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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 14:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the ranking system used for the 2019-20 snooker season. I have split the main table into two as it was very long. Let me know what you think about this nomination. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 14:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Players' names in tables should sort based on surname, not forename -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • This might take a while, as there is 128 people to update, unless there's an easier way? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 07:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Lee Vilenski: - any update on the above.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Sorry about that, should now be sortable by last name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 15:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I think you may have missed a few, unfortunately. In the first table, Andy Lee still sorts under A and Jamie O'Neill under J...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• "contributing to a players world ranking" => "contributing to a player's world ranking"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Originally, the world rankings were decided only based on" => "Originally, the world rankings were decided based only on"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "where he had over 500,000 point lead" => "where he had a lead of over 500,000 points"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "On these dates, ranking points from the 2017–18 snooker season are removed" => "On these dates, ranking points from the 2017–18 snooker season were removed"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "used to determine the seedings for preceding tournaments" - "preceding" means "previous/earlier", so that cannot be the right word here
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• One table has revisions 1-9 but then the next one suddenly also has 0 and 10.....?
  • Indeed, revision 0 is the one from the end of the prior season, and number 10 is the same, the one at the end of this season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "The names are sorted by the scores at the end of the season" => "The names are initially sorted by the scores at the end of the season" (because the user can re-sort them) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Revision dates: "players" should be "player's" with the apostrophe.
• Not the biggest deal in the world, but the sources for this table are out of numerical order. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 09:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Consider opening the article with something like "The Snooker world rankings 2019/2020 were..."
  • I'm not the biggest fan of shoe-horning in the title of the article like this. I don't think it's an improvement. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Might be useful to include what a snooker season is in the lead.
  • reworded to get some. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Might be useful to include the start and end dates of the season in the lead.
  • I'm not sure this is neccesary, as we know it can change season on season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I meant specifically for 2019/2020; or maybe something like "the season started with the x tourament in and lasted until the end of the world championship in . Not obligatory, as the dates are a click away at 2019–20 snooker season. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Consider adding a nav box to the previous and next years' rankings (in addition to the nav box at the end.)
  • I was thinking about creating an infobox for this, adding things like the season dates, number one player at the end of the season, and world champion etc. It's still something I'm playing with, but I don't think infoboxes are relevant for a FLC. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd seen the nav thing at the top of Snooker world rankings 2017/2018, but I don't know whether that's an acceptable format. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Consider adding something about relegations, and possibly about promotions, to the World Snooker Tour based on ranking positions. (I'm not sure exactly how it worked or works, especially with multi-year tour cards and wild cards.)

• Did you consider this? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Weren't defending champions seeded first in tournaments?
  • They were, but finding an actual source that comments this is ridiculously difficult. Also, quite a few of the events didn't see the defending champion qualify (such as the German Masters, Players and Tour Championship). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • For German Masters, it looks like Zhao Xintong, who defeated defending champion Kyren Wilson, went to Wilson's place in the last 32, not that the draw was re-done after qualifying. But I take your point about sources for some of this stuff being unavailable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• If defending champions were seeded first, amend "Seedings for each event were the world rankings" to say defending champions were top seeds and the rest were in list order.
  • Same deal as above, but also the world champion was also seeded at least second. It didn't show up much, as Trump was almost always number one. I have reworded to make it less definitive Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a reason the images are different sizes? If not, I suggest making them the same as each other.
  • I think you'd have to crop one of the images to do that, and I'm not sure how you go about doing that Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi BennyOnTheLoose, did you have anything further for me? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 08:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Not much...BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• "since the 1976" - either remove "the" or amend to which season it was.

• • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 13:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Given that there aren't many independent sources cited specifically about the 2019/2020 rankings, I had a look at what Snooker Scene said when it published the end of season ranking list. There is a comment there that Trump's six ranking titles in a season was "unprecedented" and, amongst some other notes on individual players' ranking changes, that Mark Williams "experienced the sharpest decline among the elite, plummeting from third to tenth". Might be worth mentioning Trump's record-breaking season but I didn't see anything there or in a quick search of other news sources from August/September 2020 that was a significant omission from the article text. (No issues with offical WST/WPBSA sources for the stats details.)

• • I have added, with a different ranking. I'd be against talking about Williams, as they are just describing the top 16 players, and there were much bigger drops down the leaderboard than seven positions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 13:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose. All done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 13:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• The column header cells need to be marked with `scope=col`; currently you have `scope=column` in the first table and nothing in the second/third. Note that since you have subheader cells in the second table, those should get colscopes as well.
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 15:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• The "primary" cell in each row needs to be marked with `scope=row` (e.g. `| 1` becomes `!scope=row| 1`); this combined with the colscopes allows screen reader software to accurately read out the table as a data table. --PresN 01:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No worries PresN, I can do that. There's about 300 rows to do, so I'll get to work! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 15:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • It took me a bit of time, but I've now scoped these PresN/ Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 12:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@FLC director and delegates: - was there anything more I'd need to do on this nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 09:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• I see both the images licenced appropriately. I'll suggest adding ALT text. Rest, Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Per your allusion to wanting some comments on WP:DISCORD, here I am. I won't be reviewing this thoroughly enough to !vote, but some quick comments:

• Ronnie O'Sullivan began the season as the highest ranked player, however, Judd Trump became world number one after winning the 2019 International Championship. Needs a semi-colon after "player" or player, but Judd, since it's otherwise two sentences spliced together. {{u|Sdkb}}  00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• See MOS:SEASONS for "summer" in the footnote. {{u|Sdkb}}  00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Normally the image would go below the hatnote, but I think the current layout is fine if you'd prefer it. {{u|Sdkb}}  00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • moved Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• For the article title, MOS:SLASH normally advises against slashes. Could you speak to why you chose to use one here? {{u|Sdkb}}  00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It's due to this discussion Talk:Snooker world rankings 2019/2020#Requested move 15 January 2020. I can't say I have any feelings either way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Last sentence of seeding lists intro is missing punctuation. {{u|Sdkb}}  00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'm a little wary of the choice to use two separate tables for revisions 1–5 vs. 6–10. It works okayish on desktop, but what about mobile? I'm not sure if there's any perfect solution, since having the table extend off the page horizontally isn't desirable either, but just wanted to put it out for brainstorming. {{u|Sdkb}}  00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there is some discussions. I found that a big long table is much worse. I edit almost exclusively on mobile, and the table is easier to deal with as two tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• It seems like everyone who is listed is male. Are these rankings only for men's snooker, or do men just occupy all the top spots? {{u|Sdkb}}  00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The WST is open to both genders, but the first time it had any female players was this season, they have now added qualification to the winner and runner-up of the Womens World Championship. However, this season was completely male. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• The non-Western names appear to sort correctly in the tables; nice going with that. {{u|Sdkb}}  00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association is wikilinked in the references as the publisher, but what about Sky News or Eurosport? {{u|Sdkb}}  00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Removed, I dislike the linking of source names. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

    Personally, I very much prefer to link them (it helps readers verify the reliability of a source), but for FAC purposes, all that matters is that you're consistent. {{u|Sdkb}}  22:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That's all for now. Best wishes with this FLC! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}  00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb, I've left some replies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks all good to me! {{u|Sdkb}}  22:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: I know your review was quite some time ago, but are you good with where the list is now? --PresN 01:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

PresN. Yes, happy to support. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:18, 24 February 2022 (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) 00:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): PresN 01:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Another animal list! We continue our long journey through the mammals; having finished with the orders Carnivora (list of carnivorans + 9 sublists), aka "meat-eaters"; Artiodactyla (list of artiodactyls + 3 sublists), aka "hooved animals that aren't horses"; and Perissodactyla (list of perissodactyls + 0 sublists), aka "hooved animals that are horses (and tapirs, and rhinos)", we can now start on Lagomorpha, aka "things that are like rabbits". This subgroup is two families and a capstone list, and here is the first family list: list of leporids, the hares and rabbits. Turns out there's an awful lot of them: 73 species all over the world, and while there's a lot of differences between them they're all pretty recognizable as rabbits. Unlike prior lists, we have several redlinks here without pictures; there's been a lot of upheaval in the taxonomy of the South American cottontail rabbits in the last decade or so due to a few genetic studies, which hasn't made its way into nice Knowledge (XXG) articles yet. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Wikilink forbs, sedge, tubers, rhizomes as comparatively obscure words
• "Grass and well as shrubs" - typo
• Sagebrush is linked twice
• That's all I got - great work as ever!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: All done, thanks! --PresN 14:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

AryKun

• "called an leporid" → "called a leporid"

• Done

• "colloquially hares and rabbits." → Since you use "a leporid" before this, shouldn't this be "a hare or rabbit"?

• Done

• Maybe link Sylvilagus instead of cottontail rabbit since it appears first.

• Done

• "IUCN red list" → Capitalize.

• Done, somehow that's been missed for all the prior lists

• Andean tapeti has an available image that should be added (it's in the article infobox).

• Done, thanks! Not sure how that one got missed

• Image in the lead needs alt text (and I question the usefulness of "gray rabbit" as an alt for every image).

• Done; since the purpose of the images is to provide a visual representation of the named animal, there's not much useful for the alt text

• Haven't checked the references, but nice work here, very little I could fault. AryKun (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Although not needed, a review at the FLC for List of birds of Nauru would be appreciated.

• @AryKun: Replied inline, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support

• File:Lepus hainanus.jpg — How do we know if it is c. 1900? The source does not mention that.

• It does not indeed, don't know where they got that from; that said, the artist died in 1912 (John Gerrard Keulemans), so it would still be 100 years

• File:Lepus coreanus.jpg — How is this CC-2.0 Korea? The source has an icon. Hovering over that tell me "Attribution", and it links to this page, which I think is CC-4.0 Korea.

• I think it's because commons doesn't have a cc-by-4.0-kr template (or a 3.0). I've added that to the image page.

• On another note, I think, writing that it has been licenced under cc-by-4.0-kr, and using the normal cc-by-4.0 tag would be much better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh: Agreed, done. --PresN 17:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• File:Lepus callotis side.jpg — Where is this pic from? Is it own work?

• Unclear; replaced with a different picture (iNaturalist, cc-by-4.0).

• File:Sylvilagus brasiliensis meridensis (Sylvilagus meridensis) - Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria - Genoa, Italy - DSC02875.JPG — "Photography was permitted in the museum without restriction" is fine, but Italy does not have any freedom of panorama. See Freedom of panorama#Italy. The image is properly licenced, but the 3-D figure of that (rabbit, I'd say) is not.

• Replaced

• File:Nuttall's Cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii).jpg — How is this Government work?

• Presumably because Justin Wilde, who only ever uploaded this one picture (and I can't find evidence that it was ever uploaded somewhere else before then), was a government employee on a government site (as he put in his edit summary), and so labelled it a government photo instead of pd-self.

• I'll WP:AGF on that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That is it! Note: I did not check any maps, as I feel they mostly are appropriately licenced. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks! Responded inline. --PresN 16:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Pass for all the leporids' images. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ref#104 — doi=10.1093/jmammal/gyz126, shouldn't the doi be marked as openly accessible?
• Ref#123 — should be an en-dash, not em-dash in the title.
• Johns Hopkins University Press should be linked in "Feldhamer, George A.; Thompson, Bruce Carlyle; Chapman, Joseph A. (2003). Wild Mammals of North America. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-7416-1."
• Suggesting to archive the sources.

Rest, impeccable sourcing: all sources are reliable, properly/consistently formatted! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh: All done, thanks! --PresN 17:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done some minor copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The (made to order) table coding seems fine. There are no sortable columns.
• 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 actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates appear to be 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 (and cute!)
• 6. It is stable.
• Support - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 7 February 2022 (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, 20 February 2022 (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) 00:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Tone 07:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Portugal has 17 sites on the list and a further 19 tentative sites. The format is standard. I have another list nominated, for Georgia, which is already seeing support. As a side note, Madeira is missing on the map, even it has one site. But as the site covers several parts of the island, it would make little sense to add a map of Madeira with a dot in the centre. Tone 07:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "Town's defence systems include" => "The town's defence systems include"
• "The convent was founded in the 12th-century" => "The convent was founded in the 12th century"
• "The city Évora" => "The city of Évora"
• "A typical feature of the city are" => "A typical feature of the city is"
• "a relic of a forest type that has 40-15 million years ago covered large parts of Southern Europe" => "a relic of a forest type that covered large parts of Southern Europe 40-15 million years ago"
• "Between late 15th and 17th centuries" => "Between the late 15th and 17th centuries"
• "the most known product of the region" => "the best-known product of the region"
• "Wine production in the Pico Island begun" => "Wine production in the Pico Island began"
• "Portugal regain independence from Spain in 1640" => "Portugal regained independence from Spain in 1640"
• "The main buildings were build in the Baroque style" => "The main buildings were built in the Baroque style"
• "Even if the activities have declined and finally ended in the 20th century" => "Although the activities have declined and finally ended in the 20th century"
• "The town of Mértola is located at the banks" => "The town of Mértola is located on the banks"
• "Sites along the route are in present Uruguay" => "Sites along the route are in present-day Uruguay"
• "They are the smallest and the oldest (27My)" - what's "27My"?
• "it contained world's largest pointed arch" => "it contained the world's largest pointed arch"
• "constructed through centuries on the island of Madeira" => "constructed over centuries on the island of Madeira"
• "systematic mapping has only begun in the 1960s" => "systematic mapping only began in the 1960s"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done, thank you! After reading the text several times, some typos just slip through... --Tone 12:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 10:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, great to see you again with another WHS nom! GeraldWL 11:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC) I've never seen the second sentence of the lead in the leads of other WHS articles; they're mostly placed after "Criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural." This is the style I am using now after some nominations had comments that the intro could be expanded. "only natural site, the other sites" --> "only natural site; the other sites" Last sentence is convoluted. Suggest changing to "One site, the Prehistoric Rock Art Sites in the Côa Valley and Siega Verde, is shared with Spain, thus the only transnational Portuguese World Heritage Site." "the Stock exchange" --> "the Stock Exchange Palace" All the other sites' description start with "The", whereas some start with "This". Needs consistency. I think this is fine, from grammar point of view? I start "This nomination" those items that are not of type "The church" or similar. "The extension to the World Heritage Site covers the Couros (Leather) Zone"-- I don't think the translation parantheses is needed, as readers who are trivially curious as to what 'couros' means can just Google-translate it. "This nomination comprises the historic downtown (Baixa) of Lisbon." The brackets make it sound like it's secondary information, when it's not. Suggest changing to "This nomination comprises Baixa, the historic downtown of Lisbon. Suggest changing the Commons template to Template:Commons-inline per WP:ELLAYOUT: "If box-type templates are not good, either because they result in a long sequence of right-aligned boxes hanging off the bottom of the article, or because there are no external links except sister project ones, then consider using 'inline' templates." I am not sure about this one, should I write it in a bullet instead? Done it for ya :) GeraldWL 02:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Ah yes, I though that was the case. Thanks :)

• • @Gerald Waldo Luis: Done most, thank you! Some comments inline above. --Tone 12:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the responses! I took a quick last glance at this list, and I think it's all good now for me. Support. GeraldWL 10:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Oooh I've been to five of these! The most I've been to beside the US.

• "nominated by countries which" should be "nominated by countries that"
• There shouldn't be a comma after 'beauty'
• I know the first paragraph is consistent across some of your articles, but I think it would read better if the second and third sentences were parallel since they're so long, i.e. "Cultural heritage is X. Natural heritage is Y." instead of "Cultural heritage is X. Y is natural heritage."
• Tha map is missing Bom Jesus and Mafra
• "Criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural" should use "and" instead of "whereas".
• "Being built" -> just "Built"
• "the whitewashed houses decorated with azulejos and wrought-iron balconies dating from the 16th to the 18th century" duplicates the source.
• "The city has been developing through its 2,000 year history and its monuments date from different eras." is vague, can you reword to be more specific?
• "while the Siega Verde" should be "and the Siega Verde". That could include that there are 5,000 animal figures
• "40-15" should have a dash not hyphen
• "Guimarães is closely associated with the creation of the national identity and language of Portugal" again duplicates the source. Please stop doing this.
• "in history's first circumnavigation" doesn't need the "in"
• "The group" -> "This group"
• "sport objects" is weird wording
• "one of the protagonists of contemporary architecture." Unusual word choice of "protagonist" gives away this copy-paste from the source
• The closely paraphrased "It is important from the geological point of view" is much better as "It is geologically important"
• If you're going to write "The nomination describes the property as a masterpiece of modern architecture and an example of a perfect relationship between interior and exterior landscapes", you should at least use quotation marks to indicate the words are directly lifted...
• Gonçalo Ribeiro Telles needs wikilink and António Vianna Barreto could link to the ptwiki article, otherwise these are meaningless random names; same for the architects, else remove

Nice work – Reywas92 04:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Reywas92: Done, thank you for a detailed review and useful suggestions. I linked the names to :pt now, makes sense. I restructured the parts that were too close to the source. --Tone 10:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support another fine list Reywas92 18:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

AryKun

• "30 September 1980" → "30 September, 1980"
  • No it was correct before. A comma is used to separate numbers but isn't needed between words and numbers. Reywas92 18:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Link Lisbon in the lead.
• "most recent inscriptions" → Inscriptions is a weird way to put it, maybe "additions" would be better.
• Link Azores in the caption under the map of the Azores.
• "century, during" → Comma unnecessary
• "in the 1980" → "in a 1980"?
• Link "Portuguese monarchy" in Monastery of Batalha.
• Link "Cultural landscape" in the title of Cultural Landscape of Sintra?
• "22,000 – 8,000 BCE" → Doesn't need the spaces around the en-dash
• Link Madeira and endemic in Laurisilva.
• "production in the Pico Island" → "production on Pico Island"
• "padre Cosmander" → Link Cosmander to pt wiki
• "food for the Iberian pigs" → "the" unnecessary
• The alt text for the image of Sintra ("Look at a palace from above") should be changed to "aerial view of a castle with a white façade and orange roofs"
• That's all I got. AryKun (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Although not required, a review at my FLC would be appreciated.
  • @AryKun: Done, thanks! Some of the links you suggest are already linked elsewhere in the same row, so that would be excessive. I'll have a look at the cricket list at some point :) --Tone 14:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Okay, I don't have any other comments, so will support. AryKun (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:24, 15 February 2022 (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) 00:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria and is of similar quality to other featured lists in this category. I believe this list provides a brief but good overview of high rise development in this midsize western city, is comprehensive, and provides relevant notes and hyperlinks for the buildings that would be of interest to the readers of the article. The article is well organized and visually looks good; people took the time to take decent photographs of the skyline and buildings to illustrate the article as well as to mapping the GPS coordinates of all the buildings in the list. Aside from the Albuquerque tallest buildings list, there are no other featured lists from midsized American cities and I hope to increase the representation in this category with this nomination. T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Two quick notes: The first sentence should not use "This is a list of X" per MOS:FIRST, and the "citation needed" tags need to be resolved. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Ok, I’ll rephrase that first sentence. I thought most of these lists started with that exact phrase like the Albuquerque one does. In regard to the citation needed tags, if you look in the edit summaries, you can see the struggles in trying to find verification for the buildings pre-1910 US Bank Building. That’s the one glaring issue that I was trying to resolve before nominating but I was unable to after shelving work on this last bit and revisiting every once in a while over the last couple months, then looking through websites again and searching Google news archives. It’s a dead end, the knowledge may be lost to time or not well documented enough to include in the articles that delve into the topic. I know that on this website, if it can’t be verified, it basically doesn’t exist. I was hoping that this isn’t the first time this has happened and there’s a way to deal with a situation like this. Maybe someone has access to other news archives to get a source for those older buildings, or maybe we reduce the article scope and omit pre modern high rise buildings (US Bank) or raise the starting height for list inclusion, or we delete the entire tallest buildings timeline and any references to pre 1910 structures. Let me know what you think we can do to address this. Thanks for your help T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC) I've done a little bit of searching, and I found this page from the Spokane Historical Society (affiliated with Eastern Washington University) that mentions the Review Building was the tallest in Spokane, but only for 10 years. There's either some serious rounding going on there, or there was another building that needs to be fit into the timeline. All things considered, I'd like to include this section, but if there aren't more sources to complete the list, it should be removed – WP:V must be followed per the featured list criteria, and unsourced information fails that. I'll try searching the Knowledge (XXG) Library for some more sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC) The Google Newspapers archive also seems to have a good number of Spokane papers from that time; maybe one of those could help? RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC) That's kind of you Tiger, thanks for the help. Yes, I saw that tidbit in that Spokane Historical reference and that's why we can be pretty sure the cathedral didn't hold the tallest building title at least immediately after the Review Building; it's very frustrating that the author didn't mention what came after the Review Building. There's no real rounding, just placeholder speculation at this time. I actually e-mailed a journalist at The Spokesman-Review that wrote one of the articles referenced in the List but they haven't gotten back to me. I know if its not verified it can't be on there, I was just hanging on to hope of salvaging the section. I've tried searching in the Google news archives about the Review Building and the Cathedral of Our Lady of Lourdes and its tough sledding. I've seen people use newspaperarchive.com but you have to pay to use it. It seems like you have to be a trained journalist or historian to have the resources and know how to find this kind of information if it isn't readily available on the internet somewhere. Unfortunately, I think the section will have to be deleted which is unfortunate because I bet in most places this sort of thing is well documented. T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC) One last thing you could try is asking someone with access to Newspapers.com to carry out a search (maybe through Knowledge (XXG):Reference desk). It's part of the Knowledge (XXG) Library, but access is limited and I don't currently have access; otherwise, I'd check myself. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC) I wish I knew someone. I didn't think the journalist I contacted would get back to some random person like me so I just deleted the section, which reduces the usefulness of the article and makes it look much less interesting. I liked the section with the cool historic picture and all but without complete knowledge of the situation, I don't think we can have an incomplete chronological list with a gap in it. I didn't notice before, but Spokane Historical has an e-mail that I used to see if they could fill in that crucial 10 year blind spot in the history by indicating what came after the Review Building in the Review Tower article and before the Old National Bank Building in that article so the reader can get more context, I bet it's a single mystery building.T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Since the timeline of tallest buildings has been removed for the time being, here's my full review. Images need alt text Fixed (edit conflict) Often, if the caption is a straightforward description of the image (i.e., "Skyline of Spokane" as opposed to "Spokane has X high-rise buildings"), the alt text can either duplicate the caption or be something along the lines of "see caption". Strictly speaking, the alt text could be omitted in those cases per MOS:ALT, but I think it's better just to include it in every case. Why is "low-rise" hyphenated when "high rise" isn't? Don't know. Fixed! No reason to capitalize "The" in "the Great Fire of 1889" Fixed! Remove <br /> after GeoGroupTemplate Fixed! Suggest moving citations to a dedicated "Ref." column Working on it. I am looking into how to do this. You should be able to simply create a new cell in each row, just like every other cell. Oh, I misunderstood what you were looking for, I thought you were talking about this -->Template:Ref. I'll get working on making a column just for the references. Update: Fixed! Each row in the table (aside from the headers) needs a cell with !scope="row", and the table as a whole needs a caption (which can be hidden using Template:Sronly) – see WP:DTT for more My suggestion would be to make the "Name" cells the row headers, but "Rank" is also a good option Finally fixed I think: I hope I did it right... Update: Made the first cell under the Rank column a different color using the !scope="row" code. Looks like the Portland table now except they did it a little differently by changing the color. All year ranges should use en dashes (–) instead of hyphens (-) – for example, "1910–1929" instead of "1910-1929" Fixed! Think I got all of them. Suggest running IABot to archive sources Question: Ive never requested a bot before. How is that done? Do I just contact Cyberpower678 or Harej? Sorry, the link isn't immediately clear from that page. You should be able to use this link to run it (it should ask for some permissions if you haven't used it before). Fixed! First time for everything. I ran the bot and had all the sources archived in case they go dead in the future. — RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey @RunningTiger123, I know you’re pretty busy right now but the next time you have a moment could you check back with us to see if your concerns have been addressed? It’s been a while since we've heard from you. T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay – forgot about this over the holidays. Everything looks good, and I'm happy to support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Names that start with "The" should sort based on the next word in the name

I deleted "The" from the building names

• Some rows have references which are not in correct numerical order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• "The Old National Bank Building was also the tallest building in the state upon completion" - is the "also" meant to indicate that it was also the tallest building in the city? If so, actually say that

Fixed! Clarified sentence in the Lead and the similar row note. Replaced Old National Bank Building with the modern name so people dont get confused.

• Also, when was this?

Fixed! Added date.

• Some buildings are wikilinked in the lead but others are not. Do the unlinked ones not have articles? Surely they are notable?

Fixed! Added link to the Review Building article which I didnt know existed. I dont think there is one on the Bank of America building.

• "and has held the tallest building in the city title for 40 years" - given that you already mentioned that it is the current tallest building and was built in 1981, these words are redundant

I see what you mean. I took out the redundant info but kept the age calculation. I think it is useful for readers to just tell people exactly how long ago that was so they can relax and not do math.

• "This list ranks Spokane high rises that stand at least 145 feet (44 m) tall" - just out of interest, what was the thought process behind this seemingly very random cut-off point?

Mainly notability concerns. The threshold was to try to trim the list to a around 25-30 buildings like the articles I was using as a model-mainly the List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque and List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon featured list articles. I was thinking about using a nice round number like 150 feet but I thought that would make the list a bit too short at 21. The list at one point contained 38 buildings which included buildings like the Lincoln Plaza/Building at an Emporis estimated height of only 104 feet and is described on their website as a "low rise". Other similar articles have a threshold to keep the list at a manageable length because there are too many tall buildings, but this article has one because there are too few tall buildings. I know everyone has a different perspective on what "tall" is but 104 feet isn't it for most people and wouldn't be even close to ranking in similar list articles except the Albuquerque one. This town doesn't have many tall buildings and the list size at this time reflects that. I felt listing more would be scraping the bottom in terms of notability.

• "Tallest building in Spokane since its completion in 1981." - this is not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop. This applies to many of the notes.

Fixed! Deleted all the periods in the notes section.

• The huge whitespace between the note and the references in many cells looks odd

What do you advise be done with them? The ones that look odd and unappealing are the ones with a larger/landscape? picture making a bigger gap between the note lines. Should I get rid of the breaks? I'm probably over complicating things but I thought listing the references on a different line in the notes on rows that have them will make people understand that the references are for the row entry as a whole and not just a particular note.

• In the "in popular culture" section, you switch between describing the events of the episode in the present and then in the past tense

Fixed!

• Footnote a is not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop

Fixed!

• That's what I got other than the "this list...." opening, which still needs fixing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed I think: Switched "list" to "article" in the Lead and in the Tallest buildings section I switched out "list" for "table". Does that work?

No, you need to re-write the opening to eliminate anything like "This article contains XYZ" altogether. No article (be it a list or otherwise) should start like that (see MOS:FIRST) - we wouldn't start the article on Spokane itself, for example, with "This article is about Spokane". The Albuquerque list you mention above was promoted more than 13 years ago when standards were very different -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha. I deleted the first sentence entirely and the description of the table. Thanks for the clarification. :) 2001:5B0:4FC0:90A8:710A:ECF3:6FA4:EDF2 (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless I'm being unbelievably dumb, I can still see a first sentence of "This article ranks the tallest buildings in the U.S. city of Spokane, Washington by height"?? That needs to go and be replaced by a brief intro to what Spokane is i.e. just a couple of sentences along the lines of Spokane is a city in the US state of Washington, etc. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Youre not hallucinating, I accidentally reverted the fix after I messed up doing the row headers and reverted to back to before I took out the sentence. It has been taken out again.

One last point (I think) from me - where you say "located in eastern Washington", I would rephrase that to "located in the east of the US state of Washington". Not every reader is in the US so this will make it clear what country we are actually talking about here (there's also a Washington in the UK and potentially other countries too), and also (once we have established that it's the US) will make it clear that we are talking about the state, because to probably 99% of non-Americans, if you said "it's in Washington", the first thought would be that you were talking about Washington DC. Oh, and wikilink Washington -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Good point, never thought about that. Ill make those changes. Thanks for the advice Chris :)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This article looks pretty good for FL, and I only have a few comments.

GeraldWL 08:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

* In "Cityscape", the caption should not end with a period as it's not a full sentence (or at least, that's what I'm taught at this FLC of mine). For the "References" column, use Template:Refh instead of "References" per consistency with other FLs. Im going to read up on how to make this happen and try to find some examples. It's late in the day where Im at and Im not good with working on the tables. Thank you for your suggestions and comments Gerald! T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC) I've put it for you there-- it's pretty common in fls-- and no problem! GeraldWL 09:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC) I see that for the refs publishers, you only link the first mention. Ref 4 must have The Spokesman-Review in the

• Support --GeraldWL 08:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Rank becomes !scope=col | Rank.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed I think! Thanks for the suggestions PresN :) T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for their help with improving this article and their patience in dealing with a first time FL nominator that is bad with the table markup. If anyone has any other improvements, I’m all ears. As for me, I ran out of ideas as of now but I am still trying to think of stuff I can add to it. I’m going to keep digging for sources to see if I can fill the 10-year gap in that deleted tallest building timeline and in the future, I think I’ll add a Tallest under construction list like you see in similar articles where we can list buildings that will make the list in the soon. At the moment, I don’t think there are any but there are some residential towers that reportedly will be under construction in the next year or so. Thanks again all! T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - The list likely needs to be moved to List of tallest buildings in Spokane, Washington to match its parent article and comply with naming guidelines for U.S. cities. Otherwise, it looks great, though the opening prose is a bit too crufty. SounderBruce 04:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Was wondering about that myself but I saw the Albuquerque one didn’t have a state either and then didn’t think much of it. It's a little hit and miss with the naming conventions on similar articles. Little Rock, Knoxville, Grand Rapids, and El Paso are also somewhat obscure cities missing the state. I’m all for changing the name and didn’t know I had permissions do do something like that. I’ll read up on wiki guides on how to do it and change the page name to "List of tallest buildings in Spokane, Washington".

Update: The page has a new name. Thanks a bunch for shedding light on the naming conventions.T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Article looks good but here are a few comments:

• I don't think there should be a section called "tallest under construction" as it is just an empty table. Suggest removing this section. Any new building that is constructed can go directly to the main list.

Fixed, I have taken the recent addition out. Most articles of this type have a list of the under construction buildings, so I thought it would almost be expected by others and I thought the article needed a secondary list in lieu of having to delete the Tallest buildings timeline because the history isnt well documented enough.

• The two sentences "If two or more buildings are of the same height, they are listed in order of floor count, then alphabetically. The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed." should be notes for their respective columns, not in the lead paragraph for this section, since they are about the list, not the contents of the list.

Fixed. Good point.

• I also don't think the notes column is very useful, it's mostly blank. You could add a sentence to the lead paragraph just above the table that says "The tallest buidling from 1929-1981 was...." That would be way more useful and convenient for users than a mostly empty column, the only other notes are a few pieces of trivia, that can be added as "notes" if you really want, but they are not super informative anyway. The note on the review building would fit nicely in the article lead in the sentence on the review building. Mattximus (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thinking I'll probably change this.I could go either way on this, but I think I'll break with convention and take out the Notes column and tack on any notes and associated references as a edn note like you suggest. Should mention every other similar list that I've seen has a mostly blank note column, which I dont see as a problem since it does keep the relevant information visually close to the subject matter, but I do think it takes away from the article aesthetically and looks odd and limits the possible length of any note. Thanks for the food for thought Matt T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: I made the change and I like the way it looks. I took out the date ranges for the tallest buildings notes since the pre-1910 history is incomplete and sketchy and the 1910-present history is already talked about at the end of the Lead. Thanks for the great suggestions T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow this actually looks a lot better. My only suggestion is after the sentence "does not include antenna masts." You can add a sentence or two stating "The tallest building in Spokane from x-x was x building and from x-present was x building" or something like that, just to highlight some important information from the table. Otherwise I do like this list. Note C should probably have a citation as well. But apart from these two, I will support. Nice work on this list! Mattximus (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Added an inline to the Emporis existing buildings general reference at the end of former Note C, which is now Note D since I added another factoid note. Also wrote down in prose the known information from the tallest buildings timeline list, that was deleted because the history between 1900-1910 seems to be not well documented and convoluted. Thanks again for the great suggestionsT85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Citation 1 should link to Washington State Employment Security Department and use the appropriate name.

Fixed

• Citation 2 is a promotional piece by the local chamber and should be replaced with a more reputable source.

Fixed. Deleted it; that basic info is in the first citation.

• I'd rather see Citation 5 replaced with a more specific source that pertains to Spokane. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to check the Spokesman-Review archives on Newspapers.com?

Fixed. Referenced another Spokane Historical article.

• Citation 7 has stray brackets at the end. It should also use "Spokane Historical" as the publication name, rather than a publisher.

Fixed I think? Deleted extra brackets. I need clarification to fix the second issue. I thought the publication name and publisher were the same thing, Spokane Historical. If you are talking about the "others" in the reference, that is just meant to convey to readers that the website is a public history project of Eastern Washington University.

• Spokesman-Review is overlinked in citation 8

Fixed

• Some of the Emporis/SkyscraperPage citations could be cut down; are all of them being used to cite information that is not found in the other?

Like most similar articles, I included as a reference all of the typical websites for each listing that has basic building information such as height, mainly Emporis, SkyscraperPage, and CTBUH. I personally think that more information is better and I don't think there is a real pressing need to start deleting references. People can look through each one if they are interested or if they prefer one website over the others and it provides additional verification without harming anything. I strongly believe the references should stay.

Just a few comments, will do a spotcheck later. SounderBruce 08:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks a bunch! :) T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:24, 15 February 2022 (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) 00:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Colonestarrice (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(Re-submission) the reason didn't really change, I just thought I would give it another shot (after more than 2 years). Colonestarrice (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive by comment

• The {{subst:FLC}} template doesn't seem to be placed on the talk page. And shouldn't this be "archive2"? Even if the first nomination had 'C' capital in 'chancellors'. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to save the {{subst:FLC}} template, thanks for reminding me. Regarding the page name, I don't know if there are any guidelines or precedents that explain what do to in this case, so I'm just going to leave the decision to the FLC pundits. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! rowspan=1 | Party becomes !scope=col rowspan=1 | Party. (Also, you don't need rowspans if it's a single cell, only if the number would be bigger than 1)
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | | 1 becomes !scope=row | 1.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 15:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• The images at the top are not captioned clockwise.
• "up until" doesn't need up
• assassination should be lowercase
• No comma after original
• "People's and the Social Democratic Party" missing a "Party"
• The next sentence is a comma splice
• "Five parties" instead of "The following"
• Should be an "and" after the final comma of that sentence
• The First Republic section is lacking the key the Second has...
• And the key should include what the abbreviations are short for...(give both the German and English there)
• Since the color signifies party, it should background the party cells, not the number cells
• Columns should be sortable
• The party column should be between the election and coalition columns; this isn't the most important content that should be on the far left: that's who the person is!
• The notes for Renner and Mayr would be more relevant in the Tenure cell
• The lead says "Arthur Seyss-Inquart was the shortest serving chancellor with 2 days in office." but Walter Breisky's term is a single day.
• Similar to List of chancellors of Germany, perhaps link the governments like Second Schober government and First Kurz government with the coalitions. Those without articles link to the respective section on the chancellor's article.
• Refs: Site name is Republic of Austria Parliament not the url.
• Is there a source for the numbers? E.g. that Karl Renner didn't get one in 1945, making Figl #1? That Kurz's second term is (13) again, so Schallenberg gets #15? That they were restarted for the Second Republic? All reasonable but I don't want this to be OR
• With that, if Renner isn't numbered, is his photo caption in the lead as being the first correct? (and being a provisional chancellor isn't mentioned in the lead)
• The "living former chancellors" section should be removed. Both the main table and the statistics table denote the living chancellors, and this is redundant.
• "Oldest living chancellors" is mere trivia and I don't see the purpose of this, which can also be deduced from the stats table.

Reywas92 17:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done.

"The First Republic section is lacking the key the Second has..."

"And the key should include what the abbreviations are short for...(give both the German and English there)"

I've removed the keys completely (except for the "denotes acting" part), as the parties are already included and linked in the table, and their full names are mentioned in the lead.

No, you can't have unexplained abbreviations even if they're linked; these need to be written out somewhere because their full names are not mentioned in the lead because they're German abbreviations but the lead gives English names.

"Is there a source for the numbers? E.g. that Karl Renner didn't get one in 1945, making Figl #1? That Kurz's second term is (13) again, so Schallenberg gets #15? That they were restarted for the Second Republic? All reasonable but I don't want this to be OR"

I'm glad that you addressed that, because someone re-added succession numbers to the table; succession numbers are not used in Austria, this has been discussed multiple times.

"Since the color signifies party, it should background the party cells, not the number cells"

I've restored the original table design without succession numbers; now there is just a plain, colored line, which exists to complement the party cells. I believe adding colored backgrounds to the party cells would be a bit "visually intense", and some readers might not be able spot blue links with a turquoise background.

Agree that that colored line looks nicer and is becoming more standard

"The party column should be between the election and coalition columns; this isn't the most important content that should be on the far left: that's who the person is!"

The color and party columns are very small; I think having them on the left makes orientation easier for readers. But if you insist, I will change it.

Looking through the other leader FLs and more in Europe, while many keep the narrow color column on the left for orientation, the party is consistently to the right, which makes sense because as a list of chancellors, the chancellors themselves should go first. It's seems pretty redundant though, since except for Schober the chancellor's party is always listed first in the government parties. Maybe remove the party column altogether but then bold their party in the government column?

"Similar to List of chancellors of Germany, perhaps link the governments like Second Schober government and First Kurz government with the coalitions. Those without articles link to the respective section on the chancellor's article."

I would like to, but the vast majority of cabinets neither have any articles of their own, nor associated sections on the articles of their leaders (i.e. the chancellors).

"Refs: Site name is Republic of Austria Parliament not the url."

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

The references have "website=www.parlament.gv.at" but you should give the actual name, not url. Better to use "publisher=Republic of Austria Parliament" instead.

– Colonestarrice (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"The lead says "Arthur Seyss-Inquart was the shortest serving chancellor with 2 days in office." but Walter Breisky's term is a single day."

I'm sorry, for some reason the list didn't mention that: Breisky was acting chancellor and thus excluded from the calculation. But if necessary, I can still mention him in the lead.

The background added is good. Though User:Kramler/Kurz is not the 25th chancellor make me wonder if Seyss-Inquart should even count either since the Parliament doesn't include him, maybe skip that stat? Reywas92 15:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

– Colonestarrice (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done. (I also found a parliament source for Seyss-Inquart.) The colored line supplements the party column, if the column was to be moved somewhere else it would kind of lose its purpose. Pages like list of presidents of the United States also do not put the person on the far-left. I think having the chancellors centre-left, highlights them more than having them on the far-left. Colonestarrice (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Per MOS:COLORCODING, you can't use just colour to indicate the acting chancellors. You either need to also use a symbol, or maybe in this case actually put (acting) after the dates of office -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

More comments

• "Kreisky is known as one of the world's perhaps most successful socialist leaders" => "Kreisky is known as perhaps one of the world's most successful socialist leaders". Also such a bold claim needs a source
• "Following Dollfuss's Assassination" - assassination is not a proper noun so it should not have a capital A
• "Arthur Seyss-Inquart was the shortest serving chancellor with only 2 days in office." - Breisky also appears to have served for two days. He may have only been acting, but he still served
• Actually, didn't Seyss-Inquart serve for three days (11-13 March)......?
• The name column should sort based on surname, not forename (this applies to both tables)
• The tenure column does not sort correctly
• Any reason why the assumed/left office columns in the second table are not sortable whereas all the others are?
• Ref 57 is a footnote and should be formatted like the other footnotes
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• I see that you have removed the sortability function from the tenure column altogether. That now means that if you sort the table on a different column it's literally impossible to get back to the original order. Not really ideal....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but the thing is that the main table was created with the intention of being unsortable; more than half of all columns weren't designed for sorting, and the cells that span more than one row, mess up the whole table once you start sorting anyways. If readers want to sort chancellors by name, birth date, term of office and so on, they can use the statistics table which was made for that exact purpose. Colonestarrice (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Well in that case you should make the main table completely unsortable. It doesn't really work to have a table which is essentially a timeline but then if you re-sort in any way you can't get back to showing the timeline in chronological order...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The statistics table is not sortable either...while the date of birth properly uses {dts}, assumed office uses {start date}, which sorts numerically by day. Left office does the same. If you just use dts in the main table, it will be properly sortable as well. The numbering in the stats table should also be removed just as above. Reywas92 15:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support - apologies for forgetting to come back! :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• "of the Austrian Republic" — "Austrian Republic" redirects to Austria. Why not just write "Austria" instead of "Austrian Republic"?
• " – the first federal chancellor" — should start this in a new sentence
• "Ten chancellors served" — avoid starting a sentence by a number

If you have any suggestions on how to rephrase the sentence, I would welcome them with open arms. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"There have been ten chancellors who have served ..." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• "by Austrian National Socialists" — would "by Austrian Nazis" be better?

I'm gonna be honest here, "Austrian Nazis" doesn't have a very encyclopaedic tone to it. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Schuschnigg in turn was" — I'd remove "in turn"
• "Reich Commissioner Josef Bürckel" — avoid linking two adjacent words
• "After the liberation of Vienna and the dissolution of Nazi Germany, Austria reinstated its republican form of government." — which year? specify.
• "However, the country remained under allied occupation until 1955 and thus the country's ultimate" — "the country" could/should be replaced by "Austria"
• "the People's Party and the Social Democratic Party have largely dominated Austrian politics. The People's Party/" — "People's Party" should be linked in its first instance.
• same comment as above for "Social Democratic Party"
• "Seven parties never held ..." — avoid starting a sentence by a number

Same as above. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"There have been seven parties which never held ..." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• "resigns or is" — comma after 'resigns'
• "If the president in turn dies, resigns or is otherwise incapacitated, the chancellor" — this is repetition of "If the president in turn dies, resigns or is otherwise incapacitated". Could be write it as "In event of vacancy in chancellor's office"?
• Not a major issue, but can we arrange the key for parties in a manner similar to United States presidential elections in the District of Columbia#Presidential elections?
• Okay, so we also had a chancellor changes after this list was nominated. Interesting!
• Fix the disambiguation links for parties in the row of Wolfgang Schüssel and Werner Faymann

They're intentional and unfortunately I don't really see a workaround here (but I'm open to suggestions). Colonestarrice (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Now I understood, fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Is the any reliable source which discusses "List of chancellors of Austria by age/age at assuming office/longevity/age at retirement/death/lifespan?? If not, I feel that the entire "Statistics" section in WP:LC. It is merely statistics, and Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Feel free to disagree. I just want to know your point-of-view.
• A nice majority of sources is from "Republic of Austria Parliament", which is a primary source. Are there no books/other secondary sources which discuss this topic?

While the chancellery's website obviously is, I'm not really sure if Parliament is a primary source according to WP:PRIMARY's definition of what constitutes a primary source. Anyways, I still checked and ironically the only think I found were more primary sources. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I initial concern was that there much be few scholar sources which are consider secondary and more reliable sources. But I am not gonna persist this issue, accepting the fact that sourcing requirment criteria for FLs is significantly lower than FAs. Also, in the "www.britannica.com" sources, I'dwrite it as "Britannica". I'll also remove 'www.' in other website works. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The rest is  Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks much better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I support the promotion of this article as a featured list. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• "After the Allies declined a union between Austria and Germany." "declined" does not seem the right word. Maybe "vetoed"?
• The lead is strong on history but weak on explaining the powers of the chancellor and the method of election at different periods. You refer to appointment at the beginning, periods of dictatorship and an elected chancellor. How were they chosen in the inter-war period? Were elections abolished during periods of dictatorship? Are they now elected by first past the post or alternative vote? What specific powers does the chancellor have? Does he appoint the vice chancellor and the cabinet? Can parliament dismiss his ministers?
• Note b. "The chancellor is appointed by the president of Austria." I assume this only referred to one period and it would avoid confusion if you changed "is" to "was".
• In view of the large areas of white space in the table, you might consider spelling out the names of the parties instead of using abbreviations. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I refined the lead and I hope that the new prose now satisfies your first point. The lead does not elaborate on the powers of the chancellor because the office is vested with almost no power. The chancellor is purely know as the leader of the government. The chancellor is appointed by the president, who by convention picks the nominee of the largest party in Parliament. Legislative elections and cabinet formations are very complicated things in Austria, so I wouldn't want to go in on this here. As history has substantially reshaped the office over time and the page covers mostly historical officeholders, I focused on the historical aspects in the lead to give the list more context. Readers can always find out more about the office and elections in Austria by visiting the respective standalone articles.

In view of the large areas of white space in the table, you might consider spelling out the names of the parties instead of using abbreviations - unfortunately, I think that names like "National Socialist German Worker's Party" or "Social Democratic Workers' Party of Austria" are a bit too long. Colonestarrice (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I overlooked the statement at the beginning that the chancellor is appointed and saw the reference to an elected chancellor below. This seems a contradiction which needs explanation. The facts that president picks the leader of the largest party by convention and that the office has almost no power should be stated. Who picks the vice chancellor and ministers? This should be covered. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Support, Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:24, 15 February 2022 (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, 16 February 2022 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Rowling has won many different awards for Harry Potter and other work; I hope it makes for an interesting list. This was created a couple of weeks ago, spawning from revamps to the Rowling article during its FAR. Folks felt it may be ready for FLC, so here it is. This was collaborative; thanks to SandyGeorgia. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• I am not an FLC regular, but having spent the better part of the last three weeks in a deep dive on sourcing at J. K. Rowling, I am confident this list is comprehensive. I am flattered that O-D considers it a collaboration, but it is all Olivaw-Daneel's work; I have kept a watchful eye, added a few citations, and did a wee bit of nitpicking, not rising to the level of significant or even barely significant contributor, but with my usual inflated edit count because of how I edit. To my understanding, this list well meets WP:WIAFL, the prose and sourcing are at featured standard, and I anticipate supporting once FLC regulars have had a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Support after several fine reviews got out the remaining nitpicks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the HP book titles should be written in full in the lead, rather than having "Harry Potter and the" removed
• "Rowling also won the University College Dublin's" => "Rowling also won University College Dublin's" (it's not referred to as the UCD)
• In the speculative fiction section, I would write "Andre Norton Award" in full, as she didn't literally win Andre Norton :-)
• Her 2010 award in the pop culture section was given by the National Magazine Company, so you may as well say that rather than the nebulous "leading magazines"
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude, I think I've addressed everything. Thanks for the review. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Will try not to screw this up

• "Some scholars feel" — only one scholar is cited...
  • The source is summarizing other scholars' opinions (not just her own). Regardless I've added one more cite.
• "literature in 2000, and three"/"in 2012, and for her services to literature" — IDK about this, but I feel like the shouldn't be a comma (I'm probably wrong but I just thought I'd note it in case I'm right)
• "social, moral, and" — is there a reason for the comma? The rest of the article doesn't seem to use the serial comma
  • All serial commas removed.
• "where she spoke at the 2008 commencement ceremony" — I'm unsure whether she spoke at all the universities' ceremonies or only Harvard's. Can this be clarified?
• The Tales of Beedle the Bard, etc. should sort by Tales, not The
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works like Harry Potter should be italicised in citations
• Per MOS:SMALLCAPS, the citation capitalisation is inconsistent. Some are written in title-case while the others in sentence-case.
  • All done.

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Also, I've made a few tweaks. Feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Also, also, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Thanks, I think I've addressed all comments. And sure I'll take a look. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Pamzeis (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A very wise human being indeed. I've archived some of the references, use this next time you wanna auto-archive. This article looks pretty neat, just a few suggestions.

GeraldWL 01:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

* The alt text of both photos is repetitive when placed beside the caption. Common practice is to just make the alt text "Refer to caption". Done. Year brackets after mentions of a book would be great. For example "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (1998)". Added year of award win. "Some scholars feel that its reception exposed a literary prejudice against children's books: for instance, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was nominated for the Whitbread Book of the Year, but the award body gave it the children's prize instead (worth half the cash amount)." I would rather have this placed as the last sentence of the paragraph. Rephrased to shift scholarly opinion to the end of the sentence. Whitbread is the most prominent of the lit awards here (see added context about a Nobel laureate), so I think its current location makes sense. Open to better phrasing. "It received speculative fiction awards"-- considering "including general literature prizes, honours in children's literature and speculative fiction awards" is not that far away, this bit sounds repetitive. Changed to be more specific. "she gave her fans"-- suggest changing "her fans" to "the Harry Potter fandom", as the HP fandom doesn't necessarily idolize Rowling the human. Done. At General literature: at the last four rows, suggest merging the Chamber of Secrets and Prizoner of Azkaban rows. Same case with "Troubled Blood" And "the Cursed Child" And "UK" And maybe "honourary degree" I agree there's some repetition, but my understanding is that rowspans internal to a table (where rows continue on either side) are usually discouraged. (Looking at past FLCs, rowspans in general seem to be discouraged, for accessibility.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC) I see, thanks for clarifying. I read other FLs to see if this is okay and this turns out to be pretty common practice. Personally though I prefer merging. For footnote c, suggest changing "es" to "es" Not entirely clear what you are requesting, but I changed it to "Spanish". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Added the {{Abbr}} template, which is what I think was being suggested. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Yep, that was my suggestion. Sorry Sandy, should've nowiki-ed it. At Academic, Royal Society of Edinburg row: "Fellowship"-- link Fellowship of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Done. @Gerald Waldo Luis: I've responded to everything so far (unsigned replies are from me). Thanks for the archive and comments. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• I support this FLC after all my comments got resolved. Good job! GeraldWL 01:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support I offered some comments a bit back on this and I suggested that it be nominated because I feel that it fufills the criteria. It passes my source review, but the coords might want someone else to do one as well. --Guerillero 10:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Two years later, she was recognized as a Chevalier de la Légion d'Honneur" - should the word in bold end in "sed"?
• " Royal Society of Edinburgh (HonFRSE) and Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (FRCPE)." - the word "the" is missing at the beginning of both of these academic establishments

That is all I have for this list MWright96 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@MWright96 Switched to "-ised" and added "the". Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Have no further comments MWright96 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:23, 15 February 2022 (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, 16 February 2022 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the list is about all those drivers who have won the 24 Hours of Le Mans sports car race overall. Such famous names in the world of motor racing to have won the race include Tom Kristensen, Jacky Ickx, Derek Bell, Emanuele Pirro, Frank Biela, Graham Hill, Alexander Wurz, José Froilán González, A. J. Foyt, Henri Pescarolo and more recently Fernando Alonso. Should the list pass, it will be the first featured list related specially to sports car racing on Knowledge (XXG). I look forward to all comments MWright96 (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "close by the city" => "close to the city"
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "The race along with the Indianapolis 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix forms part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport" => "The race forms part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport along with the Indianapolis 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix" seems more natural to me
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "winning driver's feet and hands and signature" => "winning driver's feet, hands and signature"
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "placement in the pavement at Le Mans' Saint Nicholas district" => "placement in the pavement in Le Mans' Saint Nicholas district"
  • Changed MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "There have been four countries who have" => "There have been four countries which have"
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Porsche hold the record 19 since its" - plural/singular disagreement
  • Reworded MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Joest Racing have achieved more wins than every entered racing team on 13 occasions" - I don't understand this. Is it meant to be "Joest Racing have achieved more wins than any other racing team, having won on 13 occasions"?
  • Changed MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "three victorious participants per car became the norm" - just "three participants per car became the norm", surely?
  • Reworded MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Overall and no lower class winners are included" - apologies, but I don't understand what this means, can you reword/elaborate?
  • Removed MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Image captions are all complete sentences so need full stops
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Have made changes based on each of the points above MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a ref for the French-language title of the race?
• "industrialist Emile Coquile to " comma after Coquile.
• "a cast ... are cast" repetitive.
• "won the 1996 race. " overlinked.
• "the 1923 edition" ditto.
• Consider converting the distance to miles for those who don't "get" the metric system.
• And I would put (km) explicitly in the header as well as in the hover-over {{abbr}} text.
• As distance is in the table, is it worth noting shortest and longest race distances in the lead? I personally find it interesting that the average race winning distance has gone up by a factor of around 2.5 since the 1920s.

That's it. It's a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: All of the above points have been addressed 15:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, nice work. Happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Excellent article; as a non-racing enthusiast it's easy to understand I love the design! Just some comments, after that I'll sp. GeraldWL 10:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 06:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

* "(French: 24 heures du Mans)"-- this shouldn't be bolded as 24 heures du Mans doesn't redirect here. Also, should the "H" be capitalized? Because in the 24 Hours of Le Mans article it is. Done MWright96 (talk) "It was first staged"-- "staged" meas "presented or performed on a stage" and I don't think 24LM is in a stage it's in a circuit. Suggest changing it to "held" Done MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "at the former grocery store owner Bernard Warain's initiative"-- suddenly having some grocery store owner is a bit weird, and I don't think Warrain being a grocery store owner is vital in the history of 24LM. Suggest "at the the initiative of a man named Bernard Warain" Done MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "at the 1924 race" --> "in 1924" for consistency. Done MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Suggest using Template:N/a for the N/A cells Have instead added No series to replace the N/A cells MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Suggest using Template:Abbr or Template:Abbrlink for the Series abbreviations Done and also used abbrlink template for class and season abbreviations MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) The table nevertheless looks great, but I suggest merging similar cells (e.g. in By Manufacturer, Matra-Simca and Peugeot have the same wins of 3, this can be merged). But over time I've learned that this is also personal preference, so if you prefer the status quo it's totally okay :) Will retain the status quo MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) The image captions should not have full stops as they're not full sentences Done MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Ref 5 is dead, I found. I changed the url-status. A bot archived the remaining unarchived links but is unable to reformat dead links, suggest you check them all. IAbot does not say there are any dead links whether they are temporary or permanent MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) @Gerald Waldo Luis: Have made changes to the list and have replied where appropriate MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. GeraldWL 06:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Archive link for source 3 appears to be incorrect (links to Meta-Wiki?)
• "is second with six victories and Derek Bell" → "is second with six victories, and Derek Bell"
• "followed by French racers with 29 and German drivers with 19" → "followed by France with 29 and Germany with 19" (keep subjects consistent with United Kingdom)
• Series abbreviations key should not rely solely on mouseover text – add the full names in a column next to the abbreviations for mobile viewers (similar to tyre manufacturers)
• For similar reasons, a class key would be useful for mobile viewers
• Consider writing out "laps", "km", and "mi" instead of "L", "K", and "M" in header (for same reason again)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• @RunningTiger123: Have made the changes suggested above MWright96 (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Support – Looks great! RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:24, 15 February 2022 (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, 16 February 2022 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): GeraldWL 18:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"God sent those eyes, to get me through the night... and all of the shadows of the past fade into white... when all the memories in my head subside... you remain here... you remain here inside..."

That is an excerpt from "Godsent" by Ben&Ben. Around 6 months ago I got my first boyfriend, and we decided to pick two theme songs. The first is Frank Sinatra's legendary cover of "Fly Me to the Moon", given that we're avgeeks, but then he talked about his favorite Filipino band named Ben&Ben and picked "Godsent" as the second. Since then I've listened to all of Ben&Ben songs, (almost) all of which resonate deeply within me. Even if you don't understand the Tagalog, there is a specific universal appeal to their works.

Out of interest towards the subject, I then started improving the article on 21 December. This is my first time working on discographies, so I read various FL articles on discographies for reference, such as mewithoutYou discography and Regine Velasquez discography. It's a very brief expansion period (6 days), but I've done extensive editing to this and I think that it's suitable for FL. Any comments welcome of course, keep in mind this is written in Philippine English. GeraldWL 18:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

====Drive-by comment==== You do not use the word "eponymous" correctly in notes such as "Cover version of the eponymous song by Bread". An eponymous song by Bread would be called "Bread", because in the context of music an eponymous release is one where the title is simply the name of the artist (eg this album). TBH, just saying "Cover version of the song by Bread" would be sufficient, I don't think any additional qualifiers are needed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Thanks for pointing out! Done. GeraldWL 03:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Further comments "Appearances" in the infobox should probably be "Soundtrack appearances", as "appearances" is rather vague Sounds reasonable-- done. What's the norm in Phillipines English for whether a band name is treated as singular or plural? In UK English it's plural (eg "Coldplay are") and in US English it's singular (eg "Coldplay is"), but in the lead you mix it up, saying "Ben&Ben have released" (plural) "The band was formed It debuted" (singular) ph-ENG considers collective nouns, including bands, as singular. I've changed the have-s to has. "which they also made a music video on" => "for which they also made a music video" Done. "The Guicos play the role of acoustic guitarists" - "play the role" is an odd choice of words here, as it sounds like they are acting. I would just say "The Guicos both play acoustic guitar" Must be from my deeper familiarity writing film articles smh-- done. "an act it continues to do in the following years and is most known for" => "for which the band has remained well known" Done. "The band was also featured in other artists' songs" => "The band was also featured on other artists' songs" Done. "Later in July" => "In July" Done. "seven songs in Pebble House, Vol. 1: Kuwaderno" => "seven songs from Pebble House, Vol. 1: Kuwaderno" Done. "reached Spotify's Top 100 chart; while the rest" - semi-colon should be a comma Changed. "In addition, the band began receiving various accolades starting from 2018 during their rise to fame" => "The band has received various accolades since 2018" Done. "Appearances as soundtracks" => "Appearances on soundtracks" Done. That's what I got on a full first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC) ChrisTheDude, thanks for all those comments! Resolved them all. GeraldWL 05:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have them for most columns, but I see they're missing for the Sales and Certification columns in the first table; I did not check every table.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | rowspan="6" | 2018 becomes !scope=row rowspan="6" | 2018. The last table does not have rowscopes.

PresN-- done all. GeraldWL 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Pass—no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 06:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Salamat! GeraldWL 07:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Pseud 14 (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy to see you take this on and I'm glad you're enjoying their music even more. Personally, my favorites are "Leaves" and "Pagtingin". Thanks for picking up this review! Definitely grateful to learn about their stuff. Excellent favorites; personally I prefer "Pagtingin". GeraldWL 07:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC) on the record labels Sony Music Philippines and Sindikato -- under the record labels.. Done Unlink record labels and music videos Rm-ed record labels. I think the music videos link is fine and not overlink. The band rose to fame in 2018 for incorporating songs – The band achieved recognition in 2018 for... I don't see any purpose in changing that sentence.. It's not the usage of the phrase (personally I use and have read usage of rose to fame or to prominence as well) but rather how it fits in the career timeline of the band as they've been famous or prominent, albeit not mainstream, since they reformed as Ben&Ben between the years 2016 and 2018, but never really got traction until their songs have been featured in film and TV. I guess It would be sound to highlight that they gotten recognized (more) when the latter happened, if that makes sense. Also in the same sentence above, The band .. , for which the band – repetitive Thanks for spotting that! Resolved. The band was also featured on other artists' songs, and also sang one with various artists as part of the COVID-19 relief effort. – think this needs clarification, so as not to sound confusing. “Other artist’s songs” and “sang one with various artists” sound repetitive. Perhaps reword (e.g. The band has collaborated with various artists, and also recorded a charity single as part of the COVID-19 relief effort.) Done In July, it ranked 1 – it ranked 1st Done with Ben&Ben upon popular demand – due to popular demand Mind explaining why this is needed? Just a bit odd or uncommon use. Either "by", "because of" or "due to" popular demand works well with the sentence. In 2021, it was reported that Ben&Ben set a new – In 2021, Ben&Ben set a new record in the folk pop community – folk-pop genre from both locally such as the Awit Awards, as well internationally such as the NME Awards -- this one is a bit awkward, I don’t think the year matters anymore when they started winning awards, perhaps you can word this as: ‘’The band has received various accolades locally and internationally, including the Awit Awards and NME Awards Done all three That's all I have. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Pseud 14, addressed all matters; asked questions in some. GeraldWL 07:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC) @Gerald Waldo Luis: I am satisfied with the replies except where I have a response to your questions. Nothing that warrants any issue to hinder this from promotion. I just wanted to clarify points I raised if it seems ambiguous, hopefully it doesn't come across as nitpicky. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Pseud 14, I've implemented the remaining changes now that you've clarified. GeraldWL 06:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support Pseud 14 (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I am a fan of Ben&Ben's music actually so would love to comment on this. I'll start with the lead overview.

Damn, I was surprised for a moment because I didn't know you can speak Tagalog. Personally I'm learning... and procrastinating lmao--

• adding Poch Barretto as the electric guitarist -- you can probably omit all "the"s in this list?

Yeah I can see why, it sounds vaguely repetitive. Removed.

• The Guicos are acoustic guitarists. -- Can't this be combined with the paragraph's first sentence?

What do you think of it now?

Still needs parallel structure. Here's what I suggest:

In 2017, Ben&Ben expanded, with the Guicos as acoustic guitarists, and added Poch Barretto as electric guitarist, Jam Villanueva as drummer, Agnes Reoma as bassist, Patricia Lasaten as keyboardist, Toni Muñoz and Andrew de Pano as percussionists, and Keifer Cabugao as violinist.

Sounds clearer actually; done! :)

• for which it has remained well known. -- seems a bit superfluous; instead can't you provide a couple of example films with sources?

I've added them, although I disagree on adding sources since that's covered in the last table.

the quote remains vague (can be interpreted as they remain well-known for achieving recognition in 2018, as opposed to what you're intending)

Rereading, I think the first half of the sentence covers the fame thing well, so I removed that latter bit.

• most notably Young K of Day6 -- omit most

Done.

sorry, now add notably by Young K :D

Done :)

• Later in August, Ben&Ben made cover versions -- covered..

No actually, "cover versions" is the official name; covered is only used in sentences like, say, "Deep Purple covered Bob Marley's "Watching the River Flow"."

okie

• upon fan requests -- "upon request" kind of sounds like this was a live request show... is this accurate? If not, probably choose a different word.

Changed to "due to"

maybe "in response" is better?

Done

• Top 100 chart; while the rest, -- omit "while" if using semi-colon.

Nice catch! Done.

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Truflip99, thanks for the comments, some of which I didn't even notice. Looking forward for your other comments in case this is the first batch. GeraldWL 06:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• In 2019, the band released its debut studio album, Limasawa Street. Its second, Pebble House, Vol. 1: Kuwaderno, was released in 2021. // The band has collaborated with various artists, and also recorded a charity single as part of the COVID-19 relief effort. -- try to achieve parallel structure in these too?

I've done parallel for the first two sentences, but can't do one for the last.

How about: The band has collaborated with various artists and has recorded a charity single as part of the COVID-19 relief effort. --truflip99 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Done

• Tables look good.

I think that's it from me. Apologies for the delay! --truflip99 (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Truflip99, responded to your comms above. And hey, it's still not 2012 :) GeraldWL 17:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like all of my points have been addressed. Good stuff! --truflip99 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the sp! :) GeraldWL 19:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I can take a look later. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, will wait for it :) GeraldWL 14:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Epicgenius, just wanna remind you of this FLC. Or if you can't do a prose-table review, this FLC is in need of a source review. GeraldWL 13:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll review the prose and the tables. But before I do that, I had a question about consistency - why are some of the refs in the "Music videos" section linking to YouTube videos, while others link to news articles? It should preferably either be all news articles or all YouTube videos. I notice that the Rappler sources are trying to embed videos, so I'd instead link to the actual videos. Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that! I changed all refs in Music videos to YouTube; I'll archive them tomorrow. GeraldWL 18:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Epicgenius, so it turns out I didnt archive them "tomorrow", but rather just now. All links archived, except for the newest single link-- for some reason both Wayback and Ghostarchive won't do the job... GeraldWL 15:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Prose comments:

• "The Filipino indie folk/folk pop/pop rock band Ben&Ben has released two studio albums, one extended play (EP), 32 singles, five promotional singles, and one charity single under the record labels Sony Music Philippines and Sindikato. " - I'm not sure if it's typical for discography lists to be laid out like this, but shouldn't the group be introduced first? E.g. "The Filipino indie folk/folk pop/pop rock band Ben&Ben was formed as The Benjamins in 2015 by Paolo and Miguel Benjamin Guico. It has released two studio albums, one extended play (EP), 32 singles, five promotional singles, and one charity single under the record labels Sony Music Philippines and Sindikato." Not a big issue however, as I can see why it's currently laid out this way.

• Yep, I consulted several discographies and some use this format. There's no MOS for such articles, so I assume any layout is fine.

• "the band has released 27 music videos, and their songs have made appearances in 12 films and television series." - Is the band singular or plural?

• Covered this above with Chris. Philippine English considers collective nouns (bands) singular.

• Also, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that "their songs have been used in 12 films and television series". I know it's used in the figurative sense, but it is a little strange to me since songs aren't physical things that can "appear".

• Yeah, I can see it being weird, personally I just copypasted it from mewithoutyou discography. Changed.

• "the band was renamed, and released an eponymous EP consisting of seven songs." - The comma here is not necessary.

• Removed.

• "Ben&Ben expanded, with the Guicos as acoustic guitarists, and added Poch Barretto as electric guitarist, Jam Villanueva as drummer, Agnes Reoma as bassist, Patricia Lasaten as keyboardist, Toni Muñoz and Andrew de Pano as percussionists, as well as Keifer Cabugao as violinist" - Currently this is a little redundant, because you say "Ben&Ben expanded...and added". I would just drop "and added".

• This sentence is a more discussed topic in this FLC, and has been changed several times, but yeah I can see your concern. Although I think "added" is still important since the sentence is blending in the Guicos (who have been in the band since inception) and new members. Moved Guico part to the bottom; what do you think?

• "In 2019, the band released its debut studio album, Limasawa Street, and released its second, Pebble House, Vol. 1: Kuwaderno, in 2021." - For consistency, it should be either:
  • "The band released its debut studio album, Limasawa Street, in 2019 and released its second, Pebble House, Vol. 1: Kuwaderno, in 2021."
  • "In 2019, the band released its debut studio album, Limasawa Street; in 2021, it released its second, Pebble House, Vol. 1: Kuwaderno."

• Picked the former. I added a semicolon after 2019 to separate the two.

• "In April 2020, Ben&Ben jumped from 48th to 29th place in the Billboard Social 50 chart" - When did they first rank on the chart (i.e. when did they become 48th"?)

• It's unclear, as all sources merely state "previously".

• "Later in August, Ben&Ben" - If it's the same August you can just say "The next month" or "In August".

• Picked the former.

• "the rest, as well as some of their previous songs" - The rest of the songs from this album?

• Nope, "the rest" refers to the rest of the songs from Kuwaderno that didn't reach 100.

Non-prose commentary to come later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Addressed your prose comments :) GeraldWL 16:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Discography looks like its in great shape! But there are a few minor things I would adjust:

• In Studio albums, adjust the width of the details column from 18 to 20, so flash drive doesn't take up an extra line
• This can same be done with extended plays, if you happen to want both sections to align.
• Personally, I would expand the width of sales and certs in studio albums so it doesn't look clamped, but that's up to you
• In singles under lead artist, adjust width of title column to 17
• Remove "style="width:10em;" for Year, as its unnecessary
• Add "plainrowheaders" to Appearances on soundtracks

ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Nkon21, thanks for this! I've done most, except for number 3, and last, since it's common practice not to have plainrowheaders if the first row is year. GeraldWL 20:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. In addition, I believe there are usually bullet points in the sales and certification column. I would also remove the abbr. template from the "PARI" in studio albums as the link makes it unable to be seen. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Nkon21, hmm... this is my first time in discography articles, but the sales and cert is just one here so I don't think a bullet is needed. The PARI one uses Template:Abbrlink which is a fairy common template, so I don't think there's accessibility issues there. GeraldWL 03:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see the problem now. It should instead be written out as "{{abbrlink|PARI|Philippine Association of the Record Industry}}" per the template documentation, that's why I couldn't see the expanded text when hovering over the wikilink before. After this is adjusted I'll be happy to support! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Nkon21 haiyaa I didn't notice that *facepalm*, thanks a lot! Done :) GeraldWL 03:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• That's all from me, Support ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:24, 15 February 2022 (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, 16 February 2022 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Following up on my successful FL nomination for the 73rd Primetime Emmy Awards and the ongoing nomination for the corresponding Creative Arts Emmys (now at three supports), I've continued my work by updating the previous year's ceremony. Of note this year: Schitt's Creek dominates everything by sweeping the comedy categories for the first time ever – quite the feat for a show that had no Emmys before this year! (Though I'll always be a bit disappointed that it kept one of my favorite shows from winning anything...) As always, any feedback is greatly appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would encourage you to add ALT text to the infobox image.
  • Good catch, thanks!
• Why is the "Criticism" section separate from the "Critical reviews and viewership" subsection? I would think that it would fit better directly after the "Critical reviews and viewership" subsection rather than after the "In Memoriam" section. Since the criticism is directed at the nominations, I would rename the section to be more specific.
  • The section has been moved accordingly, and the section heading is now "Criticism regarding lack of diversity", which is what the 87th Academy Awards article uses for similar issues.
• For the second paragraph of the "Critical reviews and viewership" sub-section, I would recommend varying how the critics are introduced as for each of the three instances it is "X of/from Y publication" and it can read as rather repetitive.
  • Done.
• There are a few items linked multiple times in the list itself, such as Schitt's Creek and the 71st Primetime Emmy Awards, when items should only be linked on their first mention.
  • Done.

Great work with the list. Once my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. If possible, I would appreciate any feedback on my current FAC (which is about a rather obscure song so it is not really related to this), but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for the feedback! Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the responses. The list looks solid to me. I support the FLC for promotion. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's not screw this up...

Formatting

• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works like Schitt's Creek should be italicised, regardless of what the original source does
• Per MOS:ALLCAPS, be consistent with capitalisation
• ref 44: (EXCLUSIVE) → (Exclusive) (MOS:ALLCAPS)
• ref 52: Faux House: "This Isn't A MAGA Rally" → Faux House: 'This Isn't a MAGA Rally' (MOS:QWQ)
• ref 56: why is Penske Media Corporation listed as the publisher when no other publication (published by the corporation) lists the corporation
  • All items above: Done.
• ref 37, 64, 65, 67: The works titles should not be italicised, no?
  • I've generally adopted the approach that if the website is for a company/organization and is secondary to their main work, it should not be italicized (i.e., Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, United Parcel Service), while if the website is part of the main work of that group, it should be italicized (i.e., pretty much everything else in the article). The documentation for Template:Cite web isn't super clear on this, but it's the approach I've adopted.
• ref 84: May Be "Ethnic Or Niche" → May Be 'Ethnic or Niche' (MOS:QWQ)
  • Done.

Reliability

Seems fine.

Verifiability

• Basically all the sources with pages: it is rather unhelpful to cite (amount of page numbers). Can page numbers be added?
  • Any sources in particular where this is an issue? There are several PDFs with multiple pages, but most are used as a source in their entirety – for instance, the winners and nominations lists.

    Oh, I think I was referring to ref #2 as I don't think a whole 77-page PDF would be required to cite a sentence as simple as that. Pamzeis (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    I see now, done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Spotchecks checked out :)

Pamzeis (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Thanks for your thorough comments! Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Great! That's a pass for the source review! Pamzeis (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oh, and BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Per WP:OVERLINKING you shoudln't link popular cities (Los Angeles), but I will leave it up to you to decide.
  • Since the LA setting is fairly important, I think it should be kept.
• "During the ceremony, Emmy Awards were handed out in 23 categories." Is the usage of "Emmy" really necessary? Considering it's the Emmy Awards, I would assume they award Emmy's only there unless other awards were given too.
  • I wrote it this way so I could link Primetime Emmy Awards to it; as the main article on the broader topic, I think it's important to include it, and it can't go at the beginning (i.e., "The 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards honored...") per MOS:BOLDLINK.
• "The nominations for the 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards were announced on July 28, 2020, by host" - not sure if the comma after 2020 is needed.
  • MOS:DATECOMMA suggests this format.
• "Disney+, Apple TV+, and Quibi all received their first Emmy nominations this year, and each would receive its first wins this year as well." Too verbose. Why not just "Disney+, Apple TV+, and Quibi all received their first Emmy nominations and wins this year."?
  • Done.
• "Additionally, the annual Governors Ball was cancelled for the first time in its history, with the Television Academy making a $1 million" - there should be an nbsp between $1 and million.
• "Several rule changes were announced in December 2019." MOS:NBSP between December and 2019.
• "In March 2020" - nbsp
  • All spacing: done.
• " When the Los Angeles Times reported the criticism" - duplicate link. You have already linked LA Times in "Critical reviews and viewership".
  • Good catch; done.

That's it. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the comments! I've replied above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Support - good work. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate comments on my FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "for most wins for an individual in one year," - for the most wins
• "following Angels in America as a miniseries in 2004." - not mentioned by the CBC but it is by the NJ.com source
  • The CBC article mentions it: "The only other series to do the same in any other category was the HBO miniseries Angels in America..."
• "only made up 1% of the nominees." - percent per MOS:PERCENT
• " who died on August 28, 2020," - E! Online citation covering this chunk of information doesn't state Boseman's date of death

That's all I've got for this review MWright96 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@MWright96: Thanks for the comments! I left a reply above; everything else has been addressed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Support Nothing further from yours truly MWright96 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 15:23, 15 February 2022 (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) 00:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating it because I believe this list is comprehensive enough. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: While the list looks well-done, as your lists consistently are, it seems fairly short – 43 awards is definitely on the low end for stand-alone award lists. Additionally, the main article, Mohabbatein, is fairly short; the readable prose size is only 13 kB (that doesn't count the cast list or the soundtrack table, but even those would only take the list to ~16 kB, by my estimate). Since page length doesn't seem to be an issue for the main article, is there any reason this was split from the main article, especially since it passed GAN with the awards list included? Per WP:FLCR #3C, FLs "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article"; we shouldn't be splitting content to create lists without a good reason for doing so. I'd also be curious to get comments from other users – if it turns out they're fine with the list's size, I won't worry about this. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC) This movie was nominated for nearly 50 award categories, so I think it maybe appropriate to split it into its own article. Actually, the film also won five trophies from Sansui but this award function doesn't have an article on Knowledge (XXG) and, like what the reviewers said when they reviewed my first featured list, I can't include it unless its article had been created. Yes, the main article itself is short but the award table has been big enough. The awards on the table may also be adding if I could find more awards the film won; moreover, I find 43 a big number (how about you?) so why not? If I add the Sansuis too, the number will increase to 48. I will split the award table if the film wins more than 10 awards and was nominated for more than 40 categories; the FL policy also does not require a list article (especially an award list one) to have a specific size, does it? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC) I brought this up simply because I've seen the minimum length of awards lists come up before (i.e., this discussion from last year at WT:TV) and 43 was right around some suggested cut-offs. In regard to FL policy, there is no requirement for a list to have a minimum size, but FLs are required to meet the guidelines for stand-alone lists and cannot be reasonably included elsewhere, so shorter lists need to have a good reason for existing. I think this quote from the linked discussion summarizes my view well: "We really need to get away from the idea of 'splitting just because we can'. There really needs to be a compelling reason to split out content." Again, to be clear, this is just something I wanted to note since I've seen it mentioned elsewhere; if other users don't have an issue with it, I'd be happy to support the nomination. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Since nobody else has commented on the list length in several months, I'll go ahead and assume it's fine. My complete review: "It narrates the story" → "It tells the story" "production cost of" → "production budget of" Aditya Chopra should sort before Uday Chopra, Farah Khan should sort before Shah Rukh Khan, and Archana Puran Singh should sort before Manmohan Singh One entry for Manmohan Singh (for Sansui Viewers' Choice Movie Awards) is sorting by first name, not last name — RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC) The sorting appears to be all messed up now – it was sorting by surname initially, but now it's not. The original sorting was correct aside from the few issues I had pointed out; Template:Sortname should sort out any issues with the sorting. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• This is probably very pedantic, but this article says the title translates to "The Love Stories" whereas the film's main article just says "Love Stories". I don't know if this actually really matters, but just "Love Stories" sounds more natural IMO.......
• "The film's rest focuses" - don't know what this means. What do you mean by "the film's rest"?
• "changes his views of it" => "changes his views"
• "at the sets designed by Sharmishta Roy" => "on sets designed by Sharmishta Roy"
• "while the editing was finished by V. Karnik" => "while the editor was V. Karnik" (unless you specifically mean that someone else started the editing (if so, who?) and Karnik just finished it off......?)
• "the film—a commercial success—had a total gross" - I think the bit between the dashes is redundant. It doesn't read very naturally as written and I suspect that readers can probably work out that a film which grossed more than 6 times what it cost was a success
• In the third paragraph of the lead, you restate Aditya Chopra's name multiple names but only refer to the others by their surnames. Be consistent.

It is because there are three Chopras in the lead: Aditya Chopra, Uday Chopra, and Yash Chopra. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• "and won four of which that include" => "and won four, including"
• "one Screen Awards" => "one Screen Award"
• Don't stack the refs vertically within the cell. If you re-sort the table it results in lots of massively tall rows.
• There seems to be a random mix of people's names sorting by surname and forename in the recipients column, eg Anupam Kher sorts under K, but Manmohan Singh sorts under M.
• Note a is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks decent!, just have some comments. GeraldWL 09:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• The image is licensed well and has appropriate caption, but regarding the alt text I don't think he's posing for the camera, since he's not even staring straight. Perhaps "Amitabh Bachchan interview"?
• All sources are good, but needs a bit tweak. The first source needs to be moved according to alphabetical order, and in the location, remove ", India". Link The Tribune (Chandigarh) Some of the website names are linked but others aren't. "Filmfare Awards", "Bollywood Movie Awards", "International Indian Film Academy Awards", "Yash Raj Films", "Rediff.com" must be in publisher parameter.

GeraldWL 06:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

* "Awards and nominations received by Mohabbatein" --> "Accolades received by Mohabbatein" "Mohabbatein awards and nominations" --> "Accolades received by Mohabbatein" "Mohabbatein's soundtrack was composed by Jatin–Lalit, and the lyrics were written by Anand Bakshi. The film was shot by Manmohan Singh on sets designed by Sharmishta Roy, while the editor was V. Karnik." It would be great to include information on the music, editing, and cinematography accolades in the third paragraph to make this sentence relevant in the lead "and produced by Yash Chopra"-- I don't think this info is needed. "It won 18 awards out of 48 nominations; the cast's performances, the story, and the screenplay garnered the most attention from various award groups." This can be combined with the third paragraph, but change "It" to the film title. "It stars an ensemble cast of Amitabh Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan, Aishwarya Rai, and the newcomers Uday Chopra, Shamita Shetty, Jugal Hansraj, Kim Sharma, Jimmy Sheirgill, and Preeti Jhangiani." I would suggest just including the ensemble cast, as adding the recurring cast is prob a bit too much for a list of accolades article. At "Notes", suggest adding {{Portal|Bollywood}} (altho this is trivial) Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Image and source pass', support. GeraldWL 06:57, 4 February 2022 (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) 23:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

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