Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia ![]() Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting. Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the |
Featured list tools: | ||||||
|
Nominations urgently needing reviews
The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:
The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago: |
Nominations
[edit]- Nominator(s): Dajasj (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a very simple table, yet enables users to quickly find information. Do you want to see who were the (in)formateurs and scouts for a given formation, that's easy to spot right away. Do you want to know how many times Herman Tjeenk Willink has been (in)formateur, it is easy to sort. The longest serving informateur, also easy to sort. The lead gives a quick overview of what the roles are, and some facts that are relevant to the table. The table has references to easily accessible online resources as well as more detailed offline sources (where available). It is an essential part of my project to - in the long term - have decent articles about all Dutch cabinet formations, and I believe this specific part of my project is a suitable featured list candidate. Dajasj (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
[edit]- Per MOS:CHRONO, the list should be in chronological order, not backwards -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed! Dajasj (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Another drive-by: the name most assuredly does not meet our naming guidelines. I don't see "(in)formateurs" as a literal term in my searches. This should likely be List of Dutch formateurs and scouts, with a note that "scout" has become the new term for "informateur" after 2012. I am not an expert on this topic, so happy to consider other naming, but as it stands this naming convention is not the WP:COMMONNAME. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Gonzo fan2007, thanks for the reply. The informateur does still exist (I have clarified it in the lead), so it would be List of Dutch formateurs, informateurs and scouts. Would that be desirable? Then I'll move it :) Dajasj (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be preferable. Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed! Dajasj (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be preferable. Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Gonzo fan2007, thanks for the reply. The informateur does still exist (I have clarified it in the lead), so it would be List of Dutch formateurs, informateurs and scouts. Would that be desirable? Then I'll move it :) Dajasj (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if these page can be merged with List of Dutch cabinet formations. These are closely related topics with some overlap. Reywas92Talk 16:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Di (they-them) (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has a good overview of the subject and has comprehensive coverage with plenty of sources. This is my first time nominating anything for FLC, so please be patient with me. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
QoH
[edit]Interesting topic. I'll take a look soon. Queen of Hearts (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Dajasj
[edit]Thanks for the nomination. A few things I noticed right away:
- There are links in headers, which is not allowed: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings
- Links are often duplicated, even if they are in the same section
- I would leave out Trump, Polk and Johnson, because you already mention them in the lead. Dajasj (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
With the 1971 list now having a couple of supports, let's continue our look at the biggest mellow hits of the 1970s. There's some songs here that I personally don't know at all but also some all-time classics, including the first big hit version of that well-known song "Ken Lee" :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support - The sentence I usually quibble about is already correctly put here so I am happy to support this directly. Great work as always. "American Pie" (which seems to be a song?) should be in single quotes in ref 2, though.--NØ 17:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- The Roberta Flack image seems to have two dates associated with it: 1995 and 2010. I'd guess 1995 is more accurate. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: - amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- Why is it the year the picture was taken specified for two images but not for the others? I'd make it consistent.
- Besides, in the one about Roberta Flack, there's a space missing between the "c." and the year.
That's what I saw, ChrisTheDude. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: - I have a tendency to put dates only for images that were taken many years before or after the period under discussion, to make it clear that, for example, Don McLean wasn't an old grey-haired man in 1972. But I guess inconsistency can be irritating so I added the others too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nice work, as always. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I have spent the past few days drafting up an overhaul of the list in my sandbox. I adapted the format from the other FLs in the series particularly the Arizona. I am disclosing upfront my reasoning for nominating this which is I hope to get it passed for the Wikicup. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Drive by comment: Double check accuracy of 1940. How did Roosevelt win with 43% of the vote, when his opponent had 57% but only 34k votes? Ravendrop 23:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well its simple, someone incompetent put in the wrong numbers Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "It was initially granted 7 electoral votes,[2] gaining three following the 1910 census" - write both numbers as words
- "to 8 votes in the 1950 census[5] before returning to its original 7 following the 2000 census." - write those numbers as words too
- "was won by Republican candidates Richard Nixon/Henry C. Lodge" - any reason for the slash rather than "and"?
- " decided cast a faithless vote" - the word "to" is missing
- "for Harry F. Byrd/Barry Goldwater" - same comment about the slash
- "While the state initially went back and fourth " - last word is spelt incorrectly
- "etween voting democrat and republican" - capitals on the party names, surely.....?
- Comma needed before "most recently"
- "Republicans having won every single county since the 2004 presidential election and the state being Donald Trump's third largest margin of victory in 2016" - this is not a grammatically complete sentence
- "Republicans have won the election without carrying the state only twice" - what does "carrying the state" mean?
- "While democrats have won without the state 8 times, most recently Joe Biden in 2020." - this is not a grammatically complete sentence
- also that 8 should be written as a word and Democrats should have a capital D
- "Additionally, a third party did not qualify every single year." - no need for the word "additionally" here
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: I think I fixed all of it Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Carrying the state" is still unexplained and the final sentence of the lead is still a fragment rather than a full sentence...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: I replaced carrying with winning and per another editor merged the final two sentences. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- One last query - the double dagger in 1920 is bolded - is this intentional and if so, what does it signify? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing. It was a mistake Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- One last query - the double dagger in 1920 is bolded - is this intentional and if so, what does it signify? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: I replaced carrying with winning and per another editor merged the final two sentences. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Carrying the state" is still unexplained and the final sentence of the lead is still a fragment rather than a full sentence...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: I think I fixed all of it Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- MPGuy2824
- The scope for "Winner", "Runner-up" and "Other candidate" should be colgroup.
- Bold text shouldn't be the only way to indicate something. Use a symbol too.
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding
!scope=row
to each primary cell, e.g.!{{anchor|1912}}
becomes!scope=row|{{anchor|1912}}
(on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use!scope=rowgroup
instead. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: Done :D Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Bold text shouldn't be the only way to indicate something. Use a symbol too.
On second thought, this is not needed. The winners (in the state) are already in the "winner" colgroup and so don't need the extra symbol to differentiate them. My fault for not noticing. Sorry about that.- I'm also noticing a cs1 error for the wsj 2016 ref. Please fix. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- So I fixed the first thing. Secondly is the issue also in WSJ 2012? Because the two citations look identical besides the title and dates. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: Done :D Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- I would merge the last two sentences, because that While at the beginning of the last one feels a bit odd.
- For purposes of these lists - Even though there may be other lists for other states, we only have one list in hand here, so I'd say something along the lines of "For the purpose of this list".
- At the beginning of the second paragraph, "1960 election" should be in blue and not only 1960.
- The state later passed a law that would invalidate any votes cast - I don't think I understand that. So is any vote cast invalidated? Or only those by faithless electors?
- Republicans having won every single county since the 2004 presidential election, additionally the state was Donald Trump's third largest margin of victory in 2016 - The way this is written, I feel the sentence would read more naturally without the "additionally".
That's what I saw, OlifanofmrTennant. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Adressed most of the comments, for the fourth point: you've taken a portion of the sentence and not the full one Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. But the sentence didn't make sense. It does now, though, because of the change ChrisTheDude made. Is that what you meant originally? Alavense (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Republicans having won every single county since the 2004 presidential election; the state was Donald Trump's third largest margin of victory in 2016. - That sentence still doesn't quite work. Either you exchange the semicolon for a comma or you say "Republicans have won every single county". Alavense (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)
We are trying to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made an excellent template based on our last nomination and we have incorporated those changes into this nomination. Should go smoothly but we are happy to make any recommended changes. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- MPGuy2824
- "Municipalities enjoy a large degree of autonomy" The sentence before this is about the province. It think you should move this to the second paragraph and add a sentence or two about the province in the first paragraph.
- While that it's true, I think we also have to bear in mind that this list is about the municipalities in that given province, so it makes sense, in my opinion, that most of the information is about said municipalities. In any case, I would like to have Mattximus's opinion on this. Alavense (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- The first sentence introduces both the province and the municipalities. Then the following sentences maintains this order talking about the provinces then the municipalities. I do like how this flows, and you can read the first paragraph and get the article right away. Mattximus (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- "One concejal is added for every additional 100,000 inhabitants, with a further one added when the number of concejales based on this methodology would be even in order to prevent tied votes." This sentence isn't needed given that the most-populated municipality has less than 100,000 inhabitants.
- Done. Alavense (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Torremochuela has 6 residents, three of whom are councillors. - Sorry, no comment here. I just thought is was funny.
- It had up to 225 inhabitants in the 1950s. It's one of the best examples of what's called the "emptied Spain". Alavense (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Cabanillas del Campo is the province of Guadalajara's fourth largest municipality by population." it should be fifth-largest.
- Solved. Alavense (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Quite a few refs are missing archive links. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to run the bot, but, given that some of the refs have permalinks that lead to selections of information, that didn't work out. So I went ahead and archived as many as I could myself. Alavense (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your comments, MPGuy2824. I've addressed as many as I could. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging MPGuy2824 to see if there's anything else we can do. Alavense (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "Elections in municipalities with more than 250 inhabitans" - last word is spelt incorrectly
- Fixed. Good catch! Mattximus (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Another technology award list. There are a lot of things that can be wikilinked (especially in the award citations). I’ve added some, but please go through the citation column carefully to see if more should be added. Similar FL: Turing Award. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
[edit]- I've never seen an article before that has what amounts to multiple "see also" sections, neither of which is titled "See also". I would simply put all five wikilinks under the heading "see also" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed: Merged the two sections and removed a couple of the links. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "a gold medal, a bronze replica," - a bronze replica of what? Of the gold medal?
- "a certificate, and an honorarium" - is there an appropriate link for "honorarium"? I for one have no idea what that is.
- "when the IRE merged with the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) to form the IEEE, in 1963" - no need for that comma
- Source(s) for second paragraph of lead?
- Because the table is sortable, anything which is linked will need to be linked each time it appears eg I can see piezoelectricity used twice but only linked once -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed the rest and wikilinked the second instance of piezoelectric in the table. I'll ping you here when I finish checking for other such terms that need to be wikilinked a second time. Meanwhile, please take a look at the citations column specifically to see if other terms need wikilinking. I tried to avoid overlinking, but I might have been too stingy while assessing what needs to be linked. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- 104 people have been awarded the medal - MOS:NUMNOTES: "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure".
- Could a photograph of each recipient be added? Turing Award, which you cite as a similar featured list, has them.
- I feel there's no need for the uppercase in the second word in both No Award and No Citation.
- Ref(s) should be "Ref(s).", shouldn't it?
That's what I saw, MPGuy2824. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): PresN 00:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Hey all, it's bats list #2, and mammal list #43: Rhinolophidae. These are the 92 species of horseshoe bats, cousins of the leaf-nosed bats of the last list. Basically, it's a wide array of tiny bats (the size of your thumb, or at most two thumbs) with funny little faces. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family... though reading between the lines of the academic-speak, the scientific consensus is that this family's taxonomy is a hot mess, and by 2100 it could be anywhere from 70 to 130 species once they all agree what a "species" is. In the meantime, we'll stick with 92. In any case, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Formosan lesser horseshoe bat has no habitat listed
- Same for Imaizumi's horseshoe bat
- That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Whoops, both filled in now (as Unrecorded). Thanks! --PresN 16:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Following on from Timeline of Brexit, which was promoted to FL earlier this year, here's another timeline about recent British history. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from N Oneemuss
[edit]Lede
[edit]- "eighteen days later, the death toll reached 335" – should be "18 days later" per MOS:NUMERAL
- Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Prime Minister Boris Johnson is discouraged per MOS:SEAOFBLUE; in the timeline there's the same problem with "Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak", "Education Secretary Gavin Williamson", "Home Secretary Priti Patel", "Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer", "Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab", "leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg"...
- All fixed (I think). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would maybe add in the lede that the rule of six introduced by the government was only in England (the other nations did have similar rules)
- Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would spell out the acronym "BYOB" somewhere (either in the lede or the body)
- Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would maybe add Johnson's resignation as Prime Minister and/or as an MP to the lede
- Done. I've rewritten the final sentence in the lead. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- You could link "civil servant" somewhere?
- Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Lockdown parties
[edit]- 7 December 2020: "on Thursday" is a bit unhelpful as the days of the week aren't included in this list; could you give the date?
- Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- 11 December 2020: Is the price of the wine fridge relevant?
- Removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- 14 December 2020: House of Commons should be linked to House of Commons of the United Kingdom
- Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- 16 December 2020: You spell out what tier 1 and tier 2 restrictions are called ("medium" and "high"), but not tier 3 ("very high")
- Added. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
The story breaks
[edit]- Maybe mention some Conservatives publicly calling for Johnson to resign over Partygate? e.g. [1] or [2]
- Added in Douglas Ross's call for Johnson to resign. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- 15 June 2023: I think the context that's missing here is that a 90-day suspension would be enough to trigger a recall petition and hence a by-election in Johnson's constituency
- Added. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- 19 June 2023: "354 to seven" should be "354 to 7" again per MOS:NUMERAL. I think there might be a couple more examples of this as well.
- Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think you could add the changes of Prime Minister as well? I don't think it would add too much space to say that Johnson was replaced by Truss, and then that Truss was replaced by Sunak (Johnson tried to run for the leadership again, but maybe that's too much detail). Otherwise it's maybe a bit surprising that it says the Conservatives were led at the election by Sunak (in the "Aftermath" section)?
- Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Aftermath
[edit]- "the publication of the Gray report" – this is confusing because it's only the initial document that was published at this point, not the full report
- Removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- "70% of respondents regarded Johnson as performing badly as prime minister, compared with 25% who felt that he was doing well"; I think this could do with some context on how he was regarded before the scandal broke (he was already unpopular, but not to this extent)
- To be honest, I only mentioned that specific poll because Richard Hayton also made reference to it in his article on Johnson for Political Insight. Citing different YouGov polls and then using them to draw a conclusion about how Partygate affected Johnson's popularity feels like it might be skating a little too close to improper synthesis, but I'll see if I can find any third-party sources that come to those conclusions and then cite them. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. I've added in a sentence about how Partygate specifically affected his popularity. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Link (and maybe spell out) NHS
- Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Nice list! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the review, N Oneemuss! I've done most of these, I'll complete the final two soon. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the review, N Oneemuss! I think I've covered all your points, but please let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Great, happy to Support. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 07:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Every decade, the NFL chooses an all-time team composed of the best players from the previous 10 years. 45 Packers' players have been named to one of these teams, with the Packers having at least one player on each decade team. As always, happy to address any comments or concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "did change from decade-to-decade" - I don't think those hyphens are needed
- That's it!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude, changed! Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding
!scope=row
to each primary cell (or rowgroup if the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan), e.g.! rowspan="5" | [[NFL 1920s All-Decade Team|1920s]]
becomes!scope=rowgroup rowspan="5" | [[NFL 1920s All-Decade Team|1920s]]
. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 14:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can't believe I forgot it PresN. Thanks for the reminder, fixed! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- 2010s Team but 1960s team. I think it's better to make this consistent throughout the text.
- Fixed! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the See also section, the last item has extra indentation. Is that intended?
- It was. I do that sometimes to show the relationship of articles in the See also. So in this case, the higher level article is NFL All-Time Team, while List of Green Bay Packers NFL Anniversary All-Time Team selections is a related subtopic. Let me know if this makes sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
That's all I saw, Gonzo_fan2007. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Alavense! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
It does make sense, Gonzo fan2007. Thanks for the reply. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
This list covers the fictional Pokémon species that have been introduced in the ninth generation of the Pokémon media franchise, specifically Pokémon from the video games Pokémon Scarlet and Violet. I've gone through the list and included what information I could about each species using high quality sources in order to create as comprehensive a list as possible with what sources exist, with a summary of the franchise and the ninth generation's setting included in the article's lead. I believe this meets FL criteria due to its expansive scope of coverage and verifiability in reliable publications. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment: The reference formatting will need some work for consistency. I'm noting that, while there are Wikilinks in refs, probably at least half of the references are missing them. I added some with a quick find and replace, but I thought I'd mention it early on so you can address is. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'll get around to patching those up once I've got a bit of free time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh I've hyperlinked all sites that have associated Wikipedia articles. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'll get around to patching those up once I've got a bit of free time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from BP!
[edit]I thought about reviewing this since I possiboy need more reviewers at my FAC.
- I'm not sure if you already addressed some my comments from the peer review, but the I noticed there are publications/magazines still aren't linked yet
- Link Polygon and Nintendo Life at reception.
- Be consistent with whether or not the citations use title case for the titles. Make sure to italicize game and film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
- Put url/website at Ref 3, a google book works.
- What makes DenFaminicoGamer and Gayming Magazine reliable?
- Ref 30 and ref 38 are missing date of publication.
- I don't feel Radio Times is a reliable source for video games articles.
- ref 124 magazine was full capitalized?
- replace the "gamesradar" into GamesRadar+ at ref 131
- ref 166 magazine should be only RPG. Do not include other things such as "WWW".
- ref 184 is missing author. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Boneless Pizza! I've addressed the links since you've made your comment, and I've additionally addressed the bulk of your concerns. As for a few particular points:
- -What is "title case"? I've genuinely never heard of this before, and would appreciate clarification on what it is.
- -Radio Times is more than reliable. It's a highly well-respected publisher for entertainment related information and has been for decades. It has been used without issue in entertainment-related articles and is of generally high quality. Its usage shouldn't be of concern.
- -Ref 166 should be "RPGFan," not RPG, as RPGFan is actual the name of the website. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Game titles like for example in ref 134 there is a game title from the publication's title called "Pokémon Scarlet and Violet", it should be italicized for consistency. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Gotcha. I'll ping you once I've made adjustments to those. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Boneless Pizza! I've made the requested adjustments. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will abstain from voting for now until other people have already chimed in here I supposed. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Boneless Pizza! I've made the requested adjustments. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Gotcha. I'll ping you once I've made adjustments to those. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Game titles like for example in ref 134 there is a game title from the publication's title called "Pokémon Scarlet and Violet", it should be italicized for consistency. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Tone 19:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Brazil has 24 WHS and 22 tentative sites. Some sites are very fresh and there's plenty of nature. Since the list for Argentina was my sole running nomination and just got promoted, I am adding a new one. Standard style. Tone 19:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, Egypt is running and is seeing support, somehow I forgot about that nomination. Anyway, nothing changes. Tone 06:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- MPGuy2824
- "of the sugarcane industry".
- For "Ruins of Sao Miguel das Missoes (Brazil)" it would to add some info about the only site in Brazil along with the general info about all five missions.
- "centre of the sugar industry".
- "the Cathedral Basilica of Salvador, the Church and Convent of São Francisco, Salvador, and the Church of the Third Order of Mount Carmel."
- "The church, which is from the second half of the 18th century, is"
- " in the Italian-inspired Rococo style."
- is there a good wikilink for "ceramic-farmer societies"
- "the beach with a paving of hewn stones "
- "The park is located on the coast of the Maranhão State. It comprises a vast expanse of sandy dunes with temporary and permanent lagoons." -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed, thanks! As for the link, the most appropriate seems to be the Formative stage, but not ideal and may look like an Easter egg. Old-world equivalent would be Neolithic but that clearly does not apply to Brazil. Tone 18:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- ...continuing
- "only atoll in the South Atlantic".
- "The site was inscribed to the World Heritage List as the Brazilian Atlantic Islands"
- Use either "inscribed on" or "added to".
- Also, if this is already inscribed, then what is the change? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. This is one of the cases where a tentative site gets promoted in another nomination and they forgot to do the cleanup of the list ;) Happens every now and then. Tone 10:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- ...continuing
- Fixed, thanks! As for the link, the most appropriate seems to be the Formative stage, but not ideal and may look like an Easter egg. Old-world equivalent would be Neolithic but that clearly does not apply to Brazil. Tone 18:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- I'd suggest linking New World.
- Same for Christian art.
- I know it's in the source, but I feel as if most spectacular is a bit of a vague term.
- Link hunter-gatherer.
- azulejo already implies that it's ceramic, so azulejo ceramic tiles sounds a bit weird.
- which were in past connected - Maybe "in the past"?
- one of the worlds
- various adaptation - I feel "adaptations" would be better?
- Given that the Oxford comma is used throughout the text, it would be better to include it for the Provincial Palace, the Church and Convent of Santa Cruz (pictured) and the Misericórdia Hospital and Church as well.
- the latter two now being used as a museum and an architecture reference centre - Respectively? If so, I'd suggest adding it.
- The cultural landscape or the region
- by the team of architects - Maybe "by a team of architects featuring..."?
- for grazing and cultivation which presents - A comma is missing.
- which used to span over all north-east Brazil but has since shrunk due to human activity - Either specify when it used to span all over the north-east or remove the "since".
- Parts of the ceiling has
- Immediately after that, the same problem with "since" once more.
- Ought Cerrado to be italicized?
- accelerated development of São Paulo - "the development"
- Construction of the track - "The construction"
- due to the demanding geography - Is the geography what's demanding? Or is it maybe the orography?
- The surroundings of the dam are interesting on itself - On themselves, on their own?
- the native Kiriri people whose - A comma is missing.
- a physician and epidemiologist Oswaldo Cruz - "The"?
That's what I saw. Nice work, Tone. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
With the list for 1969 having just been promoted and the list for 1970 having a few supports, here is the list for 1971. Lots more Carpenters and a first chart-topper for a singer who was born in England and raised in Australia but would be one of the U.S.'s favourite singers of the 1970s..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
NØ
[edit]- "The chart, which in 1971 was entitled Easy Listening, has undergone various name changes and since 1996 has been published under the title Adult Contemporary." - I generally recommend commas before and after the "since 1996" but you may want to do the other workaround you use to fix the issue instead.
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- "topped Billboard's pop singles chart" - Were non-singles still eligible to chart back then like they are now? If so, "songs" might be a better term than "singles" given the context
- No, songs which were not available to purchase as a single were not eligible for the Hot 100 until December 1998 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are two instances of "followed into the top spot" so one could be something like "succeeded at the summit" or some other combination of words
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- "[7][8][9][10]" - Four refs in a row is usually considered WP:OVERKILL, it might help to move one earlier in the sentence or eliminate it
- Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Great stuff and pictures, as always expected and delivered by you.--NØ 13:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: - thank you for your kind words, all the above addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude, did the edit not save? Because I am not seeing the changes in the current revision...--NØ 16:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: Like a dumb-ass I had it open in another tab but hadn't hit "save changes" LOL. Please check now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I figured as much, lol. Support and I can also pass the source review as I am familiar with the sourcing on these types of lists now. Tapestry should be italicized on ref 4, though. Cheers.--NØ 16:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I figured as much, lol. Support and I can also pass the source review as I am familiar with the sourcing on these types of lists now. Tapestry should be italicized on ref 4, though. Cheers.--NØ 16:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: Like a dumb-ass I had it open in another tab but hadn't hit "save changes" LOL. Please check now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude, did the edit not save? Because I am not seeing the changes in the current revision...--NØ 16:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: - thank you for your kind words, all the above addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Hey man im josh
[edit]Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for
I've got nothing, you stumped me! Great stuff Chris! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment by Alavense
[edit]I read the list a couple of times and I didn't find anything to point out. If anything, I'd try to find another verb to avoid using "replace" twice in replacing "It's Impossible" by Perry Como. The song held the top spot for a single week before being replaced. In any case, I'm happy to support. Great work as always, ChrisTheDude. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: - thanks for your review, I made a slight change to avoid that repetition, which I hadn't noticed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC) and Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe)
Me and Tamzin cooked up just what it says on the tin; terminology associated with the body parts of trans folks.
This is pretty heterodox form for a list, but since its main purpose is to explain and list a set of terminology, I feel it's a bit closer to the list side of things, even though it could potentially fit into either camp. A demi-list, so to speak. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Thought from QoH
[edit]Nice work on this list by both of you. I added col headers while this list was still in draft, but was reverted as "not needed". I'd think all tables should have col headers, but couldn't find any guidnance on this and would like to hear other's thoughts. Queen of Hearts (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. So, typically both row and column headers are required, but also typically the tables are more complex than two columns. Working through "how does it sound with a screen reader", the 'Attested replacement words' table is fine- it reads like "Menstruation. Menstruation: bleeding, shark week", so it's pretty clear that it's standard term: alt terms. For the 'Medical terminology' table... I think it's fine? It honestly works a bit better audibly than visually, where it sounds like "term: alt1, alt2, alt3. term2: alt4, alt5, alt3", so the repeats/merged cells on the right are clear. Visually, it's a little messy- you typically want the combined cells to be on the left and get more diffuse as you go across to the right, but the genitals/gonads combos make that messy, and column headers wouldn't make that better. I guess what I'm saying is: I think in this case it's okay to not have column headers. --PresN 14:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Source check by CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath
[edit]I will be doing a source check for this article. I will update this as I check. To be comprehensive I'm going to break down my source check by section and also include any sources I could not access.
Section | Status | Sources I couldn't access | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
Context | Verified | None | I just want to ask for clarification regarding the statement "Prior to the 2010s, there was little research on the social aspects of transgender bodies". I'm assuming you got the year 2010 from the sources cited in the reference you gave. I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something here. Otherwise I was able to access and verify all the sources used
|
Colloquial terminology | Pending | Steinbock, Eliza (2017). "Representing Trans Sexualities". In Smith, Clarissa; Attwood, Feona; McNair, Brian (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Media, Sex and Sexuality. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315168302.
Bellwether, Mira (2013). Fucking Trans Women: A Zine About the Sex Lives of Trans Women. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 9781492128939. |
I'm not able to verify the statement "Some transmasculine people refer to their clitorises as a dick or cock" from either of the sources listed in ref 9. Fielding 2021 does discuss alternative terms for the vulva but doesn't reference the clitoris or list dick or cock as alternative terms.
|
Medical terminology | Done | Rider, Nic G.; Caso, Taymy J.; Czech, Spencer; Karasic, Dan H. (2022). "Terminology in Transgender Medicine". In van Trotsenburg, Mick; Luikenaar, Rixt A. C.; Meriggiola, Maria Cristina (eds.). Context, Principles and Practice of TransGynecology: Managing Transgender Patients in ObGyn Practice. Cambridge UP. doi:10.1017/9781108899987. ISBN 9781108899987. | Was not able to access one source however the rest of the citations I was able to verify. |
Finished on August 18 2024 with one minor issue of some refs containing sources that do not contain the information the article is claiming to cite. All but 3 sources have been verified. The people working on this page did an excellent job of putting things in their own words and clearly put a lot of time and effort into this article. Well done! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support I did the source review for this article and I wanted to show my support for the article based on that. I only found one very minor sourcing issue that was immediately addressed by the nominators. I was able to access almost every single source they used. Everything was put into the writer's own words and there were no plagiarism issues. The nominators clearly put significant time into finding several unique and reliable sources. I've never voted for any featured article or list before so hopefully I did this right. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): TheBritinator (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Renominating this for FL since it's rejection several months ago. I have taken time to significantly improve it to fit the criteria, mostly taken from experience in my other successful nomination, and I believe it is now ready to reviewed again. TheBritinator (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Drive-by comments
- All images need alt texts.
- Please clarify that you've incorporated all the feedback from the last time this was nominated.
- I would remove the images from the Monarch columns. Its a bit distracting.
- Scopes need to be on the header cell. e.g. in the deputy heads table, the scope is present on the image cells. It should be on the number cell. Also, if the header cell spans multiple rows, then the scope should be "rowgroup". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I have addressed these comments. TheBritinator (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 20:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Since my other Crimea list FLN has gotten supports and FLNs generally take time, going ahead and nominating this one now to get it started. This list's content is already somewhat prepared, with a lot of it being indirectly reviewed in the past successful FLNs for list of cities in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast as well as the ongoing FLNs for Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Crimea. Together with Mykolaiv Oblast, Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts are the only oblasts with less than 10 cities so these lists will likely be somewhat shorter than the rest. That said, considering List of cities in New Brunswick was recently able to pass FLN even with only its eight cities, I'm fairly confident that this (and eventually the Mykolaiv list) will be able to be promoted too. Thanks in advance to everyone for all the feedback and excited to continue the series! :) Dan the Animator 20:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "including the cities Beryslav and Kherson" => "including the cities of Beryslav and Kherson"
- "centered on the village Oleksandrivka" => "centered on the village of Oleksandrivka"
- That's literally all I got - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed; thanks ChrisTheDude! :) Dan the Animator 21:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- Settlements with more than 10,000 people are eligible for city status although the status is typically also granted to settlements of historical or regional importance - Probably a comma missing before "although".
- the regional capital Kherson, --> the regional capital, Kherson,
- from its previous name Tsiurupynsk for Tsiurupynsk's connection - I would leave it like this: "from its previous name, Tsiurupynsk, for its connection"
- including the capital Kherson, --> "including the capital, Kherson,"
- As of 22 December 2022 - It feels as a bit of a distant date already.
- Links to Ukrainian Wikipedia articles --> "Links to the Ukrainian Wikipedia articles"
That's what I saw, Dantheanimator. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Alavense! I think I fixed all of them. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Dan the Animator 18:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits and nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a list I've been working on alongside my revamp of Mongol Empire-related articles on WP. I am indebted to the authors of List of Chinese emperors for a considerable amount of the detail, and to the authors of the FLs for the emperors of the Han dynasty and of the Song dynasty for the layout. If successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "Attempted to reduced the power of the minister Temuder" - remove the d from reduced
- "Briefly ruled before killed by El Temür" => "Briefly ruled before being killed by El Temür"
- Notes b and c need full stops
- That's all I got - awesome work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- All fixed ChrisTheDude, thanks for your time! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are two problems here, both of which I think have the same solution. The portraits don't have alt text, and the image column is the one set as the row headers but has no text to read out. Putting alt text on the images as the name of the ruler (e.g.
[[File:YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg|110px|alt=Genghis Khan]]
should sort that out, as the alt text would be read out for both cases. For the rows with no image, please add invisible text for the cell, so e.g.<span style="display:none">Oghul Qaimish</span>
. - I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 19:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- All done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Per MOS:COLHEAD, it isn't recommended to "place column headers in the middle of a table to visually separate the table". Either separate the table into two or convert that fact into a sentence or two just before the table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is already explained in prose, so I have just removed the column headers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
SnowFire
[edit]Nice work.
Prose comments (usual disclaimer that these are suggestions, not demands, feel free to decline any of them):
- The Yuan dynasty was the antepenultimate imperial dynasty of China - The lede needs to be the most tightly written section of an article, and the most accessible to casual readers. I think "antepenultimate" might be too fancy a word here for the first sentence (ngrams says it is a very rare word in modern English). I'd just remove it and say "an imperial dynasty." (Or, if you really want to bring it up, then to split off a sentence on dynasties and move it there rather than have it in the first sentence - maybe "...by Kublai Khan. It was the antepenultimate imperial dynasty of China, which succeeded the Song dynasty and preceded the Ming dynasty." But just removing it is fine too.)
- Removed.
- "subsequently split into four autonomous states" Nit: I'd suggest the wikilink better fits "split into four autonomous states", not "subsequently split" (which seems like a more mysterious wikilink).
- Good call.
- I know that "rump state" is a term of art and fine for specialists, but the Northern Yuan ruled a still fairly huge swath territory for over a century, and I wonder if the term might suggest the Northern Yuan were punier & less significant than they really were. (Like, we wouldn't say "The United Kingdom is a rump state left over from the decline of the British Empire", and the modern UK is probably smaller than the Northern Yuan. If much more densely populated, of course.) Is there a better term to use here? It can still wikilink to rump state somewhere, of course. "His descendants continued to rule a state of reduced size in Inner Mongolia until 1634 in a polity known as the Northern Yuan." perhaps?
- I'm comfortable with the current phrasing. Despite their large size, the Northern Yuan was fairly insignificant and very often not a coherent state at all.
- While on that note, in the realm of easter egg links in Ukhaghatu Khan's notes. I'd definitely assume that "a rump state" linked to the rump state article, not the N. Yuan article. I know concision is important in tables, but I'd say it's worth writing "the Northern Yuan, a rump state in Inner Mongolia."
- Done somewhat.
- Nit: On the collapse in Background... it's not a big deal, but I could see reading "Forced to flee" as something like "Toghon Temür was captured and told to go into exile" (which is incorrect). But strictly speaking, he chose to flee. Could maybe reorient the sentence to give him some more agency, like "...an economic crisis led to a breakdown of the social order. Toghon Temür fled from the powerful warlord Zhu Yuanzhang, who conquered the capital of Daidu and established the Ming dynasty in 1368." Potentially a similar change in the actual list row's entry if you agree it'd be an improvement.
- I don't think he really had much agency or choice, and prefer the current wording.
- after it ended she quickly lost influence and died This could theoretically be misread as both her loss of influence and her death as being quick, but it's just the former. Maybe add a comma after "influence"? (If that's too many commas in one sentence for taste, could remove "But" and start a new sentence.)
- No, her death was quick IIRC—just a few months after her loss of power.
- she was found complicit in their rebellion and executed. This makes it sound like she was executed as a political foe, which sounds like it was true in reality, but she was "officially" executed for witchcraft. I recognize that these are short blurbs and not full biographies but this seems kinda relevant in the same way that Joan of Arc being executed for heresy is relevant (not for supporting the "wrong" king of France). Maybe "due to her opposition of Mongke, she was found guilty of witchcraft as a pretext, and executed."?
- Somewhat adjusted.
- his legitimacy was always suspect; he attempted reconciliation by purging those who had brought him to power. This is a very dour assessment of Yesun Temur. Paludan calls him "a respected steppe ruler" and Chi-Ching writes this his post-ascension purge was a "masterstroke" at restoring his legitimacy. Neither reports revolts or coups until after he died. In other words, this was no mere "attempt" at reconciliation, and his legitimacy does not seem to have "always" been suspect. Maybe "His legitimacy under question due to the assassination that brought about his ascension. He purged the coup plotters to restore the blot on his honor." or the like? Also, both sources spend time specifically calling out Yesun Temur's commitment to government impartiality with regard to religion, which seems very cool and worth a brief sentence.
- Adjusted.
- Is it worth throwing in a link to List of emperors of the Ming dynasty somewhere? Maybe the very end of the list? Totally optional, of course (I know you could get to it from the See also link to "List of Chinese monarchs", but that one is a little more relevant as the immediate successors).
- I'd then probably have to include links to the Jin and Song dynasties. Annoyingly the infobox doesn't have appropriate parameter.
Source review:
- Any particular reason Töregene Khatun doesn't have a posthumous name listed? The WP article says it's "Empress Zhaoci (昭慈皇后)" and Moule 1957 says "Lu Huangho" (which is... really far off, that sounds like it might be a different name rather than Wade-Giles being weird). I skimmed Broadbridge 2018 but I couldn't find her discussing her posthumous name - does anyone know for sure?
- I don't think anyone does.
- Setsen Khan (i.e. Kublai) is listed as having his reign start in 1271. But Rossabi 1994 writes "Khubilai ascended to the throne in China in 1260", Moule 1957 simply writes "May 5 1260" for reign start, and Paludan 1998 says "declared himself 'Great Khan' in 1260" while holding lots of Chinese territory. Paludan does offer a later date than 1260 in her timeline on p. 148, but that's 1279 (not 1271) when he becomes emperor of "all China" and wins the war. I get that the declaration of emperorship in 1271 is worth calling out somewhere, but it seems Kublai ruled de facto earlier, and also backdated his emperorship to start then as well. (Atwood's entry on the Yuan dynasty explicitly mentions 1279 as the start date to some Chinese historians too, so definitely a date worth calling out in the notes IMO.)
- Correct, I don't know why I put 1271. Added a note.
- Was Ragibagh Emperor? Moule 1957 lists him, but Paludan 1998 says "he is not included in the official list of Emperors" and Chi-Ching does not bother to give him a section header. I'm not saying to remove him, but List of English monarchs puts Jane Grey in italics and has a big "disputed claimant" warning, which seems the closest equivalent. Maybe deserves a different shading, italics, and a "Yesun Temur loyalists acclaimed this kid was Emperor but they didn't win the ensuing civil war" disclaimer. (Irinjibal seems a less controversial inclusion, though Paludan makes a similar remark about him not being in the official list. But Irinjibal also ruled twice as long and not during an immediate conflict trying to depose him.)
- It's difficult to say much about a child who died after a month of rule. I don't see enough arguments in modern scholarship about whether he was emperor (contrasting with LJG) to justify saying he was a disputed claimant.
- Verified the Wilkinson 2012 & Broadbridge 2018 cites.
- Spot checked a few citations from Atwood 2004, looks good. (I focused most of my attention on the Yuan post-Kublai as that seems the most relevant time period for Chinese history, as the earlier rulers are presumably already well-covered by Mongol history, but checked a few here anyway.)
- Spot checked the dates from Moule 1957, looks good. (The names are in Wade-Giles so those obviously don't match the Pinyin, but that's fine, it's clearly the same names.)
- Spot-checked most of the citations to "The Cambridge History of China, Volume 6", looks good.
- Spot checked various citations to Paludan 1998, looks good. There are a few differences but they're where she differs from Moule / Cambridge (e.g. she thinks Shidibala only took the throne in 1321? But the other two say 1320. Maybe even just demote her from being cited at all there, that seems more like a mistake than intentionally disputing when he took the throne.) Well, she doesn't use a Romanization with diacritics, but I'll presume the ones in the list are accurate. Also since some leaders have different Romanizations, you obviously have to pick one (I see Cambridge was favored for "Khaishan" vs. "Haishan", etc.), so that's fine. One other nitpick: the citation for Temur Oljeitu seems to be more appropriate to p. 154-156, not 156-158?
- Adjusted the last.
Overall, great work! SnowFire (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for an exhaustive set of comments SnowFire, responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edits.
- On Toregene's death: To be clear, I mean a reading of "quick" being the manner of death, e.g. dead in her sleep or shot through the head with an arrow, vs. an agonizing 2-hour long execution or a week-long severe illness. The source didn't seem to report the manner of death at all, ergo whether it was quick or not is unknown. If I wanted to emphasize that the death was merely shortly after in time, then "quickly lost power, and died soon afterward" perhaps? But I think just a comma is still enough space. (Ultimately up to you.)
- On a List of Ming emperors link: Consistency is overrated. I say throw it in "See also" if there isn't a better place to fit it, but up to you.
- On recent edits: Why did you remove the image File:YuanEmperor Kusala.jpg Eupakistani added? I've looked at the Metropolitan Museum's description of the image, a very reliable art history source, and it seems accurate enough. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/37614 : "Prince Qoshila" as the second marking in the bottom left corner (surely "Kusala"), and "At the bottom are portraits of the patrons, from left to right: Tugh Temür, the great-grandson of Khubilai Khan, who briefly served as emperor of the Yuan dynasty, his older brother, and their wives." It looks good to me.
- Anyway, support, remaining issues above are nitpicks. SnowFire (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Another Olympic list just in time for the end of the 2024 Summer Olympics. Will probably reply a bit late for personal reasons but I promise that comments will be responded accordingly. Arconning (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Infobox image caption needs a full stop
- "While Cameroon, Mongolia, and Uganda won their nations' first Olympic medals." - this isn't a complete sentence
- "winning six medals with four gold and two silver medals." => "winning six medals with four gold and two silver." will suffice
- "won the most medals at the games, winning seven medals with two golds, four silvers, and one bronze medal." - as above, "won the most medals at the games, winning seven medals with two golds, four silvers, and one bronze." will suffice and avoid repetition
- "Two bronze medals were awarded in each boxing event after a competitor lost their semifinal, as opposed to fighting in a third place tie breaker." - this doesn't seem quite right, I suggest "Two bronze medals were awarded in each boxing event to the losing semi-finalists, as opposed to them fighting in a third place tie breaker"
- That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude I have done all of this. Let me know if you have any more. :) Arconning (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Steelkamp
[edit]- "Mexico City, Mexico" is redundant, and can be shortened to just "Mexico City".
- "These games were the first games to be held in Latin America." Change to "These were the first games to be held in Latin America."
- "and 39 of them". Is this referring to 39 nations or 39 athletes?
- "Teams from Kenya,[7] Tunisia,[8] and Venezuela won their nations' first Olympic gold medals.[9] While Cameroon,[10] Mongolia,[11][12] and Uganda won their nations' first Olympic medals." I suggest merging into once sentence: "Teams from Kenya,[7] Tunisia,[8] and Venezuela won their nations' first Olympic gold medals,[9] while Cameroon,[10] Mongolia,[11][12] and Uganda won their nations' first Olympic medals."
- "...at any edition of the Olympic Games." Can be simplified to "...in the Olympic Games."
- "He and the rest of his team were subsequently disqualified..." Simplify to "He and the rest of his team were disqualified..."
Steelkamp (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Steelkamp I believe I'm done. :) Arconning (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. Support. Steelkamp (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- The issue with the captions hasn't been solved yet. The one in the infobox needs a full stop, while those about Francisco Rodríguez and Tömöriin Artag don't.
- In the references, what does "MNOC" stand for? I think it should be "Organizing Committee of the Games of the XIX Olympiad, 1969a, p." and "Organizing Committee of the Games of the XIX Olympiad, 1969b, p.".
That's all I saw, Arconning. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense Done, I think. :) Arconning (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I added the missing full stop at the end of the infobox image's caption myself. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): SnowFire (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
As a tool for keeping track of a blizzard of events and names, I found it useful to keep a scratch timeline in a Google Doc while I was researching some of the areas in this time period. I decided to turn it into a full proper article, and, well, here we are. There's some comments on methodology on the article talk page for what events were included and which weren't (a 600 year range means that including every single loosely related item isn't feasible), but the short version is that Lester L. Grabbe's "A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period" is the most important source. It's spread across 4 volumes, and is 2100+ pages discussing just about everything of importance on the era, as well as bibliographies where various feuding scholarly opinions about whether this undated line in Josephus refers to something that happened in 145 BCE or 135 BCE or didn't happen at all. This is important when quite a lot (most?) of the dates need a "circa" around them, and have a range of scholarly estimates. This is my first nomination at FLC. SnowFire (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Airship
[edit]As always, these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to refuse with justification.
- Lead
- If information in the lead doesn't appear in the body, it needs citations (see WP:LEADCITE) e.g. "Hellenistic Judaism blended both Greek and Jewish traditions." which I can't see cited in the body.
- "A new temple to replace the destroyed Solomon's Temple was built by the returnees, and the Second Temple was finished around 516 BCE." this is a bit clunky, especially the first "a new temple".
- "The Persians were largely tolerant of Judaism. Persian rule lasted for two centuries..." these sentences could easily be combined.
- "was initially a fight for Judean autonomy against a suppression of traditional Judaism" ... by? Why aren't the Seleucids/Ptolemaics mentioned by name in the lead?
- "The revolt's success brought about the formation of an independent Hasmonean kingdom of Judea under the rule of the Hasmonean family which had led the Jewish resistance." could be trimmed à la "The revolt's success brought about the formation of an independent Hasmonean kingdom of Judea, named for the family which had led the resistance." to reduce repetition.
- "That too would end in 37 BCE" the antecedent of the "that" is "the Roman Republic", which is normally stated to end later; presumably you are referring to the end of Hasmonean rule?
- "direct Roman control by the governors of Roman Judea. Direct Roman rule of Judea ..." could be combined and condensed.
- Same for the last two sentences of the paragraph.
- Added a bullet point for Hellenistic Judaism. (That one is a little tricky in a timeline since it lasts for centuries without really a clear start date - it's not like Alexander waved a magic wand - but went with the Ptolemaic era & the Septuagint.)
- It could, but then the sentence feels too long if kept combined with the Macedonian conquest. And if we have to have two sentences, I think linking the end of Persian rule with the Macedonian conquest flows better; the short first sentence is on religion, and the longer second sentence is on politics & the regime change. Open to other suggestions, but I'd rather avoid one really long sentence.
- Honestly, I would have the lead be even shorter if I was going fully by my own preferences to avoid duplication with Second Temple period ("This is a timeline" then bam, straight to it, but FL critierion 2 expects a more detailed lead). Explaining this requires getting into the diadochi successor states which is a little too in-the-weeds for very casual readers; it was Greek rule is the important high-level thing. That said, I added a sentence giving it a shot; take a look.
- Done. (Although usual disclaimer goes here that as far as contemporary names, it's murkier as to what these polities called themselves - they probably called themselves "Judea" or the like.)
- Yes, it's the end of Hasmonean client-king status. Unfortunate that the Roman Republic ends in 31 BC and thus could possibly be confused. I rephrased it to just repeat "Hasmonean" again (oh well for it being a close repetition).
- It's a close repetition but I don't see a good way to combine it? The first sentence is talking about the complex political situation of 4 BC - 63 AD, and the second is talking about vibes. Happy to take suggestions but couldn't really find something satisfactory myself.
- Similarly, I prefer the shorter, punchier sentences here. Yes, could change the period to "...in which the Romans defeated the Jewish rebels, Jerusalem was conquered... ", but I feel the sentences are more powerful as written. End of an era, period, and then all of the bad stuff in a dramatic list.
- Persian Empire
- "of its former territories" might want to specify that includes the region of Judeah.
- Many won't know what "satrapy" means, so a gloss would be helpful.
- "existed...Persian religious policy does allow...as they do not" confusing differences in tense
- " Cambyses expands the Persian Empire further beyond Yehud" it was not previously mentioned that Yehud was the frontier.
- What's the logic behind which Achaemenid kings get their reigns highlighted?
- "Building of the new temple starts in earnest, creating the Second Temple," again clumsy, why not "The building of the Second Temple starts in earnest"?
- Fair, but I think the next bullet point covers that.
- Done.
- Standardized on simple past tense.
- Hmm, is that really a big deal though? I don't think Yehud being the frontier for a decade is really that important to discuss earlier, I don't get the impression it was a contested warzone or the like. I think the conquest of Egypt is relevant enough for a bullet point but I don't think fully "setting it up" is worth extra text earlier on the boundaries of the Neo-Babylonian Empire or the like.
- That's a great question! I was trying to focus on the ones with some relevance for Jewish history & literature. Artaxerxes is the big one because Ezra is sent in the seventh year of Artaxerxes rule, but which one is unclear. So we have to list them out. Nehemiah also worked under the reign of Artaxerxes. Darius was the king while the Second Temple was built, so I figure he's relevant to mention as well. Cyrus & Cambyses are mentioned indirectly but only via their relevant deeds, not in terms of their overall reign. Xerxes I is... awkward. He is ARGUABLY the most famous in later years culturally because later literature / adaptations of the Book of Esther generally identify him with Ahasuerus, but this is strictly a later-culture deal and almost assuredly not historical, and thus an awkward fit to a timeline. I stuck with simply saying that the Book of Esther's setting is the Persian era, which seems fair enough. Most other Persian rulers have short reigns that aren't discussed in relation to Jewish history at all.
- While on this note, the same applies to later rulers. I didn't include a full timeline of every single Roman procurator of Judea either, just the ones where something "interesting" happened and histories bother to say something relevant. Only a single Ptolemaic ruler's reign is mentioned, but it's one with something relevant to Jewish history. (The Seleucid rulers are all pretty relevant, though, at least before quasi-independence.)
- Rephrased a bit, though not quite as you suggested. (Maybe a me-thing, but this kind of positional designator is weird to do anachronistically. Like "the Second President was born on October 30, 1735" is odd, while "John Adams was born on October 30, 1735" is fine. It was just a temple being built at the time, and it only became the Second Temple As A Title In All Capitals later, in retrospect.)
- Macedonian conquest
- Looking back to a previous list I rewrote, List of cities founded by Alexander the Great, there is a disputed tradition that Alexander refounded the city of Samareia (modern Sebastia, Nablus). Might be worth mentioning?
- I'll give it a look. The timeline does mention Samaria's destruction by John Hyrcanus later, FWIW. The one awkward part is that many Jewish histories simply don't consider the Samaritans of this era Jews at all and thus wouldn't consider this that relevant. (As in, one of the festivals mentioned in Megillat Taanit is the destruction of the Samaritan Temple at Mount Gerizim. Those were not friendly relations!)
- Ptolemaic Kingdom
- Seleucid Empire
- Hasmonean kingdom
- Herodian kingdom
- Roman Judea and the Herodian tetrarchy
- Aftermath
Will continue. If you have the time/inclination, I have another historical FLC which would appreciate some reviews. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! And sure, I'll take a look. Made some replies, and the same disclaimer you made that these are just current thoughts, so feel free to disagree. SnowFire (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm quite excited to present my third Olympic medal table nomination, which is based largely on other recent nominations, such as 2020 Summer Olympics medal table, 1964 Summer Olympics medal table, and 2018 Winter Olympics medal table. I believe it meets all of our criteria and, as always, I will do my best to respond quickly and address any and all feedback or concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Phelps image caption needs a full stop
- "due to medals reallocation" => "due to medal reallocation"
- CAS should be written in full
- "The IOC has not yet redistributed the medals" - should be medal singular as this cell only relates to one DQ
- You mention Nijat Rahimov's DQ and the lack of reallocation of the medal to date in the prose, but not the other similar case......?
- "an 87th country was later awarded a medal at the 2008 Olympics, tying the record" - should probably also mention in this section that the figure for 2016 subsequently went down to 86 therefore the 2008 games now hold the record outright
- That's all I got - great work as ever, Josh! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Phelps image caption needs a full stop
– Done.Example text
– Done.CAS should be written in full
–"The IOC has not yet redistributed the medals" - should be medal singular as this cell only relates to one DQ
– Done. I was thinking "medals" because, if redistributed, the gold would go to second, the silver would go to... well... the thid place person is under investigation, but the idea is it would go to them, and so on. Hence, I was thinking of multiple reallocations. Never the less, for the time being, singular actually makes sense.You mention Nijat Rahimov's DQ and the lack of reallocation of the medal to date in the prose, but not the other similar case......?
– I've converted it to a note now, but"an 87th country was later awarded a medal at the 2008 Olympics, tying the record" - should probably also mention in this section that the figure for 2016 subsequently went down to 86 therefore the 2008 games now hold the record outright
– I've added to the note, I hope it makes things more clear.
- Thanks so much for the feedback @ChrisTheDude!! I very much appreciate it and I hope I've addressed all of your points. Please do let me know if I can do better. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @ChrisTheDude, sorry, just to follow up on this... Which version is correct? You asked me to remove a full stop from an image at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2018 Winter Olympics medal table/archive1, but you asked me to add it in this case. Both captions, the other being at 2018 Winter Olympics medal table, are formatted the same way except for the full stop. Just seeking clarity so that I can be consistent. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Image captions that are a complete sentence need a full stop e.g. "Dave Smith won the most medals at the 2064 Olympics." I misread the image caption on the 2018 article and thought it wasn't a complete sentence so didn't need one, turns out I was wrong on that. But, in short: complete sentence needs one, sentence fragment doesn't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]I'll do a source review, and add in any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: Only the SB Nation source is concerning. Nothing in my general comments that is a blocker. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
- Is the use of SB Nation appropriate, given the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#SB_Nation?
- Everything else looks like a suitable source for the info supported.
- I didn't see any issues with citation formatting.
- Spot checks on "On 18 August 2016, Kyrgyz weightlifter Izzat Artykov was stripped of his bronze medal in the men's 69 kg event after testing positive for strychnine. Luis Javier Mosquera of Colombia, who had been the fourth-place finisher before Artykov's disqualification, was moved into third place" - no issues
- Spot checks on "On 8 December 2016, the CAS disqualified weightlifter Gabriel Sîncrăian of Romania after he tested positive for exogenous testosterone and boxer Misha Aloian of Russia after he tested positive for tuaminoheptane. In the men's 85 kg weightlifting event Denis Ulanov of Kazakhstan was moved into third place. In the men's flyweight (52 kg) boxing event Yoel Finol of Venezuela was moved into second place; the released bronze medal has not been awarded to anyone." - no issues.
- Spot check on "Serghei Tarnovschi of Moldova was stripped of his bronze medal in the men's C-1 1000 metres canoeing event after testing positive for GHRP-2, a growth hormone-releasing peptide." - no issues
General comments
- "The golds are purer than any presented at all preceding Olympics." - "The golds were... " for consistency? Although I suppose "are" is true.
- I like "the mint that minted" but you may want to reword to avoid repetition.
- Hey @BennyOnTheLoose, I'm so sorry I missed your review!!! I never would have let this go long without response had I realized sooner. Anyways...
- SB Nation discussions are often tainted by the fact people widely evaluate the parent site, SB Nation, along with its hundred of sub sites (typically one for every professional team). Their main site is actually typically pretty okay and doesn't *usually* have anything significantly wrong with it. That's, in my opinion, the reason why we haven't moved to actually placing them in the unreliable source category. For that specific usage of the reference, the only thing that it's verifying is the number of people that were a part of the team. I've had a real tough time verifying how many people were on the team, and it felt relevant to call out the fact that everyone that's "independent" in that context was actually from Kuwait. Unfortinately... 2016_Summer_Olympics#Number_of_athletes_by_National_Olympic_Committee was of no help since it's unreferenced.
- As for the other two suggestions, I've made relevant changes. Thanks so much for your review! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pass for source review in light of the reply above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support as IMO the FL criteria have been met. Thanks, Hey man im josh. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Gonzo_fan2007
[edit]A total of 11,238
-> deleting "A total of" would be more conciseOverall, 87 teams
-> same thing with "overall"Host country Brazil won seven gold medals, their most at any single Summer Olympics
I often try to avoid sentences that may go out of date. I will also note that in 2020 they won 7 gold again. Maybe clarify or rewrite to state that the total of 7 was the most up to that point.winning 46 gold and 121 total medals respectively.
->The United States led the medal table both in number of gold medals won and in overall medals, winning 46 and 121 respectively.
"Respectively" means that you are listing off totals from the previous phrasing, so no need to repeat.
Just a few comments for now. Ill come back later for more. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
The design for the Olympic medals for the 2016 Summer Olympics featured the largest medals in terms of diameter of any medal presented at the Olympics.
-->The 2016 Summer Olympic medals were the largest in history.
Ok, I'm not sure what exactly to change this too. I just wanted to show that the sentence is overly complicated. "Olympics" is said 3 times, "medals" is said 3 times, and I can't think of any other way that a circle would be measured other than diameter. Recommend really tightening up.Much of the copper used in minting the bronze medals came from recycling waste from the mint itself.
"Much of" doesn't equate to 40%, per the source. I would rephrase to "a little less than half" or something more accurate. I also think this strays a little in CLOP territory:- Source:
And 40 per cent of the copper used in the bronze medals came from waste at the Mint itself.
- Article:
Much of the copper used in minting the bronze medals came from recycling waste from the mint itself.
- Recommendation:
Just under half of the copper used in the bronze medals was recycled from normal operations at the Brazilian Mint.
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Source:
- You state that the "obverse" side is Nike, while the source says the "reverse" side. I think you mean reverse.
That's all I got hey man im josh. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Explicit (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
This is the fifth list in this series that I am nominating for FL. The format is similar to the previous lists that have been promoted in this series. -- EN-Jungwon 11:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "Inkigayo implemented modifications for its measurements of albums" => "Inkigayo implemented modifications to its measurements of albums"
- "Chae-yeon was later replaced by actress Shin Eun-soo starting the February 17 broadcast." => "Chae-yeon was replaced by actress Shin Eun-soo starting with the February 17 broadcast."
- "Two other soloist had" => "Two other soloists had"
- "Singer Taeyeon had two singles rank number one on the chart in 2019;" - semi-colon at the end should be a colon (:)
- "The latter of which went on to" => "The latter of these went on to" (you can't use "which" in that way if you have started a new sentence)
- Itzy and Dalla Dalla are overlinked in the lead
- "making Itzy the artist" => "making Itzy the act" ("artist" can only be used to refer to soloists)
- "formed through the and fourth seasons" - is there a word missing there?
- "with their debut single "Flash" September 8" => "with their debut single "Flash" on September 8"
- That's it, I think! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude, all done. Thanks as always. -- EN-Jungwon 00:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- You now have "X1, formed through the fourth seasons of Produce 101 gained" - were they formed through just the fourth season? If so, remove the s from seasons. Oh, and you need a comma after produce 101 to end the clause -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude, thanks for catching that. It has now been fixed. -- EN-Jungwon 23:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- You now have "X1, formed through the fourth seasons of Produce 101 gained" - were they formed through just the fourth season? If so, remove the s from seasons. Oh, and you need a comma after produce 101 to end the clause -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- "May 5" doesn't sort properly in the table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 fixed. Should the song "%% (Eung Eung)" sort under "Eung Eung"? -- EN-Jungwon 01:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Should the song "%% (Eung Eung)" sort under "Eung Eung"?
I'm not sure, but my gut says yes.
- Support on table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 fixed. Should the song "%% (Eung Eung)" sort under "Eung Eung"? -- EN-Jungwon 01:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- till October 6, 2019 - The "2019" isn't needed there.
- IU had two singles rank at number one achieved with "Love Poem" and "Blueming". The latter of these went on to achieve a triple crown in December. Girl group Itzy achieved their first ever number one on the chart with their debut single "Dalla Dalla" - Three "achieve"s in three sentences.
- They previously accomplished the distinction the previous year with "Starry Night" - "They had previously accomplished" maybe?
- Other first time number ones - "first-time".
That's what I saw, EN-Jungwon. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The Daytona 500 is one of the crown in the jewels of NASCAR. It has been held every year since 1959 and is known as The Great American Race. 43 drivers have won this prestigious race, including some of the all time greats in Richard Petty, Bobby Allison, Dale Earnhardt, Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson, David Pearson and Cale Yarborough. All comments are welcome EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "The winner was the first race was" - typo in there
- "The 1973 oil crisis shortened by the event" - and here
- That's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Both issues have been addressed EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]I'll do a source review, and add in any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have much to say on this one, EnthusiastWorld37. Overall, great work! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @BennyOnTheLoose: Have made changes based on the points below. Let me know if there is anything else that needs addressing EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Sources
- St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture could be wikilinked
- What makes ConceptCarz a reliable source? It's been around for a long time but I couldn't see much about its editorial oversight on the site.
- Isn't it "Guinness World Records" rather than "Guinness World Book of Records"?
- Encyclopædia Britannica and Guinness have no consensus at WP:RSP. The EB entry has been written by staff and the GWR info is straightforward, so I think their use here is fine.
- Is the Tucker and Tiller ref needed at the heding of the Winners of the Daytona 500 table? It only covers up to 1994.
- Other sources all look fine for the info cited.
- I didn't see any issues with citation formatting.
- Pass for source review. All looks good now. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
General comments
- Shouldn't the wikilink at "American stock car race" exclude the "American" (i.e. be "American stock car race")?
- Looking at the source, isn't "the race has been extended through the use of overtime rules on several occasions" a bit of an understatement?
- "a large sum of money" - how about specifying the most recent amount available, rather than using this imprecise statment?
- Support: Meets the criteria in my opinion. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- In the header of the first table, "Refs." is the abbreviation of "References".
- Richard Petty's image's caption should end with a full stop, given that it is a complete sentence.
- In the header of the "By team" table, and for the sake of consistency, it should read as "Team" instead of Teams.
That's what I saw, EnthusiastWorld37. Nice work. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: Have addressed your concerns EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. This is what I meant, given that in the other tables it's Driver and Make. Please undo it if you don't like it. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Yilku1 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because Salamone is one of the most unique architects in Argentina, with a Metropolis-inspired style. I went to the library of the architecture school in my city to read the books to make this article. Yilku1 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
[edit]- What's the initial sorting order of the tables? It's not the name of the building or the date. In fact it just seems completely random..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I sorted by partidos, what would be an accepted order?.--Yilku1 (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- If that is the case, why is "General San Martín" near the bottom......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be better to sort by building name? Yilku1 (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would say that either building name or date would be the most logical things by which to sort -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- If that is the case, why is "General San Martín" near the bottom......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I sorted by partidos, what would be an accepted order?.--Yilku1 (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would also add that the sorting by coordinate is not working and that the "Notes" column should not be sortable. Broc (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is because addresses are before coordinates. Yilku1 (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
More comments
[edit]- "The majority of his work consisted mainly of" - no need to say both "the majority of" and "mainly" so get rid of one
- "he only built 2 private homes" => "he only built two private homes"
- "only projected 2 buildings" - the number should be written as a word. Also, I have no idea what you mean when you say he "projected" two buildings. This verb does not make sense in this context in English.
- Capitalisation of most of the headings is wrong. Only the first word should be capitalised.
- One address and a few dates are missing. Are these not known?
- Almost all of the notes are not full sentences so they don't need full stops. The one word note "Extension" certainly doesn't need one.
- "For the following works it can not be fully confirmed the authorship of Salamone." => "For the following works the authorship of Salamone cannot be fully confirmed." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Done The missing dates are not listed in my sources. Yilku1 (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
This year's ranking list continued to use the complicated system from the preceding years, and Steve Davis was once again far ahead of the rest. Penalties relating to violence and drugs affected the former world champions Alex Higgins and Cliff Thorburn respectively. The Smith book, a key resource for this article, is available to consult at Internet Archive, but I'm happy to provide relevant extracts from any of the sources to reviewers. As ever, all improvement suggestions are welcome. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Seasons are referred to inconsistently throughout. I can see both "The list for the 1986–87 snooker season was the first" and "It was first time since the rankings were instituted in 1976/1977"
- "as part of a six month ban imposed by the WPBSA" => "as part of a six-month ban imposed by the WPBSA"
- "In May 1988, Cliff Thorburn had two ranking points" - no need to relink and restate his full name as he was just mentioned in the last paragraph
- "Stephen Hendry won the other two" => "Hendry won the other two"
- "If there wasstill a tie" (sic) appears repeatedly in the criteria listing
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've amended the article per the points above. Let me know "if there isstill" anything to address. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review by Staraction
[edit]- All images properly sourced & licensed (AGF on self-published works)
- All images properly captioned (perhaps link Stephen Hendry again in the image caption?)
- All images have alt text
- All images relevant to the text
Support on images, nice work! Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Staraction. I've linked Hendry, as suggested. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by EnthusiastWorld37
[edit]- Please state who Gavin Lightman was
- "In April 1988," - the year should be 1987 as per The Times source
- "had earlier been found guilty in court of headbutting the tournament director at the 1987 UK Championship," - I think that was the 1986 UK Championship not the 1987 UK Championship as per the source
- "Alain Robidoux received two walkovers at the 1988 World Snooker championship" - championship should start with a capital letter in this case
- "The tournaments contributing to the 1988–89 rankings were the ranking tournaments held across two seasons" - repetition of tournaments
- "the player who earned more "Merit" points 'was the most recent season was given the higher ranking." - in the most recent season
- "the player who earned more "Merit" points was the most preceding season was given the higher ranking" - in the most preceding season
- "the player with the better performance in the previous ranking tournament was given the higher ranking, going back through ranking tournaments until the positions could be established" - same issue as the fifth point
That's all I have EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks, EnthusiastWorld37. Hopefully I've addressed those points. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Support – Note that I have a made a minor change to the list EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- "Merit" points" and "A" points". Besides, why use a capital m for Merit?
- In the "Points tariff and basis of ranking" section, what's the reason for having "the" before some of the tournaments but not for others?
- In the first table, there's Losing semi-finalist but also Losing Quarter-finalist. I would make it lower case in both cases. Same for Last 16 Loser and Last 32 Loser.
That's what I saw, BennyOnTheLoose. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Alavense. Hopefully I've addressed those points. Let me know if anyhting else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why there are three pairs of quotations marks both in "merit" points" and "A" points", BennyOnTheLoose. Is it just a typo? Alavense (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sort of... I had missed it. Hopefully now OK. thanks, Alavense. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why there are three pairs of quotations marks both in "merit" points" and "A" points", BennyOnTheLoose. Is it just a typo? Alavense (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
It's fine now. Good work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Older nominations
[edit]- Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I got to walk some of this trail and get some photos, it was awesome as a Packers fan and history buff. Hope you enjoy! As always, happy to address any concerns or issues promtly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Packers are linked in both of the first two sentences - no need for the second
- The first link is to History of the Green Bay Packers and the second link is to Green Bay Packers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nowhere does the lead state who/what the Green Bay Packers are i.e. an American football team
- Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- "All of the 25 sites have bronze commemorative plaques that connect the history of the site" - not sure what you mean by "connect the history of the site". Do you mean something like "relate to the history of the site".....?
- Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- "the plaque for Lombardi's home and the plaque for Lambeau's gravesite is located" - two plaques are mentioned so the verb should be plural
- Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the table, some of the entries in the "site" column are randomly centre-aligned
- Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review ChrisTheDude! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude, was there anything else I can address? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not based on the above, but I thought I'd just hang fire and see how the discussion below about including rationales (for want of a better term) went..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]The table needs to tell me why these sites are relevant. What is special about this church? What happened at the ballroom? Etc. Reywas92Talk 14:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Reywas92, the sources don't provide this information. The only place I could get this information is my physically visiting each plaque or by purchasing Christl's book, which unfortunately isn't available on Amazon.com. You could maybe make the case that I could just do some standalone research and infer why each one is significant to the Packers, but imho that pushes OR a bit too much (I would be inferring why each site was placed on the trail). I am just providing what is currently available via sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- [1] and [2] have images of the plaques. Citing these or the plaques directly would not be OR. Reywas92Talk 16:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm struggling with the size of the table. Would a new section of text explaining the sites be agreeable to you? Maybe expand the last paragraph of the lead? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think all the sites should have a blurb even if only a few words, so that's better in the table than a paragraph. It's not that big a table – or perhaps the coordinates could be moved under the addresses. Reywas92Talk 13:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will get to this in the next few days Reywas92. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reywas92, I have completed the above. Please let me know if you have any other comments or concerns. Appreciate the recommendation. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will get to this in the next few days Reywas92. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think all the sites should have a blurb even if only a few words, so that's better in the table than a paragraph. It's not that big a table – or perhaps the coordinates could be moved under the addresses. Reywas92Talk 13:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm struggling with the size of the table. Would a new section of text explaining the sites be agreeable to you? Maybe expand the last paragraph of the lead? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- [1] and [2] have images of the plaques. Citing these or the plaques directly would not be OR. Reywas92Talk 16:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the descriptions. I made a couple small edits. The plaque location and significance columns don't need to be sortable. I'd also suggest either merging the plaque location into the address column or the coordinates into either of those, but it's not a must-do. Otherwise support. Reywas92Talk 14:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reywas92, thank you for your support. I made the columns unsortable. I'll keep looking at the possibility of merging columns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Hey man im josh
[edit]Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Consider adding the
{{Use mdy dates|August 2024}}
template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been- Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why is the first item in the list not numbered? It also does not have a row scope
- It is not numbered in the source. The Plaza is not a heritage site, rather it is the commemorative "summary" of the Trail.
- Quite a few sites are not actually proper names and should not be capitalized in the "site" column, please work to convert some of these to sentence case. "Vince Lombardi's Home" for example should be lowercase.
- I am matching the source here. Seeing as they are formal titles of heritage sites along the trail, I am not sure what takes precedence. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Current item #18, Packers Practice Fields doesn't have an address, just a street, in the table, but the source shows an address
- Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Same as the above, but for item #21 (Indian and Acme Packing Plants)
- Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Using your regular reference formatting, shouldn't "GoPressTimes.com", a newspaper, be formatted as "The Press Times" instead? I recognize they don't have an article, at least that I could find, but this would match your typical formatting
- Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Responded above Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonzo fan2007:
- Perhaps we can consider a footnote or something for the number column? Or rename it to site number or something similar?
I am matching the source here. Seeing as they are formal titles of heritage sites along the trail, I am not sure what takes precedence.
– My understanding, and I'd love to be corrected if I am wrong, is that we would try to lowercase where appropriate when promoting to FA or FL.
- I think those are the last two things to iron out :) Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I changed it to "Site #" and lower cased the ones that were more descriptive titles. Let me know if that works Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, I just wanted to let you know that I have added a few sources since you completed the source review. Not sure if you want to reconfirm the source review or not. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me still, no issues. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, I just wanted to let you know that I have added a few sources since you completed the source review. Not sure if you want to reconfirm the source review or not. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I changed it to "Site #" and lower cased the ones that were more descriptive titles. Let me know if that works Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonzo fan2007:
- EN-Jungwon
- "relating to the history of the Green Bay Packers, an American football in the National Football League (NFL)". Is this meant to say an American football team
- There is a stray curly bracket in the table "17}"
-- EN-Jungwon 11:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- EN-Jungwon, fixed both. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- EN-Jungwon 00:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- EN-Jungwon, fixed both. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it is an unusually specific type of episode list. Most episode lists cover all episodes of a programme, or are split by year/season. However, this specific list covers a very narrowly specific group of episodes and I thought it would make an interesting featured list. I've spent a bit of time improving sources, and expanding the prose, and feel that it would make a great addition to Wikipedia's featured content. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- As the lead mentions "1963-1989" and "since 2005" I think you should clarify that the show was off the air for the years in between
- Also, I would put the 1963-1989 bit before the since 2005 bit
- "held a record for the highest watched BBC drama from its broadcast until 2021" - this is a misrepresentation of the source. The source says the Line of Duty episode was the highest-viewed drama episode since the Dr Who episode, but it doesn't state that prior to this the Dr Who episode was the most viewed of all time. Indeed, at the point of its broadcast Voyage wasn't even the most-viewed Dr Who episode of all time (see City of Death#Broadcast and reception), let alone the most-viewed episode of any BBC drama ever. This applies to both the lead and body.
- "During the third season, the twelve-part serial The Daleks' Master Plan was broadcast weekly over the 1965–1966 Christmas period" - this makes it sound like all 12 episodes were broadcast over Christamas, which obviously isn't the case
- "When Doctor Who was revived in 2005 with Russell T Davies acting as showrunner the first proper" => "When Doctor Who was revived in 2005, with Russell T Davies acting as showrunner, the first proper"
- "A special episode aired on New Year's day in 2010" - capital D on Day
- "Moffat also returned to pen the 2024 special, "Joy to the World" being the first time the incumbent showrunner did not write the holiday special" => "Moffat also returned to pen the 2024 special, "Joy to the World", marking the first time that the incumbent showrunner did not write the holiday special"
- Rose is not linked or given a surname in the first episode description, even though other characters are
- Tenth Doctor is linked multiple times but not on first usage
- Same goes for the TARDIS
- "warns Wilfred to arm himself to before departing" => "warns Wilfred to arm himself before departing"
- "The Doctor and Wilfred become fugitives from the Masters" - plural?
- "He also crates" => "He also creates"
- "realises that Clara is the same person as Oswin Oswald" - could do with explaining who she was
- "in exchange the return of the Captain" => "in exchange for the return of the Captain"
- Link Jack Harkness
- "They rejoin with her companions." => "They rejoin her companions."
- "Ruby witnesses goblins kidnap the baby" => "Ruby witnesses goblins kidnapping the baby"
- "when it was beat by the sixth series finale of Line of Duty" => "when it was beaten by the sixth series finale of Line of Duty"
- "while others have named the best to be "The Runaway Bride",[27][28] "Last Christmas",[29][30] and "The Husbands of River Song"." => "while others have named the best to be "The Runaway Bride",[27][28] "Last Christmas",[29][30] or "The Husbands of River Song"." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Thanks once again for the review! I believe I've addressed everything. The episode summaries are transcluded from their respective series articles, which is why somethings are/aren't linked where they typically are. For that reason, I added a note for the Clara Oswin Oswald explanation, which should help satisfy that comment since it didn't need the full explanation there (the summary for Asylum of the Daleks summary is just a few episodes above on Doctor Who series 7).
- I had been working on a Line of Duty article before I wrote this, hence why the wrong information was added. I was attempting to briefly explain it, without going into as much detail as I did on Line of Duty series 6. Just for reference, The original source I had in this article actually addressed LoD 6.6, not 6.7, and from what it reads, that episode only had "average 11 million" (or 10.9 million) viewers and actually didn't exceed VotD's 11.7. It's just saying that nothing had reached that high since 2008's special. And this source specifically states that LoD 6.7 was "the most watched episode of any drama since modern records began in 2002, not including soaps", which (when simplifying) is where the accidental misrepresentation likely came in. I ultimately removed it here, just because going into that much detail seemed out of scope. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Hey man im josh
[edit]Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Can you improve the alt text for the image beyond "DVD cover art"? At least say what it's the DVD cover art of.
- "story-arc" should be "story arc"
- Ref 1 – Website is not "BBC Doctor Who website", recommend changing the source of this to BBC One
- Ref 13 – Not seeing how the source is BBC Three here. Probably better to use BBC iPlayer.
- Ref 21 – Uses "Cultbox.co.uk" whereas refs 12 and 24 just use "CultBox"
- Ref 21 – No author listed, one mentioned at source
- Ref 25 – Change The Associated Press to just Associated Press
- Ref 27 – Item 4 in there should be changed from Screenrant to Screen Rant
- Ref 29 – Change "The Pop Verse" to PopVerse. This also lists a different publish date than what's used in the article
- Why should we treat "The Doctor Who Companion" as a reliable source? Seems to be a WordPress blog.
- Why should we treat "Doctor Who News" as a reliable source? It seems all of the ratings rely on this, whereas there's likely better sources that could be used.
- Why should we treat "Nerdgazm" as a reliable source? I see they have editors listed, but I'm not exactly sold on them
- Archives should be added to a number of these links where possibly
Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: I believe I've addressed most everything.
- Ref 13 specifically uses {{Cite episode}} which asks for the network the episode first aired on. For Doctor Who: Unleashed that's both BBC Three and iPlayer so I added iPlayer but left Three as well.
- Perhaps @Alex 21: can help me out really quick for the reliability of Doctor Who News? I recall there being a semi-recent discussion on it, but I can't seem to locate it. Overnight ratings seem to be covered pretty widely, but from a quick search on the three most recent Christmas specials, I didn't' seem to find any better sources. I can do a deeper dive if need-be, Broadcast usually covers them, but it would take a minute to dig around there, so I'll wait and see if Alex has something to say first. I do know that Doctor Who News has passed through a significant number of GA's, including the series and some episode articles, all by separate independent reviewers. It's also been used in other featured content as well (here, here, here, and here).
- I replaced The Doctor Who Companion with DWN also pending Alex's response, but will look for something else if need be. Nerdgazm was removed as the sentence that supported had more that reference. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TheDoctorWho: Thanks for the reply. I looked at the other featured content that you mentioned and all of it was promoted 15+ years ago. Given how our standards have drastically changed since those times, I don't feel comfortable using those as a point in favour of accepting DWN. It looks like that's the only thing we have left to address, so I'll wait for Alex's response or for a link to a relevant discussion (please ping when replying). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: Doctor Who News has been phased out in this article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TheDoctorWho: Thanks for the reply. I looked at the other featured content that you mentioned and all of it was promoted 15+ years ago. Given how our standards have drastically changed since those times, I don't feel comfortable using those as a point in favour of accepting DWN. It looks like that's the only thing we have left to address, so I'll wait for Alex's response or for a link to a relevant discussion (please ping when replying). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Support. Good stuff! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- was release
- Doctor Who, along with other television series in the Whoniverse, have occasionally broadcast - It should be "has".
- I think the paragraph which explains what the show is about should be placed further above, immediately after the introductory one.
- Richard Riley, a Biostatistics professor at the University of Birmingham conducted - A comma is missing.
- the first episode of another spin-off, The Sarah Jane Adventures was broadcast - A comma is missing.
- encounters a man calling himself "the Doctor" and his companion Rosita Farisi, attempting to capture a Cybershade - I don't think there's need for that comma.
- the miserly Kazran Sardick who refuses - A comma is missing.
- but, the - No need for that comma.
- that escapes - "which".
- The Doctor has been imprisoned for a number of decades is set free by Jack Harkness - That sentence doesn't quite make sense.
- The Doctor, Yaz and Dan - The Oxford comma has been used throughout, so it would be better to make it consistent and use it here as well.
That's what I saw, TheDoctorWho. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: I believe that I have addressed everything. Thanks for the review!
TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your edits, TheDoctorWho, and nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Lapadite (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Revisiting this nomination. I've had time now to properly address the previous recommendations, as well as update the formatting to comply with recent FL standards and update the references. This film is widely acclaimed and has made many best of lists. It received nominations from all major awards. Most of its award wins were from critics and festival organizations, so the lead focuses on that in the final paragraph. Lapadite (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "Carter Burwell score" => "Carter Burwell's score"
- "The actresses also received Screen Actors Guild Award nominations" - in the image caption you call them the more gender neutral "actors"......?
- Palm Springs International Film Festival awards for Blanchett and Mara sort incorrectly in the recipient column
- "Organizations without a Wikipedia page are not included in the list of accolades" => "Organizations without a Wikipedia article are not included in the list of accolades"
- That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done, thank you. Glad to have fresh eyes on this finally, my eyes burn from working on it for too long hah. Lapadite (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- MPGuy2824
- For cells like "AACTA Awards" which span multiple rows, the scope should be "rowgroup", not "row".
- A few refs are missing archive links.
- "Organizations without a Wikipedia article are not included in the list of accolades." Replace "Organizations" with a word that encompasses film festivals, orgs and awards. e.g. "AARP Movies For Grownups Awards" is an award managed by the org AARP.
- That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: Thanks, added the missing archives. I left "organizations" there as awards from the industry, critic groups, film festivals, and AARP are all from organizations; but then there are also magazine awards and one from Frankfurt Book Fair, which appears to be a business/commercial entity. Do you have a suggested term, or should that note be removed?
- Regarding the scope parameter, several of the recent FLs I looked at didn't use "rowgroup" (Dunkirk, Black), that's why I left it like that. Before I start changing all the scope's here please let me know if "rowgroup" is necessary or optional. Lapadite (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding "organization", I think you can remove the note.
- Regarding rowgroup, MOS:DTAB says it is needed: " Use ...
! scope="rowgroup" rowspan="2" |
if a row header spans a group of rows, adjusting the span count as needed." -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)- @MPGuy2824: Removed and done. Lapadite (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. If interest and time permit, please comment at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: Removed and done. Lapadite (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Another Ukraine oblast city list; this uses a similar format to the one from List of cities in Donetsk Oblast, and its northern counterpart and FL, List of cities in Luhansk Oblast, and is also an oblast of which the majority of its territory (and cities) is occupied by Russian troops. Much of the formatting and prose was honed in Dantheanimator's FLC entry Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities in Donetsk Oblast/archive1, and thus should be mostly fine already. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "Russian forces occupied all cities located in the Berdiansk, Melitopol, and Vasylivka raions, and three cities in Polohy Raion" - any reason why Raion is capitalised at the end there, when it isn't anywhere else?
- That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Raion is capitalized at the end because it is part of the name of the district (i.e. Polohy Raion and not Polohy raion), and not before as it is a common noun and only a descriptor, not trying to act as a part of the name of either of the three mentioned raions. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying, now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Raion is capitalized at the end because it is part of the name of the district (i.e. Polohy Raion and not Polohy raion), and not before as it is a common noun and only a descriptor, not trying to act as a part of the name of either of the three mentioned raions. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Suggestions
[edit]As stated in the nom, a lot of the content is derived from the already promoted FL List of cities in Luhansk Oblast and the currently open FL List of cities in Donetsk Oblast so a lot of the material in this list has gone through considerable oversight/editing. I also went ahead with the support of Flemmish Nietzsche and fixed/improved everything I noticed in the article (mostly just minor things like ce and expanding refs). That said, here's the only thing I could think of to suggest adding:
- When viewing the list from desktop, at least from my laptop device, it looks like there's enough space for one additional image next to the table. I think this is completely optional but I feel like it would be a great addition to include this image of Enerhodar with a caption along the lines of "Enerhodar, fourth most populous city and site of the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant"
Having thoroughly reviewed the page and having a deep familiarity with the quality of the content, I support promoting this to FL! Thanks Flemmish Nietzsche for your work on this list!! :) Dan the Animator 20:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Image added. I also made a minor change to one of your edits, as the two captured cities specifically mentioned, Meltitopol and Berdiansk, are not in Polohy Raion, (the last mentioned raion where Russia has captured cities) but as the "including" refers to all prior mentioned occupied raions, are actually in the eponymous Melitopol and Berdiansk raions. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Flemmish Nietzsche! About the wording for that sentence, how does this sound?
After 24 February 2022, during Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian forces occupied three cities in Polohy Raion, and all cities located in the Berdiansk, Melitopol, and Vasylivka raions. In the oblast's occupied territory, de facto Russian officials use the same five raions as Ukraine, while Melitopol (the oblast's most populous city controlled by Russia) serves as the capital for the Russian administration.
- I don't think its necessary to explicitly state that Melitopol and Berdiansk are occupied by Russia since that's already indicated by the previous sentence (e.g. "all cities located in Berdiansk, Melitopol" includes Berdiansk & Melitopol). Also don't think it's necessary either to say in the lead that they're the third and second most populous cities considering the table already shows this clearly.
- For the reasons mentioned on my last reply on the article talkpage, its useful to state that Russian officials use the same subdivisions so I added in that part. I haven't done the most thorough source search but I think this source (taken from ref #56 under the Administrative divisions subsection in Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast) should be sufficient to verify/support the claim about Russia using the same five raions. Let me know what you think about the above and please ping me on reply for anything! Cheers, Dan the Animator 03:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Flemmish Nietzsche added in the above edit here since this' been here a while but feel free to let me know if it should be changed at all. Dan the Animator 20:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Flemmish Nietzsche! About the wording for that sentence, how does this sound?
- Nominator(s): Tone 06:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Pharaohs! Pyramids! And ... ancient whales, wow! Egypt has 7 WHS and a series of tentative sites. Standard style. The nomination for Argentina is already seeing support so I am adding a second nomination. Tone 06:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Alavense
[edit]- "The latter is also the only natural site in Egypt, the other sites are listed for their cultural properties" --> "The latter is also the only natural site in Egypt, the other sites being listed for their cultural properties"
- Is the capitalisation really needed in "Ruins of town of Elephantine" and "Stone quarries and Unfinished obelisk"?
- "around the tomb of Menas of Alexandria who died in 296" - A comma is missing.
- No need for the capital c in "Classical antiquity".
- "Mount Horeb - the place where" - Use {{endash}}.
- "the latter has been listed as a World Heritage Site in 2002" - That one should also by preceded by an {{endash}}.
- "It was first used by Sneferu of the Fourth Dynasty who constructed the Bent Pyramid" - A comma mising before "who".
- "and statues.|"
- In "The monasteries of the Arab Desert and Wadi Natrun", the description reads a bit convoluted. Maybe something along the lines of "Other monasteries include those of Saint Paul the Anchorite, Saint Pishoy" and so on?
- Shouldn't it be "a 30-inch reflecting telescope"?
- The references are used not only for the description, but also for the other columns, so I think it would make more sense to have them isolated in another column to the right of the description.
That's all I saw. Thanks for your dedication to the list, Tone. Kind regards. Alavense (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed, thanks! As for references, the table is already rather busy, so additional column would make it worse, stylistically. I think it is rather clear for the reader what they refer to. The capitalizations are per source. The rest I've fixed. Tone 07:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Support. Alavense (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- MPGuy2824
- "The monuments are: Abu Simbel (commissioned by Ramesses II, relocation pictured), New Amada, New Wadi Sebua, New Kalabsha, the Philae temple complex (on Agilkia Island, from Greco-Roman period), Qubbet el-Hawa (Old and Middle Kingdom Tombs), Ruins of the town of Elephantine, Stone quarries and Unfinished obelisk, the Monastery of St. Simeon, and the Fatimid Cemetery."
- "It was a major city during the Islamic Golden Age and beyond," It isn't clear if beyond means before the golden age OR after OR both.
- "The main buildings were constructed in".
- "stability of the clay-based soils," Also end this sentence with a full stop.
- "oldest Christian monastery still in function" to "oldest functioning Christian monastery"
- wikilink "oracle temple"
- "comprises the Temple of Serabit Khadem"
- "military expeditions in both ways" to "military expeditions in both directions"
- "Feiran Oasis has" to "The Feiran oasis"
- "to the dorcas gazelle" in two places
- wikilink "humid periods".
- plularize "dugong".
- There seems to be a lot of overlap between "Southern and Smaller Oases, the Western Desert" and "Kharga Oasis and the Small Southern Oases", An explanatory note would be good here.
- That's all I got. Please ping me when you fix these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done, thanks! Great comments. Tone 14:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done, thanks! Great comments. Tone 14:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "First sites in Egypt were listed in 1979" => "The first sites in Egypt were listed in 1979"
- "The latter is also the only natural site in Egypt" => "The latter is the only natural site in Egypt"
- "resulting in threats to structural integrity of the monuments" => "resulting in threats to the structural integrity of the monuments"
- "Main monuments date from the period from 1500 to 1000 BCE" => "The main monuments date from the period from 1500 to 1000 BCE"
- "Ruins of the town of Elephantine," => "the ruins of the town of Elephantine,"
- "Stone quarries and Unfinished obelisk," => "stone quarries and an unfinished obelisk,"
- "The latter has been listed as a World Heritage Site in 2002" => "The latter was listed as a World Heritage Site in 2002"
- "on a mountain at the height of 2,150 m (7,050 ft)" => "on a mountain at a height of 2,150 m (7,050 ft)"
- "The complex contained two basilicas, an oil press, rooms for monks, and was surrounded by defensive walls" > "The complex contained two basilicas, an oil press and rooms for monks, and was surrounded by defensive walls"
- "Alexandria was founded in 332 BCE by Alexander the Great and was an important centre of arts and learning in Classical Antiquity," => "Alexandria was founded in 332 BCE by Alexander the Great and was an important centre of arts and learning in classical antiquity,"
- "There used to be a large lake in the Antiquity" => "There used to be a large lake in antiquity" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed all, thanks! I was not sure about the Nubian monuments capitalizations but since you are the second reviewer that pointed that out, I fixed is as suggested. Tone 08:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]I see this on the source reviews needed list. Just taking a look at the lede & the heritage sites for now, not the tentative list.
Prose (usual disclaimer that these are suggestions, not demands, feel free to decline):
- There are a lot of parenthetical comments in the lede. I've used those myself in the lede to introduce technical terms, but I'm not sure they're really required here? Why not just use sublists and semicolons? e.g. "of monuments such as architectural works, monumental sculptures, and inscriptions; groups of buildings; and sites, including archaeological sites."
- Wadi Al-Hitan is the most important fossil site to study the evolution of cetaceans from terrestrial to marine mammals. The source says demonstrate the evolution of whales. This phrasing makes it sound like you have to actually be in the valley to study them, rather than safely back at the air-conditioned lab. Maybe rephrase to "the study of" or the like? something like "The fossils at Wadi Al-Hitan are key evidence in the study of the evolution of cetaceans from terrestrial to marine mammals"? Up to you.
Sources:
- This is the biggest, overarching one. This list is entirely 100% sourced to UNESCO itself (Which then has a big disclaimer about how "The sole responsibility for the content of each Nomination file lies with the State Party concerned."). I guess the argument is that UNESCO knows what its heritage sites are and why it marked them as such, so they are the best source possible, but it's a little shaky. I get that this is a list, not prose, but I highly doubt UNESCO would talk about any controversies in this list, as an example, or cite a rival country saying that their valley is even better for documenting whales. Are there any secondary sources talking about UNESCO and Egypt together? If so, do they offer anything interesting that the UNESCO website doesn't currently? If not, it may be fine, but we should at least look first.
- Egypt accepted the convention on 7 February 1974, making its historical sites eligible for inclusion on the list. First off, "accepted" and "ratified" are not quite synonyms. Both the source and https://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ explicitly indicate "ratified." Second, no it didn't make its historical sites eligible for inclusion. There wasn't a procedure yet, and it wouldn't be until later that the rules for eligibility were even created (see List of World Heritage Sites by year of inscription). I would just say something like "was the second country to ratify the Convention" which is true and neat, sourced to the webpage linked above.
- Memphis doesn't check out. The website says (i)(iii)(vi) but the row says i, v, vi - typo, or are there conflicting sources that need reconciling?
- The Notes blurb for Historic Cairo says that "the historical part is well preserved". But Islamic_Cairo#Preservation_status says that this is pretty much false. Even UNESCO's own blurb, which is being used as the source, talks about "huge challenges", "neglect and lack of intervention", and "highly vulnerable". I'm cherry-picking here, but I'm not sure this Notes is an accurate summation of the situation. But this goes to the above question - should this table be strictly summarizing what UNESCO's writeup says (even if hypothetically including "aspirational" claims it would not be diplomatic to point out?)? Or the actual reality on the ground?
- This one isn't your fault, but it's a little weird our article on the Nubian monuments is at a title of "International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia" rather than "Nubian Monuments" or the like. You'd think the monuments would be more important and lasting than the campaign. SnowFire (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 08:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating the 2024 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 ceremonies were written. Please note that this list has been greatly rewritten since the first unsuccessful nomination to format it similar to the other Oscar ceremony pages that were promoted to featured list status. Birdienest81talk 08:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "Raj and Hamish have been incredible Oscars collaborators" - Hamish hasn't been mentioned in the body so clarify here who he is
- "Comedian and journalist Amelia Dimoldenberg served as a social media and red carpet correspondent where she interviewed nominees at events including the Oscars nominees lunch and hosted" - "where" doesn't really work after the bit before so I suggest "Comedian and journalist Amelia Dimoldenberg served as a social media and red carpet correspondent, interviewing nominees at events including the Oscars nominees lunch and hosting"
- "In September 2020, the Academy announced that starting with the 96th awards, all films" => "In September 2020, the Academy announced that, starting with the 96th awards, all films"
- "which involves creative heads in an films production" => "which involves creative heads in a film's production"
- "In addition, Academy FAQs stated that British films that have complied with the British Film Institute's inclusion and diversity standards will also be deemed" => "In addition, Academy FAQs stated that British films that have complied with the British Film Institute's inclusion and diversity standards would also be deemed"
- "Furthermore with its win for Best Picture, Oppenheimer became" => "Furthermore, with its win for Best Picture, Oppenheimer became"
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Done -- I have read your comments and have made the suggested changes as noted in your feedback.
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey man im josh
[edit]Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Ref 3 – Needs a date
- Ref 31 – Add Associated Press as the agency
That's all I've got, good stuff. Ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: Done -- I've made the corrections based on your comments.
- --Birdienest81talk 08:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I really struggled to critique anything, this is very well sourced. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- --Birdienest81talk 08:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Sgubaldo
[edit]- Does Ref. 23 have a url or something that can be linked?
- Unfortunately, there is no URL or webpage that links to the description/rationale as to why said person is receiving the award. The description is currently based on the Oscars official ceremony program pamphlet of which copies were once sold at the Academy Museum Store's website (see here) but have been since sold out.
- Add an archive link for Ref. 22?
- Done: Added archive link
- Italicise "In Memoriam" (to this ==> In Memoriam) in the section heading and the first sentence ("The "In Memoriam" tribute, which featured....")? I'm not familiar with these lists, but that's how I've seen it displayed in the other FLs you've listed.
- Hmmm, I'm not very sure about this. According to Joeyconnick, non-English language words in this context should have quotation marks rather than be italicized. I don't remember the exact policy based on the Manual of Style, but he does.
- "In memoriam" is Anglicized (as in, it's not considered a foreign phrase as it appears in English-language dictionaries as a loanword or I guess loanphrase in this case) per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. So it's not italicized as a foreign phrase. As a minor work (i.e. part of/a segment of a TV show/special/program), it is rendered in quotations per MOS:MINORWORK. Hope that helps. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Could Ref. 25 be moved into Ref. 24?
- Done
- In response, Kapoor and Mullan released a statement saying, "As a Canadian boy of South Asian descent and a girl from London who grew up watching the Oscars, dreaming of being part of it, this is a 'pinch me' moment!” said Kapoor and Mullan. “This has been an exceptional year for the movies, and it's an absolute privilege to be leading the team celebrating the global film industry and the astounding talents that bring these cinematic stories to life. We're dedicated to making it a remarkable celebration for all." ==> You might need to remove 'said Kapoor and Mullan'.
- Done: Removed phrase since it is implied Kapoor and Mullan said the quote at the beginning, and therefore, it is redundant to mention them again.
Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Sgubaldo: I've read your comments and have made to respective corrections to them or have responded to them.
- --Birdienest81talk 20:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll wait for Joeyconnick's response on the quotation marks vs italics issue, and then I can support. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support, but perhaps go back through the various ceremony pages and retroactively fix the quotations/italics issue. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Sgubaldo: I've read your comments and have made to respective corrections to them or have responded to them.
- Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keeping up with my trend of getting ice hockey lists to FL, this time, I'm doing Coachella Valley Firebirds players. I think this list meets all the criteria. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- I would change "54 players, 8 goaltenders and 46 skaters (forwards and defenseman), have worn a Firebirds jersey in at least one regular season game" to "54 players have worn a Firebirds jersey in at least one regular season game, comprising 8 goaltenders and 46 skaters (forwards and defenseman)," to remove any potential confusion that it's 54+8+46 rather than 54=8+46
- "The Firebirds have yet to win the Calder Cup." => "The Firebirds have yet to win the Calder Cup, the trophy awarded to the AHL champions."
- "who is "the only team members" - not grammatically correct
- That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding
!scope=col
to each header cell, e.g.!style="background-color:#FF670C; color:#000000;"rowspan="2"|Skater
becomes!scope=col style="background-color:#FF670C; color:#000000;" rowspan="2"|Skatery
. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use!scope=colgroup
instead. - Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding
!scope=row
to each primary cell, e.g.! {{sortname|Max|Andreev}}*
becomes!scope=row | {{sortname|Max|Andreev}}*
. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use!scope=rowgroup
instead. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 22:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @PresN: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Except for Name, Nat, Seasons and Notes, the other column headers don't need rowspans at all. Please remove them
- Each row has a bgcolor set to white, which can be removed.
- There is only one note across both tables. You can make it into a normal footnote and eliminate the column completely. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: I have made the changes. I do feel that keeping the notes column is necessary, because as the Firebirds play more games, there will be more award winners, captains, and (hopefully) Calder Cup winners on the team. XR228 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I assume that the source for the tables is hockeydb.com. You can make it clearer by adding a citation to each table's caption.
- Every note will require a ref.
- Support in advance since I trust that you'll get these done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: I have made the changes. If you are able, could you look at my other FL nom? It's been like 23 days since someone commented on it. XR228 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since that FLC has two prose supports and seems old enough, I added it to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/backlog/items. Somebody should come along to get that done in a few days. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. XR228 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since that FLC has two prose supports and seems old enough, I added it to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/backlog/items. Somebody should come along to get that done in a few days. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: I have made the changes. If you are able, could you look at my other FL nom? It's been like 23 days since someone commented on it. XR228 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: I have made the changes. I do feel that keeping the notes column is necessary, because as the Firebirds play more games, there will be more award winners, captains, and (hopefully) Calder Cup winners on the team. XR228 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): PresN 15:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Back with another mammal list, #42, and we turn the page to the 2nd-to-last order of mammals: Chiroptera, or bats! I took a break before starting this to adjust the scripts I use to generate the initial tables to make it easier on myself to deal with recent taxonomic revisions, and also went out and bought a 10-pound, 800-page reference book so that I can stop pawing through google books results. The result is bat family #1/20: the hipposiderids. This list follows conventions for the previous lists, with two changes: these bats all eat roughly the same things, so it's just listed in the lede instead of every single row; and I've added the arm/wing length, because it's relevant to flying creatures (and I had a consistent source!). In any case, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "A member of this family is called an hipposiderid" - is it really "an" hipposiderid? Not "a".....?
- Maybe link "cicada"? Not sure this is a commonly understood word on a global level.....
- That's all I got - awesome work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Done and done, thanks! --PresN 16:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey man im josh
[edit]- Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for
Looks good! Support Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the list of governors of Nigeria's state of Edo from when the region was called Mid-Western renamed to Bendel and then splitted into Edo and Delta, this is focusing on Edo. I have significantly worked on this and think it meets the criteria for FL. This list looks very similar to other lists of governors. Feedbacks would be greatly appreciated. This would be part of the ongoing Developing Countries Wiki Contest which I am participating in. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Vanderwaalforces: You haven't completed step 5 of the nomination procedure laid out in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Whoops, done, thanks for pointing out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- MPGuy2824
- The party colors in the Edo state table make no sense without a legend. Alternatively, you can move the party color next to the party name and skip the legend.
- When images aren't there for a particular person, you can add a centered emdash.
- Some of the refs are missing archive links.
- In order to avoid cluttering the table with references, you could move them all to a new column at right-end of the table.
- Every image should have alt text. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Please can you suggest how I can add a legend? Where to place it? templates I can use? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you are going with that option, you can either use {{Legend}} or just a normal table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Oh, I think there's no need for that. Because I just put the colours before the party names. That makes sense now. Do you think the table is currently cluttered with refs right now? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I just put the colours before the party names
Yup, no need to add a legend now.Do you think the table is currently cluttered with refs right now?
I had noticed refs in quite a few columns at the time, but now I see that each ref is supporting a particular piece of data. I think this is fine as is. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Oh, I think there's no need for that. Because I just put the colours before the party names. That makes sense now. Do you think the table is currently cluttered with refs right now? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you are going with that option, you can either use {{Legend}} or just a normal table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Please can you suggest how I can add a legend? Where to place it? templates I can use? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- SnowFire
Nice work. However, I'm not so certain on the prose. I made some sample edits to the lede that you should feel free to adjust to try to "tell a story" more, as the old lede bounced around in time. In general, it's not good to replicate the table in prose - it's better to indicate something that isn't already in the table, ideally, rather than just name-drop people. A few other questions:
- Was Osadebay's title really "Civilian Premier"? https://nigeriareposit.nln.gov.ng/items/fd2b27ce-45c7-4a60-9459-afcd4fc9a566 just calls him "premier" and that seems an unusual title.
- Similarly, it'd be one thing if this was only post-1991 leaders, but being that the earlier pre-1991 stuff is included... the obvious starting point seems like it'd be independence, but the article doesn't discuss 1960-1963 at all. How was the region organized in that period? Even if the answer is "as an insignificant part of a much larger unit" or "not at all", it would still be good to mention what structure did exist.
- Feel free to restore if it's a quirk of Nigerian English, but I don't think "civilian" titles are used typically on Wikipedia per MOS:CREDENTIAL. It's fine to mention military titles mostly to quickly signify the role was military, but "Prof." or "Dr." is more questionable unless it's also a COMMONNAME.
- Why is "Deputy governors represented the same party as their governor." a footnote to the Deputy column? That seems like something more for prose in the table introduction to explain the role of Deputy Governor.
- First, I'm not sure the birth & death dates for governors is really relevant to include at all, but I know lots of similar lists include it, so if you want to include it that's fine. That said... I'm not a fan of ???? for unknown dates. Just omit them, IMO (but feel free to push back if this is in fact the standard). And is Baba Adamu Iyam really dead at an unknown year? His article suggests he is alive. SnowFire (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @SnowFire
- I removed the Civilian
- I am confident that this list is as concise and inclusive as it should be right now. I don't want to come up with information I have no source for. Which is why I am sticking to information from sources that are available.
- This is okay by me.
- Please can you explain further what you mean?
- I could omit the birth/death dates that are unknown, but I don't think it is not really necessary to not include their birth/death dates at all. I have seen similar lists in formats like this. Iyam's article does not suggest he is alive, his death date is unknown.
- Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there really no information on how the 1960-1963 Western Region was governed and who by? I get that sourcing can be tough for these topics, but I don't really see a reason why the chart should start in 1963 but not 1960, so this seems a clear gap. If the records were lost or the region really was in chaos and had no governor, then fine, we can say so ("the governors of the Western Region in 1960-63 are unknown"), but that seems like it'd be surprising if really true.
- I don't feel like the Deputy Governor party footnote makes the most sense as a footnote rather than prose. If you disagree, that's fine, it's not mandatory, but I would suggest explaining the Deputy Governor in the prose introduction is preferred if it's going to be included in the table. This can include the way they're elected and why they usually match the party of the Governor.
- The guideline is that for anyone who would be older than 115, if there isn't an explicit source saying they're alive, we assume they're dead. But otherwise, we assume they're alive, because falsely reporting someone as dead is much worse than falsely assuming a dead person is alive. So maybe ???? is fine for people born in 1909 and before in charts, but we should use "born 19XX" or "b. 19XX" when it's unknown. (And Iyam's article has no death date listed and has him in Category:Living people?). If you have a source saying Iyam is dead, then let's update his article, but if we're not sure on his status, we should default to only showing the known birth date and no marking implying a death date.
- There are still some prose concerns. I suppose I can just make the changes myself but see the example on the lede - the body still has stuff like "Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole," without it being clear that these are COMMONNAME titles. SnowFire (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Checking in again. You wrote " I don't want to come up with information I have no source for." but I really don't think these are THAT hard to find sources on. While there are premiers in this list, it looks like there was both a governor AND a Premier in the Western Region of the time. It looks like Adesoji Aderemi was governor 1960-63, while Samuel Ladoke Akintola was Premier of the Western Region in 1960-1962. Some sort of political crisis broke out in 1962 and Akintola was dismissed by Aderemi. The WP article says he was dismissed due to a declaration of emergency and M. A. Majekodunmi was sent on a temporary basis (sourced to "The Fate of Africa" p.193, which isn't that expensive as an e-book - maybe more there? I don't have access.). This contemporary 1962 news article suggests that Dauda Soroye Adegbenro sought to become Premier, but a court blocked it (unclear if it stuck) and tried to restore Akintola. But this was just from a quick surface-level search. This suggests that there are surely deeper sources if the basics aren't that hard to find. Unless there is some other reason to exclude the material?
- On death dates, this is something that I'm more insistent on. "born 1942" suggests just that, a birth date, but "1942-????" implies an unknown death date very clearly to me. SnowFire (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Another snooker list. For once, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association decided not to mess about with the system from the previous year, obviously finding it was already adequately complicated for their tastes. A couple of players got lost in a later version; from sources I'm able to account for one of them. Once again, Steve Davis was the clear leader at the top. Number one for six seasons when the rankings started, Ray Reardon (R.I.P.) was out of the top 16 for the first time. As ever, I'm happy to provide relevant extracts from sources to reviewers. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "White, who won two ranking titles in the 1986–87 season had been" => "White, who won two ranking titles in the 1986–87 season, had been"
- "of which those ranked 121 or lower became "(NT)" denotes a "non-tournament" players, meaning....." - this is a bit mangled. I think what you mean is "of which those ranked 121 or lower became "non-tournament" (NT) players, meaning....."
- "1986 & 1987 world championships" => "1986 and 1987 world championships"
- The note needs a full stop at the end -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Many thank, ChrisTheDude. I've made those amendments. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Alavense
[edit]- 1986–87 snooker season is linked twice in consecutive paragraphs.
- "Discussing the rankings for 1987–88, the snooker journalist Terry Smith asserted that "Every player in the lower ranks has one immediate aim – a place in the top 16 ... that elite top group."" - Can {{ndash}} be used?
- "Players in the top 16 were seeded into the last-32 round of the 1988 World Snooker Championship, and received invitations to the 1988 Masters" - I don't see the need for that comma.
- "John Parrott, Mike Hallett and Dean Reynolds moved into the top 16 for the first time, while Kirk Stevens, Tony Meo and Ray Reardon fell out of the top 16" - The second "the top 16" could be replaced by an "it".
- "published in snooker magazines in June 1987" reads a bit vague, I think. What are "snooker magazines"? How many of those were there? Is it a set list? Maybe a bit more of information could be provided in a note.
- I've taken that out. The list was published around 18 May 1987 (given that it got press mentions on 19 May), but I'm pretty sure that no source would have published anything beyond the top 20 before Snooker Scene and Pot Black both had the full list in their June issues. Let me know if you think I should add something back in. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- As per MOS:LISTBULLET, "Use the same grammatical form for all elements in a list, and do not mix sentences and sentence fragments as elements, for example when the elements are". Sentences and fragments are mixed here, but I don't think that's a problem here. Anyway, given that there are full sentences, I think final periods would be more appropriate, and then the capitalization at the beginning of each element makes more sense.
- There's only one "Smith 1987", so there's no need for the "a".
- "Smith, Terry (19 May 1987). "Hendry makes giant leap". The Daily Telegraph. p. 25." is treated as a "Smith 1987" and taking out the a's produces "Harv error: CITEREFSmith1987 has multiple targets (2×)." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can see in the examples given in MOS:ALT, I don't think the alternative text has to be that vague. "A man" could be replaced by "Steve Davis" in the first one and "Jimmy White" in the second one.
That's all I saw. Thank you for your effort, BennyOnTheLoose. Kind regards. Alavense (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Alavense. I've implemented the changes, except where noted above. Please let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt responses, BennyOnTheLoose. I did this to avoid having the "a" alongside the year. You can revert it if you don't like it. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've made a note of that! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt responses, BennyOnTheLoose. I did this to avoid having the "a" alongside the year. You can revert it if you don't like it. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- MPGuy2824
- Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding
!scope=col
to each header cell, e.g.! Year
becomes!scope=col | Year
. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use!scope=colgroup
instead. In particular, "1985–86 season" and "1986–87 season" header cell should have scope as colgroup, and the various cells under it "MT" to "WC" should have scope=col. - "'(New)' denotes a player who was new to the tour for the 1987–88 season." - This can be removed since it isn't referenced in the table. Please ping me when you have fixed these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks, MPGuy2824. Hopefully I've implemented the changes correctly - let me know if not. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support promotion. P.S. Given that the cells have numbers, there is no need to add "data-sort-type=text" to the various header cells. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I'd appreciate comments at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support promotion. P.S. Given that the cells have numbers, there is no need to add "data-sort-type=text" to the various header cells. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks, MPGuy2824. Hopefully I've implemented the changes correctly - let me know if not. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review by Staraction
[edit]- All images self-published, AGF.
- All images have alt text.
- All images properly captioned.
- All images relevant to the text.
Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 14:04, 26 August 2024 (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.
- Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 13:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list has been written with the FL criteria in mind. "All sorts of suggestions and inputs are welcome. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 13:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- "a state presidents is tasked"
- "including the appointment and coordination of leaders at various levels viz" - What is that supposed to mean? I don't understand the "viz" at the end.
- "District committee, block committee and for each panchayat development block or panchayat samiti." - Is that sentence missing a verb or something?
- "As of now" reads a bit vague.
- "the INC has state and UT presidents for all states and union territory in India" - If I'm not mistaken, there are several union territories in India, so why say "union territory"?
- Conversely, the abbreviation in the second table should read "Union territory" instead of "Union Territories", as there's only one in each row.
- In the tables, the name of the incumbent should be moved to the second column, leaving the portrait for the third one.
- Could anything be said about those vacancies?
- Actually their appointment date is not available at this time. Hence, I have added a note.
- All the article titles read like this: "X Pradesh Congress Committee". Why then, in the tables, do we sometimes have "Andhra Pradesh" and sometimes just "Assam"?
Thanks in advance for your responses, 25 Cents FC. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dear Alavense, I have addressed all the issues you raised. If you have any further questions, please feel free to include them in your response. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, 25 Cents FC, I was away on holidays. A few more things:
- "decision making body" should be "decision-making body".
Done
- In addition, A state
Done
- reaching out to diverse sections of society, and addressing - That comma is not needed.
Done
- That last "currently" feels a bit vague. Since when?
Done
- For Varsha Gaikwad, there's an image of her available in Commons, so maybe you could crop it and include it.
Done
- Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your valuable comments, Alavense mate. I’ve addressed the points. Let me know if everything looks good.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, 25 Cents FC, I was away on holidays. A few more things:
- Dear Alavense, I have addressed all the issues you raised. If you have any further questions, please feel free to include them in your response. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Support. Alavense (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I went all of June without nominating anything to FLC, so here's a second July nom to compensate 🤠 The 1995 Pacific hurricane season was the quietest in 16 years and heralded the start of an era of lower activity for the basin (some particularly active seasons during the 2010s be damned). Even so, the season still featured three Category 4 hurricanes on the Saffir–Simpson scale (out of only 10 storms overall, which I'd say is a rather impressive ratio), as well as the deadly Hurricane Ismael, whose name was retired the following spring. "Only" a Category 1 at its peak intensity, Ismael used the element of surprise as a weapon, thrusting itself into the Gulf of California and onto the Mexican coast sooner than anticipated. As a result, many on land and at sea were unprepared for the storm, and over 100 people were killed. I do have another nomination currently open, but it already has a couple supports, and there are presently no concerns that have not been addressed. As always, I look forward to the community's feedback, and will aim to rectify any qualms as quickly as possible. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by AndrewPeterT
[edit]Hello, Dylan. I plan on commenting on both this nomination and your other active nomination further shortly. For now, I will note that there is a red link to what should be the article for the timeline on the 1996 Pacific hurricane season in the lede navigation box. Are there plans to create this article in the near future? If not, I would suggest adding a redirect link to the timeline on the main 1996 Pacific hurricane season article.
Also, while only tangentially related to this subject, the name that replaced Ismael (i.e. Israel), had to be itself removed because of negative reception (which given current events, makes one wonder how no one even thought about those negative implications until half a decade later). AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew, it's good to see you! I'll switch out the link shortly – I do intend to create a timeline for the 1996 season in the near-ish future, but I'm not quite sure what near-ish is because there are other projects I have in the pipeline. As for the Ismael–Israel issue (which I agree with you is utterly baffling), I thought about including it, but just didn't quite think it was relevant enough to mention in the lede. The paragraph where Ismael's impacts are described is already pretty beefy, and I wanted to make sure I had room to mention Flossie and Henriette's impacts, too. I see you also have an FLC up – I'll be sure to take a look in the next couple days or so! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- MPGuy2824
- 1 ref is missing its archive link.
- The lead image is missing alt text.
- No issues that I could see in the prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback MPGuy2824; I believe I have addressed both of your comments. Turns out I had the parameter name wrong for the infobox alt text. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support on prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback MPGuy2824; I believe I have addressed both of your comments. Turns out I had the parameter name wrong for the infobox alt text. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 21:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Been working on this list for some time now and have done waves of overhauls to try to get it at the FL level. Given the recent promotion of my FLN for Cities in Luhansk Oblast and my completion of everything I can do from my end for my FLN for Cities in Donetsk Oblast, I thought I'd move ahead and get this nomination started. It's not perfectly ready and I plan on editing it more during the nomination period but considering the lengthy timeframe of the FL process and the benefits of getting feedback while editing, thought it'd be better to get it started now and continue to work on it simultaneously with the nom. Unlike the other two FL noms for Donetsk and Luhansk, this list is unique in that it represents a geographic area with two distinct legal entities: the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and city with special status Sevastopol. Given this and its occupation by Russia since 2014, this list has a larger scope and will naturally be more complex/detailed and longer than the other lists. Imo the legal particulars of Sevastopol can get really confusing so feel free to post questions on this nom or reach out if it helps! Thanks in advance y'all for the suggestions and excited to get this nom started! :) Dan the Animator 21:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]This is really interesting! I do not speak Russian or Ukrainian, so I cannot speak for the sources, but
- The lede is well-written. Don't really have anything to add here.
- Thanks! :)
- Table formatting seems good to me — great job incorporating a bunch of different complicated info with the dual administrative schemes.
- Thanks again!!!
- My only real qualm is that we don't have any information on Balaklava; would there be a way to incorporate that into the list while marking it's only recognized as a city by Russia? I feel it's worth including as a de facto city on the peninsula.
- I considered this and tried it out but I don't think it's practical. Both the 2001 Ukrainian and 2014 Russian censuses include Balaklava's stats as part of Sevastapol's population numbers (as stated in the efn note next to Sevastapol's numbers), so to have Balaklava included separately would suggest that its counted separately from Sevastapol, which isn't the case. There are also no separate population statistics of Balaklava itself from 2001 as far as I can tell and its unclear what the only 2014 number I found for Balaklava is actually for (my understanding is that it actually represents the population of Balaklava city council (which includes multiple nearby villages/settlements that aren't actually part of Balaklava itself) so it's not ideal to have that number here either). Given this, the only information that would be included in the table for Balaklava would be its alternate names (which are simply all variations of Balaklava) and its de facto/de jure subdivisions, which doesn't really add anything since it's already explained in the lead that Russia and Ukraine both consider Balaklava as part of Sevastapol. Hopefully my explanation makes sense but feel free to let me know if you still think it should be added to the table. I don't feel particularly strongly about it but I also don't see any compelling reason for including it either.
That's all from me for now. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes sense with Balakalva; I feel free it's fine to leave it out of the table. Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "The territory of Crimea, including Sevastopol, has been" - this reads a bit weirdly, because Sevastopol hasn't been introduced, so it's unclear why it gets singled out from the rest of the region here. It also isn't linked until the second usage.
- Fixed: removed "including Sevastapol" so it flows better
- The lead uses both "recognized" (US spelling) and "recognised" (Commonwealth spelling) and there's a similar inconsistency with other words. Pick one variety of English and use it consistently.
- Fixed: standardized to the American spelling and added the Eng-var template too
- Sevastopol is overlinked in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed
- Thanks Generalissima and ChrisTheDude for the reviews and apologies for the very belated reply! Let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the article and also: based on a suggestion in the recently closed FLN for List of cities in Donetsk Oblast, I decided to go ahead and switch out the infoboxes on all these oblasts lists with coordinate maps with links & locations for each city. For the other articles I feel it adds tremendously but given the .png map image for Crimea is already so detailed and in many ways better than the coord map, let me know which option this list should use (the coord map, the infobox with image, or just the image). I also kept the infobox commented out so feel free to preview it in visual editor too if it helps. Thanks again in advance for all the help! :) Dan the Animator 06:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- If I didn't misunderstand the sentence, while since its annexation, the region has been de facto governed by Russia is missing a comma before "since".
- Can anything be done to avoid the triple repetition of the with a recorded population of X people formula?
- 11 city municipalities and 14 raions and merging them into ten reformed raions - MOS:NUMNOTES states that "comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures", so make it "10" for the sake of consistency.
- As previously noted in another similar nomination, a "the" should be added before the name of all three Wikipedias in the notes.
- Is there a particular reason why the images have been moved to another section? I think it would make more sense to have them before the table, as is the case in similar lists.
That's all I saw, Dantheanimator. Thanks in advance and kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Alavense for the review! :) Most of the parts should be fixed now and also reworded the census part so hopefully its better (will rewrite it more though if it helps). About the image section, I wasn't too sure what you had in mind. When I started work on this article, the images were included within the table rows for each city. Due to the larger size and greater complexity of this table compared to the tables in the other oblast cities lists, I decided earlier on to move the photos to a separate section and leave them there so they don't clutter the table. If I'm understanding right, the suggestion is to move the gallery section in between the Administrative divisions and List of cities sections, similar to how List of cities in New Brunswick has the photos above the table? I don't feel too strongly about it but I do think its current location is fine and its better to try to keep the table closer to the lead since its the main focus of the article.
- Otherwise, what's your thoughts on how the images should be displayed/formatted? The table as-is already just barely fits on my laptop's full desktop screen and I don't think it would make sense to add additional columns to the table since it'll just cause it to spill out of the screen. I'm also open to removing the section entirely though I think it does add some value (and its also well-sourced). Let me know what you think. Dan the Animator 15:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the edits. In some similar lists (see this one, for instance), the images are included just before the table. But I don't really have a problem with how the images are laid out here, I was just curious about it. Nice work on the list, as always. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah got it. If it weren't for the additional Administrative divisions section, I'd have it laid out the same but that section really pushes the list content lower in the page than ideal. Many thanks again for the comments! :) Dan the Animator 19:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the edits. In some similar lists (see this one, for instance), the images are included just before the table. But I don't really have a problem with how the images are laid out here, I was just curious about it. Nice work on the list, as always. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 14:03, 26 August 2024 (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.
- Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Explicit (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes it's another Inkigayo list. The fourth one that I am nominating in this series. This list follows the same format as the previous three and the nine Music Bank lists. -- EN-Jungwon 11:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "The chart measured digital performance in domestic online music services" => "In 2018, the chart measured digital performance in domestic online music services"
- "Three boy groups had ranked two singles at number one in 2018" => "Three boy groups ranked two singles at number one in 2018"
- "The four song spent" => "The four songs spent"
- "making them the artist with the most wins of the year" => "making them the act with the most wins of the year" ("artist" can really only be used to refer to a soloist)
- That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude, all done. Always appreciate your comments at FLC. Thanks again. -- EN-Jungwon 05:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review by Staraction
[edit]- All images properly sourced & licensed
- All images properly captioned
- All images relevant to the text
- All images have alt text except for the two with Paul Kim and Jennie
Thanks for your work again @EN-Jungwon and @Explicit! Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Alt text added. Thanks for catching that. -- EN-Jungwon 01:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Staraction pinging. -- EN-Jungwon 00:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support on images! Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Staraction pinging. -- EN-Jungwon 00:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comments by MPGuy2824
- Since the key is a table, it too would need to follow MOS:DTAB. In particular there need to be row scopes added to the columns with the symbols. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Done. -- EN-Jungwon 00:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- "were announced as new hosts beginning the February 18 broadcast." to "were announced as new hosts from the February 18 broadcast."
- Support in advance, since I think you'll get this fixed. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the support. -- EN-Jungwon 15:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Done. -- EN-Jungwon 00:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this list enough sources and enough prose to earn a spot as a Featured List. Feel free to review. XR228 (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- I think the lead image should be right at the top of the lead. This seems to me to be the norm.
- Are there appropriate links for play-by-play announcer and color analyst?
- "Olczyk would maintain his job at TNT as the lead color commentator and would call the Kraken's games as his schedule allowed" => "Olczyk maintain his job at TNT as the lead color commentator and called the Kraken's games as his schedule allowed"
- "did the same for Olczyk and Piper Shaw for the 2022–23 season onward" - who's Piper Shaw? This is the first mention of them.....
- Root Sports Northwest should be linked on first use in the body
- That's it for me I think. The US model of sports broadcasting is rather alien to me over here in the UK but nonetheless I found this a clear and easy read -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey man im josh
[edit]- Columns have no scopes
- What is "most games" supposed to mean? This needs to be defined in some capacity
- What are the tables sourced to? It's not clear to me.
- Add Wikilinks to sources in the publisher/website/work fields for consistency (several include links, while others do not)
- Image of Alison Lukan should probably be cropped since it looks like the focus is on the hockey player
- Date formatting in a number of these references are inconsistent, consider adding the
{{Use mdy dates|July 2024}}
template to the top of the article under the short description - Consider adding archive links the archive bot is back up
- KPUG has apparently been an affiliate since 2022, according to the tweet used as a source. Can we do any better than this tweet? Given how long it's been, I would hope/expect that it's also sourced elsewhere.
- Based on the source for the 2023–24 season, would this then mean that KPUG's FM station is no longer an affiliate? Or is this specifically citing stations which are part of the iheart radio network?
Throughout their history, Kraken games have been televised on Root Sports Northwest and radio broadcast primarily on KJR-FM.
– This sentence is rather clunky. I'm sure they've been televised plenty of places, but was the intent to say they're primarily televised on Root Sports as well? Or just "radio broadcast primarily" on KJR-FM?- Image alt texts could be improved. "Man holding microphone" would be better as "John Forslund holding a microphone". These are meant to be a description of the image, we don't need to go into serious detail, but it's better that we note who's in the image when we can for someone who's visually impaired.
- Additionally, if you don't want to crop the image, "Woman wearing headphones" is not a good alt description for File:Los Angeles Kings at Seattle Kraken - November 19, 2022 - Brandon Tanev and Allison Lukan (52519198214).jpg.
- Add author to ref 15
Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: I have made the changes. For the issues with the section about radio affiliates, I decided to completely redo it according to the source from iHeartRadio. (see here) XR228 (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh XR228 (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the changes that have been made. Althought I would encourage the removal of the width=100% attribute, as I think it makes the table wider than it needs to be. That's a personal preference and nothing that would hold up this nomination.
- Refs 12, 13, and 17 still need to be specified as needing a subscription. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: I have made the changes. Personally, I think having the tables' with be 100% looks better aesthetically. Just my opinion. XR228 (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Personally I find the extremely wide "play-by-play" column to be off putting and to look like the table is improperly formatted, but it's not a deal breaker. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: I have made the changes. Personally, I think having the tables' with be 100% looks better aesthetically. Just my opinion. XR228 (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh XR228 (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Minor note: the scope=col tags make the header cells bolded, so you don't need to bold them again (right now the column headers are double-bold). --PresN 15:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- @PresN: Fixed. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
source
[edit]Ill do this =D Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- All the sources seem reliable though boarderline on HockeyDB
- Any reasons why Davy Jones locker room is listed as being owned by Vox? None of the other sources list their owners.
- All references uses an inconsistent dating style per MOS:DATEUNIFY
- Ref 1 is titled "Seattle Kraken hockey team statistics and history at HockeyDB.com" when it should be titled "Seattle Kraken hockey team statistics and history" using the via parameter to include HockeyDB
- Archive refs 21 and 24
- Refs 5, 13 are written by Geoff Baker
- Refs 10 and 21, not mandatory but consider using Template:Cite press release
- That's all I found. Ping me when done! Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @OlifanofmrTennant: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Parasite was released in 2019 and made history by becoming the first non English-language film to win Best Picture in 2019. The style is the same as other existing FLs of this kind. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support - I got nothing. Awesome work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you as always for the reviews. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - For header cells (like "AACTA International Awards") which span multiple rows, the scope should be "rowgroup" and not "row".
- Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824, done. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Found a few more issues:
- Most of the dates are in dmy format, but i noticed "March 14, 2020" in one of the notes.
- There is a CS1 - multiple authors error in one of the refs.
- The director's image in the infobox is missing alt text. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824; done the first and last point. Could you point out which ref the error is cropping up on? I can't seem to find it for some reason. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- The sports.donga.com one. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've changed it, and hopefully that should fix it. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've changed it, and hopefully that should fix it. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- The sports.donga.com one. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Found a few more issues:
- @MPGuy2824, done. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Question—is it normal practice for both the infobox and list to overlap this much? I'm a newbie to these kinds of lists. It feels a little redundant; the win/count info per award I feel could just be merged into the table. The totals I feel maybe could be left in the infobox. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also the show/hide button in the infobox doesn't seem to be working for me; I tried a Chromium and Safari browser on Mac and neither worked. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's really odd, I'm not having this issue on either browser. Also, to me the infobox appears collapsed by default, so that only the totals show, not each individual nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, to verify we're talking about the same things, I'm talking about the [show] button next to the Accolades header in the infobox. Also, I know each row in the infobox has only the totals, I'm saying listing the totals for each individual award circuit (I.e. AACTA Awards, AACTA International Awards, ARP Movies... etc) feels a bit redundant with the list in the body. I'm asking what you think about, if possible, only showing the totals bit at the bottom of the infobox: Wins 219 and Nominations 353. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the [show/hide] button works fine for me; the issue has been brought up on the template's talk page. I think it's fine to show the individual totals, particularly as the infobox is (at least supposed to be) collapsed by default.
- Sgubaldo (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah! Ok, that all makes sense. Looks good to me then! 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, to verify we're talking about the same things, I'm talking about the [show] button next to the Accolades header in the infobox. Also, I know each row in the infobox has only the totals, I'm saying listing the totals for each individual award circuit (I.e. AACTA Awards, AACTA International Awards, ARP Movies... etc) feels a bit redundant with the list in the body. I'm asking what you think about, if possible, only showing the totals bit at the bottom of the infobox: Wins 219 and Nominations 353. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's really odd, I'm not having this issue on either browser. Also, to me the infobox appears collapsed by default, so that only the totals show, not each individual nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Birdienest81
[edit]- Regarding the Guinness World Records distinction of being the most awarded foreign-language film at the Oscars alongside Fanny and Alexander and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, the 2022 version of All Quiet on the Western Front has also now tied the record according to this article from Slash Film. I know Guinness World Records noted the record back in 2020, but I'm wondering if it should be denoted that All Quiet on the Western Front has matched that record. I can see arguments in favor and not in favor, but I just want to get your take on it.
- Also, all movie titles in the references should be italicized as well per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
That's all I have for now.
- --Birdienest81talk 08:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Birdienest81, added information about All Quiet on the Western Front (good catch), and fixed the MOS:CONFORMTITLE issue. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Birdienest81, just following up to see if all of your concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- It has been, and now I can lend my support. Birdienest81talk 22:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Birdienest81, just following up to see if all of your concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Birdienest81, added information about All Quiet on the Western Front (good catch), and fixed the MOS:CONFORMTITLE issue. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 14:04, 26 August 2024 (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.
- Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because all of the information has been properly sourced and tables have been formatted to comply with Wikipedia's MOS. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review by Staraction
[edit]- All images are relevant to article
- All images appropriately captioned
- All images have appropriate licensing, AGF on self-published works
- Images need alt text - see MOS:ALT for more information
- Images need to be resized using scaling instead of specifying px. See WP:SCALE for more information
Thanks for your work @Bgsu98. Staraction (talk | contribs) 13:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- These should all be addressed. Thank you so much for your input! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment
[edit]- How come you used so many external links for sources for some of these tables? The international tables, except for the cancelled international competitions, are all pointing to external sources instead of following the format (references in that row instead) used by the rest of the article
- Date formats are inconsistent in references, consider adding
{{Use mdy dates|July 2024}}
to the top of the article under the short description - Inconsistent linking of works in references, an example of this is
- Access dates missing for a number of sources
- Links should be archived once the bot is back up
- A number of references use "ISU results" as the website and "International Skating Union" as the publisher. It makes more sense to use just "International Skating Union"
- Some refs need to be downcased, such as 74, 76, and 77, so the names are not entirely capitalized
- A lot of these references to social media posts are dead with no archive link available, such as refs 7, 10, 16, and 24
I think there's a fair bit of work that still needs to be done on this article. Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, with regards to your first question, I don't know. That is how these season articles have always been set up. Is there any benefit to providing a link versus an imbedded source? If not, I will convert them all over to sources. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delayed response @Bgsu98, I missed yours when catching up on my pings yesterday. See WP:CS:EMBED, which is about avoiding embedded links. Additionally, I think it makes sense to be consistent throughout the list and for the tables to not have different reference styles. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- That makes sense. I have begun replacing the links with proper sources. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, thank you for improving the source formats. I will finish converting the dance links over this weekend; I had new teacher orientation all this week and haven't had much time for Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, I have finished converting the links to proper sources for the ice dance section, which should complete everything. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to address. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delayed response @Bgsu98, I missed yours when catching up on my pings yesterday. See WP:CS:EMBED, which is about avoiding embedded links. Additionally, I think it makes sense to be consistent throughout the list and for the tables to not have different reference styles. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 15:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- PresN, those captions should all be included now. Thank you for catching those for me! Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating this article for featured list because it is well-sourced and, IMO, meets the basic requirements of a featured list. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Great work and a topic kinda close to my heart as my son currently attends one of the formerly all-female colleges, but I feel like you need to explain the set-up of these women receiving degrees for the first time in a bit more detail, specifically the fact that the first degrees were awarded in 1920 but the women in the table "graduated" anything up to 41 years earlier. Presumably the degree awards were in essence retrospective? Also, how did the women originally "graduate" without receiving a degree (most people reading the article would understand the concept of "graduating" as "receiving their degree". Did the earlier women essentially just, I dunno, leave.....?)
- Some more nit-picky comments:
- Image caption: "First women colleges at Oxford" => "First women's colleges at Oxford"
- "Before 1920, it is estimated that around 4,000 women studied at Oxford" => "Tt is estimated that around 4,000 women studied at Oxford before 1920"
- " The first woman unofficial accepted at Oxford" => " The first woman unofficially accepted at Oxford"
- "The last survivor of the 1920 conferral ceremonies was Constance Savery who graduated in 1920" - last four words are redundant given how the sentence starts
- Image caption starting "former" needs a full stop
- Suggest linking "jurisprudence" in the table as it's a rather obscure word -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude, I've gathered and added as much info as I could in a "History" section. I've also made the minor edits you have suggested and added the links too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Omnis Scientia, thank you for writing the article and expanding the coverage of women at Oxford. In response to ChrisTheDude's question, the exams available and taken by women changed during the period. From 1876 the university's Delegacy for Local Examinations (DLE) offered Women’s Examinations, equivalent to Responsions, and pass or honours final examinations.[3] By 1894 women could take university examination papers through the DLE, which awarded a certificate of the results of the exams.[4] From 1896 Somerville or the Association for the Education of Women issued a diploma listing the exams a student had passed at the end of her studies.[5]
- Suggest replacing Graduation date with Final examination in the table, if that is what the date represents
- Suggest another paragraph explaining about the exams available and the certificates and diplomas mentioned above
- LMH, Somerville and the Home Students all opened in 1879. LMH uses a foundation date of 1878 as its founding committee was set up in that year, but I think that is not relevant to this article
- I believe that in "By 1895, Oxford and the University of Cambridge were the only universities in the United Kingdom to deny women degrees" the UK means GB and NI, as Trinity College, Dublin was not awarding women degrees. Suggest replacing United Kingdom with Great Britain
- Suggest that "The five women's colleges were not given equal status to men's colleges until 1959" should say "the men's colleges" as it refers to the group of existing fully accepted colleges, not men's colleges in general.
St Catherine's College, OxfordSt Peter's College, Oxford and St Catherine's College, Oxford did not get full college status until 1961 and 1962. TSventon (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)- @TSventon, thank you for the additional info! Being honest, I didn't FULLY understand the whole exam diploma/certificate system so I wrote in one line that they were given certificates at the end of examinations, along with a reference. You're welcome to expand on the examination process if you want.
- I've also added most of the rest of your suggestions. I do think graduation is correct term since they did complete their studies. They were just not given a degree. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @TSventon, would like an update on this. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia apologies for the delay. I have expanded the sentence on exams and certificates as requested, please copy edit as necessary. I have looked up "graduation" e.g. at Collins and it has at least two separate meanings, 1 completion of studies and 2 degree ceremony, so the way it is used in the table is correct, but confusing. That is a detail so
- @TSventon, would like an update on this. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support TSventon (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @TSventon, thank you! Much appreciated! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-59969690
- ^ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/26/boris-johnson-partygate-tory-call-to-quit-sue-gray-report
- ^ https://www.firstwomenatoxford.ox.ac.uk/article/from-lectures-for-ladies-to-university-examination
- ^ https://www.firstwomenatoxford.ox.ac.uk/1894-1896
- ^ https://www.some.ox.ac.uk/about/a-brief-history-of-somerville/pre-war-years/
Comments by Alavense
[edit]Excellent work, Omnis Scientia. I saw nothing other than maybe a comma missing in "was Constance Savery who died"? Support. Alavense (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense, I've fixed the comma. Thank you for the kind words! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by UC
[edit]An enjoyable article on an important topic. Some points below. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- The lead seems terribly short -- I don't see that it includes much from the history section, which would seem to break MOS:LEAD -- unless things work differently for lists?
- A pedantic one -- matriculating is something that the student does -- therefore, people aren't matriculated, they matriculate.
- The history of the Oxford women's colleges is a bit complicated, and I must admit to not understanding it very well. However, I'm looking with some confusion at the sentence In June 1878, the Association for the Education of Women (AEW) was formed, aiming for the eventual creation of a college for women in Oxford. The first women's colleges at Oxford opened the following year: Lady Margaret Hall, Somerville Hall and the Society of Oxford Home-Students (later known as St Anne's College).. St Anne's didn't technically become a college until the 1950s, and the Society of Oxford Home-Students needs a bit of explanation as to what it actually was -- it certainly wasn't formally a college, but was practically quite a different beast as well (this may need an EFN when it comes to the table). Both Somerville and LMH were also technically halls of residence instead of colleges (Somerville formally changed over in 1894), but I'm not sure how important the distinction was. Were they, however, always strictly colleges of the university rather than permanent private halls?
- The five women's colleges were not given equal status to the men's colleges until 1959: what does equal status actually mean, in this context?
- For accessibility, better to move the Times blockquote to the right, to maintain a consistent left margin.
- I'm a little uncomfortable with the sourcing in the history section -- it's almost entirely publications from the university itself, and for that matter, almost all a self-published, non-scholarly web page -- whatever we think of the quality of Oxford's research, we shouldn't extend the same deference to their PR team. This doesn't meet the "independent" site of WP:HQRS -- we shouldn't allow Oxford to mark their own homework.
- This was a huge step towards women being granted full membership: both a cliché and perhaps a bit back-patting?
- the statute which established the Delegacy acknowledged women as Oxford members for the first time as well as the five women's colleges, with the University assuming formal control and supervision over them: this is a run-on sentence, and it becomes quite unclear as to whether it was the colleges or the women who were formally controlled.
- It would be another ten years of campaigning before women were finally admitted as full members: we haven't really talked about this campaigning at all.
- Notable women conferred degrees in 1920: what's the criteria for inclusion here?
- I would make the college and degree subject columns sortable.
- Being pedantic again, is it a graduation year if you didn't receive a degree (gradus)? I do see the Collins point above, but in this particular context it's clear that nobody -- including the women themselves -- would have seen themselves as "graduating" in e.g. 1886 (otherwise, why turn up to "graduate" again?). Suggest "Final year of studies".
- The citation to "Dorothy L Sayers: A Biography" is oddly formatted, and the link is broken. Her ODNB page says that the degree was in modern French (it brackets 'medieval', but to me that sounds like Sayers got her degree in 'modern' (post-Latin) French by offering papers in medieval French, like someone might get a degree in Archaeology and Anthropology by studying human evolution).
- The citation formatting is a bit inconsistent -- check dashes for ranges, dashes or no dashes for ISBNS, dots and spaces after p, and the other little pedantic things. Using citation templates throughout would help.
- @UndercoverClassicist: I have posted a link to your questions on @Omnis Scientia:'s talk page and will try to answer your questions about colleges.
- what does equal status actually mean, in this context? The University of Oxford currently has three types of “colleges”. Most are colleges of the University of Oxford (full colleges), which have royal charters and are governed by their fellows. There are also permanent private halls, which are governed by religious institutions, and societies, which are neither colleges nor PPHs.[1] The women’s halls were not recognised by the university at all until 1910. A college head said they “are in Oxford, but they are not of Oxford, and are no more known to the University, as such, than Holloway College, many of whose students pass University examinations but will be jealously excluded from degrees.“ [2]: 272 In 1910 they became “recognised societies” and in 1920 “societies of women students”. [3]
- In 1959 the women’s societies became full colleges, which meant that they were accepted as equal to the existing (men’s) colleges. A prerequisite for the status of a college of the university of Oxford was that governance was in the hands of the principal and fellows rather than external trustees. Also, according to the Oxford Magazine, college heads could be appointed as vice-chancellor.[4] The next colleges to be recognised were St Peter's College, Oxford in 1961 and St Catherine's College, Oxford in 1962.
- Were they, however, always strictly colleges of the university rather than permanent private halls? The women's colleges were recognised as societies from 1910 until 1959, rather than halls or full colleges.
- LMH, Somerville, St Hugh’s and St Hilda’s opened as halls of residence, without any teaching staff (see chapters of the Victoria County History). As student numbers increased they started to employ tutors and, apart from LMH, take the name of college. For example Somerville changed its name “in the belief that it would not only improve the educational status of Somerville in the eyes of the public, but would be understood as implying the desire of the Governing Body to raise it above the level of a Hall of Residence.“ [5] The four women’s colleges received royal charters in 1926 (see chapters of the Victoria County History).
- The home students were supervised by the AEW from 1879 to 1910, but only given their own principal and committee in 1893. From 1910 they were supervised by the Delegacy for Woman Students and from 1920 by the Delegacy for Home-Students. In 1942 The home students took the name St Anne’s Society and in 1952 they received a royal charter and took the name St Anne’s College.[6] TSventon (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for this -- it certainly helped me clarify things, and I hope it will find its way as necessary into the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist, I will add on that "notable women" are women who have article on Wikipedia.
- Also want to thank @TSventon a lot for their contribution here. They know a lot more about this topic than I do. I started this list in part to listify a category and learned about the subject as I was creating it. Quite a bit of info was added by TSventon and he provided a lot of missing names to add on. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I searched Wikipedia for all the women who graduated in 1920–1921 academic year according to the Oxford University Gazette and found 69 names. The is as complete as I can make it but I may have missed a few cases where the names in Wikipedia and the Gazette are different for some reason. TSventon (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the ambition is to make this a complete list (even if that ambition may never be fulfilled, because some of the women won't have good sources about them), I think we should cut the word "notable" in the subhead, which implies that it's only ever going to be a curated one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: I have expanded the section about women's colleges as discussed.
- As to completeness, the list currently includes about 65 names out of about 650 graduations in the first year and I don't think there is any ambition to increase that significantly.
- On sourcing, I agree that we should not over rely on university websites. Within those, some pages are written by academics, especially firstwomenatoxford.ox.ac.uk, which names a team of academics and archivists. I think that is a high quality source, but not an independent one. TSventon (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TSventon, great work, thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: the FL criteria require a "lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria". Do you know any examples of FL where an inclusion criterion is Wikipedia notability or having a Wikipedia article? TSventon (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TSventon, I can't think of one. I do think that the criteria of the list is explained in the lead of this particular article. My bias opinion, of course. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot see any statement in the lead of the inclusion criteria for this list, which leads me to believe that the list theoretically includes all the women awarded degrees in that first ceremony. I would say that formally setting the criteria at "has a Wikipedia article" would be an odd choice, since we don't consider Wikipedia to have any scholarly authority in itself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: I agree the criteria should be explained, but lists of notable foos seem to be accepted in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. The list was originally based on Category:First women admitted to degrees at Oxford, but is now based on women's graduations between October 2020 and December 2021 listed in the Oxford University Gazette, digitised here, where I have found a Wikipedia article. In Stand-alone lists, WP:LISTPEOPLE says
- I cannot see any statement in the lead of the inclusion criteria for this list, which leads me to believe that the list theoretically includes all the women awarded degrees in that first ceremony. I would say that formally setting the criteria at "has a Wikipedia article" would be an odd choice, since we don't consider Wikipedia to have any scholarly authority in itself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TSventon, I can't think of one. I do think that the criteria of the list is explained in the lead of this particular article. My bias opinion, of course. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: the FL criteria require a "lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria". Do you know any examples of FL where an inclusion criterion is Wikipedia notability or having a Wikipedia article? TSventon (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TSventon, great work, thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the ambition is to make this a complete list (even if that ambition may never be fulfilled, because some of the women won't have good sources about them), I think we should cut the word "notable" in the subhead, which implies that it's only ever going to be a curated one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for this -- it certainly helped me clarify things, and I hope it will find its way as necessary into the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:
- The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
- The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.
Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future. Red-linked entries should be accompanied by citations sufficient to show that the entry is sufficiently notable for an article to be written on it (i.e., citations showing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject).
- There's a distinction between "meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article", which is reasonably defensible (because it essentially means "has been noticed in good scholarship"), and "has a Wikipedia article", which is much harder. WP:LISTPEOPLE applies really to potentially very large lists -- as we have an exact and fairly small number for the total population eligible to be listed here, I think we should be aiming to get all of them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: I personally prefer the current criteria over including a complete list. For ordinary degrees the current list has 52 names out of a total 733 degrees awarded, ignoring the Oxford MAs. It would be possible to import a spreadsheet with all the names, but that feels WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. Also the current list has name, college, subject and exam year, while the lists in the Gazette only have name, college, degree (mostly B.A.) and graduation date).
- The list as submitted included the criterion "notable", so red links could be included. Also articles which don't meet the criteria for the list can be excluded. TSventon (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes; my view would be that if someone who would meet (say) GNG is excluded from the list purely because they do not currently have a Wikipedia page, that list cannot claim to be sufficiently complete or comprehensive under the FL criteria. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TSventon, @UndercoverClassicist, if you think a complete list is good then I'm for it. We can divide the names so its easier to navigate the page. By that I mean "A-G" "H-P", "R-Z" or something similar. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes; my view would be that if someone who would meet (say) GNG is excluded from the list purely because they do not currently have a Wikipedia page, that list cannot claim to be sufficiently complete or comprehensive under the FL criteria. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Organisation". University of Oxford. Archived from the original on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
- ^ Brock, Michael G.; Curthoys, Mark C., eds. (2000). "10 'In Oxford but…not of Oxford': The Women's Colleges". The History of the University of Oxford, Vol. 7: Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 2. Oxford University Press. pp. 237–308.
- ^ "Somerville College, Woodstock Road". Kelly's Directory of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. 1939. p. 206.
- ^ "Gaudeamus Nuffieldenses". The Oxford Magazine. 1957. p. 502.
it will , as a New Foundation , not be listed on the roll of those eligible to present for the Vice-Chan-cellorship
- ^ Salter, H. E.; Lobel, Mary D. (1954). "Somerville College". The Victoria History of the County of Oxford. Vol. 3: The University of Oxford. London: British History Online. pp. 343–347.
- ^ Salter, H. E.; Lobel, Mary D. (1954). "St Anne's College". The Victoria History of the County of Oxford. Vol. 3: The University of Oxford. London: British History Online. pp. 351–353.
Source review
[edit]I'll do a source review, and add any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like there are quite a few tweaks needed, but nothing fundamental - mainly consistency across citations. Please feel free to challenge or to ask for clarifications. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Sources
- I think that where there is no author stated, there should be a blank rather than "_____,", but let me check.
- Not all online sources have access dates (e.g. Constance Savery". Bethlehem Books; "1894-1896". University of Oxford; "1896 Towards Degrees for Women". Somerville College.)
- There should be consistency in whether sources are linked. (e.g. St. Anne's College, Oxford is linked in ref 8, but Somerville College isn't in ref 17)
- There shoud be consistency in whether publication loctions for books are given.
- Shuld be consistency in how page numbers are given (like "p.12", not like "p10")
- Surprisingly, 'They couldn't go on the river with a man on their own' - the changing lives of Oxford's female students" requires registration, so it should have a url-access=Registration parameter
- Who's Who (refs 35, 53, 112) is considered "generally unreliable" at WP:RSP
- Repetition in " 'University Intelligence', The Times, 26 June 1912, p.12; 'University Intelligence', The Times, 27 June 1912, p.6." - is it one article continued across pages 6 and 12? (I have access to the Times Digital Archive, so can check this if you're not sure)
- Doesn't look like "(Following the Oxford custom a BA not a BSc.) University Intelligence, The Times, 28 June 1920, p10" is formatted quite correctly.
- Brittain, Vera (1960). The Women at Oxford. appears three times, with inconsistent details.
- Sure thing, will fix these issues. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I've gotten most of them, @BennyOnTheLoose. If I missed something, make sure to ping me.
- I should add that most of inconsistancy and repetativeness is because I took the sources from the articles themselves and their formatting was varied. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@Omnis Scientia: Thanks for the responses so far. I've made a few formatting tweaks suggested by scripts; please review these and revert any which you disagree with. "Rx" below refers to "reference number x". I'll take another look after you've replied to the points below, and haven't forgotten that I said I would check about ""_____," Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
- Not a requirement for FL, but you could use https://anticompositetools.toolforge.org/hyphenator/ to standardise the formatting of the ISBNs.
- Not a requirement for FL to change it, as far as I'm aware, but it's unusual to see FLC citations not using a citation template (e.g. the first five refs)
- Oxford Dictionary of National Biography citations are inconsistent. (e.g. Not all have the red padlock, some have authors, R27 has a date, some don't have the doi, not all have accessed date, R98 doesn't have the wikilink, R104 has the abbreviation)
- R12 - missing ISBN
- R14 - missing publisher
- Still missing publisher. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- R15 - missing ISBN
- R17 - Missing access date
- Still missing access date. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- R22 - Missing access date
- Still missing access date. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- R33 - incomplete details (missing page title)
- Now R35, still missing page title. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- R44 - Missing access date
- R46 isn't this published by "Somerville College" rather than by "University of Oxford WWI Centenary" ?
- What makes melaniespanswick.com a reliable source? (I see lots of books, but wasn't fully convinced)
- Authors don't all use first/last parameters:
- last=Parkes, Susan M.
- author=Mavis Curtis
- first1=Catherine M. C. Haines with Helen M.
- author1=Dimand, Robert William|author2=Dimand, Mary Ann|author3=Forget, Evelyn L.
- author=Frances Lannon
- Fernanda Helen Perrone (not in a citation template; surname should appear first)
- Constance Savery (R51; not in a citation template; surname should appear first)
- Giles Brindley (not in a citation template; surname should appear first)
- Philip E. Bennett (not in a citation template; surname should appear first)
- last=Parkes, Susan M.
- Vera Brittain could have an author-link
- Rosemary Mitchell could have an author-link
- Textile History could be wikilinked
- National Library of Wales could be wikilinked
- Pitt Rivers Museum could be wikilinked
- Book titles are inconsistently capitalised. I think these should be amended: A danger to the men? : a history of women in Trinity College Dublin 1904–2004, A biographical dictionary of women economists, Brief biographies of British mycologists, Traditions of social policy : essays in honour of Violet Butler; International women in science : a biographical dictionary to 1950. Also "Oxford dictionary of national biography"
- R68 - publication is via isuu, not by it
- As far as I know, we usually omit "Ltd/Limited" from the publisher name in citations
- A couple of web citations have the url displayed in the citation, e.g. trowelblazers.com, www.newulsterbiography.co.uk. I think just the site name should be shown.
- Still some inconsitency in whether sources are wikilinked.
General comments
- Michaelmas term could be wikilinked, rather than Michaelmas
- Ticking the ones as I finish them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @BennyOnTheLoose, okay I think I've gotten most of them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @BennyOnTheLoose, anything else? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- R6, Handbook to the University of Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1965. has an ISBN despite pre-dating the ISBN system. Is it right?
(I'm assuming its the isbn of a new addition. Have removed it.)
- R56, Savery's work diaries. Is this a published book, or something held in the University of Oregon archives?
(removed since, yes, its held by the University of Oregon and is not accessible.)
- R73, Glenday & Price. Could use its OCLC (779055717) if there is no ISBN.
- R76, Rayner-Canham. Missing ISBN.
- What makes fantastic-writers-and-the-great-war.com a suitable source?
(fair point; removed)
- R83, Richardson. Missing ISBN.
- R84, "DR ENID STARKIE" should not be in all-caps
- Oxford Dictionary of National Biography citations are nearly all now consistent, except that only one (R30) lists the author. Shouldn't all the authors be listed, and shouldn't there be access dates as it's the online version?
(access-dates require URL; the "cite ODNB" template required the doi and the title; there are more options but the rest isn't required)
- There is still inconsistency in whether publishers are linked.
- Okay so I've decided to NOT link the publishers since some don't have articles. The rest, I will tell you as soon as I'm done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @BennyOnTheLoose, okay that's done. Hopefully correctly. Ping me if there is more to be done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nearly there. I've made, and will probably make a couple more, minor tweaks. Please review and let me know if any are objectionable. In two cases it's not entirely clear to me whether the WorldCat site, or the book it refers to, is being cited. (If a cite web, then it doesn't need the OCLC, if a cite book then it doesn't need the WorldCat url.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure thing. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nearly there. I've made, and will probably make a couple more, minor tweaks. Please review and let me know if any are objectionable. In two cases it's not entirely clear to me whether the WorldCat site, or the book it refers to, is being cited. (If a cite web, then it doesn't need the OCLC, if a cite book then it doesn't need the WorldCat url.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not a point that affects FL status, but are the two Further Reading books deliberately ordered by date rather than surname?
- I swapped out one WorldCat ref for a book. I don't think the current sources for Ivy Wiliams (R89, R90) verify the info; although the wording in On This Day She could maybe be interpreted as supporting it. I think that's the last point! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @BennyOnTheLoose, thanks for the help! And yes the books were deliberately ordered by date, to answer your question.
- I will look into Ivy Williams further too. Best regards to as well. :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Another general comment:
- I think it should be "honorary" rather than "honourary" degrees. Optionally, a link to Honorary degree could be added in the caption. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with the spelling, but the degrees by decree were not honorary degrees as, unlike honorary degrees, they conferred the normal rights of a degree, see the 1866 Oxford University Calendar. Honorary degree#Customary degrees (ad eundem or jure officii degrees) has some background information, not all sourced. TSventon (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with the spelling, but the degrees by decree were not honorary degrees as, unlike honorary degrees, they conferred the normal rights of a degree, see the 1866 Oxford University Calendar. Honorary degree#Customary degrees (ad eundem or jure officii degrees) has some background information, not all sourced. TSventon (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Complete list
[edit]@Omnis Scientia, UndercoverClassicist, BennyOnTheLoose, Alavense, and ChrisTheDude: I have compiled a complete list of graduates from the Oxford University Gazette as suggested by UC and saved it here on the article talk page. I have only done up to December 1920 to give you all a chance to comment on whether it is better than a list of wikipedia articles and to suggest improvements to the format.
Notes: I have removed transcription errors as far as I could. I have noted where the woman was Mrs. as it makes it easier to look for the names elsewhere. I have put each degree on a separate line and ignored Oxford MAs. Only two women, Mary Lindsay Gordon and Ivy Williams, received two degrees. The names of colleges could probably be shortened by omitting college. I have given Wikipedia articles their own column so the table can be sorted for "has Wikipedia article". The last column is a page number but could be a full reference if necessary. TSventon (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@Omnis Scientia and UndercoverClassicist: I have replaced the tables with complete versions sourced to the Oxford University Gazette, but they will doubtless need further tweaking. I have just added 1920, but 1921 could be added at a future date. I think it is helpful to allow sorting on most columns. TSventon (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Great work, @TSventon! Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because of the recent success of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive2. I think this list is of similar quality and preparedness.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Drive-by accessibility comments
- Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding
!scope=row
to each primary cell, e.g.| 1987
becomes!scope=row | 1987
(on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use!scope=rowgroup
instead. This is needed for both tables.- OK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding
!scope=col
to each header cell, e.g.! Year
becomes!scope=col | Year
. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use!scope=colgroup
instead. This is for the 4-division table.- I think this is what you want.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- You cannot only use bolding or a background color to indicate something. Use a symbol. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:MPGuy2824, when I added scope row, why did the second column get bolded?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The header cell needs to be in its own separate line. i.e. move the University winner's name to a new line. This should fix the problem. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The header cell needs to be in its own separate line. i.e. move the University winner's name to a new line. This should fix the problem. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:MPGuy2824, when I added scope row, why did the second column get bolded?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- I think the first sentence could be reworded for clarity - the way it's written, it appears to say that the award is the most outstanding female, which doesn't make sense.
- I think I have addressed this issue. Not sure.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- The districts are as follows: – District 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, RI, VT), District 2 (DC, DE, KY, MD, NJ, PA, WV), District 3 (NC, TN, VA), District 4 (AL, FL, GA, PR, SC), District 5 (IL, IN, MI, OH), District 6 (AR, IA, LA, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, SD, WI, WY), – District 7 (CO, ID, KS, NE, NM, NV, OK, TX), District 8 (AK, AZ, CA, HI, OR, UT, WA, Canada). What do the – stand for?
- I don't think you asked a clear question. Are you asking what the linked abbreviations stand for?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand why there are – before districts 1 and 7, TonyTheTiger. Alavense (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not needed. Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand why there are – before districts 1 and 7, TonyTheTiger. Alavense (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you asked a clear question. Are you asking what the linked abbreviations stand for?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Men's and women's basketball No need for the capital m.
- Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Two-time Winners No need for the capital w.
- This seemed like a proper place to use Title case. Is this against MOS? Happy to change if it is.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I find the captions in the charts confusing. I thing something along these lines would be clearer: Maya Moore (pictured in 2019), the 2010 and 2011 winner
- OK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- the have been
- Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- The notes belong in the "Footnotes" section.
- Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note c) doesn't require a full stop.
- Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Those are the things that caught my attention in a first read, TonyTheTiger. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): The Herald, ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 05:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I still believe it's of Featured List quality. My co-nominator, The Herald, took time to address many of the issues since the last FLC. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 05:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Drive-by comments
- Since the list is about missions, the mission column should be made the primary one in the "Alphabetical mission types".
- That same table should be made sortable on par with the other tables in the list.
- Also, the tables that I checked didn't have table captions.
- In the cancelled missions table, Apollo 12 planning seems to be the same as the "As flown" data. What makes this a cancelled mission?
- That same table is missing row and column scope for the header cells. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done. I added a note about Apollo 12, since it doesn't seem there was a formal designation change but rather a change in plans. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 04:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
In addition to MPGuy2824's comment above:
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. You have it on the alphabetical table but not the others. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 13:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The national symbols of Nigeria represent the country's identity, heritage, and values, reflecting its cultural diversity and historical journey. These symbols include the national flag, coat of arms, anthem, and pledge, as well as the national flower, animal, currency, etc. This list is intended to be part of the Developing Countries Wiki Contest, which I am participating in. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- MPGuy2824
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Do you need to put the previous National Bird at all?
- The scope for "National days" needs to be "rowgroup".
- The images in the table need alts.
- Most of the refs are missing archive links.
- Unless you can find some official source for this, you should remove the row about the National Dish. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Thank you so much for your feedback. Please can you make bullet 1 clearer for me, I couldn't quite understand that one. Heh, you literally read my mind for the national dish, I, for one, wanted to remove it initially, but I just thought I should hear from others. I'm taking that off and doing the other fixes you pointed out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Edit the section which has the table. Right at the top of the code for the table you'll see a line "|+". Add the table caption after the two symbols. Hope that explains it. If my explanation isn't clear then try looking at a recent FL promotion with a table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Thanks for explaining, I've fixed that and every other thing you pointed out at this time. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't checked the rest, but some archive links are still missing. Consider installing User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-sb.js, at least temporarily. It shows that and other problems with references. (Once you install it, there will be a "Show ref check" in the tools section of any wikipage. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Thanks for suggesting that tool, it helped me figure out the missing ones. I have fixed them now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- "calls upon Nigerians to stand".
- "where the country is considered a public matter with officials being elected." - needs a rewrite.
- "was re-adopted on 29 May 2024,"
- "colloquially called October First, " - can be eliminated from the sentence.
- "subsequent detention and death became symbols of the struggle for democracy" - according to the source's headline, Abiola became the symbol, not his detention or death.
- "military parades, religious services, and public speeches are common on this day." - Make this a separate sentence.
- wikilink "decimalisation".
- The scope for the National bird should be "row", not "rowgroup".
- The notes section of the Naira should be reduced IMO.
- "found abundantly in Nigeria's forests and on its riverbanks."
- That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Thank you so much, I fixed all now except for I don't think the notes section of the Naira is too extensive. I hope you'd be okay with that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Any updates on this one? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify my objection in the section below (SafariScribe's comments), I think you need to define the scope of this list somehow. It should be clear to a future editor whether a new symbol (whatever it is) should be a part of this particular list or not. Based on that definition, it will be clear whether to remove or keep the National Theatre. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Commenting on the completeness of this list, I'd say that let's take, for example, the National dish which I removed already, while not an officially declared national symbol, a President might just come tomorrow and declare it to be so, maybe not now. This also applies to any of those other symbols that some sources listed (which are not official national symbols yet). So, maybe indicating that the list might be expanded in the future would help?
- For the national theatre, like I said earlier, I am inclined to removing it because of several research I have done. I found two sources, this one at page 179, section "Official symbols", and this one at page 295, section 3.0. These two sources mention two more symbols which I will add to this list now, but none of them mentioned either the Seal of the President or the National Theatre as a national or official symbol. I, as a matter of fact, consider these sources more reliable than Legit.ng's list, because Legit.ng actually mentions the arm forces flag as a national symbol (while also mentioning the seal and the theatre), which is not exactly so, based on my current compilation and research. Legit is the only one that mentions the National Theatre as a symbol, while I found a source from a predatory journal which mentions the Seal of the President, but well, like I said, "predatory", I can't cite that in the first place. I'd be pinging @SafariScribe: in this regard because there is a clearer ground on removing the seal and the national theatre and adding the Constitution of Nigeria, National Identity Card, and the Nigerian Passport as national/official symbols. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Vanderwaalforces, if there is a consensus to remove them, then proceed. However, I have supported this list because it looks good to me and meets FL guidelines. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 17:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Just to note that I am done with this, you might want to look? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support promotion for prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify my objection in the section below (SafariScribe's comments), I think you need to define the scope of this list somehow. It should be clear to a future editor whether a new symbol (whatever it is) should be a part of this particular list or not. Based on that definition, it will be clear whether to remove or keep the National Theatre. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Thanks for suggesting that tool, it helped me figure out the missing ones. I have fixed them now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't checked the rest, but some archive links are still missing. Consider installing User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-sb.js, at least temporarily. It shows that and other problems with references. (Once you install it, there will be a "Show ref check" in the tools section of any wikipage. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Thanks for explaining, I've fixed that and every other thing you pointed out at this time. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Edit the section which has the table. Right at the top of the code for the table you'll see a line "|+". Add the table caption after the two symbols. Hope that explains it. If my explanation isn't clear then try looking at a recent FL promotion with a table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 Thank you so much for your feedback. Please can you make bullet 1 clearer for me, I couldn't quite understand that one. Heh, you literally read my mind for the national dish, I, for one, wanted to remove it initially, but I just thought I should hear from others. I'm taking that off and doing the other fixes you pointed out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Drive by comments
[edit]- Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see how Ref 1 is verifying this sentence- "The national symbols of Nigeria represent the country's identity, heritage, and values, reflecting its cultural diversity and historical journey."
- Author name is missing for Refs 11, 24, 26, 36, 40.
- Ref 2 has two authors. Adrianna Simwa is not mentioned in the citation.
- Author names for Ref 25 might need some change. There are 2 authors- Shehnaz Khan and Trish Adudu.
- Central Bank of Nigeria is wikilinked in Ref 38, but not in Refs 10 and 14. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nitro Absynthe Thank you so much for the comments. I have fixed all these as of this time. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
SafariScribe
[edit]- Interesting!
The Naira symbol, ₦, is derived from the initial letter of Nigeria with a double stroke.
needs a source- Are you certain the symbols are complete? You seemed to be missing "The National Theatre"
- Also the "Seal of the Nigerian President": It was first used in 1979 during the regime of Shehu Shagari, and was not used from 1983 to 1999. The seal was then reinitiated in 1999. (Cited to this source)
- Thank you for your comments.
The sky is blue
for example, does not need a source, right? I'm not sureThe Naira symbol, ₦, is derived from the initial letter of Nigeria with a double stroke.
is something that needs a source because it is obvious, but I have a source I can cite for that. The National Theatre and the seal of the President are not "national symbol" per se. The source you mentioned is the only that claims that. For example, the seal of the Nigerian President is more or less a child of the coat of arms, so I'd rather call the coat of arms the national symbol, than the seal. I was actually going to mention the seal in the coat of arms notes BTW, but I think I later changed my mind. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)- @Vanderwaalforces, when you want to respond to a comment like his, you may want to reply each review, that the reviewer mayn't have to check them. Sometimes general review like the one above doesn't necessarily give the reviewer reply to a certain comment. One of the best markup is "*:". Cheers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments.
- The Seal and the theatre are national symbols, and I will like to see them in the list before concluding. Aside that, the rest of the article looks good.
- @SafariScribe: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all these by now. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. I am happy to support.Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Safari Scribe: I don't see why the seal of the president and the national arts theatre are there in this list at all. We wouldn't put the Taj Mahal in a similar list for India, or the Saint Basil's Cathedral for Russia, even though they are popular cultural symbols. In addition, the seal of the president is essentially the national Coat of arms. What stops us from adding the flag of the Nigerian Navy to this list? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824 I literally disputed SS, because I thought exactly the same thing you just said. But I later saw a source that claimed the Seal was a national symbol, but it was from a predatory journal I couldn’t cite. I definitely would not consider the Nigerian Navy’s flag as a national symbol.
- Correctly pinging @SafariScribe. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824, of course the Nigerian Navy flag cannot be considered a national symbol. According to this source, a national or official symbol is something that makes a country unique and identifies it among others. While I am certain that the National Theatre is a national symbol, I have some doubts about the Sea of the President. However, since it identifies the President who is the supreme authority in the country, it can be considered a symbol as well (official). For example, many bishops have their own coat of arms, which helps identify them, just as the Pope does. I have no objections if anyone disputes the Seal of the Nigerian President as a national symbol. @Vanderwaalforces, the source I cited herein contains comprehensive information about these national symbols, so I recommend it during source reviewing. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @SafariScribe perhaps you’re not careful. The source you mentioned is one of the publications I cited already, while that source not only said “Here are some”, it also does not even mention the Seal of the Nigerian President nor the National Theatre as a symbol, at least, based on page 295. Like I said earlier, I found a source (which is not the one you mentioned) that mentioned the seal (not the national theatre) as a national symbol, but it is from a predatory journal and I couldn’t cite it. I am very inclined to revert back to my original version (without the seal and theatre), but let me hear from others. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Vanderwaalforces, provided that the Seal and National Theatre are properly sourced to a reliable source, I am good to go. If there is any argument about the Seal and Theatre, it should go to the talk page. Reverting to the original version may be disruptive as it was from a reviewer. Objections therefore should be a matter of whether the article meets the FL guidelines or not. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @SafariScribe perhaps you’re not careful. The source you mentioned is one of the publications I cited already, while that source not only said “Here are some”, it also does not even mention the Seal of the Nigerian President nor the National Theatre as a symbol, at least, based on page 295. Like I said earlier, I found a source (which is not the one you mentioned) that mentioned the seal (not the national theatre) as a national symbol, but it is from a predatory journal and I couldn’t cite it. I am very inclined to revert back to my original version (without the seal and theatre), but let me hear from others. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): B3251(talk) 16:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Nominating in similar fashion to my previous nomination for List of cities in New Brunswick. Please let me know if I should expand upon or change anything and I'll be more than happy to do so. Thanks, reviewers! B3251(talk) 16:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "are formed under the 1996 Municipal Act" => "are formed under the terms of the 1996 Municipal Act"
- "In order to label an urban municipality as a city in Manitoba" => "In order for an urban municipality in Manitoba to be labelled as a city"
- "the municipal governments of each city contains a mayor;" => "the municipal government of each city contains a mayor;"
- "the two largest cities has wards," =>"the two largest cities have wards,"
- "in both population and by land area" => "both in population and by land area"
- "which has 749,607 residents and spanning 461.78 square kilometres" => "which has 749,607 residents and spans 461.78 square kilometres"
- "The most recent incorporated city in the province was Morden," => "The most recent city to be incorporated in the province was Morden,"
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Verification check MrLinkinPark333
[edit]Prose
[edit]- "sixth largest by land area" - Needs an extra source to specify the territories as it's eighth overall. Stats Canada combines the provinces with the territories
- "Cities, towns and villages... minimum population of 7,500" - Needs page numbers (page 1 and page 27).
- "although Flin Flon, part of which is in the neighbouring province of Saskatchewan," - Stats Canada lists this as Flin Flon (Part) but does not specify the other part is in Saskatchewan.
- Manitoba's capital and largest city -> Manitoba's largest city (as Stats Canada doesn't specify that Winnipeg is the capital of Manitoba).
- the two largest cities has wards," -> two cities have wards (as the election source doesn't state population).
Table
[edit]- Citation #9 (MHS Resources: Manitoba Communities) doesn't mention any of the incorporation dates and can be removed. The source next to each date are sufficient enough for verification.
- The Regions need a citation.
- Citation needed for the note saying Flin Flon is in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
- Pop. densities need a slight fix based on Stats Canada source: Flin Flon 376.1, Morden 609.6, Winkler 663.1
--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MrLinkinPark333 Partially done: I've gone ahead and made some changes, but I could not find an extra source in land area. Please let me know what can be done about that. Regarding the regions, my assumption is that it would be WP:SKYBLUE because this can be verified just based on their geographic locations, and is what I'm guessing to be the reason why my also recently-nominated List of cities in New Brunswick passed without requiring citations for the counties each city belong to in there. B3251(talk) 23:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- In regards to land area, I think an extra source that specifically states the names of the 10 provinces could help. This could be placed adjacent to the Stats Canada source, as it says Canada, provinces and territories. For the regions, I'm not sure if it's pass common knowledge per "easily verified by a non-specialized map". This doesn't have regions while this uses different regions..Otherwise:
- The Government of Manitoba source also needs page 1 to show the 1996 Municipal Act..
- sixth largest by land area" -> might want to reword to "sixth largest province by land area" to avoid confusion.
- The Canadian Encyclopedia source can be reused for the note for Flin Flon in the table.
- The Population densities still need adjusting.
- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MrLinkinPark333:
Done B3251(talk) 16:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're almost there:
- The archived Government of Manitoba source from 2009 doesn't list Winkler and Morden as cities of Pembina Valley.
- The archived Government of Manitoba source uses Northern and Winnipeg Capital regions, instead of Northern Manitoba and Winnipeg Metropolitan. Perhaps an extra source with these names can be added here, especially since Winnipeg Capital was renamed Winnipeg Metropolitan.
- I'm not sure if the archived Government of Manitoba source is 100% clear that Selkrik is also in Winnipeg Capital. The two sources showing Interlake & Winnipeg Capital could help here.
- Still need a source about sixth largest province to show the ten provinces. This can be placed next to the Stats Canada source.
- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MrLinkinPark333
- The archived Government of Manitoba source from 2009 doesn't list Winkler and Morden as cities of Pembina Valley.
- If I were to guess for this situation, the map was most likely initially created before both cities were incorporated. I just used the Pembina Valley region map to clarify this because it shows both communities.
- Regarding the other sources, I'm having a difficult time with finding sources for specifically the names and I'm both confused and unsure of what to do. One moment please. B3251(talk) 14:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @B3251: Have you addressed all of @MrLinkinPark333's concerns yet? Just following up, not pressuring or rushing you. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Hey man im josh, almost. I've had trouble with finding sources to address the following of MrLinkinPark333's concerns:
- Source for Manitoba being the sixth-largest province in land area, with a specific focus on the ten provinces.
- Source that specifically names certain regions exactly like their article counterparts: Winnipeg Metropolitan Region and Northern Manitoba.
- B3251(talk) 20:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- With the sixth-largest province in land area, yoo can keep the Statistics Canada source and add a source naming the ten provinces next to it. If you're having trouble finding sources using Winnipeg Metropolitan Region and Northern Manitoba, you could use the Government of Manitoba naming instead and pipe them to the article names. I have been in your situation before with having difficultly finding exact sources. It's not just you :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MrLinkinPark333 thanks for the advice, will try to do soon B3251(talk) 10:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- With the sixth-largest province in land area, yoo can keep the Statistics Canada source and add a source naming the ten provinces next to it. If you're having trouble finding sources using Winnipeg Metropolitan Region and Northern Manitoba, you could use the Government of Manitoba naming instead and pipe them to the article names. I have been in your situation before with having difficultly finding exact sources. It's not just you :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Hey man im josh, almost. I've had trouble with finding sources to address the following of MrLinkinPark333's concerns:
- @B3251: Have you addressed all of @MrLinkinPark333's concerns yet? Just following up, not pressuring or rushing you. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MrLinkinPark333
- You're almost there:
- @MrLinkinPark333:
- In regards to land area, I think an extra source that specifically states the names of the 10 provinces could help. This could be placed adjacent to the Stats Canada source, as it says Canada, provinces and territories. For the regions, I'm not sure if it's pass common knowledge per "easily verified by a non-specialized map". This doesn't have regions while this uses different regions..Otherwise:
Hey man im josh
[edit]- Could you add a reference that helps verify note a? I understand you explain it in the lead, but it could be beneficial to name the references and add them to the note
- Consider changing 2021 Census of Population to 2021 Canadian census, so match the target article
- Can we come up with a better title than "total cities" for the row that sums up the stats?
- Consider adding a note, possibly in a note next to "Manitoba" in the bottom row of the table, that explains the total population includes xyz
- Ref 9 – Inconsistent when compared ot the other city website sources, move the entry for the "publisher" parameter to "website" for consistency among similar references
- Ref 10 – Publisher is unnecessary and adding it makes it inconsistent with ref 1.
- Ref 1 – Move the entry for publisher to the website or work parameter (based on Template:Cite web, this seems more appropriate)
That's what I've got for now. Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: Partially done: first three done, please let me know what you think. I have a couple of questions:
- Regarding your request to add a note explaining total population including 'xyz', do you mean that the total population of Manitoba includes the listed cities?
- Ref 9 can be replaced with news sources such as 1 / 2 (same agency). Let me know if you think this would be preferable.
- I'll get everything else done once I hear back just for extra clarity. Thanks! B3251(talk) 17:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- @B3251: Sorry, I had a lot of pings and I missed a few I needed to respond to. As for the point of clarification, I was suggesting a note to clarify where the rest of the total, not including the listed cities, comes from. For ref 9, the source itself isn't the issue, it's that you used publisher, which default to non-italicized text, whereas your other citations to city websites used the website/work parameter, which defaults to italicized. I made the change myself though, which means the references to City of X are now consistently italicized. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh Hi josh, thanks for clarifying for me and also making that adjustment. Regarding the clarification note for Manitoba's total population, would you consider it acceptable for the note to state that the rest of the population comes from Manitoba's other municipalities etc? Thanks, B3251(talk) 16:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah that's fine @B3251. I just want a note that answers the inevitable question of "where's the rest of that population number come from?" Hey man im josh (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @B3251 as a follow up. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh Sorry, I haven't gotten around to making updates. I'll try finishing this tomorrow. B3251(talk) 13:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh Sorry for being late in notifying you, but I did finish this soon after I made the comment. B3251(talk) 14:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh Sorry for being late in notifying you, but I did finish this soon after I made the comment. B3251(talk) 14:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh Sorry, I haven't gotten around to making updates. I'll try finishing this tomorrow. B3251(talk) 13:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @B3251 as a follow up. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah that's fine @B3251. I just want a note that answers the inevitable question of "where's the rest of that population number come from?" Hey man im josh (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh Hi josh, thanks for clarifying for me and also making that adjustment. Regarding the clarification note for Manitoba's total population, would you consider it acceptable for the note to state that the rest of the population comes from Manitoba's other municipalities etc? Thanks, B3251(talk) 16:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @B3251: Sorry, I had a lot of pings and I missed a few I needed to respond to. As for the point of clarification, I was suggesting a note to clarify where the rest of the total, not including the listed cities, comes from. For ref 9, the source itself isn't the issue, it's that you used publisher, which default to non-italicized text, whereas your other citations to city websites used the website/work parameter, which defaults to italicized. I made the change myself though, which means the references to City of X are now consistently italicized. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Additional background context for those unfamiliar with subject matter
| ||
---|---|---|
Imagine traveling back 200 years in time. If you had done so to tell a young northern German prince that he would become the father-in-law of Europe, he probably would have said you were being nonsensical. After all, this German prince, whose parents were only distantly related to European royalty, came from a simple background. However, life had its surprises for this German prince. An extremely polemic debate arose over who would eventually rule his homeland and nearby Denmark. This German prince happened to have a wife with close family connections to Danish royalty. Consequently, with the support of multiple European nations, this prince was chosen to be the next king of Denmark. And when the time came in 1863, he and his wife became King Christian IX and Queen Louise. Nevertheless, it was not enough for Christian and his eldest son to secure their place on the Danish throne (especially in the eyes of Louise). First, Christian’s eldest daughter married the most eligible bachelor in all of Britain. Second, Greece needed a new king because they had shown the door to their last one. As a result, the Greeks victoriously voted to install Christian’s second son on their throne. Third, Christian’s second daughter married the most eligible bachelor in all of Russia. Fourth, Christian’s youngest daughter married the throneless heir of the German Kingdom of Hanover. Their shared bond was that both of their families had lost territory at the hands of an even stronger German kingdom. And finally, Christian’s youngest son spent his life sailing the seas with a French princess by his side. More than a century after Christian’s death, the story continues. Like an exponential function in mathematics, his grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and further progeny have increased the number of his descendants more quickly with each passing generation. These descendants have wed into royalty all around Europe. Because of this, six of the ten current heirs to European thrones can claim Christian IX as their ancestor! Can you guess which ones?
|
This list on Christian IX’s descendants helps to tell the story of a Danish king, his queen, his children, his grandchildren, and his great-grandchildren. I will note that this list was vetted both at Articles for creation and at Did you know.
This nomination is significant for various reasons. Personally, this is my first attempt to create a featured list on Wikipedia, and its success would demonstrate that I am capable of producing exemplary content. Second, I note that at the time of this nomination, only 10 royalty-related lists, and none on descendants of individuals, are of featured status. I hope that this article can serve as a model to all Wikipedia editors of what a great royal and genealogical list can look like. Finally, and above all, I hope to show a general audience that there is far more to (European) royalty than just the House of Windsor! Everyone is welcome to give feedback to make these goals a reality!
Thank you, AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Borsoka
[edit]Reading through the list and its sources, I am not convinced that it is fully in line with Wikipedia:Notability, and I think its subject is not verified by a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, its DYK was held for a very long time, and I wasn't entirely sure it passed WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. — 48JCL 12:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Very similar concerns were raised at the Did you know nomination. I responded to this inquiry by noting that Aronson 2000 and Lerche and Mandal 2003 established notability. The objector then conceded the point (in my eyes). Both of the aforementioned sources (albeit the 2020 version of Aronson's text) are also listed in the "Further reading" section of this article.
- That being said, I will not object if the consensus of this discussion is to merge or delete this stand-alone list. If so, I ask that the tables be merged into the "Issue" (or corresponding) sections of the articles on Christian IX and his children. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank your for the links. I am not sure that works written by Theo Aronson are reliable sources. Miranda Carter did not write of Christian's descendants, but of three cousins who ruled three great powers during WWI. Lerche and Mandal do not seem to be historians. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
(unindenting to ensure collapse template works properly) So that my thought process in writing the article is clear both to you and to everyone else commenting, I will qualify the notability of the subject matter further:
Detailed explanation of (potential) reliability of Further reading texts
|
---|
|
Although I personally believe these backgrounds on the authors sufficiently qualify the topic for a Wikipedia article, I will leave it to this page's consensus to see if this is truly the case. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- With these sources, surely these should replace the "Royal Family Tree" sources (which appear to be SPS) could be replaced, right? I am still not going to warrant an oppose, but I would suggest withdrawal, there is a lot of work that could be done. 48JCL public (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed all of the self-published sources in the article that I could find, and I have replaced the citations with references to more reliable sources. If I missed a source and/or I should still use the Further reading texts more exhaustively in the article, please let me know. Also, with respect to WP:NOTDATABASE, the only criterion I could realistically see being used against this nomination is #3, as creative works, song lyrics, and software updates are not listed in this article. To make all of the lifespan information encyclopedically relevant, I have written prose that accompanies each table elaborating on the family life of Christian/Louise and the families of their children. Please let me know if that prose should be more comprehensive. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
48JCL
[edit]- Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding
!scope=row
to each primary cell, e.g.|[[Name]]
becomes!scope=row |[[Name]]
. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use!scope=rowgroup
instead. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions.
- All "primary" columns in the tables have been defined. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Adding a minor note on to this- the row and col scopes by default bold the text in those headers, so since you did so as well right now they're double-bolded, which should be fixed. --PresN 13:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for noting this. I have removed the excess bolding both in the table headers and elsewhere in the article. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Adding a minor note on to this- the row and col scopes by default bold the text in those headers, so since you did so as well right now they're double-bolded, which should be fixed. --PresN 13:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- All "primary" columns in the tables have been defined. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think a list should have "This article describes the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of Christian and Louise." at the end of the list
- @48JCL: Could you please suggest how this sentence should be replaced? Per WP:SALLEAD, the inclusion criteria of a stand-alone list should make a direct statement about the inclusion criteria. This is the purpose of the text you quoted. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have rewritten that sentence to attempt to make the inclusion criteria as explicit as possible without actively self-referencing the article. Please let me know if I should further modify the text. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Issue with sources
I am noticing Blogspot and Wordpress being cited. What makes them reliable? More to come. 48JCL 12:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have replaced the Blogspot and WordPress sources. That being said, my rationale for including them was that the specific authors appeared to have professional credentials in their field. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but that does not exactly make it reliable, still being a SPS. I'm still not sure whether or not this article should be supported, but thanks for addressing my concerns. 48JCL 17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Support from Dylan620
[edit]Hi Andrew – I've just started working on a review that will focus primarily on prose and images, and should be done by the end of the day Monday at the latest. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- A quick update: while I have been making quite a bit of progress with this review, I've unfortunately been slowed down by real-life stuff, so I'm running a bit behind schedule. I get out of work fairly early tomorrow, so knock on wood, I should be able to finish in the next 24 hours or so. I do have a few preliminary comments:
- File:Princess Dagmar of Denmark.jpg – the source URL provides a completely different image
- File:Louise Princess Royal.jpg – the source just circles back to the ENWP page for the upload
- File:Princess Princess Maria of Greece and Denmark with her parents and siblinsg.jpg – uploader partial-blocked from the article and draft namespaces for copyright violations
- File:GustavDenmark.jpg – uploader indefinitely site-blocked for copyright violations
- Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Welp, I thought I was nearly finished, and then I realized I would have to look through a 119-page PDF to verify sourcing for one of the images, which is missing its page number on the Commons upload page. I recall seeing at least a couple other similar cases elsewhere in the listicle. Unfortunately, that means this review is going to take quite a bit longer than I had anticipated. I'm going to try to complete it within the next five to seven days – please accept my apologies. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your work so far in reviewing the images, Dylan. Please let me know when you have completed your review. In the meantime, I have made the following changes:
- I have replaced the portrait of Dagmar with an image of the coat of arms of Denmark at the time she died (to be consistent with the entries on other royals with no available portrait).
- I have replaced the portrait of Louise with the one used in her article's lede infobox.
- I have removed the portrait of George I's family altogether. In any case, his youngest son, Christopher, was not yet born when the image was taken.
- I have likewise replaced the portrait of Gustav with an image of the coat of arms of Denmark at the time he died. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi again Andrew – I've finally finished the review, and I'm sorry it took so long. This was probably the most challenging image review I've done since I started tackling them earlier this year, since I'm not super familiar with European public domain laws and needed to give myself something of a crash course. The majority of images check out for licensing and sourcing. I took it upon myself to add missing US public domain tags on Commons in cases where I felt comfortable doing so (see my edits there). A few images are sourced to offline refs, which I'm choosing to accept in good faith. However, there are some issues:
- I am pleased that every image has alt text. However, in the slot where Gustav's portrait was replaced with the coat of arms of Denmark, the old alt text describing Gustav is still being used.
- On that note, is a "portrait of a coat of arms" really a portrait? This is super nitpicky, but the portrait article states that a portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face is always predominant. Every coat of arms usage here has alt text that describes the coat as a portrait.
- File:Christian IX of Denmark and family 1862.jpg – uploader partially blocked on ENWP from article and draft spaces. (Coincidentally, this is the same user who uploaded the now-removed photo of George I's family.) This image seems to be an alternate version of File:Christian IX Denmark and family 1862.jpg, which, per that file's description page, was apparently part of a legal dispute between the NPG and the WMF. Maybe I'm worrying too much, but I would be wary of including either image here.
- File:Family Photo.jpg – The source URL is dead. There is an archived link available, but it's not loading the images on my end.
- File:Alexander russia.jpg – The source URL is dead.
- File:Ernstaugusthannover.jpg – Uploader indefinitely site-blocked from ENWP for copyright violations. (This is the same user who uploaded the now-removed photo of Gustav.)
- File:Xenia, russian grand duchess.jpg – The source URL does not contain this image.
- I am pleased that every image has alt text. However, in the slot where Gustav's portrait was replaced with the coat of arms of Denmark, the old alt text describing Gustav is still being used.
- The prose is good overall, but I do have a few queries/suggested adjustments:
- Moreover, he nearly abdicated... – I don't think the "moreover" is needed here; indeed, this could probably be merged with the previous sentence by using a semicolon.
- Moreover, through her charity work... – I don't think the "moreover" is needed here.
- Is there anything about Valdemar that could be added to the second paragraph of §Children?
- They then married in October 1866 – "Then" feels extraneous here.
- Moreover, both Nicholas and Michael, along with Nicholas's five children, were killed during the Russian Revolution. – I think this would read more smoothly as "Nicholas, Michael, and the former's five children were killed during the Russian Revolution."
- Quite impressive work overall, Andrew. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 03:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your work so far in reviewing the images, Dylan. Please let me know when you have completed your review. In the meantime, I have made the following changes:
- Welp, I thought I was nearly finished, and then I realized I would have to look through a 119-page PDF to verify sourcing for one of the images, which is missing its page number on the Commons upload page. I recall seeing at least a couple other similar cases elsewhere in the listicle. Unfortunately, that means this review is going to take quite a bit longer than I had anticipated. I'm going to try to complete it within the next five to seven days – please accept my apologies. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Dylan620: Thank you very much for your extensive review. Here is how I have addressed your feedback. Please let me know if anything else should be done.
- For the images:
- I have changed the alt text for Gustav's image to better describe the coat of arms. Moreover, I have rewritten the alt text descriptors for all of the coat of arms images to avoid mention of portraits.
- I have removed the family portrait for Christian IX, given the concerns you have described.
- I have likewise removed the family portrait for Frederick VIII.
- I have replaced the image of Alexander with one of the pertinent Russian coat of arms, given the lack of other appropriate free-use images that I could locate.
- I have likewise replaced the image of Ernest Augustus with one of the pertinent Hanoverian coat of arms.
- I have likewise replaced the image of Xenia with one of the pertinent Russian coat of arms.
- For the prose:
- I have removed "Moreover" from that sentence on Christian IX's background.
- I have likewise removed "Moreover" from that sentence on Louise's background.
- I have added some information on Valdemar in the second paragraph of the Children section, namely on how family ties influenced him to reject the Bulgarian throne.
- I have removed "then" from that sentence on Dagmar and Alexander III's marriage.
- I have rewritten that sentence on the deaths of Nicholas II, his children, and Michael as you have suggested.
- AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Everything looks good to me now, Andrew, and I'm happy to support on prose and images. For what it's worth, I believe this would be the first geneology FL if promoted. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC) and The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
This is my first featured list nomination and I am nominating this post improving the article. This is a list of the national symbols of India. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dajasj
Thanks for working on the list and nominating it! Some first thoughts:
- Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial. Let me know if you have any questions!
- "Adopted" column is not really sortable (while other columns have the option to sort but are not really meant to be sorted)
- Random Capital letter in "The first two verses of the song were adopted as the National Song of India On 24 January 1950 by the Constituent Assembly of India."
- Try to minimise the text in the Notes column. Focus on what is relevant for it as national symbol. I think it is also good for accessibility if you don't change font size.
- I'm missing context for what is up with Hockey. Dajasj (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and comments. I have addressed the comments (MOS, sorting, caps and font size) except the notes part, which I will work on trimming it to keep it relevant.
- For the last point, Hockey is listed as a national game in government websites, text books etc. but as per an official note, there is no declared national game. Not sure whether to omit this altogether or keep it with mentioning the same in comments. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Kavyansh
I appreciate you nominating the list and I respect the efforts that must have been made to improve the list to this extent. That being said, I have a few fundamental issues with this nomination. The official Nation Portal of India lists only these 8 national symbols. Our list has 21 official symbols. Even if me make an exception for the "official name", the other alleged national symbols are being cited by an archived version of this site. It is a site hosted by "International Institute of Health and Hygiene,New Delhi" and sponsored by "Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change Govt of India". Does that make it an official site of the Government of India (as claimed in the citation)? For the other alleged national symbols, our article cites various news articles like TOI or HT. While these news articles do confirm the claim, wouldn't it be much better to cite an official source? For example, rather than this news article, why not directly cite this official declaration. But that leads me to the next question: if there are actual official symbols not specified in the Nation Portal of India website, what steps have we taken to ensure that the list is comprehensive? It is claimed by a HT article that Ganga is the national river of India. I am not able to find an official reliable source for it! The closest I can find is this audit report from the CAG, which again isn't an official declaration. So what criteria are we exactly using to determine which symbol gets to be in this list and which doesn't? How exactly are we justifying keeping Hockey as the National game? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh Thanks for the comments. I understand that your question broadly focuses on the comprehensiveness of the symbols and the verifiability of the same.
- As there is no clear definition of what constitutes a official/national symbol (either officially or as an agreed consensus in WP), I am afraid that the list can neither be comprehensive nor be exhaustive. The article covers symbols that are generally regarded as official/national symbols as per various given sources. For the question of whether these 21 symbols are verifiable as official, let us classify into three categories for the discussion at hand.
- a. Fifteen symbols with official sources:
- Eleven symbols, which are quoted as such directly in the official source: Official name and the nine symbols (motto is part of the emblem, described in detail in the same site) listed here officially are clear. National days are mentioned in the same official site here. These are fairly straightforward.
- Four symbols, where official press releases available. These have official sources, so verifiability should not be a concern. (Aquatic Animal: Official source by the Ministry of Environment here, Heritage animal: Official press release by the Ministry of Environment here, River: Apart from news sources, official press release from PMO here and official website of NMCG, Ministry of Jal Shakti also states so here, Microbe: Official press release by the Ministry of Environment here)
- b. Four symbols, where Government affiliated sources and other citations are available. As there are multiple government affiliated sources and independent sources backing the same information, they are verifiable plus there are no sources stating anything to the contrary.
- Pledge: Apart from the general news sources, it is mentioned as such in Government sources (From Ministry of Education here, other here) and in a discussion in Parliament as a pledge (here).
- Tree and Fruit: These are quoted here in a site maintained by ENVIS, a government organization functioning under the Ministry of Environment. While not officially the Government website, it is affiliated to the Government. There are multiple other government affiliated sources/court mentions (For fruit: here, here, here and for tree: here, here, here, here) + independent news sources.
- Reptile: Apart from the general news sources, it is mentioned as such in Government exams(here), question papers (here), text books (here) and third party sources (here)
- c. Two symbols, with contradictory sources.
- Flower: ENVIS source here and other government affiliated source here + was part of the official symbols here. It was not mentioned as a national flower in an RTI query in 2017 and in Parliament in 2019 (here), but was part of the official website till 2021, referenced as such in official statements in 2019 (here) and by ministers in 2022 (here, here)
- Game: As I had mentioned in the previous revert, I am not sure whether to keep hockey or not. An RTI reply in 2012 said that officially there is no national game here and it was reiterated in 2020 here. While the ENVIS source still lists it here.
- For both the above cases, can remove/keep with a note based on consensus here.
- I have tried to address the points raised in your queries. Please do let me know if you have further comments/clarification on the same. Thanks again! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delayed response. I understand that it is wrong to hold our editors accountable for information that is simply not available or unclear, but I am still not entirely convinced. In the lead of the list (which I believe needs to be more elaborate), we claim, "The Government of India has designated official national symbols that represent the Republic of India." However, the instances here unfortunately show that there are symbols that are not officially designated. As things stand, if the list can neither be comprehensive nor exhaustive, then we need to set clear criteria for what is to be included and what is not. In my opinion, that criteria should be based on what reliable official sources say. Alternatively, given the lack of available information, we can set the criteria based on the opinions of the major contributors to this list or through a talk page discussion (RfC if required). I won't oppose the nomination merely for this reason, but in my opinion, government exam question papers, privately published grade 6 textbooks, and even sites affiliated with the government aren't entirely reliable for such extraordinary claims. As a side note, I have filled a RTI application regarding this awaiting response from the Ministry of Home Affairs. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh I do agree with your point on the criteria and I am open to take it to a discussion as there seems to be no precedent or agreement on what is consisted as a national symbol (apart from these, there are symbols which are termed as national announced by private organizations as well!). If your RTI gets a revert, nothing like it as it will probably help clarify things from the official perspective. Then the question is whether we split into two sections or keep only the official symbols recognised. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delayed response. I understand that it is wrong to hold our editors accountable for information that is simply not available or unclear, but I am still not entirely convinced. In the lead of the list (which I believe needs to be more elaborate), we claim, "The Government of India has designated official national symbols that represent the Republic of India." However, the instances here unfortunately show that there are symbols that are not officially designated. As things stand, if the list can neither be comprehensive nor exhaustive, then we need to set clear criteria for what is to be included and what is not. In my opinion, that criteria should be based on what reliable official sources say. Alternatively, given the lack of available information, we can set the criteria based on the opinions of the major contributors to this list or through a talk page discussion (RfC if required). I won't oppose the nomination merely for this reason, but in my opinion, government exam question papers, privately published grade 6 textbooks, and even sites affiliated with the government aren't entirely reliable for such extraordinary claims. As a side note, I have filled a RTI application regarding this awaiting response from the Ministry of Home Affairs. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 13:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @PresN Thanks for the comment. Have addressed the same! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator: – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 17:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list, now that I've secured three Supports for my FLC of the Linda Lindas discography. Feel free to leave any comments if you don't think this is ready, but I believe it is. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 17:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
NØ
[edit]- "The Linda Lindas have recorded 17 songs for album or EP releases, 7 songs as singles, and 5 songs outside albums, totaling 29 songs. Among the 29 songs, 7 of them are covers, and most were produced by Carlos de la Garza, the father of band members Lucia and Mila." - Exact counts like this require a secondary source; we're not allowed to just add a count from our in-wiki table since it could be incomplete. Either way, these numbers will keep on changing and would be a pain to maintain, so I suggest removing them.
- "The band started out as a cover band, playing music from multiple bands such as Le Tigre and the Go-Go's, whose "Tonite" they later covered." - I am a bit confused by the structure of the lead currently. The first paragraph seems to go into a summary of their overall career, and in the second paragraph it is back to describing how they started out?
- You should add some information about the musical genres and lyrical themes explored on the first album. Overall, the lead could deal with some restructuring.--NØ 12:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: what do you think now? I've restructured the lead and included info on genres and themes. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 00:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Looks superb now. Kudos on the quick improvements!--NØ 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: what do you think now? I've restructured the lead and included info on genres and themes. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 00:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Lead image could be made larger
- "started out as a cover band, playing music from multiple bands such as Le Tigre and the Go-Go's, whose "Tonite" they later covered" - this reads a bit weirdly - they started out as a band covering the likes of the Go-Gos, whom they covered later? Might be worth adding a little more context to their covering the Go-Gos "later"
- Also, the word "multiple" isn't needed
- "the Linda Lindas' namesake" - I would change this to something like "for which the band was named"
- "The album genre has been classified" => "The album's genre has been classified"
- ""Racist, Sexist Boy" has commonly been compared to riot grrrl sound" => ""Racist, Sexist Boy" has often been compared to the riot grrrl sound"
- "Their second album, No Obligation, is set to release in 2024" => "Their second album, No Obligation, is set to be released in 2024"
- Songwriter(s) column sorts on forename. It should sort on surname
- Song and album titles starting with "The" should sort based on the next word
- Some of the image captions need sources that the song in question is a cover of the band named
- "The Linda Lindas remixed "The News" by Paramore for a remix album entitled Re: This Is Why." - if they simply remixed the original song, this doesn't come under the usual definition of a song they "recorded" so I don't believe it belongs on this list -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Done; implemented all of your suggestions, thanks! Anything else? – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 17:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]I'll do a source review and add in any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@The Sharpest Lives: comments below. Feel free to challenge. I reserve the right to spot something later! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
- Notes b and c should have citations.
- The band's own Bandcamp site is cited few times, but only for straightforward facts, so that seems fine.
- I don't think that Film Music Reporter is suitable as a source - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387#Film_Music_Reporter_-_Reliability
- For consistency, Dork should be wikilinked to Dork (magazine)
- For consistency, Bigmouth should be wikilinked (redlink)
- For consistency, either remove the two ISSN's, or add ISSNs to other sources that have them.
- I think "Gabba Gabba!, Yo" and "Linda Lindas, The" should be re-ordered to their "natural" form, e.g. using the author rather than first/last parameters.
- Some of the sources, e.g. YouTube, Apple Music, aren't ideal, but they are OK for the info being supported here.
- Spot check on "most were produced by Carlos de la Garza, the father of band members Lucia and Mila." - no issues.
- Spot check on "In 2021, the band went viral with a performance of "Racist, Sexist Boy" and subsequently signed with the Los Angeles-based label Epitaph Records" - no issues
- Spot checks on "Growing Up is centered on themes of growing up, discovering oneself,[16] and anxieties that arise in adolescence" - no issues
- Spot check on "Their second album, No Obligation, is set to be released in 2024" - no issues
General comments
- Is there any info available about unreleased recordings? (Out-takes, etc.)
- " the Linda Lindas have appeared on cover, remix, and tribute albums, as well as soundtracks." - phrasing suggests to me there are multiple appearances on each type, which doesn't seem to be the case. (e.g. only one tribute album and one soundtrack)
- "Their second album, No Obligation, is set to be released in 2024. It spawned three singles:" doesn't quite seem right to me, given that the album is not scheduled ti be released until October. Maybe soemthing like "Three tracks that will be on the album have been released as singles" (but more smoothly written)?
- Feels like the heading for the main table should be something like "Songs released by the Linda Lindas" rather than "Name of song, songwriter(s), original release and year of release", but I might be wrong.
- Overall, great work!
- Just pinging you about the above @The Sharpest Lives. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm pretty busy atm but have tried to do some of the suggestions. Yall feel free to implement them yourselves if you wish. {{The Sharpest Lives|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 21:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
After some hard work on this list, I now believe it meets the criteria. This will form part of the Lists of UEFA club competition winning managers topic if it passes here and would be a long overdue addition. My current list has four supports, so I'm assuming it's ok to nominate this one now. Thanks in advance for the comments. NapHit (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Image caption: "Carlos Bianchi, pictured playing for Vélez Sarsfield won the competition a record three times." => "Carlos Bianchi, pictured playing for Vélez Sarsfield, won the competition a record three times."
- Link UEFA and CONMEBOL
- Link "played over two legs" to two-legged tie
- "renaming it Toyota Cup" - no reason for italics
- Link FIFA
- "Lula became the first manager to win successive titles leading Santos to victory in 1962 and 1963" => "Lula became the first manager to win successive titles, leading Santos to victory in 1962 and 1963"
- "Argentine managers have won the competition the most times" => "Argentine managers won the competition the most times"
- Footnote to explain why there is no winning manager recorded for two of the years should be a footnote, not mixed in with the references. Also don't use "wasn't" in the footnote, write it in full.
- Per MOS:BOLD, bold should not be used to highlight something. Use colour + symbol -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, @ChrisTheDude:, I've addressed all the comments. Regarding the bold, I've looked at Bianchi's profile and he's not managed for 10 years. So safe to assume he's no longer active as a manager. NapHit (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gonzo_fan2007 (including source review)
[edit]- In the 1979 row, the managers should each have their own row so they can be properly sorted when using the table sort function.
- I removed the second manager as it seems he was the assistant to the other one, not co-manager. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the managers with multiple titles table, recommend adding an emdash to the blank cells.
- Done NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the last two tables, I don't think you need to duplicate the section title and table title. You can use {{sronly}} to keep the descriptive titles for accessibility without showing them visually.
- I did this and then realised that it leaves the refs hanging above the table, so I've left it for now. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- You can put it at the bottom of the table too. Take a look at Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) for an example of this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did this and then realised that it leaves the refs hanging above the table, so I've left it for now. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the abbreviated links in the Nationality and Country columns should use {{Abbrlink}}. Most people don't know country acronyms off the top of their heads.
- I've removed the abbreviations and used the full name. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Source review: Passed
- In Ref 2, 5 and 6, why abbreviate "Rec. Sport. Soccer Statistics Foundation"?
- The full name is used not the abbreviation. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- For Ref 1, I would recommend changing "bibliography" to a sub-heading of the "References" section and then add an additional subheading titled "Citations". An example of this is at Packers sweep.
- Done NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- All other references appear appropriate for the information being cited. All references are formatted appropriately.
- Spot checks on 10 refs did not bring up any issues.
- In Ref 2, 5 and 6, why abbreviate "Rec. Sport. Soccer Statistics Foundation"?
Please ping me when you have had a chance to respond. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks of the comments @Gonzo fan2007:, I've addressed your comments and responded above to some. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I added one response above but it wouldn't prevent my support, so feel free to take it or leave it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks of the comments @Gonzo fan2007:, I've addressed your comments and responded above to some. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Nominations for removal
[edit]- Notified: Jamie jca, WikiProject Television
Unfortunately I feel that several older 30 Rock items are failing modern standards. I am beginning here as I feel it is a clear cut example. I am nominating this for featured list removal because I feel that it fails criterias 3 and 5. It lacks a development section as detailed in MOS:TVPRODUCTION. The awards section features no prose and points to a separate list which covers other content in addition to season one. Adtionally neither a caption nor alt text is provided when needed. Lastly a possible style problem with the relevent episodes not being linked in the cast section. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Remove I've said a time or two that most season articles should actually be a process for WP:FAC and not FLC. I do understand that a large majority of these are were promoted quite a while ago, and that in recent times, they gone through the proper channels, but I also wouldn't be against a mass exodus of these articles as FL's. They tend to follow the format of a standard article more that of a list. Anyhow, within this "list" specifically: as the initial commenter stated, I'm largely noticing a lack of compliance with MOS:TV in the case of article layout, listing the number of episodes characters appeared in, and poorly written episode summaries that feel more like promotional taglines than they do summaries. There's also just a few general MOS failures, such as WP:BLUESEA violations and the use of {{Quote box}}. I'd be more inclined to leave a full review if I see progress being made here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm... potential hot take but I don't see any major issues. Sourcing seems fine, so I'm assuming the nomination is discussing FLCR #3(a) more than 3(b), and 3(a) is focused on including all key items in the set the list covers (which this does – it lists all of the episodes). A production section would be nice, but I don't interpret MOS:TVPRODUCTION as requiring one and I suspect a large portion of the information would just reiterate the cast and crew sections. An awards section that would just duplicate information from the show's full list of awards may not be necessary, either – just a few sentences added to cover its major awards (Emmys, Golden Globes, major guilds...). As to FLCR #5, I think the only issue mentioned is the images per 5(b) and 5(c), which can be easily addressed. Basically, I think the page does its job as a list. Whether season articles should be considered as lists or articles is a bit out of scope for this, at least to me. Please correct me if I've misunderstood the issues raised in the nomination. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Notified: Ericleb01 Arsenikk, WikiProject Africa
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has been tagged for update (for over a year), some descriptions are empty, some are straight up copied from the unesco website with no attribution, some images need alt text and is straight up missing some world heritage sites. 48JCL public (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'll remain neutral in the voting and get to work fixing/updating the article. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tagging Tone for awareness, as they've been working on World Heritage Sites lists for quite a while now. --PresN 20:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Remove. As mentioned, I've been working on those lists for a while and somehow the continent-wide lists are out of date and of bad style, compared to what the current FLs use. Also, due to its sheer size, the list is really difficult to maintain properly, as new sites get added every year, endangered list is getting updated occasionally etc. Having coordinates in the table is rather pointless since these sites are often not limited to a single location. Area is also not very informative, and sometimes even missing. Pictures are formatted randomly, sometimes centred, sometimes not. And technically, tentative sites should be mentioned, which probably more than doubles the list. I'd suggest trimming this list down to only a list of sites per country, without descriptions or images, and links to country articles. Speaking of, lists for Peru and Madagascar are not in a good shape and the list in danger is so-so (mostly excessive info in the table, as mentioned above), although better than this one. The three I mentioned are fixable, but this one probably requires too much work to be taken care during the FLRC process. --Tone 22:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello! Do you have a model to recommend that I base edits to this list off of, formatting-wise? Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are several FLs on WHS. For example, List of World Heritage Sites in the United States. Have a look ;) Tone 19:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Pliny the Elderberry, it's fine if not, but do you intend to try to address all of the issues in this article within the next little bit? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. Unfortunately not. As per Tone's response, the work to be done has ballooned substantially and wouldn't be likely to save the list in time anyway. More to the point, it seems like there isn't much interest in this list compared to the individual country lists so I've moved back to working on the Mfecane article overhaul. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello! Do you have a model to recommend that I base edits to this list off of, formatting-wise? Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Notified:
There are significant citation issues here, including one section that's been tagged for citations since 2018. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. The tagged "historical background" section wasn't in the original promoted FL. Nothing it says looks that controversial, but I think I'd be fine with expecting people to read the main Berlin Wall article first if they need background. I've chopped it down and added a basic ref (although not one that covers some of the minor details, but eh, it's probably in one of the longer works exclusively on the Berlin Wall). That said, as a procedural side note. Tastes differ and there will always be borderline tough calls... but... honestly this seems more like an article than a list anyway? Page size reports ~5,700 prose words ignoring the list itself, which is pretty significant and probably longer than the "main" list. This seems more like an article with an attached list than a list with some prose explanation, so possible it should be demoted on those grounds and moved to Deaths at the Berlin Wall or the like. SnowFire (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Remove seeing no other edits. Not convinced the prose / referencing of the larger article is up to FA snuff. Also, the URLs have moved to the memorial website (e.g. https://www.stiftung-berliner-mauer.de/de/gedenkstaette-berliner-mauer/historischer-ort/bernauer-strasse ), so it'd be cool if rather than relying on Wayback copies, they were updated, but more of a nice-to-have. (Also, some parts of the table are questionable IMO... why is the person's birthdate & age relevant? But I'm a "less is more" type.) SnowFire (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Thebiguglyalien, did you notify the relevant editors and WikiProjects? If so, please add that to the nomination. If not, please do so. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien, did you happen to notify any WikiProjects about this? If not, we should do so before moving forward with delisting. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did not. I wanted to bring attention to this, I'm not particularly sure how you guys like to go about it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien, did you happen to notify any WikiProjects about this? If not, we should do so before moving forward with delisting. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Notified: WP Cricket, WP IPL, Vensatry & Sahara4u (both involved in FL promotion comments), Razr Nation (promoted this to FL in 2013). Note, the nominator of this to FL is indef blocked, so not notified them.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails many of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, particularly criteria 1, 2 and 3. The lead text has not been significantly updated since it became a FL in 2013, apart from the addition of mostly unsourced text that also includes random stats and trivia. In addition, the lead and table list captains by titles won, but the main stats source [3] does not have the titles mentioned. In the table, apart from the titles being unsourced, the use of unexplained blue background text, I presume to list current IPL captains as of 2024, violates MOS:COLOUR as it is the sole way of identifying these. It is also not needed, but if colour is kept, it needs to be added to the key section and also use a symbol as per the MOS. Sourcing of this article is also pretty weak in general, since most of the lead text is sourced just to the database stats table. All in all, nowhere near the current FL criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support for removal. I noticed that most of the information is unsourced and needed to be updated with reliable and independent sources. If It get improved in due date than at that time, I will change my comment. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302, @Fade258, I've realized now that the list has been updated by @Magentic Manifestations (who I wish would have commented as such here). Please let me know if your concerns have been addressed or you'd still like the article to be delisted. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)