Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list statistics Wikipedians by promoted featured list nominations Today's featured list This month's queue TFL submissions TFL statistics Featured lists that have appeared as TFL Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log

This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, with the most recent at the top. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log.

Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2024. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2024.

Full current month log

view - edit - history

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) [1].

---

List of pholidotans

Nominator(s): Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello hello, the name is Wolverine X-eye, a first-timer. I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria. The list is about pangolins, perhaps one of the weirdest creatures out there. They have rough scales around their body, and are the most trafficked animals in the world according to some estimates. And that's all I really have to say about that, so I hope you enjoy it. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Matthewrb

Welcome to FLC, Wolverine X-eye!

This is a new one on me, a FLC that hasn't even been patrolled by NPP yet...

• Your lead image needs alt text per MOS:ALT.
  • Done
• Is there a reason there isn't a "See Also" section? While not required, it would be useful. WP:SEEALSO
• Does Commons have a category for this family? I found commons:Category:Manidae after a search. If so, could you add {{Commons category-inline}} to a new External Links section at the bottom of the article so readers can view more pictures if they would like? MOS:ELLAYOUT
  • Done
• According to Talk:List of manids, this article is classified as a redirect. Is there a reason for that, or should we classify it as list-class?
  • It's list-class for me

And finally, this article was blanked and then reverted five minutes later, less than an hour before I started this review. I'm not sure if this violates WP:FL? criteria #6, since it was a one-time thing. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Matthewrb: The blanking of this page was just an error in judgment from the NPP rather than anything close to an edit war. And yes, it happened once, so it does not violate the FLC criteria. Besides that, everything else has been addressed. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Looks good, support ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 04:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• The article is now at WP:MERGE. That should probably be resolved before it continues at FLC.
• @FLC director and delegates: does this nomination need to be closed? ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 22:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• That discussion seems to have stalled out after this list was changed to pholidotans rather than manids, so I think we can continue here. --PresN 14:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Respectfully PresN, you were part of the merge discussion and have taken a position on that discussion. I would request that another @FLC director and delegates: take a look. WP:FLCR #6 requires stability, and I would argue that an ongoing merge discussion precludes stability. Either someone closes that merge discussion or this should be archived and brought back when things are settled. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pretty torn on this. The article isn't technically unstable unless it's closed as merge from my point of view. There's currently a request for closure, so, I think we may as well just wait it out at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hey man im josh Not saying this is going to happen, but merge discussions can last for months. I don't see any issues closing this as unsuccessful for now, and then allowing the nominator to renominate when the merge discussion is over. I am sure Matthewrb would be happy to come back and lend their support when it gets renominated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  File:Image Needed.png should be removed from the article. It is unprofessional looking, unencyclopedic and without precedent. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Removed. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ve closed the merge discussion, by the way. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

SilverTiger

At eight extant species, this list meets the minimum entry requirement for FLC. However, I have several major concerns about the overall quality of this article.

• First off, there was a ninth proposed species published on in 2023, this should be discussed briefly in the lede.
• The lede also generally needs a good copy-edit; I may do so after my more major concerns are addressed.
• Most of all: I am concerned that the prehistoric species and taxonomy thereof was copied uncritically from elsewhere on Wikipedia, because those articles are rife with known issues up to an including WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I suggest going straight to the sources to ensure the proper higher-level taxonomy is being followed.
• Speaking of the prehistoric species, cases like this is exactly why {{Paleospecies table}} was created. I suggest using it.

Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: OK, I think I completed everything. Your thoughts? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 12:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to reply so soon and I'm on a ship with crappy Wi-Fi. This review may take awhile, especially as I realize the paleospecies template might need tweaking. But I'm impressed with it so far. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: Reached land yet? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 20:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Another note: you're inconsistent in how you list weight: in some cells you conjoin it to the length i.e. "...l and a weight of 30 kg (66 lb)", while in others it's placed free-floating so to speak below the length without conjunction. Please change it to be consistent (I prefer the first form but do not require it). SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 06:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

SilverTiger12, courtesy ping to see if you feel your comments have been addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

My comments have been addressed. Therefore, I support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Support by Crisco and image review

Reviewing per request at my own FLC.

• Prose looks good, mostly, though I made one minor adjustment.
• In the tables, is "Skeletal diagram" the best descriptor? These are life recreations, by the looks of things.
  • changed
• File:Manidae collage four species.jpg - Under the licensing terms, this needs attribution. You should link each source image.
  • done
• File:Pangolin brought to the Range office, KMTR AJTJ cropped.jpg - Should have a link to the source image
  • done
• File:Giant pangolin (Manis gigantea), Natural History Museum, London, Mammals Gallery.JPG - Do we not have any images of living specimens?
  • Unfortunately not
• File:Euromanis krebsi.jpg - Do you have access to the paper to confirm it was released under a compatible license?
  • Yes, added link to the journal where all works are CC BY
• File:Necromanis franconica.jpg - What source data was used in this reconstruction?
  • Removed
• File:Manis palaeojavanica and javanica.jpg - This image combines two different species. Perhaps a different one would be more illustrative?
  • Removed, since it's the only image we have

• Overall, very tight. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Excellent! Happy to support.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Question?

Hi @FLC director and delegates: is this list ready for a source review or is something missing? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 23:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye: Source reviews can be done at any time, and we do try to regularly update the box at the top of the page pointing out which articles need them. I'll be doing so now. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I see. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 16:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@FLC director and delegates: Hey guys, you there? My nomination is now at the bottom of the "older nominations" section, as it's currently 44 days old, which is double that of the average FLC nom. It's worth mentioning that I'm miserable right now--correction, I've been miserable this whole year, and my motivation to edit Wikipedia is at an all time low, so I'd like to get this done as soon as possible. Of course, no pressure on your side. Just want to wrap up this year's worth of editing. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

We cannot force anybody to review this nomination and we cannot promote it without the appropriate amount of scrutiny and reviewing being performed. Participants at FLC are often less inclined to provide reviews for nominators who themselves don't review for others, so the best way to get your list promoted is to typically to provide quality reviews for others.

Realistically, maybe we should have pulled this nom because of the merge discussion, because that, in of itself, did likely stop others from reviewing it, worrying it might be a waste of their time.

Again though, no need to ping us unless it's urgent or there's an expectation we wouldn't see what needs attention. We do regularly check nominations to see if they have been appropriate reviewed. As for being double the average nom, that's incorrect. There are regular nominators who are often working on a series which is easier to review and are familiar with expectations and requirements, which is why their nomination gets promoted quicker in some cases. Even then, that's not always the case. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: What are you on about? I'm just requesting that the source review be conducted as soon as possible. That's all. I don't know who conducts source reviews around here, so I pinged you guys in the hopes of getting one done. Keep in mind that this is my first nomination, so forgive any inaccuracies I may make. And lastly, I'm not forcing anyone to review anything; I'm just requesting for a source review since I thought you guys knew of a person who conducted such reviews, which I must say are highly specialized reviews that I doubt most FLC participants are remotely good at. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm on about answering your comment... as mentioned, we can't force people to review for you. It's listed in the source review needed header, which is our attempt at requesting source reviews to various articles. That's about all we can do since, from my point of view, it'd be inappropriate for us as coordinator/delegates to request a specific individual review this. It feels like we'd be pressuring individuals with our implicit soft power, which is why we don't typically do it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for clarifying. I just didn't expect to wait this long for a source review. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 21:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments and Source review (passed)

• artificial terrestrial and aquatic habits -> "Habitats"
• In the tables, especially in the "Size and ecology" column, there are a lot of technical type words that could use linking (Savana, terrestrial, etc). Any reason for not linking these in the tables?
• Sources appear reliable for what is being cited.
• Sources appear to have consistent formatting and layout.
• AGF on the foreign language sources.
• Spots checks all matched what was being cited.
• For all foreign language sources, please add the |language= parameter.
• In the "ICUN status..." column, you have the same source repeated after "unknown" and the arrow. This seems excessive, unless you have different sources. I would just condense to one source after all the info.

Nice work Wolverine X-eye, that's all I got. Please ping me when you respond. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Done. ✟WolveríneX-eye✟ 21:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Buffalo Sabres seasons

Nominator(s): Kline • talk • contribs 03:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

With my profound interest and supporting of the Buffalo Sabres, I'd though I would do my duty and make this a featured list. Unfortunately for my beloved Sabres, they have gone on a 13-year postseason drought, which leads to some interesting statistics and backlash. This is my first rodeo, but hopefully won't be my last. Cheers! Kline • talk • contribs 03:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based off this version of the page.

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checked that sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Your citation wikilinking style is unclear to me. Are you intending to only link the first time a source is mentioned?

Not sure but it doesn't matter. Should be consistent now.

• Ref 1 – Link doesn't work, might need to be tweaked

Done, changed url status to dead.

• Refs 1 and 19 – Ref 1 uses National Hockey League as the publisher, but ref 19 uses NFL.com as the website. Be consistent. National Hockey League might be best as the website in this case.

Done.

• Refs 2 and 3 – Inconsistent formatting. Better to just use Hockey Reference as the website on both with no publisher listed

Done.

• Ref 6 – The reference should be marked as subscription access, you can do with the |access=subscription parameter

Done.

• Ref 8 – Is this the newest version of the record book that's available? NFL teams often have a pretty detailed media guide they release, and I can't find one for the Sabres, but I did find this for the Penguins as an example of what I'd personally look for if I was doing an NHL team seasons list.

The most recent version was published in 2018 and then discontinued. Replaced.

• Ref 9 – Link to HockeyDB as a website instead of "The Internet Hockey Database" as the publisher

Done.

• Refs 11, 13, and 20 – Need to be tagged as subscription access

Done.

• Ref 14 – Link to Associated Press

Done.

• Refs 14 and 17 – Is there a reason ESPN is listed as the publisher instead of website?

Not that I am aware of, changed to website.

• Ref 16 – Link to Yahoo! News

Done.

• Ref 16 – Link redirects when clicked, mark as dead or update link

Done.

• Ref 16 – The archived link, which does work, shows an author named Ira Podell, add this, and Associated Press as the agency

Done.

• Ref 17 – At the bottom of this source it says info from the AP was used in this report, not sure what to make of that personally, but felt I'd call it out so that we can ponder whether we should list AP as the agency or just let it be

It'd be nice if they specified what information was used but it seems like ESPN was the main writer of the story so I would leave it personally.

• Ref 18 – Link to CNBC

Done.

• Ref 19 – Add Tom Gulitti as the author

Done.

• Ref 21 – Should be a note, not a reference

Done.

• I'm not seeing the info on who the teams lost to in the playoffs

As in a reference showing the Sabres' playoff history?

That's what I've got for now. Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh, most concerns have been addressed. Kline • talk • contribs 17:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Made a couple tweaks to refs, support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "won zero Stanley Cup titles" - this reads a little oddly to me. I would be tempted to say "and reached the Stanley Cup finals twice, losing both times"

Done.

• "losing the finals in 6 games" => "losing the finals in six games"

Done.

• "Over the next 10 seasons, the Sabres made a postseason appearance" - they made just one postseason appearance in those 10 seasons? Or do you mean they made one every season? If so, I would say "Over the next 10 seasons, the Sabres made a postseason appearance every year"

Done.

• "lost the series to the New York Islanders in 5 games" => "lost the series to the New York Islanders in five games"

Done.

• "For the first time since the 1973–74 season, the Sabres failed to qualify for the playoffs, missing the point cutoff by 4 points." - when was this?

Added season which required a rewording of the sentence.

• "beginning an eight-year postseason appearance streak. Despite the postseason appearance streak" - somewhat repetitive. I would start the second sentence with simply "During this period"

Done.

• "starting their most successful postseason appearance streak, lasting for five years. Compared to the previous eight-year postseason appearance streak" - again, this is quite repetitive. Suggest shortening the start of the second sentence to simply "Compared to previous streak"

Done.

• "in every season minus the 1999–2000 season" => "in every season with the exception of the 1999–2000 season"

Done.

• "The 1999 playoff run would be the last appearance in the Stanley Cup finals for the Sabres as of the 2023–24 season" => "The 1999 playoff run is the most recent appearance in the Stanley Cup finals for the Sabres as of the 2023–24 season"

Done.

• "The Sabres would face the Dallas Stars in the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals," => "The Sabres faced the Dallas Stars in the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals,"

Done.

• "a series that they would lose in six, albeit in dubious fashion" => "a series that they lost in six, albeit in dubious fashion"

Done.

• "scored with his skate in the crease" - no idea what this means although it sounds painful. Is there an appropriate wikilink for "skate in the crease" or simply "crease", whichever is appropriate.....?

Linked crease.

• "After returning from the 2004–05 lockout, the Sabres had made it back to the postseason" => "After returning from the 2004–05 lockout, the Sabres made it back to the postseason"

Done.

• "where they would lose to the Senators in five" => "where they lost to the Senators in five"

Done.

• "The Sabres would win the Northeast division in the 2009–10 season and move onto the playoffs" => "The Sabres won the Northeast division in the 2009–10 season and moved onto the playoffs" (see WP:WOULDCHUCK for why it's very rarely necessary to say that something in the past "would" happen)

Done.

• "The same fate would happen next year" => "The same fate would happen the following year" ("next year" is 2025)

Done.

• "where they would make the playoffs and get eliminated in the first round" => "when they made the playoffs and got eliminated in the first round"

Done.

• "this time by the Philadelphia Flyers in 7" => "this time by the Philadelphia Flyers in seven" (to be consistent with all other similar usages)

Done.

• That's what I got on the prose. Table looks all good although I am not sure the "playoff results" column needs to be sortable because it sorts only on the first thing listed, so (for example) their two Stanley Cup final appearances sort nowhere near each other -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude; most concerns should be addressed, including the playoff results sort. Kline • talk • contribs 17:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• As of the end of the 2023–24 season, the Sabres have won 1,918 regular season games, accumulated six division championships and one conference championship, tied for the league lead in points once for the Presidents' Trophy, appeared in the playoffs 29 times, and reached the Stanley Cup finals twice, losing both times. this is a bit of a run-on sentence. Maybe break it up like this: As of the end of the 2023–24 season, the Sabres have won 1,918 regular season games, tying for the league lead in points once for the Presidents' Trophy. They have appeared in the playoffs 29 times, accumulating six division championships and one conference championship, while reaching the Stanley Cup finals twice, losing both times.

Done.

• The Sabres started play in 1970, and made their first Stanley Cup appearance in 1975, losing the finals in six games against the Philadelphia Flyers. you mention already that they were founded in 1970. Maybe just start is off that they made their first Stanley Cup final in 1975.

I changed quite a bit for this one. I added the date (supported by reference) to when they were granted their franchise, and changed the wording to the 1970–71 season where you mentioned the sentence. Let me know if I should make some additional changes.

• finishing in 11th of the Eastern Conference with 73 points I think you need "place" after "11th" or some similar word

Changed to finishing 11th in the Eastern Conference.

• dubious change to "controversial" or something clearer and less editorializing.

Done, removed controversial from the next sentence to remove repetitiveness.

• against Carolina Hurricanes which was lost in seven., need a comma after "Hurricanes" and "games" after "seven"

Done.

• President's Trophy is linked twice in the lead, you can lose the second link

Done.

• With their regular season success, Recommend deleting this phrase, as regular season success doesn't always correlate or transition over to the postseason.

Done.

• the Bruins in six. again, add "games"

Done.

• Philadelphia Flyers in seven. same as above

Done.

That's all I got Kline, nice work! If you are interested and available, I have an active FLC that could use a review. Please ping me in your response. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007; most concerns should be addressed, cheers! Kline • talk • contribs 21:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Support nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2024

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Well this has certainly been a banner year for country music in the mainstream, with every song to top the Hot Country Songs chart also topping the overall Hot 100 and one of them on the verge of breaking the all-time record for the longest number one on the latter. Your feedback will as ever be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon. And yes, there are still three chart weeks left of the year, but you know you can count on me to do the relevant updates :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll do image, prose, and sourcing just to make it easier for other reviewers!

• Images all properly licensed and appropriate for the article.
• Lede prose is solid; my only potential advice is that the last paragraph is a bit too lengthy to scan easily, but that's ultimately my personal taste.
• Citation #11 is misformatted, resulting in it breaking. I checked the Rolling Stone coverage and a random smattering of the Billboard cites and everything seems above-board there.

@ChrisTheDude: Looks like there's just the one cite to fix. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: - I fixed the ref and moved one sentence (cut down slightly) from the last paragraph to the one before -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks great- Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I have read the list twice and, indeed, it is too perfectly written for me to find something to quibble about. It's a direct support! Very interesting that Beyonce held the top spot on a country chart for so long, lol.--NØ 19:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Medxvo

• A job well done. Shouldn't the Rolling Stone references have a limited access, though? Medxvo (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Medxvo: - think they all do, don't they.....? Did I miss one....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

    The ones at refs 9 and 11 currently have a subscription access not a limited access, hope this is not too nitpicky... Medxvo (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Medxvo: - gotcha - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support, way too clean. Shaboozey went beast mode haha. dxneo (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on this version of the article.

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

Couldn't find anything to criticize, wonderful work as always Chris. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) [4].

---

Green Bay Packers all-time roster

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Trying this again. A few important things to note: (1) this list follows the format for all other NFL All-Time Rosters (see {{List of NFL players}} for the others). (2) These lists are quite large (this one is over 1,800 entries) and grows larger every season. To keep things manageable from an article size perspective and ease for updating, ancillary details like position are not included. These however can be found in other lists where those ancillary details are more important (i.e. List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks provides a person's college). (3) For somewhat of a precedent, Outline of lichens provides a recent FLC example of a list that is mostly just the mere listing of the list entries. I believe that list and this one meet the intent of WP:FLCR 3(a). I welcome any feedback and as always will work to address comments quickly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, you had made some comments in the first review. If you have the chance and the interest, would you be willing to come back and give it a look again? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Source review: Passed
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• You have Pro-Football-Reference.com linked in the external links section, which doesn't follow your typical linking habits.
• Consider, in the notes section, including the player's full name instead of just surname (and linking) so the notes section is a bit clearer. I'd be fine with not linking, but I do think full names are beneficial there for anybody looking just at the notes themselves.

Otherwise links good, even if not our typical list format. I don't really have a reason to not support it other than it being a Packers list. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, fixed both. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Over 1,800 people have played" - "people", while technically accurate, sounds a bit odd, like it has been chosen in order to cover men, women, and children. Maybe "Over 1,800 players have taken part"
• "or who only were signed" => "or who were only signed"
• Is there a link for "practice squad"?
• IN the key you have "inducted in" for one entry but "inducted into" for the other. I would use the latter for both, personally
• That's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisTheDude!!! All done. Appreciate the review :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Packers have competed in the National Football League (NFL) since 1921, two years after their original founding"; I hope I'm not being nitpicky here but what exactly did they do during this two-year gap? Would it be appropriate for inclusion?
  • They played against amateur teams across Wisconsin. This is the standard sentence I have used across all Packers' lists. I would say it's probably too much detail for this list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Lambeau Field in central Wisconsin."; perhaps link Wisconsin since it wasn't linked when Green Bay was mentioned.
  • Linked. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• "growing from 18 roster spots in 1921 to the lower 50s by the 2020s."; Is there a definitive number for the 2020s or does it keep changing?
  • This was my attempt to have a sentence that doesn't require updating every year. I can say "53" if you think that is clearer. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive! I hope I did alright since this happens to be my first FLC review, and this is all I got. Cheers! Kline • talk • contribs 21:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Kline! Addressed or responded to all your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Good work, all concerns have been addressed, support. Kline • talk • contribs 22:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC) [5].

---

List of murinines

Nominator(s): PresN 19:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Bats list #7 and mammal list #48: Murininae. The list is small and the bats are smaller: this third list of four in Vespertilionidae has only 35 species to keep track of, all of which are pretty similar (though the guy in the lede image has some neat silver coloring). As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I got nothing :-) I notice that the lead image is a duplicate of one of the ones in the table - it might be nice to use an image for the lead that isn't also in the table but this isn't a deal-breaker, not least because I expect that the reason is that there aren't any other tube-nosed bat images available..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Image Comments

• ALT text is not used consistently.

• All bat images have alt text; the maps have a stock alt text because they have visible captions instead for the same purpose. Is anything else missing alt text?

• Dobson images could be marked PD-100 to better serve readers in countries with longer terms of copyright.

• Done

• What are the source files for the maps? Seems to only be a problem with the ones by A proietti.

• No idea; they appear to have been created based on maps in the books named (Menkhorst & Knight, 2001, for example, is A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia, while Flannery 1995 is either Mammals of the South-west Pacific & Moluccan Islands or Mammals of New Guinea (he split the work into two volumes, published in the same year))

• Not the source data, but the source of the maps themselves. Your other map images all note where the digital maps came from. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm, I've seen that map style before, but while I look: A proietti, it's been a decade, but do you recall where you got the base blank map image for e.g. File:Distribution_of_Murina_annamitica.png? --PresN 23:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Having trouble finding it; it's File:World_map_blank_shorelines_semiwikimapia.svg but with country borders. --PresN 00:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• That definitely appears to be the style. I haven't had much luck either. :/ — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Distribution of Murina florium.png - Which colour refers to which subspecies?

• Unclear, which is why I didn't mention it in the caption

• I'm not sure this meets the criteria for WP:V if we don't have that information available. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chris Woodrich Hi! Since these images were made for the related pages on it.wikipedia.org, the color corresponding to the subspecies can be found there. Some, however, are transcribed in the remarks. Available for any comparison. Greetings! A proietti (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you, A proietti! PresN, referring to it-wiki, M.f.florium is red, M.f.lanosa is blue, and M.f.toxopei is green. Having that information should fix this issue.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Done. --PresN 15:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

i've inserted this info in the image remarks! A proietti (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@A proietti: Thanks! Do you remember where you got the base blank map image from? --PresN 16:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Certainly from Commons, .svg format, different map projections which I then modified in .png format. They are more than 10 years old, I had slightly dated software at that time A proietti (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• File:Murinaharrisoni.jpg is marked as "own work", but the author seems to have previously published it in the article describing the species. Did they retain copyright to the image, or did copyright shift to the journal upon publication? Also, do we have verification that Csorba is Gábor Csorba (the author of the paper)? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see any verification, but the image isn't that useful, so removed.

• Prose:

• "Like all bats, murinines are capable of true and sustained flight, and have wing lengths ranging from 2 cm (1 in) to 6 cm (2 in)." -- Wingspan doesn't apply to all bats; might be better with the previous sentence.

• Split into two sentences

• Almost no murinines have population estimates, though two species—the Da Lat tube-nosed bat and Ryukyu tube-nosed bat—are categorized as endangered species, and two species—the Bala tube-nosed bat and gloomy tube-nosed bat—are categorized as critically endangered. - Any way of avoiding the repetition of "species"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Removed first species, it should be clear from the aside that we mean two species, not two individual bats.

@Crisco 1492: Addressed. --PresN 23:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492, I just wanted to follow up on this to see whether it has your support or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, I thought I had already marked it. Support - My concerns are addressed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Source and prose review by Generalissima

• Prose is solid, I don't have any comments to make there.
• Tables are correctly formatted (they're a template, after all!)
• Almost everything is cited to the IUCN Red List, a good quality source for this.
  • I checked a random smattering of the IUCN links, and everything checks out.
  • Ditto on Nowak 1994.

Support on both fronts. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC) [6].

---

List of Major League Soccer seasons

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 09:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have (almost) run out of Seattle sports season lists, so I have decided to start looking at my sports from a level up, at the league level. MLS is almost finished with its 29th season and has had a well-documented history; this list was completely redone in a manner similar to the WNBA seasons list I made earlier this year. I am very open to modifications, as the list was hashed out without much in the way of direction. SounderBruce 09:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• "the league grew reached 16 teams". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed. SounderBruce 18:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Consider moving the sub-phrase about the Supporters' Shield (in the first paragraph) to a separate sentence.
  • Changed the semicolon to a full stop.
• The last sentence of para2 and the first sentence of para3 both start with "As of 2024". See if one of them can be reworded a bit.
  • Eliminated from the latter.
• MLS Cup playoffs says that the top 9 teams from each conference go to the playoffs, while here it says top 8. Please check which is right and correct the other one.
  • Fixed, it's nine.
• In the table, the Record column seems to be sorted based on winning%. See if it is possible mention this somewhere.
  • Added a proper note.
• That's all that I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @MPGuy2824: Thanks for the review. I have made all of the suggested changes. SounderBruce 02:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

    I see a note for the points column, but not the Record column. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

    @MPGuy2824: Fixed, it was in the wrong location. SounderBruce 22:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support promotion on prose and accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Similar to other North American sports leagues, the champion is determined by the MLS Cup" - other leagues do not determine their champion via the MLS Cup so this may need rewording
  • Reordered for clarity.
• "A separate trophy, the Supporters' Shield is awarded" => "A separate trophy, the Supporters' Shield, is awarded"
  • Fixed.
• "As of 2024, 22 of the league's 29 teams play in a soccer-specific stadiums" - "a stadiums"?
  • Fixed.
• "The single-season scoring record was set by Carlos Vela" - I'd be tempted to say "The current single-season scoring record was set by Carlos Vela", as Vela isn't the only player in league history to have set this record
  • Fixed.
• in the notes you use both "goal difference" and "goal differential" for the same thing
  • Fixed.
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. I have made all of those suggested changes. SounderBruce 22:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima comments

Prose looks solid to me. I am very not a sport person and the article was quite intelligible to me, and I don't see any grammar or formatting mistakes that stand out. Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on this version of the article.

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
• Assuming good faith on inaccessible sources

Feedback:

• Is there a reason you use Major League Soccer in ref 43 but use MLSsoccer.com instead for stories that are published on the site (such as refs 13, 28, etc.)?
  • Content that is sourced from the league's front office (usually credited to "MLS Communications" or stuff like official rules) uses Major League Soccer; MLSsoccer.com has some level of editorial independence from the league itself, which is why they report on rumors and speculation without being the official voice of the league. I consider them to be separate entities when sourcing, based on feedback from previous reviews.
• It seems like you link the first occurrence of a source in the references, but I don't see a link to Major League Soccer in the refs. The rest do only wikilink the first occurrence (even if I'll always lament this style of wikilinkg in refs because of concerns that other refs will be added and not follow this lol).
  • Added to Ref 6. Definitely prefer to not have a giant wall of blue links!
• Refs 12, 16, and 74 – Tells me that I've run out of articles this month. I assume ref 7 may as well, but it says I have 0 remaining there and lets me browse that one.
  • Marked as limited-access, as they sometimes have free articles.
• Ref 17 – Access is restricted, mark as such
  • Done.
• Ref 41 – Link Newspapers.com
  • Done.
• Ref 58 – Match target by changing work from Dallas Morning News to The Dallas Morning News
  • Done.
• Ref 75 – Restricted access, mark as such
  • Done.

Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments and made changes as needed. SounderBruce 02:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a few more comments actually now

• I changed the column name from MLS Cup Playoffs to MLS Cup playoffs, to match the target
• Wouldn't it be better to sort record column based on win percentage instead of points per game?
  • MLS uses points per game to compare between teams from different teams, which makes sense given that winning percentage is not an important statistic in soccer due to draws. The 1996 to 1999 seasons would spit out weird winning percentages, so I'm going with the league's system.
• I don't love the sorting for golden boot, but it does make sense since it's sorting by the number of goals (yes, except for relevant points noted), but I think you should add a note to the records column that states it sorts by goals instead because I think the default assumption would be by last name.
  • Added the note.
• Based on this link from MLSsoccer.com, it looks like Preki actually won the golden boot in 1997, hence, note e should be added there as well.
  • Added the note.

After that I think I'm out of things to gripe about about. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

All finished, I think. SounderBruce 02:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, courtesy ping to see if your comments have been addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Welp, definitely needed the ping, thanks @Gonzo fan2007.

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) [7].

---

List of historic places in Clutha District

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Another New Zealand historic place list, and so soon!(Don't worry, I got clearance from Josh!) This one is quite a bit bigger than my others so far, clocking in at 63 sites. A bunch of these, however, are middens where there's not much info beyond their location. A lot of the Clutha District history deals with its 19th century gold rush, and since then it has basically remained a sleepy agricultural region. Hope you all enjoy! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "First occupied by the Māori, European sealers and whalers began" - the Europeans weren't first occupied by the Maori
• "These mines [plural] were used by around seventy different mining companies between its [singular] founding and its abandonment"
• "Initially planned to be built with wood in 1913, residents were angered" - the residents weren't planned to be built with wood
• "The newspaper ceased publication in 1941, and has been owned by the Lawrence Athenaeum and Mining Institute since 1951" - what has been owned by that group since 1951? The newspapers or the building?
• "and the First World War, as well as some from World War II " - I think it would be better to be consistent in the naming of the wars, so either "World War I, as well as some from World War II" or "the First World War, as well as some from the Second"
• " a fundraising program in the 1990s" - as I believe they favour British English in NZ, this should be "programme"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much! Corrected. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

Disclosing upfront that I was requested to take a look at this candidate over the unofficial Wikimedia Discord server. Feel free to rebuke with justification:

• By the mid-20th century, mining had greatly declined, and the district has become largely agricultural. – Conflicting verb tenses here.
• The blurb for the Balclutha Courthouse (former) mentions that residents were "angered" that the courthouse was going to be a wooden structure, but no mention is made of what the courthouse was eventually built with.
• I recommend splitting the last sentence of the blurb for F. Martin Building (former) in two, so as to avoid conflicting verb tenses in the same sentence.
• in Otago, containing 33 rooms – maybe spell out the number for consistency with the lede? (Though I get if this wouldn't be feasible because of the measurement figure shortly after.)
  • Fixed all these; thank you very much! - G

As for images:

• I guess a larger crop of the Inch Clutha Schoolhouse wouldn't hurt? The full size of File:Inch Clutha Schoolhouse 1870.jpg indicates to me that you could get a crop with identical proportions but larger resolution.
  • I don't really see the point, since increasing the crop wouldn't include any more of the building itself. - G
• File:The Tuapeka Mouth Punt.jpg is missing alt text.
  • Added. -G
• All images contribute encyclopedic value to the list.
• All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
• Where applicable (which is rare, as the vast majority are the original works of the uploaders), all images have source URLs that verify where each image came from.

That's all I've got! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Dylan620: Thank you very much! Made the changes. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Generalissima: All looks good to me! Happy to support. Btw, if you have any time or interest, I would greatly appreciate some feedback at an ongoing FLC. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle

• Demolition year for the Black Horse Brewery should say circa or just 1940s as per the source.
  • Fixed. - G
• A school founded in 1879 - should say school building opened as per the source. Many early schools in small towns in NZ were ran from private homes, churches etc.. The report has this under construction details: 'First Tuapeka Mouth School opened 1870' and 'Old School sold and removed from school grounds 1882'.
  • Fixed. - G
• The Tuapeka Times building appears to have been constructed before 1896 according to the construction information on the heritage report
  • Fixed. - G
• I've only reviewed up to the Telford Woolshed, I'll review the rest later. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• The last remaining Hoffmann kiln in New Zealand retaining its chimney and original appearance. The Heritage NZ report is more clear it is the only kiln to retain the chimney and original appearance, this should probably be more clearly emphasised.
  • Fixed. - G
• A proposed demolition of the kiln's chimney was halted by a heritage order. This appears to be incorrect per the source: In May 1992 demolition of the kiln's chimney began. This was halted by concerned locals and a heritage order was placed over the entire structure. Which suggests the demolition was halted by (or possibly due to) locals and the heritage order came after the demolition was halted
  • Fixed. - G
• Clarendon Tollhouse should say circa 1863. And I don't believe the NZHPT was involved in restoration (unless I overlooked something) the source states: 'The Tollhouse Trust was formed to enable funding to be sought to restore the building'.
  • Fixed. -G
• All Saints' Anglican Church should specify that the gift shop repurposing took place later and under a new owner. One could currently read the sentence and believe the parish turned it into a gift shop.
  • Done. - G
• St Patrick's Church seems to have been constructed in 1891 with an opening in 1892 rather than being constructed and opened in the same year.
  • Fixed. - G
• The post office moved locations in 1973. may be better to rephrase to say they vacated the premise.
• That is all, aside from the reference thing i mentioned in the Carteron FLC. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• @Traumnovelle: thank you very much! Got to all this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Traumnovelle (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Also (re) the reference thing; there's inconsistencies and I suspect much of the information on the website is not directly following the source (ie, you will have reports listed for sites with very short blurbs, while sometimes you'll have information about the site added after the site was already listed). I figured that since they're live documents its best to just credit them to the foundation in general. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) [8].

---

List of Hampshire County Cricket Club grounds

Nominator(s): AA (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have substantially expanded the article with prose, providing an overview of the history of Hampshire's use of different grounds, and I have reformatted the list so that it more closely matches other English county cricket grounds FLs. Any comments welcome! AA (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead looks a little short, is there some more info that could be added? First ground, most used ground, etc?
  • Done. I have added an extra couple of sentences to this effect. AA (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Outground is redlinked, is it likely to ever be an article? If so, it should also be linked on the first use in the body
  • Done. It is an article I have lined up for the future, there are several books and links which cover the subject. AA (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Is there an image that could be added to the lead?
  • Done. Have added an image of their current home venue. AA (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• "after a lease was successfully acquired by James Fellowes" - could you clarify who he was?
  • Done. Added that he was a cricketer (amongst other things, but cricketer seems the most relevant descriptor without going off on a tangent). AA (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• "which would last for 115–years" - there's no reason for a hyphen there
  • Done. Have removed. AA (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• "the Rose Bowl also played host to Test," (etc) - unless there has been some sort of ruling that it can never do so again, change to "has played host"
  • Done. Have reworded. AA (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• "which the transferred Bournemouth" => "which transferred Bournemouth"
  • Done. Oops! Can tell I've been on nights! AA (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• "which was also serves as the home ground" - something's not right here
  • Done. AA (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• "but there for only two seasons before the Second World War." - think there's a word or two missing here
  • Done. AA (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Date columns in the table don't sort correctly
  • Done. Now sorts correctly! AA (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Source for note 1?
  • Done. Have added the scorecard which shows Dorset at the home side. AA (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• That's what I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. @ChrisTheDude: please find above my actioned comments. Cheers, AA (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• In the second sentence, Hampshire is a singular noun. So it should be "has", not "have"
  • Done. AA (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• a number of --> "various", "multiple", "many" or "14"
  • Done. AA (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• sports, in which a team comma isn't needed
  • Done. AA (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• fourteen should be "14" in the last sentence of the lead
  • Done. AA (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• James Fellowes;[6] thus began an association at the County Ground which would last for 115 years. --> James Fellowes, which began an association at the County Ground that would last for 115 years.
  • Done. Reads much better :) AA (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• home matches per season from 1899, change "from" to "starting in"
  • Done. AA (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• in 1972 which transferred Bournemouth change "which" to "that"
  • Done. AA (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• matches there to 1948 add "up" before "to"
  • Done. AA (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Any particular reason for the more formal "Second World War" and not World War II.
  • Comment. I guess I'm just formal! Happy to change though. AA (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Under the "Grounds" section, why is the text italicized? It is too long for a note. I would drop the italics.
  • Done. Agreed. I have just italicized the "Note" sentence. AA (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• In the table, I think the text needs to be centered. Left justified with numbers doesn't look good. If you feel so compelled, you can left justify the first two columns.
  • Done. I have centre justified, how does it look now? AA (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Regarding the name column, I think you should split out the pictures. The text get's lost. Something like one of mine, List of Green Bay Packers presidents, I think would look good. The other option would be to at least bold the text.
  • Done. I have bolded the text, less lost in the image and box background now... hopefully! AA (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice work AssociateAffiliate! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Gonzo fan2007:. Many thanks for your comments, please find above my responses :) AA (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Everything looks good! Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Cheers :) AA (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Please note: I will be out of the UK from 19/11 to 24/11, so might not be able to respond during that time. AA (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment

You might want to put in something about the list's scope, given that back in the Hambledon days I believe they - as well as scratch sides - sometimes adopted the name of "Hampshire". Maybe say that it only covers the period from the official formation of the current county club? JH (talk page) 16:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. @Jhall1 note added to that effect! AA (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• As per MOS:IMGSIZE a fixed width in pixels should not be specified for thumbnails, if you want to change the display size you can use the |upright= option instead. Also, WP:PIC says Lead images should usually be no wider than 300px.
  • Done. I have amended the lead image size. I assume this was only for the lead image, as |upright= doesn't work in tables (or so it would seem). AA (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• There are two redlinks Outground and Bournemouth Cricket Week, if you're planning to create it in the future, consider redirecting it to somewhere for now rather than a redlink.
  • Done. Have redirected. AA (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Is there a specific reason for using the {{refn}} instead of the usual {{efn}}...?
  • Done. I think it was just the one I have always used! Have changed. AA (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Is it possible to replace some of the CricketArchive refs with free sources (Cricinfo etc.) if available?
  • Comment. I suppose I could 'cherry pick' some of the Cricinfo ground pages, some do contain some prose on the grounds, others don't. I'll have a look and see which might be beneficial. The other CA refs with ground stats won't be available on CI, as they don't keep non-international records. AA (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Done. I have changed all but a few of the ground profile links to Cricinfo. AA (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

    Seems okay. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: that's all I got for now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Could use the {{notelist}} instead of {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}.
• Also (just my personal thought), could move the references within the table to a separate Ref. column.
• Last 3 sections could be put like the following (as per MOS:LAYOUT),

== References ==
=== Explanatory notes ===
{{notelist}}
=== Citations ===
{{reflist}}
== Further reading ==

That's all. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Done. I have now used {{notelist}}. I also have adopted your suggestion for the "References" layout, but left "Further reading" as "Works cited" as I think it is a better sub-header. I did think when I expanded the article whether to have the references separate, but thought it looks more asthetically pleasing as it is! AA (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. @Vestrian24Bio: please find above my comments/actions. AA (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  All good! Support. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC) [9].

---

Timeline of the 2019 Pacific typhoon season

Nominator(s): —JCMLuis 💬 13:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The 2019 Pacific typhoon season was the costliest season ever recorded, due to several very destructive tropical cyclones that occurred. The most destructive of them all was Typhoon Hagibis, which made landfall over Japan in October and became the most damaging typhoon on record at the time, while also directly killing 118 people. Besides Hagibis, Typhoon Lekima brought havoc over China in August, becoming the second-costliest typhoon in the nation's history at the time, and Typhoon Faxai made landfall over Japan in September, becoming the costliest disaster of the year until Hagibis. In terms of activity, the season was above-average, with 29 named storms forming, of which 17 became typhoons. The season also featured the most powerful typhoon to occur in February, that being Typhoon Wutip.

This is (probably) the first attempt to get a Pacific typhoon season timeline into FL status. While making this timeline, I asked Dylan620 (talk · contribs), who made several Pacific hurricane season timelines that became featured lists, for help with the formatting and alternative texts. I will try my best to respond to any concerns with the timeline. —JCMLuis 💬 13:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support, with the caveat that I have helped out at certain points (as Luis mentions in his nomination statement). I'd argue that Luis's work with this timeline is more impressive than the EPAC and Atlantic timeline FLs I've helped to promote this year – not only because of the sheer quantity of systems (the WPAC is typically the most active of all the world's tropical cyclone basins), but because this timeline thoroughly includes information from not just one, but two major warning agencies. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment

• The 2019 Pacific typhoon season consisted of the events that occurred in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation over the western North Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea. --> The 2019 Pacific typhoon season was the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation over the western North Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea, primarily in 2019. or something similar.
  • Changed. I'm assuming the "primarily in 2019" part is because of Pabuk forming in 2018.
• which wrought damage to Japan wrought comes across as a little unencyclopedic. "Inflicted" or "caused"?
  • Changed to inflicted.

Wow, no other comments. Really nice work JCMLuis. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: I have addressed your concerns. —JCMLuis 💬 21:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco

• Images:
  • File:Typhoon Wutip's Eyewall Replacement Cycle(2019).gif satellite is Japanese, source goes to a .edu website. Where does the NOAA come into play?
    • Replaced license for every image produced by Himawari-8.
  • File:Wutip 2019-02-25 0600Z.png satellite is Japanese, source goes to a .edu website. Where does the NOAA come into play?
    • Ditto
  • Check images for bare URL sources, which are subject to link rot. For example, File:Wipha 2019-08-02 0605Z.jpg does not lead to an image of the storm.
    • Replaced links so it should lead to the image of the storm. Unfortunately for the images from the NOAA View Global Data Explorer, the data now only goes back to January 1, 2021, and going to Internet Archive does not work. The satellite it uses is NOAA-20, which can also be found in NASA Worldview, but there are some differences between images in both websites, such as a noticeable slant that would not be found in NOAA's website. (Example: original vs same thing in Worldview) Should I switch the sources to Worldview regardless?
      • That might require a consensus at the weather-focused Wikiprojects. I think that the images are sufficiently similar that whatever linking tool you used to get the second link would work to satisfy WP:V. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

        I decided to put the Worldview links for the image alongside the original link to NOAA's explorer as an alternative.

  • Overall, many of these NASA sources are not static; I clicked on one and got current weather, rather than information from 2019. That hurts the verifiability of the content.
    • Ditto

• Prose:

• Why not link tropical cyclone?
  • Linked
• from autumn 2018 to spring 2019. - Although everything is northern hemisphere, barely (a couple of the southernmost storms appear to only be a few hundred kilometres from the equator), much of the southern part of the range doesn't have a clearly defined autumn or spring. Per WP:SEASONS, I'd expect this to be phrased more objectively.
  • Changed using examples from WP:SEASON.
• The conditions became neutral during the summer, as strong activity occurred in the monsoon trough over Southeast Asia in August, promoting tropical cyclogenesis. - Same
  • Changed.
• 令和元年東日本台風の発生した令和元年の水害被害額が統計開始以来最大に令和元年の水害被害額（確報値）を公表 and other East Asian-script sources should use script-title= with the ISO two digit code for the language.
  • Added parameter. Please let me know if I used it wrong.
    • Looks good! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Not going to do a full source review, but I note that the capitalization of source titles is inconsistent (compare, for example, Ref 4 and Ref 21).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what's inconsistent with refs 4 and 21. Were you previewing the timeline of events section when you made this comment, and meant to refer to refs 18 and 34?
    • No, I meant 4 and 21. Compare "The strongest February typhoon on record packs 180 mph gusts, sideswiping Guam". (sentence case) and "Monthly Global Tropical Cyclone Tracks April 2019". (title case). Per WP:CITESTYLE, we should maintain consistency within the article (sentence case is consistent with APA, whereas title case is consistent with MLA). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Crisco 1492: So would changing ref 4 to "The Strongest February Typhoon On Record Packs 180 mph Gusts, Sideswiping Guam" make it consistent? Sorry, I'm not completely familiarized with capitalization in source titles. —JCMLuis 💬 22:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    That's just an example, JCMLuis, but something like "The Strongest February Typhoon on Record Packs 180 mph Gusts, Sideswiping Guam" would go toward consistency if you want to use title case. (On is a particle, which isn't capitalized). There are still several other sources that use sentence case as well (2, 5, 6, 9, 10, etc.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    Everything should be in title case now.

@Crisco 1492: I've responded to your comments. Please let me know what you think. —JCMLuis 💬 21:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Responded. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: added two responses regarding capitalization and source linking. —JCMLuis 💬 22:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Looks good! Happy to support.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC) [10].

---

Municipalities of Morelos

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep it going. Here is one more list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 50 (!!) lists of municipalities all around the world. Inspired by these real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standard, the project is taking shape. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews! Mattximus (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

• "The largest municipality by land area is Tlaquiltenango which spans 543.90 km2 (210.00 sq mi), and the smallest is Hueyapan with 19.20 km2 (7.41 sq mi)." I recommend commas be placed like so: "The largest municipality by land area is Tlaquiltenango, which spans 543.90 km2 (210.00 sq mi), and the smallest is Hueyapan, with 19.20 km2 (7.41 sq mi)."

• Done

• Cuautla in the lead should be linked.

• Done

• "responsible for providing all the public services for their constituents". Is it really true that all public services are provided by the municipality. The following sentences seem to say that the state and federal governments provide education, emergency fire and medical services, environmental protection and maintenance of monuments and historical landmarks. Could this be changed to ""responsible for providing public services for their constituents"?

• Done - this is much better wording, thanks!

• "On November 9, 2017, the state legislature approved the creation of four indigenous municipalities (Coatetelco, Xoxocotla, Hueyapan and Tetelcingo), effective on January 1, 2019. However, due to objections by authorities in Cuautla, it was decided on July 26, 2018 that Tetelcingo would not be included in the list of new municipalities." This should be reworded to say the most important part up front: that these are the newest municipalities in Morelos. Otherwise one wonders why four seemingly random municipalities are being mentioned.

• Done - this is a good suggestion, I think I reworded it correctly

• That's a good way to word it.

• The incorporation date for the three municipalities created on January 1, 2019 should be sourced in the table as well. The current source at the column heading only goes as far as 1995.

• Done

That's all. Steelkamp (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Steelkamp for an excellent review. No issues, all suggestions made. Mattximus (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. Steelkamp (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Tetelcingo would not be included in the list of new municipalities" - this is slightly confusing as it sounds like the municipality was still created, it just wasn't included on some list somewhere. So was it in fact not created at all?

• Fixed wording.

• Photo captions don't need full stops as they are not sentences

• Fixed captions with better wording as well

• "the oldest date in which the municipality is referred to is included" => "the earliest year in which the municipality is referred to is listed" would read much better

• Fixed, agree that's much better wording.

• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks ChrisTheDude! Excellent review, and I've made all changes, no issues. Mattximus (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments from OlifanofmrTenanant

I'll take a look but the first thing that jumps out is Hueyapan is linked twice in the final paragraph. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Done

• Footnotes C,D, and H could very loosely be seen as unsourced, especially since the notes about name changes are sourced.

• Done

• The states of Mexico list is linked twice in the first paragraph

• Done

• • It is also linked in the body as state capital. Could you explain the connection?

• Done - I just removed the link, I don't think one is needed here.

All I found, ping me when needed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much OlifanofmrTennant! All your concerns have been addressed, no issues! Mattximus (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC) [11].

---

List of songs recorded by the Pogues

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

After countless lists of number ones, I thought I would try something different for my next FLC. I'd just been listening to the new 40th anniversary deluxe edition of the Pogues' debut album and decided to have a go at this one. I added a lead, images, and (I think) pretty much doubled the size of the list by adding all the songs that were not on the original versions of their seven studio albums. A couple of things I was not 100% certain about (and couldn't really find any guidance on) and am happy to change if people think I should:

• Many songs were released only on singles (this is a band whose entire recording career took place when music was actually released physically, kids ) but later added to re-issued versions of albums anything up to 20 years later. I showed the album for these as "none" as their first release was not on an album, but I can change that and show the album (maybe with "20XX re-issue" in brackets) if that would be better.
• Several dozen songs here were unreleased until they appeared in a 2008 box set. For all of these I showed the date as 2008 as that is when they were first released, but I can change that to the date they were recorded, although this might be inconsistent with others as (for example) all the tracks on an album released in January 1988 (as one of theirs was) were almost certainly not recorded in 1988.

Let me know your thoughts on the above and on anything else you think needs fixing. I've never worked on one of these lists before so there may be quite a lot that needs finessing...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

NØ

• The band seems to be currently active according to their article, so should the introductory sentence say "have recorded" instead of "recorded"?
  • Changed. It was literally yesterday that the band announced that they will be touring again next year, prior to this it seemed that they would not continue following MacGowan's death -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• "which centred primarily on drinking culture and the seedier side of London life" - Is there a simpler term than seedier that might be easier for a general audience to understand? Although, personally I love the jargon, lol.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• "If I Should Fall from Grace with God (1988) incorporated a wider of range of musical styles, including Turkish and Spanish influences on the tracks "Turkish Song of the Damned" and "Fiesta" respectively, and songs written by newer band members Philip Chevron and Terry Woods." - Just "wider range" should probably work. Also, there should probably be a comma before "respectively"
  • Changed - the first one was just a typo -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• "After the 1996 album Pogue Mahone, which included versions of songs originally recorded by Ronnie Lane and Bob Dylan" - I would say "cover versions" instead of just versions
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• "The band also recorded songs not included on their seven studio albums, including many which appeared as the B-sides of singles." - "The band also recorded songs that did not appear on their seven studio albums, including many which appeared as the B-sides of singles." for minor repetition avoidance
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• "They contributed original songs to the soundtracks of the films Sid and Nancy and Straight to Hell" - maybe the years the films were released could be included in parenthesis
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Great work as always! The table looks perfect to me.--NØ 15:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: - thanks for your review. All points addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support--NØ 16:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Crisco

• Image review:

• File:Pogues Munich 2011.jpg - Image quality is a bit rough. Unfortunately, not actionable as the band does not seem to have gotten many quality images of them.
• File:Shane-MacGowan.jpg - Looks good
• File:Jem Finer Pogues.jpg - Licensing looks good. Needs an English-language description.
• File:The Pogues in NYC 14.jpg - Looks good
• File:DylanYoungKilkenny140719v2 (50 of 52) (52246124397) (cropped).jpg - Ideally Dylan should be identified specifically in the description, as the image has been cropped to only him (no Neil Young)
• File:Keith Richards, Mick Jagger performing with Rolling Stones at Prudential Center 2012-12-13.jpg - Looks good
• File:20180705-Rudolstadt-Festival-Steve Earle-and-the-Dukes-4821 (cropped).jpg - Looks good.
• File:Kirsty MacColl at Double Door Chicago.png - Looks good.

• Prose

• Shane MacGowan (vocals), Peter "Spider" Stacy (tin whistle), and Jem Finer (banjo) formed the band in 1982 along with James Fearnley (accordion), initially under the name Pogue Mahone, an anglicisation of the Irish phrase póg mo thóin, meaning "kiss my arse". - That's an awful lot of subordinate clauses and noun phrases. Simplifying may help
• Otherwise looks good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492: - done!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Happy to Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

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 10 sources match what they are being cited for
• Assumed good faith on some inaccessible sources

Feedback:

• Ref 8 – Access is restricted to those with an account (subscription maybe?), please mark as such
  • I can access it OK without an account, albeit there's a box at the bottom that says "This is your last free article"?? Anyhow, I marked it as subscription needed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

That's all I've got. Good stuff as always Chris. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: - thanks - see above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC) [12].

---

List of historic places in Tauranga

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Another one of these New Zealand Heritage List nominations! This one's a bit bigger than the previous few, coming in at 30 entries. Tauranga is definitely one of the more obscure cities in New Zealand - it's a sleepy little town that seems to mainly attract retirees - but it has some interesting military and colonial history nevertheless! Thanks to all you reviewers :3 Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Image caption end with a period.

That'd be against MOS:CAPTION unless it's a full sentence. -G

• The majority of entries in the list are missing images. IMO these images should exist in thumbnails on the side of the list (similar to List of Seattle Sounders FC players)

If a Wikimedian visits Tauranga and snaps some pics, most of these will get images. I want to leave the slots open for when/if that happens. - G

• Images that don't have alt text should have alt text

Fixed, thank you for catching that. -G

• Heritage New Zealand classification of sites on the New Zealand Heritage List / Rārangi Kōrero, in accordance with the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, distinguishes between Category 1 ("places of special or outstanding historical or cultural significance") and Category 2 ("places of historic or cultural significance"). - first clause in the sentence should be shortened or broken into multiple sentences.

Done. - G

Brindille1 (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Brindille1: Thank you for the review! Responded. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Brindille1 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Home to large Māori settlements during the precolonial era, European presence began" - there's some grammatical disagreement here - "European presence" wasn't home to large Maori settlements. Suggest "European presence began in the early 1830s in the area, which had been home to large Māori settlements during the precolonial era, as traders began settling around the shores of Tauranga Harbour."
• "from 1908 to 1987, where it has since seen various business tenants" - "where" doesn't really work here. Suggest "from 1908 to 1987, and has since seen various business tenants"
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Reworded the first and implemented the latter! Thank you. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

Disclosing upfront that I came here through the unofficial Wikimedia Discord server. Marking myself down for a review, will report back in the next couple days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I had more time tonight than I had anticipated, so I was able to bang out a quick image review:

• All images have suitable alt text, though I question if the alt text for the leading image should mention that it is a 19th century house – would the reader know such from looking at the image?
• All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons – indeed, each one is the work of the uploader.
• All images contribute encyclopedic value to the list.

The small quibble about the alt text isn't a dealbreaker for me, so I'm going to support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

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:

• Why do some of the refs use " Te Ao Mārama - Tauranga City Libraries" instead of simply "Tauranga City Libraries"? I see the copyright lists, but I think it may be more appropriate to just list the second option. Partly because I looked at Te Ao Mārama, and it seems more symbolic that they include that in the copyright? Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

That's all I've got, good stuff as always! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Oops, good catch there with the libraries. Fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You missed one, but I got it. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC) [13].

---

List of Pau Grand Prix winners

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The Pau Grand Prix is a motor race held on the Circuit de Pau-Ville street circuit in the commune of Pau in southwestern France. Famous names such as Lewis Hamilton, Alberto Ascari, Juan Manuel Fangio, Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart, René Arnoux and Tazio Nuvolari have won this race that has been held to the rules of various racing categories over the years. All comments are welcome EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The ACBB was first inspired to hold race" => "The ACBB was first inspired to hold a (or possibly the) race"
• The key looks a bit odd with the bullet before each symbol, I would be tempted to remove the bullets (and replace with a colon for indentation)
• Done this as a table instead EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Star design denotes multiple races were held" - I think simply "Denotes that multiple races were held" is fine. You don't say "dagger denotes..." and "double dagger denotes...." for the other two
• Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Edits have been made to the article based on the issues raised above EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• While sorting the table, the years when the race wasn't held sometimes comes on top. You'll have to ensure that it sorts at the bottom.

I couldn't find any other problems with table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• @MPGuy2824: I believe I have made the necessary amendments to the table that you raised EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  Since one of the rows has two references, the column header for the last column can be changed to {{Ref.}}. I trust you'll fix this. Support promotion on table accessibility and prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• city street track in the centre of Pau, in the Pyrénées-Atlantiques department of southwestern France. the sentence structure here is weird for me, but maybe that is because I am American and just used to "CITY, STATE". Maybe adding a commune would achieve what you are trying to say in a little bit clearer way?
• The ACBB was first inspired to hold the race in 1933 after the success of the Monaco Grand Prix as well as other races in Nice and Nîmes I believe you need a comma after "Prix"
• on a podium seems superfluous and I would recommend deleting
• for the longest wait between two victories change "wait" to "period" or something similar, implies he was just waiting around
• Signature have the most wins of any team with seven shouldn't it be "has". Its a team, right? So "The Signature Team has".

EnthusiastWorld37, nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Gonzo fan2007: Have made edits to the list in response to the issues raised above EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC) [14].

---

List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States

Nominator(s): MikeVitale 00:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have significantly expanded its content to meet the reasons why it was removed from its previous FL status. Its content now at least mirrors (if not improves upon, though that's subjective of course) List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada, an existing FL. --MikeVitale 00:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "however, by 1997, the American team had improved" => "by 1997, however, the American team had improved"
• "and in their head-to-head match up" - pretty sure (unless this is an ENGVAR thing) that "match up" should have a hyphen
• "at the Olympic Winter Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea" - seems weird to link the whole of "the Olympic Winter Games in Pyeongchang" to the article on the games. I would link just the first three words to that article and link the city name to the article on the city (especially as I don't believe it is a well-known city on a global scale)
• I know they are mentioned in the lead but I think a key above the tables for abbreviations like "USHHOF" wouldn't hurt, especially as in that particular example you don't show the abbreviation in the lead
• External links should be below refs, not above them
• That's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, ChrisTheDude. I believe that I have addressed all of them! --MikeVitale 01:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Matthewrb

• Citation 18 has a CS1 error. More info
• Both the main tables need accessibility fixes - For more info, see MOS:DTAB
  • Neither table has caption
  • None of the rows have rowspans, and none of the columns have colspans.
• I was going to recommend adding a {{Commons category}} to the External Links section, but there is no ice hockey under commons:Category:Olympic sportspeople from the United States by sport - If you find an appropriate commons category I might recommend adding it.

That's all I've got. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 04:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Matthewrb.

I have already fixed the CS1 error. Then I started looking into the Commons Category thing. Sure enough, there's no CommonsCat for Ice Hockey players. Can you help me understand the difference between a Wikipedia Category and a Commons Category? Would creating a category on English WP automatically create a similar category on Commons? Are they two completely separate things that would need to be maintained separately? Is the Commons Category linked by Wikidata (which is something else I need to learn more about)?

I'll look further into the a11y fixes later.

--MikeVitale 12:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the CS1 error!

Wikimedia Commons is a sister project, so creating a category on en.wiki would not transfer to Commons. The goal of having a Commons category would allow our readers to find images of all of the women's ice hockey players from the US, since Commons is a free media repository. I'm not familiar how commons categories link to Wikidata, as I only have really worked on article changes in WD. For more info, here are some links:

• Wikimedia Commons
• WP:COMMONS
• MOS:IWL
• WP:SIS (specifically the section "When to link")

Please feel free to ping me when you're done with the DTAB fixes or if you have more questions about Interwiki links. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 19:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:DTAB fixes are now in place.

I'll start looking into the Category / Commons Category thing. --MikeVitale 01:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Second reply:

I found commons:Category:Olympic ice hockey players from the United States and added it as a sub-category of commons:Category:Olympic sportspeople from the United States by sport. I then added a {{commons category}} link to the External links section of the List. --MikeVitale 01:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Matthewrb I've added the {{commons category}}, and I've further added all members of the US Olympic teams through the years who already have their own category on commons to the category.

Is there anything else that needs to be done? --MikeVitale 02:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@MikeVitale: Looks amazing! One final thing: your scope="row" on the tables aren't working properly. You need to replace the pipes (|) with exclamation points (!) right before the word "scope" - does that make sense? MOS:DTAB has example code if you need.~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 03:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Matthewrb That's an easy fix -- that's already fixed. Thanks. --MikeVitale 03:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Well done! Support ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 03:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• The Canadians again won gold in Sochi at the 2014 Winter Olympics, in a 3–2 overtime win against the US team. comma isn't needed.
• Link "shootout" (Overtime (ice hockey)#Shootout). Also, I don't think shootout should have the hyphen.
• National teams are coordinated by USA Hockey and players are chosen by the team's management staff. recommend moving this to the first paragraph after the second sentence

That's all I got. Nice work MikeVitale. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and kind words.

I have incorporated all of your suggestions into the article. --MikeVitale 01:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC) [15].

---

Gen Hoshino discography

Nominator(s): IanTEB (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I've been working on Gen Hoshino articles for around a year. Though there are several more topics I've yet to cover, I thought it would be useful to expand upon this discography page for an outline, and have decided to nominate it for FL. Though I've contributed to a few GAs, this is my first experience with the featured content process. I'm sure there’s many issues that I am unaware of and any/all feedback would be appreciated.

I don't know if I'm making this nomination description too long, but a few of the Japanese sources used I believe are new to featured content nominations on enwiki, so I'd like to explain my usage rationales for a few. Active since 2013, Real Sound is (in my experience) an authority source on Japanese music. They have interviews with high-profile artists (including Hoshino) and have several writers I recognize from other sites, some of which also with articles on Japanese Wikipedia. Rockin'On Japan is the website of a print magazine running since 1972. Similar case to Real Sound. I’ve used the online CDJournal on almost all my GAs without issue. They have an editorial team that publishes reviews for CD singles and albums, spanning several years. I see them sort of as the Japanese AllMusic.

I'll try my best to fix any issues brought up. Any comments are appreciated! IanTEB (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• It took me a while to figure it out but when you say "For double A-side singles, the first two columns refers to the A-side tracks, and the third column refers to chart positions, sales, and certifications for the double A-side release", I think what you actually mean is "For double A-side singles, the first two rows refers to the A-side tracks, and the third row refers to chart positions, sales, and certifications for the double A-side release" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you; I've amended the article. Having such a note is from the start a little unusual, but it's the best solution I could come up with since there's instances of one double A-side having three different peaks on a singular chart. IanTEB (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• "which decisively opened at first" => "which debuted at number one"
• "on the Billboard Japan Hot Albums and" => "on the Billboard Japan Hot Albums chart and"
• "Sixth place on Billboard Japan's year-end ranking for 2016" => "Placing sixth on Billboard Japan's year-end ranking for 2016"
• Why do you list the full track listings for the two indie releases but not for any of his official albums? I would suggest that the norm is not to show it for any album
• Do his most recent three albums not have Japanese titles?
• Never seen "streaming playlists" in a discography article but I guess in this day and age it's valid........?
• "though it would still peak at number 40 on the chart in December 2016" => "although it still peaked at number 40 on the chart in December 2016" (same for other similar sentences in the footnotes)
• That's all I got, I think...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: I've fixed the issues with the text and removed the track listing. I based the latter off of Meghan Trainor discography, which includes track listing for independent releases. My reasoning was that these will never have articles, so this would be the only place to include that information, but I've removed it anyways since I agree with your comment. Streaming playlists comes from Taylor Swift albums discography. I wasn't sure if I should include them but thought I might as well. I'd have no issues removing if anyone sees it as an issue. His three most recent albums are titled in English.

  Thank you for the comments. Please let me know if you find any other issues. IanTEB (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• I checked the first two tables and the "Title" cell was missing its scope which should be "col".
• In the "As lead artist" table the cell "Peak chart positions" should have "scope=colgroup"
• Please check all the tables for these issues and fix them. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824: Thanks for the comments. Since I'm not particularly knowledgable on Wikicode, I don't quite know what this has changed, but I've added the "col" scope to all title cells and the "colgroup" scope to all cells with a colspan parameter. Hopefully this addresses your issues. IanTEB (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  Since I'm not particularly knowledgable on Wikicode, I don't quite know what this has changed My fault, it is for accessibility reasons (for screen readers). I should have linked to PresN's standard comment here. While we are at it, I notice that some of the header cells of rows have scope as "col", when it should be "row" (e.g. "Stranger in Budokan" in Live albums). Do make sure that you check this in all tables. I've found no issues with the prose, so this is all that is remaining to get a support from me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824: I really appreciate the explanation; I'll definitely apply this whenever I work on tables in the future. I'm unable to find any use of the "col" scope for header cells (including Stranger in Budokan, which is preceded by ! scope="row" |), unless I'm misunderstanding your comment. IanTEB (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm unable to find any use of the "col" scope for header cells (including Stranger in Budokan) I probably got confused by an earler use of that title, in a footnote of a column header. Support on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No issues found; source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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