Knowledge (XXG)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, with 69 of these number-one country song lists now at WP:FL, here's what I hope will be #70 (don't worry everyone - we're nearing the end now :-)). In this particular year, pop singer Bebe Rexha set a new record for the longest run atop the Hot Country Songs chart, with what remains her only track ever to enter the chart at all. Coincidentally, the artist who ended her run was the same artist who had ended the previous record run. As ever, all comments will be most gratefully received...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• In the last non-ref column, McCreery should sort before Morris.
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Dank: - many thanks. I spent ages staring at the listing for McCreery trying to figure out why it was sorting after Morris, until it finally dawned on me that the issue was actually with the listing for Morris, which was set to sort on her forename, which coincidentally also starts with M. Resolved now, anyway...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

HF

Will try to take a look at this tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 03:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• " In 2018, three different songs topped the Hot Country Songs chart and 32 different songs topped Country Airplay in 52 issues of the magazine." - Maybe this is just me being stupid, but there seem to be 53 different issues included in the list? Also, I counted 5 times and got 33 songs for Airplay each time, although that may be a counting error on my part.
• " Due to a change in Billboard's chart dating policy, the first chart of 2018 was dated January 3, four days after the previous one - Is a source needed to confirm that the previous one was four days before and that it was due to a policy change? The Jan 3 and Jan 6 dates are obviously cited to things elsewhere in the list, but I wonder if those two other points may need sources
• "McKinley, Jr., James C. (October 26, 2012). "Changes to Charts by Billboard Draw Fire". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 3, 2012. Retrieved May 24, 2013." - Archive date should be November 3, 2012 it looks like based on the archive (it's kinda hard to archive a source before it was published)
• Image licensing looks proper (not an expert in that area).
• I'm familiar with most of the sources, and they all appear to be reliable, and the formatting error above seems to be the only issue on the formatting front.

Anticipate supporting once the comments above get worked through. Hog Farm _Talk 00:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: - many thanks for your review, all addressed now (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Support, and also pass on source review. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Should the references be centered?

That's all I got. Solid work. ~ HAL333 23:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: - refs are now centred -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 17:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Leo Mercury (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this list because I think it fits the criteria and I have done all the necessary corrections, following the examples of the previous featured lists that I helped nominating. Feel free to contribute! Leo Mercury (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment

• "for the romantic drama film Two Lover (2008)" - typo in the film title
• "In 2011, she starred as Holly Holliday on the musical comedy-drama television series Glee, that won her" => "In 2011, she starred as Holly Holliday on the musical comedy-drama television series Glee, which won her"
• That's all I've got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • All done. --Leo Mercury (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

;Comments The table of contents should exclude letters that aren't used (otherwise, the links do nothing). The Teen Choice Awards category "Choice Movie: Sci-Fi/Fantasy" should be "Choice Movie Actress: Sci-Fi/Fantasy". (I'd also suggest "Choice Movie Actress: Action" over "Choice Movie: Action Actress" for consistency.) For consistency, I would suggest using Primetime Emmy Awards instead of Emmy Awards in the infobox. — RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Done. --Leo Mercury (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC) One more quick note: It looks like the Grammys and Golden Globes are duplicated in the infobox. I apologize for missing it initially, but that needs to be fixed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Oops, I missed that. --Leo Mercury (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Doing tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• non-source related, though I do wonder why Shakespeare in Love is called a "historical romance film" when its article calls it a "romantic period comedy-drama"

Formatting

• Generally all caps should be avoided for titles—unless an acronym (ref 19 & 32)
• (Recommendation) Add trans-title= for non-english refs that would benefit from it (refs 5, 19, 22)

Reliability

• My reliabillity script has PR Newswire as a "generally unreliable source". Though not a huge issue, I do wonder if the source could be substituted.

Verifiability

• Seems fine Aza24 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Aza24. I've edited all the sources. --Leo Mercury (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Happy to help—looks great now, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• All 42 out of 42 reference are archived.
• Wikilink Anthony Breznican in the second citation.
• The title for #3 #4 should be "The 71st Academy Awards | 1999".
• The title for #4 #8 should be "Film in 1999" to avoid repetitiveness.
• Add a space between E!Online to make it E! Online.
• Wikilink Todd McCarthy in reference #24.

That's it from me. Ping me when done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Some Dude From North Carolina, all done! --Leo Mercury (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Happy to support. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I had been working on this list for several months before the events of January 6. Fortunately none of the statues were seriously damaged. I hope this serves as an effective catalogue of the National Statuary Hall Collection. ~ HAL333 16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

;Comment Is there a way to add a note pointing out that the word "statue" links to the article on the statue whereas the person's name links to the article on the person (or in some other way separating the links)? It would be easy to miss this distinction as it stands, given that they are only separated by the word "of" and could easily be taken for a single bluelink at a quick glance with ageing eyes like mine......... @ChrisTheDude: I'm going to post my own set of comments, but I'd like to address this point. The "Statue of Helen Keller" style is my doing. I've been using that style in lists of artworks (usually public artworks) since someone requested it in this FLC review. On the list reviewed there the text identifying the works was in bold, so would "Statue of Helen Keller" make the distinction clearer? Or would something like "Statue of Helen Keller" be better? Ham II (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC) I wouldn't bold the whole thing, because that just retains the same issue but with thicker letters. Bolding everything except the word "of" is better, but I think it might simply be easier to add a note at the to saying something like "For each entry, the word "statue" links to the article on the statue itself and the person's name links to the article on the person" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: An explanatory note at the top of the table sounds good to me, but of course this is HAL333's call to make. I still want to post a full set of comments here – fingers crossed I can get to it on the weekend. Ham II (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)  Done ~ HAL333 15:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC) The description "Po'pay (Fragua) of Po'pay" looks a bit odd. Have you got the piping the wrong way round on the bit before the word "of"? @ChrisTheDude: That was also me; now changed to "Statue of Po'pay". Ham II (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC) "Architect of the Capitol" is in italics in some refs but not others Ref 112 seems to have been written by someone called William Petroski rather than the mysterious "DES"....... I think that's all I have other than a feeble quip that the statue of George Clinton doesn't look much like him :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Appreciate the comments, and the humor. ;) ~ HAL333 19:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Since the table is sortable, duplicate wikilinks should probably be used in the Medium and Location columns.

Fixed. ~ HAL333 23:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• While the statues of Douglass and Parks are both significant, their relevant sources (here and here) both clearly state that they are not part of the National Statuary Hall Collection.

Removed. ~ HAL333 23:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Should the sculptor Felix de Weldon sort by "Weldon" or "de Weldon"? I'm genuinely asking; I'm not sure how last names like this work.

I had to look it up myself. Apparently, a name like that sorts with "de" only if what follows is a single syllable. How specific. ~ HAL333 23:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Other than that, it looks really good; I found the statues fascinating when I visited the Capitol and am happy to see this as an FLC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Support – I removed the key (no need for it anymore if every statue is from a state), but everything else looks good to go. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I can think of a couple minor improvements, but I think this list serves Knowledge (XXG)'s readers well and should be promoted to FL status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ham II (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

* Would readers expect to find this information at National Statuary Hall Collection? It seems a shame for the "Demographics" section of that article, in particular, to be separate from this list. I don't really know how to address this. Do you feel strongly about this? If really necessary, I guess I could merge them, but it would require a bit of work. I'll think more about this. ~ HAL333 19:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC) @HAL333: Sorry for my extreme delay in replying. I've tried pasting the list of statues into National Statuary Hall Collection (without saving) to see how it would look. I've come to the conclusion that the list would seem buried in the parent article, and the sorting functionality would be both less obvious and harder to use (because the headers to click for sorting wouldn't be near the top of the page). I think the parent article should have some kind of list for anyone expecting to find one there (I'd like to experiment with a fairly basic image gallery) but I now think that this sortable list should remain on a separate page. Ham II (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC) No worries. :) ~ HAL333 20:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC) The lede picture's caption should mention that the room depicted is the National Statuary Hall. Done. Is "labelled" American English? Nope. Nice catch. ~ HAL333 15:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) There are two successive sentences starting with the word "only" in the lede. Done. The flags of Illinois, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are mostly white. They'd stand out more from their backgrounds if the "Commissioned by" column had the same dark background as the "Statue" column. Then the "Statue" column text might have to be bold, to stand out further. I changed the column to a light yellow color. Hopefully that works. I was hesitant to bold due to the issues Chris touched on above. ~ HAL333 22:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC) I still think #EAECF0, the same grey colour as for the "Statue" column would be better – white stands out better against it than it does from yellow. I've changed my mind about using bold for the cells in the "Statue" column. Ham II (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Is there any other viable color? I really don't like th look of the two grey columns next to one another... ~ HAL333 20:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC) @HAL333: Would a darker grey than the one for the "Statue" column, and white text for the states' names, work? It's a shame that {{flag}} doesn't have a parameter for a thicker border, or a black one... Otherwise, I'd be back to preferring bold text for the "Statue" column. Lists using {{Public art row}} do have bold text here – see, e.g., List of public art in Westminster. Ham II (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Just tried to see what it would look like - not a huge fan. I have no idea how to properly address this. I'll ask for input on this on the FL talk page. ~ HAL333 13:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC) I see that you've removed the flags now and changed those fields back to the paler shade of grey; that seems like an acceptable compromise to me. I've got one final question before I support: given my first point about the demographics being discussed at a different article, would you consider a hatnote along the lines of {{for|a discussion of the demographics represented by the statues|National Statuary Hall Collection#Demographics}} at the top of the Statues section? Ham II (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC) I think I'll integrate some of that content into an expanded lede, as a later reviewer recommended. ~ HAL333 17:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)  Done ~ HAL333 16:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Thanks for those additions; I've made some stylistic changes but I'm otherwise satisfied with them. I've afraid I've spotted one more thing, though: what's the rationale for the sorting, other than alphabetically by state? Is it alphabetically by the subject's name? If so, why is Uriah M. Rose above James Paul Clarke (Arkansas), George L. Shoup above William Borah (Idaho), Samuel J. Kirkwood above Norman Borlaug (Iowa), Ingalls above Eisenhower (Kansas), King above Hamlin (Maine), Russell above Rankin (Montana), Vance above Aycock (North Carolina), Garfield above Edison (Ohio), Sequoyah above Mr Rogers (Oklahoma), Young above Farnsworth (Utah), Whitman above Pariseau (Washington) and Marquette above La Follette (Wisconsin)? Ham II (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC) Good catch - addressed. ~ HAL333 15:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC) It's good to see links for all the artists, even red links, but is it likely that the Arizona Bronze Atelier (which is clearly a bronze foundry) will ever get an article? I was the one who sorted Felix de Weldon as "Weldon, Felix de", but I now see that the Library of Congress, the US National Archives and most other authority control files at the artist's Wikidata item recommend "De Weldon, Felix". (See also 1, 2, 3 and 4.) Only the National Gallery of Art and the Netherlands Instute of Art History include "Weldon, Felix de" as an option. The MLA link above says "When de occurs with French names of one syllable, alphabetize under d ... otherwise, alphabetize by last name", but de Weldon was born in Austria. Done. ~ HAL333 19:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Should "Constitution Hall; Lansing, Michigan" and the rest have a comma instead of the semicolon? And should it be "Lansing, Michigan"? Ham II (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC) The first of the questions has been resolved and I've retracted the second. Ham II (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support! Ham II (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 07:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

=====Lead===== "...histories of the respective states." Perhaps link List of states in the United States at "states"? Done. ~ HAL333 14:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC) "On July 2, 1864, Congress established"-- should have "the" before "Congress". I beg to differ. ~ HAL333 14:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC) This nomination seems to have stopped in an odd state; @Ham II and Gerald Waldo Luis: have your concerns been addressed? --PresN 19:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: I beg redemption! I was sick for this whole semi-hiatus, so I was only able to edit mobile, and for some reason the app Knowledge (XXG) doesn't want me to go to project/talk pages. Anyway, I think the whole list is good for now, so I'm supporting. GeraldWL 07:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: Sorry for the impasse; I've resumed reviewing this nomination. Ham II (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The tables seem to have 2 rowscopes per row; only the "primary" column should be marked with `scope="row"`. --PresN 14:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. ~ HAL333 23:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts

• Why are the states yellow?

I was trying to make flags with white backgrounds more visible. Doesn't quite work, but I'm trying to fix it. ~ HAL333 13:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Why are the other cells the darker gray that is reserved for headers?

Isn't it just a normal column with scope? ~ HAL333 13:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Statue of John E. Kenna" is in yellow

Oops. Looks like Reywas92 already got to it. ~ HAL333 13:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• The reliance on the Architect of the Capitol's website is unfortunate when these statues have been covered in secondary sources

I don't consider the Architect of the Capitol a primary source. They didn't commission or sculpt the statues - they just house them. Similar to using the Louvre or MOMA as a source for works in their collection. But I might be wrong. ~ HAL333 13:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• The formatting and reliably of the sourcing passes

--Guerillero 03:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Support --Guerillero 21:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "except for Virginia which" could link.
• "statues..." non-breaking space before the ellipsis per MOS:ELLIPSIS.
• ...commemoration." provide the source for this quote directly after the quote.
• "2000, Congress amended a law to allow states to replace their" when did Congress allow for two statues per state?

Added back the full quote for clarity. ~ HAL333 02:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Date placed" etc is more like "Year placed".
• I'm not sure the flags are anything other than decorative here.
• Felix de Weldon small d.
• "House corridor, 2nd Floor" what is this and why is "Floor" capitalised?
• Jean-Antoine Houdon hyphenated first name.

That's all I have on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Was able to address your concerns. Sorry for the tardiness. ~ HAL333 17:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Reywas92 Sorry to comment after this has been up for so long already but here are my thoughts:

• I know there's the separate main article for further prose details, but the lead is a little short. More specifically, I don't like that one of the three paragraphs is just about the Confederate statues, but the other subjects aren't mentioned at all, so this should have additional summarization of National Statuary Hall Collection#Demographics.

Expanded the lede. ~ HAL333 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• It could also count how many are bronze or marble and in each location and summarize the sculptors who have made multiple statues. I'm surprised the main article doesn't mention that at all either; like, Niehaus needs a shout-out for making eight of them including removals.

Done. ~ HAL333 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• This may be more work than you want to do, but I think it would be nice to have another column that gives in a sentence/sentence fragment why each subject is notable/why the state chose them.

I thought about doing that. Yeah, it would be a bit of work, but it would also dissuade the reader from clicking on these individual biographies and interacting with those articles - the real purpose of any list. ~ HAL333 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that's a very poor reason not to include descriptions. When you have a hundred names, the vast majority of which unfamiliar even to someone well versed in American history, a snippet will make people more likely to click on someone who sounds interesting out of such a large list. Now perhaps the detail in my current nom National Trails System is enough to satisfy a reader enough not to click through, but with just a hundred personal names, how I am supposed to know what biographies I might want to interact with? For those of my home state of Indiana, something as simple as "Governor during the Civil War" and "Civil War general who wrote Ben-Hur" would be enough to pique my interet. Reywas92 20:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not like having the descriptions column. I hope this list can still be promoted even though there's a bit of disagreement on this one thing. This is something we can easily sort out on the article's talk page and should not impact FL status. Let's get this list promoted already! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the reader is quite capable of determining what piques their interest and clicking on the article to learn more. A list does not need to have a summary of each entry. Imagine if we tried to summarize each film in a filmography or give an anatomical overview of each species in a list. Furthermore, much of the descriptions will be largely irrelevant as they are not the reasons the state selected them. Sure James Paul Clarke was a governor and senator, but that doesn't make him unique and doesn't even explain why Arkansas selected him. This is simply beyond the scope of this list. ~ HAL333 21:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

+1 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Generally, questions like these are above my pay grade, but this happens to be a question I had to research for my own nominations, and I couldn't find evidence that a list like this one needs an extra column with biographical information. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since the default sort is by state, you should merge the two state cells that are on top of each other in the first column (rowspan=2).
• I also don't think the first column needs to be yellow. Not a deal-breaker, but I usually prefer the default colors unless there's an explanatory reason.
• "Statue" in Note 1 should be capitalized to match what it's quoting
• Bronze and marble could be linked in the lead rather than in every row 100 times.
• The title of the ref for Helen Keller doesn't match the rest
• The main table uses "Year placed" but the Former uses "Date placed"
• Thomas Starr King has its precise location but none of the rest do, would be nice to have them all.

I decided to remove it. The sourcing is very scarce on the exact location of many of the statues, and it seemed weird to have the exact location of only a few... ~ HAL333 16:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This version before you started editing this has all of them, and looking through the sources and their respective articles, there are decent enough sources for every one of them, so I don't quite follow. Reywas92 20:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Shouldn't DC's Douglass statue be included?

That one's not technically part of the National Statuary Hall Collection. ~ HAL333 17:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If Douglass isn't part of the collection I'm not sure why you mentioned him in the lead now. Reywas92 20:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Reywas92 04:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll answer that last point: The statue was originally included in the list, but since the Architect of the Capitol's website clearly states the statue is not part of the collection, I said it should be removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reywas92 Sorry for the delay, but hopefully I have addressed all of your concerns. ~ HAL333 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs should probably be the publisher for ref 111
• fine otherwise

Reliability

• no issues

Verifiability

• seems fine throughout.
• Not much to say, thorough sourcing all around. Pass for source review, the top comment isn't pertinent enough to prevent this. . Aza24 (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the review, Aza. ~ HAL333 15:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprehensive and fundamental. I'd also like to get consensus on frequency of linked vs. unlined definitions. Neopeius (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Dates are a mixture of M-D-Y and D-M-Y

  Will hunt down and make consistent

  Fixed.

  Look at 1942 and 1943. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed! @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the entries are missing citations:

  20 June, 14 September, 7, 9 7 December 1944; all of 1946; etc

  Yes, I need to make a final look through.

  Please look again. Every entry has at least one citation. The trick is where to put them when they refer to the whole document. In general, I put them after "remarks" since that's the final displayed entry on the left.

  Put them all in the remarks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  The only time I don't is if there's nothing in the remarks -- it creates a blank line with just a citation number in it.

• 20 June 1944, 10, 29 May 1945, 13, 28 June 1945, 9, 19, 30 July 1945 etc

• There are a lot of Template:351–352 (V-2 NO. 15) type red links. Are these supposed to be page numbers?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: They are, thanks. I'll go through and fix them. My biggest question is this: in the actual chronology, should I link every item (rocket, launch pad, etc.) or just the first appearance in each year? --Neopeius (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Just the first occurrence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed rp errors and first links.

@Hawkeye7:Fixing now, thank you. What do you think of article text and the summary at the bottom? --Neopeius (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I think my article is now in shape for a deep dive. I added the British 1945 Backfire V-2 launches too.

Did you know there is a complete V-2 on its mobile launcher just down the road? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7:I did not. Whereabouts are you? :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This is Canberra. You can see the V-2 here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh neat! Hey, are you familiar with Kerrie Dougherty? She's a friend of mine. Wonderful person. --Neopeius (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Afraid not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Make you a deal -- if you finish your review of this article, I'll GA review the behemoth that is Galileo_(spacecraft) :) --Neopeius (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Four UK launches are in the summary, but not the table. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)'

Fixed, thank you. :) Hawkeye7

The template down the bottom looks weird. Suggest making a ribbon version, or moving it to below the infobox. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Do you support this article for FAC? --Neopeius (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I Support it for FLC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Smartie. :) Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would remove the pie chart from the country breakdown; the information is already clear from the country table since there are only three entries.

@Balon Greyjoy: I shall take it under advisement. :) I wanted all my pages to have the pretty pie chart for consistency with the other timeline pages...

• The sentence starting "By 1944" has a reference for that year only; I'm confused why that needs a reference if the separate record information has its own reference.

So, this is complicated. :) Dornberger's book talks about the flight but doesn't say when it was. The other reference suggests it was in 1944. That said, now that I've found a better reference for the actual flight, I've fixed it.

• "began development of their own heavy sounding rocket" I think that should be "its own heavy sounding"

Navies are people too! Okay, fixed.

• "The Soviet Union also launched a series of captured V-2s in 1947. These flights, totalling 11," Why not combine this to say "The Soviet Union launched 11 captured V-2s in 1947..."

Because your version is better. Fixed.

• "and the rocket was deployed for battle operations in 1950" Battle operations makes it sound like this is a tactical and short-range missile; I'm assuming something this powerful would be a strategic weapon, not something fired in a battle.

Changed to "combat"

I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I think using "combat" is an aggressive word; looking through the list of launches it doesn't look like the R-1 was ever used in combat. Maybe change to "military operations" to demonstrate that it was ready to be used as a weapon, but it was never used in a violent manner.

• I would remove "ultimately" as its sufficient to say that it was never developed.

fixed

• I think there should be a comma after the Viking 5 launch date

Apparently, with the European style of dating, commas are not needed after the year. The source I found on it specifically said, "This will look weird to American readers." If you find a source to the contrary, please let me know!

• "measure the extremely low air densities" I woud remove "extremely" and probably even "low," as its not like a vacuum was something people didn't know about until space travel, and its only 1 atmosphere away from what we have on the surface.

Clever. I have visions of Jovians saying, "1000 kilopascals? That's practically hard vacuum!"

• "impressed into scientific duty by both superpowers" This reads like the V-2s were forced to conduct research against their will. I would say they were used for scientific research. Also, I would state the countries, as its not clear who the two superpowers are the way this is written.

Fixed both, though there's only ever been two superpowers...

China, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Ancient Rome would like a word! But seriously, I could understand it in a Cold War article, but I think a user looking to learn about spacecraft launches shouldn't be expected to know which countries are the superpowers in question.

• "some 63 had been launched" Were there 63 launches? If so, why add "some" to the beginning?

Colloquial. Removed 63.

• There's a rule about not starting a sentence with digits. (MOS:NUMNOTES) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  But the sentence could still be started with something like "There were 63 launches..." Using "some" makes it sound like an approximation. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a moot point since the sentence doesn't start with 63. :)

• "at least one returned three minutes of usable data" This is a little confusing as its not clear what three minutes of usable data means; is it a lot/little? Did the other missions bring back usable data, but not three minutes worth?

Unfortunately, all I know is that one of the flights (and not which one) returned three minutes of usable data. I suspect that's as much data as could be expected to be obtained. I could delete' "three minutes of" if you think the confusion value of the phrase exceeds its information value.

I do think deleting "three minutes of" would be the right call. In this context, the length of time doesn't really explain the amount of data returned, and I think it's confusing. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll be back later with more comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

All I have. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Addressed all issues! Only the last point is unchanged pending your suggestion. Thanks very much for your help. I'm almost done with 1951, as it happens... --Neopeius (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Okiedokie. :) Fixed both issues. Thanks very much for your help! (and if you're interested, check out 1951 in spaceflight... --Neopeius (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice work! I support this nomination. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Saw this from WP:AV. Planning to look through this (very, not very?) soon. GeraldWL 04:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your attention! :)

GeraldWL 06:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

* (Images) Please add alt texts to images. Added for the Aerobee -- not sure how one does it for images in an infobox. (Overview) The dash in "1946-7" should probably be changed with an emdash or endash. Done. (Launches) Why is there a duplicate TSL-M template, above and below the table? Custom -- all of the timeline articles are like that (and some have them every month) (Suborbital launch summary (1945-1950)) No citations on this section. GeraldWL 08:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC) All the citations are in the launch summaries. I just tallied the missions. :) Thank you again for your attention and interest! Gerald Waldo Luis

• Support -- concerns addressed. Nice job! GeraldWL 06:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Very much obliged! --Neopeius (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm reviewing in response to an invitation on my talk page. The article is very complete and well presented, but I would like to offer the following comments:

• The lead seems a bit short and imprecise, and I'm not sure that it defines the topic - not least as the spaceflight covered in this article is a bit different to what the average person considers space flight to be

I inherited this page even if almost all of the text is new. Spaceflight seems to be any launch by a vehicle, one example of which crossed the 60 mile line. But I think the sticking issue is describing it as "human spaceflight" which suggests the flying of people. I've shortened it to simply "spaceflight" with the hope that no aliens are reading this to take offense.

Were I to expand the lead, what would you want to see? This is definitely the shortest of the leads I've written for this series, although not by a significant amount. (Note: I just fleshed out the rest of the early Vikings since it was weird to just spotlight Viking 5, and Viking 4 also went into space. I just cribbed my own language from the Viking article -- in which I had earlier cribbed my language from this article! The virtues of writing in a modular fashion.)

The lead should summarise the full content of the article, so should discuss the military and civilian activities covered in the article (the nature of these programs, the number of launches, etc). Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I've summarized what can be summarized at this point. If there's anything you think needs expansion, please let me know. The current length is comparable to that of the next three articles now.

• The first para of the 'Overview' section should make it clear that the V-2 was being developed as a weapon

Quite right. Done.

• "its own heavy sounding rocket, the Viking" - can "Viking" be linked here?

Done.

• I'm not sure what the purpose of the flag of Allied occupied Germany or the post-war Germanies against the V-2 labels is. As I understand it, production of V-2s ceased with the end of the war, so these weapons were produced during the Nazi era of Germany. These launches were then conducted by the various Allied governments (Germany was not self governing during the first part of this period). The flag suggests that the missiles were either produced in occupied Germany, or the German government was involved, neither of which is correct. Aside from misleading readers, this also fails to recognise that these missions were the continued results of the appalling slave labour program under the Nazi regime by implying that the rockets were produced separately. The history here is obviously very complex, and this is might be an example of where attempts to use images to simplify things don't work in practice?

This is another artifact of having inherited the article. This was the topic of vociferous debate some time ago, and the decision executed on the page appears to have been the agreed-upon solution. It does keep from cluttering up the page with a profusion of swastikas. I think also the idea was that the borrowed expertise was no longer 3rd Reich but what came after. (production of the V2 did not quite cease with the war -- some were assembled from pieces afterwards; also, the R1 is an almost exact copy of the V2, though by Russians.) ((as for the nasty nature of the Nazis, you'll get no argument from me! Most of my relatives were lost in that blight on history...))

I don't agree: these were not rockets produced by the post-war German Government. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what to do. Like I said -- this argument is outstanding from a decade ago, and this is how I inherited it. What would you do?

Replace the Flags with Nazi-era flags or, better still, remove all the flags. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The former is possible, though I'd want consensus. The latter is not. --Neopeius (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I have replaced the V-2 flags with Swastikas, and I made the R-1s solely CCCP (the R-1 might be a virtual copy of the V-2, but the Tu-2 isn't a B-29 so neither is the R-1 a V-2 :) That satisfy you, @Nick-D:? --Neopeius (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the data in the 'Suborbital launch summary' section is limited to 1945 onwards? As the article notes more than 3000 V-2 combat launches and quite a lot of test launches, the omission of data before this date means that these data presented are incomplete. Is it possible to include the German launches here, or are there problems with the data? Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

3000 launches is quite a lot. The general trend for these articles seems to have been to include all of the testing launches of vehicles that broke the 60m line but not necessarily the operational launches of purely military ballistic missiles that never again crossed into space. As this page is already a bit long, there is no good documentation of every single V2 launch, and such would be of little benefit to anyone (and certainly would have only the most tangential connection with spaceflight), my compromise was to list the early test flights, spotlight the one wartime flight into space, and summarize the rest. The other option would have been to start post-war, but that didn't seem cricket, either.

I'm not suggesting that each V-2 launch be listed, but am querying why the total numbers of launches are not included in the statistics at the end of the article, given the result of the current approach looks a bit odd. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The topic is spaceflight, and including the 3000 V2s (I'm not sure exact numbers exist) would utterly skew the graphs into worthlessness. Hence starting in 1945. :) --@Nick-D:

Thank you so very much for your attention. Do let me know what you think. @Nick-D: --Neopeius (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I gave the text of the article a thorough reworking and reorganization. I think it's better now and matches the other articles. It was written first so I hadn't settled into a routine yet. All the facts are the same, but now their presentation is better. --Neopeius (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Those changes look good, and I'm now pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Delegate note

This nomination was never actually transcluded onto WP:FLC, and therefore was never actually an official nomination. It still has a bunch of comments, presumably from people and wikiprojects that were directly notified, but it's in an awkward position of being really, really old with no comments for a month, but also new. I've also deleted a similar nomination for 1951 in spaceflight that never got a single comment that was also not actually put on the nominations page. @Neopeius: if you were wondering why this nomination was so slow and stalled... this is why. --PresN 15:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: Huh! Yes, that was rather surprising. Thank you for that. I'll renominate...correctly! What do I do about this one? It's gotten momentum so I'd hate to kill it. --Neopeius (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Neopeius: I've gone ahead and listed this nomination here onto FLC, and put a note on the talk page about it; since you already have three supports and another in-depth review ongoing, I think it's fine to just leave this one up to see if it gets a broader reviewer pool. For example: I'm concerned about the accessibility of the table, with the very non-standard section header rows in the middle of it which basically make it nested tables. I just can't see how that doesn't break the page altogether as far as screen readers are concerned, and I think the result is that you have a table with the actual headers, but then the body is a series of subtables with their own headers that aren't really headers (plus remarks, which doesn't have any real connection to it's "header"). I get that you're using a template, not a raw wikitable, but I'm suspicious that the template just isn't MOS-compliant at all. @Graham87: sorry to ping you directly; can you confirm whether or not the big table Spaceflight before 1951 is actually parseable by screen readers as-is? --PresN 01:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: It's parseable (surprisingly so) but not ideal ... on a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is completely inaccessible and 10 is perfect, I'd give it about a four or a five. I don't know enough about the nitty-gritty of table formatting to know how to fix it myself though. Graham87 02:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: @Graham87: Thank you for your attention. Is my template different from the template for all of the other Timeline articles? As far as I know, it's the same format for all of them. --Neopeius (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 23:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

====Comments from HAL==== *Lede is too short. Expanded (I used to call it a "lede", particularly because of my time as a journalist. Apparently, it is a "lead" not a "lede" because it does not serve the same function as a lede. Which is why so many of mine have to be fixed. ^^;;;) Although you do touch on it, make it clear why the list ends in 1951. That's a tough one. I didn't make this article originally, nor the others in the series. 1950 is kind of an arbitrary cut off. That said, I think I've made a nice justification for it. Aerobee launch at sea doesn't need a full stop. Fixed. I would integrate the page numbers into the actual citations. (Not sure if this is allowed/condoned. I am unsure myself. If it's fine, ignore this.) There are lots of ways to cite. This is the one I like, and it's a valid one. The reason I prefer rp style is it keeps the citation page manageable, even if some find the extra numbers unsightly. :) Maybe provide hatnotes for some of the sections pointing towards an appropriate section of an article like History of spaceflight. I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you give me some specific examples? Thanks. It's not really necessary, but you could add (Example at History of spaceflight#Space Race) No other applicable articles right now. Space Race is a mess. * Sea of blue issues with Aerobee sounding rocket fixed. In 1944, the V-2 set an altitude record of 196 kilometres (122 mi). On 20 June 1944, a V-2 (MW 18014) was launched vertically, reaching a height of 174.6 kilometres (108.5 mi). Little choppy and repetitive. Whoops. It's easy to lose sentences between long citations, thanks. Add a comma after "In 1946" done huge swathes sounds authorial. Better? Some 50 Aerobee flights Why not provide the actual number? I think I wrote that before I had a number I was comfortable with. I had to rewrite the whole damned table. Fixed, and I revamped that section a little bit. There may be some undue weight regarding which launches you discuss in the prose. You might want to just condense the prose into a four paragraph lede. I'm not comfortable with that kind of reduction, but I think the Viking section is the problem. I've cut it in half. On 10 May, 1950 Comma not needed. Fixed. That's all I got. ~ HAL333 20:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC) @HAL333: Thanks so much for your well-founded critique! --Neopeius (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Was about to come back with a second round but just couldn't read through the comments and responses because they were struck - quite the headache. Could you unstrike them? Thanks. ~ HAL333 18:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC) @HAL333:Fixed. --Neopeius (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Why is the remarks column empty? ??? Where? If you mean the remarks columns with just the citation in them, I'll fix that. To the right of the pie chart. ~ HAL333 16:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC) @HAL333: Fixed. --Neopeius (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Beyond that, the only really major issue is the sourcing, which other editors have touched on and the source review will get to. I would also like to see you get the lead up to at least two paragraghs. Once those two things have happened, I'll come back and support. Cheers. ~ HAL333 22:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC) @HAL333: I think the Russian site is fine (see comments to RunningTiger123 below). Lead is now two paragraphs. --Neopeius (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 23:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "at America's" → "at the United States's" (wikilink and name better parallel Soviet Union later in lead) Fixed (didn't bracket U.S. as I'm told that's over-linking) If the Soviet Union is linked, then the United States should be linked as a comparable entity. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC) You'd think that. The rationale I've gotten is that the US still exists and everyone knows what it is whereas the Soviet Union is a defunct nation. Move wikilink for Soviet Union to first occurrence in lead Fixed "The Soviet Union developed a virtual copy of the V-2 called the R-1, which first flew in 1948, its longer-ranged successor, the R-2, entering military service in 1950." – run-on sentence; needs different punctuation or to be split into two sentences Fixed. "White Sands White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico" → "White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico" Fixed. Table formatting for accessibility – I won't get into this too much since PresN and Graham87 have already pointed it out, but it is a major issue, especially the stacked column headers. Someone's going to need to tell me what to do. This is the same table that has been used for every timeline article (70+ of them) for more than a decade. I'll ping PresN on this, since he's done a lot of accessibility reviews on the FLCs I've seen. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Looks like he's working on it so I'm staying out for now. So, I think there's a few issues here, but I don't want to try to overthrow the template that's used on a bunch of articles in one go; I think we can solve it enough as-is. The big problem here, since Graham87 said that the nested table thing isn't the end of the world, is the section headers in the middle of the table. It's a combined row across the table (which isn't good), with a header element inside of it instead of text (which is really not good). I've come up with a couple ways to fix it. In Option 1, I've ripped out the header rows, and used the {{Anchor}} template so that the little "year" table of contents still links fine to the first launch of each year. The downside here is that you get a very long table without interruptions. If you care about that, I also have Option 2, where I just make it multiple tables, one per year header. The downside here (since you don't have any sorting) is that the tables aren't lining up exactly. This is fixable by editing the {{TLS-H2}} template to make the first column optionally a specific width (I can do it for you, it's pretty straightforward, I just didn't want to do it for a test edit). It's up to you which look you'd prefer. --PresN 03:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC) @PresN:You're doing above and beyond stuff, and it's greatly appreciated! I'm afraid my table knowledge is pretty rudimentary. (also, this may not affect all the rest of the Timeline articles, which are only one year per article except for this one). #2 looked nicer to my mind, but we'll need to fix 1942-1945 since the first column is weirdly long compared to the rest of the years, which look fine. :) --Neopeius (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC) @Neopeius: No worries, I like to encourage lists in areas that don't get as much attention, doubly so when it looks to be setting the standard for several lists to come. I've modified the {{TLS-H2}} now to have a couple extra parameters, and updated the list to have multiple tables and use the new params- specifically, the first columns should all line up now despite being multiple tables, and the "cubesat" line in the headers is gone since no cubesats were launched in this time period. Let me know if there's any changes you'd like. --PresN 16:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC) * Date ranges in "Date and time" column should use en dashes (–), not hyphens (-) Fixed. "First artificial object to cross what would later be defined as the Kármán line and hence first spaceflight." – too much WP:SYNTH; you need a source for this Artifact from previous editor. Fixed. Some results only capitalize one word (i.e., "Launch failure"), while others capitalize all words (i.e., "Launch Failure"). Pick a style and stick with it. (I personally prefer the former.) Fixed * Pie chart at the end has no legend How would you add a legend to the pie chart? Not an expert, but maybe switching to Template:Pie chart would help? RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Now done; Pie chart only does percentages, unfortunately, but the chart thing being used has a legend option. --PresN 17:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Thank you again, @PresN:! Sources swap between "First Last" and "Last, First" for authors' names. Pick one or the other and stick with it. Fixed. It seems you've switched some to "First Last", but there are still a lot of "Last, First" examples (e.g., refs. 1 and 12). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Fixed again. Wow, what a pain. My predecessor wrote complete references for EVERY one, even when they were identical. * Some of your citations are notes, not references, so they should be listed separately (see WP:REFGROUP and WP:EXPLNOTE for how to do this). See next. Ref. 14 ("I have found no evidence...") is OR. If the sources say there were chemical release experiments on board, we should say that; otherwise, we should cut it. We don't get to provide commentary. Similar problem with ref. 16 ("Kennedy list the Agency...") These predate me. Simply deleting them for now as I do not have access to those references. Encyclopedia Astronautica is a self-published source by someone with no clear credentials in the field, so it's not a reliable source, and any citations from there need to be replaced. (See Talk:Encyclopedia Astronautica#Reliable Source for more.) Please see below. Similar feelings about SpaSecraftrocket.org – from a quick search here, I'm guessing the site is also self-published. Also, while I don't speak Russian, I ran the website through Google Translate and didn't see any information about who published it, making it even harder to verify reliability. Please see below. No issues with Encyclopedia Astronautica now; I'll wait to see what you hear back about the Russian site. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC) I may not get anything. I suspect they're good, though -- I mostly used them to doublecheck Mark's site because his Russian stuff is weaker than his American stuff. If Mark's good, I think the Russian one is worthy.. — RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC) To add more clarification regarding that last point: There are some self-published sources that are considered acceptable, but those sources are generally discouraged unless the author has clear credentials in the field (i.e., an award-winning physicist writing about physics on his website would probably be okay). As best as I can tell, neither of these websites are run by subject-matter experts (though I could be wrong – feel free to correct me if I am), so they need to be replaced. See WP:SPS for more. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: I very much appreciate your thorough run-through! These timeline articles are just the hardest thing. They were a mess when I inherited them, and I've done my best to turn them into something useful. With regard to those two websites, speaking as a professional space historian (note: logical fallacy -- appeal to authority! :) ), the Russian one has checked out against stuff Asif Siddiqi has given me, enough so that I think it's trustworthy. Mark's been running Astronautix for more than two decades, and the errors I've caught him in have been minor (and generally not more significant that stuff I've found in "reliable" sources, including professional encyclopediae and the NSSDC.) Mark is definitely at the lower end of my range of my go-tos, but his lists are excellent. As time goes on, I will probably return to these articles and update them as I find more information (or others can do the same), but I don't think the use of these sites should hold up a nomination. (Note2: further appeal to authority -- I've asked my colleagues on the American Astronautical Society's History Committee what they know about Mark and the Russian site.) --Neopeius (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC) ((Note 3: Mark Wade is a reliable source, per the American Astronautical Society's History Committee)) Thank you again, VERY MUCH, for your help. :) --Neopeius (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC) No problem, happy to do it! My comments are above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Addressed points struck out. :) --Neopeius (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC) I've collapsed the resolved comments above; the two remaining issues are swapping between "First Last" and "Last, First" for authors' names and verifying the reliability of SpaSecraftrocket.org. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: I can't verify the reliability further than I have. They check out insofar as I can check them, and that's a fair ways, and for Russian flights, they are more accurate than Mark Wade, who is considered reliable. I'd rather the nomination not get hung up on this. As an AAS Histcom member, I think they're alright. :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC) If you can verify them with other sources, why aren't those included instead? Unfortunately, while I hate to see a nomination get stalled over one item, WP:SPS is part of the core content policy of WP:V, so we need to follow it. I would consider asking about the site at WP:RSN to see if those editors can offer any more insight. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC) SpaSecraftrocket is a sprawling site, like Mark Wade's. I don't have backup for everything on there, but what I do have backup for (like the R-5 list Asif gave me, the general parameters of stuff) has checked out better on SpaSecraft then Astronautix. --Neopeius (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC) I am asking around and trying to find what they use as their source. Failing that, I'm trying to find others. It's not easy. --Neopeius (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Alright. For now, since Mark's listing of R-1s seems to be complete, I've just replaced SpaSecraftrocket with Mark for now. When I confirm reliable Russian sources, I'll go back. But we should now have no obstacles to FA. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for your kind attentions. I have already taken the lessons learned to the 1951 article and I plan to do so for the other ones I've done (and then beyond to new ones). This has all been extremely helpful.

@PresN: do we have a sufficient number of supports for promotion? :) --Neopeius (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not just vote counting, but yes, I think there's been a sufficiently broad and deep review of the list at this point. Except for the source review, which I'll do now:

• I'm just going to go ahead and fix formatting things myself, and let you know what they are, as I dislike trying to describe things in a back-and-forth.
• Titles should be title case, even if the source is all caps, per MOS:CAPS- you're allowed to make the formatting of titles look right, regardless of what the source has it as
• If you're going to cite the same source 3 times (different pages each time) as you do with the Naval Research Laboratory Report No. R-3030, please make sure the formatting is the same for all 3. This will also help in noting that you cited the same table twice in two separate refs.
• You don't need to put incorporation marks (Inc., Ltd., etc.) in with the names of publishing companies
• Cites to a website need the "|website" parameter, not just the name of the author (aka Mark Wade); while you can technically put it in "|publisher", that's supposed to be reserved for the publishing company (if different than the website name)
• It was mentioned above, but you have to pick either the "|first |last" combo or "|author", you shouldn't mix them
• If you link one journal (which you did for Science) you need to link all publications (and probably publishers)- I just removed the link instead since it seemed like you were going for an unlinked style
• You archived a couple web sources, but not consistently- the easy way to do it is to go to the article's History tab, click "Fix dead links" at the top, login if you need to, check the "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" box, and hit "Analyze". The bot will archive everything for you.
• The sources themselves check out, and the dubious-looking ones were discussed above, with the exception of I-Spy Space; looks like it's because the author is the author of a book you're citing, which would have been easier to see if you had included the author's name in the cite.

Ok, source review passed. Please copy these things on to the next list(s). Promoting! --PresN 15:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work, PresN! This page was particularly weird and hard since so much predated me (and almost all of it had to be replaced). I will take these lessons to the next pages. --Neopeius (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Long Beach Motorsports Walk of Fame in downtown Long Beach, Southern California features many famous names in the world of American auto racing who have made a significant contribution to racing in the city. I expanded this list three months ago and believe it meets the FL criteria. All comments welcome MWright96 (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Wretchskull

Nicely done! I have one inquiry though. Why not make the "By nationality" heading into a sub-heading? It is not really disconnected from the "Inductees" section. Wretchskull (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Wretchskull: Done; many thanks for the support MWright96 (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Support – only suggestions would be to change "Long Beach, Southern California" to just "Long Beach, California" and to archive sources where possible. Other than that, really great work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• @RunningTiger123: Done both MWright96 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "to recognise those who have made" - this is an American topic, so per WP:TIES that should be "recognize"
• "talks with the Economic Development Bureau of the City of Long Beach and officials" - if only the Bureau and the officials were involved then it should be "talks between"
• "teaching the public on the auto racing role" => "teaching the public about the auto racing role"
• The three entries for "....Racing" should probably just sort under the actual first letter, as "Racing" isn't a surname
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Have address all four of the queries raised above MWright96 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• No issues, good job with consistency.

Reliability

• Seems fine, nothing stands out as unreliable after looking through

Verifiability

• Checked 12, 22, 30, 7, no issues
• Pass for source review

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Slumdog Millionaire is a 2008 British romantic drama film directed by Danny Boyle and written by Simon Beaufoy. It stars Dev Patel, Freida Pinto, Madhur Mittal, Anil Kapoor, and Irrfan Khan. Based Vikas Swarup's 2005 novel Q & A, the film focuses on an 18-year old game show contestant named Jamal Malik (Patel). After being accused of cheating on Kaun Banega Crorepati, an Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, he recounts to the police how events in his life story enabled him to answer every question correctly. The film won eight Academy Awards including Best Picture at the 2009 ceremony. This is my fourth film accolades list to be nominated for featured list status, and I largely based the format off of the accolades lists for The Artist, The Big Short (film), and 1917 which were promoted in October 2015, January 2021, and November 2020, respectively. will gladly accept your comments to improve this list. Birdienest81 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Use Template:Infobox awards list for the infobox. Done: Switched to said template for infobox. "Anil Kapoorand Irrfan Khan" → "Anil Kapoorand, and Irrfan Khan" Done: Added a comma and the word "and" between Kapoorand and Khan. "Based Vikas Swarup's" → "Based on Vikas Swarup's" Done: Added on between based and Vikas. "Fox Searchlight gave the film before being given a wide release" – the subject of the sentence changes from the studio to the film. I think the easiest way to fix this is by splitting the sentence. Done: Split the sentence into two accordingly. "Rahman's score, Mantle's cinematography, and Dicken's editing" – you haven't introduced these people in the lead yet, so you need to use their full names. Done: Introduced all three personnel in the lead paragraph with their full names and roles. This is similar to the film accolades list for La La Land, "includeing" → "including" Done: Corrected spelling. "the National Board of Review named it the Best Film" – specify the year (the current wording implies it was the best film ever, which isn't right) Done: Added the year for which the award was given to. EDITED: Add header Done: Added table caption to the top of the table. The table does not sort dates correctly – it should sort them in chronological order automatically, so I'm not sure what the issue is here. (Maybe using "March 2009" without any day is throwing it off; see Help:Sorting#Date sorting problems.) At any rate, it needs to be fixed. Done: PresN fixed the date sorting problem. Nominees in quotes do not sort correctly; you'll need to specify data-sort-value for those cells. Done: Added sort template to nominees listed in quotes. "Jai Ho" should be in quotes for the Academy Award for Best Original Song. Done: Added quotation marks around the title of said song. Anthony Dod Mantle should sort by "Dod Mantle", not "Mantle". Done: Changed "Mantle" to "Dod" in sort field since there is no other nominee that has a surname that begins with a "D". Tom Sayers is sorting incorrectly, and the wikilink is to an article about a different person and should be removed. Done: Redirected Tom Sayers to Tom Sayers (sound editor) and fixed sorting for that person. "A. R. Rahman" should be written consistently (i.e. don't write "A.R. Rahman" instead) Done: Corrected Rahman's name to "A. R. Rahman" Similarly, "P.A. Deepak" → "P. A. Deepak" Done: Corrected to latter. Reference 52 should be moved to the References column Done: Moved said reference into proper column. — RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: I've addressed all the comments and made the necessary corrections. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Endorse all of the above plus.....
• It is a British film, so based on my interpretation of WP:TIES the article should use British English. Therefore "Fox Searchlight gave the film a limited release in ten theaters" should be "Fox Searchlight gave the film a limited release in ten cinemas" (we don't call a place where movies are shown a theatre in UK English)

• Done: Changed theaters into cinemas.

• Entries in the recipient column which start with a " should sort as if the " isn't there i.e. Jai Ho should sort under J

• Done: Added sort template so that nominees that have quotations are sorted by the actually name.

• Suttirat Anne Larlarb does not sort correctly

• Done: Fixed sorting by adding sorting template using the surname Larlarb.

• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: I've addressed all the comments and made the necessary corrections.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (WP:DTAB)

• Tables need a caption: add |+ your table caption to the top, or if the caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it |+ {{sronly|your table caption}} instead so that it only shows up for screen reader software. --PresN 22:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done: Added table caption accordingly.

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Throughout the linking of publishers/works is inconsistent
  • For example, you link European Film Academy and Hollywood Foreign Press Association but not Recording Academy or Variety?

• Done: Linked publishers and works by their first mention accordingly.

• A bit confused about ref 2, what's all this "Reuters. uk.reuters.com. Thomson Reuters"

• Done: Linked publishers and works by their first mention accordingly.

• Amazon.com seems a bit uncalled for in ref 7

• Done: I removed publishers since they are unnecessary.

• I'm assuming there's no web link for "Oscar Surprises Few, Far Between"?

• I accessed the article via Newspapers.com

• refs 16 and 17 are missing authors
• ref 31 seems to not have the full first name of the author
• why "Variety. Reed Business Information" for ref 52 but not the other variety refs?

• Done: Linked publishers and works by their first mention accordingly.

Reliability

• There are some questionable sources, but they seem to be the websites of their respective awards, so no worries there.

Verifiability

• ref 3 link is broken

• Fixed: Replaced Reuters link with Variety one.

• ref 39 link is not working
• ref 52 not working
• ref 56 broken
• I'm guessing there are other refs broken—maybe archive them all? Aza24 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: My internet is broken down at the house I stay most often is down and is currently ongoing repairs. I am still working to address your comments slowly. Also, it is my birthday this weekend, and may be sidelined a bit, but I intend to get this up to FL standards.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No rush at all, from your history of first-class FLs, I have no doubt that you'll get around to this when you can. Take all the time you need. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24:: Could you do a re-review of the sources since I added new sources resulting in changes?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I don't think your original ping worked. Have just looked now, looks great. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is really minor, but there is a subtle change in meaning when you use "an" instead of "the" in Kaun Banega Crorepati, an Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? "an" suggests it is one of many, but Kaun Banega Crorepati is the official version.
• I wouldn't link Slumdog Millionaire again in the fourth paragraph of the lede.

That's all I got. Solid work as usual. ~ HAL333 16:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• @HAL333: I made both corrections based on your comments. Thanks.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 13:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  15:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This is my fourth or fifth FL nomination. Have worked quite hard and spent hours to improve the list like references, table, lead etc. List has all required thing to be FL. All constructive comments are more than welcome. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  15:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Procedural note: You currently have an open FLC with no supports yet. Per the instructions, "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." I would withdraw this FLC until that nomination is close to being complete. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• @25 Cents FC:, given the comment above, you may want to consider formally withdrawing this nomination for the time being. Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Note: the other nomination was archived, so this one is now fine as far as that goes. --PresN 03:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved accessibility review
;Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) The tables need colscopes for all columns- you have it for two columns but not the other three  Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC) The tables need rowscopes for the "primary" cell of each row- you have it for two cells in each row, pick one  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC) The tables need captions (e.g. where you have "

ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

;Comments on the lead Nothing in the first paragraph is sourced  Added. TheWikiholic (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "the senior most- General Secretary" - presume you mean "the seniormost General Secretary"  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC) "head of the organisation" - what organisation is this?  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC) "During 1885–1933, the presidency had a term of one year only. Upon formation of Congress (I) in 1978, Indira Gandhi however" - what happened between 1933 and 1978? Also it should be upon the formation  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC) "institutionalized the practice" - earlier you spelt "organisation" with an S (British English) but here you spell a similar word with a Z (American English). Pick one and be consistent  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "P. V. Narasimha Rao too held both the Congress (I) president and the Prime Minister's posts" => "P. V. Narasimha Rao also held both posts of both Congress (I) president and the Prime Minister"  Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "Manmohan Singh became the first Prime Minister, not to be the president" - no need for that comma  Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "After the party's foundation in December 1885, Womesh Chunder Bonnerjee became its first president" - this should be mentioned earlier  Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC) That's it on the lead. I will look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC) More comments Headings use capitals where there is no reason to. It should be "The founding years", "The pre-independence era" and "The post-independence era"  Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Why does number 10 (1895) appear after number 9 (1896)? And why are there two 1895s in the first place?  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Why does number 9 show the years as 1895 and 1892 (the wrong way round)?  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Why are there two 1892s?  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC) What's with all the different place names in the "places of conference" column against Sonia Gandhi, including New Delhi appearing four times? I don't get that at all.....  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Refs 2 and 3 are bare URLs not formatted at all. Ref 4 has no author, publication date, or access date -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Can you please close the suggestions that I fixed already?. It will help me to identify the unsolved one very easily.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Support.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

;Drive-by comment I'm not a fan of grouping non-consecutive terms into the same row. It makes it very difficult to follow the chronological progression of presidents. If a person served in the role for non-consecutive terms, that person should have multiple entries; this seems to be the standard in similar FLs. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)  Fixed.RunningTiger123 Lists have been updated per your suggestion. Please have a look and let me know if there are any issues with the grouping. Regards.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC) All right, here's a full review of the list: "Constitution of the Indian National Congress " – shouldn't be a space between text and citation  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) "The president of the party has effectively been " – this sentence is unsourced  Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) "After the party's foundation there was no such fixed term for the president." – these lines are unsourced  Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) "During 1885–1933" → "From 1885 to 1933" (clearer and removes en dash, which I tend to avoid in prose)  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Access date for source 3 is formatted incorrectly  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Citations switch between "First Last" and "Last, First" format for authors' names; pick one or the other  Fixed.— Have opted "Last, First" format.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  07:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC) I still see many sources that use "First Last" formatting – sources 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 17 use this formatting (I may have missed one, so check all of them). RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC) "2020–present" – table and infobox both say Sonia Gandhi has served since 2019; I'd also say "since 2019"  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Also, I would say that she has served for "over twenty years" instead of just "twenty years" to prevent the wording from having to be constantly updated  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) "List of presidents during 1885-1900" – use en dash (–) instead of hyphen (-)  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Same for next table's header  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) From what I see, both headers still use hyphens. (My wording was accidentally unclear; I meant the table captions, not the section headings.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) With the split in rows, "Place(s) of conference" can become "Place of conference"  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Tables should be sortable (make sure Portrait and References columns are unsortable and Name column sorts by last name) Not so good with the table thing. @TheWikiholic: Need your help to sort this out.  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Tables are still unsortable from what I can see. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123:: take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Use "No." instead of "№" in all table headers  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Use Template:Abbr as shown above to ensure there is no confusion over the abbreviation. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Some cities in the Place(s) of conference column are wikilinked multiple times, while others are only linked once. Either link each of them only once, or link all of them every time.  Fixed.—--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  06:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Make sure that the sources confirm all information in the table: name, date, and conference location. I think that many of the sources don't include the last part. For example, source 28 for Rajiv Gandhi makes no mention of the conference being located in Bombay.  Added.— --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  06:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC) I noticed at the end that this external link appears to include lots of the relevant information, particularly for the conference locations. I wouldn't be opposed to you using this as a general source for each table by linking it in the header of each table; this would prevent any issues with missing conference locations in the other sources.  Added.— --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  06:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Years for Kripalani need an en dash instead of a hyphen  Fixed.—--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  06:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC) 34th row in last table appears to not center the citations in the References cell  Fixed.—--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  06:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Source 24 should be titled "Presidents of Congress past", not "residents of Congress past"  Fixed.—--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  06:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Not sure why "Congress" is in big font in External links  Fixed.—--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  06:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC) — RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Sorry for the delay! Comments above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: Can you please close the comments that have been fixed already?. It will help us to identify the unsolved one very easily.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Still not seeing table sorting. Has the class been updated to include "sortable"? RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at it and it hadn't changed, but I was able to fix it myself. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support this nom. Can't see any issue. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Further comments

• "During Jawaharlal Nehru's premiership, he rarely held the Presidency of INC" - this is the first time the initials have been used and while it is pretty obvious what they stand for they should be explained. So put (INC) after the party name at the end of the very first sentence

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• "after she formed Congress (I) in 1978" - there's no explanation of what "Congress (I)" is - is it a separate party? If so, how does it relate to this one? Or was it a renaming of this one? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed Seperate party formed in / during 1978. It was renamed as Indian National Congress by election commission of India. Added a note depicting the same.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  09:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Even more comments

• "Despite being a party with a structure, Congress under Indira Gandhi did not hold any organizational elections after 1972" - so how was Barua elected in 1975.....?

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• "did not hold any organizational elections after 1972..... Indira Gandhi, however, institutionalised" - inconsistent use of American English (with the Z) and British English (with the S) - be consistent

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Congress (I)—the "I" signifying Indira, the national election commission declared Congress (I) to be the real Indian National Congress for the 1984 general election" - this is not grammatically correct and (based on reading the main article) it doesn't seem to tell the whole story. I think it should say "In 1978, Indira Gandhi split from the INC and formed a new opposition party, popularly called Congress (I), which the national election commission to be the real Indian National Congress for the 1984 general election." This also needs a source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed

Formatting

• All caps ref should be avoided (ref 1 & 34)—recommend using title case (you can find an all caps to title case converter online to do this quickly)

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• retrieval dates missing from ref 11

 Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I would avoid having "New Delhi" in ref 7 as you don't include locations for any other refs

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 8 isn't cited correctly (I have no idea what "Britannica Portal" is), I would recommend using {{cite encyclopedia}} or using Encyclopædia Britannica for the publisher and 23 September 2020 for the date

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• ref 13 isn't cited correctly either. The All India Congress Committee should be the publisher and the archive link should be under "|archive-url=" with "|url-status=dead" and the original url under "url="

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• why no publisher for ref 19?

 Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• be consistent with including the work and publisher or just the work (e.g. The Indian Express. Indian Express Group vs just The Indian Express)

take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

• Seems fine

Verifiability

• ref 6 seems to have an incomplete page range

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• rfe 12 Somervill has an incomplete page range

 Done. Reference 12 replaced with reference 11.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• recommend adding oclc (462824439 – from here) in place of absent ISBN for ref 18 Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Seems good now. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• These are all non-source related
• I would recommend linking each president's name every time in the table (the linking rules don't apply to table anyways). Here's my rationale: lets say someone wants to find the president of a specific year, say 1959. It will be awkward for them to have to scroll up five entries to where U. N. Dhebar's name is linked
  • Along these lines, I would recommend this for the Place of conference column, but that seems less pertinent if you disagree

@Aza24: Are you sure that it is necessary? I think two reviewers have different opinions and we already spent a lot of time unlinking it.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

No, not necessary at all—hence the double use of "recommendation" in my comments

• Henry John Stedman Cotton is a disambiguation link at the moment

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• recommend using {{Annotated link}} in the See also section, so the readers understand why they're linked there

 Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: Upon linking it says Wikimedia List of chief ministers from the Indian National Congress and Knowledge (XXG) List of presidents of the Bharatiya Janata Party. I am not able to comprehend why exatcly we need to use {{Annotated link}} here. Have referred few list, nowhere it's mentioned.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  09:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Once again, this is not "required", hence why I said "recommend"

• Are you sure the numbering are actually used for the holders? I don't see it anywhere on their respective pages. For example, although there could be numbers in the List of presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate, there is not, as the holders are not generally reffered to by their numbering. The same seems true here, suggesting there inclusions is OR.

@Aza24: The numbering is not used for holders. Featured List like this has used the same numbering method even though holders are not generally referred to by their numbering.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I would recommend embedding the sections into the actual table (like at List of compositions by Claude Debussy) so its entirety is sortable. Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the current version is more suitable and easier to navigate. It’s also differentiate various eras. Anyway, Pinging @RunningTiger123 for his input.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

For both of these last two points, the numbering just doesn't make sense how it is. Why does it restart for each division—are they really separate enough to warrant this? It all seems arbitrary, is Bhogaraju Pattabhi Sitaramayya really referred to as the 1st president of the post-independence era Indian national conference, why not the 62nd overall and why a number at all? I look at the navigation box {{Indian National Congress}} and see that they're presented as single list. I don't know what the solution is here, there are certainly numerous ways to create more uniformity here, but hopefully you both see where my confusion stems from. Aza24 (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Considering the template {{Indian National Congress}}, back in time I have had made the table as per total number of presidents. However, was advised to put it in yearwise. Considering age of the Congress party; I feel it's essential to put the list in era-wise, readers would eventually understand and be able to differentiate between the presidents in "founding, pre and post"– independance years. How about adding 1st, 2nd and likewise instead of numbers, let us know.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  11:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I was unclear I think. I like the division of found, pre, post etc. — I think its helpful and sensible for the readers. My confusion is this: the numbers seem arbitrary, but I can understand your want to include them. However, reseting the numbers for each "pre" "post" section is even more arbitrary imo. Aza24 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that makes more sense. Happy to support. Aza24 (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 03:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This list was created recently per request during Yuzuru Hanyu GA peer-review. Yuzuru is one of if not the most known active figure skater today with more than 10 years of career and numerous world records broken. Henni147 and I have worked to expand and copy-edit the list according to Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines, and we want to make it better. This is also the first list of achievements article on a figure skater, so we hope to get some recommendations. Hopefully this list will pass. Thank you. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Images need alt text (WP:ALT)
• Tables need column scopes on the column header cells (e.g. instead of "! Date", it should be "!scope=col| Date", for all columns for all tables
• Rows need row scopes on the "primary" cell of each row (e.g. instead of "| March 23, 2019", it should be "!scope=row| March 23, 2019", for the primary column for each row
• Tables need captions (e.g. "|+ caption_text", or if that text duplicates a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-software-only via "|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}")
• Unfortunately, pseudo-column headers in the middle of a table made by colspans are contraindicated (Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table, and actual column headers repeated in the middle of a table are extra contraindicated- just sort on any column to see why they don't work even for regular browsers. The combo-tables should be split into separate tables, with the colspan header row converted into a caption.
• --PresN 14:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I added all column and row scopes, split tables with mid-table headers and added Alt-texts for all pictures (I hope, they are fine and I didn't miss any). Henni147 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: Update: I tried to format all tables according to the accessibility guidelines, but I had problems with the layout in the Absolute bests section. Initially the tables looked like this: page from May 20, but I feared that screen readers may have issues with two scope=row parameters in one row, so I decided to split the tables. However, they were totally different in size and the section looked very chaotic, so I created nested tables to get the tables at same width and vertical align, but that seems to cause issues for screen readers, too. Is it possible to achieve exactly the same result with <div> tags? I tried out many variations, but it didn't really work. Henni147 (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You're not going to be able to get them to act as if they're one table while being two tables, I don't think; If you want them to touch, change the "width="98%" in the table codes to "width="100%", but if you want them to be the same height you're just going to have to tweak the table contents to have the same number of text lines. --PresN 19:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: @Yolo4A4Lo: I found a solution now that avoids any kind of nested tables or multiple scope=row parameters in the same row and that looks decent on screens of any size: section draft. Yes, the right tables drop into the next line on smaller screens, but I think, that's still better than forcing two tables into one row and press the columns together.

If you support the solution, I will update the page. The other sections should be fine, I think? Henni147 (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It does look better for me on mobile and looks okay on desktop. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Henni147: That looks good to me. --PresN 14:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your quick response. Henni147 (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• The opening sentence "This page lists records, accolades, competition results, statistics, and various career achievements of Japanese figure skater Yuzuru Hanyu." is not appropriate. A prose article does not start with "This page is all about the life and career of so-and-so", so similarly lists don't start in this way. That opening sentence should be replaced with a paragraph briefly summarising his life i.e. "Yuzuru Hanyu is a Japanese figure skater who began his career in 2004. He first competed at a senior level in 2010" etc etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Updated. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• No reason to bold the 7 in "Hanyu has set 7 world record scores"
• "Current world record." should not be in bold or have a full stop
• No reason to bold the 12 in "Hanyu has broken 12 world records"
• "Historical world record." should not be in bold or have a full stop (this occurs multiple times)
• "Youngest Japanese male single skater to win a medal at the World Figure Skating Championships (17 years, 3 months and 24 days)." - this is not a full sentence so shouldn't have a full stop (this occurs many times)
• In quite a few cases, refs within a cell are not in correct numerical order
• "First skater in history to successfully land a quadruple Loop jump" - no reason for capital L on loop
• "First skater in history to successfully land a quadruple Toe loop-triple Axel sequence" - no reason for capital T (capital A is OK as it's named after a person)
• "First skater in history to successfully land a quadruple Toe loop-Euler-triple Flip combination" - no reason for capital T or F
• "Hanyu received the People's Honour Award from then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for his historic and inspirational achievement at the Olympics in 2018" - this is a full sentence so needs a full stop
• "Super Slam is an achievement of winning all major international competitions in both junior and senior level" => "Super Slam is an achievement of winning all major international competitions at both junior and senior level"
• "Hanyu is the first male single skater to complete a Super Slam" - needs a full stop
• "Hanyu has medalled at seven different Grand Prix events and won gold at four of them" - needs a full stop
• "Hanyu's most successful season by medals was in 2013–14, where he has won his first Olympics, Worlds, Grand Prix Final, his second Japanese Nationals and seven medals in total" - needs a full stop, also it should be "when" not "where", and the word "has" should be removed
• Two tables under Medal record by seasons should be in correct chronological order, not reverse, per WP:CHRONO
• "If the highest GOE and highest total score for an element (due to the 10% bonus for jumps or levels for spins and sequences) were achieved at different events, both are added to the list" - needs a full stop, as does the bullet point below
• "If the highest GOE and highest total score for an element" etc - this and the next four bullet points need full stops
• "Hanyu received the perfect score of 10.00 in the Performance component for his short program at the 2015 Grand Prix Final" - needs a full stop
• "Hanyu is the current record holder of all national best scores" - needs a full stop. Basically, all photo captions which are complete sentences need a full stop, check them all
• "Scores achieved at domestic competitions are not recognized by the ISU as personal best scores" - needs a full stop
• "List of all technical elements that received" etc - not a full sentence, shouldn't have a full stop
• "Before the 2014–15 season Hanyu has not received any maximum scores for single technical elements" => "Before the 2014–15 season Hanyu did not receive any maximum scores for single technical elements."
• Some refs which are in Japanese have the "(in Japanese)" but others don't
• Some refs are missing the publisher (eg 53, 60, 96-98)
• That's what I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for the detailed comments! I have some questions about the reversal of chronological tables:

• Shall the medal record tables be in chronological order as well (junior above senior) or only the entries within the tables? Alternative solution could be to put senior and junior seasons in one table and mark the two junior seasons with a note.
• This actually concerns the world record tables and detailed results as well. Shall I revert them, too? It might make sense to put all world records in one chronological table, add a column for the competition segment (SP, FS, Total) and enumerate the records in the first column. Or is it better to leave short, free and total records in separate tables?
• The detailed results are a standard table on skaters' bios pages and should all have the same layout (that's why I haven't split it or added scope parameters yet). How to handle this issue best? Henni147 (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

All issues above except for the table order has been handled by Henni147. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yolo4A4Lo: Well, almost. I'm formatting the references in the award section right now. Question about that:

• Does is make sense to create chronological tables for the awards with the columns Date | Award | Awarded by | Ref. to fit the format of the other sections? Henni147 (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I think for the Awards and Honors better stay as a list than table so it's easier for readers to differentiate the importance of awards from goverment/ISU/JOC from the media. I saw it's also the case for other sportpeople, while artists usually use a table instead. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yolo4A4Lo: I actually thought about creating three separate tables for awards from governing bodies, media and municipality, but if other sportspeople have similar award lists, we can leave it like this, too. Henni147 (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It's OK to keep the junior and senior results separate, but they should definitely be in chronological order. So probably junior results first in chrono order and then senior -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I will revert the medal record tables tomorrow.

This is a draft for a possible merge of the current WR tables. It has the big advantage that the size is dynamic and adapts better to different screens and devices. Is it worth a go? Henni147 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Final update: All tables are formatted according to the accessibility guidelines, sorted chronologically (detailed results included), punctuation errors are fixed, pictures are all licensed and Alt-texts added. A quick feedback would be great. Thank you very much. Henni147 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

I don't have much to add to the review of this list, since working with tables isn't one of my strengths as an editor, but I wanted to express my support that it be passed to FL. The work done to make this content presented, as well as its parent bio about Hanyu, is impressive. It's something that should be done across all figure skater bios, if appropriate, and can potentially serve as a model for similar lists of the career achievements of other figure skaters. This list goes far in the general goal of the improvement of all figure skating articles on Knowledge (XXG), which is sorely needed. User:Henni147, I applaud you; nice work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

After the article for Hanyu was promoted, this article was submitted for FL review and developed by Henni147 and Yolo4A4Lo. The list looks very strong and is very useful for readers of the main article during this Olympics year when Hanyu will be competing for an Olympic Gold medal next February. Support for promotion. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Overall, the list looks good, but I do have to ask why the personal bests and absolute bests are included. Why are these notable? I understand why world/national records and medals have significance, but not those two sections. Anyone can have a personal best, regardless of skill level; are we saying that we should cover every skater's personal bests? That seems too broad; Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And yes, I understand that Hanyu's personal bests are far above what almost anyone else will achieve, but without clear secondary coverage, I fail to see their notability (and even with secondary sources, I would question their inclusion). RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: I decided to include these sections, because in Hanyu's case the personal and absolute bests are not only his own, but the best overall in many cases. Like, in the short program he has set the first six of the highest scores ever recorded among all skaters. The 100 point mark in the SP, 200 in the FS and 300 in the combined total are crucial barriers that only very few skaters have surpassed in the course of their careers (5-6) and Hanyu has achieved that feat not only once, but multiple times, which is demonstrated in the tables. You can argue, if the absolute bests are needed for TES and PCS (I think, they can be cut, if they don't meet the Wiki requirements), but I would definitely keep the AB tables for the SP, FS and total. A good solution might be to not list the top 5 scores of every segment, but only those scores that surpassed the barriers mentioned above. I agree that the PB for technical elements are too many. Quad jumps and triple Axels only would do, too. I can shorten them, if needed. And don't worry. These detailed tables will not be added to skaters' bios pages. There is also agreement that only skaters will get career achievement pages, who meet specific criteria like having completed a Grand Slam/Super Slam and set multiple world records. It makes indeed no sense to create such tables for every skater. Only if it's linked to a first or record. Henni147 (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC) I see the significance of Hanyu achieving so many of the highest scores, but wouldn't that be more suitable to a page like List of highest scores in figure skating? And if we're going to start picking and choosing which of his personal and absolute bests to include, then we're definitely going to need secondary sources to justify why we're including some statistics and not others; otherwise, I would consider it a violation of WP:OR. At minimum, we should explain why whatever bests we include are notable. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC) To clarify, I'm not set against the inclusion of some of this information; it just lacks context and therefore does not seem notable in its current state. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC) In looking at athletes with careers that last for 10-12 years, like this case, then it seems useful to have a time history of personal bests to try to spot performance trends. Since his personal bests are dated by the events where he obtained these scores, then it seems useful to know if his best performances are part of his early career, or if his performance trends suggest that he is still getting better. Having the dates associated with the personal bests seems useful from this standpoint. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: Update: I re-structured the personal, national and absolute best sections now. The personal bests turned into international record scores by segment and event. I also moved the elements with maximum score into that section. In the absolute best section I only included scores above the mentioned point barriers. They are definitely significant as many newspapers have written about Hanyu becoming the first skater to surpass them and there is a very small group of elite skaters, who joined the "200 and 300 point club" at this point. I decided to hide the best score sections by element and component, until I figured out, what to do with them. Henni147 (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC) I like the section a lot more now; I think the criteria are clearer and it makes sense why the scores are notable for inclusion. I don't have time right now to do a full review, so I won't give a formal vote, but I'm leaning towards a clear support for the list. If I have time this weekend, I'll do that full review and finalize my vote. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: The international and national record score sections are cleaned up, so that they are now in accordance with WP:NOR. Repeated links are removed as well. Henni147 (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

With that resolved, here are my other comments. "the youngest recipient" – need a source to confirm he is the youngest Source added. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Place columns are currently sorting by country instead of city (probably due to the flag template); this is confusing at first glance and should be fixed to sort by the city Fixed. Addition: I also added sort values to competitions with flagicons in all sections. Henni147 (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC) For the historical world record table, the comments that he was "the only skater to score above x points" need additional sources (since the cited links wouldn't show scores above the cutoff but below the then-record) But that's the thing, historical word records stopped in the 2018–19 season, and by that time only Hanyu scored above the mentioned cutoffs as shown in the cited links. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC) But isn't it possible that someone could have exceeded, for example, 110 points in the short program without breaking Hanyu's record? That wouldn't be recorded in the sources listed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC) I've added another link to the list of all highest total scores which shows all high scores in the sport whether they broke a record or not. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC) "First single skater to be ranked first in the world standings for five consecutive seasons" – sources confirm that he was ranked first for five seasons, but not that he is the first person to achieve this I fixed the link for "world standings" straight to this table where it's apparent that that is the case. Is that enough? Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Unfortunately, no (WP:CIRCULAR). However, if the table's sources are good, you can certainly use those. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC) I reckon it's acceptable then, because the source is the official data from ISU (figure skating union) and the table basically just summarizes the data. Unless, we want to cite all pages for the last 17 years. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC) From WP:CIRCULAR: "Content from a Knowledge (XXG) article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly" (emphasis added). In other words, the supporting sources would have to be included here. Given that it would take a source from each year to support this statement, I think this would violate WP:OR and specifically WP:SYNTHESIS. I would remove the statement unless a secondary source notes his five consecutive years at number 1; that's not to say it's not an impressive feat, but it's not up to us to make those conclusions ourselves. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: Update: sources found and added. Inside Edge only reports the five consecutive no. 1 placements in the world standings, the Taiwanese source also added that Hanyu was the first male single skater to achieve the feat. However, I could not properly archive that source with the Wayback Machine (the website is correct, but the wrong article for whatever reason). I'd like to note one serious issue with journalism particularly in figure skating. Propaganda and narratives have a big influence on the judging and results in this sport and the neutrality and professionalism of many seemingly reliable sources turned out to be questionable or even violate the code of ethics, including very selective news reports on skaters and their achievements. So we have to treat newspaper articles and magazines with care as well and who decides, which secondary source is "reliable" and which not? Heaven forbid that it's only up to some biased journalists to decide what is noteworthy or not in this sport. In my opinion, this is much more problematic than compiling some unshakable stats from primary sources. Henni147 (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC) Under municipality awards, link to Sendai should be moved up to first appearance Fixed. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC) In the detailed results section, the dates do not sort correctly (single dates will automatically be recognized and sort chronologically, but ranges of dates will not). You'll have to specify the sort values; see Help:Sorting if you are unsure what to do. Fixed as well. Footnote: Currently dates of the form "Month DD, YYYY" get sorted automatically in correct order, if they are placed in a normal cell, but seem to cause issues, if they are placed in header cells (with plainrowheader parameter at least). Henni147 (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC) — RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Support – definitely an interesting and thorough list. If you're still having issues with archiving that one source, consider archive.today as an alternative. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Thank you very much for recommending the archive alternative! That works perfectly and I've added it to the page already. Henni147 (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 03:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Plant list #8 (see my user page for links to the others). WP:Featured list candidates/List of plant genera named for people (A–C)/archive1 has discussion on a bunch of relevant points. Happy to take questions and comments, any time. Enjoy! - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Per your suggestion on my Bogart review, I went through this with amazement. Formatting, sourcing and detailing lists takes a lot of close scrutiny and nitpicking of one's own product. If there's any flaw in this, I sure can't find it. This is an admirable work, and it looks good to me. — Maile (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think I've ever inspired "amazement" before, thanks! Let me know if there's anything I can help with. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment

@Dank: regarding the "site links" mentioned below, it's not something I've seen used before. But following the links, it seems to be a really good idea to use these. I'm all for anything that provides direction or information to the reader. Keep 'em. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

They don't provide any information or direction to the reader. They are an unreferenced database dump. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Maile66, so far the vote is: several people don't care, TRM cares a lot. This has forced me to re-examine ... and I've decided I made a mistake. Not with creating the site links ... I still think it was a good idea to do the work to create them, provided that we delete them now and link that version of the page on the talk page, so that article writers can make use of the links. My mistake was in arguing in favor ... knowing that Wikidata issues can be very troublesome, I should have presented it more neutrally and let the reviewers decide. Also, as a Wikipedian, I know that links on Wikidata don't imply any level of recommendation or vetting ... but most readers don't know that, and wouldn't assume that, they'd assume that if I'm pointing them to something, that means there's some level of vetting or recommendation going on. So, I'd prefer now to delete the site links, if you're okay with that. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dank: Sure. Knowledge (XXG) is all a work in progress. Delete what your instincts dictate here, and think about the rest for another time. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not seen that "site links" thing before, is that new?
  • I haven't seen anyone else use the phrase "site links", but otherwise, it's identical in appearance and function to the {{ill}} template with the Wikidata parameter (when the named page doesn't exist on the English Knowledge (XXG)), for instance: Nils Dalberg. seems to me to be an obvious WP:SELFREF violation; we're not supposed to be mentioning Knowledge (XXG) or any other WMF site, except in end sections and on pages that specifically discuss that site. Instead, I use the name of the section on Wikidata (#sitelinks) that the {{ill}} template would send the reader to, which is an apt description. I don't use for instance Nils Dalberg because I'd rather send a reader of the English Knowledge (XXG) to a page in English than in Swedish, and because there are many links I want the reader to see, not just one, so that they can choose; Wikisource, Wikispecies and/or Wikicommons have pages on quite a few of these authors, and for some reason, there are more pages on botanists in other Wikipedias than in the English Knowledge (XXG); sometimes it's a long list. And finally: even if I wanted to, I can't use {{ill}} frequently on a list that's about as long as it can get before images stop loading for some viewers, because {{ill}} is one of the more resource-hungry templates. - Dank (push to talk)
    • That makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• "John F. Kingston English botanist" - needs a comma to match other rows
• "José Antonio Picanço Diniz (1870–1934) lawyer and amateur entomologist" - same here
• "who worked in part in Vatican City" => "who worked in part in the Vatican City"
• "Phillip Hancorn (18th and 19th centuries) English seafarer" - think this needs a comma too
• That's it from me - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Did all of these. Thanks for your tireless work as a reviewer, Chris. - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to confirm, I have no new points to raise after the additions of the Js and reiterate my support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

• A shame the opening sentence has to use the word "species" four times.
  • Thanks for reviewing. Can't think of how to subtract any of them, but open to your ideas. Btw, for such a short intro, it was surprisingly hard to write. - Dank (push to talk) Figured out a way to subtract one "species". - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• "rulers and politicians" why "and" suddenly midway through the list?
  • Done.
• "genera (genuses) have been named ... who named the genera." mildly repetitive within a single sentence.
  • All I could think of (to deal with this concern) was to remove "and the colleagues, relatives and friends of the botanists who named the genera" ... that's fine with me if that's what you want. I don't think I can just make a simple change to "who named them" at the end ... many readers will have lost the thread and be thinking, "Them who?". Open to suggestions.
• "1853 and 1856" in two volumes?
  • Added "in two editions".
• Might be worth a note at the top of the A to Z which says that anything other than D to J will navigate away from this page.
  • I'll add something, check to see if it's what you want.
• Albert Ulrich Daeniker has a Wikidata entry, is there a reason you're not including this "site links" thing for him?
  • "ä" vs. "ae" (I blame the search engine). Added. I've just checked: there are no other cases of "ae", "ue" or "oe" in red links on this page that might trigger the same bug.
• Just a general observation, the Wikidata entries are usually garbage and include nothing more than the name of someone, usually no references. Are we really benefitting the reader by suggesting to them in most cases?
  • I'm going to need you to tell me, specifically, what would work for you. I'll explain why I think it would be better if the information appears somewhere (for most of these), but I'm flexible on where it should appear, and in what form. IMO, the problem isn't a lack of consensus on how to handle problems like these (The parameter is an accepted parameter for {{ill}} ... see the above discussion). I do think there's a problem here ... but the problem isn't that I've got the format wrong, it's that there's an unpleasant reality I'm exposing the reader to ... that much of the information they may want to see is scattered around Wikidata, Commons, Wikispecies, Wikisource, and the German, French and Spanish Wikipedias, among others. Not only is the information not on the English Knowledge (XXG), but when people try to add the information, it's sometimes deleted over notability concerns. Obviously, there are various minefields here, completely above my pay grade ... including the role of notability and the proper and improper use of Wikidata on Knowledge (XXG). If we were talking about a few pages, I could fix the problem by writing a few articles, but it's not a few pages.
    • I'm struggling to see anything in any of the Wikidata links that is of any genuine use to our readers. Linking to other Wikipedias is just fine for me, articles there will ordinarily have an encyclopedic structure, some prose, some introduction, some detail and possibly even some references. The terrible Wikidata "articles" really show what's happening to this project in its very worst light right now. I believe that Wikidata might serve a purpose in a few years, but not to link our readers directly to, just as literally a database from which we can extract information to be placed into a context-rich encyclopedic article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • And furthermore, if it's useful to writers, then add it to the talk page, the article page is for the reader. And why is it called "site links"? What does that mean to our readers? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• It would be far more preferable to see a context for each name, not just their name if they have an article. A few words on each individual would suffice. I shouldn't have to click away from the article (which takes an age to load) to discover which of these people were rulers or botanists or whatever.
  • I struggled with this. I'd prefer to say something, personally, but it feels like a minefield to me ... a lot of potential arguing over not-very-important things, like whether someone was more French or more German, or whether they're better known as a botanist or something else, or, or, or ... If I invite conflict on Knowledge (XXG), I'm certainly going to get it. How important is this to you? Wouldn't it be better to let people argue about these things somewhere else?
    • I think since you've made a point of noting in the lead the types of people these genera are named after, there should be an idea in these lists as to those types on a case by case basis. I don't see it creating conflict, I've created several FLs with "vocation summaries" for individuals over the years and can't remember a single instance of "conflict" caused by them. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• "384 BC – 322 BC" doesn't 384–322 BC work?
  • I'll search for "BC" throughout.
• On my wide screen, the images pass the end of the list by about 11 images which is highly undesirable.
  • I have no preference on how many images to use, I'm just trying to get it right for the zooms and screens people are most likely to be using. I'll delete a few ... let me know if that works. This feels like a WMF rendering problem to me ... before deleting any images, at 110% zoom, on my 14-inch screen, the images stop at the end of the I's. We might need some help from WP:VPT on this one.
• I'll take a closer look at the entrants on the next pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No worries, I've moved to oppose for now because I don't think are appropriate for Knowledge (XXG)'s finest work (if you want to link to another language Knowledge (XXG) article, fine) and I don't think leaving most entries without explanation as to who they were/are is acceptable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Ok, much better, I've struck my oppose. Hope that approach can be rolled out across all such similar lists. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, I did that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

• What's the criteria here for redlinking some people, but not others?
  • Before this FLC nom, I redlinked things if and only if there was a Wikidata link. Now that the Wikidata links are gone, it wouldn't bother me if the reviewers here want to set new criteria. If you guys can agree, great, I'll probably go with your criteria. If you guys don't like the red links and can't agree on new criteria, then I'll delink all the red links. I don't see any other options. - Dank (push to talk)
• Could the lede be expanded at all?
  • There's been a lot of support so far for intros roughly this size, but I doubt that anyone will object if there's something specific you'd like to see added.
• Can The Names of Plants be used to support anything (or more) in this article?
  • You asked that in the previous review; I said "Gledhill is an excellent source, but in all my previous lists, I haven't made specific reference to him except in special cases ... and, generally, I found that those special cases don't occur in these lists. There are better sources for these things. I can remove him from the Further Reading if you prefer." You wanted me to keep him in Further Reading.
• After another lookover, I agree with TRM about the biographical information provided. Why give weight to some and not others?

That's all I got. Best to you. ~ HAL333 20:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Thanks much for reviewing, I know you're busy. Please look at this version of the page ... just the D's ... and read the footnote to the second column. Does that work for you? There are many constraints here; I can be a little bit flexible, but not a lot. (Repinging User:HAL333 since I've made changes.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC) (Also pinging Maile66 and ChrisTheDude ... apologies, but we're running into some flak here. Same question: please follow the link to that version of the list and let me know if the footnote at the top of the second column works for you, along with my occasional descriptions, such as "scientist", "educator", etc. ... I've only done the D's so far.) I can change descriptions, I can add a little text, but I can't add a lot of text. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • That footnote would work great. Assuming you do it, I support this nomination. ~ HAL333 19:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Working on adding descriptions for E through J now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Done with everything now, D to J. Thanks for looking at this. - Dank (push to talk) 04:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      • PresN, I've got some relevant information for you ... but this isn't a request, do whatever works best for you, I'm easy. Since Hal recently said "I am incredibly busy in real life", and given what he said above, he might not have time to verify whether the changes I made yesterday deal with the last point he raised. I asked the other two supporters, Maile and Chris, if they'd be kind enough to look at the changes. Maile did, and was satisfied. Please let me know if you need anything else from me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      • TRM, likewise, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Chris just said "Looks good to me!" on his talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I added specific professions to the note on naturalists. - Dank (push to talk) 10:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
      • PresN, Monday will be the two-week point since you archived the other nomination at my request ... I'm caught up now, and will be ready to re-nom on Monday, with your permission. Is there anything I can do for the current nomination that I haven't done already? I can ping Aza24 for a source review if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
        • @Dank: I think with the changes made I'm good for you to restart that nomination; pinging The Rambling Man since his two major points were addressed (wikidata links and adding small descriptions for blue-linked namesakes) to see if his oppose still stands. --PresN 19:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
          • Sounds good, I'll go restart it. The Rambling Man, let me know if you need something more; I'd prefer that we create sublists if you need more extensive descriptions, but I'm open to your suggestions. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Looks good. Thanks for the note b especially.

Reliability

• First class sourcing, per usual

Verifiability

• No issues here
• Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): --Trialpears (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I originally nominated this article last spring at Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/List of countries by Human Development Index/archive2 but due to life being a mess and me being very busy in the weeks after that I withdrew it. Now I've incorporated the feedback there, done some improvements together with the big annual update and guaranteed there are no data errors and some other minor things. There is one improvement that I would like to make which is merging the two maps in the lead, but due to lack of participants in the talkpage discussion we could not reach a consensus on the matter. --Trialpears (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): while the table has column scopes, it is missing a caption and rowscopes, and has column headers in the middle of the table.

• Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
• For each row, the 'primary' cell should be marked with `scope="row"`, e.g. instead of `| 1 || ...` it should be `!scope="row"| 1`, with the rest of the row on its own line. If the way this changes the formatting of that column bothers you, you can add the `plainrowheaders` class to the top of the table at `{| class="db-d2lraXRhYmxl"`
• Column headers in the middle of tables like "Very high human development" are contraindicated as screen reading software trips on them, see Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. Please remove.

--PresN 14:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

PresN Thanks! I've added a caption and have added row headers. I think the country name is a better row header than the rank and therefore chose to make that the row header. For the High/Medium/Low Human development index labels I think they are a significant improvement for sighted readers since it makes it easy to see if a given value is concidered high or low. I want to retain them if possible while making them accessible, but if that isn't possible I guess they have to go. They are not column headers, but rather colpsan 6 items with a background color identical to headers. I'm not sure if that fixes the accessibility issues though. There is also a significant difference between these divisions and the ones on your link with these not being necessary to make sense of the table. --Trialpears (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

So, the issue with colspans like that is that where screen readers would normally read out (to give a 2-cell example) "Country or Territory Norway; HDI 2019 data (2020 report) 0.957", with a colspan like that it some would do "Country or Territory Very high human development Norway; HDI 2019 data (2020 report) Very high human development 0.957", e.g. repeating the colspan like it's a header for everything instead of treating it like a row (which even if it did, it would try to connect it to the columns that it doesn't apply to. It would work better if it was a column on its own (since the table is pretty narrow) or split into different tables. Incidentally, they don't actually work as-is for sighted readers either in the first table- if you sort the table, the "Very high" row isn't moving, and when I sort by the last column 3 times they all stack together. --PresN 16:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hum, this revision sorting the Very high human development worked as intended, but apparently designating it a row header breaks it. Even then the sorting with the dividers is a bit unintuitive (change over 5 years and average annual HDI growth isn't applicable to the dividers). Splitting the table was how it was done before but it made it a pain to see thing like which country has the fastest HDI growth. I've removed them. The information is still readily available in several places. --Trialpears (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Pote2639 you seem to have thoughts about the ranking headers judging by your revert. Your opinion would be much appreciated. --Trialpears (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Trialpears I think the ranking headers are still needed, as most country pages are still using the ranking in their HDI indicator. without it, it would be a bit confusing to most readers. --pote2639 (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Pote2639 Idealy I think they are an improvement but due to technical limitations they are problematic. I've tried getting the sorting to work properly with them while having proper row headers, but from T6740 I've gathered that's impossible with the current software (using html isn't an option either since thead tags apparently aren't supported). On top of that we have the screen reader issues PresN is more familiar with that also don't seem to be solvable with the dividers. I'm not that concerned about not including the HDI categories in the list since they are both explained in prose and clearly shown in the map caption. It is also not particularly important to see the categories in the list since you have tons of other countries to compare to but in country pages you only get one for most people basically meaningless number. --Trialpears (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment

• In addition to the above (is that resolved? I can't really tell).........
• Refs are not in correct numerical order at the end of the second paragraph of the lead
• "The indicators used in the 2020 report was" => "The indicators used in the 2020 report were" (indicators is plural)
• "There are dimensions of human development that it doesn't consider" => "There are dimensions of human development that it does not consider" (truncations should not be used)
• UNESCO, UNDESA, IMF, OECD should be written out in full on first usage
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  ChrisTheDude All done. Worth noting that I gave the acronym for UNESCO even though it isn't used anywhere since I believe it to be the more well known name and more likely readers recognize than the expanded form. This is supported by the page title being the acronym. Regarding the accessibility issues with the tables discussed above all rows and columns have a header with the scope specified and a caption. The dividers have also been removed again so that is resolved. --Trialpears (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Why 189 countries? Why are the others not included?
• "The first human development index was" why not use the abbreviation?
• "as GDP. The" explain before using the abbreviation.
• "a long and healthy life, knowledge, and decent living standards" is this a quote? It doesn't sound particularly encyclopedic.
• "Various indicators are" that links to economic indicator yet this all about indicators other than economic...
• "three indexes" isn't the plural of index indices?
• "from UN agencies" United Nations
• "Rarely when one of the indicators" should there be a comma after Rarely?
• "missing cross-country regression" comma after missing.
• "methodology updates HDI values" comma after updates.
• "years." order.
• "The Human Development Index has" HDI
• "at Radboud University where" context, where is this uni?
• "World map representing..." fragment, no full stop.
• "Average annual HDI growth..." same.
• (2010-2019) - en-dash, not hyphen.
• ISBNs should be consistently formatted.
• Ref 2 and ref 10 look identical?
• You link "United Nations Development Programme" on and off in the refs, be consistent.
• Ref 11 is missing that as its publisher.
• As is ref 12.
• And 13.
• And ref 14 is missing the website (for consistency).

That's it on a quick run. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Thanks, your comments are much appreciated! I've taken care of them if I don't comment on the point specifically.

• Why 189 countries? Why are the others not included? Those are the ones that have data available in the human development report. It is the 193 UN member states except North Korea, Monaco, Nauru, San Marino, Somalia and Tuvalu, the non-member observer state Palestine (but not the other observer state, the Vatican/Holy See) as well as Hong Kong. Including other sources would open a gigantic can of worms with tons of discussion about what counts as a country and whether a given source is reliable. I'm happy to have a longer discussion on this if you want to.

• No discussion required, I'd just make sure this article covers why it's 189. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oh I misinterpreted the question then. It currently just states "The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) compiles the Human Development Index (HDI) of 189 countries in the annual Human Development Report. " as the first sentence. I guess it isn't explicit that is the reason only 189 countries are included but I can't see how to state that without making it clunky. I guess I could add some text just above the list explaining it. --Trialpears (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well you've explained who is and isn't included here on this very page, that's all I'm looking to see. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've added it now. --Trialpears (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The first human development index was" why not use the abbreviation? Done, slighlty rephrased.
• "as GDP. The" explain before using the abbreviation. Expanded the abbreviation. It is only used once.
• "a long and healthy life, knowledge, and decent living standards" is this a quote? It doesn't sound particularly encyclopedic. The direct quote is The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. from http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi. "A long and healthy life" is consistently the way they refer to it and I don't believe it would be proper to modify it here, although I called it just health in the first sentance.
• "Various indicators are" that links to economic indicator yet this all about indicators other than economic... Yep, not optimal. I think there should be some kind of link for indicator. I changed it to Indicator (statistics) which is accurate nut not particularly in depth.
• "three indexes" isn't the plural of index indices? I've seen both in use, but I think indices is considered more proper and is unambiguously correct. Changed.
• "at Radboud University where" context, where is this uni? Changed to "Radboud University in the Netherlands".
• ISBNs should be consistently formatted. Fixed now. Not entirely certain what convention to use, copied the one at WP:ISBN.
• Ref 2 and ref 10 look identical? One was supposed to be table 1 and one table 2. Fixed now.
• You link "United Nations Development Programme" on and off in the refs, be consistent. Settled on unlinked since it's linked first thing in the article proper.

I also made sure the minus sign is used for negative numbers and added some other missing websites for consistency. --Trialpears (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• @PresN and The Rambling Man: Would you be willing to support the current version or do you have more suggestions? --Trialpears (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Sdkb

Overall, this looks quite good! Here are some comments. Some of these things are more significant whereas others are extremely nitpicky, just questions, or may reflect my own preferences moreso than any requirements. I look forward to supporting once the significant things are addressed. Also, I know you plan to be busy in the near future, so please don't feel any pressure to respond quickly.

• The lead images seem to have a lot of gray areas for territories like Greenland and small islands. Since the HDI is by country and Greenland is part of Denmark, should Greenland be coloured the same? {{u|Sdkb}}  21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  There's certainly an argument to be made for that, but I think it would be misleading. Greenland is in practice very different from Denmark with their own legislature and significantly lower performance on basically all indicators that are published for just greenland. Sadly it isn't included in the sub-national HDI list, but according to the source cited at Greenland it would fall into the high human development index and not very high. --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  My understanding of Greenland politics is limited, but given how many types of external territories there are, I worry that we're opening up a massive can of worms by allowing ourselves to choose arbitrarily which get included and which don't. Previewing a bit of the contents: Is French Guiana any less a part of France than Kaliningrad Oblast is Russia, or are we just colouring it gray unlike Kalingrad because it's HDi is presumably more different? If we're omitting or calculating separately parts of countries with different HDIs on the national list, how big and how external do they have to be to count and why are we still calling it the national list if it includes sub-national components? Was data from Puerto Rico used in calculating the U.S.'s HDI, and if so why isn't it then included as part of the U.S.? As you can see, this gets extremely messy, thus why I think the best solution might be to go with a strict "if it's part of the country, it's coloured the same as the country" standard as the least gray line available, even if it ends up being misleading for places like Greenland. Alternatively, if the HDI report itself includes a map anywhere, we could just go with that map as closely as possible and maybe include a footnote saying that's what we did. That would be a nice out, and it may be what the map already does. I'm courtesy pinging Portuguese Knowledge (XXG) admin @Allice Hunter, who it looks like uploaded the most recent version of the map and might be able to speak to the decisions they made in putting it together.

  Overall, world political maps are a minefield (the current consensus is for List of sovereign states not to have one at all). But ultimately this issue is on the picky side and Knowledge (XXG):PERFECTION is impossible, so I'll be satisfied so long as we're able to explain what general approach we used to make the decisions we did in case anyone ever challenges one of them. {{u|Sdkb}}  18:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  JackintheBox is probably also interested as they've worked with the maps. The most recent HDR does not include any maps with political boundaries and I presume the UN wouldn't bring up such a minefield in previous reports either so that's not an option. I think you've made a good case for including all territories being the only reasonable option without opening all the cans of worms and possible OR based reasoning. It feels bad to intentionally introducing material that is likley to be at least somewhat misleading, but I would be willing to make a new map, but will wait for responses from Allice and Jack first as it would take some time to get a grip on SVGs. The caption should mention that territories are included though. --Trialpears (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Trialpears and Sdkb Greenland, although part of Denmark, has its own autonomy and it is not common for organizations to include Greenland data in information for Denmark. Data for Greenland is released separately from that for Denmark most of the time. For this reason, they do not include Greenland in most indexes and so most maps do not have data for Greenland (the same thing happens with French Guiana, although it's not autonomous as Greenland). I always try to make my maps complete and informative but unfortunately I didn't find up-to-date data for Greenland's HDI so I didn't colour it on the map. As for Puerto Rico, it is part of the United States but it is not an incorporated territory and therefore it is not included in the data for the US. I could find specific data for Puerto Rico, but I would have to ask myself if the source is the same and if the data is for the same year as the one released by the UN, because I don't think it's a good idea to use several different sources for the same map or include data from different years. − Allice Hunter 22:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  I've done some more thinking and have come to the conclusion the maps probably are fine as they are. When there are good reason to believe the label would be misleading (Greenland, French Guiana) including it would be detrimental. I think not specifying anything is completely fine in such a situation. There is also significant doubt if the regions are actually accounted for in the data used to generate the HDI for the country, especially since it has to come from several different sources for each dimension. I think my criteria would be something like not including territories if there's reason to believe data for the region wasn't included when calculating the HDI of the country opting for not specifying if uncertain. This isn't clear cut by any means and has the possibility to get messy, but I don't believe there's been much dispute about the maps in the past. No information is better than potentially bad information. --Trialpears (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• For the second map in the article (which I constructed) I shaded the five French overseas departments/regions the same colour as metropolitan France, as they are integral parts of France. I shaded the French overseas territories/collectivities (New Caledonia, St Pierre et Miquelon etc.) grey as they are not. However the map above (not constructed by me) shades the overseas departments grey as well. For consistency and to reflect their status I believe they should be shaded the same colour as metropolitan France. JACKINTHEBOX • 06:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sdkb thoughts on just making sure the maps are consistent in what they include and using consensus for what to include? Consistency could also be resolved by not having two redundant maps, just saying. --Trialpears (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  That sounds good to me. Thanks Allice and Jack for stopping by to help here! {{u|Sdkb}}  04:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Allice Hunter and JackintheBox: I've looked at the maps and I see discrepancies with French Guiana, Puerto Rico, Mayotte and Guam. I don't have any clear opinion on what to do with them, they are even more ambiguous than the Greenland and Kaliningrad examples and I'm more uncertain about how their relations are within their countries. Since Jack seems quite confident about the French territories I would suggest going with that. Allice says that Puerto Rico shouldn't be included as it is an unincorporated territory and data from there likely isn't included. The same presumably goes for Guam making me think not coloring them in is for the best. You probably have a way easier time to modify the maps than me so if you could do it that would be wonderful. Otherwise I'll figure it out. I'm guessing you haven't changed your minds on the one map with HDI groups in the caption, but I'll put it here just in case I think that would be the nicest solution. This version is also adjusted to display the caption better on all screen sizes and not to separate the group labels and the first caption item in the group. --Trialpears (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Trialpears: I just changed the map and French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Réunion have been shaded. I don't see a problem with having two maps, as long as they don't contradict each other. But I think the JackintheBox's map should definitely be converted to SVG format, as the PNG format is not advisable for maps as it is of much lower quality, especially when it is zoomed in. − Allice Hunter 12:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Allice Hunter: Okay, I'll reconstruct the second map this time using Inkspace and File:BlankMap-World.svg as a template. JACKINTHEBOX • 13:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Allice Hunter: Whoops, I spent two hours constructing the map from scratch, and then found that I had already made and uploaded an SVG map for HDI this January! I've replaced the PNG file on the article with my SVG version. JACKINTHEBOX • 13:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  Actually it wasn't a complete waste of time; the original map I made shaded Western Sahara with Morocco, and Macau with China. My newly uploaded version corrects these issues. 😁 JACKINTHEBOX • 13:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  @JackintheBox: I just remembered that a long time ago I had asked you to create an SVG version, and you said you would. I completely forgot about it. − Allice Hunter 14:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  I would also like to ask you for permission to remove Antarctica from your map, as the other maps do not include it. − Allice Hunter 14:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Allice Hunter: Certainly, feel free to edit the map! JACKINTHEBOX • 14:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• To resolve one of the limitations the inequality-adjusted human development index (IHDI) was introduced in the 2010 report which stated that "the IHDI is the actual level of human development (accounting for inequality)" and "the HDI can be viewed as an index of 'potential' human development (or the maximum IHDI that could be achieved if there were no inequality)". doesn't need to have quotes, if I understand our norms about quotations correctly. There's also some redundancy, as it's pretty self-apparent that something called the "inequality-adjusted human development index" is the human development index adjusted for inequality. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Those are both direct quotes, but I think it probably is better to paraphrase it and have done so which also condensed it a bit. I was considering adding a bit more information of how it is adjusted but it is more calculated then the regular HDI and not core to the article. --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  That's definitely better! I added a few commas to help make it easier to parse the sentences, as some of them are a little long. I think there was a slight grammar issue with several aspects of the index has received criticism including the choice of included factors, the relative weight given to the factors, and a single number giving an overly simplistic view of human development. The way the first part of the sentence is structured, the list in the second part needs to be of aspects of the index. "the relative weight given to the factors" and "the choice of included factors" are both aspects of the list, but "a single number giving an overly simplistic view of human development" isn't. I changed it to "the perceived oversimplification of using a single number per country", which reads better to me, but feel free to tweak it further.

  Reading through the last paragraph of the intro now, I'm seeing a little awkwardness and redundancy in that several things are brought up multiple times. For instance, lack of granularity is raised three times, first as something others have noted, then as something the UN itself has noted, and finally as something Radboud has tried to address. I think you might find it a lot easier to write if you changed it away from its current structure of outsider reception, then UN's own understanding of limitations, then attempts to address flaws. Instead, go by issue, i.e. once you bring up inequality, put the mention of IHDI right next to it, before moving on to the next limitation. Does that make sense/seem like it would help? {{u|Sdkb}}  18:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  I've tried to rewrite it in a way to only bring up the topics once. I also felt it would be natural to include the PHDI in the new structure and did so. I hope it makes as much sense as I think it does but it's a bit hard to take on the normal reader perspective after trying this many different versions. --Trialpears (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I definitely relate to the challenges of writing about something you're wrapped up in the weeds with. Here's what I would do for that paragraph; feel free to take/adopt whatever aspects of it you'd like. There are some issues in the current version like the "Among them" sentence being a fragment that will definitely need to be resolved.

  The HDI is the most widely used indicator of human development and changed how people view the concept. However, several aspects of the index have received criticism. Some scholars have criticized the limited factors it considers, noting omissions like level of participation in governance or level of inequality. In response to the latter concern, the UNDP introduced the inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDP) in its 2010 report. Others have criticized the perceived oversimplification of using a single number per country. To reflect developmental differences within countries, a Subnational HDI (SHDI) featuring data for more than 1600 regions was introduced in 2018 by the Global Data Lab at Radboud University in the Netherlands. In 2020, the UNDP introduced another index, the planetary pressures–adjusted HDI, which discounts the scores of countries with a higher ecological footprint.

  {{u|Sdkb}}  01:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sdkb I've had another go at rewriting the section based on your proposal. I've completely removed the limitations-criticism differentiation as it probably wasn't helpful. That means that while participation in government is regularly brought up by the UNDP as a limitation I can't find academics actually criticising the index for it. Instead I talk about gender inequality as well which the UNDP has tried to resolve with the Gender Development Index. It is quite different from the other ones and hasn't been as well received as IHDI though. I feel like it is a bit better now, but I'm still not 100% satisfied. --Trialpears (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  It's improved a lot since we started tweaking it! I agree it's not 100% perfect yet, so if anyone else wants to provide further suggestions that might help. But it's no longer a concern for withholding my support. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• The lead is quite focused on how the HDI is defined/calculated. Is there pertinent information we would want to include about how the measure has been received by others or used beyond the UN? The last paragraph of the lead seems to hint at the existence of some critiques or criticism of HDI's limitations, but there's no secondary sourcing delving into that. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  There is, much of which is from the 90s when it was new and decently different on a technical level. There's also some internally at the UN or very narrow discussion. I will write a few sentances, but it is getting late right now. --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• The sentences The Human Development Report includes the 193 United Nations member states as well as Palestine and Hong Kong. However, it is not available for North Korea, Monaco, Nauru, San Marino, Somalia and Tuvalu. seem to include a contradiction, as North Korea, Monaco, etc. are UN member states. Is it that they're discussed in the report but just not given a score? If so, we should state that more directly. It may be worth noting the absence of Taiwan and any other similar omissions. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Those countries are included in the report and some other indicators or statistics are given for them. The "it" in the sentance was intended to reffer to the human development index but I see now that it looks like I'm talking about the human development report. About non-UN members I added Other non-UN members, such as Taiwan, are not included. This is a possible can of worm but I think that's fine. --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  I made a small further wording tweak; it looks good now! {{u|Sdkb}}  18:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how necessary it is to have a key for increase/decrease/steady. They seem pretty self-explanatory to me, and the icons include tooltips to make it extra clear. Others might disagree, though. If we do keep it, formatting it as a mini-table similar to what was done here might be a little neater than a bulleted list. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Since tooltips aren't availible on mobile that can't be relied upon, but it is quite self explainatory so it might not be necessary. I'm leaning towards it being unncessary with moast FLs with Template:Increase not explaining it and the others just including it in a longer explanation of notation. I've removed the key for now but am quite uncertain about that change. The table approach looks better then the status quo in my opinion. --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• The label for "Congo, Democratic Republic of the" should be fixed (without messing up the sorting). {{u|Sdkb}}  21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Done, same for "Congo, Republic of the". --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Looks good; thanks! {{u|Sdkb}}  19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• For the "Regions and groups" section, choosing the years 1990, 2000, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019 seems a bit arbitrary (where's 2016?) and introduces recentism concerns. I don't think we should feel pressure to fill up the entire width of the page just since it's available (on desktop); I would suggest taking out 2014, 2017, and 2018. If you really want to fill up the page, we could add 1995 and 2005 if they're available to create 5-year increments. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Those are the ones that were recalculated in the latest report. (Due to improved data and methodology updates, HDI values are not comparable across human development reports; instead, each report recalculates the HDI for some previous years.) I guess 2014 could be removed though to make it a small amount nicer. I feel like all the others are worth keeping though (could be convinced otherwise about 2017 though). --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  My view would be that the HDI report is allowed to be recentist in a way that we are not. But balancing recentism and updatedness is a tricky thing, so I'll defer to whatever your preference is. Given that everything will need to be recalculated each year, the WP:ENDURE considerations are different than most annual tables, but you might want to put in a hidden comment about how to select the years to include. {{u|Sdkb}}  19:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• In the see also section, the sublists by region have some inconsistent title structures ("countries" vs. "sovereign states", "countries in X" vs. "X countries"). If we wanted to be comprehensive about it, we could move them so they're aligned, but that's obviously beyond the scope of this FLC; a simpler solution would be to just pipe the links. Or maybe there's some reason the titles are different that hasn't occurred to me. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  I've piped the links to just the region for now. Can't see a reason for the current names either, will probably start a RM shortly. --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Looks good! {{u|Sdkb}}  19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Also in the see also section, per MOS:ACROTITLE, we should decide whether or not we want to abbreviate HDI in page titles and be consistent about it. My guess would be that we probably shouldn't abbreviate in the actual titles. But abbreviating everything in the see also section here via pipes might actually help make it easier to read, and hopefully readers know what HDI means by the time they make it to that section. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Opend RMs on those two but kept the abbreviation in the see also section. --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for the comments! Maybe this can actually get promoted soon! --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sdkb I've now added a bit more on recpetion and I believe that would be all of your comments addressed. While the reception and limitations sections cover similar ground I believe it useful to clearly show both the UNDPs and others perspective here. --Trialpears (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support, my concerns are sufficiently addressed. Nice work! {{u|Sdkb}}  21:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• you have New York: for one ref but not the others—should be one way or the other
• I would include the date for ref 10

Reliability

• No issues here

Verifiability

• You might want to put a super brief instruction in ref 8 indicating that the FAQ in question is under the "Human Development Index (HDI)" header
• recommend archiving links Aza24 (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Aza24 Great! I've removed New York as I don't see a value in including it, but could do it the other way if so desired. The date's been added for ref 10 and the title for the FAQ is now "Frequently Asked Questions | Human Development Index (HDI) | Why does the HDI not include dimensions of participation, gender and equality?". I also just added a bit more on criticism of the HDI per Sdkb above which added a few refs. --Trialpears (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Forgot the link archiving but I have now run IABot on the page and all links have archives. --Trialpears (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for all of this, pass for source review. It's funny, I was just talking with some friends last night about the recent coup in Mali and we pulled up your wonderful list to see where it was on the ranking. Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Given that this has gathered significant support and passed source review with no more actionable comments I feel like this probably has consensus for promotion. It would be kind of fun having it promoted before it closes, but no biggie. =) --Trialpears (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Since my FLC for List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 1996 has gotten enough supports and has been open for over a month with no opposes, I am switching over to the more upbeat Tropical Airplay #1's. Like my successful nomination for List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 1994 and 1995, this list is based on ChrisTheDude's work on the #1 country songs in the US. I am nominating this list for WP:WIKICUP as well. As always, looking forward to the comments! Erick (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Five different songs topped the chart in 1994 while 12 different" => "Five different songs topped the chart in 1994 and 12 different"
• "BDS ran tests charts" => "BDS ran test charts"
• "where it remained on the top stop for three weeks" => "which remained in the top spot for three weeks"
• "most songs at number one in 1995s" => "most songs at number one in 1995"
• ""Nadie Como Ella" was the final numberone track of 1995" => ""Nadie Como Ella" was the final number one track of 1995"
• If you sort on the artist name, Luis Enrique's two number ones are not together, so the sort key is wrong on one
• Think that's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments, I've addressed and thanks as always for the inspiration! Erick (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - it's extremely kind of you to refer to me as being inspiring -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Nadie Como Ella" was the final number one track of 1995" Cuban pianist... – there seems to be a typo in here, judging from the unpaired quotation mark and sudden transition between sentences
• Link "Estamos Solos" in lead
• Should source 10 be the chart history for Edgar Joel, similar to how source 11 is the chart history for Johnny Rivera?
• Should Edgar Joel sort by J instead of E in the table?

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Thanks for noticing those errors of mine that I somehow overlooked. For source 10, unfortunately Billboard's website doesn't seem to have a chart history page for every artist like they used to. The chart history page for Edgar Joel doesn't exist anymore and wasn't able to find an archive for it. Readers can verify that it is the his only #1 song if they go through every week on the database. Erick (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. It's not ideal, but given the circumstances it works well enough. Nice work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed:

Formatting

All consistent from what I can see.

Reliability

• Hmmm ref 6 (Gozamos) is not looking particularly reliable. Seems self published, and the fact that the site is an online magazine only and a wordpress website aren't good signs. I would suggest switching out the source or removing (the latter, only if the information is sourced by something else already of course)

Verifiability

• Checked 2, 10, 11, 14, 35 & 68, all seem fine. Aza24 (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24:, I replaced "Gozamas" with an article from Rolling Stone. Erick (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks great — pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the tropical music link be in this earlier part, a chart that ranks the top-performing songs played on tropical radio stations, of the lead since this technically refers to it first?
• I think it would be useful to add more context to this sentence: According to Billboard, tropical music is the "sound of the Spanish-speaking Caribbean". I would note the year that this article was published as I think it is notable since Billboardput this definition out when this chart was still new (likely to introduce it to unfamiliar readers, but that's just speculation on my part).
• I have one more comment about the quote that I discussed above. The Billboard source mentions that the tropical sound extends outside of the Spanish-speaking Caribbean and lists some examples of this. I believe that would be worthy of mentioning in the prose.
• For this sentence, Both acts were the only acts to have more than one chart-topper in 1994., I would avoid repeating the word "acts".
• I have a clarification question about using the Luis Enrique image in the lead. Why lead the article with Enrique? I would think either La India or Marc Anthony would be more notable for the lead since La India was the first woman to top the chart and she had two separate songs reach that position and Anthony since he had the most number-ones. I do not think it really matters and it is more up to personal preference. Even if the Enrique image stays where it is, I would still think La India should have an image in here since one is available.

Great work with the list. One of these days, I really should work on a Billboard list as I do get inspired by all the FLCs and it has been a while since I have done one. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will support this (and hopefully that will be enough to get it promoted). If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC, but it is okay if you do not have the time or interest. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for the comments! For the genres, the only genre listed being outside of the Spanish-speaking Caribbean was tropical music in Meixco. So what I did was added examples of genres that typically fall under the tropical music field with an added source from Billboard. The 1985 article in question is for the Tropical Albums chart, which debuted on that year, but their scope of Tropical music is still the same as the Tropical Airplay chart. Glad you brought up and La India and here's why. There previously wasn't an image of her that I could find under creative commons until I convinced a photographer on Flickr to change the photo's license (go me!). Which reminds me, I have to go back and thank the photographer for their contribution! Erick (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the responses. Awesome work with getting the La India image. Everything looks good to me and I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, here's the 68th of these lists to be brought to FLC for your consideration. This particular year was an interesting one: a bloke with a white bucket on his head achieved a country number one, but Lil Nas X didn't, because after one week on the chart Billboard decided that "Old Town Road" wasn't actually a country song after all, which ruffled a few feathers. As ever, your comments are invited and will be actioned promptly.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "main charts that" link charts.
• "introduced in 2012" could link that 2012 article I just reviewed.
• "The seven-week run at ... unbroken run atop" run run repeat.
• "the feat of ... a feat no" feat feat repeat.
• What's EDM?
• List of Billboard number-one country albums of 2019 is a redirect, but if you keep it, at least italicise Billboard.
• NYT ref needs a subscription.

That's all I can see on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "an action which caused controversy": What was it that happened that was an indication of controversy?
• "had become a controversial topic": I've already hit my quota on this word so I will just note it without criticism ... but others may have opinions on this.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table; "Eric Church" looks like he's probably out of sort order in the next-to-last column.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. Is a better image, or a crop, available for Chase Rice? Also, it's described as an "official photo" but "own work" ... not really sure how it can be both.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Dank: - the controversial element of "Old Town Road"'s removal from the country chart was the claim by some people that it was influenced by Lil Nas X's race, and that if a white artist had produced a similar "rap with hint of country" song, Billboard would have been just fine with leaving it on the country chart. I don't know if explaining all of that is too much detail for this article, though.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • BTW I toned down the other use of "controversy" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I see the problem now, and I don't have a solution, certainly not one that's going to work for everyone. I like your edits since my last edit. - Dank (push to talk) 11:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
        • @Dank: - added a very brief explanation, which hopefully will make it clear why it was controversial without overloading the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
          • That's probably the direction I would go with a similar article, but see my standard disclaimer above: I don't know what I'm doing. - Dank (push to talk) 12:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - just a quick note to say that I will now be off-WP till Tuesday evening. If there's any fresh comments in that time, I will pick them up on my return..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• They NYT times ref might be more accurately represented by "limited" as the url-access parameter
• Solid and consistent otherwise

Reliability

• No issues here

Verifiability

• Checked a couple, no issues. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your source review, I have tweaked the NYT ref -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Everything looks good. My only comment would be to archive the citations as that would avoid any issues with citation rot and death. However, that is not a major issue at the present, so I support the list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, here's the 69th of these lists to be brought to FLC for your consideration. This time we jump back to the 1950s. Fun fact: in this year Faron Young reached number one for the first time; he was on the bill at the very first live concert I ever went to, albeit much much later in his career than 1955 (I was about 5 at the time - guess my parents couldn't get a babysitter :-)) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I was a big fan of "Sixteen Tons" as a kid (oops, showing my age!)
• A table caption is required.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on some columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Nothing for me to complain aboutunfortunately :)

Reliability

• Looks great

Verifiability

• No issues here

• In general, nothing to say, solid job per usual—and I really tried to find something but here we are :) Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Wretchskull

• The three songs would share the record for more than fifty years, until The sentence is one main clause, so the comma should be removed.
• The first sentence in the Chart history section feels a little unclear, but I cannot directly point at anything that seems wrong.
• This does not indicate It feels more right to have "It does" rather than "This does" based on earlier text, but that could just be personal preference.

That's all I have. Good job, Chris! Wretchskull (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: - done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support: My concerns have been addressed. Wretchskull (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Table is missing a caption (you had it on the last one, so likely just slipped your mind.) --PresN 03:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: - fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - just a quick note to say that I will now be off-WP till Tuesday evening. If there's any fresh comments in that time, I will pick them up on my return..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me. I made some minor edits (which was just inserting a comma and fixing some spacing issues), but I could not find anything that needed to be addressed further. I support this promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): GagaNutella 03:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to say that Titanic is one the greatest productions and had one of the biggest box office in film history. After a hard work, especially finding reliable sources (this was really difficult), and major changes, I am very happy and proud to nominate this list, which I believe deserves to have the FL status. GagaNutella 03:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Support - apologies for forgetting to return -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" – quotes need sources It is already sourced in the table. GagaNutella 01:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC) The table shows that it is in the National Film Registry; that's not my concern. The direct quote that the film is "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" either should be cited or removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC) This quote is also included in that same source in the table. GagaNutella 02:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "one of fewer than 60 films in the history of the service" – the CinemaScore page lists at least 88 films and counting.  Done This is my mistake; I should have clarified better. I think it's better to say either how many films had received an A+ grade at the time (and source that statement) or cut that element entirely. Otherwise, we'll have to be constantly updating that line every time a new film gets an A+. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)  Done "The film won the 55th Golden Globe Awards..." – weird wording. I would say "The film won at the 55th Golden Globe Awards..." or just "The film won Golden Globe Awards..."  Done "Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet and Gloria Stuart were also nominated." – no need to wikilink DiCaprio and Winslet again; also, you can just use their last names, and you should note that they were nominated for their acting performances.  Done "the second film about the Titanic to win that award, after 1933's Cavalcade" – citation needed  Done "Kate Winslet, Gloria Stuart, and the make-up artists..." – no need to wikilink Stuart again, and use last names here  Done "Other recognitions came from numerous North American critics' associations..." – many of the listed groups are guilds, not critics' associations. Also, this sentence should name the groups, not the awards.  Done Quick fixes here: "guilds, sush as" → "guilds, such as the" and "SAG-AFTRA" to "Screen Actors Guild" (SAG and AFTRA didn't merge until 2012). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)  Done Table header: "Award nominations for Titanic" → "Accolades received by Titanic" (you can also use {{sronly}} here since it closely matches the section heading)  Done Dates that are just a year, or a month and a year, do not sort correctly. I don't know how to fix it. Do you? GagaNutella 01:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Try using data-sort-type="date" first for the cells with issues (see Help:Sorting#Configuring the sorting). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC) It didn't work. I have no idea what to do. GagaNutella 02:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC) IMDb for source 76 is not acceptable. It is just impossible to find another source, at least I failed to do so. GagaNutella 01:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC) If you can't find a reliable source for the award, then it is not notable and should be cut, even if it has an IMDb entry. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Not sure about MUBI, but I'm leaning against using it as a source. MUBI seems fine to me, there is its own article, and there is no guidance on not using it. As I said, it's very hard to find sources to support 1997/1998 statements. GagaNutella 01:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC) From what I can tell, MUBI allows any user to contribute content here. To me, this makes it no different than sites like IMDb and TV.com, which are not considered reliable (see WP:RSP and WP:FILM/R#Questionable resources). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I see, I gave my best and found some more references. The only awards I am failing are London Film Critics' Circle (MUBI) and Society of Texas Film Critics Awards (IMDb). As there was no victory, it is even more difficult to find any source. GagaNutella 02:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC) I would distinguish between links for Titanic (the film) and Titanic (the soundtrack) by writing the latter out fully. I think ChrisTheDude touched on this above, but I wanted to address it as well. Also, I agree with ChrisTheDude that the soundtrack should use a consistent title, even if the source uses a slightly different name. I don't know, I think it is better keep as the award was given and named it. I mean, there is a category beside saying "Soundtrack Album of the Year", "Favorite Soundtrack", so obvious it is about the soundtrack. GagaNutella 01:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Make sure you have sources for nominees and winners. For example, source 61 is from before the MTV Awards were presented, so it can't verify the winners. I didn't check many others, but I suspect there may be similar issues elsewhere. (You don't need to find a source with an award ceremony's winners if the film didn't win any awards.)  Done I would list the Grammys for Record of the Year and Song of the Year before the other Grammys, since those two are major awards.  Done You don't really "win" a Guinness World Record – maybe "Recognized" is a better term? (I'm open to suggestions here.) Similarly, maybe "Selected" for the National Film Registry? There is not a "Recognized" template. I think it is simpler than that. By the way, in the award infobox there is a good note. all other articles treat this as wins. GagaNutella 01:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC) That note is to explain that other types of recognitions besides proper wins (i.e., 2nd place, runner-up, "honored", etc.) are counted as wins in the infobox. You can display whatever text you want in the cell using {{won|''your text here''}}. I'm not as concerned about the Guinness wins (I did some research and the Game of Thrones awards list uses "Won"), but I do think the National Film Registry should be changed. It would be like saying a sports player "won" by being inducted into a hall of fame; it doesn't quite make sense. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)  Done "No.1" → "Number 1" or "No. 1"  Done — RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: I tried to fix everything you reviewed, but some things I couldn't. Please take another look. GagaNutella 01:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: hey, I have updated it. GagaNutella 02:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC) To make it easier to track what's left, I'll put my replies here. Source 7 only discusses films since 2000, which leaves out Titanic and makes it rather unhelpful. I think cutting that sentence at this point is the best call; readers should be able to understand that an A+ CinemaScore is good without further explanation. If you still can't find non-IMDb or MUBI sources, those awards should be cut. I'd rather see a slightly less comprehensive list than allow sourcing standards to slip. For sorting, try Template:Date table sorting. If that doesn't work, you'll have to assign data-sort-value to each cell in that column using YYYY-MM-DD formatting. — RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: very nice! The only thing I am not able to do is fix the table. The rest is okay. GagaNutella 02:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Support – the table is now sorting correctly, and it was quite a pain; I fully sympathize with your struggles now. (Knowledge (XXG)'s auto-sorting features were trying to be helpful but ultimately caused more problems in this case. I even had to put in a "wrong" date to get everything to sort correctly... definitely not fun.) Thanks for sticking with the nomination through all of my comments! RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• @RunningTiger123: your review was extremely important, thanks for helping me with that. GagaNutella 01:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You still should add Juno Award nominations to prose (Canadian equivalent of Grammys in US), but the improvements so far are enough for me to extend my support. Good work here! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• @SNUGGUMS: thank you so much for your support! I have added about it. GagaNutella 02:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• You might want to add url-access=limited to the NYT ref, as you have a subscription marking on the Rolling stones ref

 Done

• LA times could be marked with as needing a subscription as well

• Why? I have free acess here. GagaNutella 21:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hmmm I don't, but not a huge issue. Aza24 (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• It must depend on the country, so I added now. GagaNutella 23:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• ref 75 missing author

 Done

Reliability

• My reliabillity script has PR Newswire (ref 21) as a generally unreliable source. Is there a better ref for this information available?

• Sorry, I can't find anything better, but as it's just an award list and not something more complex, I believe that's okay in this case. The award is very old, so it's hard to find something on the internet from that time. GagaNutella 21:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• No worries, I had a feeling this might be the case, just thought I'd check. Aza24 (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• seems fine otherwise

Verifiability

• recommendation: add "trans-title=" to non-english sources

 Done

• recommend using the archive bot on the links

 Done

• perhaps add a page number(s) for ref 70?

 Done I added the page number to all PDF references. GagaNutella 21:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• ref 64 says "Your connection is not private" and is not opening up for me Aza24 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done

• @Aza24: thanks for your review. What about now? GagaNutella 21:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Looks great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Amazing, Aza24! Thank you for this review. GagaNutella 23:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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