View text source at Wikipedia


Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure
  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. It is recommended that the list have no other open discussions.
  2. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  3. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.
Reviewing procedure

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

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

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



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

Nominations

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sakurai prize is one of the many prizes awarded by the American Physical Society, honoring "outstanding achievement in particle theory". Sgubaldo (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic table to follow the trend... Arconning (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

[edit]
Lead
Infobox
Medals
Other
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With 1983 having just been promoted and 1984 in a good place, here's 1985. Number ones this year included a charity juggernaut which just recently got a bunch of publicity for its 40th anniversary..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
MPGuy2824
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 05:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned with another sports list, but this time in an entirely new category: American soccer draft picks. I was inspired by the FLs on NFL draft picks by team and decided to create an equivalent from scratch; the MLS SuperDraft historically had importance for roster-building, but has largely become a clearing house for reserve players these days. The list quickly describes the draft procedures and history while devoting most of its space to standardized tables divided by year. SounderBruce 05:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back to an Indian state this time. I’ve improved the lead and table accessibility. The state has only existed for about 10 years, which is why its history isn’t complicated enough to deserve its own section. This would be the second FL within the ambit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Telangana. Similar recent FLs: MP and Punjab. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is Olympic medal table #8 for me (Summer Games nom #5). It was the first Olympic Games held in a communist country (USSR) which caused a massive boycott by 60+ countries, leading to Soviet domination of the event. It was an interesting one for me to research. As always, I will do my best to respond to all comments as quickly as possible, and I appreciate any and all feedback that is given. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant

[edit]
Ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some templates actually include the row and column scopes, making it unnecessary/redundant to define them in the tables. This is part of what the award tables template does.
  • Added alt text to third image
  • Hm, I could have sworn I didn't pick that word for no reason, but I can't seem to find a ref that phrases it close enough for my comfort. I've changed it to "large-scale" instead
I hope this has addressed your concerns, and thank you for the review OlifanofmrTennant. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZooBlazer

[edit]

That's all I have. Nice job. -- ZooBlazer 02:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Nominator(s): History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria and has more than 8 items. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
MPGuy2824
Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I find it quite good, although most of the materials I used are in Chinese, and there is relatively little information on this topic in English. Min968 (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 07:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article, I had previously FLC'd it but withdrew as I had forgotten about the FLC got too busy with real life stuff but at the spur of the moment I am now reopening it. I've added all sourcing from my previous source review and fixed some other sourcing issues. For whoever does the source review, I am waiting on a source for "Clap Sum" to be approved as of 1/30/2025 It’s been dealt with. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 07:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, I'm back with another episode list, this one for the Grey's spin-off series Station 19. This is a series that I absolutely adore both for its connection to Grey's Anatomy as well as its storytelling and representation. After an expansion of the lead and a cleanup of templates and sources, I believe that this list is more than comprehensive enough to be added to be featured quality. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant

[edit]
Production codes unsources. You can usually find them on the WGA website.
I understand that the ratings graph can only hold up to 100 episodes, but why are the ratings tables split?
Season headings need prose
"Station 19 is an American action and procedural drama created by Stacy McKee and based on Grey's Anatomy" As in an adaptation? Clarify that its a spin off
"who had since been cast in the spin-off as a series regular" wording seems off here
Private Practice has the years it aired next to it while Grey's Anatomy doenst. Any reason for this?
Several sources need archiving

That's all I got ping me when done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @OlifanofmrTennant: "based on" was in reference to the actual credit within the show, but given that you weren't the only person it confused, I've clarified this.
When you say "Season headings need prose" are you referring to a summary of the season's arcs, similar to what's done with DW articles? This show doesn't exactly follow the same format, its "arcs" can span anywhere from two to three episodes, or often begin in one season and end in another, which makes it harder to summarize in the same format. This series also has a large ensemble cast of 15 members, compared to the 2–5 present at one time in DW, which would quickly turn into excessiveness. I'll also point out that these types of summaries aren't the standard for LoE pages, even FL's which can be seen by a quick glance of similar lists at WP:FL. A few simply list the broadcast dates, but that also feels unnecessary given the series overview and the table itself.
As for the ratings graph, you've answered your own question. The table physically won't display if there are more than 100 episodes, and this series has well... 105. It was either split or exclude, wasn't sure which way was better here. IA Bot has also been a bit buggy lately with adding archive links lately, but I confirm that most are in the Wayback machine. I can manually add the remaining if it's a requirement for support, though? TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that the ratings table can’t handle 100+ episodes? It works on List of Brooklyn Nine-Nine episodes, which has 150+, just fine. As for the prose I think was thinking something similar to the B99 list or List of Community episodes but since it’s not the standard I won’t oppose over it. And yes do archive the remaining refs manually Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 10:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: Apologies, I meant to say that the graph won't display if there's over 100. The purpose of {{Television ratings graph}} existing (to me anyways) is the graph. The ratings already exist in the episode table, so if only the table was to be displayed, I'd just remove the second template altogether for duplication of information. So to get the graph to display, I had to split in two. Everything has archive links now. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

History6042

[edit]

Comments by RunningTiger123

[edit]

RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: I compared WGA and TFC side by side for all 105, it appears that the production codes were actually the same, but that whoever originally built the templates didn't input the information correctly. The only discrepancy I found was in season 4 between episodes 11 and 14. That has been rectified.
Everything else has been addressed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 14:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Entire list has been re-written, I feel it meets the FL-criteria now. -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 14:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
MPGuy2824
 Done
The ref is for 2019 but says it is for 2024.
 Done
 Done
This isn't done for the second header row of the history table. Also, if you decide to keep this table, then check my comment about colgroup.
 Fixed
Not fixed in the main table.
 Done
plus Added more contents to it.
I think you'll have to at least mention the latest delimitation (in 2008). The history section duplicates a lot of the things in the table of that section. I would suggest that you remove the table and use those refs in the text of that section (if not already done).
Still missing.
 Fixed
 Fixed I apologies for the confusion.
Both ST and BL are mentioned without an explanation for the equivalence between the two.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @MPGuy2824, hope you're doing well. Please have a look and let me know if everything looks good.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 20:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responded inline. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the colors used for BL and SC are slightly different from the ones used in the map. Please synchronize them. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
 Fixed
 Fixed
 Fixed
 Fixed
 Fixed
 Fixed
 Fixed
Nominator(s): OpalYosutebito (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it has the potential to be a featured list, as the list itself, as well as the prose and lead, have been extensively organized and expanded upon compared to what it once was. However, I'm still open to suggestions on how to further improve the article. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: added to WP:FLC on January 27. --PresN 12:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royiswariii Comment

File:Propaganda North Korea.jpg - CC-BY 2.0
The image are passed and related on the article, just add a alternative text.
I suggest to translate the sources into english.

That's all for me ROY is WAR Talk! 02:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboygilbert

[edit]
Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After the first failure, I made some adjustments. Min968 (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

History6042's Review

[edit]
Nominator(s): -- EN-Jungwon 06:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the seventh list in this series that I am nominating. The format is similar to the previous six that have been promoted to featured status. Looking forward to your comments. -- EN-Jungwon 06:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
@ChrisTheDude, I have made the changes you have suggested. I'm unsure of the eight point you made about the hyphens. Could you please clarify that for me. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 09:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewrb

[edit]

Mostly minor nitpics, this is a good list. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 22:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewrb I've fixed the sorting and expanded the alt text. I tried to move the whole imagemap into the infobox but there seems to be issues with setting the image size. I tried using the |image_size parameter but the image size doesn't change at all. From my testing, the only way to make it work is to remove the imagemap. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 09:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it was a question and shouldn't block this nomination. Support ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 15:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first 15 or so years of this tournament attracted a lost of press coverage, but more recent sources are much harder to find. This is in a similar format to List of UK Open Billiards Championship winners. As ever, all improvement suggestions are welcome and I can provide relevant extracts from offline sources to reviewers. Thank you. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and some comments

[edit]

Question- given that the PD images are PD only bcs the authors aren't known- how deep was your check?

I didn't find the PD images in an online search, or at either paimages.co.uk or alamy.com. None of the images has any credit attached where they were published. If there are any other steps I shoudl take, please let me know. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I meant was one seems to be from a magazine, and two from a newspaper, so did you check properly to find a name- bcs like in the case of magazines, it could be at the end of it or something too, along with that of every other image in said magazine(just want to make sure, as sometimes the attributed author can be specified in unusual places. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I did. It would be unusual for a UK newspaper to have picture credits somewhere other than close to the image, and I couldn't find any for those. The Billiard Player almost never included picture credits, and there was none for the image used here. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General comments:

BennyOnTheLoose, that's the end of my review. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DoctorWhoFan91. Let me know if you have any further comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with the changes, a support from me. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
MPGuy2824
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 06:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of my bucket list items is to visit all 281 cities and towns in my home state of Washington, so I thought it was high time to improve the massive list before I reach the 100% mark (which is only a few road trips away from being accomplished). This list follows the format set at other recent lists of municipalities, especially those from Mattximus, and I believe it is ready for review. SounderBruce 06:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
MPGuy2824

Comments - I did a mini-review prior to nomination and all my recommendations were made. I believe this list is at the featured level. I can find only one issue. There is a paragraph on mayor and manager and a mention in the lead, but no mention in the table. I wonder if there is a way to incorporate this into the table without a new column because I like the table as is. If there are only those two, and only a few managers, could a note be made for those which says all others are mayor? Or is there another creative solution? It would be a shame to just remove that paragraph which is another option. Mattximus (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: I'm not sure if a new column would fit, nor would a separate notes system be warranted. I have added a sentence with the MRSC statistics, which show 227 mayor–council municipalities and 54 council–manager municipalities. MRSC also notes that the systems aren't fully separate, as some mayor–council cities have administrators who have powers similar to a city manager. SounderBruce 03:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well if nobody else has an issue with the mayor/manager being in the lead/text and not in the list, I will Support based on everything else which is excellent. Mattximus (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): PresN 15:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal list #51 in our perpetual series and bat list #10: Nycteridae, or the slit-faced bats. With only 14 species, this is one more small step in our bat journey, just a few more small bats with oddly-shaped faces. Though at least we have a fierce-looking dude for our lead image. This is the last small list for bats, as we're almost done- just one more big list, one overhaul of the fruit bat FL to match the rest, and our final capstone list. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824
ZooBlazer

Source review

Source review - passes so that's also a support. Nice job with the article! -- ZooBlazer 04:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jpeeling
Nominator(s): Chchcheckit (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... FA list. Aiming to (eventually) form a Kittie studio albums Good Topic (7 albums; need to finish 2 of them). Yeah. Expanded enough to cover all stuff now??? // Chchcheckit (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ngl: not sure if including sales table is useful given how incomplete it is. Chchcheckit (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Image review

[edit]

That's my comments ROY is WAR Talk! 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would i put in the "alt text" besides the caption? Idk // Chchcheckit (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chchcheckit, you should use visual editor to easy to edit the alt text.
(e.g:File:Taylor Swift at the 2023 MTV Video Music Awards (3).png, the alt text is: "Swift glancing towards her left"). ROY is WAR Talk! 08:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and it was necessarily to add alt text on all images per WP:ALT ROY is WAR Talk! 08:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer 03:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took a break from FLC, but I'm back with my second accolades article for an MCU TV series, this time for Loki, one of the few MCU series to get multiple seasons. -- ZooBlazer 03:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Staraction

[edit]
  • Ref 13 checks out.
  • Ref 37 checks out.
  • Ref 7 checks out.
  • Ref 40 checks out. Although, this source potentially is better since it includes the date of the ceremony as well?
  • The date of the article in this case matches the ceremony date.
  • Ref 29 checks out. Although, this source from the same publisher potentially is better since it clarifies that Loki did not win and includes the date of the ceremony. I'm also unsure about the high quality-ness of Comics Beat, which looks to be a blog (but again, I'm not familiar with sources for this subject). Perhaps you could use the winners and nominees pages for that year instead? Let me know your thoughts.
  • I'm not a main editor of accolades articles, but it seems that if the award is not won, then the ref remains the nomination ref.
  • Ref 47 checks out.
  • Ref 23 checks out.
  • Ref 10 checks out.

Well done @ZooBlazer; let me know once you've gone through my feedback, and if you disagree or would like to discuss any of it! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

@Staraction Thanks for the review! I think I replied to everything above. -- ZooBlazer 06:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; support on images and prose, and the source review parts that I did. Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

[edit]

Putting myself down. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any prose concerns. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgubaldo Thanks for the helpful comments. I think I've addressed everything. Let me know if something else needs dealt with. -- ZooBlazer 23:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two more:
  • You've repeated the same HPAA ceremony date twice.
  • The people's names in the "recipient(s)" column should sort based on surname, not forename (the surname of the first person listed if there's more than one). Sgubaldo (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgubaldo Both things should be addressed now. -- ZooBlazer 01:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just one final comment that Ref. 47 has the wrong date (July 16 instead of July 18 on the website), but I can support already. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thank you for the support! -- ZooBlazer 01:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been attempting to streamline the figure skating national championship articles lately so they all appear uniform. The Ukrainian article has been fully audited and verified to sources. I have gone through and personally verified every entry. I believe I have properly formatted all of the sources in a uniform style. (This was an issue with my previous nomination a while back.) If anyone can suggest a bot or an automated method to archive the sources, please let me know. All of the tables are properly formatted and meet Wikipedia's MOS requirements. While I have made strong headway on many countries' respective articles, the Ukrainian article is one of only two which are fully complete and sourced through the present day (the other, BTW, is Estonia). Additionally, due to the current situation in Ukraine, I believe this subject may be of heightened interest. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns, or if you have any suggestions on how to improve this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the 1982 list having just been promoted and the 1983 list having significant support, here's the 1984 list. In this particular year, two of the guys behind one of the most famous heavy rock songs of all time made their first appearance on a chart historically more used to the likes of Barry Manilow and the Carpenters and went all the way to number one. Feedback as always will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
MPGuy2824

Hey man im josh

[edit]

Source review: Passed

I got nothing. Great stuff Chris. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant

[edit]
Table has row scopes
Table has column scopes
Table has a screen reader only caption
All four images have proper alt text
Everything sorts properly
Several refs are missing archive urls
Ref 6 needs the "|url-access=subscription" parameter
Sources are consistantly linked
All but ref 4 are consistently using the MDY format
Probably use the "Use MDY dates" template.
Spot checked 15 sources and everything lined up.
In the Stevie Wonder image shouldnt Academy Award be linked?
That's all I got ping when done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: - date and access parameter fixed. I have run the IABot on this article five or six times and some of the refs it simply refuses to archive, no idea why -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sometimes IAbot just doesn’t work. Try manually archiving the refs but I won’t hold on that Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 08:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZooBlazer

[edit]

I was going to try to be nitpicky just to find some sort of issue, but everything looks good already. Well done yet again with this series of lists! Support. -- ZooBlazer 07:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Support - Seems like there has been a good amount of feedback already. Great work as usual! I have an FAC somewhat struggling to gain traction in case you are interested.--NØ 05:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum P.I. is the 2018 reboot of the well-known 1980–1988 televisions series of the same name. While I haven't seen the original, I first became interest in the reboot after it was developed by the same person who oversaw the 2010 reboot of Hawaii Five-O, one of my favorite television series. Anyways, I have been (very slowly) working my way towards a GT for the rebooted Magnum and so comes another stop at FLC. This is the list of episodes page for the series and is complete with a full list of the five seasons and a lead with an overview of the program. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
ChrisTheDude
OlifanofmrTennat
Checked 25 sources any everything checked out
Date formatting is consistent on the main article
The transcluded portions of the season articles are also consistant
Sources in the lead are consistantly linked while sources on the tables aren't
That's all I got Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 10:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
Jpeeling

JP (Talk) 13:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpeeling: I've fixed the first two points. I couldn't find an official source on point three (it's actually listed both ways depending on the source), so I added it as an alternative title.
Alexandra LaRoche/La Roche and Ruba Nadda/Nada are based on the press releases for the episodes (for Alexandra: this one uses La Roche, but this one uses LaRoche; for Ruba: this one and this one use Nada, but this one and this one use Nadda). When there's a discrepancy like this, we typically go with what's credited on-screen, but unfortunately the series isn't streaming right now, so I can't personally verify. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Tone 21:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia has 6 World Heritage Sites and 11 sites on its tentative list. Standard style. The nomination for Japan is already seeing some support so I am adding a new one. Tone 21:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Would like to see more sources to help round out this list. SounderBruce 04:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I am having with non-UNESCO sources is that they are typically directly derived, thus not providing any added value, or are tourist sites or blogs which again are not particular helpful. I quick-checked national ministry of culture, that would be a good source, but I didn't find anything. I am, of course, open to suggestions. Tone 08:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tone, you may find additional sourcing in Christopher Atwood's Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire (2004), which you can find here. It provides detail on all the World Heritage sites (albeit some under different names) and some of the tentative list. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because following the successful promotions at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive2 in July, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Women's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive1 in November and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Men's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive1 today, I think this is a good candidate. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
MPGuy2824
Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worked on this a while back then I never finished it because I forgot to... so i've finished it and believe that it should pass FLC Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

This review is based on this version of the article.

Source review: Passed

Feedback:

That's what I've got to start and I'll have more feedback after this has been addressed. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Done with everything except the last one Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, the last one was meant to indicate it also needed the url-access parameter @OlifanofmrTennant. I'll try to go through for more feedback today.. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in getting back to this.
  • You were missing a number of scopes still, but the cells were led with an exclamation point, making the first cell in a row grey, which sometimes makes people mistakenly think a scope has been defined
  • Some of the scopes were row when they should have been rowgroup, fixed
  • There were duplicate exclamation points in a spot
  • There were duplicate scope definitions in the same spot
  • I fixed the above issues, but please try to more diligent and careful about the scopes in future noms
The rest of the review is based on this version of the page.
  • Refs 5 and 72 – One uses "E!" and the other uses "E! Online" Done
  • Ref 34 and 41 – Cinema Blend appears to be showing up in my source highlighter as not reliable, any thoughts on its reliability?
  • Cinemablend is published by Future plc, this FAQ breifly touches on their editorial policy and a little more detail can be found on their about page.
  • Ref 35 – Author is listed as Joseph C. Lin instead of Joseph Lin. Typically we'd want to use whatever they list themselves as instead of cutting it short, since some authors do opt to include a middle initial for various reasons. Done
  • Ref 38 and 88 – Mark as a subscription required (Los Angeles Times) Done'
  • Ref 40 – Needs author and publish date
  • Ref 43 – Add publish date Done
  • Ref 45 – Add publish date Done
  • Ref 48 – Needs a publish date Done
  • Ref 55 – Add author Done
  • Ref 56 – Add publish date Done
  • Ref 60 – Add author and publish date Done
  • Ref 73 – Add author Done
  • Ref 81 – Add publish date Done
  • Ref 87 – Add publish date Done
  • Ref 90 – Add author Done
  • Ref 92 – Change "TIME" to "Time" - match target / be consistent withref 35 Done
  • Ref 92 – Add author Done
  • Ref 103 – Mark as subscription required (The Boston Globe) Done
  • Ref 107 – Add publish date Done
That should be the gist of what I got (ping me when done). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: done also to explain the first half, I didn't alter the table manually to use scopes I used the find and replace tool. Didn't think it would have such a poor result so I will not be using it going forward Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]

I think that's all I have, great work!TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead an ran them, but this is my preferred dumb quote converter, this for dates. No worries about checking 100 credits, but I would at least go ahead and add the uncredited mention to the single credit I mentioned. I can see you've already run IA Bot and I know it's been a little pesky lately, so I'm satisfied with that as well If they the "bloggers" is a branding thing, it's not an issue, I just wanted to check. Just the "critically acclaimed" and filmography number of episodes to go before I pass the sources. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is Olympic medal table #7 for me (Winter Games nom #3), and it's the the shortest one I've worked on so far. There were no NOCs as a first time medalist or first time gold medalists, no stripped medals to mention, and only a single first time participant. It was a relatively run of the mill event, with high stakes of course. As always, I will do my best to respond to all comments as quickly as possible, and I appreciate any and all feedback that is given. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Source review

[edit]
Dates are consistantly formatted
Everything is linked
Spotchecked all sources and everything lines up.
Support unrelated but "California, United States" violated MOS:GEOLINK I'm assuming this will be fixed so happy to support. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy am I grateful to have gotten a quick source review, thanks @OlifanofmrTennant! I've addressed the MOS:GEOLINK issue, which I appreciate you pointing out. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

Placeholder. If you have a moment or are willing to review my FAC Ethan Winters, I'll also appreciate it! Unfortunately, it is not flc. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZooBlazer

[edit]

Overall the article looks good! My comments are mostly nitpicking. It's crazy how many more medals are awarded these days compared to this Olympics. -- ZooBlazer 22:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer: Thank you for the review! To address your points, I tried very hard to find the appropriate references to not use 4 refs on the lead sentence, but due to the name changes and the variety of information contained in the lead sentence, I was unable to. As for the suggested template, the purpose of that is to add a table title for screen readers. In that template, that heading is meant to only be displayed for screen readers. This is not necessary when there's already a title added to the table, but some people opt to hide a table title while others choose to include it. In this case, and in the case of most Olympic medal tables, it makes more sense to include the caption with the source as the top 10 entries for the table are often transcluded into the main Olympics article.
Never feel bad nitpicking any of my noms, it only serves to make them better and pushes me to consider various aspects of what I'm doing when I'm doing them! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good then. Happy to support! -- ZooBlazer 17:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewrb

[edit]

All of these are minor nitpicks, list looks good otherwise. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 21:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review @Matthewrb! It's my perspective that the official site link is better shared from the main article, which it is shared from. I also feel the same way about the commons category, since this is, in a sense/from my perspective, a subset/subtopic of the event. If there were a relevant sub topic of the commons category I think I'd be on board, such as Commons:Category:Sportspeople with 2024 Summer Olympics medals or Commons:Category:Podiums at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that does make sense. Since all of my concerns are addressed, I support this nomination. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 18:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations

[edit]
Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I posted any FL nominees, sorry about that, been fighting my personal demons. Anyways, this is a continuation of List of Billboard Latin Pop Albums number ones from the 1980s. As always, I'm open to any address any issues brought up on this list! Erick (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

This review is based on version of the article.

Source review: Passed

Feedback:

That's what I've got, and you've got nothing to apologize for regarding any type of absence. I'm just thrilled whenever a FLC regular returns or sticks around. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Hey there, thanks for your kind comments! The only changes I couldn't fix were the {{Certification Cite Ref}} to disallow multiple to the RIAA and for AllMusic, I corrected the name and moved all of them to publisher since AllMusic is an online music datatbase. Erick (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Magiciandude: Makes sense, so long as the AllMusic references are consistent. I'm a bit hung up on the consistency for linking though, as that is one of the main things that I look at when doing reviews. Perhaps you could swap to a different citation template, or link to the source in all references (would be quick with the built in find and replace tool)? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh If I understand what you're saying, I can just link to the RIAA database and from there, the information can be verified with its searchable database? Erick (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Magiciandude: I see now what the purpose of that template is in regards to auto generating the reference. Yeah, that complicates things a bit, but linking to just the search itself isn't an improvement. This is what I meant when I suggested you convert the references so that the linking can be consistent. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhh, whoops, heh, my bad. I'll keep that mind next time I do a FLC for these kinds of lists. Thanks Josh! Erick (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jpeeling

[edit]

A few reference bits spotted:

JP (Talk) 10:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpeeling Thanks for catching those! Let me know if I missed anything else. Erick (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 05:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having returned from a pretty chill holiday break, I've found myself in a better headspace to work on major projects. Inspired by the release of SZA's most recent album, I'd like to present the list of songs recorded by SZA. This was a daunting page to complete, but I hope with your comments, this list is brought to its best possible condition. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 05:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments on lead only

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

That's all I have! Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Sebbirrrr. responses above. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 02:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PSA: Thanks for the ping, just one more inquiry. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sebbirrrr done (for consistency with the For the Throne entry) Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

This review is based on this version of the article.

Source review: Pending

Feedback:

Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @PSA for follow up on this and the below comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Hey man im josh, and sorry for the wait. I believe I've addressed everything. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 08:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

[edit]

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): The AP (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar’s name is still known around the world, and I was honestly surprised when I realized there wasn’t a list like this. I spent two weeks putting it together in my sandbox, digging through books on Internet Archive, using resources from TWL, reading articles from other Wikipedias, and browsing all kinds of sites to find mentions of him. A lot of people mix up things named after Augustus and Caesar since they both had "Julius Caesar" in their names, so I made sure to double-check everything to avoid that mistake. This is my first FL nomination, and I’m hoping it goes well. Alea iacta estThe AP (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

Image review

[edit]
I have replaced the painting of Rhine Bridge with a pic of Forum of Caesar. The AP (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on image review. Arconning (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042's comments

[edit]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

More comments

[edit]

Airship

[edit]

Is this a list of notable things named after Caesar, or all things named after Caesar? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notable - but as I see, it includes pretty much everything.I used various books and TwL resources to search for the mentions of the name "Caesar","Julio" and "Julia" ; I explored many websites too. The AP (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about that. A ten-minute Google search reveals:
That's a ten-minute Google: some notable, some not-so-notable, but all probably worth thinking about. And of course, that's not getting into anything named after him indirectly. Does anything named after the title Caesar count? The inclusion of Cáceres, Spain suggests yes, in which case this list is extremely incomplete. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @AirshipJungleman29,
I would like to let you know that there are, in fact, many Roman emperors and civilians named Caesar. The individual on whom this list is based is Gaius Julius Caesar, a dictator. He had an adoptive son, popularly known as Augustus. Augustus's full name was Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus.
  • As mentioned in the article, the construction of Chaussée Jules César was initiated by the Roman governor Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, who was a lieutenant to Augustus. No reliable source explicitly states that the road was named after either of the Caesars. If you can provide one that says so, I would happily add it.
  • Regarding Piazza Giulio Cesare (Palermo), the article on itwiki does not cite any references. Upon a quick search, sources such as Medium a generally unreliable source and some travel sites like TripAdvisor provide little to no reliable information.
  • For roads, there is a category on Commons: Category:Roads named after Julius Caesar. Some roads in the category are not notable, and I could not find mentions of them in reliable sources—for example, Calle Julio César in Montevideo.
  • To be honest, I have not investigated hotels, but since they are not mentioned in secondary sources, I do not find them significant enough to include in the list.
  • Regarding Does anything named after the title Caesar count, do you mean the literal title Caesar or the last name (i.e., cognomen)?
The AP (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: @AirshipJungleman29, @History6042, @ChrisTheDude – After reading Airship's comment, I revisited my research to find "notable" things named after Caesar. To my surprise, I discovered that I had missed 3 paintings, 3 films, and 2 items in popular culture. I kindly ask that you review the prose again, as I have also made significant revisions, such as rearranging items in alphabetical order. I sincerely apologize for this oversight. The AP (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also have added more items. I believe this is the last addition. The AP (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

I don't really understand the logic of the sequencing here. Why does "Geographical locations" come first, followed by "Time-keeping", followed by "Buildings and monuments"? There doesn't seem to be a clear system, either alphabetical or thematic.

UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Royiswariii Talk! 04:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Filipino girl group Bini have a numerous awards and nominations from first day until now. I believe that deserve have a featured list here on Wikipedia just like on SB19. Although, I tried to nominate the girl group single Cherry on Top and it was unsuccessful, it may be have a chance here on Featured List (and i will nominate COT soon). Note: I cited a YouTube channel which is a Official Verified Channel and can be treated as reliable sources per WP:RSYT. Royiswariii Talk! 04:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

More comments

[edit]

History6042's comments

[edit]

Comments from Jpeeling

[edit]

JP (Talk) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Jpeeling!
I'm apologize for not responding due to participating on NPP January Backlog 2025 and my semester and school was back, and it's Done see revision 1269781155.
  • In the other accolades section, some of the Billboard Philippines references are entitled "best x of 2024 (so far)" and were published mid-way through the year, is it accurate to list them as annual accolades without that "so far" cavaet, were any of these accolade lists updated by Billboard Philippines at the end of year?
    • I check the ref of Billboard Philippines where have a "(so far)", I think it was a final and I don't see any changes, however, I suggest that do not remove the "(so far)" ref title to avoid misrepresent or confusion, I guess.
If you have any questions, just ping me. Royiswariii Talk! 10:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Royiswariii:, sorry if I wasn't clear regarding my final point, an article written in June or July with a "best x of 2024 (so far)" portrayed as "best x of 2024" is misleading. As you can see with the "The 15 Best Albums and EPs of 2024" (written in June) -> "The 50 Best Albums and EPs of 2024" (written in December), a lot can happen in half a year. Either the table should include the "(so far)" bit or were there end of year lists for Standout Songs or Music Videos that can be used instead? I also think points 1, 3 and 4 of my comments remain unresolved. JP (Talk) 11:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Jpeeling! @Royiswariii has allowed me to take over this one and address it on their behalf.
  • Table lists it as "Ppop Music Awards", lead/infobox as "P-pop Music Awards", choose one and stick with it
Done, see revision 1269786544. I have sticked to "Ppop ..." since it's the official styling (no hyphens) of the accolade's name.
  • Within the table there is no reference for the Ppop Music Awards - 2022 - P-pop Girl Group of the Year nomination
Done, see revision 1269787293.
  • In the infobox, there is inconsistency on whether wins are also classed as nomination totals, for example the single win at Acervo Awards is included in the nomination tally but for P-pop Music Awards it is 13 wins and 4 nominations so the wins are not counted as nominations.
Done, see revision 1269786205. Wins are also considered nominations, Roy may have probably misunderstood your point.
As for the Billboard Philippines listicles, I have removed the partial year listicles since they were already completed by December 2024.
  • 24 Standout Songs of 2024 --> The 50 Best Songs of 2024
  • 10 Best Music Videos of 2024 --> The 50 Best Music Videos of 2024
  • The 15 Best Albums and EPs of 2024 --> The 50 Best Albums and EPs of 2024
Let me know if there's anything else needed to be addressed. AstrooKai (Talk) 11:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you AstrooKai, all my comments are resolved, happy to Support. JP (Talk) 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is good to hear. Thank you! AstrooKai (Talk) 13:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

That's all from me! Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sebbirrrr!
Done see revision 1269783858 Royiswariii Talk! 11:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Support. Sebbirrrr (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Royiswariii Talk! 05:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant

[edit]

I'll do the source review for this, numbers from this revision Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is WatchMojo worth inclusion? It was deemed unrelaible as recently as 2020
Ref 10 what is Philstar Life?
Refs 11 and 50 link to Billboard Philippines for consistancy
Refs 20 and 21 list Awit Awards as the writer and not as the website
Ref 44 and 45 list Preview when the source labels itself as Preview.PH
Date formatting is inconsistent some use MDY some use DMY some use dashes
A few MOS:DASH violations
Given the amount of nonlinked Awards some of these it raises the question of WP:UNDUE
Several refs are lacking archives
That's all I got ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, OlifanofmrTennant! Thank you for reviewing this.
  • "Why is WatchMojo worth inclusion? It was deemed unrelaible as recently as 2020"
    • Removed, I apologize for citing this, I really don't know that WatchMojo are not reliable.
  • "Ref 10 what is Philstar Life?"
    • Philstar Life is a lifestyle platform under the Philippine Star. it is a English newspaper in the Philippines, their content is entertainment, fashion beauty, travel, health etc. (You can read their about us)
  • "Refs 11 and 50 link to Billboard Philippines for consistancy"
    • Done.
  • "Refs 20 and 21 list Awit Awards as the writer and not as the website"
    • We copied this on List of awards and nominations of SB19 an FL and a Filipino boy band group, you might check it out on ref 20 it's similar to Refs 20 and 21. I will not change for now until you comment again.
  • "Date formatting is inconsistent some use MDY some use DMY some use dashes"
  • "Ref 44 and 45 list Preview when the source labels itself as Preview.PH"
    • Done I name "Preview Philippines".
    • We don't use Mdy in Philippine article, I'll manually adding dates without a dash.
  • A few MOS:DASH violations
    • per above.
  • "Given the amount of nonlinked Awards some of these it raises the question of WP:UNDUE"
    • Some articles are not here in wikipedia due to WP:VERI, WP:GNG and WP:NPOV (but mostly are failed from WP:SIGCOV and GNG). I can't create a article because it might be deleted, so, I'll pass to other editors who are willing to create a article.
  • Several refs are lacking archives
    • Done
I'll update you once I finish the dates on the refs. ROY is WAR Talk! 06:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Chchcheckit (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I am about 1 article away from setting up a "Svalbard studio albums good topic" (4 albums); this is basically the reason this page exists. And because I think I've covered most/all bases in terms of their releases. Yeah. // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: all 4 studio albums are at GA status. // Chchcheckit (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that you had failed to transclude this page to WP:FLC, but I've just done so @Chchcheckit. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah. Facepalm Facepalm // Chchcheckit (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MFTP Dan

[edit]

Hello! I just have a few comments, mostly about sourcing.

Other than that, good job. Look forward to seeing this and the albums promoted. mftp dan oops 14:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan Hi again. Comments:
  • "this source is borderline and admissible probably only because of the circumstances of types of sources available to cover the band at the time" is an issue I recognize. I have tried to avoid primary sources where possible. im cureently looking for alternative sources to circuit sweet & idioteq in case ig:
    • If it helps, here's another reference confirming the release date of Flightless Birds
  • lead cut down w/ note.
  • Fixed Kerrang inconsistencies.
  • Brave Words reformatted
  • Regarding thePRP: I was trying to find a source which stated the director name. The only other one I can find with a google search of "to wilt beneath the weight" "fraser west" [sic] is this, if this is (though i don't think it is) any better.
I've never done one of these before so ig i got things to learn lol // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find Thrash Hits preferable to Circuit Sweet, for what it's worth. It's certainly more recognized in the scene. mftp dan oops 22:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly more recognized in the scene. [citation needed] // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if consensus then consensus nonetheless // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MFTP Dan alr, see anything else that needs patching up? // 22:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Chchcheckit (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of anything otherwise suitable, the official video currently lists the director in the YouTube description. mftp dan oops 22:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i'll just do that then. Chchcheckit (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into thePRP more - I'd prefer if you removed it actually, wookubus claims to be the only person running the place and I don't like the idea of using a self-published source here. After that, I will support, that about does it. mftp dan oops 00:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aok Chchcheckit (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MFTP Dan done. plus copyedits Chchcheckit (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

That's everything from me! Sebbirrrr (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sebbirrrr:
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Are the music videos included on the albums? Confused: Please clarify what you mean by this
  • Ref 4 is the 2016 reissue/remaster, which I own. I use this reissue specificially (as opposed to the 2015 original and 2022 Church Road pressing) because it has detailed liner notes on when EP's/songs were released, pressing quantity and recoridng credits. The other reissues do not include such credits.
// Chchcheckit (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(note: the original catalog number for the 2015 issue is HRR130CD, as opposed to HRR164) Chchcheckit (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait.
  • "Svalbard self-released their eponymous debut extended play (EP) in May 2012" Isn't that kinda redundant since "extended play" is already mentioned above??
// Chchcheckit (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chchcheckit: Apologies for the extended play comment, I skipped over the first sentence but "(EP)" should be added after "six extended plays" as the acronym appears later. Regarding the music videos, I meant to say that if they were not put on the album alongside the songs, then the album section is redundant. Thanks for clarifying my ref 4 confusion. Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is that redundant? The song the video was filmed for belongs to the album, I don't see how that really implies what you're saying it does. mftp dan oops 17:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i don't personally think they matter but aghhhhhh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ // Chchcheckit (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry! I just thought that column is better suited only for the singles but now I think it's fine to leave it as it is. Just don't forget about adding EP in the first sentence and that should be all! Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok Chchcheckit (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sebbirrrr done Chchcheckit (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work! Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from TheDoctorWho

[edit]

I can see a few comments on sourcing have been made above, but this is still listed as needing a formal source review.

Great work! Just a few issues to address. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho Thank you!!
  • done
  • done
  • done
  • done
  • done
  • internet archive botted
  • Is Ref 21 an issue because it says "streamed"?
  • Ref 36: "Whilst putting these clips together I realised that, to me, this video represents positivity and togetherness in a time when we've never been further apart," says Liam. [...] Thanks to everyone who contributed. I had a lot of fun putting it together." ah. i see. editing is not directing??? "n/a"-ed.
// Chchcheckit (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with source 21 was that I wasn't seeing a date (like essentially there was no way for me to tell if the article had been published in 2014 vs. yesterday). I checked the archived link, and it had the publish date, it's just something that's been removed in the live version of the source. Regardless, I'm satisfied with the archive link. Source review passes and I'm happy to support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

Please make sure that the refs appropriately verify the information, that scopes are added where necessary, that the publisher/website is linked where possible in references, and then I'll provide a further review. Please ping me when that has been addressed. I do also have some concerns about the reliability of some sources used, but I'll address that in further feedback once the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi;
  • What are the missing column scopes? Sorry, not clear/don't understand what you mean here (i understand)
  • Krrang staff (ref29) and Rock Sound (ref7) removed
  • The music video sources, in a spot check I did, were not actually verifying the directors that are mentioned. I have a good idea of what you're gonna say. Should the director credits (mostly found in the music videos/youtube sources) be kept separate from the general references for the music videos?
  • "Ripped Apart": archive URL used instead. this issue was noted by TheDoctorWho also.
// Chchcheckit (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Okay, done all suggestions? I've added a column for references like you suggested. // Chchcheckit (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also: removed citations that were not directly verifing music videos directors Chchcheckit (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh ping
Chchcheckit (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): --TheUzbek (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my comeback nomination and, hopefully, my last comeback as well :) I did most of the work but also got invaluable help and insights from @Vipz:. As for why I did not nominate the article earlier, I could never find the membership year of Miroslav Ivanović, the last leader. But as far as I am concerned, that information is lost to history. I've tried to track it down, but I've been at a loss. As for the quality of the article itself and its worthiness for FL, I will note that it is obvious. It both covers a very important historical topic and covers the topic as well as it can do with the sources at hand. --TheUzbek (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]

@TheUzbek: That's my bit. Sorry if any of this seems too nitpicky - feel free to reject or ask for clarification on anything! Generalissima (talk) (it/she)

@Generalissima: You made great comments, and I will try to address all you're comments by Friday or Saturday :) Thanks for taking the time to review the list! --TheUzbek (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheUzbek: Things look great so far, though I wanted to check if you're done with your fixes or not. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima: I have now responded to all you're comments; what do you think? :) --TheUzbek (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will you ever get back? :) TheUzbek (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042's comments

[edit]

TheAstorPastor's comments

[edit]

Bold words signify that those word(s) have been added or changed

Will you ever get back? :) TheUzbek (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for removal

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Alberta, WikiProject Governments of Canada, and WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada; nominator is long inactive

2006 promotion; fails WP:FLCR 3b with 21(!) unsourced claims and almost no citations in the table and 5c, with MOS:COLHEAD and no column or row headers (although it looks like the latter issue is with {{Canadian first minister list}}). It also has over 2,000 words of prose, which should be copied to Premier of Alberta as appropriate. Talk page concerns went unanswered. charlotte 👸♥ 06:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added col/rowscopes to the table template, but the list still needs to set a |caption= on the header template and remove the psuedo-header rowspans (e.g. "Premiers of the North-West Territories"). --PresN 13:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Sephiroth BCR, WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Television

This list is missing key sections (namely production and reception), has poor sourcing (too many primary sources or lower-quality sources), and overall fails to meet present-day expectations for season articles. See also the related FLRCs for seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per the last 4. Should not be a list article and isn't even close to GA. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: User talk:The Squirrel Conspiracy, WikiProject Video games

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... This article is frankly horrible. It lacks modern information after 2022. It's not as simple as adding the information as essentially the entire smash scene regarding rankings and tournaments imploded in 2022 when Panda Global went bust, so you'd have to add a separate ultrank 2023.1 list, then you'd have to add a separate lumirank list from when Luminosity Gaming acquired ultrank. This makes it too much work to just be a few simple edits from staying in featured lists.

A good alternative would be someone taking on the job of fully fixing this page up - which is not an easy effort.

Furthermore: there are many grammar problems found in the article. Examples being:

"In a January 2020 interview, Nintendo president Shuntaro Furukawa indicated that the company did not intend to support esports, stating that the company's focus was on inclusiveness, and their ability to create games that many people want to play, without the need for prize money, was one of Nintendo's strengths" - Run on sentence. "was" shouldn't be used twice here as it makes the sentence grammatically incorrect (clause being "the company's focus was on ... was one of Nintendo's strengths) versus (the company's focus on ... was one of Nintendo's strengths)

"Ultimate was released on December 7, 2018, to critical acclaim,[8][9] and broke sales records in the United States and Europe en route to becoming the best-selling fighting game of all time." - comma splice

"Players control one of over 80 characters drawn from Nintendo and third-party game franchises, and try to knock their opponents out of an arena. " - awkward + incorrect comma usage considering this sentence stands alone. should be no comma or "franchises, with the goal being to..." or similar

Many such grammatical errors in the opening, as well as outdated information which is not easily fixable, leads me to believe this is not a featured list-worthy list. Witsako (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: The Rambling Man, Video games, Awards, Apps, Lists

Looking at when the was nominated, which was three days after the awards were presented, it definitely seemed like a second year of these were expected but that never happened. And looking at the sources used, most of them come from the Appy Awards website itself. Also don't believe that What Mobile is a reliable source. It just looks too barebones to really be called a Featured List with it just being two paragraphs and a table. GamerPro64 02:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]