three notes in four columns looks odd to me.

• Agree.  Done

• Looks fine. Just a few minor quibbles. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! Excellent suggestions, made all but one which I queried above. Mattximus (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Done, thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• License of all the images seem fine. Most of them are released by the wiki commons user, rest one is from Flickr. Pass for image licencing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This list comprises all of the protected cruisers built by the French Navy in the 1880s and 1890s, some 33 ships in total, which filled a variety of roles. Their designs also represented the strategic and doctrinal fighting in the French naval command, between factions who favored a strong main fleet in French waters, those who preferred the long-range commerce raiders needed by the Jeune Ecole, and those who wanted a fleet based on colonial requirements. The list is the capstone to this topic, and it passed a Milhist A-class review earlier this year (here). Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "that relied heavy belt armor! - missing word
  • Good catch
• Some of that first paragraph doesn't seem to be covered in the body so needs sourcing in the lead
  • I went through line by line, and I think the only thing that isn't explicitly mentioned in the body is the specific bit about strategic confusion, so I've added a citation for that - let me know if there's something I overlooked
• North American station vs North Atlantic Station vs North Atlantic station - should the last word have a capital?
  • It's not the official title, so I don't think so
• That's all I got on a first pass - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Chris! Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• All images need alt text
  • Added
• All tables need a caption using either |+ your caption or |+ {{sronly|your caption}}
  • Added - forgot to put those on
• Some armaments include measurements in inches while others don't – pick one format or the other

• The units are converted at first use and not subsequently - this is pretty standard practice

• • Similarly, some propulsion measurements note km/h and mph while others don't
    • As above
• Under Linois class, "2,285 to 2,318 long tons (2,322 to 2,355 t)" → "2,285–2,318 long tons (2,322–2,355 t)"
  • Done
• If possible, find some type of identifier for Stowell & Munro, Glennon, and "The New Port of Bizerte"
  • Added all three
• Navbox "Warships of France" has a redlink as the heading; the navbox should probably be removed or the redlink amended
  • Redlinks are fine per WP:REDLINK - at some point, we'll get around to creating the overarching list.
    • I would still suggest removing the link from the navbox; it kind of defeats the point of finding related articles if the article doesn't exist, and as the title, it probably doesn't need a link. But I won't haggle over this detail, it's just my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks RunningTiger! Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing. I'm assuming that RunningTiger's review will be successful; I'll check back to make sure.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine in the lead, and you've already got two reviews on prose ... I'm assuming if another one is needed, someone will let me know. I added one word to the lead; although plural verbs with singular subjects are gaining in popularity every year, I'm still not completely comfortable with that. Otherwise, the writing is excellent (no surprise there). The coding at the top of the tables seems fine. I sampled the links in the tables.
• 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, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review and I don't speak Polish). I know from many years' experience that your ship sources are reliable.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't 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. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. If you're looking for a list to review, you might want to skip my current nomination (it's got a long table) and take a look at List of plant family names with etymologies (much shorter); I'll be nomming that one as soon as the current nom gets one more support. (And you can even skip the rows that include namesakes if you like ... they will have been reviewed in other lists.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Correction: that will be the nom after my next nom. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Source review The sources are all reliable (AGF on the Polish ones), and despite the age of some of the journals, and one or two books, there is no problem with that given the time period of the subject, nature of the refs and what they are being used for. Two minor things: Everett and Parkinson need locations for consistency, and it is Houghton Mifflin not Houghton Miflin. The first Brassey listed should probably be the one linked, as it is the same guy AFAIK. Is there a numerical identifier, location and publisher available for Ship Management International? What about a location for Twardowski? Spotchecks not conducted due to Nate's long history at FLC. Just a side issue, the Warships of France navbox has a redlink at the top? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Curiously, Everett doesn't have a location, not in the scan of the book or in Worldcat. And the first Brassey is actually the father - he's linked now. I think the rest are taken care of. As for the navbox link, RunningTiger mentioned that above, but I don't think it's an issue. I'll get around to doing that list at some point ;) Parsecboy (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Weird. OK, this looks fine now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello again everyone. With 71 of the lists now promoted to FL, here's what I hope will be #72. We are definitely on the home stretch now :-) In this particular year, Sam Hunt broke the record for the longest run at number one on Hot Country Songs, but this record would only stand until the following year. Fun fact: the same artist ended both Hunt's record run and the next record run..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "Backstreet Boys, an extremely successful pop act since the 1990s": I'm not up to speed on FLC standards for promotional language in media articles. Consulting Backstreet Boys, I find that they "rose to superstardom". Yeah. This is pretty tame by comparison. I don't like it, but I'm behind the times.
• The last artist column isn't sorting right ... Brett Eldredge, for instance.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting and sampled (and fixed) links in the table.
• 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 isn't 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. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed the bad sorting and toned down the description of BSB.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is a super nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. For this part, and subsequently guested on "What Ifs", I am uncertain about the "guested" word choice as it is honestly not something I see when discussing music. I would instead use "featured" (in a way that fits this part, of course) as I think that is the wordage more often used for this kind of thing.

This is my only comment for this list. Wonderful work as always and once this very nitpick-y comment is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope you are doing well. Just out of curiosity, how many more Billboard number-one country songs are left for you now? Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - made that change. There's five more to go after this one to complete the run from 1944-2020. Assuming those are all successful (and 2021 as well, if it takes long enough for those five to pass that we are nearly at the end of the year), I then plan to nominate List of Billboard number-one country songs, and assuming that is successful then nominate the whole lot at WP:FTC. And then I guess I need to find a new project...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Great work with this list as always. I support it for promotion and best luck with the remaining lists! Aoba47 (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support I tried but couldn't find anything. Solid work. ~ HAL333 16:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Billboard linking is inconsistent, e.g. links are on refs 10, 11 and 17 but not 18–120 or 4

@Aza24: - should all be linked now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Aza24 (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Recommend "|url-access=limited" for NYT ref
• Recommend archiving links

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• checked a few, all pan out as expected. Aza24 (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have added about 200 reliable sources, merged all tables into one, and expanded the lead to FL-quality. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Scanning through IMDb, it looks like every notable award was included – nice work! You might want to include the Society of Camera Operators, but that's about it.  Done Added. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Images in infobox need alt text  Done Added. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC) "Cranston was nominated for four consecutive Golden Globes" – wording implies he never won, but he did get a win  Working Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC) "Best Lead Actor in a Drama Series" isn't wikilinked, but "Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series" is wikilinked in the next line. I think either both or neither should be linked.  Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC) "eleven nominations from the American Cinema Editors" – strange to focus on this in the lead. From my experience, the major guilds are generally considered the PGA, DGA, SAG-AFTRA, and WGA, so I'd focus on those unless there is something especially notable about the editing.  Working Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Any way to change this wording: "four nominations from the Directors Guild of America (winning two)"? It doesn't follow the pattern of the other awards following it. Also, the rest of the sentence doesn't make it clear what the nominations are, i.e., it is not clear that "five Producers Guild of America Awards" is referring to nominations, not wins. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC) I made a small edit here because a sentence was incomplete – figured that was easier than leaving another suggestion since it was a quick fix. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC) For categories receiving multiple nominations in one year, I would merge the cells (i.e., the cells for the categories at the 2012 ACE Awards can be merged together). I would still keep nominations in the same category but different years separate. You can also merge consecutive cells in the Ref. column if they are the same  Working Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC) 2011–13 Creative Arts Emmys should be 2012–14  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC) 2012 Emmys: Guest Actor should be moved to Creative Arts Emmys  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Since PGA and SAG Awards list the individual nominees for ensemble awards, WGA Awards should do the same  Working Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC) Kurt Nicholas Forshager should sort by "Forshager", not "Nicholas"  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC) — RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Support – well-sourced and well-written, this is a very deserving list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• All that I could pick up is that the first paragraph is unsourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123 and ChrisTheDude All done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table. You've got a couple of supports already so you should be covered on prose, and if the FLC coords want another prose review, those are generally not hard to come by when everything else has been covered.
• 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 except for the external link (which is fine), but this isn't a source review. All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't 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. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the sources both appear solid enough, and no dead links were identified by the link-checker tool. Everything looks okay on the sourcing front. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Since a source review has been provided by Giants2008, I have striked this nomination from the Source reviews needed (grey box) on WP:FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2021 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 ceremonies were written. Please note that because this ceremony took place during a pandemic, this list may look slightly different than others. Birdienest81 (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "rather than its usual late-February" - seems to be missing a word. Maybe "late-February date".........? Fixed: Added the word "date" after "February". "making it theleast watched" - should be a space in "the least" Fixed: added space to read "the least." "He, along with Oscars red carpet pre-show host Ariana DeBose and actor Lin-Manuel Miranda presented" - need a comma after Miranda to close the clause Fixed: Added comma after Miranda. "In an press conference" => "In a press conference" Fixed: Changed "an" to "a". "In lieu of the ceremony date change" - "in lieu of" means "instead of", so I don't think that's what is meant Fixed: Changed "in lieu of" nto "Due to the" at the beginning of the sentence. "said films were originally scheduled to have a theatrical release and are subsequently" => "said films were originally scheduled to have a theatrical release and were subsequently" Fixed: Changed the "are" to a "were". "was entertaining than the average" - should that be "more entertaining"? Fixed: Added an "more" between "was" and "entertaining". "Mike Hale of The New York Times wrote, Sunday’s broadcast" - missing opening quote mark Fixed: Added an opening quotation mark. "saying that montage was edited" => "saying that the montage was edited" Fixed: Added a "the" in between "that" and "montage". That's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC) @Birdienest81: - drop me a line when the rest of the above are resolved and I will pop back...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude:: Fixed everything you listed above. Please review the article one more time since I did add a few items such as a television review from USA Today and revised the Chadwick Boseman-Anthony Hopkins controversy section. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies for taking so long to get back to this one. I made a few minor tweaks, but the one thing outstanding for me is that I don't really get a sense of how the "Boseman NFT controversy" actually relates to the Oscars. The paragraph says "Furthermore, artist Andre Oshea apologized on Instagram after a Non-fungible token (NFT) he designed in the likeness of Boseman's face sparked online backlash", but there's no context of how it links to the ceremony (it just reads like some guy decided to do a thing, which left me wondering how it was relevant to this article). The Deadline article used as a source says "An NFT created of the late Chadwick Boseman for the 93rd Academy Awards" but even that doesn't really explain in what way it was "for" the ceremony. Is it possible to elaborate at all? Bear in mind that this question may in part stem from the fact that I am decidedly middle-aged and un-hip and don't really understand the concept of an NFT...... :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies for the intrusion, but that was my mistake. For some reason, I had misinterpreted the NFT situation as being more connected to the ceremony than it actually was. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:: Aoba47 removed the NFT items from the section. Is there anything left to address?

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The Presenters and Performers tables are missing rowscopes and captions, though you have them in Film awards and nominations

• Fixed: Reformatted the presenters and performers tables to include rowscopes and captions just like the wins and nominations tally table.

• I think this is the first one of these that's come through since I started doing accessibility reviews, so I'm working out what to do with the main "table". It's not really a "data table", because it's really just a bunch of boxes stacked next to each other for visual effect. MOS:LTAB says that in that case you shouldn't use a table element at all but html divs, but that if you do use a table, you should add ' role="presentation"' to the table. I've gone ahead and done that- I'm not going to ask that you try to recreate the look with divs, as that would be a lot, but consider going back and adding ' role="presentation"' to the prior Oscars lists to help screen reader software-using readers out with being able to parse your lists. --PresN 22:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Fixed: Added a role="presentation" to the winners and nominees table.

@PresN: - I've addressed both comments and made the necessary adjustments.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: - I've added captions to the presenters and performers tables and now I have addressed your comments in full.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - Thank you for removing the NFT. I actually do agree with ChrisTheDude's comment that the NFT issue is only tangently connected to the Oscars, but not signigcant enough to warrant inclusion on this page. I would say it would be more appropriate on the Chadwick Boseman page itself, but that article is a Good Article and I would suggest asking the user who promoted that article to GA before including it on that page. So, is there any other outstanding issue left on this list?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind response. Apologies again for my mistake with the NFT part. I support the article for promotion. You have done a great job with this. Aoba47 (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 21:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

*due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cinema and television It may be more concise to just say "due to the COVID-19 pandemic" Fixed: Revised phrase in the intro. by actors Priyanka Chopra and singer Nick Jonas is awkward. Is "actors" a typo? Maybe just drop their job titles. Fixed: Changed actor to actress and added singer to Nick Jonas. after Miyoshi Umeki who won the same category for her role in 1957's Sayonara There should be a comma before "who". Or you could rephrase it. Fixed: Added comma, accordingly. "African Americans

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 21:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "received mostly negative reviews and it garnered" → "received mostly negative reviews and garnered" or "received mostly negative reviews, and it garnered" Fixed: Added comma. Not sure why some categories (i.e., Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress) are wikilinked in the paragraph introducing the winners/nominees while other categories (Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Original Song) aren't Fixed: Delinked the categories to avoid overlinking since the section is approximately close to the table (consistent with other ceremony lists). Unless the cited source from AMPAS notes it, I don't think we should note Chadwick Boseman's posthumous nomination in the table; that detail is better suited to the section's introductory paragraph. Fixed: Removed reference to posthumous nomination. It is mentioned in the Best Actor controversy. In the table of presenters, Bong Joon-ho should sort by "Bong" Fixed: Used slightly different sorting template to fix Joon-Ho's sorting by "Bong". "Originally in April 2017, the Academy had scheduled" → "In April 2017, the Academy scheduled" (maybe change "decided" to "later decided" in the next sentence to help with this change) Fixed: Removed the word "originally" in the first sentence and added "later" before "decided". "However, the annual Academy Governors Awards" → "The annual Academy Governors Awards" (don't start two consecutive sentences with "However") Fixed: Removed the second "however" from the sentence. "and in a cinematic aspect ratio" – this lacks a verb to introduce it. (If you removed the other two elements in the list, you would get "including in a cinematic aspect ratio", which is wrong.) Add a verb at the start – maybe "using" or something along those lines. Fixed: Replaced "with" with "using" at the start of the clause. "In the Heights, respectively during the ceremony" → "In the Heights, respectively, during the ceremony" Fixed: Added another comma between "respectively" and "during". Clarify that the Hollywood Roosevelt was the site of the inaugural Oscars by replacing "which" with "the latter of which" Fixed: Added the phrase "the latter of" before the word "which" in the sentence. Add url-access=limited to sources from The New York Times, Rolling Stone, and Los Angeles Times Fixed: Added access limited template to said source and USA Today. I recall an earlier version of the article summarizing reviews with information from Rotten Tomatoes – any reason why that was removed? In an earlier discussion on my talk page, I with other editors determined that using Rotten Tomatoes to measure the critical consensus of a particular show is pretty sketchy at best since its sample of reviews of a ceremony is quite small compared to say film reviews or television reviews. An example would be the 72nd Academy Awards which is missing some positive reviews from the Boston Herald and the Los Angeles Times. Furthermore, according to Inside Oscar 2 by Damien Bona, reviews of the show were more on the positive side of things as opposed to lukewarm as Rotten Tomatoes suggests. So the score of Rotten Tomatoes may have missed other reviews of the show that were positive. — RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC) One more quick note: maybe mention somewhere that the show had no host? I know that's been the pattern for several years at this point, but it's still different from most awards shows and probably merits a mention. RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC) Fixed: Added a sentence at the beginning indicating that no one hosted the ceremony. @RunningTiger123: - I've addressed all the comments from above and made the necessary adjustments from said comments. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Support – I made one small tweak to the wording, but otherwise, everything looks good. As to the Rotten Tomatoes rating, it's perfectly fine to leave it out; I just wanted to make sure you were aware it was out there. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed:

Formatting

• Ref 6 Deadline Hollywood missing link (should unlink in ref 10 then, I'm assuming)
• The rest looks good...

Reliability

• No issues, great sourcing all around from what I can see

Verifiability

• checked a few, no issues.
• Alas Birdienest81, finding less and less issues in your lists every time :)—Pass for source review, just look at the one minor linking thing above. Aza24 (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: - Done - Linked Deadline Hollywood on ref 6 and did the opposite for ref 10.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Tone 07:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

With Hungary being promoted, I am adding the Czech Republic, or Czechia. This list is on the longer side, with 14+17 sites. The format is standard. Tone 07:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "..when the country was part of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic." - is this the same as Czechoslovakia? Later on you use "the dissolution of Czechoslovakia on January 1, 1993". I'm old enough to remember the break-up of the country and I had genuinely never heard the term "Czech and Slovak Federative Republic" before........
  • I second-checked, this was actually the official name of the country for a couple of years, before the dissolution. Of course, it remains in the collective memory as Czechoslovakia, I guess.
• "The Czech Republic officially succeeded the convention" - the word "succeeded" doesn't make sense here
  • Why not? I used this in cases when a country broke apart, such as in the case of Yugoslavia. Could you suggest something better?
• "facades with stucco decorations in style" - "facades with stucco decorations in a style" (or potentially the, but you definitely need one or the other)
  • Fixed.
• "The Holy Trinity Column was erected in the historic centre of the town Olomouc" => "The Holy Trinity Column was erected in the historic centre of the town of Olomouc"
  • Fixed.
• "As of 2019, the Czech Republic recorded 16 sites on its tentative list" - contradicts the lead
  • I somehow missed that, thanks!
• "Fish farming in the are around" - "area" spelt incorrectly
• "The first spa-related activities at Luhačovice begun in the late 18th century" => "The first spa-related activities at Luhačovice began in the late 18th century"
• That's it from me - great work! And who wouldn't want to visit a historic sewage plant? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks! Let me know your thoughts about the first two points. --Tone 20:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Re: point 1, maybe put "when the country was part of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic (usually known as Czechoslovakia)". Re: point 2, I think "adopted" would be the best word to use -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I like that, fixed. And yes, I believe the historic sewage plant must be a fun sight to see. As for water management, the Netherlands has a bunch of related sites as well. --Tone 07:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments In the image "Lednice-Valtice" should use an en-dash. "including the Prague Castle" no need for "the" "Minor boundary modification" -> "A minor..." Prague is 616bis. "eponymous 13th century castle " -> "eponymous 13th century" should also be in the pipe. "marker square" I think you mean "market". "Pilgrimage Church of St John of Nepomuk at Zelená Hora" appears to be in "South Moravian Region" and not "Vysočina Region". Huh, it seems the UNESCO reference has it wrong. Looking at the map, it is clearly in Vysočina Region. Added an extra ref for that. "royal city" what's one of those? I assume a city under a direct patronage of the monarch, as opposed to being under other nobles. "Lednice-Valtice estate" en-dash in both columns. "1665-1675" en-dash. "of a Baroque garden" make links to things like Baroque consistent. I link it in the same paragraph already, wouldn't that be too much? "larger and smaller" what does this add?? Haha, good point, changed to "of different sizes", which I suppose makes more sense, as it shows variety. Could link Václav Render to the cs.wiki. Good point! 859 is 859rev. 1078 is 1078bis. 1579 is 1589. Czech Republic or Czechia? Be consistent. I am using Czechia in the tables since the UNESCO uses it as well. In the intro, I am using the republic formulation because of the WP links. I could change it ... Paper mill -> Paper Mill (per UNESCO's format). Good point, I redirected the article as well. "the Modernist The Müller Villa" reads odd with two "the" in there. "at the altitude of" -> "at an elevation of". "favourable" which version of Eng is this? I see USEng for "industrialized" but BritEng for "favourable"... I set it to BritEng from start, I suppose my spelling checker did not catch that one. "See also the Great Spas of Europe nomination." what does that mean?! I added a note that this is another nomination from the year 2014 which essentially overlaps. I suppose they realized this should be a group nomination and the one in question will eventually be dropped from the list at some point. Ref 39 needs en-dash, not spaced hyphen. That's a quick burst through. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• • @The Rambling Man: Done, thank you! --Tone 14:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @The Rambling Man: Hi, any follow-up here? :) --Tone 07:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Happy to support now, my major concerns are addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed:

Formatting

• It seems a bit disingenuous to give ref 3 the same publisher as the others—I would suggest using template:Cite report and looking here. This link also has an oclc which you may want to include (with simply "|oclc="
• Is there a reason ref 4 doesn't have UNESCO World Heritage Centre? Likewise with 23
• Ref 14 seems to be missing a publisher and/or website

Reliability

• Looks good

Verifiability

• Page number(s) for the pdf in ref 18 seem like a must
  • @Aza24: I think I fixed them all, please have a look. And thank you for a direct instructions regarding the cite report, that was helpful and time-saving :) --Tone 20:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Happy to help! Thanks for your attentiveness, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sentences "Both of..." and "The Beech..." should have semicolons instead of commas
• Remove space after "type."
• "The chapel used to house" -> "housed"
• "It was operational until 1967, used for sludge management until the 1980s, and was later converted to a museum" isn't parallel, remove the second "was"
• No comma after "Cistercian monastery church"
• I feel like "cultural landscape" is a term just used by UNESCO to describe something retroactively, so "transformed it into a cultural landscape between the 17th and 20th centuries" sounds almost anachronistic. The next sentence does say what exactly they did but this I think could be reworded.
• Holašovice: "village" is used three times in succession in your paraphrase, and I don't see why "different sizes" needs to be pointed out. Maybe something like "Holašovice is a village that preserves traditional farmsteads from the 18th and 19th centuries. They have facades..."
• Maybe it autoswitched for me, but the external link was to the English site not Czech.
• Several things I was going to comment on until I realized they're fine in British English...very nice overall once again! If you have a chance to look at Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/National Trails System/archive1 that would be appreciated. Reywas92 15:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Reywas92: Fixed, thanks! As for the cultural landscape, one of the definition is "a landscape designed and created intentionally by man" so I think it is ok. I am open to suggestions, though. --Tone 15:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment No time for thorough reading but it appears well standardized and has correct formatting. I cannot see any obvious corrections needed, well done! Mattximus (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Tone 15:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• "the other sites are of the cultural type". Why not just "the other sites are cultural"?
• "During the reign of Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor". I suggest "During the reign of Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor (1346-78)".
• Pilgrimage Church of St John of Nepomuk at Zelená Hora. I think you need more detail about why this site deserves listing.
• Tugendhat Villa in Brno. I do not think the image is helpful to the reader. How about one of the exterior?
• Landscape for Breeding and Training of Ceremonial Carriage Horses at Kladruby nad Labem. I think you need more detail about why this site deserves listing.
• "It declined from the 18th century on which meant that the burgher houses in Late Gothic and Renaissance styles remained preserved." Perhaps "It declined from the 18th century on, which resulted in the preservation of burgher houses in Late Gothic and Renaissance styles with very little alteration."
• "Český ráj consists of several sites with rock formations that were created by erosion processes from Cretaceous sandstones." I do not see any reference to erosion in the source. Maybe "Český ráj consists of several sites with rock formations of Cretaceous sandstone." Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Dudley Miles: Fixed, thanks for your suggestions! --Tone 15:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The Good Place is an American television series that finished its run in January of last year with four seasons, consisting of 53 episodes. It was critically acclaimed and won many awards. I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. I started working on this list on 21 April of this year, attempting to expand the lead. Hopefully, it meets the criteria now. Pamzeis (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "was released NBC's website, app, and YouTube channel" - missing word in there

Done Pamzeis (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• You note that the first two episodes of season 2 were technically one hour-long episode. The first two episodes of season 3 were apparently shown on the same day but are not shown as having been one hour-long episode. What was different?

Added a note Pamzeis (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Serving as story bridge between the third and fourth seasons" => "Serving as a story bridge between the third and fourth seasons"

Done Pamzeis (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Audience measurement performed by Nielsen Media Research" isn't a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop.

From what I can tell, the full stop is part of the template which I have no idea how to edit. I've asked about this at Template talk:Television ratings graph. Pamzeis (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I guess that full stop isn't too big a deal, although if the template could be fixed that would be nice..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "by mistake, and must hide her imperfect behavior, and try to be a better person" → "by mistake, and she must hide her imperfect behavior and try to be a better person"

Done Pamzeis (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• If the lead is going to discuss specific awards, Emmys are more important than Hugos.

Replaced Pamzeis (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Move source 30 from table to lead and note the episode count there, since every other season's episode count is in the lead.

Done Pamzeis (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• The ratings graph should use two entries for the series finale since it counts as two episodes.

Done Pamzeis (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

One more note: Webisodes are generally excluded from the overview table (see episode lists for The Office and Grey's Anatomy for examples). RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Removed Pamzeis (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Responded to your comments. Pamzeis (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Support – nice job! RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The tables need captions; since you're transcluding tables from other lists that use {{Episode table}}, per that template you add a "|caption=the caption text" parameter and it will add it for you. --PresN 03:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Done Pamzeis (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ribbon images need alt text

I'm unsure what you mean by ribbon images. Pamzeis (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: I've added captions (correct me if I'm wrong) and could you clarify what you mean by ribbon images? Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, copy-paste error, you're good. --PresN 12:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

What an absolutely wonderful show—doing this now. Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• assuming "The Hollywood Reporter" should be linked in ref 12?

• Done.

• likewise with Deadline Hollywood and TVLine in refs 14 & 15

• Done.

Reliability

• Seems fine

Verifiability

• Is there a source for the directors and writers? Is it just from the episode credits? If so, I would have a note for that or something Aza24 (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• I assuming they're taken from the episode credits so I've added notes.

@Aza24: I'm really sorry for the late reply but I think I've resolved your comments . Pamzeis (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries! Looks great—pass for source review. Though, I would think notes c, e, g and h can all by note b, right? Aza24 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: Well, I'm not sure how to do this as all of the notes—except The Selection's—are transcluded from the season articles. Is there anyway to do this? Thank you. Pamzeis (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know... no. @Trialpears: any idea if combining these notes is possible when they're transcluded separately? Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

As long as the note name is the same (which they are now) there shouldn't be any issue. There may appear some issues if the notes aren't the exact same in all places though. I have some ideas on how to fix that semi-elegantly if that comes up but would need to test it first. --Trialpears (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• The only image in the article File:The Good Place careta.png does not meet the threshold of originality, hence is in Public domain. Pass for image licencing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Kavyansh.Singh

• This list looks fine, and I will support it for promotion as a Featured list. I would suggest adding a link to NBC in the lead. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! Pamzeis (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to overthink this, or worse, overtalk it, but I've got some pretty extensive thoughts about the edits I've made and not made since my last nomination, and I'm open to talking about anything. These are my edits (before today) in response to the most recent review: adding "army in India", removing page numbers in the References section, and adding links to many professions. (It wasn't possible to do that in the table itself without running into SEAOFBLUE issues, but I was able to mention and link many professions in the introduction and in a footnote.) Today I've been delinking the red links for people who don't have articles in any of the other Wikipedias; thoughts are welcome on that too. As Bullwinkle J. Moose likes to say: This time for sure! - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There was a request to link countries, but recently promoted FLs, such as List of sculptures of Ludwig van Beethoven, don't seem to do this. I made a series of edits to better focus attention on what roles these people played and less attention on where they were (for consistency, and because some of these questions can't be answered definitely, and to avoid inviting discussions about red links). Concerning the complaint that it looks a little odd to have some bio information in some rows and none in others: 1. It's not true that some people have "no bio information"; the column heading clarifies that the people are naturalists unless otherwise identified. I'm open to a little bit of fiddling with the language or the details if that will help. 2. After a lot of discussion and some wrangling over this issue at the nomination for the D–J list, everyone eventually signed off on the current format. There are good reasons to respect the process and the outcome of those discussions. 3. These lists are about as long as they can get before they start crashing (images stop loading, for instance) for some readers. I'm not open to adding so much text that we have to break up the lists (which would invalidate previous supports) ... at least, not until some future date (if ever) when important new sources appear that might justify a major expansion. 4. Other lists, perhaps including a future FLC nomination, will have links to some of the rows in this list, and for those lists to work, this list has to have more information in some rows than in others. - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "wrote a study on pollen from African at the University of Leeds" - is there a word missing in there?
• "French doctor and botanist on the medical faculty in Strasbourg" => "French doctor and botanist at the medical faculty in Strasbourg"
• That's all I got - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed both, I hope. Thanks! We're almost done with these etymological lists ... the rest will be a walk in the park by comparison. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No issues. Aza24 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Consistent all around

Reliability

• No concerns

Verifiability

• Have checked in the past
• Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Expanding on my comments from the previous nomination that was withdrawn before I had a real chance to respond/explain.
• I'd still like to see links to uncommon occupations like mycologist, etc. IMO, consistency in this case does not mean that you have to link all occupations, etc. And I'd strongly recommend more links to countries. Only very rarely do I find anyone objecting to them at MilHist ACR or FAC in my noms whatever the official line is about them.
  • Country of origin isn't always important in these lists, and I often have cities, historical regions, organizations or affiliations I can link instead of countries. Hopefully I got them all with these edits. I don't think there are any unlinked countries left that people are likely to want links for, but if you find any, that's fine, I'll be happy to keep working on it. Let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm adding links throughout the table (since the columns are sortable) for: mycologists, zoologists, apothecaries, geologists, geographers and meteorologists. If you like, I can add links for professions that are already linked in the lead as well. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Links in the lede suffice for all further mentions, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree. I went with that instead of links throughout for the various naturalists (but I'm adding links in the table for odd words like "polymath"). - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Done with that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• I think that your argument about the disparity in info between red-linked and blue-linked people is reasonable given the info generally available and questions of notability. In short, I'm OK with this.
• Regarding the names for the red-link people, this was more a point for discussion rather than a requirement and not one I feel particularly strongly about.
• I'll try to find time to look this over more thoroughly in a little bit, but these should hopefully be a starting point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Nothing caught my eye as needing fixing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Dank was rash enough to invite me me to comment, and my detailed comments (if any) will follow, but at first read-through I have struggled to find anything to moan about in this impressive list. Date ranges could be more consistent: some have spaces on either side of the en-dashes and some don't. Elizabeth "Betty" Gaye seems to have a mere hyphen for her date range, and her dates per se look very odd. More generally, WP:DATED came into my head when looking at the dates for the living scientists in the list, but suppose it is in the nature of a list like this that we simply have to hope you or some other expert editor will keep it updated as and when the obituaries require it.

One point from my first quick read-through: Navarretia – I can't speak for Portugal, but the Royal Academy we have in England is firmly capitalised, even by our most assiduously anti-capitalist newspaper The Guardian (or, as it calls itself, the Guardian).

More over the weekend after a leisurely and careful perusal. Tim riley talk 18:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks kindly. I hope I dealt with all of these in these edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Concluding comments

• After a concentrated search for anything else to complain about, I have found WP links to Brussels, Vienna, Madrid, Lima and Berlin, which as capital cities didn't oughter be linked, if I correctly read the MoS. I thought of making the same point about Rio di Janeiro, though I suppose that's borderline, and St Petersburg likewise. I do not press the point in any case.
• I can't make out your thinking in red-linking some people but leaving others unlinked: why, for instance, do you link Harry Edward Luther but not Louis Charles Lutz immediately below? (I merely mention this, and do not for one moment present the point as a reason to oppose promotion to FL. As long as you are satisfied there is a reason to red-link or not, I am content to leave the matter in your hands.)
• Madhavan Parameswarau Nayar's dates seem to be 1905–1978
• Collège Royal in Orléans – if you take French capitalisation seriously you will assuredly go mad, but I reckon "Royal" shouldn't be capitalised.
• Peddiea – I don't doubt that Peddie was English, but any soldier from these isles who died in 1840 was in the British, not the English, army.

That is all I can come up with by way of objections, and I can add my support for the promotion of this impressive, informative and unexpectedly readable, not to say entertaining, article, which seems to me to meet all the FL criteria. – Tim riley talk 16:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks kindly, Tim, I'll be right back with fixes. All: I'm going to nominate List of plant genera named for people (Q–Z) later today unless anyone objects ... I think I dealt with Sturm's last point above, and if not, if he asks me to do more, I'll do more. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• All actioned in this edit. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Red-linking: I don't have a clue, about a variety of linking issues (though Sturmvogel signs off on this above, which is good enough for me). It feels like an impossible OR problem to me, in the sense that I don't think anyone wants to assign me the job of pronouncing which historical figures are the notable ones. I needed some kind of touchstone, and the one I settled on was: if any Knowledge (XXG) (in any language) has a page devoted to the person (Wikidata does a good job of keeping track of this), then I take that as a starting point for an assertion of notability and sufficient cause to red-link ... and if it's later decided the assertion was in error, then we can delink it here. FWIW ... very little, probably ... if I were to take this on myself, my judgments would be very close to the red-linking scheme arrived at here. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm happy (if anyone cares what I think) with Dank's pragmatic approach to red-linking, and hope to be pinged when the next instalment of this remarkable series is up for FL. Tim riley talk

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

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