Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log
Featured list tools: |
This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, with the most recent at the top. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log.
Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2025. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2025.
Full current month log
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC) [3].
- Nominator(s): Cremastra talk 00:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is an informative and comprehensive list, on a well-researched subject (British fauna tend to be relatively well-studied), about an interesting and very diverse clade. Cremastra talk 00:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Generalissima
- You can drop the first sentence of the lead paragraph - it seems like awkward way to fit in a bold title drop, which isn't necessary and bucks MOS. If you need those citations for the table, use them to cite the "There are fifty-nine native species of longhorn beetle in Great Britain, in five subfamilies." line.
- And once you take out that sentence, i'd actually move the sentence that starts with There are fifty-nine native species of longhorn beetle to the beginning, as it introduces the topic of the article well before getting into context on the beetles.
- Done
- And once you take out that sentence, i'd actually move the sentence that starts with There are fifty-nine native species of longhorn beetle to the beginning, as it introduces the topic of the article well before getting into context on the beetles.
- Any information on how this diversity compares to other beetle genera in Britain?
- I don't think the name "longhorn beetle (Cerambycidae)" in the title is necessary, but it would be fine in the lede sentence. "Longhorn beetle" doesn't seem ambiguous, so I think you can safely rename it to "List of longhorn beetle species recorded in Britain" per Wikipedia:CONCISE
- Done
- Indented common names look a bit strange to me, especially as it often makes the names span two lines when it wouldn't otherwise. Is this a style convention for these sorts of lists? I'm not super familiar.
Removed I don't believe it is standard. I did it because I think it reads more clearly and looks nicer, but I'm happy to remove it.
- I don't think the periods are necessary in the Distribution fields, as these are not full sentences.
- Done
- West-central Asia is a bit ambiguous to me - is it the western portion of Central Asia, or West Asia and Central Asia, or a region encompassing parts of both?
- Done
- "Throughout Europe; Turkey also" is a bit awkwardly phrased - I'd do "Europe and Asia Minor"
- Done
- Some species are listed as "throughout" Europe/Eurasia, while others simply say they're in Europe or Eurasia. As you'd be listing a smaller region if it wasn't throughout the region, I think you can drop that adjective.
- Done except for the ones where "throughout" is a clear improvement
- Is there really a meaningful difference between a distribution across Eurasia and a distribution across the Palearctic realm? I mean, unless the former is including the Indomalayan realm, in which case you should just say that; but I'm thinking that the biogeographical realms are a bit too technical, and you should just say Eurasia.
- There is a difference, beacuse the Palearctic includes North Africa. For example, the musk beetle is "widespread from North Africa to Japan", which is the Palearctic realm precisely, but calling that a distribution across Eurasia would not be truthful. I'd have to say "Eurasia, excluding southeast Asia, and North Africa," which is a bit longer. The biogeographical realms are useful descriptors of the range because they usually align pretty well with the range – because they're biology focused and pay attention to habitat and climate, not human boundaries.
- Mainly southern and western Europe Southern and Western should be capitalized here, as they're part of proper nouns
- Caucasia is inconsistently linked
- Russia's Far East - Russian Far East is a bit clearer.
- Done
- Link Kent
- Done
- You're inconsistent in linking the cardinal direction based regions of England - I'd leave out links for these, but your choice, just be consistent.
- At first reading this comment I thought I should link all of them, but I've changed my mind. Unlinked.
- "South east England" -> "South East England"
- Done
- I think the ones that start with "Rare:" or "Scarce:" can have that incorporated into the sentence more clearly, in line with the ones that say "Common" (eg, "Scarce and patchily distributed south of the Midlands", "Rare, patchily distributed across England"
- Done
- Some of these certainly seem like they'd be rare if they're only found in one location (like Judolia sexmaculata); are they just common within this area? Is there just no data?
- I'm distinguishing between species which are explicitly labelled "rare" in Britain and those which merely have limited observations.
- I'd incorporate commonality into each of the British island distribution descriptions unless there literally isn't any source that says it (to avoid ones that aren't just "Southern England" and nothing else)
- "Mostly found in southern England" and where else?
- Fixed
- If you're linking Southern England, you should certainly link the Midlands
- Images need alt-text.
That's all from me, Cremastra! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, Generalissima. Cremastra talk 14:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Generalissima What is generally expected for alt-text in this context? Just something along the lines of "a red and black beetle"? Cremastra talk 21:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Although actually I'd argue that the images are primarily decorative rather than informative. Cremastra talk 21:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Cremastra: I don't think that's true, they're quite informative for identifying the animal. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, that should be fine. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Generalissima have all your concerns been addressed? Cremastra (u — c) 00:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Although actually I'd argue that the images are primarily decorative rather than informative. Cremastra talk 21:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Generalissima What is generally expected for alt-text in this context? Just something along the lines of "a red and black beetle"? Cremastra talk 21:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, Generalissima. Cremastra talk 14:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding
!scope=col
to each header cell, e.g.!Speciesbecomes!scope=col | Species. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use!scope=colgroup
instead. - Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding
!scope=row
to each primary cell, e.g.|''[[Anaglyptus mysticus]]''...becomes!scope=row | ''[[Anaglyptus mysticus]]''.... 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.
--MikeVitale 20:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- @MikeVitale All done. Cremastra talk 21:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nicely done. Support. --MikeVitale 00:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments
- "There are fifty-nine native species known from Britain" - you already said that three sentences earlier, no need to say it again
- "but a handful of species now believed to be" => "but a handful of species are now believed to be"
- Any entry in "distribution" and "Distribution in Britain" which is not a sentence (which is basically all of them) should not have a full stop
- That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks; I've done the first two and am working on the third. Cremastra talk 14:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude All done. Cremastra talk 21:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @ChrisTheDude to see if all concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude All done. Cremastra talk 21:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks; I've done the first two and am working on the third. Cremastra talk 14:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Further comment
- "A few species known from accidental introductions, and a handful are now believed to be extirpated from the island" - this doesn't seem to make grammatical sense. Is there a verb missing from the first part of the sentence....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Even more comments
- "are among the most diverse and important beetle families. Around 35,000 species are known.[5] A few species are known from accidental introductions,[6] and a handful are now believed to be extirpated from the island." - this is slightly confusing because (presumably) the first part refers to worldwide coverage but the second part (presumably) refers only to GB but doesn't explicitly say so.....
- "Rare species found in only in the Scottish Highlands" - there's a spare "in" in there
- "also found southern England" - conversely there's an "in" missing there -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Following up to make sure @Cremastra has seen these comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I've finished making these changes. Cremastra talk 20:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Following up to make sure @Cremastra has seen these comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
IntentionallyDense
- remove www from website parameters in the citations
- Around 35,000 species are known.[5] A few species known from accidental introductions,[6] and a handful are now believed to be extirpated from the island. hmm I think this could use some work prose wise, maybe something like Around 35,000 species are known; a few species known from accidental introductions, and a handful are now believed to be extirpated from the island. additionally, I'm not sure what you mean by accidental introductions, maybe a change of wording would help clarify?
- excepting some remote did you mean "except in"?
- No, both are fine. Cremastra talk 20:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- There are fifty-nine native species of longhorn beetle in Great Britain, in five subfamilies. may sound better as "classified into five subfamiliaes", also does this need a source?
- Your capitalization of terms such as "south-west" and other geographical titles is inconsistent.
That's all for now. Ping when done. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Cremastra to check whether all feedback has bene addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- In this section, yes. I'm still working on the alt-text. Cremastra talk 19:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Checking with @IntentionallyDense to see if all the concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Cremastra Have you had time to add alt text? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 14:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Almost done. Sorry, I've been busy in real life lately and haven't had time for many long editing sessions. Cremastra (u — c) 22:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support on prose. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Almost done. Sorry, I've been busy in real life lately and haven't had time for many long editing sessions. Cremastra (u — c) 22:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Cremastra Have you had time to add alt text? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 14:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Checking with @IntentionallyDense to see if all the concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- In this section, yes. I'm still working on the alt-text. Cremastra talk 19:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Reconrabbit
- Image review
- As Generalissima stated above, images need alt text.
- File:Clytus arietis (Linnaeus, 1758).png, File:Plagionotus arcuatus MDj3.jpg, File:Acanthocinus aedilis-s.jpg, File:Pogonocherus fasciculatus up.jpg, File:Pogonocherus hispidulus (Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783).png, File:Saperda carcharias 01 (MK).jpg, File:Tetrops starkii Chevrolat, 1859.png, File:Grammoptera abdominalis (Stephens, 1831).png, File:Tetropium castaneum (Linnaeus, 1758).png - CC-BY-SA 4.0.
- File:Poecilium alni above.jpg, File:Saperda scalaris up.jpg, File:Pseudovadonia livida up.JPG, File:Agapanthia cardui side.JPG - GNU 1.2 and other CC options.
- File:Pyrrhidium-sanguineum-12-fws.jpg, File:Agapanthia-villosoviridescens-09-fws.jpg, File:Alosterna-tabacicolor-17-fws.jpg, File:Dinoptera-collaris-13-fws.jpg, File:Leptura-quadrifasciata-06-fws.jpg, File:Phymatodes-testaceus-05-fws.jpg, File:Rhagium-bifasciatum-05-fws.jpg, File:Rhagium-inquisitor-04-fws.jpg, File:Rhagium-mordax-10-fws.jpg, File:Rutpela-maculata-08-fws.jpg, File:Stenocorus-meridianus-01-fws.jpg, File:Stenurella-nigra-06-fws.jpg, File:Prionus-coriarius-08-fws.jpg - CC0 as published by Francisco Welter-Schultes (User:Kryp).
- File:Burnt-tip grammoptera, Fairview Lane, Tunbridge Wells imported from iNaturalist photo 39401234.jpg, File:Rust Pine Borer, 93437 Furth im Wald, Deutschland imported from iNaturalist photo 300747615.jpg - iNaturalist imports, CC-BY 4.0.
- All other images have been imported from Flickr, are sourced, and are CC-BY-SA or CC-BY 2.0.
- Alt-text missing is the only problem I find here. -- Reconrabbit 17:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Following up with @Cremastra to see if all aspects have been addressed. Please ping Reconrabbit when you reply if so. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Generalissima, IntentionallyDense, and Reconrabbit: I have finished adding alt-text to all images. Cremastra (u — c) 16:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- I give it a pass on image review and support as I see nothing else missing or needing correction that hasn't already been brought up/fixed. -- Reconrabbit 13:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Promoting. --PresN 16:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC) [5].
- Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Since U.S. Figure Skating Championships was just promoted to Featured List, I am now nominating this one as well. The results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, a history is provided, I believe the sources are properly formatted, and relevant photographs are used to reflect both the present day and historical contexts. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments
- As this is a British topic then British English should be used per MOS:TIES. Therefore "organized" should be "organised", "focused" should be "focussed", "recognized" should be "recognised", "medalists" should be "medallists"
- "a separate competition for women was established in 1927" - wasn't Madge Sayers a woman? Was the competition mixed prior to this?
- Yes, as I wrote at the beginning of the paragraph, women were not barred from competing even though figure skating was (at the time) dominated by men. So, yes, several women did compete prior to the establishment of a separate women's event. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify, I was referring to the lead...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, okay, I'm sorry. I see now that I used that same sentence twice. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Can you add to the lead as well as the body that the competition was originally mixed? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify, I was referring to the lead...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- There is stuff in the lead (e.g. the fact that they are held in Sheffield) which is not in the body
Done Re-located elsewhere. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any way to merge the last three micro-paragraphs in the History section either with each other or into other paragraphs?
- The flag icons in the tables violate MOS:FLAG as they are not accompanied by any other way of identifying the countries. In particular it's essentially impossible at that size to distinguish between the flags of Australia and New Zealand
- Done I believe my solution should solve this problem. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Some of the events are listed as being held in Golders Green, Streatham, Westminster, etc, all of which are districts of London, but others just show "London" generically. Is it not known exactly where they were held?
- Okay, I am not familiar with which of those locations might be London districts (well, I did recognize Wembley). I went by what the sources stated, and some of them did not identify a location other than the ice rink. If I find out where in London an ice rink is located, does that qualify as original research? Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude, all should be addressed except for the last point where I raised a question. Let me know when you have a chance, and thank you for your feedback! Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude, I see from your profile that you are in the U.K., which is very cool. Let me know whether you think that if I investigate where the ice rinks as sourced are located in London, if that would qualify as original research. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- If the sources just specify London, then it's fine as it is -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude, please let me know if you have any other concerns or suggestions! Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'll take another look later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - apologies for forgetting to check back until now
-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much; I appreciate your time and constructive feedback! Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments from TheDoctorWho
Leaving a placeholder comment here. My schedule is a bit hectic through Monday so ping me if I haven't returned within a week. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- "
The results of the competition are among the criteria used to determine the British entries to the World Figure Skating Championships, the World Junior Figure Skating Championships, the European Figure Skating Championships, and the Winter Olympics.
" - none of this is actually mentioned in the article, which is a MOS:LEAD violation
- As usual, "Swedish Challenge Cup" should probably redirect to that section, or the text shouldn't be in bold
- I honestly thought I'd already created a redirect. Done Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- I honestly thought I'd already created a redirect.
- "
Although figure skating at this time was dominated by men, and women also competed in the championships, a separate category for women was established in 1927.
" - this reads a little odd, perhaps swapping the first two bits around, something like: "Although women competed in the competition, figure skating was dominated by men at the time so a separate category for women was established in 1927."
- "
The British Championships were open to skaters from members of the British Commonwealth; skaters from Australia, Canada, and South Africa occasionally competed.
" - are these the only other countries that skaters are allowed to compete from? Are others allowed but no one ever has? Might be good to expand on this briefly into general competition eligibility in terms of nationality.
- As I understand it, anyone from a Commonwealth nation could compete, but those three are really the only ones that had notable skating programs. Also New Zealand. As for whether other skaters competed, I'm not really sure, since the results never really expounded on anyone other than the top 3 in any given competition. If skaters from, say, New Zealand also competed, but placed lower than third, it wouldn't have been publicized. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- "
Since 2010, the British Championships have been held at IceSheffield in Sheffield.
" - perhaps a brief mention of places other competitions have been held? Looking at the table I know it would quickly turn INDISCRIMINATE to list every location, but places like London for example is a prime example where it's actually been held more times than Sheffield.
- I only mentioned Sheffield because it has become the de facto permanent home of the championships. If, at some point in the future, the location changes, I'd just remove this. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- On second thought, I just removed it altogether. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Other than that everything looks good! Tables have captions, images have alt text. Nice work! 
TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- TheDoctorWho, Thank you for your feedback! Let me know if you have any other comments or suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- I totally didn't misread the part about the British Commonwealth when I reviewed this, that statement should be fine as is. Everything else was addressed, so I'm happy to support! TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
OlifanofmrTennant
- "They have been interrupted only three times since their inception." when where those times?
- Those are cited in the history section. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Paragraph two in the lead is one big sentence. Could it be broken up?
- I just joined it to the following paragraph. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note the former name in the lead
- I don't think the "(with x)" need to be in parentheses.
- I really think they need to be somehow offset. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- "The British Championships were open to skaters from members of the British Commonwealth; skaters from Australia, Canada, and South Africa occasionally competed." I don't think the second half is needed as the first half states that commonwealth members can partake
- I wanted to specify those countries because they show up on the tables. Therefore, a reader isn't wondering why someone from Canada medaled at the British Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Occasionally the completion wont happen but a city is still listed, for example 1949 says "No men's competitors" yet lists London.
- There was a competition in London, but there was no men's event. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- The records section is unsourced, yet the information is sourced in the lead. Could these citations be move out of the lead and into the records section per WP:LEADCITE
- Done That's interesting. No one has ever brought that up before on previous articles, but I did move them down to the table. I think it looks better that way, too. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- "Separate English style championships continued in Great Britain, but they were not recognised as the official British Championships." citation needed
- Removed altogether. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 17:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- OlifanofmrTennant, thank you for your feedback! Please let me know if you have any other concerns or suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Source review
- Not all references have archive links. (Examples include, but are not limited to, sources #2, 6, 76, and 151.)
- Those appear to be newspapers.com articles, which for a while were not archivable. I think that problem has been fixed, so I can address those when I get home this afternoon.
- All sources should now be archived.
- All newspapers.com links should probably have some kind of
|url-accessparameter included, as they appear to require at least registration, if not payment after 7 days of usage.
- As I understand it, once the newspapers.com article has been clipped, it is visible to any and all regardless of registration.
- Got it RE: clippings from newspapers.com
Spot-checking sources:
- Source 2 says that the name change from "Swedish Challenge Cup" took place in 1906, but the list article text says that happened in 1904. Though the newspaper article is blurry, you can confirm that it at least did NOT happen in 1904, since the newspaper article goes on to state "In that year it was on by Mr. H. Torromé" -- he won in 1905 and 1906 according to the list article, but not in 1904.
- Done That must have been an error on my part, so I fixed it.
- Source 14 checks out.
- Source 33 checks out.
- Source 51: missing page number (page 26). Otherwise checks out.
- Done It was also missing the volume and issue numbers. All added.
- Source 63 checks out.
- Source 77 checks out.
- Source 81 checks out.
- Source 94: Does not appear to check out at all. Absolutely nothing in the source appears to match up with where it's used in the article -- not even plus-or-minus one year.
- Are you sure you're not looking at the lists labeled primary? That's the level below junior and is usually for children. You want to examine the junior and senior lists.
- You're correct. I was looking at primary and thinking that they were the "main" contestants, and not scrolling down in the source far enough. It checks out.
- Source 108 checks out.
- Sources 130 and 131 check out.
- Source 145 checks out.
- Source 155 checks out.
Overall, an amazing number of sources. Though, for an article that covers 120+ years of competition, and multiple events within that competition, it's understandable. Please fix the above. I'm concerned about Source 94 -- and how many others like that might be lurking. --MikeVitale 03:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the source review! I appreciate your time. I will examine the sources you've identified as missing archives when I get home, as the school's network has blocked the internet archive website (for whatever reason). Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- User:MikeVitale, all of your comments should now be addressed and all sources should be archived. Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Happy to support after follow-up. --MikeVitale 03:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Promoting. --PresN 17:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC) [11].
- Nominator(s): History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is similar to my other promoted lists. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Toadspike
- This list looks great, but I am a bit concerned about the format. Vector 2022 already narrowed the area for tables, and a list like this would theoretically get a new column every year. Depending on the reader's device, the list is either already too wide or will become too wide in few years. Is there any more sustainable way to present this information?
- I think the lead sentence could be more concise. I suggest: "49 restaurants in Taiwan have a Michelin-star rating in the 2024 Michelin Guide." If you insist on using 'as of', there is apparently a template for that.
- I'm seeing a lot more in the way of concision and smoother wording that can be improved:
- "eateries they recommended to visit" is ungrammatical.
- "to subtly sponsor their tires, by encouraging drivers to use their cars more and therefore need to replace the tires as they wore out" – this information can probably be conveyed in fewer words. The whole sentence might be a run-on.
- " Over time, the stars that were given out became more valuable" --> "Over time, Michelin stars have become more valuable." ("that were given out" is redundant – we don't care about stars that were not given out.)
- I suggest starting the second paragraph with a lead sentence or half-sentence to summarize it, like adding "Before a star is awarded," before "multiple".
- Five criteria: The CNN article says one is "harmony of flavor", while the Escoffier page says the fifth is "value for money". Ideally a long quote like this would be cited straight from Michelin rather than from secondary sources of decent but not outstanding reliability – their website [12] lists "harmony of flavor", not "value for money".
- The rest of this paragraph is a little vague.
- It isn't explained after "create a list of popular restaurants" what is done with this list. Is it a list of candidate restaurants?
- "If they reach a consensus" – based on the Michelin link above, I believe you mean "if the several Michelin inspectors who have eaten at the restaurant reach a consensus" (or words to that effect).
- "based on its evaluation methodology" is redundant and can be removed
- "The stars are not permanent and restaurants are constantly re-evaluated" – From what I understand, the stars are awarded for one specific year and re-evaluated every year.
- The last paragraph looks good.
- @Toadspike:, for your first point, the standard is to make a new table for every decade. Everything else is done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes sense, thank you for clarifying. The rest looks good now! Toadspike [Talk] 15:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Orangesclub
- The Chinese text should be formatted along the lines of Template:Lang-zh, labels can be switched off so it still reads as it looks now, see MOS:OTHERLANG
- There are a few restaurants wikilinked that just redirect back to this list, will they have their own articles soon or can they be removed?
- A lot of MOS:ALLCAPS in the references, specifically with titles regarding Michelin
- Also looking like most references do not have archives, would be valuable for lists like this that are largely based off single yearly references
orangesclub 🍊 22:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Orangesclub, done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nicely done, happy to support :) orangesclub 🍊 23:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments from TheDoctorWho
- The link to Red Guide can be removed as a MOS:DUPLINK
- I'd also explain what a Red Guide is, is this just another name for Michelin Guide? It's not clear in the current context. Perhaps "
The Michelin (or Red) Guides have been published
" - Can you fix the link to this article in {{Taiwanese cuisine}} to avoid potential WP:SELFREDIRECTS
- Dates in citations have inconsistent date formats
- Link Michelin Guide in Ref 1
- Add language tags to Refs 11 and 12
- Italicize Michelin Guide Taipei in the external link
I think that's all I have! TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @TheDoctorWho, done all, except template as I don't know how. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- I fixed the template; happy to support, nice work. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- List seems generally consistent with other Michelin-related FLs. Support as long as all concerns by other editors are addressed. Pleased to see Michelin lists being promoted, keep up the great work! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Source and other review from MikeVitale
- In the third paragraph of the lede, there are links to Michelin-starred restaurants in "Hong Kong and Macau", "Singapore", and "Seoul" which are redirects. The difference is "Michelin starred" vs. "Michelin-starred." Please fix.
- The "Michelin Guide 2019 Taipei Selection" link at https://guide.michelin.com/tw/en/taipei/news-and-views/michelin-guide-taipei-2019-selection/news is a permanent redirect to https://guide.michelin.com/tw/en/taipei/news-and-views/michelin-guide-taipei-2019-selection in the original link.
- Other spot-checked sources all pass review.
--MikeVitale 04:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Done, @MikeVitale. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- The "Seoul" link in the third paragraph of the lede is still a redirect.
- Additionally, the "Michelin Guide 2019 Taipei Selection" link that I mentioned above has not been fixed or edited. --MikeVitale 03:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I thought the last one was just a statement. I didn’t realize I needed to do anything. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Links 10, 11, and 12 (all in Chinese) don't have archive links yet. Please add archives. --MikeVitale 17:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- @MikeVitale, Done all. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Nice work. Happy to support this list. --MikeVitale 18:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- @MikeVitale,
- Links 10, 11, and 12 (all in Chinese) don't have archive links yet. Please add archives. --MikeVitale 17:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I thought the last one was just a statement. I didn’t realize I needed to do anything. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support from HAL
- Is there really no suitable image? Maybe a district within Taipei that has a high density of Michelin-starred restaurants?
Regardless of whether you decide to add one, this article is very well done. I could not find any issues. Support. ~ HAL333 18:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- There is an image discussion on talk page, History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC) [15].
- Nominator(s): VirreFriberg (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because... the article recently received a rewrite and the Small Faces deserve more widespread attention. VirreFriberg (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
History6042
- All tables need captions.
- Most of the notes don't need periods.
- I would prefer more images but if that is not possible that is okay.
- Citations 18 and 22 have a harv error, according to a script I have installed.
- Notes that are the same can be combined.
- "Authors John Hellier and Paolo Hewitt lists the release as a compilation album." -> "Authors John Hellier and Paolo Hewitt list the release as a compilation album."
- Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- @VirreFriberg, will you fix this please or have you given up on the nomination. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- @History6042 my fault, I entirely forgot about having nominated this article. I apologize. I've fixed the issues you've outlined. VirreFriberg (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- @History6042 my fault, I entirely forgot about having nominated this article. I apologize. I've fixed the issues you've outlined. VirreFriberg (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- @VirreFriberg, will you fix this please or have you given up on the nomination. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments
- "became the eleventh best selling recording artist" => "became the eleventh best-selling recording artist"
- "and has thus have been referred to" => "and have thus been referred to"
- "The Small Faces achieved success" - earlier you referred to them as just "Small Faces", without the article. I personally think the "the" should be there throughout.
- "The Small Faces debut album and eight first singles" => "The Small Faces' debut album and first eight singles"
- "the Small Faces relationship with Arden" => "the Small Face's relationship with Arden"
- "told the band members parents" => "told the band members' parents"
- "signed the band to his label in February 1967" => "signed the band in February 1967" (the subject is the label, so "his" doesn't work)
- "The Small Faces music has been " => "The Small Faces' music has been "
- "which contained both material the band had released on Decca and Immediate" => "which contained material the band had released on both Decca and Immediate"
- "notable exceptions to this rule is the 2003 compilation album" => "a notable exception to this rule is the 2003 compilation album"
- "Ultimate Collection, released on Sanctuary Records which" => "Ultimate Collection, released on Sanctuary Records, which"
- "Archival release, recorded live in Mouscron, Belgium on 9 January 1966." - not a sentence so should not have a full stop
- All three notes under compilations should not have full stops
- Notes E and F under singles are identical so can be merged
- Notes G, K and L under singles should not have full stops
- The quote in note J under singles is missing its closing quote mark
- I would put the footnotes above the references and in their own section
- I haven't done a source review, but refs 18 and 22 are giving me Harv errors as you have the author names the wrong way round in the {{sfn}} template in the first instance and the publication year missing in the second
- That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude! I've fixed the outlined issues! Sorry for the late response, I forgot I had nominated the article... VirreFriberg (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Source Review
- Ref 10 uses slash dates and not DMY like the rest of the page
- A few MOS:DASH issues
- Why is there two groups of footnotes?
- Inst AllMusic user generated and therefore relaibel?
- "Their first single on their new label will be released on June 2" should be "2 June" as the page is DMY
- Spot checks turned up nothing
- Linking is consistent
- That's what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 20:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @VirreFriberg for follow up. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @OlifanofmrTennant! I've revided the article per these suggestions. I have a few points to make:
- - Changed ref 10
- - Which part of the article fails MOS:DASH?
- - Footnotes merged into one category
- - Per the AllMusic source, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources states that the reviews/biographies are reliable. Summaries are not, though I don't know what the "summary" is in an AllMusic article since it's not explicitly stated
- - "Their first single on their new label will be released on June 2" is a quote directly taken from an article in the source magazine. According to the MOS: Dates and numbers, you're not supposed to change the format of a direct quotation.
- Otherwise, thank you for taking your time in reading the article. VirreFriberg (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve taken care of the dash issues. Support Olliefant (she/her) 14:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Hey man im josh
- Compilation albums table is missing a screen reader only title
- I fixed a scope that was listed as rowgroup instead of row
- Accessibility is good, minus the missing title
- References are consistently formatted and linked where appropriate
- Images has appropriate alt text
Other than that, the references appear consistently formatted and accessibility is good. Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @VirreFriberg for follow up. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh; Added the screen-reader title for the compilation album section! Thanks for the ping! 22:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC) VirreFriberg (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Image review – The lead photo has valid free licensing and an appropriate caption, and alt text was covered in the review directly above this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC) [16].
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
In something of a quirk, the list for 1989 got promoted before the list for 1988, which was nominated earlier, but the 1988 list seems well on the way too, so here is the next list in the sequence, as we move into the 1990s. In this particular year, a young lady called Mariah made her first appearance in the top spot. She went on to do quite well for herself...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Support from Easternsahara
- No issue in terms of spelling mistakes, grammar conventions, etc.
- Prose is professional and engaging.
- Lead identifies the criteria, of being listed by Billboard on their Hot Adult Contemporary list.
- All statements are sourced with proper inline citations
- Meets standalone list criteria with sufficient length and no content forks
- Structured and formatted well
- Article is stable, no edit wars have taken place, the prose and the list have not been changed in some time, recent edits seem to only fix references.
- No redlinks
- Source review coming soon.
Easternsahara (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Easternsahara: - can I check if you are supporting the nom? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sure am. Easternsahara (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Image and accessibility review by Relayed (Passed)
- All images: 1) are licensed appropriately; 2) are relevant to the list; 3) are captioned appropriately; and, 4) have alternative captions (i.e., alt text).
- File:TheRighteousBrothersperformingKBF.jpg – "no known copyright restriction", licensed appropriately; relevant; captioned appropriately; has alt text
- File:BetteMidler90cropped.jpg – CC BY 2.0, reviewed, licensed appropriately; relevant; captioned appropriately; has alt text
- File:Ron Isley.jpg – CC BY-SA 2.0, reviewed, licensed appropriately; relevant; captioned appropriately; has alt text
- File:Taylor Dayne Performing.JPG – AGF that copyright owner uploaded the image under PD, licensed appropriately; relevant; captioned appropriately; has alt text
- The table is accessible upon inspection; it sorts appropriately and meets MOS:DTAB.
In good faith, this list passes my image and accessibility review. – Relayed (t • c) 18:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for
I got nothing, great stuff Chris! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Medxvo
- "a recording career which would ultimately make her" // "the original rendition which gained sufficient airplay" - I think "that" would work better grammatically instead of "which"
- "In October the Righteous Brothers" - a comma is probably missing after "October"
- "January 6, 1990 showed" - a comma after the year?
- "Billboard have" - "Billboard has"?
I think that's all, everything else looks great to me! Medxvo (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Medxvo: - many thanks for your review, I have addressed those points. As ever I got confused by comma usage around dates in US English -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Happy to support :) Medxvo (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Sebbirrrr
- The only thing that stood out to me is that the sentence "The year's final number one was also taken from a film soundtrack." ends abruptly. I think that it would be better to put in a semicolon instead of a period or, alternatively, to mention in the same sentence that said film is Days of Thunder. No other issues with the rest of the list! Sebbirrrr (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Sebbirrrr: - semi colon added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Sebbirrrr (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Sebbirrrr: - semi colon added
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC) [17].
- Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
If any of you knew me personally, you'd all say that this was inevitable for me and you all knew it was coming. Since you don't, you'll have to take my word for it. History in general, but more specifically ghost towns, have always been a huge interest of mine ever since I (accidentally) visited my first one in 2020. Long story short, this hyperfixation quickly turned into a special interest, that somehow turned into my university senior capstone/portfolio project‽‽‽
I realized how poor of a shape this list was in and practically rewrote/revamped the entire thing to improve everything from sources to accessibility and illustration. Since I was doing this anyways, I went ahead and wrote it up to the FL standards and decided to go ahead and nominate it. Since I believe this will be the FL of its kind I didn't really have anything to model it off of. That said, I modeled it off the closest lists I could find, lists of municipalities (namely List of municipalities in Washington). I hope you guys enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. :)
If anyone is curious on what my capstone project actually was... I should mention that all five ghost town images are ones that I photographed in 2023. Four of them are actually 35mm film photographs that I hand-developed and then digitized myself (yes, someone is still shooting film in 2025), while the remaining one is a digital image. These images aren't technically included my portfolio because I wasn't quite ready to release them into the public domain yet, but essentially think of them as the b-list images. TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Comments
- Lead image caption is not a sentence so it should not have a full stop
- "Oklahoma has an" => "The US state of Oklahoma has an" (can't assume that users in far-flung corners of the world know that Oklahoma is a US state)
- "and after being bypassed by highways and interstates" => "or after being bypassed by highways and interstates"
- "such as being part of the Tar Creek Superfund Site for existing in an unusual location" => "such as being part of the Tar Creek Superfund Site, for existing in an unusual location"
- "such as ruins or foundations and have been reverted for agricultural use" => "such as ruins or foundations, and have been reverted to agricultural use"
- "they weren't actually cops to begin with" => "they were not actually police officers to begin with"
- That's what I got. A very interesting topic. We don't have anything like this in the UK...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks for the review! Although I haven't been to any outside of Oklahoma, they're all over the country here. This page lists a few over in the UK, but not sure how their appearance compares to those here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support - now that you mention it, that whole "several villages were evacuated to be used as training grounds for the British Army and U.S. forces. This was intended to be a temporary arrangement, but many of the villages remained abandoned, and are used for military training to this day" thing certainly rings a bell..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
OlifanofmrTennant
- Lead should explain what Oklahoma is (similar to how the Washington municipalities does it)
- "Whitefield is said to have begun declining during the Great Depression." who said it? Needs a citation
- Why does footnote I say by 1975, should the table list 1975 as the dissolved date
- Most footnotes need citations
- Ref 4 is misspelled as "ghsot"
- Under "Martha" Jackson county is listed in lowercase
- That's what I found ping me when done Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 17:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- @OlifanofmrTennant: Thank you so much for the review! I expanded the location of Oklahoma in the lead slightly, and then added two sentences to the history section about its location. Regarding the "By 1975" footnote, the book has a photo with the caption "
Mouser, 1975. Abandoned elevator adjacent to the abandoned rail line.
" It doesn't list any actual dates of abandonment nor the year of closure for the businesses. No school or post office existed there. All I know is that it was abandoned by 1975, not necessarily that it was in that year. Everything else has been addressed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @OlifanofmrTennant: Thank you so much for the review! I expanded the location of Oklahoma in the lead slightly, and then added two sentences to the history section about its location. Regarding the "By 1975" footnote, the book has a photo with the caption "
Comments from Bgsu98
- "The towns initially began for a number of reasons, including prior to statehood, and often as liquor towns, boomtowns, and mining towns." This sentence reads awkwardly to me, but I'm not sure I can put my finger on why. Maybe something like "These towns began for a number of reasons, often as liquor towns, boomtowns, or mining towns, and many pre-dating statehood." Also, "initially began" sounds redundant.
- Perhaps wikilink "statehood" with History of Oklahoma#Early statehood.
- "These places vary in their state of current existence..." – I would recommend "These places vary in their current states..."
- "A small number have also gained notability for other reasons such as being part of the Tar Creek Superfund Site for existing in an unusual location, or for crimes." Some commas are needed in there.
- "Prior to statehood these were..." Again, a comma is needed. "Prior to statehood, these were..."
- "after the discovery of natural resources such as oil or petroleum jelly." Comma after "resources".
- "Morris for example, classified them..." Comma after "Morris".
- "...and go completely unused" Personally, I would say "...and are completely unused".
- "Schmidt meanwhile, had a lower threshold..." Comma after "Schmidt".
- "a methodology to describe the locations then-status." Apostrophe after "locations" and pluralize "status" (the locations' then-statuses).
- "Oklahoma's ghost towns are in various states of existence." You might cite some examples here that demonstrate these different states of existence. For example, something like "Emptytown has no physical remains left and has been reverted to agricultural use." Just a thought.
- "because they weren't actually cops to begin with." "Cops" isn't an encyclopedic term.
- Photographs under "List of ghost towns" seem to be properly formatted.
- Table appears to be properly formatted.
A very interesting article! I hope my comments are useful. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to review this! I believe I've addressed most everything, I did shift the statehood link slightly further town to "after Oklahoma was admitted to the union" since that's when statehood began. Apologies for using the term "cops", I'm aware it's essentially a slang term for encyclopedias, I believe I was writing that sentence at 4 a.m. and meant to come back and change it later. 😅 TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- It looks good… I’m happy to support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
- I like the multiple-images template at the start containing maps a lot, but I'm not sure if the alt text is ideal -- I'm not sure how it would be read by a screen reader, but I imagine if it ended up as "Map of ghost towns in Northwest Oklahoma", "Map of ghost towns in Northeast Oklahoma", etc. seven times, that would be somewhat grating for someone viewing this with a screen reader. I'm not sure how this can be fixed, but I wanted to point it out. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think (not having used a screen reader) it might be better if there was a way to have screen readers skip the images entirely; I don't know if there's a way to make it just skip the first 7 and read the caption of the last. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- There's the option of just setting the alt text to "refer to caption" (acceptable per the guidelines laid out at MOS:ALTTEXT). Do you think that would work better? TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think (not having used a screen reader) it might be better if there was a way to have screen readers skip the images entirely; I don't know if there's a way to make it just skip the first 7 and read the caption of the last. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Delegate comment
I was looking to see if I could close this, but I think there's a pretty glaring issue that stopped me: the very first sentence says that there are 2000 ghost towns, but the list only has 164, and there is nothing in the text to explain the discrepancy. Obviously you're using a different inclusion criteria than Ruth 1983 did, but the list needs to be explicit about why there's not 2000 towns listed here, whatever that reason is. --PresN 21:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- @PresN: Does the footnote that I just added to the table caption suffice? I could also add it in prose above the table or images if that's a better location.
- As far as I'm aware, no complete listing of the full 2,000 exists and even if did it would easily be INDESCRIMINATE. I did enact a stricter inclusion criteria than what I first discovered this list in, which I noted in detail on the talk page.
- Morris 1978 also estimates there to be around 2,000, but the book only discusses ~150. He states that he excluded "some" for lack of information and/or because the period they existed was so short. Schmidt 2024 echoes Morris' estimate, but only includes ~100 for similar reasons (some of which are the same ones that Morris covered). TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Never got this ping for some reason; I'm good with the addition. Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) [21].
- Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Since European Figure Skating Championships was just promoted to FL, here is its counterpart: the World Figure Skating Championships. Only the Olympics carry greater weight. As such, this is one of the flagship articles of the Figure Skating WikiProject and should be of the highest quality. Hyperion82 and I worked very hard a while back to improve both this article and the European article, and I believe the quality here is evident. The results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, a well-sourced history is provided and I believe the sources are properly formatted, and relevant photographs are used to reflect both the present-day and historical contexts. Additionally, I have already adapted changes that were requested on the European article to this one so as to avoid the same issues. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose from Airship
Not a list. Nominate at WP:FAC instead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that European Figure Skating Championships, Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships, and List of Olympic medalists in figure skating have all been promoted as Featured Lists seems to nullify this argument. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- By my rough estimation, this is less than 10% prose by length. The remainder consists of some very long tables. I can see why a glance at the lead would give the impression that this should be an article, but I respectfully disagree that judging this at FAC is any more appropriate than FLC. Toadspike [Talk] 20:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- His point, which I don't think has been made very clear, is that World Figure Skating Championships could be a standalone article and a list of medal holders should be a distinct one. That is, we Wikipedians are turning articles that should be rightfully articles into lists. That might be true, but even if someone made that article, I would presume the medalholders would just be moved to a distinct article. TheUzbek (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable point, thank you for clarifying. I agree with your last sentence, though – until someone splits the history from the list of medal holders, this is a de facto list. If that happens, we can move the FLC star to the new page as needed. Toadspike [Talk] 08:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- His point, which I don't think has been made very clear, is that World Figure Skating Championships could be a standalone article and a list of medal holders should be a distinct one. That is, we Wikipedians are turning articles that should be rightfully articles into lists. That might be true, but even if someone made that article, I would presume the medalholders would just be moved to a distinct article. TheUzbek (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- By my rough estimation, this is less than 10% prose by length. The remainder consists of some very long tables. I can see why a glance at the lead would give the impression that this should be an article, but I respectfully disagree that judging this at FAC is any more appropriate than FLC. Toadspike [Talk] 20:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments from TheDoctorWho
Putting this down here as a placeholder. I disagree with the above oppose and will leave some comments within the next 72 hours. Feel free to ping me if it's been that long and I haven't responded here yet. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Finally got a chance to look this over:
- I'd suggest adding a very short summary of the history into the lead; specifically that it was first held in 1896
- Perhaps also a short sentence in the lead about the women's competition initially being a separate event
- I believe per MOS:BOLD that ISU Championships should only be in bold if it redirects to that section
- "
Compulsory figures were retired from the World Championships after 1990.
" - can I suggest merging that sentence into the paragraph above. I think it would fit since they're both describing changes to the competition (WP:PARAGRAPH talks about using single sentence paragraphs sparingly)
- There's several empty columns for the upcoming competitions, not sure how long it'll be until announced, but perhaps add {{TBA}} in the meantime?
- This 2025 competition begins this week (and I'll be in attendance!), so those cells will be filled by the weekend. I previously removed the 2026 rows which had been added so as to avoid having empty rows sitting on these tables for a full year. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
To explain my disagreement with the above oppose in more detail, the primary content of this page is the lists of medalists. It's not unusual for lists like this to have a larger introductory section, to explain background in further detail. The above named lists also provide a clear precedent for this. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- Noted on the 2025 cells, they'll likely be filled before this article is promoted. That said, I'm happy to support. Nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Noted on the 2025 cells, they'll likely be filled before this article is promoted. That said, I'm happy to support. Nice work!
- Thank you for your feedback. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Comments from TheUzbek
- "The World Figure Skating Championships are an annual figure skating competition sanctioned by the International Skating Union (ISU)." ---> "The World Figure Skating Championships is an annual figure skating competition sanctioned by the International Skating Union (ISU)."
- "Championships" is plural. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- "The competitors were from either Germany, Austria, or Russia and were all men." ---> "The competitors were all men from Germany, Austria, or Russia. "
- "The championships have been organized since 1896 with only four interruptions" ---> "The championships have been organized since 1896, with only four interruptions."
- That comma would not be correct. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- "A separate competition for women was established in 1905, with the men's and women's competitions held separately for several years." ----> "A women's competition was established in 1905, with men's and women's events held separately for several years."
- "Pair skating was added in 1908 and ice dance in 1952. " ---> "Pair skating was added in 1908 and ice dancing in 1952. "
- Ice dance is the correct term for the event. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- "Skaters may compete at the World Championships if they represent a member nation of the International Skating Union and are selected by their federation." ---> "Competitors are eligible to participate in the World Championships provided they represent a member nation of the International Skating Union and have been selected by their respective federation."
- "The championships were presumed to be all-male since competitive skating was generally viewed as a male sport. " ---> "The championships were initially exclusively male, as competitive skating has historically been regarded as a male sport."
- This is not true as women did compete, but it was rare. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- "However, there were no specific rules regarding the gender of competitors. " ---> "However, there were no rules barring women. "
- "Originally there were no any age restrictions at all." ---> "Originally, there were no age restrictions at all."
- "Beginning with the 1996–97 season, skaters had to be at least 15 years old before July 1 of the previous year." ---> "Starting from the 1996–97 season, skaters must be at least 15 years old by July 1 of the previous year."
- "However, there were some exceptions during a few following seasons. One exception allowed those who already had skated in senior events to stay at that level. " --> "However, the federation allowed for two exceptions. Firstly, skaters younger than 15 who had already competed in senior events could continue competing at the championships."
- "There was also an exception that skaters who had won medals at the World Junior Championships were eligible to compete as seniors at the ISU Championships." -- > "Secondly, skaters who won medals at the World Junior Championships were allowed to compete as seniors at the ISU Championships."
- Readers who don't know much about this topic don't know what a "ISU Congress" or "ISU Council" is. Just add a by-sentence :)
- Tables good!
--TheUzbek (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- TheUzbek, thank you for your feedback! I am not going to address each point above individually, but did implement several of your suggestions. You can examine the revisions here. Basically, if there's no comment above, it was probably implemented, although maybe not word-for-word. Please let me know if you have any other concerns or suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- "featured only four competitors" ---> "featured four competitors"
- This was nullified by a change you recommended below. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- "Ice dance" and not "Ice dancing"... Even the article on "Ice dance" says "Ice dancing" is not incorrect.
- Ice dance has replaced ice dancing as the official name of the sport. I don't know what else to say. It's the same as with women's which replaced ladies'. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- "The championships were presumed to be exclusively for me since competitive skating was generally viewed as a male sport" ---> "Since competitive skating was generally viewed as a male sport, the championships were presumed to be an exclusive male event."
- YOu changed the sentence "The World Championships have been cancelled 16 times in the competition's history" to "The World Championships have been interrupted four times in the competition's history" without changing sources.
- The information didn't change. The original text counted total years; I switched it to interruptions, as each interruption for war lasted several years. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- "The first World Championships were held in 1896 in Saint Petersburg" --> "The first competitions were held in 1896 in Saint Petersburg, and the championships have been held every year since, except for four interruptions."
- The tidbit about featuring "only four competitors, all of whom were men from either Germany, Austria, or Russia" does not seem relevant to the lead and does not fit well with the other information.
- Done Flushed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- No need to thank me, I am not Kim Jong-un or any sort of deity.
- This is a volunteer project and everyone's time is valuable. When anyone chooses to spend their time assisting me with an endeavor, I try to remember to thank them for their time.
- TheUzbek (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- TheUzbek, updated. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- "The first World Championships were held in 1896 in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and have been held since 1896 with only four interruptions." - Two 1896 in the same sentence seems a bit much.
- TheUzbek (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- TheUzbek Oops. Fixed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support! TheUzbek (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- TheUzbek Oops. Fixed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- TheUzbek, updated. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Support from Toadspike
Lead
- "The first World Championships were held in 1896 in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and have been held ever since..." – for some reason this reads really weirdly. I think the second half of the sentence is missing a subject ("it" or "they"). Also, no comma needed before "and" since there are only two items in the list.
- I believe the comma is required because of the ,Russia before it. It’s some Wikipedia peculiarity. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- When you say that men's and women's competitions were "held separately" in the lead and body, what does that mean? Were they in entirely different cities, or just not at the exact same time? I see that in 1906 they had different locations, but in '07 and '08 they had the same location.
- Sometimes yes to all of that. I did slightly reword it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Might want a comma before "provided" in the second paragraph of the lead, but I'm not sure if it's required.
- What are "element scores"? If it's too complex to explain, is there a good wikilink?
- Yes, way too complex. I did add a wikilink. You can let me know (please) if it is useful. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98 I think the section has been retitled, so the section link takes me someplace weird. I suggest adding an TM:Anchor to the section you want to link to. That aside, that article is indeed very helpful; thank you for adding the link. Toadspike [Talk] 12:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Toadspike, it wasn't, I just had it directed to the wrong section. It should be good now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- "the most prestigious annual event" followed by "second only to the Olympics" feels odd, even though it is technically correct. I would stick the word "quadrennial" before "Olympics" to make the distinction clear. Or you could reword the sentence to remove "annual", but that might only add to the confusion.
- "for junior-level" sounds incomplete on its own. Suggest rewording to: "The corresponding competitions for senior and junior-level synchronized skating are the World Synchronized Skating Championships and the World Junior Synchronized Skating Championships." You could also drop "senior and junior-level" entirely, given that the name says which is which.
- Unless I'm mistaken, "the most World championships" --> "the most World Championships"
- I changed it to “World Championship titles”. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure you need to mention "four while partnered with Alexei Ulanov and another six with Alexander Zaitsev" in the lead, since Ulanov is only given a footnote in the body. If you want to keep it, I would reword it as "the pair with the most titles is Rodnina and Alexander Zaitsev (with six)" or similar.
- I believe it is worded better now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- All the changes made to the lead look good, thank you. Toadspike [Talk] 12:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
History
- Internationale Eislauf-Vereingung should be placed in a langr template and marked as German (MOS:FOREIGN). Unless it was commonly used in English, but when I checked the cited source (8) I couldn't find that name at all. I'm guessing this is from source 9?
- "The first championship [...] was held in Saint Petersburg, Russia, in 1896" – the cited source (8) says that they were preceded by some European Championships, jointly with speed skating. Is this worth mentioning? If not, I would reword "The first championship" to "The first World Figure Skating Championships" to be very clear, since the ISU apparently did host championships before then. If you don't like the capitalized proper name, "The first world championships in figure skating" (lowercase, generic) also works.
- "called the ISU Championships rather than the World Championships" – add a comma before "rather"
- Also, if they were retroactively "upgraded" to World status, perhaps change "were known as" to "were known at the time as". Not required, though, since it's a minor technicality.
- Same sentence, replace ", and" with ";". The comma is incorrect but removing it would make the sentence too long and confusing, so a semicolon is a good solution.
- "all three competitions" – for those of us lacking in short-term memory, it might be helpful to list them in parentheses afterwards, but not required.
- For better flow and clarity, suggest: "Every four years, the Winter Olympics take place roughly a month before the World Championships, causing a number of Olympic medalists to miss the World Championships." (second-to-last P of the section)
- What does "turning professional" mean and why would it prevent them from competing at the World Championships?
- All of these items should now be addressed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Looks great now! Toadspike [Talk] 12:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Records
- The table in the Records section was very confusing to me. I spent a good while wondering how Henie, who competed in the 20s and 30s, could sweep a competition in 2021. (It looks like the people on the left are somehow connected to the sweeps on the right). Do you think it'd be a good idea to split the "Most championship titles" and "Medal sweeps" into two separate tables?
- I ditched it. That table was a carryover from a sister article and I’ve never liked the inclusion of the medal sweeps. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- I would also clarify the two separate entries for the Pairs with footnotes: the first is the pair with the most titles, the second is the individual with most titles. After reading the lead, it took me a while to figure out why Rodnina is listed twice.
- There is a footnote present. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- I meant adding another footnote, one for each row. However, on re-reading it now, it seems clear enough as-is, especially without the confusing Sweeps column. Toadspike [Talk] 12:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Toadspike, thank you for your feedback and suggestions! Please let me know if you have any other suggestions or concerns. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Toadspike, let me know if you’ve had a chance to look over the edits I’ve made per your recommendations, and thank you! 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Qualifying
- "the minimum total element scores, which is determined" – since "scores" are plural, shouldn't it say "are determined"? I think a better solution might be to remove "which is" altogether and just begin with "determined" after the comma.
- "the accumulation of points" – what points? Is 1 point = 1 eligible competitor? This part is a little confusing to me. I don't mind the long quote, but (based on how excellent your other explanations have been) I think you could explain it better.
- "skaters younger than 15 who had already competed in senior-level events" – does this mean "international events"? If the list of such events is short enough (like two or three), could you list them all here? I'm assuming countries cannot just set up a "senior-level event" with no age limit today and then send tiny children to the World Championships.
The rest of this section looks good, as do all the medal tables, which I've skimmed over. I don't know how active I'll be over the next few days, and I trust you to address the three things I've listed, so I will preemptively leave my support for this FL nomination. Toadspike [Talk] 12:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they are international events, and there are dozens and dozens of them (way too many to list; many don't even have Wikipedia articles), but they are all sanctioned by and overseen by the ISU, so countries can't monkey around to try and skirt the rules. (They find other ways to do that; see the controversy with the Chinese gymnastics team a few years back...)
- I will address these issues and try to find some way to make the second issue a little clearer. Honestly, the point system is not even clear for diehard skating fans. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Toadspike Just verifying that I did address those issues. Thank you for your input and suggestions! Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98 The first and third points look good now. I think you may have misunderstood my confusion on the second one: The long quote from the ISU's "Special Regulations & Technical Rules", which you have now rephrased/summarized, is not the issue. The issue is that the article doesn't say what the points are used for – looking at the "Special Regulations & Technical Rules", I'm referring to the part under Rule 378, 3.b), where there is a table answering my question. I also didn't understand that more points is worse, not better. Now that I've understood it I suggest rephrasing the last two sentences of that paragraph as:
ISU member nations are allowed to enter at least one competitor in each discipline. A points system allows member nations to enter additional competitors, up to a total of three in a discipline, based on a the nation's performance in that discipline at the previous World Championships.
- If you want to, you can also add something like "Nations with better placements in a discipline at the previous World Championships are allowed to enter more competitors in that discipline."
- I think that covers all the important bits; I can't figure out a way to explain only some of the details of the points system without making it really confusing, and explaining all of the details is undue, so this is the best I've got. If you can improve this, please do. Toadspike [Talk] 13:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Toadspike, I inserted your recommended sentences (with slight modifications). You can take a look at the previous version of this article here with the "explanation" it provided. I'm a pretty diehard skating fan, and even I was like, What the hell? Nobody wants to see how the sausage is made, and it's about the same with figure skating point allocations. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks! The previous version has made my eyes glaze over...they somehow took the ISU rules and made them even more incomprehensible. Toadspike [Talk] 14:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Toadspike, I inserted your recommended sentences (with slight modifications). You can take a look at the previous version of this article here with the "explanation" it provided. I'm a pretty diehard skating fan, and even I was like, What the hell? Nobody wants to see how the sausage is made, and it's about the same with figure skating point allocations. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Toadspike Just verifying that I did address those issues. Thank you for your input and suggestions! Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Ref 9 – Add the url-access parameter to note that this story is accessed in full with a subscription by adding
|url-access=subscription
- Does it, because I don't have a subscription and I'm able to read the full article?
- Ref 10 – Link Associated Press
- Ref 10 – Add
|via=[[Google News Archive]]to note that the source is on Google News Archive - Ref 11 – Link NBC Sports
- Ref 13 – Set the work to ESPN and the agency to Associated Press
- Ref 3 – Link to Tampere
- Ref 5 – Link to University of Illinois Press
Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- User:Hey man im josh, these should all be fixed, including the Los Angeles Times one which didn't require a subscription for me to access. Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support. It may be a limited amount of views of articles before access is blocked for LA Times. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC) [24].
- Nominator(s): MikeVitale 03:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because the Golden Gophers women's ice hockey team is very notable within the realm of women's college ice hockey in the United States, and I believe that their list of seasons meets FLC criteria. --MikeVitale 03:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Comments
- "The Minnesota Golden Gophers women's ice hockey team plays for the University of Minnesota at the Twin Cities campus in Minneapolis." - I think "The Minnesota Golden Gophers women's ice hockey team represents the University of Minnesota and plays at the Twin Cities campus in Minneapolis." would work better
- Done
- "in their third season of play[4], " - ref should be after punctuation, not before
- Done
- "Brad Frost took over as the Gophers coach" => "Brad Frost took over as the Gophers' coach"
- Done
- "Laura Halldorson was the first head coach for the Minnesota Golden Gophers women's ice hockey team" - needs a full stop
- Done
- "Brad Frost is the current head coach of the Minnesota Golden Gophers women's ice hockey team" - also needs a full stop
- Done
- "Season Result" should not have a capital R
- Done
- "Lost Semifinals vs. " - "semifinals" isn't a proper noun so there is no reason for a capital. Also, where I live, it's written as "semi-finals", but maybe without a hyphen is valid in US English......?
- Lower-case done, but I left it as an un-hyphenated word, as its normal to do so here.
- Same (both comments) for "Quarterfinals"
- Same comments as above
- "First Round" also doesn't need capitals
- Done
- What is "Frozen Four"? Is there an appropriate link?
- Added link (after creating appropriate information on linked page)
- Other university names should probably be linked
- Done -- Note that I elected to add wikilinks for all opponents, once per row. So if Minnesota played (for example) Wisconsin in both the WCHA tournament as well as the NCAA tournament, they should only be linked in the WCHA tournament (since that column is first.)
- This might lead to a follow-up comment of overlinking, because Wisconsin is linked in many rows. If ya think I'm in violation of MOS:OVERLINK, then I'll fix it. But that's the choice I made when responding to your comments.
- "OT" and"2OT" abbreviations are unexplained
- Added to Key as well as Added
{{abbr}}inline
- Added to Key as well as Added
- That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, and taking the time to review the FLC, @ChrisTheDude. Please let me know if you find anything else! --MikeVitale 21:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
History6042's review
- References should be moved to their own column in the table if they source everything in the row.
- Done
- Nothing is unsourced.
- Sources consistently use MDY.
- All sources need archive links.
- I ran IABot on the page; it archived one link.
- There seems to be excessive reliance on primary sources as most sources are from the team's website.
- Only for factual information like records. I intentionally found non-primary sources for everything in the lede section. Unfortunately, this type of information is notoriously hard to find for women's sports, especially for 25+ years ago.
- What is Frozen Four, if it is the semi-finals please explain that in the article.
- Please see response above to ChrisTheDude, who had a similar comment.
- Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to review the page, @History6042. I look forward to your future comments and suggestions. --MikeVitale 22:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- If it is all done than I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Comment
- Color/symbol: Season results of 2015–16 does have the " † " symbol in the box.
- Done
- I am reading the article from desktop view, and the images do not fit on the right side of the table and looks odd as the two images seem hanging on right side above the box, then starts the table. If you add " |140px " in the template, it perfectly fits on the right side. And put the image template after the As of March 27, 2025[update].
- Done
Below are suggestions (you may or may not follow) which may give some value to the article and make the article more interesting:
- "See Also" section is for readers not for research purpose, better keep it before Reference section, reader mostly do not go for reference(navigate from the citation number) or below reference.
- Done
- For research purpose, you may provide few important "External Links" below Reference section.(e.g. link of stats or history of Minnesota Golden Gophers/WCHA/AWCHA, bio/career of Laura & Brad, or link of books/magazine if available under "Further Reading" section, any link which you think can be valuable for future purpose)
- If I come across some things to put in such a section, I will definitely add them.
- Since, I understand the value of stats, I would suggest for archived links, can be done with available tools or manually.
I think that's all from me. Drat8sub (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review and ideas. Per above, most have been implemented. Let me know if you come up with other improvements. --MikeVitale 01:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- I think that's it, article is well structured, mos checked, follows all criteria, well written, comprehensive, well sourced and stable.
- Drat8sub (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments from TheDoctorWho
- This would benefit from a short description per WP:SDLIST (which overrides that of SDNONE) just because not every reader will know who the "Minnesota Golden Gophers" are (could be professional, college, recreational, intermural). I'd suggest something like "American university ice hockey seasons"
- Done. It's now "Seasons of American women's collegiate hockey team"
- Seems like "List of seasons" or even something simple like "Seasons" would be a more descriptive section header than "Year by year"
- Done.
- What's up with the empty column header at the top of the main table?
- Done. It wasn't actually an empty column header, but I could definitely see where it appeared that way. I changed the column headers to make it more clear.
- The 10 empty cells at the top of the table can be filled with {{N/A}}
- Done.
- The documentation for {{ref label}}/{{note label}} says that this isn't the currently preferred style because it doesn't work with reference tooltips. Can I suggest converting to {{efn}}/{{notelist}} (or something similar that does) to help aid readers?
- Done.
- No link to this article exists in {{Western Collegiate Hockey Association women's navbox}} or {{University of Minnesota campus}}, they should either be removed or one should be added per WP:BIDI
- Removed.
I think that's all I have. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review and comments. Please let me know if you find anything else I can improve in the article. --MikeVitale 00:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Happy to support, nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Source review by Bgsu98
I will do a proper source review when I get home this afternoon, but I noticed right away that most of the sources are not archived, so that will need to be done before the article can be promoted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- History6042 (I'm intentionally not tagging them) mentioned the same thing up above. As I said in response, I ran the IABot, and it found archives for one link.
- What action can I take that will create archives for the rest of the source links? --MikeVitale 18:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- I hate to break the bad news to you, but you will have to do it manually. Yes, it sucks, but once you get the hang of it, it should go quickly. Please let me know if you have any questions about the process. Meanwhile, I will proceed with the rest of the source review momentarily. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. I'm currently in the process of adding the archive-url links, etc. Might finish this evening, might not be done until tomorrow. I'll mention here when I'm done. --MikeVitale 23:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- All done. The last archive-url is from before the most recent season started, so the archive-url shows a 0-0 record. All URLs are still live. --MikeVitale 01:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- If one of those links is from a season in progress (or otherwise not over), you might choose to remove the archive now and then add it once the season is ended. I did that at World Figure Skating Championships so as to not archive a link that didn't show the results from the 2025 competition. But that's up to you. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- All done. The last archive-url is from before the most recent season started, so the archive-url shows a 0-0 record. All URLs are still live. --MikeVitale 01:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. I'm currently in the process of adding the archive-url links, etc. Might finish this evening, might not be done until tomorrow. I'll mention here when I'm done. --MikeVitale 23:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- I hate to break the bad news to you, but you will have to do it manually. Yes, it sucks, but once you get the hang of it, it should go quickly. Please let me know if you have any questions about the process. Meanwhile, I will proceed with the rest of the source review momentarily. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Source Review:
- All sources need to be archived.
- Done
- It seems to me that having both the website and publisher fields is redundant. For example, Ref. 2 includes the parameters |website=MNDaily.com |publisher=[[Minnesota Daily]] when |website=[[Minnesota Daily|MNDaily.com]] should suffice. Pinging PresN or Hey man im josh for clarification.
- Awaiting clarification; will act upon it then.
- So, to be very clear: there are no rules here. The only rule for citations is that you should have a consistent style, so the result is dozens of styles and if this one is internally consistent then it's fine. That said, my personal feeling is: the purpose of the website/work parameter is to give the name of the work, not the url. So, I wouldn't do "work=TwinCities.com, publisher=St. Paul Pioneer Press", I'd do "work=St. Paul Pioneer Press, publisher=MediaNews Group", or maybe leave off publisher altogether. Additionally, not going to track down the MOS rule or whatever, but there is guidance that you shouldn't bother putting in the publisher if the name of the publisher is nearly identical to the work; so "work=New York Times, publisher=New York Times Media" is redundant and should be skipped. But ultimately the way you have it is okay. --PresN 02:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. The style is consistent, so it's good. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Other than the question I just raised above, sources appear to be properly formatted with a consistent date format.
- I spot-checked the following sources chosen at random:
- No. 3 – Checks out.
- No. 8 – Checks out.
- No. 11 – Checks out.
- No. 21 – Checks out.
I will await clarification about the website/publisher issue, but in the meantime, please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, @User:Bgsu98. As mentioned, I'm awaiting clarification on the website/publisher thing. Let me know if you find anything else. --MikeVitale 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Everything looks good and the source review checks out. I'm happy to support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC) [25].
- Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
This is the list of governors of Nigeria's state of Rivers from when the region was called Eastern then splitted into Rivers and two other states, this is focusing on the former. I have significantly worked on this and it now meets the criteria for FL. Feedbacks would be very much appreciated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
IntentionallyDense
- Countries (such as nigeria) don't need wikilinks
- It was originally part of the Eastern Region would specify Rivers State here just because the previous sentence mentions quite a few different places
- Fixed.
- A wikilink, footnote, or brief explanation of "regional system" would be nice
- Explained.
- military leader Yakubu Gowon restructured Nigeria assuming you meant that he reorganized the way things are governed and not literally recontructed the whole country, is there a way you could word this differently?
- Reworded.
- wikilink Vice Admiral
- Wikilinked.
- I'm not super familiar with table formatting but it may be helpful to add a legend for the colours
- Legends aren't needed for this, see this.
That's all for now. Ping when done! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- @IntentionallyDense Thank you, I replied. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments
- "The newly created Rivers State" => "The newly-created Rivers State"
- Fixed.
- Party names (eg NPN) are not written in full anywhere
- The full names appeared originally, so I just added their initialism in brackets now.
- " due to graft allegations" - what are "graft allegations"? I personally have no idea what this term means. Is there a link?
- I wikilinked graft to Graft (politics).
- "Suspended by President Bola Tinubu since 18 March 2025 for six months." - this is not a sentence so it should not have a full stop
- Done.
- That's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude Thank you, I replied. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Source review by Reaper Eternal (talk)
Per the author's request, I am reviewing this article. Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with Nigeria, so I do have a few questions regarding the reliability of some of the sources.
[6] What makes Muhammad Jameel Yusha'u a reliable source? (He may be reliable, but I'm not familiar with him or the quality of his book.)[10] What makes Solomon Ogwutum a reliable source? (Same as above.)[13] What makes Amayanabo Opubo Daminabo a reliable source? (Same as above.)- After doing some digging, I was able to find ResearchGate profiles for a couple of these authors, which at least implies they are academic.
[25] Is there a better source for Ada George's birth date than "Welcome to Ada George"?- I can't find anything better either, and this fact doesn't appear to be contentious. We'll AGF here.
[33] Is Prime 9ja Online a reliable source? Do they have appropriate reviewers and fact-checkers to ensure accuracy?- We can AGF on this one per their fact-checking policy for now, absent any evidence of misinformation.
One thing I am concerned about is the heavy reliance on Nigerian (The Tide) or Chinese (This Day) state-sponsored newspapers for much of the article's content. While many may indeed be truthful, these state-sponsored media often have significant biases. Are there any other neutral third-party sources that you could use to support the claims made in this article? Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Reaper Eternal Thanks for looking. I do not think we need to be familiar with authors of works before they're reliable or not. The sources you mentioned above (apart from Welcome to Ada George) all tick the boxes of what a reliable source should be for use on English Wikipedia (as described at WP:RS) hence, why I used them. I see a fact-checking policy for Prime 9ja Online here, I also see this.
- For Welcome to Ada George, I do not think if Ada George says he was born in so so year, I would doubt him, hence why I used that. The Tide and This Day are used because I couldn't rely on the .wordpress or free webhosts I saw, I mean, I would rather rely on them than a free webhost. Also, in this context, they are indeed state-sponsored media but are not unreliable, at least for this list. They (The Tide, This Day and Prime 9ja Online) are all gen-rel sources per WP:NGRS.
- Please, take a look at other current FLs I put up like List of governors of Edo State List of governors of Delta State for context. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Reaper Eternal Hi, do you have time to revisit this? thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm still concerned about the very high usage of state-sponsored media, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Reaper Eternal The reason I wasn’t really worked out while compiling them was that the facts they support aren’t contentious in themselves, such that they are actually available in their various standalone articles already. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Reaper Eternal, I saw this while scrolling through. None of the newspapers you mentioned are state-sponsored. Why do you think they’re state-sponsored? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Reaper Eternal, your response would be very much appreciated, please. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Paragraph #1 of The Tide's about us page.
- This Day. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nudging Vanderwaalforces. Do you think maybe getting a 3rd opinion from either WP:RSN or WP:3O would help us decide whether this is an issue? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Reaper Eternal The reason I mentioned related FLs above is so that you get a grasp that this is not an issue at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Reaper Eternal, @Vanderwaalforces asked me for a sanity check on this one and I'm not really sure what the concern would be even if these were state-run media and not just state-funded. The only place that looks to me like it might have something contentious is the section beginning
However, President Bola Tinubu, in March 2025
, through to the end of that paragraph. One of those sources is Channels TV, which going by our article on them would be a good source for this info:The Channel's mission is to act as a watchdog on governmental policies and activities.
. The other is The Punch, and I don't see any reason to question that source either. -- asilvering (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)- That's fine. I wanted another pair of eyes on this just to verify that it was OK. Usually, I'm more into the technical articles on meteorology, biology, mathematics, and engineering. Happy to support. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Reaper Eternal, @Vanderwaalforces asked me for a sanity check on this one and I'm not really sure what the concern would be even if these were state-run media and not just state-funded. The only place that looks to me like it might have something contentious is the section beginning
- @Reaper Eternal The reason I mentioned related FLs above is so that you get a grasp that this is not an issue at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Nudging Vanderwaalforces. Do you think maybe getting a 3rd opinion from either WP:RSN or WP:3O would help us decide whether this is an issue? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm still concerned about the very high usage of state-sponsored media, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Reaper Eternal Hi, do you have time to revisit this? thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC) [28].
- Nominator(s): Medxvo (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Little Women is a 2019 coming-of-age period drama film written and directed by Greta Gerwig, and is the seventh film adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's 1868 novel. It was met with commercial success and critical acclaim, garnering nine Critics' Choice nominations, six Oscar nominations, five BAFTA nominations, and two Golden Globe nominations.
I've revamped the list to ensure that it has a consistent format with the recently promoted accolades lists and added several notable accolades that were missing. I believe it is now complete and ready for an FLC. Medxvo (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments
- All the notes from d onwards are not sentences so should not have full stops
- That's literally all I've got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot ChrisTheDude, I believe I've fixed your concern! Medxvo (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Drive-by comment from Dxneo
- On ref33, is the red link necessary when you have linked an alt language page?
- I believe I've fixed that. Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- I like how you listed the actual dates instead of years, nice one!
- The note states that the runner-ups are considered winners, any reason why they are in blue instead of green?
- It's better to avoid confusion with actual wins and number-one placements, so the
{{runner-up}}template is used. Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's better to avoid confusion with actual wins and number-one placements, so the
- I think "In 2020, At the 92nd Academy Awards…" instead of "At the 92nd Academy Awards…" would make a lot of sense, thoughts?
- I think it wouldn't be consistent with the other award shows (BAFTAs, Golden Globes, Critics' Choice), where we didn't mention the year of the ceremony. If I include the year for the Academy Awards, I would also have to include it for the others (also 2020), which would be a bit repetitive... What do you think? Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Why is the prose not in chronological order? I mean, the 92nd Academy Awards was in 2020, but "The American Film Institute selected Little Women as one of the top-ten films of 2019. Time deemed it one of the 100 best movies of the 2010s".
- It's just so we can mention the award ceremonies first and then the placements of organizations and publications. I think it makes sense this way but let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
That's all I can spot in the meantime. dxneo (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you Dxneo, I appreciate the comments! I mainly based the format off of the Oppenheimer and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse accolades lists (recently promoted lists), if you're interested to know where some stylistic choices came from. Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments and image review from TheDoctorWho
- Comments
- Needs a short description per WP:SDLIST
- Hope I did this correctly, couldn't find similar accolades shortdescs to use as examples. Medxvo (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- coming-of-age period drama film is a MOS:BLUESEA issue
- The main genre of the film and the novel is coming-of-age, so I've removed period drama. Medxvo (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- No link to this article exists in {{Little Women}}, the template should either be removed or a link added per WP:BIDI
- Removed. Medxvo (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Image review
- The first image in the Infobox was uploaded to commons directly under a CC-By license
- The other two images were originally uploaded to Flickr, where they were (at one time) there under a CC-By license
- All images have captions and alt text
Image review passes just my few initial comments above that need addressing. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you TheDoctorWho for the comments! All should be done, please let me know if anything needs further adjustments. Medxvo (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- "is a 2019 coming-of-age and period drama film written" would also work if you wanted to include both. Either way, everything looks good. Nice work, support! TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- "is a 2019 coming-of-age and period drama film written" would also work if you wanted to include both. Either way, everything looks good. Nice work, support!
Source review by Bgsu98
Before I start the source review, a quick comment about the table. I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the dark blue shading. The other colors signify a specific quality that is also reflected in the text (ie. lime green = won, pink = nominated, etc.), but that dark blue cells have several different contents. I would simply remove that color altogether.
- The dark blue color is generated from the draw template, which is mainly used for 2+ placements (i.e. multiple winners); the runner-up template is used for 2nd placements and so on. Most of the recently promoted accolades lists follow this format to differentiate between wins, 2nd placements, and +2 placements. I just wanted to be consistent, but please let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's unnecessary, because the dark blue doesn't really communicate anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Yes, I see what you mean, though I'm not sure how to improve this part... I think this might be more of a template problem. The draw template is mainly used here because there are multiple winners. Some of the recently promoted accolades lists include Green Book, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Jojo Rabbit, etc, and they all seem to follow this format... Medxvo (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I would replace {{sort|7|{{draw|7th Place}}}} with {{sort|7|7th Place}}. That should eliminate the blue, but still allow for sorting. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is even a MOS:ACCESS issue, because the blue doesn't communicate anything here. I just don't know what purpose it serves. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: I've replaced it with the CFinalist template (with a yellow color), what do you think? I've tried removing the colors but it just didn't look nice to me at all due to the existence of the other three colors... Medxvo (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- You just replaced one color with a different color. The fact is that any color is not going to match the contents of the cells, which are all different. I’m going to ping PresN; if he says the color is fine and not a violation, then you can reset it to whatever you want and we’ll move forward. The rest of the article is great. 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! For reference, I noticed that the exact placements can be added/changed using the CFinalist template; it doesn't seem like they are limited to just a third or fourth place, I think. I'm not sure if that applies to the Draw template as well, but it seems like it. Thanks for pinging PresN! Medxvo (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- So, right now it looks like it's green=won, lightblue=runner-up, yellow=any other numbered placement, and lightred=nominated? That's fine. The deal with accessibility is just that you can't convey information only through color, but what's there right now is fine as either yellow or darker blue, since the cell text explains what (non-first or second) place the film got and both colors have good contrast with the text. --PresN 00:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! For reference, I noticed that the exact placements can be added/changed using the CFinalist template; it doesn't seem like they are limited to just a third or fourth place, I think. I'm not sure if that applies to the Draw template as well, but it seems like it. Thanks for pinging PresN!
- You just replaced one color with a different color. The fact is that any color is not going to match the contents of the cells, which are all different. I’m going to ping PresN; if he says the color is fine and not a violation, then you can reset it to whatever you want and we’ll move forward. The rest of the article is great. 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: I've replaced it with the CFinalist template (with a yellow color), what do you think? I've tried removing the colors but it just didn't look nice to me at all due to the existence of the other three colors... Medxvo (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Yes, I see what you mean, though I'm not sure how to improve this part... I think this might be more of a template problem. The draw template is mainly used here because there are multiple winners. Some of the recently promoted accolades lists include Green Book, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Jojo Rabbit, etc, and they all seem to follow this format... Medxvo (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's unnecessary, because the dark blue doesn't really communicate anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Source Review:
- All sources appear to be archived.
- Publications appear to have appropriate wikilinks.
- Sources appear to be properly formatted with a consistent date format.
- I spot-checked the following sources chosen at random:
- No. 8 – This source is used to verify the release date, but this is not mentioned in the source.
- Quoting the source ("following its release on Wednesday"), which was December 25. Medxvo (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, that makes sense. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- No. 13 – Checks out.
- No. 22 – This Rotten Tomatoes citation matches the 95% approval rating stated in the article, but I don't see where it has an average rating of 8.5/10. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place?
- No, you're correct. Rotten Tomatoes removed average ratings from their website last week or so. It is accessible through the archive link, but I removed it now. Medxvo (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- No. 34 – Checks out.
- No. 49 – Checks out.
- No. 60 – Checks out.
- No. 81 – Checks out.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the review, Bgsu98. I left some replies above. Medxvo (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Since the issue with the colored cells is settled – feel free to go with either the blue or the yellow as you see fit – I am happy to support this nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC) [30].
- Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
It's been a while since I've been at FLC, but after finishing the article on Barbara Park I decided to fill out the bibliography as well. The Junie B. Jones books were childhood favorites of mine, so it's been fun to revisit them. I've annotated each entry with a brief description of the book and wrote a lead that summarizes the sequence of the publications. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Drive-by (QoH)
FYI I've moved the page to Barbara Park bibliography, for consistency with the rest of Category:Bibliographies by writer. charlotte 👸♥ 01:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- Would it break anything if we renamed this page and updated the name at WP:FLC? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- Since no one answered you, no, and it didn't :P Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments
- "Barbara Park, an American author, has written many children's books" - as she is deceased, this should be "Barbara Park, an American author, wrote many children's books"
- "This was followed by The Kid in the Red Jacket" - as the previous sentence covered two books, the subject should be plural
- "Junie B. starts her first day of kindergarten" - suggest linking kindergarten, as this is not a term commonly used outside the United States and readers in other countries may not know what it means
- "Junie B. is not allowed to take her dog to Pet Day at school" - Pet Day was not written with caps earlier....?
- That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude all changes made. Thanks! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
History6042
- All sources need archive links and dates.
- Are archive links required by the featured list criteria? My understanding was that they are often considered unnecessary and in-the-way if there isn't a specific reason to include them.
- All sources should have source date.
- All sources with available dates already have the dates listed. For those that do not, there is an access date in its stead.
- I think all instances of Judie B. Jones where they are just Judie B. should be Jones because people (I am not sure about fictional characters) are normally referred to by last name or full name, almost never first name.
- MOS:SURNAME says to use common names for fictional characters.
- Could any images be added?
- None of the author's works are in the public domain, and her article uses a non-free image.
- Should a link to Judie B. Jones be added in the article body and the lede, not just the lede.
- I've added {{Main}} with a link.
- "Junie B. My Valentime" has a typo.
- As shown by the source, that is the correct spelling of the title.
- Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- History6042, I've replied to your points above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, the only thing I would respond to that is that I would perfer archive links but if they are not needed then I am happy to support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- History6042, I've replied to your points above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
IntentionallyDense
- Source review
- Citations are consistently formatted
- Sources are appropriately reliable for the topic
- The book citations are all verified
- Spot checked some of the other refs and they all checked out
Pass for the source review! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Hey man im josh
- Your references all use YYYY-MM-DD format, which really isn't standard. You should pick MDY or DMY and add the relevant template. This will also help for consistency if any references are changed in the future.
- Do you typically not just not add wikilinks? I only ask because of ref 8, the New York Times, which I would normally ask for a link for (but I understand not everyone links, which is consistently applied in this case, so no need to do this necessarily)
- Ref 8 – Add the url-access parameter, as it's behind a paywall for me
- Ref 10 – Is there a reason you're using just 2013 instead of the listed original publish date of 16 January 2013?
That's all I've got, good stuff Alien! Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh Thanks! I've made all of the suggested changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ Emmrich, Stuart (November 11, 2020). "Meet the Joe Biden Whisperer, His Sister Valerie Owens". Vogue. Archived from the original on November 30, 2020. Retrieved March 18, 2025.
- ^ Golin, William B. "How Joe Biden changed Delaware's — and America's — politics". The News Journal. Archived from the original on March 29, 2025. Retrieved March 13, 2025.
- ^ "Federal Elections 2012" (PDF). Federal Election Commission. Washington, D.C. 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 2, 2019. Retrieved January 20, 2021.