Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Flc)

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved in a timely manner; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached after significant time; or
  • reviewers are unable to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting.

Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure
  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  3. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.
Reviewing procedure

Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. Supports are weighted more strongly if they are given alongside justifications that indicate that the list was fully reviewed; a nomination is not just a straight vote.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. Please focus your attention on substantive issues or inconsistencies, rather than personal style preferences. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed, and nominators are encouraged to use {{reply to}} or other templates to notify reviewers when replying. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so, rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

Source reviews needed

The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Nominations

[edit]

List of Men's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year

[edit]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because following the successful promotions at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive2 in July and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Women's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive1 earlier today, I think this is a good candidate. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hampshire County Cricket Club grounds

[edit]
Nominator(s): AA (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of myotines

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 19:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bats list #6 and mammal list #47: Myotinae. Now that we got the giant vespertilionine list out of the way, the rest of the family Vespertilionidae is easier: this subfamily is a third of the size, with only 3 genera to keep track of. Still just another 121 tiny bats, but a few of these guys have decided that when they swoop down to pluck bugs off of the water, they're okay with snagging a fish while they're at it. Also, in contrast to the angry little guy of the past list, this list has the Yuma myotis down at the bottom who's just done with it all and ready to go home. In any case, as always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I don't know if I missed this on previous lists but......"Members [plural] of this subfamily are called a myotine [singular]" - maybe "A member...."....?
  • "neritic marine" - is there a link for this? I don't think it's a common/well-known term
  • Guatemalan myotis - habitat is blank
  • That's it - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in the Northern Territory by population

[edit]
Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since I created this page back in 2022, I've been thinking about nominating this list for FL. I've finally got around to doing so now! This is a list of places in Australia's Northern Territory, the least densely-populated part of Australia, making for a very small number of places with a population above 200. This article includes a list of Urban centres and localities, as defined by the ABS, and a list of local government areas, as defined by the Northern Territory. Places listed range from the city of Darwin to small Aboriginal communities with only a few hundred people. I look forward to all comments. Steelkamp (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • The lead seems a bit sparse at just four sentences. Could you incorporate some stuff about how there are only N settlements with over 1000 people, what the largest is, etc?
  • Why do some places have dashes for their 2011 population in the first table? Did they not exist?
  • Why do some places in the second table have an asterisk rather than a rank?
  • Note a needs a full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of pholidotans

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments by Matthewrb

[edit]

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)[reply]

Pokémon episodes removed from rotation

[edit]
Nominator(s): Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list focuses on Pokémon episodes that have been removed from rotation for reasons including removal from airwaves, being banned from airing, or being unaired entirely. I have rewritten this list from scratch from its current state and made sure to source everything in order to verify the article's content. I believe this meets the FL criteria due to the scope of coverage and overall quality.

I am aware this article uses a reference from Screen Rant, a usually marginally reliable source. I have included it as it and other similar quality sources are the only sources to discuss "The Tower of Terror" being removed from air. To ensure the comprehensiveness of the list, I have elected to include it, but I have only used it once for the sole purpose of this episode's verification. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

[edit]

Saving a spot. Ping if I haven't said anything by Tuesday. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realise it's going to be Tuesday and I still haven't written anything. I'll get on this tomorrow. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]
Nominator(s): MikeVitale 00:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments

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

Comments by Matthewrb

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
MOS:DTAB fixes are now in place.
I'll start looking into the Category / Commons Category thing. --MikeVitale 01:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Matthewrb That's an easy fix -- that's already fixed. Thanks. --MikeVitale 03:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Support ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 03:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Adult Contemporary number ones of 1979

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the 1977 list having just been promoted, and the 1978 list having multiple supports, I now present the 1979 list. In this particular year, the top of the chart was dominated by a Canadian singer who spent fully a quarter of the year in the top spot. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me, I've done a complete check and didn't see any problems. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

Source review: Passed

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

Support, no issues whatsoever. I'm always surprised when some of the entries on these lists aren't their own articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Generalissima

[edit]

Prose looks solid throughout the lede, don't see any problems there. The list is also properly formatted according to the MOS, and fits accessibility criteria. All images are properly licensed and have alt text (not a requirement, but nice to have!) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias

[edit]

Main comment is about the use of "would end" and "would remain"; could just rewrite to "ended" and "remained" to comply with MOS's requirement for succinctness. Image captions use false titles but the lead does not, so I suggest picking one for consistency. Otherwise, I can't really find anything else and these are mostly nitpicks anyway. Well done! Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 01:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PSA: - fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @ChrisTheDude. Happy to support Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 23:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of vespertilionines

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 20:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bats list #5 and mammal list #46: Vespertilioninae. This list wore me out: I try to make it one list per family, but the parent family (Vespertilionidae) had so many bats that the page stopped rendering partway through. Even cutting it down to this subfamily is still pushing it, as with 278 species it's almost as big as the entire order of Carnivora, which was covered by the first ten lists in this series, and nearly 5% of all mammal species in one go. It's all done now, though, so here we are: nearly 300 tiny, tiny little bats. Really, what got me through it was the picture for the first bat: he's been captured by a giant, and he's so very mad about it. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently on pretty slow wifi, so what I got when the page started loading was the alt text of the lede image, which is incredible. And the pallid bat image is, indeed, very cute. So smol, so angry. Anyway, I'll try to give a prose review of the top parts.
  • A few extinct prehistoric molossid species have been discovered, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed. Molossids? Huh?
  • Considering your reported problem of page length, this rendered decently quickly for me on slow wifi. Good job!
Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverTiger12: Whoops, fixed! --PresN 02:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I think the lead image could be made larger
  • "Main article: Murininae" is randomly floating between two tables and doesn't look like it's meant to be there.......unless I am wrong......?
  • That's it - amazing work. Your dedication to long and heavy-duty lists is to be admired! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Generalissima

[edit]

Holy moly, that's a lot of bats!

Mainly cited to the IUCN red list, which seems like quite the reputable source (and match your previous FLs in this field). I'm going to have to assume good faith on All the Mammals, but I checked a dozen of the IUCN cites and they all checked out, as did the one Nowak cite and Ibanez et al. Sources are consistently formatted, and every entry has its own cite. I would personally put Ibanez et al. in the bibliography itself rather than in the citations, but its your list and consistency is what matters here. The uncited portions in the lede, conventions, and classification are supported by the sources in the tables themselves, so all is shipshape here.

Support, everything seems fine by me. :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Martin VH platform

[edit]
Nominator(s): 750h+ 07:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the platform that is the basis for what is currently all of my featured articles—the DB9, Rapide, Vanquish and the Lagonda Taraf—the VH platform. Shorter than other lists, I believe it meets the criteria. Enjoy! 750h+ 07:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments
  • Please take a look at MOS:COLHEAD.
  • Also, choose either one of "Body style" or "Model name" as the header cell for each row. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed the first concern. No-one raised concerns about the latter in my previous FLC? 750h+ 12:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It got overlooked, I think. The usual way is just to have one header cell, but you can have 2 row headers just like you can have two column headers, though they'd both need scope=row and right now the name column cells don't. What would happen if you have two is a screen reader will read out "Grand tourer DB9" or "Sports car Vantage" as the identifier for the row- so if you're on the Introduction year column row 1 and hit the down arrow, it will read out "Sports car Vantage, Introduction year, 2005". If you're okay with that, then just add the rowscopes to the name column; I'd personally go with just having the name column as the header as it's unique to the row, but either way is fine. --PresN 21:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN: is this better? 750h+ 04:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Made a small change, but yep, looks good. --PresN 14:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment

Comments

[edit]
  • " comprising the DB9, followed by the Vantage, DBS, Rapide (produced until 2020), Vanquish (produced until 2018)." => " comprising the DB9, followed by the Vantage, DBS, Rapide (produced until 2020), and Vanquish (produced until 2018)."
  • "They implemented modifications " - who is "they"? The last sentence referred to Bez, a singular person.
  • As the tables are sortable, you need to link terms every time they are used. Currently "grand tourer" is linked only once in the first table and not at all in the second.
  • The abbreviation for the "Ref." column should probably be "Refs." as every row has more than one
  • That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All done @ChrisTheDude:. Thanks for the review! 750h+ 11:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CosXZ

[edit]
Support from Airship
  • Could we have more details on the differences between the "generations"?
    • It would also be nice if the tables below say which generation(s) each car belonged to.
      • Done the latter. Unfortunately i can't find much on the former,
  • The VH platform was developed to be flexible; every vehicle that uses it incorporates bonded and riveted aluminium to reduce weight. The phrase before the semicolon doesn't seem to be that relevant to the phrase after it, unless "flexible" refers to the lack of stiffness in the materials, and not design flexibility in systems as I had previously assumed?
    done
  • Do the different types of "Body style" have any impact on the VH platform? If not, why do they need a column in the table?
    thought it was important. body style is how the car looks, and they are probably the largest difference between the vehicles
  • Do we know anything about Aston Martin's future plans for the vehicles?
    the platform, and every car that uses it, is discontinued.
    Would be nice to have that explicitly mentioned. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29: done. 750h+ 12:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise nice work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: thanks for the comments. 750h+ 11:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers award winners

[edit]
Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the lists I have brought to FLC, this was the most challenging from a development perspective. As always, happy to implement any edits or answer any questions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

In the "Most Valuable Player" table:

  • "Player of the year award" should have "colgroup" as the scope.
  • Images are missing alt text.

I found the same issues in the next section too. Please fix this over the whole page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824, got them both, thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • I will do a full review at some point, but one point that jumps out is repeated use of "the first Packers' player" / "the only Packers' player" / etc. There should not be an apostrophe there, because "Packers" is being used adjectivally, not possessively. If you used the first part of the team name rather than the second you would not say "he became the first Green Bay's player to do [whatever]".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude, I think I got them all here. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of historic places in Stratford District

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you didn't miss my lists of obscure New Zealand historical sites! Today's territorial authority is Stratford, a relatively isolated part of the North Island most famous as the birthplace of "talkies" in the Southern Hemisphere! Thank you all as always for your time looking at this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Lead image could be made bigger
  • " the English hometown of Shakespeare" - no reason not to show his full name
  • I am no authority but I am pretty sure that New Zealand uses British English, so "colonization" should be "colonisation", "named for" should be "named after", "center" should be "centre", "centralized" should be "centralised", etc
  • "12£ worth of coins" => "£12 worth of coins"
  • "after use as a shop by a toy-maker, silversmith, and herbal pharmacy" => "after use as a shop by a toy-maker, a silversmith, and a herbal pharmacist"
  • That's what I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for the review! I think I got everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hey man im josh

[edit]

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

  • Ref 2 – Change website to Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand instead of Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand
    • Done. - G
  • Downcase "(Former)" to "(former)" where applicable in the entries. I understand the sources use "(Former)", but it's not a proper name, so we should downcase it as we have in the other NZ historic places lists you've nommed.
    • Done. - G
  • The list could benefit from some type of WP:SIGCOV, not that I doubt the list and the items in it are notable based on the historic classifications
    • Added some more coverage that I could find.
  • The list could be improved by explaining why the Mangaotuku Truss Bridge is no longer a categorized site. Reading this list, I found myself curious about why that happened.
    • Huh? It says that it was destroyed by a flood. - G

Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias

[edit]

Per the request at the unofficial WP:DISCORD.

  • "Initially populated by seasonal Māori villages, European colonisation" - misplaced modifier
  • You use "twentieth century" in one sentence and "mid-20th century" in another. I'd pick one

Will continue with reading once I'm done with dinner Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 09:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PSA Fixes made! thank you. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the rise of popular television in the late twentieth-century" don't think the hyphen is needed
    • Fixed. - G
  • Clarification re. memorial gates: were those stone pillars also erected in 1926? The sentence structure is a bit ambiguous.
    • Made this less ambiguous. - G
  • Is there an explanation somewhere (onwiki or on sources) of what "downdraught" means?
    • Downdraft in American English; there's one sentence on them on the Kiln article so I linked that (gosh that article needs work!) -G

@Generalissima: pretty much all I have. Nice work. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 00:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1978

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With 1976 having been promoted and 1977 having some support, here's the next in this series. This was the final year in which the chart was published for the entire year under the by-now rather outdated and "square" title of Easy Listening. This year saw the first number one for Billy Joel, who would go on to be a regular at or near the top of this chart for decades, and the only number one for Chuck Mangione, who only had a brief chart career but would (apparently) go on to achieve fame with a new generation in a cartoon which I have never watched...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Amazing work Chris, I couldn't find anything to criticize. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]

I'll review images and prose in a sec. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All images are correctly-licensed CC or PD. They have alt-text and are appropriate for the list.
  • Sources are consistently formatted.
  • Billboard and Whitburn are the most cited, and they seem like quite reliable sources for this. I don't have access to Whitburn, but the Billboard sources sure check out.
  • Other misc sources seem appropriate for context and also match what they're used for. Seems good to go here! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wait. i forgot i was doing a prose review lmao. let me do that too - I could find no errors in regards to that, so Support on that front too! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of towns in British Columbia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cos (X + Z) 19:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another BC municipalities list that I have done work on. I hope you enjoy. Cos (X + Z) 19:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Lead image could be made larger
  • "Towns, cities, districts and villages in British Columbia are referred to as municipalities and all are included in local governments in the province, which may be incorporated under the Local Governance Act of 2015." - this sentence is confusing - what does the "which may be" refer to? The province? The local governments?
  • "In order for a municipality in British Columbia to be labelled as a town" - "labelled" implies something that people just informally call something. I would use a more formal verb such as "categorized"
  • "Although the population of Port McNeill fall below this threshold, and all the populations except for Princeton, Lake Cowichan, Golden and Gibsons go above this threshold, they are still categorized as towns" - I would redo this whole bit as "Although the population of Port McNeill falls below this threshold, it is still categorized as a town, as are nine settlements with populations greater than 5,000."
  • " while the province's newest town is View Royal on December 5, 1988" => " while the province's newest town is View Royal, which incorporated on December 5, 1988"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude I have resolved your comments. Cos (X + Z) 14:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Generalissima

[edit]

I'm judging things here by the basis of List of cities in New Brunswick, a recently promoted and similar FL; it appears you based the body off of this, good choice.

  • Optional: Add the variable "abbr=on" to your convert template in the lede; with the large numbers already, we gotta do what we can to shorten it.
    done
  • You should cite every instance of the regional districts in the list; because the list can be rearranged by the reader, "first usage" doesn't really apply.\
    done
  • I would take a leaf (heh) from the New Brunswick article and put the whole population through density columns under a first order "2021 Census of Population" column. Makes the population density unambiguous.
    done
  • Give units for the population density. 1,103.2 per what?
    km2. clarified.
  • Are there any sources that talk about the structure of local governments for towns? Do they have mayors, councils, what? Those would be good to include for context.
    all municipalities have councils.
  • Like in the New Brunswick article, you should also have a column for the province as a whole so you can see what percentage of people live in a town (I assume a very small number here.)
    done.
  • Former town section looks good.
  • The one image is relevant and correctly formatted.
  • Were any of these settlements villages before they became towns? If so, which date does "Incorporation Date" reflect?
    The Incorporation Date reflects when the municipality got promoted to a town. clarified.

@CosXZ: That's my piece. Thank you for your good work. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima I have resolved your comments. Cos (X + Z) 19:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CosXZ This looks great! Support. Optional, but it could be good to indicate if a settlement was previously a village or unincorporated before it became a town. maybe just adding (from village) in parentheses after the date? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2019 Pacific typhoon season

[edit]
Nominator(s): —JCMLuis 💬 13:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Chile

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tone 09:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chile has 7 WHS, including Easter Island (Rapa Nui), and 17 sites on the tentative list. Standard style. The list for New Zealand is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 09:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Generalissima

[edit]

Oh, and since I know image reviews can take some time;

List of awards and nominations received by SZA

[edit]
Nominator(s): Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 00:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solana Imani Rowe, or SZA, is a person of many accomplishments. She's killed her ex, been to Saturn, and won four Grammys so far... among other things. With ~50 awards out of ~200 nominations and a debut album that has made it to so many GOAT lists, SZA has achieved so much in her 12 years as an active musician. This list is here to present them all, and I believe it is ready for that bronze star. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 00:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

[edit]

A couple drive-by comments from me; good luck with the nomination! Cells starting with a double-quote character will need a {{sort}} or |data-sort-value= to make them sort properly. The table in § Awards and nominations needs a header for accessibility. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, TechnoSquirrel. This should be addressed now. - Elias

Comments

[edit]
  • "SZA signed under the label Top Dawg Entertainment in 2013" - to say she signed "under" a label sounds totally wrong to me, but maybe it is valid in US English.....?
    • Not sure if it has to do with language variants but I do admit it sounds off, since "under" appears again in the same sentence; changed to "signed to"
  • "several lists of best music made for films" => "several lists of the best music made for films"
  • "her first Grammy (Best Pop Duo/Group Performance)." - can't see any particularly compelling reason to separately link both the bit outside the brackets and the bit inside to the same article
    • Fair point
  • In the table, anything starting with " should sort based on the first word, ignoring the "
  • ....and anything starting with "The" should ignore the "The" and sort based on the next word
  • As it's a sortable table, songs/people/etc should be linked every time they are used, not just the first -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

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 25 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

  • Ref 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 28 – Change from BMI/BMI.com to Broadcast Music, Inc. for consistency
  • Ref 98 and 99 – Add the url-access parameter to note that these Business Insider links can be accessed in full with a subscription by adding |url-access=subscription
  • Ref 76 – Link seems to be dead? I visit it and I just get "error". Mark link as dead or tell me it just doesn't work for me or something lol.
    • Extremely bizarre... same thing happens on my end. Marked the link as dead
  • Is Promonews considered RS/has that been discussed before? The fact they're verifying aren't controversial, but if better sources are available and they've not been discussed, it could make sense to replace them.
    • Unfortunately I cannot find any other source that is more reliable and covers the award noms
  • The recipient column title should probably be tweaked, as the song itself wouldn't be the recipient of the award. Perhaps "Nominee/Work" instead? I also think "recipient" implies that they won, when some of these are for nominations that they did not win.
    • Agreed

Excellent work, I'm quite impressed with the consistency of the formatting in the references. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Hey man im josh for the kind words. All should be addressed. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 01:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]
  • Solid prose throughout the lede, and following WP:LEDECITE
  • Table is well-formatted. It has properly scoped rows and columns, centered refs on the ref and results column. Ditto on the Listicles table. Both tables are also captioned, seems good on accessibility and formatting concerns.
  • The one image is properly licensed (CC-BY 2.0) and has alt-text.

Looks good to me! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations

[edit]

Flo Milli discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing and making this at least FL quality and formatting it for a bit of time and now just deciding to nominate it. Have looked at recent FLs and do believe it reaches the maximum that I can improve it for. So have at it and have fun! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and were a breakthrough hit" - this doesn't make sense grammatically, as it says that the artist herself "were a breakthrough hit". Assuming you mean the songs, how can two songs be "a breakthrough hit" (singular)
  • "Due to the success of her first two singles, Flo Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records after gaining popularity on social media" - so was the success of her singles down to "gaining popularity on social media"? Currently you are giving two different reasons for her signing
  • "Flo Milli released her debut mixtape, Ho, Why Is You Here?, the following year." - as you haven't mentioned any years up to this point, saying "the following year" is meaningless
  • "In 2021, her debut singles "In the Party" and "Beef FloMix"" - by definition an artist can only ever have one debut single, not multiple
  • "started working on her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho? which was" => "started working on her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho?, which was"
  • "number 46 in Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums[4]. " - refs go after punctuation, not before
  • " "Conceited", one of the singles in You Still Here, Ho?, had been certified gold " => " "Conceited", one of the singles taken from You Still Here, Ho?, was certified gold "
  • "Between You Still here, Ho? and her latest album, Fine Ho, Stay, Flo Milli had released multiple singles" => "Between You Still here, Ho? and her latest album, Fine Ho, Stay, Flo Milli released multiple singles"
  • "such as "Einstein", "No Love Shemix", "Anything Flows" " => "such as "Einstein", "No Love Shemix", and "Anything Flows" "
  • "as a part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven[5]," => "as part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven[5]," (also note again that refs go after punctuation)
  • "In late 2023, she released "Never Lose Me" as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay and reached number 15" => "In late 2023, she released "Never Lose Me" as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay, which reached number 15"
  • "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay and debuted and peaked at number 54 on the Billboard 200" => "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay, which debuted and peaked at number 54 on the Billboard 200"
  • Singles which did not chart will all need references to confirm that they were released/exist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:, Fixed everything except the additional sources which I will be adding soon, gonna look for secondary sources but most are most likely gonna have to be primary sadly .Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
[edit]
  • "Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and were both a breakthrough hit" - this isn't grammatically correct. It should be "and both were" not "and were both", and also two songs can't be "a hit" (singular). I would also suggest that an act can only have one "breakthrough hit" as after that they have already broken through.
  • "After the success of her first two singles, Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records after gaining popularity on social media" - this still doesn't make sense to me. Is it meant to suggest that the two singles were successful, then she gained popularity on social media and then she signed with those labels?
  • "her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho? which was released" => "her debut studio album, You Still Here, Ho?, which was released"
  • "as a part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven" - as I said above, this should be "as part of a brand deal with 7-Eleven"
  • ""B.T.W." as a cover of Blow the Whistle,[6] "Fruit Loop", "Chocolate Rain", and "BGC"." - firstly, is "Blow the Whistle" a song? If so, it should be in quote marks. Also, you say that one song was a cover of four different songs - this isn't possible. Do you mean it contains elements of all those songs? If that's the case, it would also be worth saying who those songs are by, as just saying "BGC" (a song which I have personally never heard of and which appears to have no article to fill me in) doesn't really give any context
  • "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay which debuted " => "In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay, which debuted " -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:, For the fifth bullet point, I think you had it mixed up. It's supposed to be a list of her singles that she released in between her mixtape and her second album, not that the one single has elements of the others as Fruit Loop, Chocolate Rain, and BGC are her singles. I've added semicolons instead of regular commas, does it read better now?
@ChrisTheDude:, @IanTEB:: Gonna ping you both here because I am getting mixed responses from both of you on the same thing. In her early career, Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and both were breakthrough hits. After the success of her first two singles on social media and the gain of popularity, Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records are the sentences in question and I am getting one way how to do it and another way saying that I should do it this way and it's like hitting a rock into a brick wall.. it ain't gon do nothing.
My only issue with those sentences is that I don't believe it is possible for an artist to have multiple "breakthrough hits". Once they have had one "breakthrough hit" then by definition they have already broken through and can't break through again. I don't see that IanTEB has said anything which contradicts that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:, ive changed it to "both were successful hits". does that read well?
I think that the vast majority of people would consider a "hit" to be a song which got in the charts, and as far as I can see neither of these songs did, so I would avoid the word "hits". I think it would be worth being a bit more specific on how they were "successful" given that neither actually charted. I'm assuming they became popular on TikTok or something.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

Review is based on this version of the page.

Source review: Pending

  • Wikilinking to websites/publishers/sources is inconsistent (some linked, some not), please add wikilinks where appropriate
  • Use YouTube as the capitalization instead of Youtube
  • Ref 1 – Add subscription status to reference
  • Ref 6 – Currently all caps, which is not desirable, and the source uses a different capitalization
  • Refs 9 and 11 – Duplicate ref, merge them
  • Refs 10 and 67 – Duplicate ref, merge them
  • Ref 12 – Remove "(News)" from the website field. Alternatively, use Template:Cite press release
  • Ref 25 – Uses "Fader" instead of "The Fader", like refs 64 and 70. This is also a duplicate of 64, so they should be merged.
  • Ref 28 – Link is dead, mark is as such
  • Ref 29 – Target article for the website is Uproxx, match this capitalization (also for consistency with ref 69)
  • Refs 30, 91, and 100 – Require subscription access, mark as such
  • Refs 32 and 34 – These show the website as "Revolt TV", whereas there are 11 other references that simply use "Revolt"
  • Ref 51 – Seems link an incorrect link, perhaps this is what you were looking for?
  • Ref 55 – Shift from all caps to title case
  • Note B – "I Am" did not enter Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, but peaked at number 19 on R&B/Hip-Hop Digital Song Sales.[51] – The source in my above comment shows it peaked at 15
  • Refs 76 and 77 – Website is currently listed as "RapUp", but should be Rap-Up based on the target (and to match ref 100)
  • Ref 86 – Shift from all caps to title case
  • Refs 91 and 101 – Website should be Rolling Stone, not "RollingStone"
  • Ref 95 – Add subscription status to reference

That's what I've got for now, please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all except Ref 10 and 67 from your version which were two different sources, one is a Billboard link and one is a Revolt link. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping: @Hey man im josh:
@Cowboygilbert: Is there a reason you chose to remove the wikilinks instead of adding them to sources? It seems you chose to go with linking the first occurrence of a source. If sources are added at a later point in time, ahead of the ones used, then your wikilink could come after another one. This is why I typically recommend to wikilink the publishers entirely. Though, if your formatting is consistent, this isn't technically required, but in a discography of an active artist I would expect it to become problematic at some point. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually.. it looks like you went too far in removing links because Vulture has no links now. Also, a quick look over and I noticed that Hypebeast is linked multiple times, Billboard is linked a couple times but not consistently, HotNewHipHop is not linked at first occurence but linked elsewhere. This is the problem that I was talking about with the inconsistent linking and the related concerns I have about it. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh:, added all wikilinks
@Cowboygilbert: Pings do not work without a signature added afterwards, so I did not get this ping. I'll try to find time to finish my review on this today. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sorry for the delay. I did some cleanup of a few things that were leftover. The only thing I'm hesitant / hung up on is the usage of "That Grape Juice", which refers to itself as a blog and is not used very much as a source on wiki. Can that reference be replaced or is there a claim to why they're a reliable source? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IanTEB

[edit]

I also have a FL nomination open for Gen Hoshino discography, so if you'd like to leave any comments it would be greatly appreciated.

First paragraph

  • In her early career, Flo Milli released two singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party" and were a breakthrough hit - I would reword this a little bit, here's a suggestion: 'Flo Milli released her debut singles, "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party", in 2019, which were successful.'
  • Due to the success of her first two singles, Flo Milli signed to '94 Sound and RCA Records after gaining popularity on social media - this feels a little contradictory, since it attributes her signing to both her debut singles and popularity on social media, but presents these in different parts of the sentence which makes it a little bit confusing. Maybe just replace 'Due to the success of her first two singles' with 'Subsequently'?
  • In 2021, her debut singles "In the Party" and "Beef FloMix" were certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America - I don't think these don't need introduction again when they were mentioned only a few sentences earlier. In my opinion, this information should be moved into their earlier introduction.
  • After releasing her debut mixtape Milli started working on her debut studio album - if my previous point is addressed, this should be reworded to something along the lines of: 'After its release, Milli started working on her debut studio album [...]'
  • By the way, usage of the artist's name in the first paragraph feels a little repetive to me. Try to switch it out for pronouns if appropriate
  • and peaked at number 78 in the Billboard 200 - 'in' should be 'on'
  • Citation after Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums should be placed after the fullstop.
  • 'Conceited', one of the singles in You Still Here, Ho? - album name doesn't need to be repeated; this could just say: "'Conceited', one of its singles, [...]"
  • had been certified gold by the RIAA - 'had' should be 'has'

Second paragraph

  • Citations after 7-Eleven and Blow the Whistle should come after the comma
  • Fine Ho, Stay should be linked on the earliest mention; currently its linked on the second
  • and reached number 15 in the Billboard Hot 100 - 'in' to 'on'
  • In 2024, she released Fine Ho, Stay and debuted and peaked at number - 'and debuted' → 'which debuted'
  • Information about her second album seems a little all over the second paragraph. Meghan Trainor discography might have clues for improving the flow a bit

List

  • Shouldn't the first instance of 'Digital download' be linked to Music download?
  • Text should be added above the Singles tables like all other sections
  • List of music video appearances, indicating, where applicable, the associated album, directors, and other performers - 'indicating, where applicable,' could be removed since this is assumed. Like all tables, "List of music videos, with ..." would be more concise.

Most of these should be easy fixes. Hopefully nothing is of much difficulty. IanTEB (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IanTEB:, Question: For your fifth bullet about the second paragraph, it doesn't make sense to me what you mean by "all over the place". The information about her second album is in just the last two sentences. But other than that issue, should all be fixed. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the article again and I'll leave a bit explanation + a few remaining comments:
  • The second mention of You Still Here, Ho? in the lead does not capitalize the 'h' in 'Here'
  • After the success of her first two singles on social media and the gain of popularity - wouldn't it make more sense to say 'After the success of her first two singles,'?
  • Between You Still here, Ho? and her latest album, Fine Ho, Stay - I personally think it would be better to specify timespan her. What year/s?
  • I find the list of singles in the second paragraph a little difficult to understand on first read. It might be better to divide it up
  • Is "B.T.W." a cover of "Blow the Whistle"? If so, link in the Singles as lead artist list and maybe change the wording, e.g. to 'she covered Too Short's "Blow the Whistle" on the single "B.T.W." '
  • What I mean by the fifth bullet point you mentioned is that the second album is mentioned throughout most of the second paragraph, when that information should be more collected. My suggestion would be to alter In late 2023, she released "Never Lose Me" as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay to remove mention of the album. Then change the sentence after to: "Never Lose Me" supported her second album, Fine Ho, Stay (2024), which [...]
I hope this clarifies. IanTEB (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IanTEB:, ive done some more tweaks and changed the semicolon list back to a comma list and moved some of the items to make sure that there is no confusion on the cover for Blow the Whistle like in Chris' original comment. thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias

[edit]

About damn time Flo Milli articles are getting editors' attention. Doechii next, perhaps? :thinking: anyway, @Cowboygilbert, comments below; ref numbers from this version

  • Recommendation: if you can, run IABot on all the archivable links
  • Re. release years, include the ones for "Beef FloMix" and "In the Party", and remove the second mention of the release year for Fine Ho, Stay
  • "Flo Milli released two singles, 'Beef FloMix' and 'In the Party' and both were successful hits" since " 'Beef FloMix' and 'In the Party' " is an appositive, there should be a comma after "Party"
  • "...And both were successful hits. After the success of her first two singles on social media..." this is redundant. Remove the first part
  • "as the lead single for Fine Ho, Stay (2024) which reached number 15 on the Billboard Hot 100" this gives the impression that it was Fine Ho, Stay that charted on the Hot 100; perhaps rewrite as "...Fine Ho, Stay, reaching number 15..."
  • For ref 16, you have not indicated the single whose peak is cited to the first reference
  • For ref 48, you use "Recorded Music NZ" as the source for the first ref but "Official New Zealand Music Chart" for the other. Which is it?
  • Where are the references for the "Guest appearances" section?
  • Name stylizations (jetphynx, $not) should not apply; replace with Jetphynx and Snot instead. If "DUH" in "DUH!" doesn't stand for anything, the same applies.
  • If a single didn't chart anywhere or wasn't certified for anything yet (e.g. "Not Friendly" or "Eat It Up"), the entry should come with a citation
  • Re. the generic "remix" parentheticals/descriptors in entries like "Hot (Remix)" or "Conceited Remix": these should be decapitalized and moved outside the quotation marks. Per MOS:MUSIC#Popular music: "For titles of works and releases, purely descriptive phrases in parentheses or after dashes, such as 'remix', 'acoustic version' and 'remastered', should not be considered part of song titles"
  • Similarly, "extended" should be decapitalized and deitalicized

Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 04:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Cowboygilbert in case they missed this feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PSA:, I will be getting to this tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday whenever I am back online. Too late as of rn. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 07:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:PSA, I have finished the bits about content and formatting. Gonna be getting to the refs soon still. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1990–91 snooker world rankings

[edit]
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Davis's seven-year run at the top of the rankings was ended by Stephen Hendry. As usual, Alex Higgins was in trouble with the snooker authorities: he was docked 25 points which dropped him from 14th to 97th. All improvement suggestions are welcome, and relevant extracts from offline sources can be provided to reviewers. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EnthusiastWorld37

[edit]
  • "but was docked 25 points and banned from competing for ten months, in July 1990" - please state the reason(s) for this

76th Primetime Emmy Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk & RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2024 Primetime Emmys for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 2020, 2021, and 2022 were written and structured. Note: I also listed RunningTiger123 as a co-nominator since he made considerable and significant contributions to this list. Birdienest81talk 17:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The award ceremony" - is this an Americanism? I am British and we would say "awards ceremony" but maybe American usage is different......?
  • "The aforementioned program was " - I think just "It was" would be fine
  • "they along with D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai of the series Reservation Dogs were the first " => "along with D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai of the series Reservation Dogs they were the first "
  • "Nominations and wins by network" - are all these really "networks"? Is Netflix or BBC America a "network"? Maybe "Nominations and wins by broadcaster" would be better.....?
  • "He also called the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" as "tonally questionably" " => "He also called the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" "tonally questionably" " or "He also described the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" as "tonally questionably" " -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All done except the network item – previous years use the term "network" and it's often the term used in other sources (e.g., Variety, Deadline, Television Academy) so consistency might be better here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • The WP:FUR rationale on the first image is fine.
  • Captions are appropriate.
  • Free-use tags are fine. I didn't personally get into Flickr to check the Eugene Levy image, but a reviewer did check it. Otherwise, source links are fine.
  • The images are all suitable.
  • Pass. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

[edit]
Source Formatting
Prose
  • He also called the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" "tonally questionably" ==> He also called the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" "tonally questionable" (the source says tonally questionable)
  • Robert Lloyd wrote in the Los Angeles Times that the telecast was.... ==> Wikilink Los Angeles Times
  • Ben Travers of IndieWire found Eugene and Dan Levy's performances as hosts..... ==> italicise IndieWire
@Sgubaldo: All done except inline LA Times link (it is linked earlier in the prose). RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Jojo Rabbit

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For my seventh accolades FLC, I have the 2019 film Jojo Rabbit by Taika Waititi. As usual, the style is the same as other existing FLs of this kind. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
Added. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 Drive-by 2 comment

[edit]

I'll do a full review later but the infobox has a hide/show option that doesn't seem to be working Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to work in Vector 2010, but probably none of the other skins. See this discussion. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just following up to see if you're still intending to do a full review @OlifanofmrTennant. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Drive by comment by Birdienest81

[edit]

The only comment I have for now is all titles of films and TV shows should be italicized per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. If you have the time could you review 76th Primetime Emmy Awards for featured list promotion?

--Birdienest81talk 07:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got around to this, @Birdienest81. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipalities in Ciudad Real

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)[reply]

This list is one more step in our quest to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made considerable changes based on our last nominations which currently has 3 supports. This one should go smoothly as we are always building on previous suggestions, but we are happy to make any recommended changes. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The Statute of Autonomy of Castilla–La Mancha also contains provisions concerning the relations between the municipalities and the autonomous government of Castilla–La Mancha" - is this meant to be in here, given that we are not talking about that province......?
  • That's it I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude: The province of Ciudad Real is part of the autonomous community of Castilla–La Mancha, so those provisions do apply. The autonomous community is the first-level administrative division and the province is the second-level one. Alavense (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
Hi, MPGuy2824. As stated in previous nominations, it's impossible to archive many of the references, given that they are selections of data from the general set of municipalities. I archived those I could, but the ones which provide population figures cannot be archived, I'm afraid. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of constituencies of the Punjab Legislative Assembly

[edit]
Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My 10th FL nom and the 6th in the constituency series. I've improved the lead and history sections, cleaned up clutter from the table, and brought the table accessibility to FL-standards. Similar, recent FL: Madhya Pradesh -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by Comment

[edit]

List of Pau Grand Prix winners

[edit]
Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
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)[reply]

List of chronic pain syndromes

[edit]
Nominator(s): IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is an important topic and I've put a lot of time into it. I know medical pages can be scary for some but this one is hopefully a bit more straightforward. I have PDFs of all the publications used if needed. I chose to use SFNs to make reviewing easier. I chose not to use tables for this list as it didn't seem appropriate. I tried my hardest to simplify all the medical information but if anything is unclear please let me know. I did struggle a bit with rewording things in a way that wasn't too close to the source but still kept the original meaning so if my wording seems awkward at times please let me know and I will try my hardest to reword things. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense: you haven't completed all the steps to nominate this for FL as laid out in WP:FLC. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it makes sense why I haven't gotten any input then. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser

[edit]

I'm pleased to see this fully IASP/ICD-11-compliant article. I was at a lecture series hosted by the Swedish Pain Society earlier this year, and they seemed quite proud of this new development. I'm no expert on the use of articles in English, so take the following suggestions with a grain of salt:

  • or the anatomical system in which it affects.
done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sentences in a row begin The IASP Task Force could that be tweaked?
I changed the second sentence to start off as This task force, does that look better? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • affecting at least three to four four of five body regions - according to the source.
done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Body quadrants are defined as the upper, lower, left and right sides of the body. - and my preference would be for an overly careful explanation ("upper left, upper right...").
Changes to Body quadrants are defined as the upper left, upper right, lower left, and lower right quadrants of the body, let me know if that looks better. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronic widespread pain cannot be attributed to a nociceptive process in these areas.
done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any non-technical alternative to "distally" in english? Otherwise we could wikilink it.
It could be changed to outwardly but that sounds odd in my opinion. For now I wikilinked it. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronic post traumatic pain is pain that develops are worsens after an injury - needs fixing
changed are to or. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to list all the possible causes of chronic secondary headache or orofacial pain?
The reason I listed all the causes is that I felt that the classification for secondary headache was a little more obscure than say cancer-related pain. If you think it would look better without the causes then I can remove them. FOr now I trimmed it a bit. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm unfamiliar with the FLC-process, could anyone tell me what the standards for a source review is? I might want to attempt one.

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source review for FLC's is pretty similiar to that of FAC but pinging Hey man im josh since he has more experience in the area. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, if someone is familiar with source reviews at FAC you can do the exact same thing here and it'd be an excellent source review. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
[edit]

The sources used are all appropriate and compliant with both WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:MEDRS. Spotchecks show that the phrasing has been altered as much as possible to avoid simply parroting the sources, but for technical definitions you can't change the wording more than this and still comply with WP:V. Overall this looks like a pass, and I have but a few pointers:

  • I wonder if we can add something about the autonomic dysfunction present in CRPS without getting to technical? It tends to be taught as the hallmark of the disease, alongside pain-out-of-proportion.
I did find this [1] article which states "The autonomic nervous system (ANS) is involved" and "inflammatory changes and autonomic dysregulation". I could change Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. to Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. CRPS also involves changes to the autonomic nervous system. as that doesn't seem overly technical and still includes the ANS. Let me know what you think. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that works, but I don't think we need a new source since that much is covered by the one we've got. I'm wondering if we shouldn't call it "dysfunction" and specify that it is also a local one. /DB
The source I originally used [2] states "Complex regional pain syndrome is further characterized by signs indicating autonomic and inflammatory changes in the affected body region that may vary between patients and over time" I'm thinking of changing Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. Complex regional pain syndrome is divided into two types, type 2 requires evidence of peripheral nerve injury, while type 1 does not. to Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. The sites affected by complex regional pain syndrome experience autonomic and inflammatory changes. Complex regional pain syndrome is divided into two types, type 2 requires evidence of peripheral nerve injury, while type 1 does not.. Does that wording sound good? IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that "other" as a category has been omitted from several pain types, and I must admit I'm not sure exactly what to do with that category either. Maybe we can just state that this residual category exists for many pain types (unless that's already stated somewhere and I missed it)?
In my original draft I did include the other categories but decided to omit them as it just felt odd. I could include something along the lines of "each classification of chronic pain includes an "other" category to account for pain syndromes which do not fall into the current diagnostic criteria" to address this. What do you think? IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds lika an excellent solution. /DB
This source [3] states "ICD-11 automatically adds a category “other” at each level to catch any cases that might have been missed" which I think could be worded as "The ICD-11 also has an "other" category, such as "other chronic cancer pain", to include chronic pain that does not fit into other categories but let me know if I should tweak that wording. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think the deal here is that we've got a list of categories, but it hasn't been established in the lede that these categories contain neatly defined sub-categories, "other" being the odd one out in each bundle. Using the "such as" example hints at this, but if we talk about it as one of several sub-categories first and then follow up with the example I think that might be better. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this look better? IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to state that Chronic postsurgical or posttraumatic pain as a whole, not just posttraumatic pain, includes referred pain from deeper structures to corresponding dermatomes.
I agree but I'm not sure how to include this. The source I used [4] states "The pain has to be localised to the surgical field or area of injury, projected to the innervation territory of a nerve situated in this area or referred to a dermatome or Head’s zone (after surgery/injury to deep somatic and visceral tissues)." which I think may be what you are trying to touch on but I'm not sure. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and since this is true for both types of pain we need to state so earlier, i.e. under the "Chronic postsurgical or posttraumatic pain"-heading by expanding the sentence that now says The pain is localized to the site of injury or surgery. /DB
I'm struggling on how to word this without sounding overly technical so let me know if you have any ideas. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best I can do rn is: "..or extends to other areas through damaged nerves or referred pain." Which is a bit of a stretch since the source is not explicit about nerve damage. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I currently have The pain is restricted to the surgical field or injury site, projected to the innervation region of a nearby nerve, or referred to a dermatome. which is more technical than I would like but does clarify this a bit. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably gonna need a few more days to think carefully about possible changes to the current phrasing, but that's a prose issue, which means the source review is a pass. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thank you! IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Toadspike

[edit]
  • Links are not always linked in the right places. The term "autoimmune" is linked twice, in extremely similar contexts, but the two links point to different articles. "Infection" is linked only on its second appearance. "Rheumatological disorders" should link to Rheumatism (I just created a redirect from the former). Pelvic pain is linked at least twice, but Pelvis doesn't seem to be linked at all. There's a gadget somewhere to check for double linking; maybe the nominator would like try it, and also skim the article again to check that all technical terms are appropriately linked.
I fixed the two cases you pointed out but I'll go back and look for more areas where this could be improved. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming the list is meant to be exhaustive, which seems like a challenging task. May I ask, for instance, why cluster headaches are not listed?
That is because Cluster headaches are a type of Trigeminal autonomic cephalgia which is listed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point :) Toadspike [Talk] 22:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar note, I doubt the "Chronic postsurgical pain" section can possibly be complete, since I'm pretty sure any surgery can and will result in postsurgical pain. The bulleted list in this section (and other similar ones) should probably be qualified with "Examples include:" or words to that effect.
I mean if you check out the source I used [5] I did include all of the classifications. Of course, any surgery or trauma can cause chronic pain but the classification system is just meant to give names to the most common types. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wonder if it would be possible to make this more clear. Currently the lead says "The ICD-11 category for chronic pain includes the most common types of chronic pain..." and it is implied that the article reflects the ICD-11 categories. Either this LISTCRIT should be explicitly stated in the prose, or the article should be moved to a title like ICD-11 categories of chronic pain. Toadspike [Talk] 22:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I want this list to be a list of chronic pain syndromes not just the ICD-11 categories. I also combined the IASP classification with the ICD classification for this list so that wouldn't really work as a title. The point isn't to list the ICD11 chronic pain syndromes it's just that there is no other accepted classification (unless you can find one). IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: To clarify the inclusion criteria and why the ICD-11 was chosen as the main source for this list, I suggest changing:

In order to create a classification system for chronic pain, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) collaborated with the World Health Organization (WHO) to form the Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP Task Force was made up of pain experts. This task force developed a new model to classify chronic pain for the ICD-11.

To something clearer and more upfront on the importance of the ICD-11:

The [current/newest] standard model for classifying chronic pain [is/was created for] the ICD-11. The ICD-11 classification was made by the Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain, a group of pain experts formed by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) in collaboration with the World Health Organization.

Feel free to word this better. By the way, since you never use the abbreviation "WHO", you shouldn't mention it. Toadspike [Talk] 14:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "post cancer" should probably be "post-cancer", unless most reliable sources disagree. Similarly, the spacing within terms like "posttraumatic"/"post traumatic" should be consistent. (I think "post-traumatic" is best.)
I chose to go with that spacing and style because that us what the sources and ICD use which is kind of the main source for this kind of thing. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the sources cited for the postcancer and posttraumatic sections, neither uses "post cancer" or "post traumatic" with a space. Regardless, you should be consistent between different instances of the same term ("posttraumatic" and "post traumatic" should not both exist in the same Wikipedia article), and I would prefer if you were consistent between different instances of similar terms ("postcancer" and "post traumatic" should not both exist in the same Wikipedia article). Apologies for the pedantry, this should be an easy fix to make the prose look cleaner. Toadspike [Talk] 22:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The post cancer and post traumatic with the space are from the ICD. I’ll take a further look when i’m on my laptop and make those fixes. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source uses "posttraumatic" and "postcancer" [6] [7] but the icd uses "post traumatic"[8] and "post cancer"[9]. I'm unsure which to use. Do you have a preferance? IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spaced versions ("post traumatic") just seem wrong to me, but try as I might, I cannot find anything in the MOS that says so. I prefer "posttraumatic", but since reliable sources use both, it's up to you. Just be consistent! Toadspike [Talk] 14:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although our article on Psychosomatic medicine is quite underdeveloped, it is likely relevant to this topic. In fact, the image in the lead mentions the related idea of Somatization. I'd appreciate if you could look into that and perhaps add something to the prose – otherwise readers might get the impression that all chronic pain has an obvious, known cause :)
I've thought over my response to this a lot so I hope you can understand what I am trying to say here. The reason I didn't go into depth about this is because I don't really go into depth about the mechanisms of pain other than when it is directly relevant (such as with post cancer pain). The section "Chronic widespread pain" states Chronic widespread pain cannot be attributed to a nociceptive process in these areas. which I believe covers your point about not all chronic pain syndromes having a clear cause. Somatization isn't the main mechanism behind chronic pain (in fact through my research I've kinda learnt that there isn't any one main cause) so going into great detail about somatization in particular may look unbalanced. I hope that makes sense. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked through several sources now, I see several mention that a major flaw of ICD-10 was that "Diagnoses did not reflect the biopsychosocial model of pain" – mentioning this issue in the lead might also be worthwhile and is closely related the above comment.[1][2]
The reason I didn't include this was because I don't want this article to focus too much on the ICD classification (although we may be past that point) however I could add something like "the new classification system tries to approach chronic pain from a biopsychosocial model" (wording would be different) if you think that would be appropriate. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be perfect. Toadspike [Talk] 14:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you could tack it onto the end of: This new classification system emphasized the cause of pain, underlying mechanisms, and body sites. Not sure if this is better though. Toadspike [Talk] 14:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: I've checked for appropriate licensing and alt text on all images. I believe this FLC passes criterion 5 of the WP:FLCR.

I think that is all from me. If the nominator can address the few remaining points above, I'll be happy to support this nomination. Toadspike [Talk] 22:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think I have covered all the different point you brought up! IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of my comments have been adequately addressed. I support this FLC! Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gen Hoshino discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): IanTEB (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Oppenheimer (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk and Sgubaldo (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppenheimer is a 2023 epic biographical thriller drama film written, directed, and produced by Christopher Nolan. Based on the 2005 biography American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, the film stars Cillian Murphy as the eponymous scientist and chronicles his studies, his direction of the Los Alamos Laboratory and his 1954 security hearing. This is my tenth film accolades list to be nominated for featured list status, and I largely based the format off of the accolades lists for The Artist, The Big Short, CODA, Dune, Dunkirk, If Beale Street Could Talk, 1917, The Shape of Water, and Slumdog Millionaire. Note I added Sgubaldo as a co-nominator since he provided significant contributions into improving this list. Birdienest81talk 08:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "who co-produced it with his wife, Emma Thomas, and Charles Roven" - is there any way to reword this to avoid the possible implication that "his wife, Emma Thomas, and Charles Roven" are three people rather than two?
  • "did not get released in Japan until March 29, 2024" - was this related to the fact that the subject matter was considered sensitive in Japan? If so, it might be worth adding that, as otherwise it seems a bit random
  • That's it I think - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just removed 'his wife' since I suppose it's not necessary to specify.
    • I've added an explanation in a note after "December 2023", which hopefully clears it up.
    Thank you for the comments, @ChrisTheDude. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]
  • the film received 13 nominations, surpassing eight nominations ... winning seven - MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
  • received another 13 nominations ... winning eight - Ditto.
  • The film won seven awards from 13 nominations - Ditto.
  • for his direction, screenplay and producing - There should probably be a comma before and, to make the use of the serial comma consistent.

That's what I saw, Birdienest81 and Sgubaldo. Nice work. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, @Alavense. I'll try to take a look at the Toledo nom. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Alavense (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility review

2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup statistics

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not many FLs in cricket statistics pages, trying make this an Exemplary list. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

The text shouldn't begin with This is the list of. I recommend you have a look at other featured lists for similar topics, because they will come in handy when trying to write a good lede for this one. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the lead paragraph now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • I see that this issue has apparently now been resolved, so I will do a full review in due course. One thing that jumps out at me is that there's no context provided for some of the stats or any indication of what they actually mean. For example, there's a table of players with the best strike rate, but no explanation of what strike rate is or even a link to another article that explains it. I personally know the basics of cricket but have no idea what strike rate is and the article doesn't provide me with any way to find that out. I appreciate that within an article we can assume a certain level of basic knowledge of a subject (i.e. I wouldn't expect a football article to need to explain what "scoring a goal" means) but some of the items listed here seem to go way beyond that basic level and we ought to at least afford people the opportunity to find out what these things are if they don't know, without having to resort to Google..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, I'll be honest until a few hours ago even I didn't know how Average/ Strike rate were calculated, I just assumed they were somehow calculated. I've just read the relevant articles and I'll complete adding a one-line description of what they are, Thanks! Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude All done, you can carry on with the review now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Arconning

[edit]
  • File:Hardik Pandya in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
  • File:Shai Hope.jpg - CC BY 3.0
  • File:Fazalhaq Farooqi.jpg - CC BY 3.0
  • File:Arshdeep Singh in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
  • File:Tim Southee 3.jpg - GFDL
  • File:2018.01.21.14.55.22-Roy c Finch b Cummins-0001 (40183230984) (Cummins cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:Prime Minister Of Bharat Shri Narendra Modi with Rishabh Pant.jpg - GODL-India
  • File:Aiden Markram (cropped).jpg - CC0
  • File:Virat Kohli in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
  • File:Prime Minister Of Bharat Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi with Shri Rohit Gurunath Sharma (Cropped).jpg - GODL-India
  • File:Jasprit Bumrah in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
  • Images have suitable captions and licenses
  • Images need alt text^^
    I'll add them tomorrow. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arconning All done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Arconning (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup was the ninth edition of ICC Men's T20 World Cup" => "The 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup was the ninth edition of the ICC Men's T20 World Cup"
  • "Following is a list of major statistics and records from the tournament; most lists contain only the top five tiers for each record." - this is just moving the sentence mentioned above from the start to a later point in the article. In all honesty I don't think it's needed.
  • The lead still feels a bit short. Can you work in some of the "highlights" from the article?
  • "Dates given for single-match records/stats is the date fixture took place" => "Date given for single-match records/stats is the date fixture took place"
  • "the first English player to take hat-trick in T20 World Cup." => "the first English player to take a hat-trick in T20 World Cup."
  • "most wins as Indian Captain in T20Is" - captain is not a proper noun so does not need a capital C
  • "Niko Davin became the first batter to be dismissed retired out in a T20 World Cup match" - link "retired out" if an appropriate target exists
  • "6 June 2024; He was later surpassed by Rohit Sharma." - no reason for capital H in the middle of a sentence
  • "Played in the men's T20 World Cup for the first time with the virtue of being a co-host.." => "Played in the men's T20 World Cup for the first time by virtue of being a co-host." (only needs one full stop at the end, not two)
  • "the 5th highest total in the history of T20 World Cup" => "the 5th highest total in the history of the T20 World Cup"
  • " the 2nd and 3rd lowest totals in the history of T20 World Cup respectively" => " the 2nd and 3rd lowest totals in the history of the T20 World Cup respectively"
  • "the top two lowest match aggregates in the 2024 tournament" => "the two lowest match aggregates in the 2024 tournament" (can't really be "top" of the list given that it was a "negative" record)
  • Most runs - player names should sort based on surname, not nationality
  • Highest scores - player names should sort based on surname, not nationality
  • ....and so on for every other table containing player names
  • "The "batting average" is the total number of runs they have scored" => "The "batting average" is the total number of runs a batter has scored"
  • Pandya image caption needs a full stop and also the word "the" before "highest batting average"
  • "Hardik Pandya of India had highest batting average in the 2024 tournament (48.00 – 144 runs from 6 innings with 3 dismissals)." => "Hardik Pandya of India had the highest batting average in the 2024 tournament (48.00 – 144 runs from 6 innings with 3 dismissals)."
  • Hope image caption needs a full stop
  • "they were both tied at the 5th place" => "they were both tied in 5th place"
  • Farooqi image caption needs a full stop
  • ....and so on for every other image caption
  • "The "bowling average" is the number of runs they have conceded" => "The "bowling average" is the number of runs a bowler conceded"
  • "The "economy rate" is the average number of runs they have conceded per over bowled." => "The "economy rate" is the average number of runs a bowler has conceded per over bowled."
  • "The "Hat-trick" occurs " - no reason for capital H in the middle of a sentence
  • I can't see any value in the "batsmen out" column of the "hat-tricks" table being sortable
  • In the partnerships tables, use "and" not "&" per MOS:AMPERSAND
  • Image caption : "Indian Captain Rohit Sharma was named as the captain for team of the tournament" => "Indian Captain Rohit Sharma was named as the captain of the team of the tournament."
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude I have made all the changes and expanded the lead. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: regarding sorting the players in the table, which of the following would be suitable for listing a player...
    Which of these would be the appropriate way? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would personally go for the second one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude All done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canada, Uganda and United States made their T20 World Cup debut, with US progressing to the Super 8 stage in their first T20 World Cup" - you state that it was the first World Cup for the US twice in the same sentence. Also, it should be the US, not just US
  • "or if no overs remained (or are able) to be bowled" => "or if no overs remained (or were able) to be bowled" (so the tenses agree)
  • "(5/40) indicates that a bowler has captured five wickets while giving away 40 runs" => "(5/40) indicates that a bowler captured five wickets while giving away 40 runs"
  • "Shakib Al Hasan became the first bowler to take 50 wickets in the T20 World Cup history." => "Shakib Al Hasan became the first bowler to take 50 wickets in T20 World Cup history."
  • "became the first English player to take a hat-trick in T20 World Cup" => "became the first English player to take a hat-trick in the T20 World Cup"
  • "India also broke the record of the longest time between successive tournament wins (17 years), breaking the record of 12 years set by England" => "India also broke the record of the longest time between successive tournament wins (17 years), surpassing the 12 years set by England" (would avoid saying "break the record" twice in the same sentence
  • "were the top two lowest match aggregates" => "were the two lowest match aggregates" (can't really be "top" of a list of the lowest figures)
  • "2024 tournament became the 2nd T20 World Cup to have" => "The 2024 tournament became the 2nd T20 World Cup to have"
  • "Hardik Pandya of India had highest batting average " => "Hardik Pandya of India had the highest batting average "
  • In the best economy table there's a random bracket before Lockie Ferguson
  • Is there a reason why, in the player of the match tables, the "player" column is the only one that's not sortable?
  • "Indian Captain Rohit Sharma was named as the captain of the team of the tournament." - "captain" is not a proper noun so does not need a capital C -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude All done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of works on Georges Méliès

[edit]
Nominator(s): Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I prepared to rewrite "Georges Méliès", I became very intimidated by the literature. To get a better grasp on it and kill two birds with one stone, I expanded this bibliography. Much of it is based on his entry in Oxford Bibliographies, but where applicable, I supplemented it with book reviews and an annotated bibliography by Elizabeth Ezra. All suggestions are appreciated, and I hope to address them as soon as possible! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]
  • his name often appears in the titles of books, chapters, or articles, not necessarily - Lose the last comma, the one before "not".
  • the film career of his brother - He's not mentioned before, so maybe the film career of his brother Gaston?
  • Same for his mistress and first wife --> his mistress and first wife, Jehanne d'Alcy. And maybe the link could just blue the name.
    Whoops, "mistress" and "first wife" intended to refer to different people. Now with both names included, this is much clearer. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Alavense (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as a chapter of Film Before Griffith - Could something else be said about Film Before Griffith. It feels a bit disconnected.
  • and U.S. and U.K. - and US and UK, I think, per MOS:US.
  • Maybe use {{ill}} to link Il Castoro?
  • as a chapter of Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative - Maybe it's worth saying the book was edited by Thomas Elsaesser?
  • and a translation of a forum about him hosted by the Commission de recherche historique of the Cinémathèque Française, Tsivian describes - I think a full stop would be better than the comma.
  • finds that he criticized colonialism that results from an obsession with quicker modes of transportation - I think there's something wrong there.
    To be more nuanced, Ezra believes that, in a time when new forms of transportation were prospering, his films satirized the resulting prejudice, colonial expansion, and minset of "conquering the unknown". Most famously, the astronomers in A Trip to the Moon, as taken from its article, are presented as bumbling pedants merciless for Selenites. I tweaked the sentence's wording with all this in mind, but let me know if you still have an issue. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that reads better now. Alavense (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can link Joan M. Minguet.
  • Ditto with Archives françaises du film.
  • and within it, - Lose that comma.

That's what I saw. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: All fixed, with two replies of clarification. Thanks for having a look! I'd be happy to review one of your noms; expect comments within a few days. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits. Support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Partygate

[edit]
Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Timeline of Brexit, which was promoted to FL earlier this year, here's another timeline about recent British history. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from N Oneemuss

[edit]
Lede
[edit]
  • "eighteen days later, the death toll reached 335" – should be "18 days later" per MOS:NUMERAL
  • Prime Minister Boris Johnson is discouraged per MOS:SEAOFBLUE; in the timeline there's the same problem with "Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak", "Education Secretary Gavin Williamson", "Home Secretary Priti Patel", "Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer", "Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab", "leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg"...
  • I would maybe add in the lede that the rule of six introduced by the government was only in England (the other nations did have similar rules)
  • I would spell out the acronym "BYOB" somewhere (either in the lede or the body)
  • I would maybe add Johnson's resignation as Prime Minister and/or as an MP to the lede
  • You could link "civil servant" somewhere?
Lockdown parties
[edit]
  • 7 December 2020: "on Thursday" is a bit unhelpful as the days of the week aren't included in this list; could you give the date?
  • 11 December 2020: Is the price of the wine fridge relevant?
  • 16 December 2020: You spell out what tier 1 and tier 2 restrictions are called ("medium" and "high"), but not tier 3 ("very high")
The story breaks
[edit]
  • Maybe mention some Conservatives publicly calling for Johnson to resign over Partygate? e.g. [3] or [4]
  • 15 June 2023: I think the context that's missing here is that a 90-day suspension would be enough to trigger a recall petition and hence a by-election in Johnson's constituency
  • 19 June 2023: "354 to seven" should be "354 to 7" again per MOS:NUMERAL. I think there might be a couple more examples of this as well.
  • I think you could add the changes of Prime Minister as well? I don't think it would add too much space to say that Johnson was replaced by Truss, and then that Truss was replaced by Sunak (Johnson tried to run for the leadership again, but maybe that's too much detail). Otherwise it's maybe a bit surprising that it says the Conservatives were led at the election by Sunak (in the "Aftermath" section)?
Aftermath
[edit]
  • "the publication of the Gray report" – this is confusing because it's only the initial document that was published at this point, not the full report
  • "70% of respondents regarded Johnson as performing badly as prime minister, compared with 25% who felt that he was doing well"; I think this could do with some context on how he was regarded before the scandal broke (he was already unpopular, but not to this extent)
  • To be honest, I only mentioned that specific poll because Richard Hayton also made reference to it in his article on Johnson for Political Insight. Citing different YouGov polls and then using them to draw a conclusion about how Partygate affected Johnson's popularity feels like it might be skating a little too close to improper synthesis, but I'll see if I can find any third-party sources that come to those conclusions and then cite them. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I've added in a sentence about how Partygate specifically affected his popularity. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link (and maybe spell out) NHS

Nice list! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review, N Oneemuss! I've done most of these, I'll complete the final two soon. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review, N Oneemuss! I think I've covered all your points, but please let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, happy to Support. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 07:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire

[edit]

Not an expert on British politics, but I'll give this a go. Disclaimer: Am an American, so feel free to ignore anything that is justified by AmE / BrE style differences if I accidentally perceive an oddity that's really fine.

Lede:

  • The first COVID-19 death in the UK occurred on 5 March 2020; 18 days later, the death toll reached 335. As a result, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that the UK would go into a full lockdown,

I'm not a fan of "as a result". Presumably some parts of the world went into lockdown without a single death, while other areas never really locked down seriously despite deaths? If we're being pedantic, it would be "As a result of the advice of medical experts consulted by the government" or the like, not necessarily the deaths. Perhaps "In response" instead? Or even just cutting the introductory clause entirely.

Changed to "in response". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • London being placed in the "medium" tier 1 restrictions

This one isn't your fault, but this reads a bit weirdly to people not in the loop since "medium" was actually the mildest tier. I don't have any suggestions here as this seems relevant, but if you know of any friendlier ways to express this that still hit the main points, that'd be neat - but totally optional.

The only thing I can think to do is to remove the "'medium'" part so that it just says "tier 1". But that seems to me like removing useful information for our readers with no clear benefit. If another editor makes the same point, then I'll take it out. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire from the future: One overarching issue with all the historical stuff is making clear that this activity was a problem / scandalous. I guess the implication was that merely by appearing here at all, we're only talking about the "bad" parts, but I think we should be a little more blunt. Holding a party or playing loud music isn't a problem; it's holding a party indoors over size regulations that's a problem, but that's being hidden implicitly. It can weaken the "case" if anything, since someone might reasonably wonder what the big deal was, so I'd suggest making it clearer exactly how these parties were "bad".

Timeline:

  • 15 May: In the garden of Downing Street, an early evening cheese and wine party is held. Johnson and Health Secretary Matt Hancock both attend the gathering, which lasts for forty minutes to an hour.[12]

So what? This sounds like it complies with the rules at the time: the garden was outdoors and we've only listed two people attending. I presume the implication is that more people attended, but we should say so if that's the case. Unfortunately the reference doesn't seem to indicate that.

Clarified how many people attended. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 June: Emails are exchanged between Downing Street officials to prepare "drinks which aren't drinks"

The source doesn't explain either, but WTF was this email talking about? The polite reading would be "beverages which aren't alcoholic beverages" which seems too boring to bring up as a quote (they had mocktails, quelle horreur). So I presume this is really some British slang that I'm not familiar with that means something else that is scandalous, but what, then? Drugs?

They were having drinks, but they knew that doing so was likely against the rules at the time, so they were pretending that they weren't really having drinks, even though that's exactly what was happening. Hence, "drinks which aren't drinks" . A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 June: The event lasts for 20 minutes, and is attended by Case, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, and others.

How many others? Sorry if I'm being repetitive here, but this seems like key information that the sources are inexplicably dropping. We're told that meetings of up to six people are allowed (although given the photo, this clearly wasn't outside, but we can presume that there might be an exception if the PM was on the job), so it's at least possible based on the description this was only a small party that complied with the rules. (I know that counting blurred heads from the lede photo suggests >6, but how much more, then?)

Added how many people attended. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnson's wife Carrie holds a second birthday gathering for her husband in their Downing Street flat that evening, with a number of friends

Same question here - if that number of friends was 4, then this could potentially be permissible. (If it's not known, can we at least assert it was "more than 6" or "in defiance of regulations"?)

Unfortunately, none of the sources I can find can be anymore specific that just saying the party was attended by "several" friends. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14 September: To restrict a potential second wave of COVID-19 in the UK, the government restricts social gatherings again by implementing a new "rule of six" in England – groups of more than six people are banned from meeting in England, either indoors or outdoors.

A little confused here - weren't we still at 6 from the 1 June regulations? Are we missing a bullet point that eased things further after 1 June but before 14 Sept? Also, as a nit, I'd say "hinder a potential second wave" to avoid the close repetition.

From 1 June, people could meet outside (but not inside) in groups of six, but, from 14 September, groups of six couldn't meet either outside or inside. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 December: Johnson's staff smuggle a wine fridge through the back door of Downing Street.

I'm not saying to remove this, but this is weird. Johnson was PM. Couldn't he just ask a wine fridge be installed normally, through the front door? (And isn't it possible he was just using it to get blasted personally, not holding parties with it? I know that later on it says the fridge was indeed used for parties, and we should be chronological as a timeline, but maybe some sort of hint as to the problem here.) I see the source uses the term "smuggle", but also that the Mirror is a Labour tabloid. Do other sources agree that "smuggling" is the term to use here?

I can't really find any other sources that use "smuggle", so I've replaced it with "bring". As you say, the reporting of the fridge is significant later in the timeline, so I do think it's important to mention it chronologically here. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14 December: A Christmas party—formally called a "Jingle and Mingle"...

Same problem here. The police issued fines so clearly this was in violation of the regulations, but we don't actually say the party was in violation of the regs. Should add that it was indoors and had (NUMBER) attendees or the like.

Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15 December: Ellwood attends a Christmas party of 27 people

Does BrE have a way to quickly denote party affiliation? He's only been introduced as an MP from Bournemouth East before - at first I assumed this was a Labour / LibDem / SNP guy and thus was wondering if this was a broader scandal than just the Tories. (In US politics, people are sometimes introduced like "Jim Inhofe (R-OK)" as shorthand.)

Specified that he was a Conservative MP. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15 December: A Christmas quiz is held at Downing Street. Most staff dial-in online from their homes, though some attend in person.

Same issue. I checked the source and I guess that the mere fact it appears there suggests something shady happened, but no numbers. I dunno, maybe I'm off-base here, but there's a huge difference between "4 people attend in person" and "40 people attend in person". The first isn't a scandal, the second is, so we should make clear it's the second case.

Added. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16 December: (...) Johnson announces at a press conference that, from today, the city will move into tier 3 restrictions.

Nit: I would use "immediately" rather than ", from today,", but just a suggestion, up to you if "From today" sounds more natural in BrE.

Changed to "with immediate effect". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16 December: A Christmas gathering is held for staff at the Department for Transport, with food and alcohol being served.[40]

The citation is messed up - both it and the archive go to Covid: London to move into in tier 2 lockdown, a story from November 2021. Can you replace with the proper URL?

Good catch, now fixed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Christmas party is held for Case's staff at the Cabinet Office. Twelve staff attend online, but five join in the office.

Optional: This might be blazingly obvious from context, but precisely because it's so relevant here, maybe "the office, indoors." here? Since five was technically allowed within even the Tier 3 restrictions, it just had to be outdoors in a park or the like.

Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 December: ...and background music played

Was the background music particularly loud? For the "ABBA" party, the music was relevant because it was loud and suggested a big party rather than a small one when the numbers were unknown. But as written, this could be a tasteful recording of a string quartet playing Mozart or something.

Removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 December: A Christmas party—formally named the "End of Year Meeting with Wine & Cheese"

The source notes that the party was "crowded" - I think we should too.

Added. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 April: At Windsor Castle, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and husband of Queen Elizabeth II,

Optional nit from an American: I see that Prince Philip's article is actually at "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", but he's just called "Prince Philip" (especially in the context of 2021). As is, it reads like a parenthetical clause explaining Prince Philip, except his role as "Duke of Edinburgh" was completely irrelevant and ceremonial and distracting here. So I'd personally recommend either just "Prince Philip" or "Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizbeth II, (...)". But up to you.

Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 January: Speaking at PMQs, Johnson admits that he attended the BYOB party on 20 May 2020, and apologises. Starmer calls on him to resign.

Was this a "notable" call for resignation? I may be jaded by post-2017 US politics but the "other" party here tends to throw these kind of requests out rather casually (see https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/republicans-call-biden-resign-ending-2024-campaign-rcna162923 for the opinion of our Speaker of the House, which I'm sure was taken under deep consideration and then circular-filed by Biden - not really an important or serious political thrust). If Starmer saying this was indeed a Big Deal, it's fine, just double-checking.

This was, as far as I'm aware, the first time that Starmer called on Johnson to resign, hence its significance. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14 January: (...) describes its being used by Downing Street staff for gatherings—called "Wine Time Fridays"—every Friday afternoon during the pandemic

Can we add the word "large" or "non-compliant" or the like before gatherings, or some other modifier to make clear that these weren't <6 people matters?

Added in "non-COVID-compliant". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 & Aftermath sections look good to me. Overall, it's an impressive work - the main nits above are to add a few more attendee numbers in when possible on how big these parties were and verifying that they weren't compliant (e.g. indoors), and will be happy to support.

Also, no obligation, but there is another timeline FLC nomination that could use some reviews open at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the Second Temple period/archive1, if interested. SnowFire (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors, just pinging you in case this has been been missed on your watchlist. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your review, SnowFire! I'll try to get round to having a look at your list sometime soon. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies, works for me. Recent edits resolved above concerns. Support. SnowFire (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from Toadspike

[edit]
  • The first bullet point says "the coronavirus". I know this phrase was commonly used at the time, but from a technical perspective it's not ideal, as there are many coronaviruses. Especially for the first mention in the whole list, I suggest saying "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2". Toadspike [Talk] 08:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links and abbreviations: MOS:REPEATLINK says to link "at most once per major section" and notes stand-alone lists as a case where duplicate linking can be especially useful. As a reader, I would appreciate a little more duplicate linking. Several terms are linked in the lead but not in the list itself (e.g. Whitehall, leaving do, FPN) – they could also be linked the first time they're used in the list. Also, I think FPN should be spelled out the first time it is used in the list, as it is so far removed from its first use in the lead that I had no idea what it meant. Toadspike [Talk] 12:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads of government of Liechtenstein

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheBritinator (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating this for FL since it's rejection several months ago. I have taken time to significantly improve it to fit the criteria, mostly taken from experience in my other successful nomination, and I believe it is now ready to reviewed again. TheBritinator (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments
  • All images need alt texts.
  • Please clarify that you've incorporated all the feedback from the last time this was nominated.
  • I would remove the images from the Monarch columns. Its a bit distracting.
  • Scopes need to be on the header cell. e.g. in the deputy heads table, the scope is present on the image cells. It should be on the number cell. Also, if the header cell spans multiple rows, then the scope should be "rowgroup". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I have addressed these comments. TheBritinator (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I've left a notice about this nom at WP:WikiProject Liechtenstein. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that WP is inactive. TheBritinator (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The appointed head of government is typically the leader of the political party with the most seats in the Landtag or a coalition of parties, but is not required to be a member of the Landtag themselves, although they should meet the eligibility requirements for that office." - source for all this?
  • "The title was changed to 'Governor'" - what was it before, then? You don't say......
  • "People are numbered according to periods served by the same person. For example, Carl von In der Maur served as State Administrator twice in two non-consecutive terms, yet is still counted as the second" - this doesn't really make sense as written. Change it to "People are numbered according to periods served by the same person. For example, Carl von In der Maur served as State Administrator twice in two non-consecutive terms, but is counted only once"
  • Any particular reason why the head of government table has the start and dates squished into one column and a duration column but the deputy heads table has the start and end dates in two separate columns and no duration column? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually coincidentally fixed the second one earlier today while working on something else. I will get on the rest tomorrow. TheBritinator (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feger's first row in the deputies table looks odd with the "duration" being half blank - is the 91 days only the time he served under Ospelt? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I merged it because he technically still had the role during his time as acting prime minister. TheBritinator (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

[edit]

Will try to look at it this weekend. Ping if I haven't said anything by Wednesday. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose:

  • Note a ('Defunct from 1936') probably needs a citation. Also, reading the article, it seems like it merged with a separate minor party. Perhaps this could be added to the note?
  • "In 1921, a new constitution was ratified in which the office was replaced by that of Prime Minister" ==> "In 1921, a new constitution was ratified in which the office was replaced by that of the Prime Minister"?
  • "The role originated as Landvogt when Michael Menzinger applied for the creation of the role in 1833, which served as the head of the district office, and was the first office-holder" ==> This is one sentence saying two different things at once; I also am not entirely clear if the role itself is what served as the head of the district office. If so, consider changing to something like: "The position originated as Landvogt in 1833, when Michael Menzinger applied for its creation. The role functioned as the head of the district office, with Menzinger serving as the first office-holder."
  • "... One of the cabinet ministers is appointed to this position by the prince of Liechtenstein upon the proposal of the Landtag of Liechtenstein." ==> Since this is the first time you're mentioning the prince and landtag in the body, you could probably wikilink both again?

Tables:

  • Text and references are centered in the State Administrator table, but not the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister ones.
  • I'm not sure if it's a visual glitch or an issue with the table code, but the Josef Büchel box has some weird doubling of the lines.

Source Formatting:

  • Ref. 1 doesn't comply with MOS:ALLCAPS
  • Add an archive link for Ref. 2 and 3?
  • Minor nitpick but some references have opaque names like :1 or :122, when it would be better to have more descriptive ones.

Sgubaldo (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, removed the excessive capitalization. Will work on archiving later. TheBritinator (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgubaldo All comments have been addressed. However, I am having a bit of difficulty in getting the party colour bar to line up and can't seem to get it to work. Also, internet archive appears to be down again for the time being. TheBritinator (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but do archive the sources when the IA is back online. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike

[edit]
Source review
[edit]

Most of the list is cited to source 5, which is reliable as a publication of the Landesarchiv.

  • Source 5 does not mention some of the early acting governors/PMs or Michael Menzinger, doesn't list election dates, and doesn't have specific term start and end dates, only years. I will check the other sources for those later.
  • It does list Prinz Karl as being "provisorisch" (temporary, acting) from 1918 to 1920 – any reason he isn't listed as such in the table?
  • It lists acting PMs Feger and Gubelmann as being from the VP and FBP respectively – they are marked as "Independent" in the table.
  • Otherwise, all PMs' start and end dates are verified.
  • Source 5 lists Alfons Feger as being deputy PM three times and lists his total time in this post as 1922-1928. The table says that the post was vacant under Gubelmann in 1922 – this should say that Feger held the post during that time period. Also, his party is listed as VP in the source, but the table says that he's independent.
  • The red bar showing that the deputy MP was from the VP has a small gap between Nigg and Büchel. Probably some table syntax issue. I think it stems from trying to overlap PM Frick's last few months in office with the new deputy.
  • The remaining Deputy PMs also check out.

Source 1 is really interesting. It is, however, some kind of opinion containing proposed changes to the constitution of Liechtenstein, not actually the constitution itself. I appreciate the commentary where relevant (see below), but I am wondering if there's a better (unaltered, unannotated) version of the constitution you could cite for the uncontroversial stuff, like the first sentence.

  • I noticed that the sentence Under this constitution, the eligibility for becoming head of government was changed to require residency in Liechtenstein. is inaccurate, since it implies that rule existed in 1921 when the constitution was ratified. The source says that the 1921 constitution required holders of several high offices to be "natives" of Liechtenstein (I'm pretty sure this means "born in Liechtenstein", like the "natural-born" requirement for the US presidency), and that in/after 1992 the Government held that the rule is unenforceable or similar.
  • This source calls the "cabinet" the "Government". I prefer the term government – any reason why "cabinet" was chosen instead? (This is probably a COMMONNAME issue and I haven't looked into all the sources yet.)
  • Otherwise the source backs up everything it's cited for.

The third sentence of the lead is uncited. I assume you have a cite floating around for that somewhere? Sources 2 and 3 do not back up the start of the second paragraph, which says "The position originated as Landvogt in 1833, when Michael Menzinger applied for its creation. The role functioned as the head of the district office, with Menzinger serving as the first office-holder." It seems the sources may have been misread. Source 3 explains that the position of Landvogt existed from the 16th century until 1848, when it became the "Regierungsamt". Source 2 explains that Menzinger was the Landvogt from 1833 until his firing due to a financial scandal (sound familiar?) in 1861. The long sentence

Während die fürstlich-liechtensteinischen Beamten in Liechtenstein in der Regel ein Exil sahen, das sie möglichst bald verlassen wollten, hatte Menzinger, der vorher nicht in liechtensteinischen Diensten gestanden hatte, im März 1833 bei Fürst Johann I. um das Amt des liechtensteinischen Landvogts angesucht.

translates as:

While most officials of the princely domains of Liechtenstein saw Liechtenstein [the region that forms the modern country] as an exile [a backwater posting that no-one wanted] which they sought to leave as quickly as possible, Menzinger, who had never served under the Princes of Liechtenstein, applied for the position of Landvogt with Prince Johann I in March 1833.

Basically, Menzinger was remarkable in that he actively sought out the role. However, he did not create the role – it had existed since the 16th century. His role in Liechteinstein history does seem very important, though, so I will not dispute his inclusion in the list itself. The first half of the next sentence is easily verified by source 3. The second half is not entirely verifiable in the sources cited – probably finding the text of the 1862 constitution would be ideal.

Toadspike [Talk] 12:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the party alignment of Feger and Gubelmann. Working to address the rest. TheBritinator (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike For the Menzinger part, how would you recommend rewording it? TheBritinator (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to write something by Monday – currently extremely busy. Toadspike [Talk] 21:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll take a crack at it in the meantime. TheBritinator (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBritinator I've reorganized/rewritten that paragraph to fit exactly what the sources say. I hope my directly editing the article isn't some major impropriety in the FLC process. Toadspike [Talk] 20:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my source review. A few notes:

  1. The third paragraph of the lead is verified by the sources cited, except that claim that There are currently five living former prime ministers. I'm assuming this was synthesized from other sources, which I am personally okay with and will not dispute, but if a source could be found that says this explicitly that'd be great. (Also, source 6 says "Government", not "cabinet", getting back to that commonname point I made above).
  2. It looks like the birth/death dates and specific dates when each leader took/left office are based on this source [10], currently relegated to the External links section. I think this website would not generally be considered a reliable source (if I am mistaken, please let me know). I know it's a ton of work, but I strongly advise TheBritinator to go through the articles for each person at the Historisches Lexikon and properly cite these dates to that reliable source. For more recent politicians, newspaper articles might have to be found. Toadspike [Talk] 22:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, there used to be a direct list on the Liechtenstein government website that had the direct dates of each head of government, but for whatever reason it was taken down and I was not able to find any archive. It was quite similar to the PDF I replaced it with but that just has the years instead. I may be wrong but I do believe that is what the source was before I picked up on it over a year ago.
What I'll do is cite the individual lekiton articles with the dates for each person, though this may take a little bit of time. I'll get on it either today or tomorrow. TheBritinator (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike It is done now. The dates for the latter PMs were harder to verify as the lekiton annoyingly didn't state them like the rest. TheBritinator (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing this, I'm checking the new citations. Comments thus far:
  1. The link to Source 22 is live, so "URL status" in the citation should be set to "live". Currently the first link in the citation goes to the Internet Archive; you can't see the full article from there.
  2. The worldstatesman.org source I previously objected to is still cited a few times. I understand that it's hard to find citations for some specific dates, but in the meantime I have learned that that website is deprecated at RSP, so I strongly encourage you to replace all citations to it.
I noticed that the Lexikon cites some sources in the "Nachrufe" section at the bottom of each article. For instance, you can find the date when Batliner became head of state here. You could also search that website, eliechtensteinensia.li, to find sources.
Best, Toadspike [Talk] 22:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll get on that. TheBritinator (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Kherson Oblast

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 20:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since my other Crimea list FLN has gotten supports and FLNs generally take time, going ahead and nominating this one now to get it started. This list's content is already somewhat prepared, with a lot of it being indirectly reviewed in the past successful FLNs for list of cities in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast as well as the ongoing FLNs for Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Crimea. Together with Mykolaiv Oblast, Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts are the only oblasts with less than 10 cities so these lists will likely be somewhat shorter than the rest. That said, considering List of cities in New Brunswick was recently able to pass FLN even with only its eight cities, I'm fairly confident that this (and eventually the Mykolaiv list) will be able to be promoted too. Thanks in advance to everyone for all the feedback and excited to continue the series! :) Dan the Animator 20:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]
  • Settlements with more than 10,000 people are eligible for city status although the status is typically also granted to settlements of historical or regional importance - Probably a comma missing before "although".
  • the regional capital Kherson, --> the regional capital, Kherson,
  • from its previous name Tsiurupynsk for Tsiurupynsk's connection - I would leave it like this: "from its previous name, Tsiurupynsk, for its connection"
  • including the capital Kherson, --> "including the capital, Kherson,"
  • As of 22 December 2022 - It feels as a bit of a distant date already.
  • Links to Ukrainian Wikipedia articles --> "Links to the Ukrainian Wikipedia articles"

That's what I saw, Dantheanimator. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alavense! I think I fixed all of them. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Dan the Animator 18:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits and nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I've left a notice about this nom at WP:WikiProject Ukraine. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CMD

[edit]

For the director/delegates, I reviewed the Donetsk and Luhansk noms so I don't know how much novel thought I'm bringing here, but anyway.

  • Is "typically" in "typically granted" the right word? What Ukrainian word is being translated for that?
  • The phrasing's mine based on the information from the sources, not that it's worded that way in any of the Ukrainian refs (the All About Accounting ref (#4) lists the considerations that are used for granting city status under "Стаття 2. Утворення (ліквідація) населених [...] категорії" while the Ukraina Moloda specifies the general 10,000 population benchmark that allows for automatic city status). It was supposed to emphasize that the status is flexible and has been given to a lot of places that aren't necessarily all the same. After giving it more thought tho, I just removed the word "typically" since it doesn't really add much and it looks like it would probably need an additional source imo. Just in case, let me know if you think it should be re-added.
That said, I'm also starting to wonder now, do you think the sentence should be reworded to include more of the considerations listed on ref #4? There's a lot of considerations and when wording the sentence, I tried to make it so it would get the general idea across but I could reword it to say Settlements with more than 10,000 people are eligible for city status, although the status is also granted based on a number of other considerations. and add in an efn note listing all the considerations from ref #4. Another option too is to leave the wording as-is and add an efn note saying something along the lines Since the enactment of new administrative laws in 2020, the factors considered by the Verkhovna Rada are.... Personally think its fine as-is but interested to know your thoughts.
The issue with relying too much on Article 2 of the source is that it seems generically associated with all settlement types. Article 10 (and 12 I guess) do not mention them. Transitional note 4 is perhaps more key as it grandfathers in city statues. I think keeping it at a brief mention as currently done works well, absent a secondary source doing analysis on the law. CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "official census", is there a need to specify "official"? It begs the question of an unofficial census.
  • Yes, the wording is necessary and very intentional. The 2022 estimates are often times referred to as Ukraine's "unofficial census" and I think there have been some privately led attempts at collecting census information across Ukraine since 2001. The 2001 census is also the only traditional census by the government that's been held across the entirety of independent Ukraine so it's important to emphasize the importance of the census and why its numbers are used in the lead instead of the more recent 2022 estimates.
  • Not sure the "As of 11 July 2023" note is needed, but won't oppose due to it.
  • Thought it'd be a good idea to have in case there's another government-held census in Ukraine sooner than later.
  • "...for its connection...", subject of "its" is unclear. Maybe "...due to the previous name's connection...".
  • I think saying "the previous name" twice makes the sentence sound a bit too repetitive (Oleshky, was renamed in 2016 from its previous name, Tsiurupynsk, due to the previous name's connection with). Maybe there's another way to phrase it with less repetition? I'm okay also with making the change but I think it'd be preferable to not have it that repetitive.
  • What about adjusting the start of the sentence to explain "decommunization" there, eg. "Following the passing of decommunization laws aimed at removing names with connections to people, places, events, and organizations associated with the Soviet Union, one city within the oblast, Tsiurupynsk, was renamed Oleshky in 2016." CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would suggest starting a new paragraph at "From independence in 1991...", seems a separate topic.
  • I tested it out but I think it makes the lead appear too long for its amount of text. As it reads right now, the whole 2nd paragraph is about the Russian invasion and its effects while the first paragraph is the general information so I think the organization is alright imo.
  • Speaking of which, "From independence in 1991..." does not seem correct, some or all of the cities (at least Kakhovka) may have had that status prior to 1991 as there was administrative continuity through the breakup of the Soviet Union. "Prior to 2020..." may handle the relevant information for this article's purposes.
  • Used "Prior to.." wording. Thanks! :)
  • Is the Kakhovka Dam sentence relevant here?
  • I think so since the flooding had a heavy impact on the cities but I'm also open to taking it out if there's a compelling case for it.
  • Given the events of 2022, it is probably worth specifying the table population estimates are from January (ie, pre-invasion) 2022.
  • Added in an efn note but would appreciate some help in rewording/phrasing it right (its footnote e).
  • Is there a general statement that can be added to the lead regarding why the populations just dropped across the board from 2001 to 2022?
  • Working on it... The population drops are for the same reasons of demographic decline in the rest of Ukraine before the war and other Eastern European countries (mostly economic stagnation, lack of jobs/opportunities, and political disfunction). Will add another reply when ready with the edits.

Impressive that the estimate for Oleshky was one off the 2001 census. CMD (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, quiet the coincidence, although who wouldn't want to live next to one of Ukraine's few deserts? ;) Dan the Animator 04:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we lack articles on two of them, although Kuialnyk Estuary is in the category at uk.wiki for some reason. CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the estuary has almost entirely dried up and has essentially turned into a salt field (1, 2), which could be classified as a type of a desert. Though there are works on saving the estuary, for example in 2022 the area became a national park. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 05:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • Sources are mainly high quality government sources that support the text - except for that citation needed tag in the footnote.
  • Consistent formatting: dates are good, websites all have access dates and such. Source #7 has instructions for access which I enjoy. Wikilinks where applicable.
  • There was an out-of-order citation which I fixed.

@Dantheanimator: Just add a citation for the Kinburn Peninsula thing and we should be good. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dantheanimator, just following up regarding this review. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Christian IX of Denmark

[edit]
Nominator(s): AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional background context for those unfamiliar with subject matter

Imagine traveling back 200 years in time. If you had done so to tell a young northern German prince that he would become the father-in-law of Europe, he probably would have said you were being nonsensical. After all, this German prince, whose parents were only distantly related to European royalty, came from a simple background.

However, life had its surprises for this German prince. An extremely polemic debate arose over who would eventually rule his homeland and nearby Denmark. This German prince happened to have a wife with close family connections to Danish royalty. Consequently, with the support of multiple European nations, this prince was chosen to be the next king of Denmark. And when the time came in 1863, he and his wife became King Christian IX and Queen Louise.

Nevertheless, it was not enough for Christian and his eldest son to secure their place on the Danish throne (especially in the eyes of Louise). First, Christian’s eldest daughter married the most eligible bachelor in all of Britain. Second, Greece needed a new king because they had shown the door to their last one. As a result, the Greeks victoriously voted to install Christian’s second son on their throne. Third, Christian’s second daughter married the most eligible bachelor in all of Russia. Fourth, Christian’s youngest daughter married the throneless heir of the German Kingdom of Hanover. Their shared bond was that both of their families had lost territory at the hands of an even stronger German kingdom. And finally, Christian’s youngest son spent his life sailing the seas with a French princess by his side.

More than a century after Christian’s death, the story continues. Like an exponential function in mathematics, his grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and further progeny have increased the number of his descendants more quickly with each passing generation. These descendants have wed into royalty all around Europe. Because of this, six of the ten current heirs to European thrones can claim Christian IX as their ancestor! Can you guess which ones?

This list on Christian IX’s descendants helps to tell the story of a Danish king, his queen, his children, his grandchildren, and his great-grandchildren. I will note that this list was vetted both at Articles for creation and at Did you know.

This nomination is significant for various reasons. Personally, this is my first attempt to create a featured list on Wikipedia, and its success would demonstrate that I am capable of producing exemplary content. Second, I note that at the time of this nomination, only 10 royalty-related lists, and none on descendants of individuals, are of featured status. I hope that this article can serve as a model to all Wikipedia editors of what a great royal and genealogical list can look like. Finally, and above all, I hope to show a general audience that there is far more to (European) royalty than just the House of Windsor! Everyone is welcome to give feedback to make these goals a reality!

Thank you, AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka

[edit]

Reading through the list and its sources, I am not convinced that it is fully in line with Wikipedia:Notability, and I think its subject is not verified by a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, its DYK was held for a very long time, and I wasn't entirely sure it passed WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. — 48JCL 12:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very similar concerns were raised at the Did you know nomination. I responded to this inquiry by noting that Aronson 2000 and Lerche and Mandal 2003 established notability. The objector then conceded the point (in my eyes). Both of the aforementioned sources (albeit the 2020 version of Aronson's text) are also listed in the "Further reading" section of this article.
That being said, I will not object if the consensus of this discussion is to merge or delete this stand-alone list. If so, I ask that the tables be merged into the "Issue" (or corresponding) sections of the articles on Christian IX and his children. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your for the links. I am not sure that works written by Theo Aronson are reliable sources. Miranda Carter did not write of Christian's descendants, but of three cousins who ruled three great powers during WWI. Lerche and Mandal do not seem to be historians. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting to ensure collapse template works properly) So that my thought process in writing the article is clear both to you and to everyone else commenting, I will qualify the notability of the subject matter further:

Detailed explanation of (potential) reliability of Further reading texts
  1. According to Theo Aronson's obituary in The Independent, he authored many texts on European royalty, including Napoleon and Queen Victoria. (As an aside, Aronson's obituary was written by Hugo Vickers, who was educated as a King's Scholar at Eton College and has himself written royal biographies, including one on Princess Alice of Battenberg and another on Prince Edward, Duke of Kent) Moreover, Aronson's obituary notes that his specific work on Christian IX's descendants that I cited has been described by Steven Runciman as "readable, judicious and well-informed". Even if Aronson's reliability is borderline, Runciman's opinion carries weight in the former's favor: the latter was educated at Eton College (like Vickers), a history scholar at Trinity College, Cambridge, and above all, extensively wrote on the history of the Crusades, which Cambridge University Press considers "one of the great classics of English historical writing".
  2. It appears that Anna Lerche (now Anna von Lowzow) is a film director (link in Danish), and Marcus Mandal is a movie director as well. However, their work on Christian IX's descendants that I cited has been made into a documentary that was shown by the Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR), as noted in this DR press release (link in Danish, you will need a DR subscription to view the English translation). Mandal's online information also notes that said documentary was shown in over 150 countries. Moreover, while I am unsure if this affects reliability, Lerche and Mandal's work is also publicly available online (link in Danish) via the Nota bibliotek, a library run by the Danish Ministry of Culture to make texts available to people with disabilities.
  3. Finally, I cited Beéche and Hall 2014 in the "Further reading" section. As Beéche's biography notes, he has a degree in history from San Diego State University (SDSU), and his honors thesis was chosen as the best history thesis written at SDSU in 1992. Moreover, Beéche has founded Eurohistory, which has, among other topics, published books on the dynastic connections of the Russian imperial family, the Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg, and a memoir written by Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha himself. With respect to Hall, according to her publisher Amberley Publishing, she is a historian that has written on Russian and British royalty and contributes to Majesty Magazine. Furthermore, Hall's publisher has sponsored the (United Kingdom's) National History Book Competition.

Although I personally believe these backgrounds on the authors sufficiently qualify the topic for a Wikipedia article, I will leave it to this page's consensus to see if this is truly the case. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With these sources, surely these should replace the "Royal Family Tree" sources (which appear to be SPS) could be replaced, right? I am still not going to warrant an oppose, but I would suggest withdrawal, there is a lot of work that could be done. 48JCL public (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all of the self-published sources in the article that I could find, and I have replaced the citations with references to more reliable sources. If I missed a source and/or I should still use the Further reading texts more exhaustively in the article, please let me know. Also, with respect to WP:NOTDATABASE, the only criterion I could realistically see being used against this nomination is #3, as creative works, song lyrics, and software updates are not listed in this article. To make all of the lifespan information encyclopedically relevant, I have written prose that accompanies each table elaborating on the family life of Christian/Louise and the families of their children. Please let me know if that prose should be more comprehensive. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I have not been convinced about the notability of this list. I think the core information of this list could be summarised in one or two sentences in the article about Christian IX. I oppose its nomination. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback, Borsoka. If I may ask, which part of WP:GNG do you believe the list does not meet? AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage. Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, aside from the sources already present, I have been unable to find a reliable text that covers Christian IX's descendants to the extent this list does. As I have said before, I will not object to merging the content into Christian and Louise's articles if the nomination fails. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL

[edit]
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |[[Name]] becomes !scope=row |[[Name]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions.

I don't think a list should have "This article describes the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of Christian and Louise." at the end of the list

@48JCL: Could you please suggest how this sentence should be replaced? Per WP:SALLEAD, the inclusion criteria of a stand-alone list should make a direct statement about the inclusion criteria. This is the purpose of the text you quoted. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten that sentence to attempt to make the inclusion criteria as explicit as possible without actively self-referencing the article. Please let me know if I should further modify the text. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issue with sources

I am noticing Blogspot and Wordpress being cited. What makes them reliable? More to come. 48JCL 12:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the Blogspot and WordPress sources. That being said, my rationale for including them was that the specific authors appeared to have professional credentials in their field. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that does not exactly make it reliable, still being a SPS. I'm still not sure whether or not this article should be supported, but thanks for addressing my concerns. 48JCL 17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dylan620

[edit]

Hi Andrew – I've just started working on a review that will focus primarily on prose and images, and should be done by the end of the day Monday at the latest. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick update: while I have been making quite a bit of progress with this review, I've unfortunately been slowed down by real-life stuff, so I'm running a bit behind schedule. I get out of work fairly early tomorrow, so knock on wood, I should be able to finish in the next 24 hours or so. I do have a few preliminary comments:
Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, I thought I was nearly finished, and then I realized I would have to look through a 119-page PDF to verify sourcing for one of the images, which is missing its page number on the Commons upload page. I recall seeing at least a couple other similar cases elsewhere in the listicle. Unfortunately, that means this review is going to take quite a bit longer than I had anticipated. I'm going to try to complete it within the next five to seven days – please accept my apologies. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work so far in reviewing the images, Dylan. Please let me know when you have completed your review. In the meantime, I have made the following changes:
  • I have replaced the portrait of Dagmar with an image of the coat of arms of Denmark at the time she died (to be consistent with the entries on other royals with no available portrait).
  • I have replaced the portrait of Louise with the one used in her article's lede infobox.
  • I have removed the portrait of George I's family altogether. In any case, his youngest son, Christopher, was not yet born when the image was taken.
  • I have likewise replaced the portrait of Gustav with an image of the coat of arms of Denmark at the time he died. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Andrew – I've finally finished the review, and I'm sorry it took so long. This was probably the most challenging image review I've done since I started tackling them earlier this year, since I'm not super familiar with European public domain laws and needed to give myself something of a crash course. The majority of images check out for licensing and sourcing. I took it upon myself to add missing US public domain tags on Commons in cases where I felt comfortable doing so (see my edits there). A few images are sourced to offline refs, which I'm choosing to accept in good faith. However, there are some issues:
  • I am pleased that every image has alt text. However, in the slot where Gustav's portrait was replaced with the coat of arms of Denmark, the old alt text describing Gustav is still being used.
    • On that note, is a "portrait of a coat of arms" really a portrait? This is super nitpicky, but the portrait article states that a portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face is always predominant. Every coat of arms usage here has alt text that describes the coat as a portrait.
  • File:Christian IX of Denmark and family 1862.jpg – uploader partially blocked on ENWP from article and draft spaces. (Coincidentally, this is the same user who uploaded the now-removed photo of George I's family.) This image seems to be an alternate version of File:Christian IX Denmark and family 1862.jpg, which, per that file's description page, was apparently part of a legal dispute between the NPG and the WMF. Maybe I'm worrying too much, but I would be wary of including either image here.
  • File:Family Photo.jpg – The source URL is dead. There is an archived link available, but it's not loading the images on my end.
  • File:Alexander russia.jpg – The source URL is dead.
  • File:Ernstaugusthannover.jpg – Uploader indefinitely site-blocked from ENWP for copyright violations. (This is the same user who uploaded the now-removed photo of Gustav.)
  • File:Xenia, russian grand duchess.jpg – The source URL does not contain this image.
The prose is good overall, but I do have a few queries/suggested adjustments:
  • Moreover, he nearly abdicated... – I don't think the "moreover" is needed here; indeed, this could probably be merged with the previous sentence by using a semicolon.
  • Moreover, through her charity work... – I don't think the "moreover" is needed here.
  • Is there anything about Valdemar that could be added to the second paragraph of §Children?
  • They then married in October 1866 – "Then" feels extraneous here.
  • Moreover, both Nicholas and Michael, along with Nicholas's five children, were killed during the Russian Revolution. – I think this would read more smoothly as "Nicholas, Michael, and the former's five children were killed during the Russian Revolution."
Quite impressive work overall, Andrew. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 03:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620: Thank you very much for your extensive review. Here is how I have addressed your feedback. Please let me know if anything else should be done.
For the images:
  • I have changed the alt text for Gustav's image to better describe the coat of arms. Moreover, I have rewritten the alt text descriptors for all of the coat of arms images to avoid mention of portraits.
  • I have removed the family portrait for Christian IX, given the concerns you have described.
  • I have likewise removed the family portrait for Frederick VIII.
  • I have replaced the image of Alexander with one of the pertinent Russian coat of arms, given the lack of other appropriate free-use images that I could locate.
  • I have likewise replaced the image of Ernest Augustus with one of the pertinent Hanoverian coat of arms.
  • I have likewise replaced the image of Xenia with one of the pertinent Russian coat of arms.
For the prose:
  • I have removed "Moreover" from that sentence on Christian IX's background.
  • I have likewise removed "Moreover" from that sentence on Louise's background.
  • I have added some information on Valdemar in the second paragraph of the Children section, namely on how family ties influenced him to reject the Bulgarian throne.
  • I have removed "then" from that sentence on Dagmar and Alexander III's marriage.
  • I have rewritten that sentence on the deaths of Nicholas II, his children, and Michael as you have suggested.
AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me now, Andrew, and I'm happy to support on prose and images. For what it's worth, I believe this would be the first geneology FL if promoted. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]
  • I aim to do a full review, but looking at the lead initially, the sentence "The families of Christian and Louise, their children, and their grandchildren are described below." should be removed. The fact that the article is going to cover this is completely obvious from the title, so you don't need to state it in the prose. That will leave a lead of just three sentences, which is far too short for a FL. While the lead should provide a summary of the article, it should be more detailed than just three sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your initial comments, ChrisTheDude. I have removed the last sentence of the lede per your feedback. As for that section's length, I will be sure to rewrite the prose to provide a more comprehensive summary. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open well past the time it would normally be closed, so in order to push it past the finish line, pinging everyone involved who has not formally closed their review: @Borsoka, 48JCL, and ChrisTheDude:. Please support/oppose/recuse as appropriate. --PresN 14:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: - I was still waiting for the nominator to expand the woefully short lead before I started looking at anything else, but after more than two weeks that hasn't been done. If the nominator doesn't have any interest in doing that then I will have to oppose..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndrewPeterT: Hey Andy, just wanted to give you a quick heads up/reminder about this. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: and @ChrisTheDude:: I am expanding the lede at this moment. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: and @ChrisTheDude:: Apologies for the delay in response; I have been busy off-wiki. I have expanded the article lede to four paragraphs. Would you please be able to let me know if the section should still be longer? AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good - I will aim to do a full review tomorrow -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

[edit]
@ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for your feedback. I have resolved your concerns to the best of my ability. Assuming you have no further qualms, I look forward to your support. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And here it is :-) support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not doing a full source review, but as a note: all of the ALLCAPS in the references should be fixed, e.g. "DEATH OF THE KING OF DENMARK. - A PEACEFUL END" -> "Death of the King of Denmark. - A Peaceful End". --PresN 15:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, PresN. I have rewritten all of the reference titles in title case accordingly. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for removal

[edit]

Bleach season 1

[edit]
Notified: Erachima, Sephiroth BCR, WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Television

Following the recent FLRC for 30 Rock season 1 and a discussion regarding expectations for TV season articles, this list appears to fall clearly short of current-day FL standards. High-quality season articles (whether FLs or GAs) are generally expected to cover production, reception, etc. in addition to providing plot summaries. Sourcing is also poor, relying heavily on primary sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note: seasons 2–10 of the show are also FLs and I plan to nominate those for FLRC later for similar reasons, but it's only fair that each FLRC get due consideration, so barring any notes to the contrary (and to avoid flooding FLRC), I plan to nominate them one at a time. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't even close to being complete. At best this is a C level article. Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original editor left Wikipedia years ago Tintor2 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know that both the nominator of this season's list and the nominator for most later seasons left, so please let other people know about this FLRC if they are in a better position to help or provide feedback. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Introduction to the ICD-11 chronic pain classification" (PDF).
  2. ^ Barke, Antonia; Korwisi, Beatrice; Rief, Winfried (2022-12-15). "Chronic Pain in the ICD-11: New Diagnoses That Clinical Psychologists Should Know About". Clinical Psychology in Europe. 4: 1–20. doi:10.32872/cpe.9933. ISSN 2625-3410. PMC 9881113. PMID 36760323.
  3. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-59969690
  4. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/26/boris-johnson-partygate-tory-call-to-quit-sue-gray-report
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1255187718"