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): Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Not many FLs in cricket statistics pages, trying make this an Exemplary list. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:26, 6 September 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 one more nomination that already has several supports. 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) 15:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The fifth in the constituency series. I've improved the lead and table accessibility and added a history section. Similar FL: Zambia. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]Dank
[edit]- Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
- Additional disclaimer: I can't read Nepali.
- "through proportional electoral system": maybe "through a proportional electoral system"
- "voters vote for": not wrong, but consider "voters choose"
- Checking the FLC criteria:
- 1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the tables.
- 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
- 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
- 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
- 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
- 4. It is navigable.
- 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
- 6. It is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): PresN 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Back with bats list #3 and mammal list #44: Miniopteridae. These are the 31 species of bent-winged bats, once again a pack of very small bats (the size of your thumb, or at most two thumbs) but this time with oversized wings. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family... there's some disagreement on if some of the Southeast Asia species should be split up into multiple, but this is where it stands today. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support - always very straightforward to review your animal lists, @PresN: :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]Pass. Licenses are fine, images are appropriate. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Dank
[edit]- You know the drill.
- Executive summary: I didn't find any problems.
- Checking the FLC criteria:
- 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
- 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
- 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
- 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
- 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
- 4. It is navigable.
- 5. It meets style requirements. See above for the image review.
- 6. It is stable.
- Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): The Kip (contribs) 08:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Another VGK FL candidacy, this one being inspired by List of Detroit Red Wings general managers. Dramatically expanded the lead's prose and added a key - the existing table seemed good to go. Won't be nominating any more until this and the players one are complete, per the consensus. The Kip (contribs) 08:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- Edmonton Oilers,[9][10], with - There's an extra comma there.
- Is note b) really needed? I mean, that's not the case with any of the general managers on this list, so I think we could do without it.
- All in all, I don't think the key is needed at all. If we agree on note b) not being needed, you could do with {{abbr}} for No. = Number and Ref(s) = References, given that the – is not used either.
That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense I've opted to hide the key for now - by default, it'll be used in the future, but I see the idea that it's redundant for now. Added the templates as well. The Kip (contribs) 19:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I fixed the extra comma myself. Support. Alavense (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments by OlifanofmrTennant
[edit]- "Las Vegas, Nevada" is linked in the lead but piped as Las Vegas. WP:NOTBROKEN says you should simply use the "Las Vegas, Nevada" redirect.
- Pacific Division is linked twice in the lead
- "Ultimately, however, McCrimmon led the Golden Knights" both Ultimately and however seems redundant
- Not doing a full source review but just noting that citations appear inconsistant in linking to publishers.
All I saw Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @OlifanofmrTennant
- The Kip (contribs) 19:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- The first to are good, the third is the problem. They have to be linked every time or never. Also just spotted that in the table "Ref(s)" should just be "Ref." as there is only one reference per row. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Gotcha, I'll go ahead and link all that can be linked. The Kip (contribs) 07:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The first to are good, the third is the problem. They have to be linked every time or never. Also just spotted that in the table "Ref(s)" should just be "Ref." as there is only one reference per row. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Concerns about length
[edit]I'm concerned with the length of this list, as it only has two entries. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I unfortunately can't really fix that - I don't have the connections to get McCrimmon fired 😂
- In all seriousness, though - is there a minimum required length/number of entries? The Kip (contribs) 19:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think the list should be fine, the list will presumably keep growing in length Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm also concerned with the length. If it's just two entries, why make it a list article, and not just a regular article? I don't think a list with this few entries has ever been promoted before. Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Mattximus Two points on this:
- The list is presumed to continually grow in the future; barring something unexpected (i.e. a sudden folding of the team or league), there will be more GMs. It’s not going to be stable at two forever.
- I feel like a minimum length penalizes organizational stability to a degree - for instance, by that line it’d be difficult to turn the Nashville Predators’ GM list into a FL given that David Poile was in charge for 20+ years and they’ve only had two GMs as a result, while it’d be easier to do so for the Columbus Blue Jackets, who’ve been organizationally unstable and as such have had six permanent/interim GMs in roughly the same span.
- The Kip (contribs) 17:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): The Kip (contribs) 05:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Continuing my semi-steady FL-izing of VGK lists. Somewhat based off of the current state of FL List of Florida Panthers players (which badly needs to be updated anyways - I've got that on the docket for the next few days), I've dramatically expanded/sourced the prose of the lead, and made some accessibility edits related to the tables. The Kip (contribs) 05:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments by ChrisTheDude
[edit]- Image caption isn't a complete sentence so it doesn't need a full stop
- "23 skaters and four goaltenders" => "The names of 23 skaters and four goaltenders" (avoids starting the sentence with a digit and is also technically more accurate)
- "the Lady Byng Memorial Trophy as the NHL's most gentlemanly player" - no issues with this but it really amused me - it reads like something I would expect in cricket or polo rather than ice hockey :-)
- Some of the image captions contain factoids which I don't believe are sourced e.g. "Adin Hill started 14 playoff games in the 2023 Stanley Cup Playoffs, including all five games of Vegas' Finals victory" - the table only shows that he played 19 playoff games in total, not that he started 14 in 2023 specifically....
- That's all I got, great work :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude Sourced the Hill and Hague captions, as well as the Fleury 46-game bit - the rest are all either cited in the lead, or from HockeyRef/NHL/HockeyDB/etc via the tables themselves (WP:CALC and all that). Hope that fixes everything! The Kip (contribs) 20:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- 51 of these skaters and five goaltenders have appeared in at least one playoff game - As per MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
- The names of 23 skaters and four goaltenders were engraved on the Stanley Cup following the Golden Knights' Finals victory in 2023, with the latter total making the Golden Knights the first team in NHL history to engrave four goaltenders on the Cup - Ditto.
- Adin Hill started 14 playoff games in the 2023 Stanley Cup Playoffs, including all five games - Ditto.
- To make the use of the Oxford comma consistent, add a comma after the parenthesis in (including overtime and shootout losses) and.
- Out of ignorance: shouldn't in on and off-ice be in on- and off-ice?
- The Note in note a) is unnecessary.
- The way the images are displayed at the beginning of each section is a bit weird on PC view. Given that the width of the table doesn't allow for them, wouldn't it be better to lay them out in a different way? I was thinking about something like this.
That's what I saw, The Kip. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense Corrected the various grammar/copy-edit things. As for the photos - I'd prefer not to if possible, so as to keep consistency with most other hockey lists that display the images at the side. To be quite honest I'm not the biggest fan of the gallery view - it appears a bit awkward when most of the images are larger vertically than horizontally, while all but one of the images in the linked FL are horizontally larger. The Kip (contribs) 09:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't like the way it is displayed now, with that big hole at the beginning of each section, but I guess it's a matter of personal taste. Nice work on the list. Support. Alavense (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333 verification check
[edit]- "they play in the Pacific Division of the Western Conference in the National Hockey League (NHL)" - Need a source here as the 2016 NHL sources were before they started to play. These two sources could be moved up to verify "Founded ahead of the 2017–18 season as an expansion team"
- "The franchise plays its home games at T-Mobile Arena on the Las Vegas Strip in Paradise, Nevada" - Skyrisecities doesn't look like a reliable source. Also needs a current source to show that this is correct.
- "With the Golden Knights having reached the Stanley Cup playoffs six times in seven seasons as a franchise" - QuantHockey doesn't mention this. Extra source needed.
- "as well as playoff goals, assists, and points;" - Need a specific link from NHL Records that shows Marchessault's playoff records such as this.
- "William Karlsson is the active leader in the aforementioned regular-season categories as well as playoff points, with Mark Stone the active leader in playoff goals and Shea Theodore in playoff assists. Karlsson and Marchessault share the record for playoff games played" - Need specific sources to show that Karlsson and Thedore are active while showing they are the active leaders in these stats for the Golden Knights.
- "Brayden McNabb is the active and all-time leader in penalty minutes" - need an extra source that shows McNabb is active.
- "Ryan Reaves is the all-time leader in playoff penalty minutes, while Keegan Kolesar is the active leader." - Need specific links to show that Reaves is the all-time leader and Kolesar is the active leader.
- "Marc-Andre Fleury holds all regular-season and playoff records" - This isn't true. For instance Hill leads in playoff save percentage, so "all" must be removed.
- Secondly, Fleury needs a specific source that shows he leads in "games played, wins, losses (including overtime and shootout losses), and shutouts" for the playoffs.
- "Following the franchise's inaugural season" - Karlsson's award mentions that 2018 was the first season for the Golden Knights, not Engelland. This sentence order can be switched as they are from the same date.
- "Conn Smythe Trophy as the most valuable player of the 2023 Stanley Cup playoffs." - Extra source needed here as The Athletic doesn't mention the trophy is a MVP award.
- "Mark Stone has served as the Golden Knights' first and thus far only captain" - Extra source needed to show Stone remains as the only captain by 2024.
- Going through point by point:
- This feels unnecessary - it's one of those things that simply "is," or could even be considered common knowledge, and hasn't changed since 2016.
- I've replaced the Skyrise Cities source with one from the Las Vegas Sun (no relation to the Sun tabloids), but w/r/t them still playing there - again, another thing that feels unnecessary to need a citation for, as it's another thing that simply "is," or could also be considered common knowledge.
- Cited from HockeyRef. Seasons table is located on main franchise page.
- With Marchessault, I was actually wrong on playoff assists (that's Reilly Smith), but I cited to the specific NHL.com record tables.
- With the Karlsson/Theodore/Stone active leaders bits, I've cited QuantHockey, which bolds active players w/ VGK on the list - it still has Marchessault bolded, but I assume that will be resolved shortly, and even if not, the sentence prior already establishes that he's no longer on the team.
- With regards to McNabb as the active leader, added QuantHockey to endorse active status.
- With regards to Reaves/Kolesar, added NHL records ref for the former and QuantHockey for the latter. Again, I expect Marchessault and Carrier will be un-bolded shortly, and even then, it feels common-knowledge enough that they were part of VGK's mass departures this year.
- Changed "all" to "most."
- Replaced one source with four. This is another spot I was concerned may become citation overkill, so much so that I added an EFN to contain the refs. There's no specific page for most losses, but it's easily verified on the most wins table, which also has losses and shutouts.
- Swapped the order.
- Replaced the Athletic source, but again, also feels like common knowledge in the sports world that the Conn Smythe is the NHL playoffs MVP.
- Stone remaining the captain is another thing that simply "is"/is common knowledge. Not really sure what I can do there. The Kip (contribs) 08:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Goaltenders table
[edit]- Ferguson's GAA is 6.50, not 6.67.
- Lagace's SV% is .868, not .871.
- I suggest adding the 2024-25 roster to show Hill is the only goaltender that's still on the team. Hockey Reference uses 2024 instead of present. Therefore, it can be confusing to determine who left in 2024 (such as Thompson) and who stayed.
- Neither HockeyDB or Hockey-Reference list the playoff stats in the team page (they're in the individual player/goalie pages). Found this source that lists them all.
- With that source, Lester's SV% for the playoffs is .911, not .920.
- I think the source that lists all of the Golden Knight players that won the Stanley Cup should be reused in the Notes column since the prose in the lead does not specifically name them.
- Again point by point-ish:
- Fixed the first two according to HockeyRef.
- Doesn't really matter, as the list isn't updated until after each season anyways, by which point it'll be clear who stuck around by which guys HockeyRef lists as 2024 and which it lists as 2025 and beyond. Green is always most recent completed season anyways, which'll be 2023-24 until about 10 months from now.
- Added EliteProspects link to both tables.
- Corrected Lehner's SV%
- Going to respectfully disagree - the prose mentions 23 skaters and four goaltenders, and the sources both contain every name - I don't think the table should be cluttered by having the same redundant citation appear 27 times. The Kip (contribs) 08:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Skaters table
[edit]- A source can be reused here to show which of the players are on the 2024-25 roster.
- Similarly, a source like Elite Prospects needs to be added for the playoffs stats.
- I also suggest reusing a source in the Notes column to show which of the skaters won the Stanley Cup.
- HockeyDB says Jonathan Marchessault was a right winger, not center.
- Paul Stastny was born in Canada.
- Oscar Lindberg was left winger.
- Jake Leschyshyn was born in the USA.
- Luca Sbisa is Italian.
- Peyton Krebs played from 2020-2022.
- Mason Morelli was a left winger.
- Tomas Jurco was a left winger.
- Dylan Sikura was a right winger.
- Vadim Shipachyov was center.
- Gage Quinney was center.
- Sven Baertschi was left winger.
Oppose for now based on the combined large amount of verification issues. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @MrLinkinPark333 I’ll handle the rest a bit later, but w/r/t Stastny/Sbisa/Leschyshyn - nationality in hockey is based upon citizenship and who they’ve represented internationally, not birth country. Sbisa’s played for the Swiss national team, Stastny the U.S. one, and Leschyshyn played for a Canada team at the U17s - they all hold citizenship(s) there as well. The Kip (contribs) 01:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, sources would be needed to verify that as HockeyDB only gives country of birth. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- With all due respect, individual verification of that and a few other things on the list would, at least in my opinion, be veering into citation overkill. Some of the items on the list are things that just simply “are,” and aren’t contentious or likely to be challenged. The Kip (contribs) 02:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- To me, the nationalities wouldn't be something that passes Wikipedia:Common knowledge. Featured List List of Philadelphia Flyers players explains why Knuble is listed as American and not Canadian, while listing a citation in the note. The same could be done here by adding references into a note for Stastny, Leschyshyn and Sbisa. Otherwise, the nationalities column could be switch to country of birth instead and won't require any extra sources. What else do you believe do not need citations? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose I'll add a similar note to the table for their nationalities - switching it to the country of birth would be misleading/inaccurate to readers. As for the other things I have qualms about citations on, I'll go section by section above. The Kip (contribs) 07:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- To me, the nationalities wouldn't be something that passes Wikipedia:Common knowledge. Featured List List of Philadelphia Flyers players explains why Knuble is listed as American and not Canadian, while listing a citation in the note. The same could be done here by adding references into a note for Stastny, Leschyshyn and Sbisa. Otherwise, the nationalities column could be switch to country of birth instead and won't require any extra sources. What else do you believe do not need citations? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- With all due respect, individual verification of that and a few other things on the list would, at least in my opinion, be veering into citation overkill. Some of the items on the list are things that just simply “are,” and aren’t contentious or likely to be challenged. The Kip (contribs) 02:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, sources would be needed to verify that as HockeyDB only gives country of birth. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Point by point:
- Doesn't really matter, per above.
- Added already.
- Disagree, per above.
- Positions are a finicky thing in hockey, and various sites agree or disagree. W/r/t those mentioned:
- NHL.com and HockeyRef list Marchessault as a C, so I'll keep it that way. I'm generally inclined to go with whatever NHL.com says unless it's alone as the minority.
- NHL.com agrees that Lindberg was a LW, HR says C. EliteProspects has it both ways and lists him as a C/LW - I'll change him to LW given that's the majority.
- NHL.com agrees that Morelli is an LW, and HR just lists him as "forward." EP has C, but LW appears to be the majority.
- NHL.com lists Jurco as an RW, as does HR. EP says LW/RW, so I'm going with RW.
- NHL.com says Sikura was an RW, HR says C, and EP says LW/RW. I'll go with RW.
- NHL.com and EP list Shipachyov as a C, HR says LW, so I'll swap to C.
- NHL.com says Quinney was a C; EP says C/LW, while HR just says forward. I'll swap to C.
- All four say Baertschi was an LW - not really sure how he ended up entered as a C.
- We already discussed the nationalities issue.
- Krebs bit fixed. The Kip (contribs) 08:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Leftover points
[edit]@The Kip: Here's a summary of what's leftover that I believe needs to be done:
- Keefer 2016 Las Vegas Sun source does not say the location of T-Mobile Arena. Found this 2023 source which could be used instead as it has both the Strip and Paradise. Otherwise, a current source such as this could be used instead while removing The Strip and Paradise.
- Need this QuantHockey regular season source next to the QuantHockey playoffs source to verify Karlsson's records.
- Shea Theodore is the record holder for regular season assists, not Karlsson per QuantHockey.
- With Mark Stone, you could use this source instead that shows he's been the only captain.
- For the current roster for goaltenders & skaters, you could use "2024" instead of "present" if you don't want to use the 2024 roster. All three sources (HockeyDB, Hockey-Reference, Elite Prospects) use that format and it won't require extra sourcing.
- The Stanley Cup list of names could be reused twice, (once each next to the word Notes in the Goaltenders and Skaters tables). I agree using it 27 times isn't needed.
- For Jurco, Marchessault, and Sikura's positions, you could cite their NHL profiles. The other 5 are fine.
- Thank you for adding a note for Sbisa being Swiss. You could also add Leschyshyn and Stastny as well as they are the only ones that don't match their place of birth. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I added the SN source, though I really feel like the Strip/Paradise is the sort of geographic general knowledge that could be covered by this higher-quality source instead, rather than having to individually cite both. Again, I don't think the location is contentious or likely to be challenged.
- Done.
- Fixed/updated.
- Used an NHL records page instead that lists him as captain from 2021-present.
- I still disagree that the 2024/present thing is an issue. We don't need to overload readers with citation overkill when it'd be fairly common knowledge to the majority of readers who reach this page that certain players are or aren't still on the team. If they're unsure, despite the 2024/present being listed in the table, they can click through to the player's wikilink, which contains said info. Listing current players as 20XX-2024 is misleading. And again - the table won't be updated until after next season anyways at which point HockeyRef/QuantHockey/etc will make it clear that some guys stayed beyond 2024 and some didn't.
- I also still disagree here - having it linked in the prose is enough, same for the other awards. They're also all listed and cited at the linked Finals page.
- And here. Citing individual positions is overkill - no other NHL FL has it, or really sports FLs in general. I might just list Sikura as an forward, given the disagreements from sources.
- Sbisa is merely the example the note uses - the general content of it applies to Stastny/Leschyshyn, same as the Flyers FL.
- The Kip (contribs) 21:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
As I prepared to rewrite "Georges Méliès", I became very intimidated by the literature. To get a better grasp on it and kill two birds with one stone, I expanded this bibliography. Much of it is based on his entry in Oxford Bibliographies, but where applicable, I supplemented it with book reviews and an annotated bibliography by Elizabeth Ezra. All suggestions are appreciated, and I hope to address them as soon as possible! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "many languages, namely English, French, Italian, Spanish, and German" - unless you are absolutely certain that no works about him exist in any other language, maybe say "including English......"
- "exhibition catalogues with materials" - as the article seems to be written in US English, should that last word not be "catalogs"....?
- "A book with that surveys" - huh?
- "a teleological view" - is there an appropriate link for that second word? I personally have no idea what it means
- "Contains studies of Méliès, namely by Roland Cosandey and Yuri Tsivian" - why not just "Contains studies of Méliès, by Roland Cosandey and Yuri Tsivian".....?
- That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- All fixed! Thanks for your time, and let me know if you see anything else. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: forgot to ping. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- All fixed! Thanks for your time, and let me know if you see anything else. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- his name often appears in the titles of books, chapters, or articles, not necessarily - Lose the last comma, the one before "not".
- the film career of his brother - He's not mentioned before, so maybe the film career of his brother Gaston?
- Same for his mistress and first wife --> his mistress and first wife, Jehanne d'Alcy. And maybe the link could just blue the name.
- Whoops, "mistress" and "first wife" intended to refer to different people. Now with both names included, this is much clearer. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- as a chapter of Film Before Griffith - Could something else be said about Film Before Griffith. It feels a bit disconnected.
- and U.S. and U.K. - and US and UK, I think, per MOS:US.
- Maybe use {{ill}} to link Il Castoro?
- as a chapter of Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative - Maybe it's worth saying the book was edited by Thomas Elsaesser?
- and a translation of a forum about him hosted by the Commission de recherche historique of the Cinémathèque Française, Tsivian describes - I think a full stop would be better than the comma.
- finds that he criticized colonialism that results from an obsession with quicker modes of transportation - I think there's something wrong there.
- To be more nuanced, Ezra believes that, in a time when new forms of transportation were prospering, his films satirized the resulting prejudice, colonial expansion, and minset of "conquering the unknown". Most famously, the astronomers in A Trip to the Moon, as taken from its article, are presented as bumbling pedants merciless for Selenites. I tweaked the sentence's wording with all this in mind, but let me know if you still have an issue. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can link Joan M. Minguet.
- Ditto with Archives françaises du film.
- and within it, - Lose that comma.
That's what I saw. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: All fixed, with two replies of clarification. Thanks for having a look! I'd be happy to review one of your noms; expect comments within a few days. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
What the 2011 Pacific hurricane season lacked in tropical cyclones, it made up in the general strength of each one. The season produced eleven tropical storms, which is below average for the basin, but ten of them became hurricanes (!!) and even the eleventh peaked just under hurricane strength. Half of the hurricanes reached Category 4 intensity... and yet, the most devastating system of the season was too weak to be classified as a tropical storm. Tropical Depression Twelve-E generated torrential rainfall over southeastern Mexico and adjacent portions of Central America; widespread flooding and mudslides killed over 30 people. This is the eighth hurricane season timeline that I have nominated in an ongoing series. I hope the community enjoys reading, and I will respond to any questions or concerns as quickly as possible. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Placeholder
[edit]- I'll take a look later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]I couldn't find anything to point out. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
The FIA GT Championship was a sports car racing series for Grand Touring cars that was held from 1997 to 2009. This list contains the names of every driver, team and manufacturer to have won a title in the series. All comments are welcome EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "For 2005, both categories reverted to the GT1 and GT2 titles" => "For 2005, the two categories reverted to the GT1 and GT2 titles"
- "There were 16 drivers who had won a Drivers' Championship in either of the GT1 or GT2 categories and there were 17 racers who had won titles in either of the GT2 or N-GT classes" - this is slightly confusing. Should the second one read "GT or N-GT".....?
- "The cup was not formally awarded in 2008 due to a lack of eligible non-professional drivers throughout the season" - but there are winners listed.....?
- "the FIA moved it to the GT2 class for seven races in 2009" - yet it was clinched in race 7 of 8? Slightly confused by this......
- That's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: I've amended the list based on all of the above points. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs addressing EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
More comments
[edit]- "At the end of the 2009 season, 31 drivers had won an FIA GT title. There were 16 drivers who had won a Drivers' Championship in either of the GT1 or GT2 categories and there were 17 racers who had won titles in either of the GT or N-GT classes" - by my count there are actually 17 distinct drivers in the GT1/GT2 tables, 15 distinct drivers in the GT/N-GT tables, and 30 distinct drivers overall
- "The Citation Cup was introduced by the SRO in partnership with Cessna Citation in 2007 for non-professional racing drivers participating in the GT1 category over a series of eight rounds" - table shows that Aucott clinched in race 9 of 10......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Have addressed both issues EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- The caption needs a full stop.
- JMB were declared champions because it - Maybe "were" and "they" or "was" and "it", I think.
- Maybe I'm too obtuse, but why are there seasons with one driver and seasons with two?
That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: Have amended the list based on the above points. As for the third point, the reasons that there are seasons with one champion instead of two is because their regular co-driver did not participate in all of the races that the champion took part in and was replaced by another driver. Hence, they are not listed. Sources listed in the list as well as each individual FIA GT Championship season article can provide further detail as to what races they entered EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be worth explaining that somewhere, EnthusiastWorld37? Thank you for the other edits. Alavense (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: Done EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: Done EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be worth explaining that somewhere, EnthusiastWorld37? Thank you for the other edits. Alavense (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
With the 1971 list having just been promoted and 1972 having several supports, here's the 1973 list. This was possibly the peak year for easy listening sounds also dominating the pop charts, and it also saw the first chart-topper for a little piano-playing guy from Pinner in Middlesex who went on to do quite well for himself..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Dank
[edit]- You know the drill.
- "the English singer Elton John, a singer who": I think I'd say "the English singer Elton John, who".
- "Richard Nixon (left))": I think I remember that MOS doesn't like "))" ... if that's still true, then maybe "Richard Nixon, left)".
- "The Most Beautiful Girl" is sorting after "S" in the 2nd column of the table ... that doesn't look right.
- Checking the FLC criteria:
- 1. Nothing else is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
- 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
- 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
- 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
- 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
- 4. It is navigable.
- 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
- 6. It is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dank: - many thanks for your review, all done I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Source Review - BennyOnTheLoose
[edit]- WP:ALLMUSIC says "Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available." In view of this, I'd suggest finding an alternative to the Weber AllMusic article about Jim Croce.
- "one of the most successful acts in the chart's history." in the caption is true, but I wonder if it's a bit of an understatement considering the text mentioning "most successful act of the listing's first 50 years."
- Other sources all look fine.
- Although spot checks are not required, I took a look at the Trust source about Elton John. No issues. I don't think there is a phrase that in itself directly supports "consistent success" but that seems like a fair summary. As we are mentioning " greatest number of entries", then optionally you could add something about "Your Song" being in the chart in December 1970.
- @BennyOnTheLoose: - Croce source replaced and Elton caption tweaked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- "Paul McCartney and Wings" could probably be linked to Paul McCartney and Wings rather than having two links, but that's optional.
- Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like it meets the FL criteria to me. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- McCartney change made! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
NØ
[edit]- Image review - pass: All of the images have working source links, except File:Carpenters and Nixon.gif which can be assumed to have been a government work as claimed since it's the oval office, and are appropriately licensed.
- There seems to be only one Reddy mentioned in the article so the second instance of her full name in the lead could be reduced to the last name.
- "Rich's song was a triple chart-topper, as it also reached number one on the Hot Country Songs chart." - First part of the sentence seems to be redundant as "Rich's song also reached number one on the Hot Country Songs chart." would convey the same point.
- References look perfect.
- With that being said, it is already a support as these are suggestions for minor changes. Always enjoy these lists.--NØ 06:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Changes made! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- In the first issue of Billboard of 1973 - You usually state when the first issue was published.
- You know how I feel about captions and expliciting when the picture was taken. I would add the year the picture was taken whenever possible.
In any case, those are minor things, so I'll go ahead and support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- All done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 2 September 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
I also did a source review and I've been stumped, I've got nothing, support. Good stuff as always Chris! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
For regular readers of these lists, there will be little surprise that Steve Davis is at the summit. Two former World Champions, Alex Higgins and Cliff Thorburn, were banned for a couple of ranking tournaments each. As ever, many thanks in advance for improvement suggestions, and I'm happy to provide relevant extracts from sources to reviewers. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "The list for the 1986–87 snooker season was the first to only take account of results over two seasons" - maybe mention that it also started to take into account other tournaments, otherwise some of the subsequent sentences don't really make sense
- "A proposal by Barry Hearn [....] made a proposal" - some of these words can be removed
- "after Higgind had been found guily in our of headbutting" - two words spelt wrong here and also "guilty in our".....?
- ""N" denotes that as a non-tournament, the player was not eligible to enter" => ""N" denotes that as a non-tournament player, the player was not eligible to enter"
- Graham Cripsey's row has a totally blank cell
- That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've amended the article. Please let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]I saw nothing wrong with either the prose or the tables. Being a bit persnickety, I'd suggest editing the {{sequence}} template at the end, so that it adjusts to the way seasons are now formatted in titles. Support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes, that's a sensible change. Thank you, Alavense. Done for this article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Support — Have conducted a full review and cannot find anything to fault EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
This should be good to go. The "See also" section includes two featured tree lists; I'm following the same format, mostly. As always, I've got tallies of the image licenses on the talk page. Enjoy. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Simplified 13:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Skipping the template: the table needs rowscopes! --PresN 21:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oops! Done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator: XR228 (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Yet another Seattle Kraken FL nom—this time it's their players. This should meet all the criteria. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- The lead seems a tiny bit thin. Maybe you could add some info about the player with most games, most goals, etc.....?
- "his captaincy starting in 2021, and ending 6 months later." - that comma is not needed
- Not sure this is relevant to this article, but you say that a captain is the only one who can talk to the ref, yet the Kraken have only had a captain for six months out of their entire history? Does this mean that for the rest of the time nobody could talk to the ref?
- Is the dagger really needed in the key given that it literally isn't used at all in the tables?
- Beniers being the first ever draft choice need sourcing
- Ref 5, the only one against the skaters table, does not support Beniers being a Calder Trophy winner
- That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- 59 players, 4 goaltenders and 55 skaters (forwards and defenseman), have played - Lose that last comma.
- In the caption of the first picture, Kraken is mentioned thrice. The second one, for example, could be replaced with a the team or something similar.
- Captains are required to wear the letter "C" on their uniform for identification, which is 3 inches (7.6 cm) in height - I don't think that sentence is clear enough.
- ending 6 months later - MOS:NUMERAL: "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words".
- There's something wrong with Matty Beniers's caption.
- Nat should be Nat. and Pos should be Pos.. Besides, please consider using {{abbr}} for those and also for the others.
- There are no notes in the first table, so you can get rid of that empty column.
That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: I have made most of the changes. Could you let me know what is wrong with Matty Beniers's caption? Thanks XR228 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, XR228. There's a full stop followed by a word in lowercase. That needs fixing. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: I have fixed it. XR228 (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: I have fixed it. XR228 (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, XR228. There's a full stop followed by a word in lowercase. That needs fixing. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333 verification check
[edit]Prose
[edit]- Talk page is tagged with a synthesis issue and should be resolved.
- "members of the Pacific Division of the Western Conference" - need an extra source next to HockeyDB to show they are members of the Western Conference.
- "Since their arrival in 2021, 59 players, 4 goaltenders and 55 skaters (forwards and defenseman) have played in a Kraken jersey for at least one regular season game." - Needs a source here such as the HockeyDB roster list.
- The Captain quote should start with "the privilege of discussing with the Referee" (capital R included).
- "being 3 inches (7.6 cm)" - NHL says "approximately" not exactly.
- There's an updated version of the NHL rules from 2023 in regards to Captain if you wish to use it.
- "starting in 2021 and ending six months later" - "starting in October 2021 and ending five months later" (as Giordano held captaincy until March 2022).
- "As the Kraken currently do not have a captain, they are allowed to name four alternate captains" - Condor 2021 source isn't needed here as it was already established that Giordano was captain. However, this sentence need an extra source next to Lukan 2022 source that shows the four alternative captains are still the case in 2024.
- The Career Most points for the Kraken is referenced three times and should be once instead.
- Most career goals for the Kraken is at a different link.
- Most career assists for the Kraken is at this link.
Goaltenders table
[edit]- This table needs extra source(s) as the majority of the regular season stats and all of the playoff stats are not included in HockeyDB. Only stat mentioned there is the games played.
Skaters table
[edit]- This table needs an extra source as the playoff stats are not mentioned at HockeyDB.
- Jared McCann was a left winger.
- André Burakovsky was born in Austria.
- Tye Kartye was a left winger.
- Joonas Donskoi played from 2021-2022.
- Marcus Johansson was a left winger.
- Derrick Pouliot had 2 PIM in the regular season.
- John Hayden was a center player.
- Alexander True played from 2021-2022.
- Logan Morrison was center.
Oppose for now. While there's a lot of verification issues, I'm mainly concerned with the synthesis tag and the majority of the goaltending stats being unreferenced. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Another in my list of Packers' players lists. As always, happy to address any comments or concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "made up of the best rookies" - link rookie
- "Johnnie Gray became the Packers first selection" => "Johnnie Gray became the Packers' first selection"
- That's it I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude, got them both. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]I didn't see anything wrong. I was just wondering if references 9-14 and 15, 10, 16 and 17, those two groups, could be bundled into single footnotes. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Alavense, I have no issues implementing it, although I am having trouble technically on how to accomplish it. Do you have an example page you can point to that has this implemented? My main challenge is that the sources you are noting are using reference tags already, so I would be wrapping reference tags inside reference tags. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've tried to do it myself as well and I didn't manage to do it because of what you say. In any case, it was no more than a suggestion, nothing relevant. So I'll support. Nice work, as always. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:30, 28 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:
- James Lofton's row is 1978–1986, but you used two digit years for the second year in all of the rows (except when crossing between centuries)
- Randall Cobb's row has the same issue with 2011–2018
- Might be a good idea to put a line break in the header for alignment since that column is looking a little wide and you already have two columns that start a new line
- The names in the 2006, 2009, and 2014 rows aren't alphabetical by last name like the other years with multiple entries
That's all I've got, good stuff Gonzo. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, all fixed. Thanks for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC) and Birdienest81
This is both mine and Birdienest81's fourth nomination related to the Olympic medal tables, though we both each did three separately before collaborating on this list (making this #7 that we've worked to help promote cumulatively). We believe it meets all the relevant criteria and we're hoping for this to be #16 (of 30) for the Summer Olympics medal tables to reach featured list status. We will do our best to respond quickly to address any and all concerns and feedback that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- Amy Van Dyken (pictured) won four gold medals at the 1996 Summer Olympics, the most of any competing athlete - Is it really necessary to say that she's pictured? I mean, there's only one person there, I think it's pretty obvious.
- with 53 of them won at least one gold medal - Maybe "winning"?
- Would it be worth explaining in a note why those editions were boycotted?
- In addition, she also - Isn't it a bit redundant to say both "In addition" and "also"?
- Maybe link to Great Britain at the 1996 Summer Olympics in the mention on Steve Redgrave's image's caption?
That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: I've implemented all of your suggestions except for one. I could try to explain in a note about the boycotts that happened, but I'm not sure if it properly does it justice. In short, I'm not sure it's a great idea to try to shove so much information into a note and speak about the segregation/apartheid issues that led to a boycott or the 1980 Summer Olympics boycott because I don't think it does it justice or adds much to the article, since it would end up being a very long note for a singular sentence. However, if you feel strongly, I'll consider it further. There's also List of Olympic Games boycotts. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair point. I wouldn't expect an in-depth explanation of what the boycotts were about and how they unfolded, but I think it would be useful to have a note saying the Olympics were boycotted for several reasons from 1976 through to 1988 and a link to that list. Don't you think? Thank you for addressing the other points. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: I had been giving it some thought, and I think I was overthinking how to properly do a note for this. I've added a wikilink that I hope addresses your comment appropriately. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It works for me. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: I had been giving it some thought, and I think I was overthinking how to properly do a note for this. I've added a wikilink that I hope addresses your comment appropriately. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair point. I wouldn't expect an in-depth explanation of what the boycotts were about and how they unfolded, but I think it would be useful to have a note saying the Olympics were boycotted for several reasons from 1976 through to 1988 and a link to that list. Don't you think? Thank you for addressing the other points. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Agree with all of the above, plus.....
- "Athletes from the host nation of United States" => "Athletes from the host nation of the United States"....?
- "Additionally, in the men's horitzontal bars" - penultimate word is spelt incorrectly
- Images beside the table should have their size set to "upright"
- Is it relevant to this article that Shannon Miller had also won medals four years earlier (as mentioned in her image caption)? Other people pictured also had great achievements outwith these games e.g. Steve Redgrave is the only man in history to have won gold medals at five different Olympic Games in an endurance sport, but you don't mention it in their image captions.....
- "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals at the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events." => "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals in the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events."
- That's it, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
"Athletes from the host nation of United States" -> "Athletes from the host nation of the United States"....?
– Fixed"Additionally, in the men's horitzontal bars" - penultimate word is spelt incorrectly
– FixedImages beside the table should have their size set to "upright"
– Set with a factor of 1.3, hope that's appropriate.Is it relevant to this article that Shannon Miller had also won medals four years earlier (as mentioned in her image caption)? Other people pictured also had great achievements outwith these games e.g. Steve Redgrave is the only man in history to have won gold medals at five different Olympic Games in an endurance sport, but you don't mention it in their image captions.....
– I could use a bit more feedback on this one, but I included it because of the medals in her hand in the image. I felt it that she won all of those medals at the 1996 games based on the image and I wanted to clarify"American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals at the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events." -> "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals in the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events."
– Fixed
- As always, thanks for the feedback Chris. A little sloppier than I usually like it to be, so I'll be more careful with my next nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment: I'm pretty certain the table requires an inline citation at the top to verify the content in it EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm embarrassed that I missed that @EnthusiastWorld37, so I very much appreciate you pointing this out to me. I'm quite disappointed with myself for the number of things called out that I shouldn't have missed, but it is what it is. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Have now conducted a fuller review of the list and I believe it meets the criteria and so I Support its promotion EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the review! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Have now conducted a fuller review of the list and I believe it meets the criteria and so I Support its promotion EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm embarrassed that I missed that @EnthusiastWorld37, so I very much appreciate you pointing this out to me. I'm quite disappointed with myself for the number of things called out that I shouldn't have missed, but it is what it is. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- In theory, yes, they are closely related indeed. However, if would want to avoid losing relevant information, you would have to add five columns to List of Dutch cabinet formations. Personally, I think that would be too wide and be too chaotic, while most reader's questions will be answered by either one of the two lists. I would love to hear your thoughts. Dajasj (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- You would get something like this: User:Dajasj/sandbox/Informateurs. But obviously way longer. Dajasj (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I actually think that looks really good. It could be somewhat narrower if the start and end dates are in one column and the reference within another as well. Reywas92Talk 01:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. It is still relatively easy to compare information about informateurs, but really hard to compare information about formations. Sorting on length of formations becomes really chaotic imo, and for longer formations, only one fits on my (mobile) screen, so its not easy to see in a glance the top 5 longest formations. Dajasj (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I actually think that looks really good. It could be somewhat narrower if the start and end dates are in one column and the reference within another as well. Reywas92Talk 01:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- You would get something like this: User:Dajasj/sandbox/Informateurs. But obviously way longer. Dajasj (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- In theory, yes, they are closely related indeed. However, if would want to avoid losing relevant information, you would have to add five columns to List of Dutch cabinet formations. Personally, I think that would be too wide and be too chaotic, while most reader's questions will be answered by either one of the two lists. I would love to hear your thoughts. Dajasj (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Quick comment
After reading the lead I'm still very confused as to what these three role actually do. The lead needs to be much more clearly written for this to pass. Mattximus (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Mattximus for the feedback. I realise I was too focused on historical background, without including information for those not familiar with the topic. I have rewritten the lead. If you have the time, I would love to hear if this is clear now and if not, what is not clear. Thanks in advance! Dajasj (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly better, but the order is all mixed up after the first sentence. The list ends with scouts but the first sentences is scouts? Then goes back in time, then forwards in time? Still quite confusing, but improving. Mattximus (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think I fixed this. I also moved some information to a separate section. It still gives background, but now makes clear that these paragraphs have another chronological order. Dajasj (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly better, but the order is all mixed up after the first sentence. The list ends with scouts but the first sentences is scouts? Then goes back in time, then forwards in time? Still quite confusing, but improving. Mattximus (talk) 20:58, 31 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)
Dylan620
[edit]Dibbing an image review for this – with a lead image like that, how can I not? I should be able to start in the next day or two. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Review completed:
- Alt text needs to be added to each image
- Sourcing for each image checks out (though I did fix a few links myself over at Commons; see my recent edits there)
- As works of the US Government, all images are appropriately licensed for the public domain
- All images contribute encyclopedic value to the list
- Each image is appropriately captioned
- Once the lack of alt text is resolved, I expect to be able to pass this image review. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Sgubaldo
[edit]Some general comments:
- Source formatting is inconsistent and really needs a thorough sweep; just a couple of small examples:
|publisher=
and|website=
are both used for Business Insider; alternatively, Vogue is listed as a|publisher=
in Ref. 167 when it should be|website=
/|magazine=
- Several authors are missing author-link (e.g. Ref. 93, 94, 97, 100 all need Roosevelt wikilinked)
- Some are missing several parameters like access date, author names, website names, archive links, etc (e.g. Ref. 73)
- Websites/publishers/newspapers should either be wikilinked or not wikilinked, but it should be consistent
- I can't actually seem to access multiple sources (e.g. )
- I'm not particularly sure as to the reliability of several of the sources (e.g. Ref. 17, New York Post considering this is a politics-adjacent topic at least; Ref. 92, ispn.com; Ref. 150, bullysticksinfo.com just to name a couple)
- The White House Pets book in the 'Further Reading' section should probably be used more than once in the article
- The see also section is bloated; you can probably remove List of individual cats, List of individual dogs, the category and Sully at least
- The lead is really short. Perhaps just merge the lead with the history section?
- Perhaps others may disagree, but I'm really not a fan of how the list part of the article is divided into 45 headers/subsections. I feel like it would look better in a table format. A rough outlook at what this could look like is below (taking inspiration from List of presidents of the United States):
No. | Portrait | Name | Term | Pets | Notes | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
46 | ![]() |
Joe Biden | January 20, 2021 – Incumbent |
Champ (November 11, 2008 – June 19, 2021) – German Shepherd | [1] | |
Major (born January 17, 2018) – German Shepherd | Rescue dog. Sent to live with family friends in Delaware by December 2021 after several White House biting incidents. | |||||
Commander (born September 1, 2021) – German Shepherd | Given to the Biden family as a puppy by the president's brother, also removed from White House after biting incidents | [2] [3] | ||||
Willow – gray tabby cat | Adopted after the cat jumped onstage during a rally in Pennsylvania in 2020. Willow, who Biden described as having "no limits", often sleeps on top of the president's head | [4] [5] |
Sgubaldo (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Portrait of president is unnecessary unless animal is also in the picture. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, per my comment below. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- ^ Sophie Vershbow (November 7, 2020). "Another Great Thing About Biden's Win: There's Going to Be a Dog in the White House Again!". Vogue. Retrieved November 7, 2020.
- ^ Bennett, Kate. "Bidens add to their family with new first puppy – CNNPolitics". Cnn.com. Retrieved December 20, 2021.
- ^ "Biden's dog Commander no longer at White House after biting incidents". AP News. October 5, 2023.
- ^ Kate Bennett (June 17, 2022). "As presidential cat, Willow Biden has privileges". CNN. Retrieved 2022-09-17.
- ^ Haroun, Azmi (2023-01-26). "Biden confirms that White House cat Willow has 'no limits' and sleeps on top of his head at night". Business Insider. Retrieved 2023-01-30.
Drive-by comment
[edit]Before any massive overhaul is done, I'd just like to say that I think the current simple section & bullet points style is preferred over a table style that Sgubaldo recommends above. It comes down to stylistic preference at the end, either way can work, but the important stuff is the text and links. We don't need distracting pictures of the presidents themselves; any images should be highlighting the pets (with the owners in the background often, sure), as is done currently. A bullet point entry with a link to the relevant pet, and then some text with details, is perfect and doesn't include any extraneous table layout stuff. (It's also friendlier and easier for people to maintain & edit in the future, although this is more a secondary concern.) Tables are good if there's more than two or three columns or things like numerical data to sort by, but that isn't the case here.
I'm personally a fan of short ledes, and think the current lede is fine-ish. It seems very difficult to construct an overall theory of "presidential pets" to explain in the lede that doesn't overlap with the "History" section on individual pets, so a short section makes sense - it's hard to make sweeping, overarching statements on this topic other than "Most Presidents have pets." Could be brushed up some if there are overarching things to say ("Presidential historian FirstName LastName suggests that keeping a pet leads to a 10% increase in popularity, as seen by the Checkers speech" or the like), but I expect a perfect lede to still be on the short side.
(Sgubaldo's other concerns are fine and should be fixed, of course. Just chipping in that I think the structure of the article is fine, since it's a decent amount of work to change it over, but I think such a change wouldn't be helpful anyway.) SnowFire (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good point on the images, the portraits are unnecessary. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with @SnowFire on this, I think an actual list format is preferred in this case over a table. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 28 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)
- Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:12, 27 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)
Dylan620
[edit]Source review in progress. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some comments:
- All of the sources used are reliable enough for the information they are used to cite.
- Ref 4 should be marked as limited access. (Arguably, this could also apply to every ref from 10 through 62—although, at least on my laptop, the cited information is visible just above the paywall that obscures positions below #1.)
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, Nilsson's version of "Without You" also made the 2024 update of the RS 500 songs list.
- The link for ref 9 isn't working; Billboard's online archive of their year-end AC charts only goes back to 2006. I imagine either worldradiohistory.com or Whitburn would have something to verify this information?
- I can't find the issue of Billboard with the year-end charts so I just removed that part -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I couldn't help but notice that refs 42, 50, and 55 are lacking archive links. While they aren't mandatory, every other website ref in the list has an archive link, so I would suggest adding archive links for those three refs for consistency.
- Just ran the bot again but for whatever reason it once again hasn't archived those links..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Using a random number generator to determine which refs to check, I spot-checked refs 1, 2, 5, 17, 19, 24, 25, 29, 34, 38, 43, 50, and 58.
- Ref 1 does verify the different names the chart has taken over the years, but I'm not seeing how it—or at least the corresponding page—verifies the methodology (playlists submitted by easy listening radio stations and sales reports submitted by stores).
- Second source added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ref 2: «thumbs up»
- Ref 5: Passes the spot check, but the link should be marked as dead.
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ref 17: «thumbs up»
- Ref 19: «thumbs up»
- Ref 24: «thumbs up»
- Ref 25: «thumbs up»
- Ref 29: «thumbs up»
- Ref 34: «thumbs up»
- Ref 38: «thumbs up»
- Ref 43: «thumbs up»
- Ref 50: «thumbs up»
- Ref 58: «thumbs up»
- Ref 1 does verify the different names the chart has taken over the years, but I'm not seeing how it—or at least the corresponding page—verifies the methodology (playlists submitted by easy listening radio stations and sales reports submitted by stores).
- Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dylan620: - thanks for your review, see above..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- No prob, Chris! Everything looks good to me, and I'm pleased to support on sources. The oversight by IABot is not a dealbreaker. For what it's worth, while I can't seem to find a year-end ranking, page TA-39 of the December 30 issue does mention in passing that "Song Sung Blue" was the "Top Easy Listening Single" of the year – I'll defer to your judgment as to whether that is sufficient to re-add the mention of it to the table. By the way, it's no pressure, but if you have any time or interest, I do have a rather old FLC that could use some feedback. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:22, 30 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:
- "Sammy Davis, Jr." -> Remove the comma
- Baby, Don't Get Hooked on Me is a redirect to Baby Don't Get Hooked on Me. Source also shows no comma
I chose to also do a source review, because they're my general preference, and I had no issues with sourcing. I did find the above very minor issues, so I'm supporting with the assumption these will be addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: - above couple of points addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 3 September 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)
- Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:58, 27 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)
- @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. I've now added repeated wikilinks in the table. I've purposely left out a few to avoid SEAOFBLUE issues. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:04, 30 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)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 30 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)
- Fixed the rest. I'll work on adding the images and then ping you here. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, MPGuy2824. I was having another look at it and realized there's no row for the year 1925. Why? Alavense (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense:
there's no row for the year 1925. Why?
IEEE has a couple of places where they have the whole list of winners. For some of the years, they explicitly mention "No award". 1925 wasn't mentioned at all. But, going by [1], there wasn't any winner in 1925 too. I've corrected the table to show this.- I've also added the images to the table. A lot of the photos are there, but it is only allowed to use them at the main article about the person, so I've skipped those.
- Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nice work, MPGuy2824. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense:
- Thank you very much, MPGuy2824. I was having another look at it and realized there's no row for the year 1925. Why? Alavense (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Dylan620
[edit]Pegging myself down for a review in the very near future. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 08:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Dylan620, just following up about this. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Josh, and apologies MPGuy2824 for the delay. Some unanticipated concerns sprung up at my own FLC and I got sidetracked. I still want to review this, but I also don't want to hold things up, so please proceed without me if I still haven't posted here in the next couple days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Older nominations
[edit]- 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)
SnowFire
[edit]Not an expert on British politics, but I'll give this a go. Disclaimer: Am an American, so feel free to ignore anything that is justified by AmE / BrE style differences if I accidentally perceive an oddity that's really fine.
Lede:
- The first COVID-19 death in the UK occurred on 5 March 2020; 18 days later, the death toll reached 335. As a result, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that the UK would go into a full lockdown,
I'm not a fan of "as a result". Presumably some parts of the world went into lockdown without a single death, while other areas never really locked down seriously despite deaths? If we're being pedantic, it would be "As a result of the advice of medical experts consulted by the government" or the like, not necessarily the deaths. Perhaps "In response" instead? Or even just cutting the introductory clause entirely.
- London being placed in the "medium" tier 1 restrictions
This one isn't your fault, but this reads a bit weirdly to people not in the loop since "medium" was actually the mildest tier. I don't have any suggestions here as this seems relevant, but if you know of any friendlier ways to express this that still hit the main points, that'd be neat - but totally optional.
SnowFire from the future: One overarching issue with all the historical stuff is making clear that this activity was a problem / scandalous. I guess the implication was that merely by appearing here at all, we're only talking about the "bad" parts, but I think we should be a little more blunt. Holding a party or playing loud music isn't a problem; it's holding a party indoors over size regulations that's a problem, but that's being hidden implicitly. It can weaken the "case" if anything, since someone might reasonably wonder what the big deal was, so I'd suggest making it clearer exactly how these parties were "bad".
Timeline:
- 15 May: In the garden of Downing Street, an early evening cheese and wine party is held. Johnson and Health Secretary Matt Hancock both attend the gathering, which lasts for forty minutes to an hour.[12]
So what? This sounds like it complies with the rules at the time: the garden was outdoors and we've only listed two people attending. I presume the implication is that more people attended, but we should say so if that's the case. Unfortunately the reference doesn't seem to indicate that.
- 17 June: Emails are exchanged between Downing Street officials to prepare "drinks which aren't drinks"
The source doesn't explain either, but WTF was this email talking about? The polite reading would be "beverages which aren't alcoholic beverages" which seems too boring to bring up as a quote (they had mocktails, quelle horreur). So I presume this is really some British slang that I'm not familiar with that means something else that is scandalous, but what, then? Drugs?
- 19 June: The event lasts for 20 minutes, and is attended by Case, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, and others.
How many others? Sorry if I'm being repetitive here, but this seems like key information that the sources are inexplicably dropping. We're told that meetings of up to six people are allowed (although given the photo, this clearly wasn't outside, but we can presume that there might be an exception if the PM was on the job), so it's at least possible based on the description this was only a small party that complied with the rules. (I know that counting blurred heads from the lede photo suggests >6, but how much more, then?)
- Johnson's wife Carrie holds a second birthday gathering for her husband in their Downing Street flat that evening, with a number of friends
Same question here - if that number of friends was 4, then this could potentially be permissible. (If it's not known, can we at least assert it was "more than 6" or "in defiance of regulations"?)
- 14 September: To restrict a potential second wave of COVID-19 in the UK, the government restricts social gatherings again by implementing a new "rule of six" in England – groups of more than six people are banned from meeting in England, either indoors or outdoors.
A little confused here - weren't we still at 6 from the 1 June regulations? Are we missing a bullet point that eased things further after 1 June but before 14 Sept? Also, as a nit, I'd say "hinder a potential second wave" to avoid the close repetition.
- 11 December: Johnson's staff smuggle a wine fridge through the back door of Downing Street.
I'm not saying to remove this, but this is weird. Johnson was PM. Couldn't he just ask a wine fridge be installed normally, through the front door? (And isn't it possible he was just using it to get blasted personally, not holding parties with it? I know that later on it says the fridge was indeed used for parties, and we should be chronological as a timeline, but maybe some sort of hint as to the problem here.) I see the source uses the term "smuggle", but also that the Mirror is a Labour tabloid. Do other sources agree that "smuggling" is the term to use here?
- 14 December: A Christmas party—formally called a "Jingle and Mingle"...
Same problem here. The police issued fines so clearly this was in violation of the regulations, but we don't actually say the party was in violation of the regs. Should add that it was indoors and had (NUMBER) attendees or the like.
- 15 December: Ellwood attends a Christmas party of 27 people
Does BrE have a way to quickly denote party affiliation? He's only been introduced as an MP from Bournemouth East before - at first I assumed this was a Labour / LibDem / SNP guy and thus was wondering if this was a broader scandal than just the Tories. (In US politics, people are sometimes introduced like "Jim Inhofe (R-OK)" as shorthand.)
- 15 December: A Christmas quiz is held at Downing Street. Most staff dial-in online from their homes, though some attend in person.
Same issue. I checked the source and I guess that the mere fact it appears there suggests something shady happened, but no numbers. I dunno, maybe I'm off-base here, but there's a huge difference between "4 people attend in person" and "40 people attend in person". The first isn't a scandal, the second is, so we should make clear it's the second case.
- 16 December: (...) Johnson announces at a press conference that, from today, the city will move into tier 3 restrictions.
Nit: I would use "immediately" rather than ", from today,", but just a suggestion, up to you if "From today" sounds more natural in BrE.
- 16 December: A Christmas gathering is held for staff at the Department for Transport, with food and alcohol being served.[40]
The citation is messed up - both it and the archive go to Covid: London to move into in tier 2 lockdown, a story from November 2021. Can you replace with the proper URL?
- A Christmas party is held for Case's staff at the Cabinet Office. Twelve staff attend online, but five join in the office.
Optional: This might be blazingly obvious from context, but precisely because it's so relevant here, maybe "the office, indoors." here? Since five was technically allowed within even the Tier 3 restrictions, it just had to be outdoors in a park or the like.
- 17 December: ...and background music played
Was the background music particularly loud? For the "ABBA" party, the music was relevant because it was loud and suggested a big party rather than a small one when the numbers were unknown. But as written, this could be a tasteful recording of a string quartet playing Mozart or something.
- 18 December: A Christmas party—formally named the "End of Year Meeting with Wine & Cheese"
The source notes that the party was "crowded" - I think we should too.
- 9 April: At Windsor Castle, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Optional nit from an American: I see that Prince Philip's article is actually at "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", but he's just called "Prince Philip" (especially in the context of 2021). As is, it reads like a parenthetical clause explaining Prince Philip, except his role as "Duke of Edinburgh" was completely irrelevant and ceremonial and distracting here. So I'd personally recommend either just "Prince Philip" or "Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizbeth II, (...)". But up to you.
- 12 January: Speaking at PMQs, Johnson admits that he attended the BYOB party on 20 May 2020, and apologises. Starmer calls on him to resign.
Was this a "notable" call for resignation? I may be jaded by post-2017 US politics but the "other" party here tends to throw these kind of requests out rather casually (see https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/republicans-call-biden-resign-ending-2024-campaign-rcna162923 for the opinion of our Speaker of the House, which I'm sure was taken under deep consideration and then circular-filed by Biden - not really an important or serious political thrust). If Starmer saying this was indeed a Big Deal, it's fine, just double-checking.
- 14 January: (...) describes its being used by Downing Street staff for gatherings—called "Wine Time Fridays"—every Friday afternoon during the pandemic
Can we add the word "large" or "non-compliant" or the like before gatherings, or some other modifier to make clear that these weren't <6 people matters?
The 2023 & Aftermath sections look good to me. Overall, it's an impressive work - the main nits above are to add a few more attendee numbers in when possible on how big these parties were and verifying that they weren't compliant (e.g. indoors), and will be happy to support.
Also, no obligation, but there is another timeline FLC nomination that could use some reviews open at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the Second Temple period/archive1, if interested. SnowFire (talk) 23:48, 6 September 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)
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 don't really have anything to add, so good job Gonzo! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:25, 3 September 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)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- Can't images be added for the species? In other lists, you would expect to maybe find the image when you click on the article, but there's never going to be an article for the majority of these Pokémon, so I think it would be useful.
- Note: Typed this before Pres sent their comment below, but basically the reasons he described. However, for further clarification, there have been no images published that I can find that depict all of them as a group, and mocking one up would require individual fair use rationales for every image, which would be a gross fair use violation. It simply isn't feasible at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- My bad, then. Sorry. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: Typed this before Pres sent their comment below, but basically the reasons he described. However, for further clarification, there have been no images published that I can find that depict all of them as a group, and mocking one up would require individual fair use rationales for every image, which would be a gross fair use violation. It simply isn't feasible at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- based on Spain and the Iberian Peninsula - The wording there is weird, given that Spain is part of the peninsula.
- Clarified wording on the Iberian Peninsula. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Scarlet and Violet also features - "feature", for consistency's sake.
- There should be consistency as to whether "and" has to be in italics. You have Pokémon Scarlet and Violet but Pokémon Black and White. There are several instances of these with different colours.
- Fixed all of them. Let me know if I missed any. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- How does the list before the actual list help? I mean, the order is the same, so I don't really see how that helps.
- I assume you mean the hyperlinked list of species before the main list when you mean "the list before the list"? That's there primarily in case a reader is looking for any particular Pokémon, which will allow them to hyperlink straight to a specific one. While it's use cases are admittedly niche, it's still a helpful navigational tool and doesn't take up so much space to the point it proves detrimental to the list overall, so I see no need to cut it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand why all the descriptions are merged in the last column, given that they are for each individual Pokémon. You have a row for Sprigatito, another one for Floragato and another one for Meowscarada. Why merge then in the last column? I think this is only justified when the information is scarce.
- Descriptions are merged primarily because they are more effectively covered in this way for the bulk of the species. It makes more sense to cover multiple associated subjects as part of one uniform group, or in this case, a cell, so readers will know these subjects are associated more easily, among several other reasons. I could admittedly split some off, but the subjects with enough coverage to split into another cell are primarily those who already have articles where that information is better summarized. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that, but then again, if that's the case, reading is a futuristic Paradox Pokémon resembling six times in a row feels a bit weird. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can probably reword those, but I'm not sure what would work best to convey the same information while not reading even more strangely. What would you suggest here? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I just find it weird to merge things when then you are going to repeat information, that's all. One would think that the purpose of merging them and not having one row for each of them would be not to duplicate the information. Alavense (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that, but then again, if that's the case, reading is a futuristic Paradox Pokémon resembling six times in a row feels a bit weird. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Descriptions are merged primarily because they are more effectively covered in this way for the bulk of the species. It makes more sense to cover multiple associated subjects as part of one uniform group, or in this case, a cell, so readers will know these subjects are associated more easily, among several other reasons. I could admittedly split some off, but the subjects with enough coverage to split into another cell are primarily those who already have articles where that information is better summarized. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- You have "cat" linked twice in the same row. It's the same with "crocodile" in the next section and so on and so forth, so please review these.
- Fixed the bulk of the dupe links. Let me know if I missed any. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- gatito is a colloquial word for "little cat", not necessary a kitten.
- Thank you for the Sprigatito shout-out since it turns out that one was actually using an incorrect source that I had missed. I've removed the information, primarily since I'm unable to find a citation describing the naming information at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fighting type should be hyphened for consistency's sake.
- There are lots of instances of "who" being used to refer to a Pokémon. Is that okay? Or should it be "which"?
- Changed to which. That makes more sense consistently given we're discussing species here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- consisting of a pair of Pokemon - It should be "Pokémon".
- Tadbulb is a Pokémon - What else could it be? There are also a few is a species of Pokémon, which are equally obvious.
- Some specific entries have such a small amount of coverage that their exact identities and origins are not discussed in any major sources. A few had descriptions in sources such as Screen Rant and Game Rant, but I elected not to include them due to quality concerns normally brought up during Featured Content assessments. As a result, certain entries being described as "X is a Pokémon" are things I cannot really avoid due to these ones in particular just having less discussion than other entries on the list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- the fictional, in-universe streamer, Iono should be the fictional, in-universe streamer Iono
- Gym Leader - There's only one mention to it, with no explanation or link whatsoever.
- I removed the Gym Leader mention. Admittedly could probably clarify that properly if needed but it really isn't too important for understanding here, since the focus is more on the promo than Iono's character. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- ball of a mud or "ball of mud"?
- Corviknight- a large, metallic bird-like Pokémon- - Those should be {{mdash}}es.
- Fixed mdashes in all places that needed them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wiglett has been commented on for its phallic appearance by both fans and critics.[104][105][106][107][108] - Please merge all those references.
- I admittedly have no idea how to do that. What template should be used for something like that? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:BUNDLING. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have been trying for eons but genuinely cannot figure this out, and the directions in the instruction article are very confusing. I apologize for my technological illiteracy, but could you please clarify how this works? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Pokelego999: I've done a drive-by reference bundle, so this issue is fixed. In the future, you can bundle references by playing them within a {{efn}} footnote that reads like
Supported by multiple sources:[1][2][etc]
, with the <ref> tags placed inside the efn. If you use Visual Editor, you will have to enter the {{efn}} menu thing and then manually insert the references in there as they'd be formatted in the Source Editor. (But you can always generate them in VE and then switch to Source and just encase them in the efn.) DecafPotato (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)- @DecafPotato Thank you for the help and the detailed response! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Pokelego999: I've done a drive-by reference bundle, so this issue is fixed. In the future, you can bundle references by playing them within a {{efn}} footnote that reads like
- I have been trying for eons but genuinely cannot figure this out, and the directions in the instruction article are very confusing. I apologize for my technological illiteracy, but could you please clarify how this works? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:BUNDLING. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I admittedly have no idea how to do that. What template should be used for something like that? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pokémon, that evolves from Wiglett - No need for that comma.
- Flamigo's design was criticized by fans - Why? And why did it then garner popularity?
- Clarified information in this section. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why is Cetitan linked?
- No idea, good catch. Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- incredibly cold - I think "very cold" is more encyclopedic?
- Kingambit, is - No need for that comma.
- are Paradox Pokémon- Pokémon who hail from different time periods than normal Pokémon- - {{mdash}}es, please.
- Fixed per above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm leaving the table for now, given that there are many things that I've pointed out and that would need work. Going into the "Reception" section now:
- Noting these traits, she felt that it allowed - Maybe "they"?
- Several Pokemon, such as Annihilape, Palafin, Flutter Mane, Iron Bundle, and Houndstone ended up - A comma is missing before "ended up".
- There are some curly apostrophes.
- I'm a bit confused about the curly apostrophes, since the only ones used in Reception are in direct quotes from cited sources, and not used in the actual prose. Could you clarify on this? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- They’re barely even creatures, they’re just - Should those apostrophes be curly? I really don't know, I was just pointing out in case it was a mistake. Alavense (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- They're direct quotations from the original author, so I'm not sure if that's supposed to be changed or not. I only left them because these are the author's words, and thus I wished to leave them as unedited as possible. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, then. No problem, I guess. Alavense (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- They’re barely even creatures, they’re just - Should those apostrophes be curly? I really don't know, I was just pointing out in case it was a mistake. Alavense (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused about the curly apostrophes, since the only ones used in Reception are in direct quotes from cited sources, and not used in the actual prose. Could you clarify on this? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- the simplicity of the generations' designs - It's only one generation, isn't it?
- Several designs have also been noted as being popular with the LGBTQ+ community. Many described Quaquaval as being popular with LGBTQ+ fans - Both sentences could be merged.
I feel the list still needs a bit of doing up, but I won't oppose. Let's see if you can start working on these comments and how the list stands after that. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: Let me know if anything else needs fixing, and if anything else needs to be done. Let me know if anything above needs clarifying as well. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- As a note, given that there cannot be copyright-free images of the pokemon, it would be very hard to justify the inclusion of dozens of them in this list, unfortunately. --PresN 22:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the suggestion of including the images. My bad. I've replied to your replies with some clarifications. I will then carry on reading the table when I get more time. Thanks and kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense responded to the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
A few more:
- the chest form, and a second "Roaming Form" - No need for that comma.
- the beads are said to be filled the envy of those which wanted to have them - Is something missing there?
- and Miraidon the future - and Miraidon from the future
- with the -don suffix in reference to a frequent suffix for dinosaurs - Maybe something simpler like with the -don suffix being a reference to dinosaurs?
- as part of an event, where players could battle - No need for that comma.
That's what I got. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense addressed your concerns on the above comments. On the subject of the repetition in the Paradoxes section, the main reason I made them standard is because there's no real way to phrase it concisely without making it more messy or repetitive. I could potentially shorten it down to something like "Iron Treads is a Pokémon resembling Donphan..." or something like that, but the repetition would still remain. Unmerging the cells would not fix the problem, as it would still remain regardless, but only with the added point that these Pokémon that are normally grouped together are now separated. If you feel there's a better way to write this, let me know, but I feel as of right now this is the most consistent and straightforward way to cover the information for readers. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your quick responses. I think the list is comprehensive and meets the criteria. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:29, 30 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)
- @Tone: Just following up about the above concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- On it soon. Yesterday I sorted the comments for Egypt, Brazil is next :) Tone 16:59, 5 September 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
Support, good stuff Tone. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 5 September 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)
Dylan620
[edit]I'm going to disclose upfront that I was informed over Discord that a prose review was still needed here – I should be able to do one in the next day or two. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support on prose. I've read this list quite closely twice over. I've got nothing. I did make a bold attempt at a minor capitalization fix, but the original turned out to be in line with one of MOS's nooks and crannies with which I was unfamiliar. Excellent work, Tamzin and Generalissima. For what it's worth, if either of you have the time or interest, I have a rather old FLC that could still use some feedback. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Airship
[edit]This seems quite far away from a list to me. A couple of embedded lists in an article does not mean it becomes a stand-alone list, which is FL is for. As a comparison, none of the five "Terminology of..." articles I just spotchecked are classified as lists. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: Plenty of majority-prose articles are classified as lists; for instance, Moons of Uranus. I also don't think similar articles are a good judge, as Moons of Mars and Moons of Pluto are not classified as lists. (Or for another example, Cartography of Jerusalem vs Cartography of China). I feel the ultimately quality of a list is enumerating the notably attested members of some set, which this article does; it just has to do this with large amounts of context in prose or it'd be nonsensical. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well no, it could be a glossary, which would have no prose. Instead, this article has been structured to require the large amounts of context in prose, which makes it ... not a list, in my eyes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Does the addition of large amounts of text in "Moons of Uranus" make it no longer a simple list of astronomical bodies, typically lacking prose? How much supplementary context a given list needs varies dramatically, and there are numerous examples of lists with similar prose lengths to this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well no, it could be a glossary, which would have no prose. Instead, this article has been structured to require the large amounts of context in prose, which makes it ... not a list, in my eyes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 6 September 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): 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!)
- I added a line on this ( diff).
- Ptolemaic Kingdom
- The heading has "301 BCE – 199 BCE" but the intext span is "301–200 BCE". Any reason for the discrepancy?
- "Book of Ecclesiastes (Qohelet)" no clue what "Qohelet" means without clicking on the link, which MOS:NOFORCELINK disapproves of. Same for many other brackets up and down the article (e.g. "Battle of Panium (Paneas)", "priestly source (P)").
- "by Philopator" I don't think it's common to refer to Hellenistic kings by their epithets.
- It is a little confusing. Jerusalem is conquered in 200 BCE, but the war ends and the boundaries "officially" change in 199 BCE, so the argument is that Ptolemaic rule stops in 200 BCE (the first item on the list), but the era only stops in 199. Also, a lot of the sources for these events say something like "this happened in the 3rd century BC" rather than "in the Ptolemaic era" even though they're near synonymous. If you prefer, though, I'm happy to switch to 199 as the end date; hopefully nobody will be annoyed and betrayed that the long 3rd century BCE now includes 199.
- All of these are just alternative names for the same thing, e.g. Augustus Caesar (Octavian). This was in case someone recognizes Qohelet but not Ecclesiastes or the like, since it can be a little confusing to read about the Battle of Paneas and not find it in a CTRL-F or being unsure if there was a typo somewhere. We can throw in "also known as", but there's also an argument that this is an exception to NOFORCELINK - that we expect a lot of "click the link for more" on a timeline which is inherently a collection of article links. That said, I've rephrased or thrown in some explanations (diff), feel free to chime in if you think they're still insufficient.
- Hmm. I agree that for Seleucid kings, I usually see "Antiochus IV" rather than "Epiphanes." But for Ptolemies, I'm not so sure. Hadas's book does indeed refer to him as Philopator for short, though (see p. 16-17), usually after introducing as "Ptolemy Philopator" which is done earlier in this line. Sara Raup Johnson's book does as well (p. 135, 145, 147), and similarly refers to other Pharaohs as such (e.g. just "Philadelphus"). Maybe a difference in styles between literary analysis and other histories? It seems writers on 3 Macc do use the epithets alone.
- Seleucid Empire
- Say who Scopas is?
- "Roman troops" first mention of Rome should probably come with a link. Also, "further increasing Roman sway and influence" this is the first we're hearing about any sway/influence. Lastly, the article should probably mention that this battle took place nowhere near Judea.
- "The "Abomination of Desolation" is set up in the Second Temple" the what????
- Say who Lysias is.
- So the rebels took Jerusalem but not the Acra? Might need to say that explicitly—I was quite confused for a bit.
- "The Battle of Caphar-salama occurs." ... and how did it go?
- Adjusted to "led by" rather than "left by" - he was just the opposing commander.
- Hmm, this one I disagree. The relevant link is "Battle of Pydna", not the Roman Republican military - if someone is really interested, they'll find links to the Roman Republic military at that article, but that's not the 168 BCE event. And it is the first we're hearing about Roman influence, but that's because Roman influence wasn't that significant in Judea before and therefore not that relevant to mention. It seems Pydna was a turning point where, without the Antigonids to worry about, Rome started meddling more in Seleucid / Ptolemaic disputes. (There's a reason that this one is included despite being very far off - Bar-Kochva includes it in his timeline and thinks it's relevant to the Maccabean Revolt, just because it frees up the threat of a Roman intervention.) Anyway, tried spelling it out a bit more, take a look.
- That's what it's called! Badass name, I know, metal bands should get one of those things. But no, nobody is really sure WTF it was, so it's difficult to be less mysterious here. Was it an idol? Was it a profaned altar? Was it just the act of pagan sacrifices itself? Whatever it was, the later Jews sure didn't like it (but didn't want to describe it in detail either), and Judas got rid of it after three years. But I'm not sure there's a great way to sum that up. "The Abomination of Desolation, a very very bad something something, is set up..."
- Done, for Lysias.
- Correct. I'm a little worried about saying so in the line on the 163 taking of Jerusalem, because we just know that suddenly we're besieging the Acra later, but the sources don't say "We took Jerusalem except the Acra", they say "We took Jerusalem." And then suddenly we're besieging the Acra later, so I guess they didn't take it, but we don't have any details on why or what did happen. (My understanding is that the best guess is that there were a lot more Hellenist-friendly Jews in Jerusalem than the surviving sources would like to admit, and the Maccabees didn't try to take the Acra immediately because they didn't want to provoke a revolt. Which would suggest the Maccabee occupation of Hellenist-friendly Jerusalem was somewhat nominal and didn't stop supplies from reaching the Acra. This wasn't deeply recorded in 1 Maccabees because it's "embarrassing". As a reminder, Jerusalem got wrecked in 168-167, so it wouldn't be surprising if the Maccabee-friendly inhabitants of Jerusalem were killed or enslaved in 168-167, and the main factions that the Seleucids left untouched were the Hellenist-friendly ones there, making the remnants still in the city a natural Seleucid base of power in 167-142. But this is a guess, not a fact.) I did expand the line on the Acra siege, take a look and see if it helps.
- Added the result.
- Hasmonean kingdom
- "Ptolemy son of Abubus" who's this?
- "The community is speculated to be Essenes" by who?
- Just a name in a book. The only thing he's known for is doing this murder. I added his rank (governor of Jericho), but we really don't know much about him - the main thing he's known for is probably being the source for Dante's naming of Ptolemea in the 9th layer of hell.
- When unstated, it's "most historians", but I think Wikipedia style is generally to discourage qualifying "consensus" opinions. There are some scholars who think the Qumran community were not Essenes nor particularly close to them in theology, but my understanding is that they're in the minority, and I think writing "speculated" already communicates that this is an educated guess rather than historical fact.
- Herodian kingdom
- " into Octavian's victorious side" not sure this makes sense.
- Agree phrasing was awkward; rephrased it.
- Roman Judea and the Herodian tetrarchy
- "Herod Archelaus is deposed as ethnarch" should probably specify that this was done by the Romans.
- Expanded this. (It was Emperor Augustus himself! Surprised he had time for that... Archelaus musta screwed up bad.)
- Aftermath
- Good.
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): 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)
- Pinging @EN-Jungwon as a casual follow up about this. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense @Hey man im josh all done. Thanks for the reminder. -- EN-Jungwon 01:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the edits and nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense @Hey man im josh all done. Thanks for the reminder. -- EN-Jungwon 01:42, 29 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)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- more than 60 monumental buildings in Buenos Aires Province - Maybe in the Buenos Aires Province?
- After several problems - What kinds of problems?
- the task of building different public buildings - Erecting? Constructing? Find something to avoid the repetition.
- giving him full powers for his projects, encouraging the growth of small towns and cities - Those two gerunds in a row sound a bit odd. Maybe something along the lines of giving him full powers for his projects, which were expected to encourage the growth of small towns and cities?
- You can say something more about Salamone in the caption of the image. In any case, it shouldn't have a full stop, as it's not a complete sentence.
- municipalities - Maybe you mean city hall?
- cemeteries portals - cemetery portals
- In Argentina the territorial divisions of second order are called Partidos in the Buenos Aires and Departamentos in the other provinces - No need for the uppercase in Partidos or Departamentos.
- The town of Vicente López covers the whole Partido of the same name - Same with Partido.
- Consider using {{ill}} to link cities and towns which don't have an article on this Wikipedia.
- Consider splitting the references into two columns.
- Many of the issues raised above by ChrisTheDude have not been addressed yet, I'm afraid.
I still have to take a look at the table, but I'd rather wait until you take previous comments into consideration. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Done Yilku1 (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think many of the suggestions haven't been taken into account yet. As ChrisTheDude pointed out, there are many notes which probably could do without the full stops. The caption could have a bit more than just the name of the architect. I notice now, as well, that this list is probably a translation of the Spanish one? In that case, the translation would need an attribution, and that's a requirement. You can read more about that here. Alavense (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- What counts as full sentences and what doesn't? Does "Work by César Fernández" needs a full stop or not? Does it need attribution if I am the author of both articles? Yilku1 (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that is definitely not a full sentence. I reckon that's pretty obvious. You can find more information regarding those issues in WP:CAPTION. And I don't think the fact that you are the "author" (whatever that means) of the other article matters. I already provided a link with further information. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- What counts as full sentences and what doesn't? Does "Work by César Fernández" needs a full stop or not? Does it need attribution if I am the author of both articles? Yilku1 (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think many of the suggestions haven't been taken into account yet. As ChrisTheDude pointed out, there are many notes which probably could do without the full stops. The caption could have a bit more than just the name of the architect. I notice now, as well, that this list is probably a translation of the Spanish one? In that case, the translation would need an attribution, and that's a requirement. You can read more about that here. Alavense (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review — Pass
[edit]- The image in the infobox is of the architect and has an appropriate public domain license.
- The remaining images are also all relevant, being of the structures listed.
- All the images have ALT tags, although these seem to be titles rather than descriptions.
- The majority of the images have been uploaded to Wikimedia by their creators and have an appropriate Creative Commons license tags, including:
- Palacio Municipal de Carhué.JPG*Municipalidad Gonzalez Chávez.jpg
- Centro Cultural de González Chavez.JPG
- Delegacion municipal alberdi bsas.jpg
- Matadero de Alberdi, provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Obra del arquitecto Francesco Salamone.jpg
- Municipalidad de Alberti 2019.jpg
- Ex Club Social de Alberti bis.jpg
- Antigua delegación municipal de Alem, provincia de Buenos Aires.jpg
- Matadero de Alem, provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Obra del arquitecto Francesco Salamone.jpg
- Salamone en Ayacucho y Alvear.jpg
- AzulCementerio.jpg
- Ex-Matadero Municipal de Azul.JPG
- Cementerio Municipal de Balcarce, Obra del Arq. Salamone.jpg
- Matadero Municipal.jpg
- DelegacionMunicipal LagunaAlsina.jpg
- Delegación Municipal Cacharí.JPG
- MataderoMunicipalCacharí.jpg
- Casa de Carlos Calegari.jpg
- DelegacionMunicipal Casbas.jpg
- Delegación Municipal Chillar.JPG
- Matadero chillar.jpg
- Delegación Coronel Mom.jpg
- Municipalidad de Pringles (3).JPG
- Matadero Municipal de Coronel Pringles (2).JPG
- Casa Daneri-DSCN0142.jpg
- Casa mdp.jpg
- Hospital Municipal General Eustoquio Díaz Vélez.jpg
- DelegacionMunicipal Garre.jpg
- Palacio Municipal Guaminí 1x1.jpg
- Matadero Guamini 2x3.jpg
- Corralón Municipal Laprida.jpg
- Laprida Cemetery Facade 04.JPG
- Palacio Municipal de Laprida, fachada.JPG
- Delegación Municipal de Los Pinos 15092013.jpg
- DelegacionMunicipal Miranda.jpg
- MataderoMunicipal Pellegrini.jpg
- Palacio Municipal de Rauch.JPG
- Escuela Secundaria Nº 1.jpg
- Saldungaray Portal Cementerio.jpg
- Delegación Municipal de Saldungaray 2.JPG
- Mercado Saldungaray.jpg
- Matadero Saldungaray 1.jpg
- Cementerio Salliqueló.jpg
- MataderoMunicipal Salliqueló.jpg
- Delegación Municipal de San Agustín.jpg
- DelegacionMunicipal TresLomas.jpg
- MataderoMunicipal TresLomas.jpg
- Delegación Municipal Tres Picos.jpg
- Matadero de Vedia, provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Obra del arquitecto Francesco Salamone.jpg
- Matadero Municipal de Villa Epecuén 1x1.jpg
- Matadero Modelo Villa María.JPG
- Municipalidad de Pringles (4).JPG
- FuenteOrnamental Guaminí.jpg
- Cruz del Cementerio de Carhué.JPG
- Cruz del Cementerio.JPG
- Cruz5.jpg
- ViaCrucis Azul.jpg
- Cruz Guamini.jpg
- Portada Parque Municipal de Azul D.F.Sarmiento.JPG
- Plaza General Arias.jpg
- Palacio Municipal de Pellegrini, Equipamientos..JPG
- Portal del Parque Municipal General San Martín.jpg
- PlazaIndependencia Saldungaray.jpg
- Plaza Juan Pascual Pringles 03.JPG
- PlazaLeandroNAlem TresLomas.jpg
- PlazoletaMunicipalidad Rauch.jpg
- Plaza San Martin de Azul.jpg
- Valle Hermoso Cine Valle de la Castellana.jpg is released by its author with a GNU license as well as a CC license.
- The following have appropriate public domain licenses in Argentina as the images are more than 25 years old and were first published over 20 years ago:
- Matadero de Laprida.png Municipalidad de Las Varillas.jpg
- Municipalidad de Vedia 1940.jpg
- Cementerio de Pilar.jpg
- Palacio Municipal de Tornquist 1940.jpg
- Plaza Centenario.png
- Villa María, Boulevard España.jpg
- Plaza Libertad Balcarce 1937.jpg
- Plaza Pedro Pereyra 2.jpg
- Plaza Rivadavia Vedia.jpg
- Portal del parque Venado Tuerto.png
- Portal del parque Garay
- The following images are from Flicr and have been reviewed:
- Municipalidad de Chascomús.jpg
- Municipalidad de Pellegrini.jpg
- The following has been released by the author into the public domain:
- Tornquist1.jpg
In summary, the images seem relevant and have appropriate license tags. simongraham (talk) 21:30, 28 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)
Comments by Birdienest81
[edit]- I'm wondering why not all of the awards and nominations that Carol received are not listed in the infbox like other film accolades lists? The awards and nominations in the infobox do not add up in the figure for the total number of awards and nominations the film received.
- Also, all movie titles in the references should be italicized as well per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
That is all I have. Can you take a look at my FLC for the 96th Academy Awards or this one for the 1996 Summer Olympics medal table?
- --Birdienest81talk 06:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Birdienest81: I didn't add all the other awards to the infobox as I found it unnecessary bloating of the infobox and redundant. I only added the major industry and critic organizations of awards season.
- What is the template/markup that allows italicizing words with an apostrophe inside a citation template? Template:Apostrophe isn't fit for citation templates. Lapadite (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- Not being a complete sentence, the note doesn't require a full stop.
- Given that Mara is the one on the left and Blanchett the one on the right in the image, I think it would be worth stating that in the caption.
That's all I got, so I'm going to go ahead and support promotion. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 06:48, 6 September 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)
- That's fine, thanks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:02, 2 September 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?
Support from Averageuntitleduser
[edit]- "Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Ukraine" — see MOS:GEOLINK
Russian forces occupied three cities in Polohy Raion,
— remove comma
I can't find anything else! The prose reads very clearly. I had a look at the images and found no reason to doubt the own work liscenses. However, in the alt texts of the cities, try not to repeat the captions. Instead, lean just slightly more into broadly describing the image. My go at the first: "Arterial road at night between mid-rise buildings, street lights, and trees". Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the suggestions. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good! Happy to support. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- Neither the first caption nor the two notes need a full stop, given that they are not full sentences.
- 10 cities are occupied by Russian forces, while two - As per MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". I'd go with ten cities are occupied.
That's what I saw, Flemmish Nietzsche. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- No pressure or rush, but just following up and pinging to make sure you're aware of the feedback @Tone. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. Busy week. I'll see if I can take care of the comments during the weekend :) Tone 21:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @SnowFire: I finally got to work on the comments, thanks for the great input. As for the intro, I am using standard text that has been polished through years for consistency. But you are right, Egypt ratified the convention years before the first monuments got listed, so I adjusted that. As for the sources, we've had a long-standing consensus that the UNESCO sources are better than the others, as they actually state why something was listed. Other sources are typically derivative, but sometimes I am using others if there is a good reason (reminds me of an updated height of some mountain or sometimes the text in the tentative lists is simply missing). Great spot with Historic Cairo, I updated the text with a 2019 report, after all, the site was listed in 1979. As for Nubia, this is the list where all the monuments are listed in a table, others are stand-alone articles. I was thinking of alternatives but this is probably the best one. Thanks again! Tone 08:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I get that this verbiage might be used on other articles, and don't want to necessarily mandate my preferences broadly. That said, if we're saying that "this is what the UNESCO documents say", it's possible this could be described a little more bluntly? The UNESCO links themselves have the above disclaimer I mentioned about "this is from the State Party concerned", i.e. Egypt in this case. If they thought it was worth giving that disclaimer, maybe we should hint at that too.
- Also, I don't think this is a major grammar nit, but even if you prefer the parenthetical style currently used in the lede, my understanding is that sentences with "sublists" still need a semicolon to distinguish the overarching list from the sublists. As such, I'd recommend something more like:
- Natural heritage is defined as: natural features (consisting of physical and biological formations); geological and physiographical formations (including habitats of threatened species of animals and plants); and natural sites which are important from the point of view of science, conservation, or natural beauty.
- Could ditch the colon if you don't like it, but that last list requires semicolons for the top-level one. SnowFire (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @SnowFire: I finally got to work on the comments, thanks for the great input. As for the intro, I am using standard text that has been polished through years for consistency. But you are right, Egypt ratified the convention years before the first monuments got listed, so I adjusted that. As for the sources, we've had a long-standing consensus that the UNESCO sources are better than the others, as they actually state why something was listed. Other sources are typically derivative, but sometimes I am using others if there is a good reason (reminds me of an updated height of some mountain or sometimes the text in the tentative lists is simply missing). Great spot with Historic Cairo, I updated the text with a 2019 report, after all, the site was listed in 1979. As for Nubia, this is the list where all the monuments are listed in a table, others are stand-alone articles. I was thinking of alternatives but this is probably the best one. Thanks again! Tone 08:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. Busy week. I'll see if I can take care of the comments during the weekend :) Tone 21:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, looks better on the main 7 sites. Anyway, source review on the tentative sites forthcoming... SnowFire (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- (non-actionable side chatter) I guess this is fine since we're mirroring UNESCO exactly and they still list it, but "Temple of Serabit Khadem" is weird since as noted, part of it was clearly accepted as a Heritage site a decade later in Saint Catherine's. Seems more like a historical note.
- (more side chatter) I don't know if North Sinai Archaeological Sites Zone is notable as a separate article. It just looks like the name Egypt stamped on their UNESCO application, but it doesn't appear to be a real thing that any archaeologist in the area would say if not directly discussing "the application Egypt made to list this as a UNESCO site." (All of the references seem to be to UNESCO.) Maybe something to clean up?
- Temple of Hator built by Ramses III: Similar to the mountain height example above, this may be a time to bring in non-UNESCO sources. I'm not sure this site is reliable, but it indicates it's probably referring to Dendera_Temple_complex#Hathor_temple, which was ironically not built by Ramses III. Featured standards are high, but I don't see any other famous Temples to Hathor from a quick Google, so maybe something like "Hypothesized the nomination refers to the Temple to Hathor at Dendera" in the notes? (Skip a picture though since we aren't 100%.)
- This nomination comprises sites such as - There are only 8 sites on the list. I'd say just list all of them rather than say "such as" and only list 5/8.
- Okay, I'm going to stop commenting on other linked articles as it's irrelevant to this list, but El-Gendi Fortress is another article that causes my eye to twitch a bit as being solely sourced to UNESCO, and seemingly treating a "tentative" list as a lot more meaningful than it really is.
- The ruins of a 6th century monastery were discovered in 1984. - Nit: Technically, we should say it was this monastery, not Some Other Monastery - "Rutho Monastery was constructed in the 6th century under Emperor Justinian. Its ruins were discovered in 1984." perhaps?
- Nit: I'd say that Ptolemaic Kingdom is a more relevant link for "Ptolemaic period" than the Ptolemaic dynasty (in the "Pharaonic temples in Upper Egypt " entry). This is referring to the era, not the specific family.
- They mainly date from the Middle Kingdom to the Roman period. - Is there doubt on some of these? This sentence makes it sound like there are exceptions, but the document says "the tombs can be all dated between the Middle Empire and the low Roman period." So either kill "mainly", or explain the exception(s) in text IMO.
- Nit: and the Saint Mary Deipara - is "the" needed here?
- They were strategic forts during the Crusades but lost importance after 1291 and were later abandoned. Strictly speaking, not supported by the source. I'd say to either add a source that indicates they were abandoned, or to weaken this claim. (The source writes "it seems to have lost its importance and may even have been abandoned.")
- The observatory quickly became a tourist destination. This is referenced. While I'm fine with saying we're trusting the UNESCO documents, I don't think we're obligated to mention everything in them, and this claim seems... aspirational. Neither ar:حلوان nor Google suggests a major tourist destination to me. Up to you, but I'd weaken this claim or outright remove it.
Anyway, largely looks good. Take a look at the above comments, and happy to support if they're resolved (many of which are nitpicks / optional anyway). SnowFire (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- But just to talk more on the topic... does anyone talk anywhere that apparently countries can just list the same sites over and over on the Tentative list but chop them up different ways? If so, we might want to change the way they're described, since Temple of Hathor is essentially in twice, St. Catherines Monastery is in twice, etc. SnowFire (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]- The images are relevant and all of reasonable quality.
- Egypt adm location map.svg has an appropriate CC license.
- In the list, there are a few entries without illustrations, including El-Gendi Fortress, Rutho Monastery, Wadi Feiran. Temple of Hator built by Ramses III has no illustration, but it is commented "No information provided in the nomination documentation".
- All Gizah Pyramids.jpg was a featured picture and was picture of the day. It is appropriately licensed.
- Templo de Luxor, Luxor, Egipto, 2022-04-01, DD 01.jpg is a quality image and has an appropriate CC license.
- Abusimbel.jpg has a Swedish PD tag. It needs a US PD tag.
- Islamic Cairo (2005-05-385).jpg has an appropriate CC license.
- Abu Mena Ancient Monastery 05.JPG has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
- Katharinenkloster Sinai BW 2.jpg was a featured picture and was picture of the day. It is appropriately licensed.
- The whales fossils.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
- Siwa Oasis, Western Desert, Egypt.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
- SerabitBothChapels.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
- Bent Pyramid 曲折金字塔 - panoramio.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
- DimaiLandscape.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
- Aqaba Castle.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
- TunaGebelPtolemaios.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
- Ballon fish Ras Mohammed - panoramio.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
- Lake Moeris 034.JPG has an appropriate CC license.
- Dakhla Oasis view (May 2007).jpg has an appropriate CC license.
- 2012 Bardawil (Egypt).jpg has an appropriate CC license.
- Wadi el Gemal National Red Sea.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
- GilfKebir1.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
- SiwaSandDunes.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
- AlexSarapeionPompeysPillar.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
- Abydos Tempel Ramses II. 04.JPG has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
- Dendera 7 977.PNG has an appropriate PD license.
- Exterior view of tombs of Khety and Barquet III.JPG has an appropriate PD license.
- Cairo Nilometer 2.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
- Deir as Suriani.jpg has appropriate GNU and CC licenses.
- Sand Castle. Pharaon Island (9198174615).jpg has an appropriate CC license.
- Nakhl00040v.jpg has an appropriate PD tag from the Ottoman Empire. The US license is assumed as the source is the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Photograph Album.
- Faiyum Oasis by Zorbey Tunçer.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
- لمعالم الاثرية من رحلة رشيد 5.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
- Dababiya 3.jpg has appropriate GNU licenses.
- Helwan Observatory.jpg has an Egyptian PD tag and is public domain in the US as it was published before 1946 and copyright had expired in Egypt before January 1, 1996.
- Bagawat.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
- The Egyptian Museum.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
- Images from Flickr (such as Castle. Pharaon Island (9198174615).jpg and Faiyum Oasis by Zorbey Tunçer.jpg) have been reviewed.
- All images have ALT tags for accessibility.
@Tone: This looks a good use of images to illustrate the list, with two of the images appearing as picture of the day. The only adjustment I can see is to add a US public domain license to Abusimbel.jpg and to see if there any of the missing illustrations can be found. simongraham (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. I am not that well-versed in licenses, can you add the right one to Abusimbel? I kind of like this photo in the article because it shows action, not just the monument. Tone 08:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- Two consecutive sentences begin with Since their creation, which reads a bit odd.
- For someone (like myself) who knows nothing about how these leagues work, the fact that they have affiliated with the National Hockey League (NHL)'s Seattle Kraken doesn't mean much if it isn't explained. I think.
- Nat should be Nat. and Pos should be Pos.. Besides, please consider using {{abbr}} for those and also the others.
- There are no notes in the first table, so you can get rid of that empty column.
- All in all, I think the lede is a bit short and says nothing about statistics, other than how many players have worn the jersey. Could something be added?
That's what I saw, XR228. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would use {{abbr}} as previously stated, but I will support anyway. Alavense (talk) 07:07, 4 September 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)
- @SnowFire Hi there, I have made significant cleanup per the COMMONNAME titles. I have also a subsection called Western Region you can take a look at, based on your recommendations above. Also did some MOS fixes to the dates. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Comments
[edit]- "indulging in political campaigns" - not sure "indulging in" is the right term. I suggest "leading"
Done
- "Also known as the leader of the state and UT party,"- write union territory in full
Done
- "Pradesh Congress Committee" - is there a link for this? Or if not, can you take a few words to explain what it is?
Done
- "each panchayat development block" - same comment as above
Done
- "Appointed by" column should sort on surname, not forename
Could you please help me with this? Just one example, and I will take care of the rest.Done
- As the tables are sortable, the names in the "appointed" column should be linked each time
- Need help on this one too.
- That's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi ChrisTheDude Help me with the last two options. An example will be sufficient for me to take care of the rest. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @ChrisTheDude, looks like the user's ping to you failed. Just letting you know! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi ChrisTheDude Help me with the last two options. An example will be sufficient for me to take care of the rest. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:48, 31 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)
- Hey @AndrewPeterT, just following up on this since you left a comment about your intents. No pressure! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. I plan on having comments by the end of the day next Monday, September 2. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @AndrewPeterT, just following up on this since you left a comment about your intents. No pressure! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Specific feedback - Oppose (edited 01:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)) until comments are resolved
@Dylan620: Here is what I noticed going through the list:
- For the satellite images of Adolph, Barbara, Erick, Flossie, and Henriette, their source link sends me to a dead link.
- For the satellite image of Cosme, the source link takes me to a sign-in page where the photo is not visible.
- For the satellite image of Ismael, I am taken to this search database, where I (and presumably others) do not know how to locate the photo.
- Regarding
in the lede: The cited source only establishes that the 1995 season was the first in the satellite era without an October eastern Pacific tropical cyclone. I would recommend rewriting this sentence or finding another source that explicitly supports this claim (although I do believe it is true).the final, Hurricane Juliette, dissipated on September 26, making this season the first since the beginning of the satellite era in which no tropical cyclones were active after September
- I've added a citation to HURDAT. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding
in the lede: This seems like WP:UNDUE weight of Hurricane Flossie's impacts, especially considering that the storm never made landfall. Perhaps simply stating that Flossie caused eight fatalities would suffice?Flossie in August remained off the coast of Mexico but passed close enough to cause gusty winds and flooding rains; seven people died ... An eighth death occurred after Flossie helped generate severe thunderstorms and flash floods in Arizona
- I've been thinking about this, and I just can't agree that there is an issue with undue weight here. Flossie may not have made landfall, but it was still the only storm not named Ismael to cause fatalities during the season, and while it wasn't terribly destructive, it still caused non-negligible damage in Mexico and Arizona. I felt like it was appropriate to structure the impacts paragraph so that roughly half of it discussed Ismael, with Flossie and Henriette each getting a quarter. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding
in the June 21 section: This sentence is missing a period at the end.Tropical Depression Adolph is last noted as a tropical cyclone about 320 mi (520 km) south-southwest of the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula; it dissipates shortly thereafter
- D'oh! I've no clue how I missed this. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding Barbara's descriptions in the July 17 and July 18 sections: Is there a way that these coordinates can be reported in terms of distance from somewhere in Hawaii (e.g. Hilo, Hawaii)? I ask because nowadays, the Central Pacific Hurricane Center tends to report tropical cyclone distances from the Hawaiian islands as opposed to Mexico in their advisories.
- I've added citations to the CPHC's post-season report to support using Hilo as a location reference point. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding
in the August 7 section: The cited source notes that the "monsoon-like" mode of formation means that tropical waves are not the primary large-scale forcing. Furthermore, the source mentions that Seven-E (i.e. Hurricane Flossie) formed within a low-pressure area and a large, deep cyclonic circulation. Could this entry be reworded to better account for this information?Tropical Depression Seven-E forms from a large and "monsoon-like" area of low pressure about 310 mi (500 km) west-southwest of Acapulco, Guerrero
- I've rephrased this to an area of low pressure within a broad region of cyclonic rotation. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Finally, and more generally, is there a way that the abbreviations used can be linked to their "full" form per MOS:SOURCEABBR? For example, mi is used consistently in the list's body, but there is no explicit language relating it to mile(s), as used in the lede.
In general, this list is very well-organized and provides a comprehensive yet accessible understanding of the 1995 Pacific hurricane season. However, the fact that every satellite image has sourcing concerns is enough for me to withhold my support at this time per #5(b) of WP:FLCR. Once my feedback, especially the first three points, is addressed, I look forward to supporting this nomination. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew, thank you for the constructive criticism. I'm off to bed because I have work early in the morning, but (I think) I have already addressed a few of your concerns—specific replies inline. I'll resume with the rest tomorrow, including contacting the uploaders of the satellite images. Unfortunately, many of the best satellite images on Commons seem to be from limited-access sources; I don't know how to access them, either. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @AndrewPeterT: OK, so I reached out to the uploaders and they either provided me with updated URLs or fixed the links themselves, so that issue should now be resolved. The images that can readily be seen by searching the sites provide rather oblique/tilted views of the EPAC tropical cyclones because the satellites aren't positioned directly above the storms. At this discussion, one of the uploaders (courtesy ping CooperScience) explained their process for making the images so that there was an overhead view of each storm. They downloaded satellite data in the form of tarballs, and (based on the summary tags of the Commons uploads) superimposed that data over NOAA imagery of the terrain, showing what the storm looked like from directly overhead. I can only assume that a similar process was applied for the other satellite images. In other words, those sites do not contain the images as they appear on Commons, but they do provide the satellite data that was used to render the images (though I don't know what external program[s] would be used to superimpose the data). I hope this assuages your concerns about the sourcing for the satellite images. I have also finished replying to your other, prose-related comments: I acted on most, but there was one that I didn't feel would be an improvement. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Dylan620: Thank you for addressing my feedback. At this time, I feel that you have adequately resolved my concerns. Therefore, I now support this nomination. Good luck with the rest of the process! AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @AndrewPeterT: OK, so I reached out to the uploaders and they either provided me with updated URLs or fixed the links themselves, so that issue should now be resolved. The images that can readily be seen by searching the sites provide rather oblique/tilted views of the EPAC tropical cyclones because the satellites aren't positioned directly above the storms. At this discussion, one of the uploaders (courtesy ping CooperScience) explained their process for making the images so that there was an overhead view of each storm. They downloaded satellite data in the form of tarballs, and (based on the summary tags of the Commons uploads) superimposed that data over NOAA imagery of the terrain, showing what the storm looked like from directly overhead. I can only assume that a similar process was applied for the other satellite images. In other words, those sites do not contain the images as they appear on Commons, but they do provide the satellite data that was used to render the images (though I don't know what external program[s] would be used to superimpose the data). I hope this assuages your concerns about the sourcing for the satellite images. I have also finished replying to your other, prose-related comments: I acted on most, but there was one that I didn't feel would be an improvement. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:58, 6 September 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)
- Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- Does Equator really need to be uppercase?
- I had long thought "the Equator" to be a proper noun in this context, and am picking up mixed signals as to which case it should be in. On one hand, the Google Books Ngram Viewer indicates that "the equator" is more common in literature; on the other hand, when I checked the MOS for direct guidance, it was capitalized on the only usage I could find (see MOS:SEASON). This discussion from a couple years ago didn't seem to reach a consensus as to whether one was more appropriate than the other. I've erred on the side of the Ngram and de-capitalized the word. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- an average Pacific hurricane season generated 15 tropical storms, eight hurricanes, and four major hurricanes - As per MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
- Ditto for only 11 tropical depressions developed, of which 10 strengthened into named tropical storms. Seven became hurricanes, of which three further intensified into major hurricanes.
- Good catch; I've fixed both of the above. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would come in handy to have links to hurricanes, depressions and so on in the captions. What do you think?
- Couldn't hurt! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback, Alavense – I think I've addressed everything. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edits, Dylan620, and good work. Support. Alavense (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Source check by IntentionallyDense
[edit]It doesn't look like anyone has done a Source check for this article yet so I will be doing so. I'm going to do this in a table format and update as I go, as that is what is easiest for me. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Section | Status | Sources I can't access | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | In progress | ||
Time | In progress | "06:00 UTC (11:00 p.m. PDT, May 20) at 13.2°N 104.2°W – Tropical Depression One-E forms from an Intertropical Convergence Zone disturbance about 405 mi (650 km) south of Manzanillo, Colima; it simultaneously attains peak winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)."
Your source says the winds only reached 30mph. Source also says that it was 350 mi south. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Your source doesn't support the "about 525 mi (845 km) southwest of Manzanillo, Colima" and "about 815 mi (1,315 km) west-southwest of Manzanillo, Colima". Were these numbers reached based on the coordinates given or am I missing something? IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
"755 mi (1,215 km) south-southeast of the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula" Your source doesn't mention the exact location or peninsula part. Was that again based on coordinates? IntentionallyDense (talk)
|
I'm going to stop for now as I'm a bit confused about how you are getting specific number that the sources don't have. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for picking this up IntentionallyDense – I've responded inline to the feedback you've given so far. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying. I don’t think it’s a good idea for me to go ahead with this source check just because I lack knowledge in this area and I don’t think I can properly evaluate the sources if I can’t interpret them. Sorry for any confusion. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Source review – Although I can't read Korean-language references for any content checks, the cites all appear reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Giants2008, should I add trans-title to the sources? -- EN-Jungwon 01:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- Kang left the show on November 4, 2018 - No need for "2018".
- 10 songs collected trophies for three weeks - As per MOS:NUMNOTES: "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure".
- chart topper - Maybe chart-topper better?
- Three boy groups ranked two singles at number one in 2018; - I think a colon would be better than a semicolon.
- Same for Red Velvet had three singles rank number one on the chart;
- Meanwhile, girl group Twice ranked four singles at number one on the chart in 2018 achieved with "Heart Shaker", "What Is Love?", "Dance the Night Away", and "Yes or Yes" - This reads a bit weird to me. Maybe something along the lines of Meanwhile, girl group Twice ranked four singles at number one on the chart in 2018 with "Heart Shaker", "What Is Love?", "Dance the Night Away", and "Yes or Yes"?
That's what I saw, EN-Jungwon and Explicit. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Darn, EN-Jungwon hasn't been online for five days... Well, they're usually good about taking care of this stuff when they're back. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh sorry for the late reply. I'll have this done by tomorrow. -- EN-Jungwon 15:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alavense, all done. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 00:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nice work. Support. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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): 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)
- I still think that the first sentence is not clear enough. In general, I feel the first paragraph is a bit convoluted, in my opinion. For the tables, wouldn't it be better to use a dagger and background colour instead of just bold. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a suggestion for the first sentence because I am not seeing the confusion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am trying to determine if the convoluted paragraph was because of two different emphases. I have split the first paragraph. Could you tell me if both halves are convoluted.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there an example of a table that uses the dagger and background color that you suggest. Is this combination in keeping with MOS and accessibility policies?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the thing is I don't think it complies with MOS as it is, as MPGuy2824 already pointed out. I'd get rid of the bold and include, instead, a symbol and a background colour. You have more information regarding symbols and the legend here: MOS:LEGEND. Besides, this and this could serve you as examples of how it is done, given that they were recently promoted. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 12:22, 28 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)
@The Herald and Matthewrb: This nomination is reaching the point where it's going to be closed for lack of response; if you haven't already, please reach out to interested editors or wikiprojects to review. --PresN 21:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PresN Sure, no problem. I'll ping WikiProject Spaceflight. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 22:20, 6 September 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)
asilvering - source check
[edit]- not source-check related, but are there really no other categories this could be in?
- I checked Special:Diff/1242228212.
- Martins 2019: absolutely not. The very first sentence is
The name Nigeria is a combination of two words – Niger and Area.
- a real howler! Then there's an obvious grammar error in the first paragraph ("haven" for "having"), not to mention that most of this is word soup. If there's any fact-checking or editorial oversight here they were all asleep at the wheel. - Legit.ng: what makes this a reliable source? Isn't there a government source that would be better for this info?
- Flagmakers UK: not a great source for this info, just remove this one
- Tel Aviv Embassy, "Who designed the Nigerian flag?": I don't doubt that they're correct, but surely there's a better source for this, like a historian or a newspaper article?
- Odesola: er, this is someone complaining about how the coat of arms doesn't represent any of the things it's supposed to. It's an opinion piece. Not sure it belongs here?
- Tel Aviv Embassy, "The National Pledge": as before, surely correct, but also there's surely a better source?
the eagle, reflects the country's strength and resilience
source says "strength and vision". But I don't think this is a great source, anyway.
Ok, that's just the lead, but I'll stop here - I think it would be a good idea to revisit the sources used in this article and ensure it's only using the best possible ones. -- asilvering (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering Thanks for getting to this :)
- I have seen similar lists that are in one or two categories only.
- See a clearly defined editorial process for this journal here, so I consider it generally reliable, even though I agree with you on the grammar error.
- Legit.ng is generally reliable because it falls under the umbrella of WP:RS especially that they exhibit values of a WP:NEWSORG, so they are generally reliable.
- I removed this one, thank you.
- I replaced with better ones.
- Removed.
- This source is reliable but this piece is clearly labelled as an opinion, even though it states some facts about the Pledge. Would it not be reason to cite this for just that claim which it clearly and correctly verifies, no?
- I modified this one to better represent Legit.ng as it is a generally reliable source.
- Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging asilvering again :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry @Vanderwaalforces, I really think the Martins 2019 source is no good - the presence of an editorial board doesn't change that. For truly uncontroversial, nearly WP:SKYBLUE-type statements ("the emblem is displayed prominently on official documents"), well, I suppose I won't complain. But a source that just invents a fake fact in the very first sentence shouldn't be relied on for anything that could possibly be disputed. -- asilvering (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering Phew, as of this writing, I have eliminated the Martins 2019 source. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry @Vanderwaalforces, I really think the Martins 2019 source is no good - the presence of an editorial board doesn't change that. For truly uncontroversial, nearly WP:SKYBLUE-type statements ("the emblem is displayed prominently on official documents"), well, I suppose I won't complain. But a source that just invents a fake fact in the very first sentence shouldn't be relied on for anything that could possibly be disputed. -- asilvering (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Source review from Averageuntitleduser
[edit]I had written this up, and it's different enough that I might as well post it. And a prose comment to begin.
These symbols include the national flag, coat of arms, anthem, and pledge, as well as the national flower, animal, currency, etc.
— suggest replacing "etc." with a more formal expression like "among others".Supporting the shield are two white horses, symbolising dignity and strength.
— remove “dignity”.reflecting the country's aspiration for harmony among its diverse ethnic groups.
— unverified, and I think it's too detailed to infer. Suggest re-citing or removing.This emblem is displayed prominently on official documents, government buildings, and currency, serving as a powerful symbol of national identity, unity, and pride for Nigerians.
andThis anthem is performed at official events, national holidays, and significant ceremonies.
— I feel uneasy with these two sentences being unsourced and encourage you to try to find citations. I might accept them if "prominently" and "serving as a powerful symbol of national identity, unity, and pride for Nigerians" were removed from the first, as these are less quantifiable, but I will have to think about it.- Re-cite Investopedia per the RSN (and it would be best to source 1 January and 1958). The sources given by Investopedia or a newspaper would probably suffice.
- Grouping these together, as they should be fairly straightforward to re-cite to something like a news article. I can't find much evidence for the reliability of Financial Source, Symbols.com, Symbol Hunt, and CRW Flags, and their sites do little to convince me.
I will have another look through tonight. Otherwise, thanks for this well-written, accessible resource about Nigeria! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Averageuntitleduser Thanks for looking and the comments, I have actioned the above as of this time. For the point 4, I added appropriate sources that back the statements up. I replaced CRW Flags and Financial Source, removed Symbols.com and Symbol Hunt. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response! I'm returning from vacation and will be able to post more thorough comments soon. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Averageuntitleduser Hi there, finding out if you got a chance? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, yes! Here goes, based on this revision.
- I'm very skeptical of Martins 2019, and I don't think I can look past its isssues. The prose is confusing and riddled with grammatical errors, and the analysis doesn't convince me: "It is, therefore, imperative to exhibit the value of producing what we need, and consume what we produce, which is falling in love with made in Nigerian products, which logically implies fall in love with Nigeria which will drastically save the nation's foreign exchange, and thereby enhance the nation's foreign reserve." I'm just not sure it's very usable.
- I'm having trouble finding information about IMUNA, and "Najeriya" appears to be a more popular spelling in Hausa. Does a more authoritative reference work exist that could replace this source?
- The embassy sources, on their own merits, seem perfectly true and proportional. Still, I'd prefer news articles or governmental sources. Source 49, The Guardian article, can at least replace the last two instances of source 8. I suggest replacing the third instance of source 5 with the government source quoted by The Punch, reverifying the paragraph, and finding a source for the 1960 adoption. Source 7 and the first two instances of source 5 could then be replaced by others in the article.
- Fold sources 18 and 21, the two from Google Arts & Culture, into source 3.
- Source 20 fails verification.
- The third instance of source 21 fails verification.
- Suggest replacing source 33 with this article from The Guardian and revising as necessary. Garko seems to have written for The Guardian, but Applied Worldwide isn't convincing me as much.
- Sorry to hassle you about this, but I suggest replacing sources 40 and 41 with an article or two, perhaps profiling the Naira, from a WP:NGRS newspaper. That way, they may be more straightforward and up-to-date.
- Suggest removing source 43 and moving source 42 a sentence forward to replace it. This government source seems a bit more apt.
- Perhaps all of my remaining suggestions are related to source formatting. Some authors are missing or generic, some titles are mismatched or contain extra metadata, some dates of publishing are missing or innacurate, websites or publishers are inconsistently linked or contain extra metadata or are missing, language parameters are missing, and some works could be placed in the "Bibliography" section; I think you get the gist. Of course, on their own, these are fairly simple fixes! Just be sure to carefully look over the citation parameters. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Vanderwaalforces: courtesy ping in case you haven't seen these comments. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Averageuntitleduser Snap! I'd get to these in few hours. Thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Averageuntitleduser
- Can you tell me how the statement you just quoted is a problem... I mean, not just to the FL candidate but in a more general sense. I am reemphasising that I do not find a glaring issue with this source that will render it totally unusable. Again, it has a clear editorial standard and that is important thing a peer-reviewed journal should have.
- It is
a non-profit, educational organization formally associated with the United Nations Department of Global Communications
... according to their website. I find that to be sufficiently reliable. I also cannot find another suitable source, the only one I found got their information from Wikipedia. Should that be removed entirely then? - Fixed.
- I removed this entirely
- The only way to verify this is https://www.nigerianembassy.co.il/the-national-flower-of-nigeria-costus-spectabilis/ which I have added back.
- Done.
- These clearly and correctly verifies what we want to be verified. I could not verify those with newspapers, hence, why I used those. If you find any that do, please I'd appreciate it.
- I did not attend to this last one because it is already very confusing for me. I did extensive research here and do not find any problems here at all. In fact, sourcing for the Naira was seriously difficult for me, removing and replacing right now does not help me.
- For the general citation fixes, I had done that, but it all bugged up again since I started modifying the sources, nothing to worry about there, I will go through them again, most of them are currently okay. Mostly the newly added sources need these fixes. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see the other source reviewer has the same problem with Martins 2019. @Vanderwaalforces, I'm not sure what you mean by "has a clear editorial standard". You mean that it has an editorial board? That hardly matters, if the editorial board doesn't have good standards. Not all editorial boards are created equal, and some are downright predatory. Again, there was an easily verifiable mistake in the very first sentence! I don't think this source could possibly survive review at WP:RSN. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Averageuntitleduser as of this writing, I have eliminated the Martins 2019 source. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, yes! Here goes, based on this revision.
- @Averageuntitleduser Hi there, finding out if you got a chance? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response! I'm returning from vacation and will be able to post more thorough comments soon. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:55, 30 August 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)
Nominations for removal
[edit]- Notified: WP:WikiProject Florida
After browsing some of the featured lists, I did a bit of verification and found many errors. The list appears to be incomplete, does not match the official list, and I tried a few links and found unverified information. It also has old style of lead: very short and starts with "This is a list of ". It also has a paragraph explaining the list, but not in note form. So the entire body of text is a few sentences. Several entries have no citations whatsoever. I'm afraid this list based on citing alone is very very far from featured standards. Original user appears to have deleted account. Mattximus (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've notified WP:WikiProject Florida. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @OlifanofmrTennant: Would you mind clarifying a bit? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, a few sentences would be preferable over nothing for the awards. If you look at it as List of episodes it fits the requirements, but its more than a list of episodes. Future devolopement have raised the bar for what a season article should be and this list no longer meets those standereds. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just pinging you because it was a while between your reply and the above and I wanted to make sure you saw it @RunningTiger123. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, thanks for the ping. I think a lot of the issues stem from the issue of seasons being split between GA/FA and FL, and while I'm fine with removing this FL if the consensus is that standards have increased, I think we're going to need a wider discussion about what season articles should include (i.e., are they primarily lists or articles?). RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just pinging you because it was a while between your reply and the above and I wanted to make sure you saw it @RunningTiger123. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, a few sentences would be preferable over nothing for the awards. If you look at it as List of episodes it fits the requirements, but its more than a list of episodes. Future devolopement have raised the bar for what a season article should be and this list no longer meets those standereds. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @OlifanofmrTennant: Would you mind clarifying a bit? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
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: I've notified WP Germany and MILHIST. In the future, this can be done with Template:FLRCMessage. I'll be giving this a bit more time since no wiki projects were notified, and I hadn't actually responded to you (sorry about that). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 30 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)
- Comment I agree with SnowFire that this probably shouldn't be considered a list. This is a 5,600 word article complemented by a list. The redirect Deaths at the Berlin Wall seems far more appropriate. Considering the extent of the prose in the article it's very surprising that there are still citations in the lede. I have not read through this article in detail because with only a brief skim I've added twelve cn tags. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would we consider reverting the article back to its FLC state (or a similar revision) and splitting much of its newer prose content to a new article? "Deaths at the Berlin Wall", suggested above, seems appropriate. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- If this is trying to be an article rather than a list, I'd like to see some context/comparison with other causes of border deaths—for example, the Berlin Wall is often compared to the Mediterranean in terms of border deaths. (t · c) buidhe 14:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- By all means @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, The ed17, and Buidhe, if you want to split the article and take it in another direction, or you believe it's not necessarily suited to be a list, we can move forward with a split or delisting (if concerns go unaddressed). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have no skin in this game, but my question there was intended to provide a path where this would maintain FL status without losing the potentially useful content that's been added over the years. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)