Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process at the same time. Nominators who have previously successfully nominated a list may have two concurrent featured list nominations only if the first active nomination 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

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure
  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. 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:

Source reviews needed

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

Nominations

[edit]

Judy Blume bibliography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Blume is known for books such as Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing, Summer Sisters, and Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. After my previous FLC at Barbara Park bibliography, I decided to work on another bibliography for a similar author. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "predominantly-white neighborhood" - I don't think that hyphen is needed there
  • "Blume wrote the book when divorce was becoming more common and accepted by American society, and reflected her own marital trouble at the time" => "Blume wrote the book when divorce was becoming more common and accepted by American society, and it reflected her own marital trouble at the time"
  • "Michael and Katherine are a couple who decide have sexual intercourse" => "Michael and Katherine are a couple who decide to have sexual intercourse"
  • "Blume wrote the book on the advise of her teenager daughter" => "Blume wrote the book on the advice of her teenaged daughter"
  • "the aftermath of three different airplanes crash" - that doesn't sound right.....
  • There's quite a few descriptions which consist only of a sentence fragment eg "A television series adaptation of the Fudge books." These shouldn't have full stops.
  • That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ChrisTheDude Thank you! All changes made. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Thailand

[edit]
Nominator(s): History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a similar status to other Michelin FLs. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian National Skating Championships

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since British Figure Skating Championships was just promoted to Featured List, I am now nominating the last in the trifecta (the U.S., the U.K., and Canada). The results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, the history has been extensively re-written, 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) 17:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • Can the 1909 cancellation be explained?
  • No clue why it was cancelled. The sources just skip from 1908 to 1910.
  • Can why WW2 events were cancelled for only some events in the article.
  • I don't have an official source I can cite, but adult males would have been fighting in the war; hence no men's or coupled competitions.
  • 3 sources are not archived.
  • One of those sources was giving me trouble trying to archive it earlier today, but I was able to archive it just now. I can't find any other sources un-archived. If I missed any, please let me know the source numbers.
  • Ping when done.
Okay, my only issue is how do you know that 1909 was cancelled and not just absent from the sources. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, source no. 5 says "no competition/pas de compétition" but doesn't give a reason like it does for 1907 or WWI. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :). History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

List of awards and honours received by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

[edit]
Nominator(s): Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on it and it meets FL criteria. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • Please add row and column scopes.
    • Done!
  • Why are some category rows just not filled in?
    • Some awards doesn't have categories.
  • Alt text of the second image need to be fixed.
    • Done!
  • The dashes in the table should be centred.
  • Please archive the sources.
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph needs a citation.
    • I already cited it in the article. I wouldn't think it is still necessary
  • More categories could probably be added.
    • I don't have any at hand, do you? Please suggest
  • Are there any things that you missed adding in Academic distinctions or Other accolades. I think this because there is not just one sources, you have one for each.
    • All academic distinctions are listed there. While I used the one source for reference, I still saw online sources about the distinctions and I added them.
  • The Harvard University award can be expanded to a full date.
    • I have expanded the date
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Faulkner bibliography

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 21:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, this list represents the first complete bibliography of the Nobel Prize-winning writer William Faulkner. (If one exists, I wish I had found it as it would have made this project much easier to write.) Although best known for his Southern Gothic works set in the fictional universe of Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi, Faulkner also worked on a range of projects in Golden Age Hollywood. ~ HAL333 21:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: One cell in the last row of the Produced Screenplays appears to be centered instead of left-justified like the other cells. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've always centered my "null" dashes and they are as such elsewhere in this list. If you want it for consistency, I can center all of the years instead. ~ HAL333 21:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the last row. The text reads The Left Hand of God by William Edmund Barrett, and is centered whereas all of the other text in that column is left-justified. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fixed. ~ HAL333 22:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • Please archive all online sources.
  • Could birth and death dates be added instead of just years?
  • I've never done that for past list articles — it's just too much detail for a non-biographical article imo. It doesn't mean anything to the reader if he was born in June 1897 as compared to April. ~ HAL333 21:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keys should be on the top, not bottom.
  • I am not sure about this one, but should the book cover images be given more descriptive alt text that describe the book?
  • I expanded the alt text with an actual description of the cover art. If you mean a descriptions of the plot, that's probably beyond the scope of alt text. A non-screen reader, for instance, would not obtain that information from just looking at the image. ~ HAL333 22:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are too many images. I am doing this review on mobile and the images take quite a while to scroll past.
  • As an aside, I really wish there were some way to mark an image so that it would appear only on desktop or mobile, in cases where sandwiching or overcrowding only appears in one version. I might need to raise that at the Village pump.. ~ HAL333 22:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]
  • published his first work, the poem "L'Après-midi d'un Faune" in The New Republic - There's a comma missing after the tile of the poem.
  • in as As I Lay Dying - I think something's wrong there.
  • commerical work
  • and brough new attention
  • In the column Notes of every table, I believe there should be consistency as to whether you use a full stop or not. I would go for full stop when there's a full sentence with its verb and no full stop when it's a short comment. But anyway, I believe consistency is needed across all notes.
  • Careful with links as well. Given that tables are sortable, the first mention may not come up when you expect it to, so I think that, for instance, you would need to always link The Hamlet in the Short stories section. Same goes for The Unvanquished and more.
  • Later revised and incorporated into the novel The Hamlet; Originally published in French - That O shouldn't be capital.
  • Faulkner's Only Children's Book - Those capital letters are weird.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "Following novels in that decade—namely Light in August (1932) and Absalom, Absalom! (1936)—are regarded as among his best" - I think "subsequent" would work better than "following" here
  • As the tables are sortable, publishers should be linked each time, not just the first
  • "Flags in the Dust†" - why the dagger?
  • Titles starting with "The" should sort based on the next word in the title
  • In the short stories table, are "Mississippian" and "The Mississippian" the same thing?
  • Some of the short stories have no "First published in"......?
  • They were not published in any literary magazine/journal before they were formally collected in a collection. I have added null dashes for clarity and adjusted the collection title. ~ HAL333 20:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the screenplays table, where the "based on" starts with a quote mark it should sort based on the first actual letter
  • "Contract Writer, Uncredited" - no need for capital W
  • In the "unproduced" table, dates starting with "c." don't sort correctly
  • Why are the four tables after "unproduced" not sortable when all the previous one are sortable?

List of municipalities in Almería

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)[reply]

We are trying to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. The many collaborators on this municipal lists project have already brought 54 (!) lists up to this standard. Alavense has made some excellent changes to this article. Formatting is similar to the others but of course, all comments are welcome and will be acted upon in a timely manner. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Arconning

[edit]
  • File:Almeria in Spain.svg - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:Karte Gemeinden und Gerichtsbezirke Provinz Almería 2022.png - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:2007-12-18-04706 Spain Almeria edited.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.5
  • File:LaRocalla3.JPG - CC0, the permission says Public Domain? Could this be clarified?
  • File:El Ejido aerial.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:VistaNíjar.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • All of the image mostly have proper licensing, all have proper captions, relevant to the article, and alt-text for accessibility.
Thanks for the review, Arconning. The user uploaded that image to Wikimedia Commons and released it under that license. What else is required here? What can I do? Thanks! Alavense (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alavense Either delete it or replace the license on the original file to Public Domain. Arconning (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the original file on Commons already has a CC0 template on the licensing section. And the upload seems legitimate, as well as the other files uploaded by the same user. Isn't that enough? Excuse my ignorance, Arconning. Alavense (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be passing the image review, that's true... All good then. :) Arconning (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • Why is National Statistics Institute in English but Instituto Geográfico Nacional is in Spanish, when both official names are in Spanish?
There's an article for INE, so I guessed it would be nice to use the name in English when there's one. Alavense (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources are missing publication dates.
Dates were provided where possible (laws and pieces of news, for instance), but I couldn't find any for the statistical information (the census). Alavense (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ayuntamiento can be linked.
If you mean a link to ayuntamiento, I think that article is not specific enough and doesn't really provide more information than what we already have in the text. Alavense (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The capital is quite important within a province, so I I think it does no harm and it makes sense to have it highlighted there. Alavense (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more columns that could be added are, coats of arms and maps. See [1] for the images.
There are two maps at the beginning of the list, and one of them specifically points out where every municipality in the province is located. I believe that covers it. Personally, I don't think adding images of coats of arms to a table like this brings any additional encyclopedic value. My personal view aside, legally coats of arms are not a design, but a descriptive text of what they are expected to look like, so we would have to add a reference like this for every single one we added. Alavense (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this done in other lists, but a line has to be drawn to keep the column width accessible to the most number of users. Things like coat of arms are easily available at a click on are not really a good fit for a column since the column is there for comparison, and coat of arms are individual and follow no pattern. Mattximus (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comarcas are not official for the provinces of this autonomous community (it is for some, but a law hasn't been passed for this one yet), so I would prefer not to. Alavense (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also images for all the municipalities, I don't know if those should be added though.
I think there are enough pictures already and I think it makes sense to have only a few for the most populous municipalities, as is usually the case with these lists. More information about each municipality and loads of images are only one click away. I don't know what Mattximus's view on this is, though. Alavense (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While not a bad idea, I think adding 102 images would cause some issues with size and formatting and make it harder to access the table itself. I think a small sample of the largest municipalities gets you the idea of the style of this province. Mattximus (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review the list, History6042. I replied above. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Country, New Road discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cattos💭 22:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I plan to make a good topic for the studio albums of the English experimental rock band Black Country, New Road, in collaboration with Rambley, and I believe the list is in suitable condition for it. Cattos💭 22:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I kinda feel obligated to review this one given that I live in the Black Country, although I note that the band don't actually come from anywhere near here........??
  • "Their discography has achieved critical and commercial success, particularly in the United Kingdom." - the "commercial success" part can probably be deduced from the tables without need for a further source, but is there a source for "critical success"?
  • "The album was met with critical acclaim" - same here
  • "Their third studio album, Forever Howlong, was released on 9 February 2024 to critical acclaim" - and here
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think citing the Metacritic pages for each album would work? Those collate tons of reviews from reliable sources and critics, so it seems fitting. Or would another source(s) be preferable? Rambley (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Review aggregators says that Metacritic is considered a reliable source so I guess so -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cited MC for the second and third claims, cited a NME article for the first claim which calls them "one of the most critically acclaimed bands to emerge from the South London post-punk revival scene". Rambley (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History 6042

[edit]

NegativeMP1

[edit]

Please note that I'm relatively unfamiliar with the standards of FL discographies (I know the FLC and FAC criteria though), but here's two things I noticed:

  • At WP:A/S, it states that staff-written reviews and biographies are reliable, but things such as the summary may be user generated. I'm not sure which one that the releases section of an album would fall under, but I have my doubts that they would be hand-picked by a staff member. Not that this matters I guess since a primary source is also given that I think works fine.
  • I'm not fully sure about this, but something I always thought was that the releases or the record label of an album could theoretically be assumed as cited to the album itself on a discography page. A lot of discography pages I've seen do not cite the record label or the release formats. If they cannot be assumed like that (and therefore those articles are the odd ones out), and if all claims made about an album's information must be cited separately, then the fact Ninja Tune was the label for both Never Again EPs needs to be sourced (even if it's heavily implied). But per the above comments where you said the information on them is hard to come across, maybe this is a case where you could cite the album...? Not sure.

That's all. λ NegativeMP1 01:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vancouver Canadians seasons

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cos (X + Z) 21:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back with another FLC and this time it's a sports team season list. I hope you enjoy. Cos (X + Z) 21:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations

[edit]
Hey Cos, I was wondering if you could potentially find some sources for each result the Canadians have done since their inaugural season. The first/second half titles, or just regular division titles would be fine. Also I love the touch with classifications tables below. Also, I highly discourage placing baseball reference citations (e.g. Ref #26) in the results tab (which is something I should fix up in the other milb seasons I've done but regardless). Last Suggestion is probably to add a split season record page (SWB RailRiders#Split-season records & NSH Sounds#Split-season records). Other than that, if you can fix up the necessary parts, I will be gladly able to support. TBJ10RH (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I used the BR refs for results is that I couldn’t find better sources. Cos (X + Z) 20:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some help. I have a source for you:
https://www.milb.com/everett/news/gcs-14432402 -> 2010 West Division title vs. Everett AquaSox TBJ10RH (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/boise-hawks-beat-cs-for-championship/n-3085024 - Lost NWL championship vs. Boise Hawks, 3–0 TBJ10RH (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

From the lead: "The Canadians were affiliated with the Oakland Athletics from 2000 to 2010, but are now affiliated with the Toronto Blue Jays since 2011." – this sentence should be "...but have been affiliated..." Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does this change work: "The Canadians have been affiliated with the Oakland Athletics from 2000 to 2010, but are now affiliated with the Toronto Blue Jays since 2011." ? Cos (X + Z) 00:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Since the first partnership is concluded, "were" is appropriate. Since the second one is continuing into the present, "have been" is needed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Cos (X + Z) 01:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a language teacher has its advantages. ;) Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The Vancouver Canadians are a Minor League Baseball team that plays in Vancouver, British Columbia for the Northwest League" - they don't play "for" the league. I would change this to "The Vancouver Canadians are a Minor League Baseball team based in Vancouver, British Columbia that plays in the Northwest League"
  • "Apps" is in the key but not in the table
  • Where you have eg "Won semifinals vs. Eugene Emeralds, 2–1 Won NWL championship vs. Tri-City Dust Devils, 2–1", I would put a line break after the first one
  • I can't see any reason for parts of that column to be in italics
  • As the table is sortable, NWL needs to be linked every time, not just the first time
  • I don't understand what "first-half titles" and "second-half titles" are. Is there an appropriate link? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude done. Cos (X + Z) 16:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I understand the bit you have added about first and second half titles. So a team wins the NWL after playing only half the season's games but then another team wins the NWL after playing the rest......?
    @ChrisTheDude clarified. Cos (X + Z) 19:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant

[edit]
  • Lead image is missing alt text
  • Link "Vancouver" to the redirect "Vancouver, British Columbia" per MOS:NOTBROKEN
  • The second half of paragraph 2 is just a run on sentence could it be broken up?
  • Why is Oregon listed in ref 3 when no other source lists the publishing location
  • Ref 6 shouldn't be in all caps per MOS:ALL CAPS
  • Ref 10 needs to be marked as live
  • Northwest League is linked twice in paragraph one
That's what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 17:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant done. Cos (X + Z) 19:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NatureBoyMD

[edit]
  • "The team was founded after the Southern Oregon Timberjacks relocated to Vancouver for the 2000 Northwest League season." - I'm not sure if this makes sense to the casual reader. I'd say something about the former Canadians (Triple-A) relocating and the Southern Oregon team relocating and assuming the Canadians identity.
  • Some mention of their change in classification (Short Season A to High-A) should be made.
  • This may be a better way to explain half-season titles: "The NWL uses a split-season schedule wherein the division winners from each half qualify for the postseason championship playoffs."
  • The prose count of first and second-half titles is wrong per corrections mentioned in later comments.
  • The white line at the bottom of the header looks... odd. I'd recommend using the team's dark red (#9D2235,  ) instead. Possibly even use the darker red at the top and the lighter at the bottom. Either.
  • The postseason result cells for several seasons are inconsistent or inaccurate (per MiLB.com or Stats Crew data. You may be confusing winning a half-season title with winning the division title. In these seasons, the winners of the first and second-halves played for the division title (not called a semifinal). The division winners then played for the league title. Suggested corrections (in short):
    • 2010: Won Second-Half West Division title; lost West Division title vs...
    • 2011: Won West Division title vs...; won NWL championship...
    • 2012: Won Second-Half West Division title; won West Division title vs...; won NWL championship vs...
    • 2013: Won Second-Half North Division title; Won North Division title vs...; won NWL championship vs...
    • 2014: Won Second-Half North Division title; lost North Division title vs...
    • 2017: Won First-Half North Division title; won North Division title vs...; won NWL championship vs...
  • A spot check showed that some of the league & division finishes are either swapped on inaccurate (not accounting for ties among higher finishers). They should be checked in full and corrected.
  • 2019 is lacking a division place and GB. (It still had divisions in 2019 per MilB.com.
  • It would be nice to see a table comparing their season results with Oakland versus Toronto and another comparing results at Class A Short Season versus High-A.
  • References need to use a consistent style (sentence or title case)
  • That's all from me. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Will implement comments to the article throughout the weekend. Cos (X + Z) 00:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatureBoyMD Done. Cos (X + Z) 02:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally:
  • The note about the NWL using a split-season format needs a reference.
  • The 2011 team did not win the second-half. They qualified via a wild card berth.[2]
  • All first and second-half titles need references.
  • The reference for 2019 doesn't verify divisional finish or GB.
  • Reference style is still inconsistent. (For example: Ref 1 uses title case for article title, while Ref 2 uses sentence case.)
  • That's everything else I see. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • This list needs a short description per WP:SDLIST
  • Add {{Use Canadian English}}
  • Add {{Use MDY dates}}
  • The lead image appears to have an improper focus point and too low of a shutter speed. What about choosing something that's a little clearer like this if you were trying to highlight the team or this for highlighting the field?
  • References 2 and 5 are duplicates and should be merged

I think that's all I have! TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parks and Recreation episodes

[edit]
Nominator(s): Olliefant (she/her) 07:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished a rewatch of Parks so I decided to work on the list so over the past few days I've been planning an FLC for this and now its done. Note that I belive most sources are archived as for the non archived sources IAbot is down so :( Olliefant (she/her) 07:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]
  • The follows - Something's missing there.
  • the series waswas
  • for a half season-worth of episodes - Shouldn't this be something like for a half-season's worth of episodes?
  • The second season which aired from September 17, through May 20, 2010. On January 30, 2010.

There are a few like these. I'll have another look when the list has been carefully copyedited. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: done Olliefant (she/her) 16:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • Please archive the rest of the sources.
    • Can’t do this because of IAbot being down. Although like I said in the nom I’m fairly certain all sources are archived. Do you know which are

missing? (Also note that archived sources aren’t need for FLCs.)

  • What is rank in the overview table, I don't see it anywhere else.
    • it’s another metric for the show’s ratings. Showing that the season was the X highest viewed of the X year
  • Is an episode view graph available like in List of My Name is Earl episodes?
    • It wouldn’t work as Parks and Rec is over the 100 episode limit for the graph
  • Since citation cite a whole row they should be their own column
    • They don’t they just cite the viewship, the other stuff is covered by the episodes credits in MOS:PLOTCITE
  • The Aubrey Plaza link is wrong. Fixed
  • Could the ratings columns be made sortable.
    • No
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@History6042: Olliefant (she/her) 20:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the un archived sources are 1 to 12, 16, and 17. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • This needs a short description per WP:SDLIST Done
  • Add {{Use American English}} Done
  • The NPR ref is missing an author and a date, NPR can also be linked here Done
  • "Parks and Recreation stars Poehler alongside Aziz" ---> "Alongside Poehler, Parks and Recreation stars Aziz [...]"; we already know that it stars Pohler from the preceding paragraph Done
  • "after having a recurring role in season one." --- anything better for this source as a WP:VALNET post-Mid 2023? The other VALNET's should be fine since they were published prior to that
    • I don't think VALNET is all that justified but i've replaced it anyways
  • "During the course of the series, 126 episodes of Parks and Recreation aired over seven seasons." --- is this supported in the list by a source anywhere? I believe this falls outside of WP:CALC because the list could arguably be missing episodes
    • The only source that explicitly lists 126 is a Screen Rant one, so I used an Amazon listing for the 125 episodes and then to confirm the special.
  • "Following season one, the series was originally renewed for a half-season worth of episodes, before being picked up for a full season in October 23." ---- not supported by the ref. It only mentioned a full season pick up, not what the initial order was for, a lot of times early orders were only for 6-8 episodes (i.e. season 1), which isn't "half". That's also easily a perspective issue because some shows only regularly produce 13, 8, or 6-episode seasons, etc. This should also be "on October 23" Fixed
    • removed the part about the early renewal
  • "The first season of the show aired from April 9, 2009, through May 14." --- source?
    • Episode table
  • "The fourth season ran from September 22, 2011 to May 10, 2012." --- the attached source was published in 2012 and is discussing a mid-season slate, the only mentioned date for Parks & Rec is January 17, this is likely referring to season 5, episode 10. Even if this was supporting season 4, no episode aired on January 17, and it doesn't support a September or May date.
    • that was a mistake from when I copied over the prose from the community list. The information is sourced in the table
  • "which ran from September 20, through May 2, 2013" --- source?
    • Table
  • Ref 13 appears to be a source about Community? I didn't read the whole thing, but a quick ctrl+f of "park" returned nothing
    • The ref 13 title is "NBC picks up "Community," "Parks and Recreation" and "Mercy" for season""
  • "It ran from September 26 to April 14, 2014." --- source?
    • Table
  • "the series was renewed for a seventh and final season" --- "final" isn't supported by the source, was this decided later/cancelled after it had aired?
    • The fact that it was the last one was announced later, sourced to THR
  • IndieWire can be linked in the ref Done
  • "which aired from January 13, 2015 to February 24." --- source?
    • Table
  • Some of the ranks in the overview seem to be unsupported by the references. For example, in the 2015 season Deadline actually has it at 65 and 95, depending on the timeslot and for 2013-2014, there's just no rank mention of Parks & Rec altogether
    • I used the TV series finale for the average for season seven. As for the ranks, I just decided to remove the column all together because there is alot of conflicting sourcing regarding some and some have no sourcing
  • "Average episode runtime" --> "The average episode runtime [...]" Done
  • None of the air dates in the "Episode" section have a source
    • They are sourced alongside the viewership info, I have added an additional source
  • In Ref 140 (the ratings table), the first three sources don't support the numbers for the individual episodes
  • It also doesn't appear that you have the average column enabled (at least that's what I'm assuming the intention was considering every row has an additional number than there are episodes in the season)
    • Cut the excess number
  • I would honestly suggest splitting the ratings graph like I did in List of Station 19 episodes to make the graph viewable, otherwise it's useless since the numbers are already in the episode table Done
  • Refs 22 and 23 (in this version) are duplicates and can be merged
    • They shouldn't be dups (they use the same link for some reason) i've fixed it
  • The usual date and CQ scripts need ran Done

TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: For the ratings table at the end of the article, I haven't been able to find a ref to cite all the episodes together, do you think that adding something like "for the first three seasons refer to the relevent listing above" as the table is a summary? Olliefant (she/her) 04:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure honestly, do you know if there's a guideline/policy/essay or any precedent that covers that method? If not, I would also suggest enacting something similar to what I did in the My Name Is Earl LoE page. If the references are the same name, and exact copies of each other, they'll group together, so that you're not flooding the sources. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot Adult Contemporary number ones of 1992

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination of the 1991 list hasn't been open for very long but it already has four supports so I figure I am on safe ground opening another nomination. This list contains songs by some real music legends but also an act I had literally never heard of before working on this article. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon. Before it's brought up, I realise that the refs are not archived, but IABot is playing up once again. If it starts co-operating, I'll get them archived then.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • "retaining a position which the song had occupied" - I believe "that" would read better instead of "which"
  • "also had two number ones and Elton John topped the chart" - I think this can be split into two sentences (a separate sentence for John), or you can place a comma after "two number ones" to avoid confusion
  • "by Vanessa Williams,[7];" - a comma and a semicolon? :-)

I think that's all, everything else looks great to me. Medxvo (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]

Only one further comment apart from what Medxvo has mentioned above:

  • At the start of the year, Richard Marx was at number one with "Keep Coming Back", retaining a position which the song had occupied at the end of 1991 - Can 1991 be linked?

Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Medxvo: @Alavense: - many thanks for your reviews, all done I believe! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Date format is consistent (though consider adding a "use MDY dates"
  • Linking is consistent
  • All sources should be archived
  • Spot checks don't flag anything
  • The book sources come from a reputable author
Literally all I found was the archive thing, great job on this! Olliefant (she/her) 19:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: - as mentioned in my nomination statement, the archiving bot is experiencing issues again so it is not possible to archive the sources at this time, but as archived sources are a "nice to have" and not a requirement for FL status, hopefully that won't be an issue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olliefant (she/her) 07:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

55th Academy Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 09:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1983 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81talk 09:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • Can all online sources be given archives.
  • Unfortunately the archiving bot doesn't seem to be able to archive the sources obtained from Newspapers.com. For some reasons, it gives me a "502 BAD GATEWAY" error page everytime I attempt to do it. For comparison, when I ran the same tool just today for List of Los Angeles Rams starting quarterbacks, there was no errors running the tool. However, this shouldn't affect whether the resource is valid or not because say in the event Newspapers.com ceases to exist, the fact that the source came from credible newspaper (even if the publication doesn't exist in the present) means that any person probably has access to the source (whether it be in a library or electronic data that is accessible like say episodes of Sesame Street viewable by the public in the Library of Congress According to Wikipedia:Published, Additionally, an accessible copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the copy to be accessible via the Internet.
  • There doesn't seem to be any inline citations for the Films with multiple nominations and awards section.
  • Unfortunately, I can't find any sources online or even in print that can outright confirm "multiple wins and nominations". Also according to Wikipedia:Counting and sorting are not original research, it reads, Being able to count and complete other basic mathematical analysis should not be impeded as well: 'Mario Cuomo served 12 years as governor of New York, from January 1, 1983 to December 31, 1994.' If you have the data stating that Mario Cuomo took office on January 1, 1983 and left December 31, 1994, there is no need to find another source that states he held the office for 12 years. You can count the number of years or otherwise complete basic calculations to arrive at a meaningful answer." In addition, the policy reads, "Counting is a simple and widely accepted operation. Certainly sources exist to provide that information, but such sourcing would become clumsy and would detract from the article rather than add to it. Therefore, counting the number of items in a simple list or group of data is acceptable. It is not original research." The only time citations are needed are if it is pertaining to the figures or data dealing with a large group such as the population of a given country. In this case, most people can implicitly count how many nominations and wins a film received based on the data given on the table.
  • Alt texts should either be more descriptive or just say See caption. Right now the only new info is the year.
  • The part that says "commonly referred to as Oscars", should be moved to right after the bolded text.
  • Placing the phrase "commonly referred to as Oscars" wouldn't work because technically, that nickname only refers to the award itself. The ceremony was not referred to on the broadcast as "The Oscars" until 2013, and even then, the award itself is known as the "Academy Award for Merit". There was a lengthy discussion about the name discourse on Talk:Academy_Awards#Official_name. I don't think that phrasing it as "The 55th Academy Awards ceremony, commonly known as the Oscars, was presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), honored films released in 1982, and took place on April 11, 1983, at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles." would make sense as every edition of the ceremony would be different. That would sound clunky because then it would be hard to differentiate each ceremony. Also, you couldn't just say the 1983 Oscars because even though the ceremony took place in April 1983, the Academy determines it as winners for achievements in films released the previous year the ceremony took place.
  • Not sure about the standard for this kind of table but should there be scopes on the Awards table.
  • I don't know how that would work out on this type of table. Unless PresN knows of something how to do so.
  • I have a tool/script installed to point out harv errors and warnings, it is showing on some of the ones in ref 13.
  • As SounderBruce and jlwoodwa mentioned in a previous FLC, that is most likely a warning, which is displayed by the user script you installed, and which happen to be false positives here – caused by using multiple citation templates inside a single reference footnote, which is permitted by WP:BUNDLING and does not violate the featured list criteria.
@History6042: Done – I addressed all your comments. Please read each response since there was only one I could outright change while others I could not do so.
--Birdienest81talk 21:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot Adult Contemporary number ones of 1991

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If like me you are old enough to remember the summer of 1991, you probably also remember becoming thoroughly bored of a certain song by Bryan Adams. Here in the UK it topped the pop chart for a ridiculous 16 weeks, and it seems it was just as big in the United States, becoming the longest-running number one on the AC chart for over a decade. Anyway, here's the full list of AC number ones from that year, following the same format as 29 previous FLs. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]

Nice work, as always, ChrisTheDude. I'll only make a couple of comments:

  • Because I Love You (the Postman Song) or Because I Love You (The Postman Song)?
  • the longest run atop the AC chart since 1979 - Would it be okay to mention who achieved that back in 1979? I also think that the list for that year could be linked.
  • Michael Bolton had three number ones in 1991 and Amy Grant had two number ones during the year read a bit too similar in my opinion.
  • Same thing for the following two: spent four consecutive weeks at number one and spent four weeks at number one.

That's all I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: - thanks for your review! I've addressed the above. Re: point 2, the run in question ended in 1979 but actually spanned two years, so I have linked both -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Happy to support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Support from HAL

[edit]
  • "Adams's song, taken from the soundtrack of the film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves," - Is there a better way to put this then "taken", maybe like "Adam's song, the lead single from..."
  • "the top 5" - Should this be "top five"?

That's all I got. Solid work as usual. ~ HAL333 16:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. ~ HAL333 21:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • All of the citations are reliable, high-quality, and appropriate for a FL about music. The citation structure is consistent. I do have some minor notes below, but it is nothing major.
  • For Citation 4, I would recommend adding that a subscription is required to view the article. On a side note, should Billboard be in italics for the title?
  • The Billboard charts in general now seem to require a Pro subscription to view, and I think that it would be helpful to mark that in the citation.
    • I wasn't sure whether this was needed as it's possible to view the number one without a subscription and that is all that is being cited, but I have added it anyway.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right. For some reason, I did not even think about that. The focus of the citation is on the number-one position, and since readers can see that even without a subscription, it is not really necessary to clarify that in the citation. Apologies for not catching that. Feel free to remove them from these citations if you would prefer. Aoba47 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend archiving web links, but that is not required for a FL. It would just be helpful to avoid any potential headaches when it comes to possible link rot and death.
  • This is more of a clarification question so feel free to disagree. Should the last few sentences of the lead have citations or is the information being cited through the tables in the list? Has this been something done in previous Billboard FLs? Again, this is just a clarification question. I am not saying that it is wrong, but it did catch my attention so I just wanted some clarification about it.
    • Yes, I consider things like Michael Bolton being the only artist with three number ones to be covered by WP:CALC. This is how I have done it in all of my 1previous number ones FLCs..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had a feeling that was the case, but I just wanted to make sure. I have not reviewed lists for a while so I am a bit out of practice with it. Thank you for the link by the way, as I was not aware of that part of the MOS. It makes sense, and I am glad that it is there. Aoba47 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done a spot-check of the sources, and from what I see, the citations support the information in the prose and tables.

I hope that this source review is helpful. As always you have done a wonderful job. My comments are very nitpick-y. I do have two clarification questions at the end, but my main point is that the sources that require a subscription to access should be clearly marked in the citation. Once that has been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this source review. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - many thanks for taking the time to do the source review, responses are above! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything and for the clarifications. I have already said this above, but I agree with your comment about the Billboard charts not really needing the subscription specified in the citation. Feel free to remove them if you prefer. Everything looks good to me. This passes my source review. If possible, I would appreciate any help with my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • "Several other songs which topped the AC chart" - I think "that" would read better instead of "which"

Everything else looks great to me and meets the FLC criteria. Medxvo (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Medxvo: - done (probably another UK/US English difference ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support :)) Medxvo (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of governors of Cross River State

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the list of governors of Nigeria's state of Rivers from when the region was called Eastern then splitted into South-Eastern and two other states, then South-Eastern ranamed to Cross River. I have significantly worked on this and it now meets the criteria for FL. Feedback would be very much appreciated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]

Nice read. I've only got a couple of comments:

  • Originally part of the Eastern Region, the territory became part of - Can something be done to avoid the part of iteration?
  • D. Governor - Two things: 1) does it have to be a capital D? and 2) I feel it would be better to have the full Deputy governor or else add the {{Abbr}} template.

Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense Thanks for reading and giving input. I fixed that sentence, I think it needs to be capitalised because it is a title of a column in a table, and besides the abbr template already does the job perfectly. What do you think? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy now. Thanks for taking care of these so quickly, Vanderwaalforces. Happy to support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on Sources from Ibjaja055

[edit]
  • Spot checks pass
  • Article is sourced reliably
  • Proper and consistent wiki links to publications wiki pages
  • Authors were added relevantly to citation template
  • Dates too were added appropriately and consistently formatted (using DDMMYY format)
  • Archives are not required and not a problem.

Good job, over all, VWF. Ibjaja055 (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ibjaja055. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prix de France (figure skating)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since World Figure Skating Championships has just been promoted to FL, here is another figure skating article for your consideration. This is not a championship-level event, but a Grand Prix event. The Grand Prix is a series of six competitions held once a week in succession during the fall, and is considered quite prestigious. I have personally verified all of the results and examined the sources, the tables are properly formatted, the history is thorough, I believe the sources are all properly formatted, and I have used a variety of photographs to showcase this competition. I had sent this article to GA earlier, but it was bounced back with the recommendation that I bring it to FL instead. This is not the next article I had expected to bring here, but I especially liked working on this one. Pinging Arconning, who expressed a willingness to review this. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HAL

[edit]
  • "When the FFIS was forced to cancel the event in light of the COVID-19 pandemic" --> to something like "when the FFIS canceled the event due to the COVID-19 pandemic" for concision
  •  Done I shortened it even further than that.
  • It displays fine on my desktop, laptop, and iPad. I could understand if the text were super narrow like in the example in the link. WP:SANDWICHING says to "a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages hor­i­zon­tally op­po­site each other", but in this case, one image is vertical, allowing sufficient space for the text.
  •  Done My computer at home flagged "glassmaker" as a misspelling, but my laptop just now flagged "glass-maker" as the typo. Weird. I've changed it to "glassmaker".
  • I would center the references column (|style="text-align:center;"|)
  • Every column on these tables is left-justified, including other articles in these series, so I think it's fine as is.

More comments to come. ~ HAL333 05:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another read through only yielded this imperfection:
  • "as well as compete against the skaters with whom they would later compete at the World Championships" - "the" is not needed before "skaters" and the use of "compete" twice is a bit repetitive.
  • As this is relatively minor and I'm sure you'll address it as you see fit, I'm happy to go ahead and support this for promotion. Nice work. ~ HAL333 21:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant

[edit]
  • Under "History" I don't think bolded text should be used in the body, although given that its for the name I might be wrong
  • As I understand it, if it is a circular redirect, the use of bold one time is acceptable. All of those are links that come back to this article, since the competition has changed names numerous times. For example, the use of Swedish Challenge Cup at British Figure Skating Championships.
  • Could there be some more prose near the tables? Perhaps a brief summary of the Inaugural winner and maybe some records?
  • A summary of the inaugural competition is in the first paragraph of the History section and the records are identified in the lead, with a table at the end of the article. I try to include prose at the results/medalists tables only if it's a unique or noteworthy situation with sourcing. For example, I'm working on 2024 World Figure Skating Championships right now, where there are special circumstances at both the men's and pairs tables. Or at European Figure Skating Championships, where Kamila Valieva's disqualification is mentioned. This competition doesn't really have any of that. The closest would be the 2015 competition, which was cancelled after the first day, and it is mentioned in the History section.
  • Why is "Skating Scores" reliable?
  • I guess the answer to that is that it is a well-respected source in the figure skating community. It also provides results in an easy-to-follow format. It's my understanding that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources as opposed to primary sources, so the official results from the ISU would be the primary source, and sites like Skating Scores (or Tracings, Rink Results, Golden Skate) aggregate those results, thus making them secondary sources.
  • Why is "The Figure Skating Corner" reliable?
  • I would just copy my previous response, except this site is now defunct and only accessible via the Internet Archive. It is still a good source for results from the late 90s/early 2000s.
Good job on this, that's all I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 02:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • There appears to be a WP:SANDWICHING issue between the photos below the Infobox on the right and the trophy on the left
  • It displays fine on my desktop, laptop, and iPad. I could understand if the text were super narrow like in the example in the link. WP:SANDWICHING says to "a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages hor­i­zon­tally op­po­site each other", but in this case, one image is vertical, allowing sufficient space for the text. (Emphasis mine) Besides, there is nowhere else to put the Trophy photo.
  • Edited to add: I have reset the medalists' photos into a horizontal gallery because there was a whitespace at the bottom of the History section before the Medalists section. I liked the vertical gallery, but I disliked that whitespace even more, so this should solve both problems. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming the flag in the Infobox here isn't necessary per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG (we already know the competition takes place in France, and nowhere else)
  • It wasn't until I redirected it. ;) Now it's fixed.
  • The records table being aligned to the right feels visually odd when all other tables are left-aligned. Is it possible to swap these?

I think that's all I have! TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheDoctorWho, what am I missing, because the records table is showing as left-justified to me, the same as the other tables. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the confusion, that was poor wording on my part. It may technically be left-aligned, but the size of the images is making it look very cramped to the point that I initially believed it to be right-aligned (see hre). Perhaps a {{clear}} or something, that would force the table below the images would make it more visually appealing? TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did not realize it was displaying like that. It was always showing the table under the photos for me, but I added a CLEAR that should solve the problem. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheDoctorWho, thank you as always for your comments. I am going to take a look at the fifth paragraph of the History section again tomorrow to see if I can clarify it a little better. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheDoctorWho, I have made additional changes to the article per my above comments. Let me know what you think when you have a chance. Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing these, I'll give that history section another read over tommorow. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The expansion to the history section is definitely helpful! It reads well enough to me, that I'm happy to support, nice work TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arconning

[edit]
  • The images in the lead could be moved down into the "History" section.
  • Ideally, they would go down the right-hand side of the article (see World Figure Skating Championships as an example), but the lead and history were not long enough to avoid a whitespace prior to the medalists section, so this was an alternative. See the discussion right above this one.
  • The captions of the images in the images in the lead need periods, image used in "Medalists" as well.
  • Even though those aren't sentences?
  • I don't think I see information about the French Federation of Ice Sports' being the organizer... being cited.
  • I linked one of the existing sources to the first sentence of the lead. From the source: "An initiative of the City of Paris and of the Federation Francaise des Sports de Glace..."
  • The infobox states that the competition was inaugurated in 1985 though the body states 1987?
  • That was a typo.

List of Iowa tornadoes

[edit]
Nominator(s): ActuallyElite (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because there are other tornado lists that are featured articles like List of California tornadoes and List of Connecticut tornadoes. I feel like the article for List of Iowa tornadoes has good enough quality to be nominated to be a featured list. ActuallyElite (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • Map needs alt text.
  • "An old brick college had its roof gone and major damage to it’s walls in Grinnell, Iowa" is not acceptable alt text. It should describe the image not the story, "had its roof gone" is also not correct.
  • Units of measurement should be spelled out on the first time with the acronym in brackets. Them used as just acronyms.
  • All sources should be archived, if IA bot doesn't get them you must do them manually.
  • I do not think the source "Only In You State" is reliable and should be replaced.
  • The acronym "KCCI" should be expanded, as with all other acronyms in references.
  • PS: I peer reviewed this article.
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @History6042:Finished everything. I manually archived all the sources that were able to be archived on Internet Archive. ActuallyElite (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

Older nominations

[edit]

List of My Name Is Earl episodes

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, I'm back with another episode list (and it's not Doctor Who-related this time)! In short, the television comedy My Name Is Earl can be summed up into one word: Karma. I've watched this series several times, and it has been a comfort show for me. I realized the episode list was in poor shape, so I've been working on improving it, and figured that I would bring it here. Thanks in advance for any reviews! (Note: As usual, IA bot is down currently, so I'll run that whenever I get a chance to clean up a few archives) TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "It first premiered on September 20, 2005" - as a show by definition can only premiere once, I think the "first" is not needed
  • "Three additional seasons followed" - you haven't specifically said that there was a first season, only the date of its premiere. For all the reader knows, that could mean that that premiere was a standalone single episode
  • "The series was subsequently and unexpectedly cancelled" => "The series was unexpectedly cancelled" is fine I think
  • "due to the would-be cuts in cast, writers, and crew" => "due to the resultant cuts in cast, writers, and crew"
  • "My Name Is Earl was continuously a strong performer in viewing figures for NBC" - I think maybe this would be better as "My Name Is Earl was consistently a strong performer in viewing figures for NBC"
  • " It also takes place in a shared fictional universe with Raising Hope" => " It takes place in a shared fictional universe with Raising Hope"
  • That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • Is an viewer count graph available like some other FLs like this?
  • Why does the caption not appear?
  • I think most columns should be for sortable. I think a least a few people would want to sort by viewer count.
  • I think it is standard to link something multiple times if it is in table.
  • Why are some things that are available to be merged are, and some are not?
  • What is the difference between "&" and "and". If there isn't one they should be consistent.
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @History6042:
    • I have added a viewing figures graph
    • Table captions are not required to appear when they would substantially duplicate nearby text from the heading (see the technical details at {{sronly}}))
    • Episode table/list is the standard across LoE FL's and there's not an option to make the tables sortable
    • MOS:DUPLINKs are permitted in tables if it "significantly aids the reader", I don't believe that's the case here as the tables aren't that big, and the same link can easily be found within the same table
    • The only merged content are for two-part episodes where they are within the same instance of {{Episode list}}, they can't me merged across different uses of those templates
    • More info on the difference between "&" and "and" can be found here, but essentially "&" is used for teams that regularly write together while "and" is used for teams that don't. For reference, the uses here are based upon the actual credits of each episode, and not personal interpretation of when "regularly" is met
    Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems all good, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I have a comment for this sentence: (The series was unexpectedly cancelled, ending the show on a cliffhanger). I wonder if there is a way to avoid having "series" and "show" in the same sentence as it seems a bit repetitive to me. Maybe just saying "ending on a cliffhanger" or using the name of the show at the start of the sentence instead? I could just be over-thinking it though.
  • For this part, (he discovers the concept of Karma), I am uncertain if karma should be capitalized, as it is not a proper noun. I have not run into instances where it is capitalized, but I could be mistaken.
  • I believe that for the citation titles, the show title should be in italics per WP:CONFORMTITLE.

Wonderful work with the list I have very fond memories of this show. For whatever reason, I remember Jaime Pressly the most. I can definitely see how this would be a comfort show. For me, it is very much tied to a particularly moment in time, but that is not a bad thing. I did not notice anything major, and my comments are rather nitpick-y. I will be more than happy to support this FLC once everything has been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Always happy to see you stopping by my review pages! Pressly is a fantastic performer, I also saw her a few years ago in Welcome to Flatch where she plays a different character with the same vibes. I've addressed your three comments, thanks pointing them out! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I will have to check that show out! Everything looks good to me. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant

[edit]
  • "The series was unexpectedly cancelled" I think more than one citation should be used here as "unexpectedly" seems somewhat MOS:PEACOCKy
  • in the tables could the distinction of "And" and "&" be explained with an EFN?
  • In ref 17 "(VIDEO)" should be "Video" per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • There is some inconsistancy with the source linking, for example: Ref 37 says "[American Broadcasting Company|ABC Medianet] while ref 36 says "[American Broadcasting Company|ABC] Medianet" and ref 68 has "ABC Medianet" and then has "[American Broadcasting Company|ABC] Medianet" as the publisher.
  • The lead image has a caption but is not showing up
  • NBC is spelled out as "National Broadcasting Company" on its first use while ABC isn't spelled out.
  • Ref 4 should be listed as subscription rewquired
Thats what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 15:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: I've left a comment on a help page to get assistance with the transclusion of the EFN. Ref 4 (now ref 6) doesn't appear to require a subscription. The caption for the lead photo displays when you hover your mouse over the image, this is the expected behavior of using a frameless image (see MOS:IMGSIZE). Everything else has been addressed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
support Olliefant (she/her) 18:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Men's T20 World Cup qualification

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio 03:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the final FLC in the 2024 Men's T20 World Cup topic; I might take an extended break from en-wiki after this closes, so cheers to the last one (for now).Not anymore... Vestrian24Bio 03:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC) – 13:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and additional notes.

[edit]
It's been 15 days and no reviews, I think you might have poisoned you nomination by advertising your exit, anyways I'll be the first to put the knife in your tenure.
  • Alot of inconsistency weather a source is linked or not
  • Alot of inconsistency weather sources use DMY or slash dates
  • Refs 31 and 58 have MOS:DASH violations
  • Some sources are showing up as dead despite being alive (56-58) for example, they need to be marked as being alive.
  • Spots checks flag nothing
  • Why is "Emerging Cricket" reliable?
  • Why is "Czarsportz" reliable?
That's what I found ping me when done, and if you do plan to take a wikibreak after this, thanks for all the fish. Olliefant (she/her) 02:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: Hi! thanks for the review, I was going to take a break but, things have changed now for good..
  • Emerging Cricket is a reliable site for Associate Cricket news; not sure if it has been discussed in WP:RSN though.
  • Czarsportz is the highest reliable independent source we have for associate cricket.
All else done..! Vestrian24Bio 13:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Latin Women in Music

[edit]
Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This list was originally created by OscJ, but I left a message on their talk page, although they yet to respond. However, I did the major overhaul to ensure what I feel meets FL standards. I've been eyeing on this ceremony since its inception in 2023 and waited about two years to see if it would grow and sure enough, it did! Plus with Mother's Day coming up, this could be perfect! I'm ready to tackle any issues with the list! Erick (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • Out of pure curiosity, is there any reason the italic string is embedded in {{main other}} when no second parameter is included?
  • This list is lacking hidden date format and English variety tags
  • All of the images are missing WP:ALT text
  • The images also shouldn't used a fixed px size (see WP:UPRIGHT)
  • I'd suggest hiding the table captions with {{sronly}} due to their proximity to the adjacent text and subheader
  • References 4 and 12 (currently Zemler 2024; Rolling Stone) are duplicates and should be merged

I think that's it for me . TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • Images need alt text.
  • All sources need archived.
  • Many of the smaller awards, (Tradition and Future Award, Visionary Award, etc.), only have one year, 2023 and 2024. Is this out of date.
  • Some images are very small and some are quite big, for example, La India vs. Natti Natasha. Please make them at least somewhat consistent sizing.
  • You don't need a citation in the infobox, the citation is already in the lede for the same info.
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio

[edit]

@Magiciandude:

  • Add language variant template.
  • 7 refs need archives.
  • Images need alt texts.
  • While all other awars only mentions what its awarded for, why only Global Powerhouse Award section mentions the first recipient in the prose.
  • There's a duplicated citation - 4th & 12th refs.
  • Link Billboard in all sources to Billboard (magazine).
  • In the table headers instead of {{Abbr|Ref.|References}} could use the {{Ref.}} template.

Vestrian24Bio 10:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The Billboard Latin Women in Music is an annual event" reads a little oddly. I would suggest either "Billboard Latin Women in Music is an annual event" or "The Billboard Latin Women in Music ceremony is an annual event"
  • "Karol G and Selena Gomez, who have won Woman of the Year in 2024 and 2025" => "Karol G and Selena Gomez, who won Woman of the Year in 2024 and 2025 respectively"
  • "on the American edition of the awards" - given that this ceremony (i.e. the Latin one) is held in the United States and has honoured American artists, is it really accurate to call the other one (i.e. Billboard Women in Music) "the American edition of the awards"? Maybe call the latter "the all-genre Billboard Women in Music awards".
  • Also, in that same sentence, it should be "at" the awards, not "on" the awards
  • Some of the sub-sections start with "The [whatever] award is presented to" but others just start with "Recognises an artist for [whatever]". I would use the former style for all of them.
  • That's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from magiciandude

[edit]

Thank you everyone who left a comment, sorry I've been really busy this week but I should be able to start it early next week to address everybody's concerns. Erick (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho:, @Vestrian24Bio:, @ChrisTheDude:, I believe I have addressed everything brought up in your comments. @Vestrian24Bio:, I addressed everything except for the awards that have been presented only once its inceptions. Any suggestions? Erick (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC) EDIT: Sorry meant to ping @History6042: for the last comment. Erick (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good, Support. Vestrian24Bio 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I spotted a couple of issues with the descriptions of the awards. "The Rising Star Award is presented to an artist's "emerging talent’s success....."" doesn't make sense at all. I would suggest "The Rising Star Award recognizes an "emerging talent’s success....."" There's a couple that say the award "recognizes an artist who have", which should be "an artist who has". I also think that "The Unbreakable Award is presented to an artist for "collaboration between Latin women artists who have made an indelible impact on the music industry"" would be better as simply "The Unbreakable Award is presented for "collaboration between Latin women artists who have made an indelible impact on the music industry"" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Sorry for the late response, how does it look now? Also pinging @History6042: for their comments. Erick (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the one that said the artist was "presented to an artist's success", because it isn't presented to their success. Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Sigrid

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigrid is a Norwegian singer-songwriter, who is probably best known for winning the BBC Sound Of in 2018. This list consists of all the songs she has recorded throughout her career. While working on this list, I used similar FLs as inspiration. Looking forward to your comments! Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "She also collaborated with other artists" => "She has also collaborated with other artists"
  • " Norwegian state television NRK's show Urørt" - show title should be in italics
  • "and was the first single off her debut EP, Don't Kill My Vibe (2017)" => "and it was the first single off her debut EP, Don't Kill My Vibe (2017)"
  • "such as Noonie Bao who co-wrote "Business Dinners" and "Never Mine" and Oscar Holter, who co-wrote and produced the single "Don't Feel Like Crying"." => "such as Noonie Bao, who co-wrote "Business Dinners" and "Never Mine", and Oscar Holter, who co-wrote and produced the single "Don't Feel Like Crying"."
  • "Sigrid worked again with Sjølie who co-wrote and produced "Mistake Like You", and Warren who contributed to three songs, including" => "Sigrid worked again with Sjølie, who co-wrote and produced "Mistake Like You", and Warren, who contributed to three songs, including"
  • "A Driver Saved My Night" correctly sorts under D so it should also be placed under D alphabetically
  • The Hype (in the album column) should sort under H
  • "The song was initially meant for Sigrid, however it was given to and released by Lxandra" - this is a complete sentence so it needs a full stop
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio

[edit]

@Sebbirrrr:

Vestrian24Bio 11:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orangesclub

[edit]

This list is in very good shape, I have few comments.

That's all I have! orangesclub 🍊 04:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]

A couple of comments:

  • Tellef featured Sigrid on two songs on his EP, Idiographic (2016) - You can lose that comma.
  • Sigrid and Zedd collaborated on "Are You Happy Now" which was released without Sigrid. - You need a comma before which.

Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes. And nice work, it was a nice read. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tampa Bay Mutiny players

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this list as a continuation of my project to improve pages for defunct MLS teams. Brindille1 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still planning on addressing comments on this- hope to have time to do so this week. Brindille1 (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

[edit]
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |align=left|{{sortname|Joseph|Addo|Joe Addo}} [...] becomes !scope=row align=left|{{sortname|Joseph|Addo|Joe Addo}} <newline> [...]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • I appreciate the attempt to use the team colors, but the light yellow on light blue is extremely difficult to read for anyone with reduced vision (fails the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines for contrast, I used [3] to check #ffff00 vs #0bbff2). If you keep the blue, the text should be black; if you want to keep the yellow, the blue needs to be much darker.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 13:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I would move "A total of 80 players appeared in MLS matches for the club, including 7 different goalkeepers. Additionally, Matt Nyman appeared for the club in the 2001 U.S. Open Cup." to the end of the second paragraph or even the start of the third. It just seems a bit odd that you mention that one guy appeared only in the Open Cup before you introduce what the Open Cup actually is.........
  • "In its six season" - missing S on the end
  • Diaz Arce is initially listed under D but if you re-sort the column he jumps up to be among the As
  • "As of the 2024 season, Garlick holds the record for the most saves in a season" - the club record? the MLS record? the world record?
  • "Below is a list of players who have not appeared in a league match, but have played for the team in other competitions." => "Below is a list of players who did not appear in a league match, but played for the team in other competitions."
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • Add {{Use American English}}
  • The short description is just a tad long per WP:SD40. What about "Tampa Bay Mutiny soccer club players" or "Tampa Bay Mutiny soccer club player list" or something similar? Falls in line with the examples at WP:SDLIST.
  • The alt text in the lead image does not provide adequate context per MOS:ALTCON
  • The wikilinks to United States and Canada in the lead is likely a MOS:OVERLINK
  • The same for the alt text context could be said about the other images
  • I won't go into deep detail since I've seen it's already done above, but addressing color contrast issues and table captions are a must
  • "Notes" ---> "Reference(s)" or "Ref(s)" in the column editors - more descriptive header
  • I believe the flags in the tables are a MOS:SPORTSFLAG issue

Think that's all I have! TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • All alt texts need more context.
  • Some archive links are needed.
  • I think that yellow on blue is a violation of WP:COLOR.
  • Should more detailed positions, for example wingers, be added?
  • I don't think GKs should be in their own separate table.
  • "All statistics are for MLS regular season games only." should be in a EFN note.
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MrLinkinPark333

[edit]

Oppose. The current and archived table links do not verify the stats. This is because they are pointing to the wrong archived links. For example, Addo should be this 2014 link as the 2024 and current version do not have this data. I tried looking at the career stats and match log but they are blank. Other examples that I checked that need fixing include Hunjak, Budnick and Nyman. Therefore, I think all of the 2024-2025 tables links needs to be adjusted to earlier archived versions with these stats. As the tables make up the majority of the list, this mainly fails verification.--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1968 Winter Olympics medal table

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second last Winter Olympic medal table that is not featured status, and it's a relatively short one. What's interesting about this one is that Morocco competed for the first time, and East and West Germany entered separate teams for the time. This will be Olympic medal table #12 and Winter medal table #4 for me and I aimed to match the formatting of the other previously promoted lists. As always, I'll do my best to respond promptly and to address any and all feedback that is brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bgsu98

[edit]

Just one general comment to start. This article seems awfully short. Are the others in this series as short as this one? The only other article I've seen is another one you put forward recently – 1972 Summer Olympics medal table – and it looks like it has more meat. Maybe the 1968 Winter Olympics were just relatively uneventful?

More specific comments:

  1. "The 1968 Winter Olympics, officially known as the X Olympic Winter Games, was a winter multi-sport event..." "was" should be "were".
  2. "This included first-time entrants Morocco" "entrants" should be "entrant".
  3. "including the team relay event in biathlon" I would say "in the biathlon".
  4. "Norway won the most medals overall, with 14, and the most gold medals, with six." This may be personal style preference, but I would put the "with x" in parentheses (ie. Norway won the most medals overall (with 14), and the most gold medals (with six).) But either way is probably fine.
  5. "French alpine skier Jean-Claude Killy had the most gold medals with three." I would use "won" instead of "had".
  6. In the infobox: "Swedish cross-country skier Toini Gustafsson (pictured) won three medals (two gold, one silver) at the 1968 Winter Olympics..." I don't think the "(pictured)" is needed, and I would use the phrase "two gold and one silver" rather than just separating them with a comma. Ditto with that same scenario in the second paragraph.

Just a personal note: I never liked the purple shading of the host nation on these tables, but this is most definitely not the forum for that discussion. :)

Please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review @Bgsu98! I implemented your feedback, with the exception of 4 and the a part of number 6 (the medals in brackets). I feel these are stylistic choices and I wanted to remain consistent with other lists that have been done already. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they are personal preferences and I also understand wanting to maintain consistency among articles that are in a series. I'm happy to support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Source review

[edit]
  • Refs 18, 19, and 20 all spell the name of the host city as "Gronoble" in stead of "Grenoble."
Fine...  ;) MikeVitale 18:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All references have archive links, and spot-checked archive links go to the same place as the original article.
  • Date formats are consistent.
  • Spot-checked references (both original and archived) support the material in the article they purport to support.

That's all from me. --MikeVitale 18:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Gronoble typos have been fixed... Support. --MikeVitale 18:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, those are embarrassing typos! Thanks for the source review and fixing those @MikeVitale! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd love to take credit, I only pointed out the typos. It was @Bgsu98 who actually fixed "Gronoble".  :) --MikeVitale 02:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]
  • Norway won the most medals overall, with 14, and the most gold medals, with six - As per MOS:NUMBER: "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". I would go with Norway won the most medals overall, with fourteen, and the most gold medals, with six.
  • Killy (three gold), along with Swedish cross-country skier Toini Gustafsson (two gold, one silver) and Finnish cross-country skier Eero Mäntyranta (one silver, two bronze), tied - Does this sentence really work? Wouldn't it be better to say Killy (three gold), Swedish cross-country skier Toini Gustafsson (two gold, one silver) and Finnish cross-country skier Eero Mäntyranta (one silver, two bronze) tied?
  • As noted in another review, I believe there should be something at the beginning of the second paragraph of the section Medal table that brings the reader back from the general explanation of how the table works to the 1968 Games.

That's what I got. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Men's T20 World Cup tournaments

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio 09:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My previous FLC has been promoted now after 2 months, so here's the next one in the topic. Vestrian24Bio 09:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Arconning

[edit]
  • The sole image used is from mapchart.net which explicitly says in its website that its works are copyrighted, so this should either be replaced or removed entirely as its a copyright violation.
  • "West Indies...", "The West Indies..."
  • "in Twenty20 International (T20I) format,", "in the Twenty20 International (T20I) format,"
  • "World Twenty20 to Men's T20 World Cup.", "the World Twenty20 to the Men's T20 World Cup."
  • "The table below provides a summary of the performances of teams over past T20 World Cups, as of the end of the 2024 tournament. *Teams are ordered by their best performance, then winning percentage, then (if equal) by alphabetical order.", this would work better as a note.
    @Arconning:
    • Map removed.
    • Not sure if this is what you meant by a note, take a look...
    All else done. Vestrian24Bio 11:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give my support. Arconning (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "West Indies, England and India have won the title twice each" => "The West Indies, England and India have won the title twice each"
  • "is the Super 8 appearance by the United States in 2024" - without further explanation somewhere in the article "Super 8 appearance" is meaningless
  • "while the worst result by a Test playing nation is the Super 12 appearance by Zimbabwe in 2022" - same here
  • "No title winners have yet defended their title in the following edition" => "No title winners have yet retained their title in the following edition"
  • I would move the legend to above the "Team performances by tournament" table as that is the only table to which it applies. The bit about the dagger can be put above the tables to which it applies, and it should be reworded to simply "Test playing nations / ICC full members are indicated by a dagger symbol (†)."
  • The last column of the debutant teams table looks odd with the individual numbers left aligned but the total centre aligned
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude:
    • Reworded Super 8 and Super 12.
    • Should the last column of the debutant teams table be all centered or all left..?
    All else done. Vestrian24Bio 11:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say all centred looks better -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW I meant that the legend should be immediately above the "Team performances by tournament" table. It can be under the L2 heading for that section, it doesn't need its own L2 heading -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks, done. Vestrian24Bio 11:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Bgsu98

[edit]

I will do the source review for this article when I get home this afternoon, but I can tell you already that most of the sources are not archived and will need to be. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I will do the source review tonight. I will also note anything that catches my eye, but the emphasis will be on the sources. I will note that I was excited to read an article about crickets since they're one of my favorite insects only to realize it was a sports article...

  • As noted above, all sources need to be archived.
  • Dates do not show a consistent format. For example, Source No. 3 shows an access date of 2024-12-12 and an archive date of 13 November 2024. I would recommend picking one format and ensuring that all dates adhere to it.
  • Some sources have improper author citations. For example, Source No. 3 lists a last name of Media and a first name of USA Cricket. Either that's the most unfortunate name a set of parents could give a child, or else the citation template imported the data improperly. When entering sources, you have to ensure that data was input properly, and sometimes that means removing bogus authors and re-entering that information as a website or publisher. Source No. 4 also has an improper author.
  • I spot-checked the following sources to see if they supported what they were purported to:
  1. No. 3 – Checks out.
  2. No. 6 – Used as a reference for the statement Kenya and Scotland were the only non-Test playing nations to be featured in the inaugural edition. Neither Kenya nor Scotland are identified in the source.
  3. No. 8 – Checks out.
  4. No. 12 – Checks out.
  5. No. 18 – I'm going to be honest; I don't know anything about cricket, so I found it difficult to analyze this source, but it appears to check out. Did teams get to come back and play again after losing in an earlier round?
  6. No. 25 – The only nations identified specifically in that source are India and Sri Lanka as hosts. None of the other nations with a Q next to them are identified in the source.

Regarding the table labeled Details of Men's T20 World Cup finals, what purpose is served with the rows in light blue versus those in white?

Please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98:
  • Most part of the lead are summary of article, thus don't have much citations as they're not mandatory per MOS:LEADCITE.
  • Most ESPNcricinfo sources uses the {{ESPNcricinfo 2}} citation template which doesn't support archives as cricinfo sources are unlikely to link rot. Will have the others archived.
  • The light blue rows are just for a visual sense, to differentiate each row, when the table gets too long and no other meaning or whatsoever.
All else done. Vestrian24Bio 13:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using color for decorative purposes is inappropriate per MOS:COLOR. I would remove the blue. Most tables on Wikipedia are plain white and do just fine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98: That's not what MOS:COLOR says; it actually doesn't say anything about decorative purposes at all. It says not to use color to convey information (on its own). This is just decorative; the only issue would be contrast between the blue background and the blue links, and [4] says it's fine for that (#0033cc vs #ddeeff). --PresN 18:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the clarification! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you meant by your first point, as I didn't say anything about the lead not having citations. As everything appears to have been addressed and the issue with the table clarified (though I still don't think the blue is necessary), I'm happy to support your article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doechii discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 14:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Picture this: you're at the mall, shopping for groceries at 8PM. The radio is blasting the 100th top 40 song released within the past three years. And suddenly, you hear the opening tune of a timeless classic: "Somebody That I Used to Know". You're relieved, knowing that for once, no new songs are terrorizing the mall at the moment.

...except that isn't the voice of Gotye in the airwaves. You have been tricked; that's actually "Anxiety" (2025) by one of the fastest-rising stars of this decade, Doechii. She's a rapper who's been labelmates with SZA and Kendrick Lamar, already a legendary duo in their own right. And at this year's Grammys, she recently won a Best Rap Album Grammy for her latest mixtape.

Having witnessed Doechii's slow rise to stardom since 2023, I recently endeavored to bring this discography list to FL status as one of my latest content-creating projects. There aren't a lot of discography FLs for black women musicians out there, so I hope this is a step further into filling this particular niche. I hope you enjoy what I have to offer. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 14:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Orangesclub

[edit]
  • References 5 and 70 are duplicated
    • Merged - Elias
  • Some columns have widths defined but some don't, so one EP title is wrapped meanwhile titles for guest appearances have unexplained empty space. I would encourage consistency, especially seeing as her discography is still small enough that the tables aren't getting squished (see Michael W. Smith discography for an example).
    • I think I got it handled - Elias
  • Can the intro prose be expanded a little, so that the summary table isn't cramped next to the infobox? Alternatively use of {clear} would be good, again so information isn't unnecessarily squished. This is perhaps more of a preference for me as I'm a Vector 2022 user but seeing as its a default it'll probably affect many readers.
    • I'm a bit apprehensive about this comment because I firmly believe the lead is already a proper summary of the list's contents, and there are no squishing issues on my laptop and desktop screens. I think in this scenario any possible issues with squishing are just dependent on what device is being used so I don't think it's one that needs addressing. - Elias
  • All references should be archived - these chart websites have a way of rebranding and wiping all the old links
    • See my reply to a similar comment above + given Doechii's music is still charting and rising in many countries, archiving them may be a bit too soon. - Elias
  • Is there a reason "Wat U Sed" is in the lead artist section? It seems to be described as a feature
    • I must have misplaced it, my bad! - Elias

That's all I have for now, it's great to see how much love she is getting! orangesclub 🍊 03:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangesclub, thank you! I appreciate these replies. It's indeed nice to see the former weed-smoking storytime vlogger finally get her flowers as the artist she is responses above Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 04:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following up to see if all your concerns have been addressed @Orangesclub. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with your changes, but I won't be able to support it without the archives. The live website will and should still be the source of truth, but chart websites change without any notice and if they haven't been archived they are just lost forever. I feel like this is the perfect time to capture an archive, ie when promoting to featured list, because too many of these charts will void out before anyone takes the care to preserve them. I will note that other featured discography lists of artists that haven't peaked yet have the archives in place. orangesclub 🍊 21:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Orangesclub, well I did the best I could. Certification references cannot be archived because they are template-generated and there is no parameter for archives. That aside, please check if everything is in order. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 04:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, happy to support! All good on the certifications, I'm aware of that (and so many certification websites don't support archiving anyway 🥲) but the rest looks good. orangesclub 🍊 04:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • A short description needs added per WP:SDLIST
    • Per WP:SDNONE the short description "none" will suffice. In this page, the "entirety of the title will be reasonably clear to English-speaking readers worldwide."
  • Not a requirement by any means, but this is one place where {{sronly}} would come in handy if you wanted to use it
    • Apologies, but I am unsure how this template can be used in the article. May you give an example?
  • Alligator Bites Never Heal is missing a reference (which I assume is supposed to support a release date, label, etc.)
    • In discography pages, it's customary for album entries with their own articles to not require citations
  • Any particular reason why this same album has two refs for the peak in the Irish column, which appear to list different peaks? If the one in the header is outdated, it can be removed and the Official Charts one moved up.
    • Not sure, I'm not the one who updates these peaks. I moved the Official Charts citation up, though I'd imagine someone will replace that citation months down the line when Doechii releases more albums.
  • Ref 8 (currently Rolling Stone for me) needs |url-access=subscription
    • Added the parameter (though it should be "limited" because RS shows a limited amount of free articles before the annoying paywall)
  • "The AV Club" --> "The A.V. Club" (official name; currently ref 22 for me)
    • Done

I think that's all I have! Wish you could've seen the pure shock on my face when I first heard Anxiety on the radio and thought it was gonna be Somebody That I Used To Know 😅 TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I had the same feeling while I was shopping in some gaudy upscale mall :^) more on-topic, I have replied to all of your comments above. Thanks for stopping by @TheDoctorWho! Sorry this took a bit. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 07:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few responses:
  1. {{sronly}} essentially makes a table caption visible to screen readers only when nearby text (such as prose or headers) sufficiently describe the table being presented to avoid a duplication of text. So for example, with the first table, you could use {{sronly|List of mixtapes, with selected details and chart positions}}, this would still meet accessibility requirements by providing a caption, but would hide it from those that don't need it. (Like I said, using this isn't a requirement, and I wouldn't oppose if it isn't used. I just like to provide alternatives sometimes.)
I think the tables are already fine on their own. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "In discography pages, it's customary for album entries with their own articles to not require citations I'm not convinced this is the case, Ithaca discography, Kittie discography, Tages discography, and Bini discography are all recent FL's that have sourced release dates despite album articles existing.
Not something I usually do (and not something that happens for discography pages of way more popular artists)... but I guess adding a citation here won't hurt... Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I also have to slightly disagree with the absence of a short description, because not all English speakers worldwide will know who Doechii is. SDLIST gives an example of this with the sitcom Friends, a good short description for List of Friends episodes would be "Episodes of American television sitcom". It should not be "none", since the term "Friends" – no matter how well known to readers familiar with American TV – will not necessarily be clear to other English-speaking readers worldwide. While "Discography" is clear, Doechii could easily be a British pop artist or an Australian country singer
Looking at a sample of entries on Wikipedia:Featured lists#Discographies, I see that SDNONE is consistently applied. I do not think this needs changing. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho, responses above. I do not know how to respond to individual comments on a numbered list so apologies that the numbering format got messed up. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately going to oppose on lack of a proper short description then. The instructions laid out at WP:SDESC are pretty clear to me, and I don't feel comfortable saying that this is one of Wikipedia's best lists with one that doesn't describe the contents of the list. WP:SDEXAMPLES is pretty clear on this too, in the entry for Burt Reynolds filmography where it says "Even very famous American celebrities may not be well known to all English speakers: a proper short description helps readers of different cultures as well as those who fall outside the person's usual fan demographic." and gives the example "Performances by American actor" an SD. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: hm alright... I can see where you are coming from with your rationale so I changed the shortdesc. Looks like someone has to change all the other shortdescs on those discography FLs then; maybe someone can run AWB on those? Though I am unsure if such a massive change will face some opposition... Regardless your suggestion seems convincing enough and I respect the way you stand your ground at least. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 04:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'm happy to support! This should definitely be changed on the other articles mentioned, but one article at a time (as done here) is a start. Nice work on this list by the way, apologies if I was a pain 😅. 06:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

SB19 videography

[edit]
Nominator(s): – Relayed (t • c) 17:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how is everyone feeling? I am back with my fifth FL nomination, another SB19 list! This comprehensive list documents the group's appearances on music videos, TV, films, online shows, and commercials since they debuted in 2018. This has been part of my ongoing efforts to eventually have the group get their own Featured Topic on Wikipedia. I recently finished revamping the list, and I believe I have drastically improved the list's quality over its previous state. With the help of other similar existing FLs as basis, I think this list is now ready to be considered for FL. I would be happy to address all your concerns, suggestions, and feedback; they are much appreciated. I sincerely thank the reviewers in advance who will put their time and effort here. – Relayed (t • c) 17:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • All tables need captions..
Done
  • Can Park Se-eun be linked?
Not done: There's not a Wikipedia page for Park Se-eun, and if I were to WP:REDLINK her, there's not really much information about her to redlink or create her page in the first place without being challenged in the long run.
  • Can rows that are the same be merged, for example column of region in television is almost all the same.
Done: I personally avoid merging cells much (because for me it just makes it difficult to read the tables), hence why it was like that previously. Although I merged some cells in the latest revision as suggested. There are only cells that I chose not to, specifically: 1) those with the {{N/A}} template, since it makes it difficult to edit the page using Visual Editor; 2) Notes because I think each show must have their own distinct notes row; and, 3) "Commercials" table under the "Company" column, so that it's easier to count how many commercials they have been in.
  • Same with years.
Done
  • Could a table be made with summaries of the numbers of how many things they have been in? For example, Bini videography.
Not done: Actually, the infobox template ({{Infobox artist discography}} used in that page was misused, and was intended for discography lists, not videographies. Also, there's not really a proper infobox for videographies / filmographies lists. Other similar pages that are also FLs stand without infoboxes anyway.
Hi, History6042 and Relayed! I happened to come across this FLC and noticed the issue. Relayed is right—the infobox was misused in that article, and I’ve already removed it. I’m not sure who added it, but as Relayed pointed out, videographies typically don’t use infoboxes. Just thought I’d drop by and mention it. Best of luck with the FLC! AstrooKai (Talk) 13:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright, AstrooKai. Thanks! – Relayed (t • c) 12:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, History6042. Thanks for having a look and leaving some suggestions. I have looked into your comments and made necessary changes, and they should be visible now in the latest revision of the page. Some were not implemented; I have also left comments above as to why that is. Let me know if you're okay with the changes and if you have anything else. Thank you! – Relayed (t • c) 12:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, everything looks good, I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! – Relayed (t • c) 12:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "and a few films" - "a few" sounds a bit too casual. As films form such a tiny section of their overall videography, I would be tempted to remove this completely
Removed
  • "they only achieved breakthrough" => "they only achieved a breakthrough"
Done
  • "In addition, they have collaborated with Ben&Ben" => "In addition, they collaborated with Ben&Ben"
Done
  • "The group also endorsed numerous brands" => "The group have also endorsed numerous brands"
Done
  • " the group stars in their own variety show series," => " the group star in their own variety show series,"
Done
  • "and have once ventured into acting with main roles in self-released online short film, Ex-Mas (2020),[37] and web series, Our Zone: Anniversary Series (2021) and School Buddies (2022)" => "and have ventured into acting with main roles in the self-released online short film, Ex-Mas (2020),[37] and the web series, Our Zone: Anniversary Series (2021) and School Buddies (2022)"
Done
  • Descriptions like "A video depicting SB19 wandering in outdoor spaces." which are not complete sentences should not have full stops
Done: Thanks for spotting that. I have revised the descriptions to be all full-on sentences. Let me know if I missed any.
  • "after which shows them with apl.de.ap carrying on with their party on a yacht." => "after which it shows them with apl.de.ap carrying on with their party on a yacht."
Done
  • No description for "Time".....?
Done: Simula at Wakas and the music video for "Time" were just released yesterday, April 25, so there's not much information going on right now about the video's plot (so I was planning to wait it out), but I guess I can add a temporary one based on its synopsis reported by ABS-CBN News.
  • Is the "role" column really needed in the TV and web tables?
Removed: I guess we can remove the column since they do not have specific characters portrayed at the moment.
Hi, ChrisTheDude! Thanks a lot for leaving some comments. I believe I have sorted them all now. Let me know if you have anything else or if I missed something. I have also left some commentary. Thanks again! – Relayed (t • c) 15:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Hi, Chris! This is a friendly courtesy ping, in case the first one didn't go through, since it's been two days since I replied. Take your time, though, no pressure! Do let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 13:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • This article needs a short description per WP:SDLIST
Done: Currently set from "none" to "Videography of Filipino boy band"
  • The alt text for the lead image needs modified per MOS:ALT (specifically the importance of context portion and the example of Elizabeth II
Done: Removed unnecessary descriptions
  • The same could be said for several of the images in the music video section
Done: ditto
  • This is one place where {{sronly}} may be useful, it's not a requirement by any means, but since all of the table captions are directly below their respective headers it's okay if they're hidden
Done
  • Given that there's only one region in the "Commercials" table, is it necessary to include?
Removed: I guess that can go as well.
  • References 27 and 68 are duplicates and should be merged
Done: Merged

I think that's all I have! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TheDoctorWho! I'll address your comments soon. Will ping once done. Thanks for stopping by! – Relayed (t • c) 17:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TheDoctorWho! I believe I have addressed all your comments. Let me know if I missed something or if you have anything else. Thanks again! – Relayed (t • c) 16:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support, nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! – Relayed (t • c) 12:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Uganda

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tone 20:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda has three sites on the main list and a further seven on the tentative list. Standard style. The nomination for Tanzania is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 20:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • I think the list should be alphabetical, if this is wrong, that's fine, its not that big a deal.
  • All sources need archive links.
  • Publishers should be linked whenever possible
  • In the row of Rwenzori Park, I think legendary is unnecessary.
  • You use DMY dates in sources but MDY in "November 20, 1987" in prose.
  • Should the tentative list be added to the map.
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @History6042 Thanks! I fixed the date and archived the link. UNESCO is already linked in the intro, otherwise we would have sea of blue in the references. The table is sortable so alphabetically sorting is an option. The default is chronological, though. The word legendary is appropriate here, because of the backstory, see the source. And we only have main sites on the map, tentative ones come and go. Tone 17:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source and Image Review by Easternsahara

[edit]
  • I couldn't notice anything wrong with the prose or the lead
  • All sources are reliable and match the information that they're cited for.
  • All are archived
  • Stable
  • All images are relevant to the article, definitely add a lot to the article.
  • Map needed alt text and color differentiation between cultural and natural sites, I have dealt with this.
  • All images have alt text, nice.
  • File:Bwindi NP (6734885541).jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:1172 ruwenzori.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:Kampala Kasubi Tombs.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
  • File:Nyero Rockpaintings.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, Uganda (31467129021).jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:Mount elgon topo.jpg - Public Domain

Support Easternsahara (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]
  • As pointed out for Tanzania: natural sites which are important from the point of view of science, conservation, or natural beauty, are defined - That last comma is not needed. I would suggest losing it for every text that uses it in similar lists.
  • The park is located in the Albertine Rift. It is located at the intersection of three ecological zones and likely acted as a Pleistocene refugium - Both sentences use the same verb, so I think they could be merged: The park is located in the Albertine Rift, at the intersection of three ecological zones, and likely acted as a Pleistocene refugium.
  • with the highest peak Mount Stanley reaching an altitude of 5,109 m (16,762 ft) being Africa's third highest mountain - I think that's a bit too much, isn't it?, with two gerunds in the clause. I got lost.
  • It home to
  • Mount Elgon (satellite image pictured) is an extinct stratovolcano, is located on the border with Kenya - I suggest: Mount Elgon (satellite image pictured), an extinct stratovolcano, is located on the border with Kenya
  • and reaching height well above - a height, maybe?
  • Today it eroded - That reads a bit weird.
  • This nomination comprises 12 sites with rock art in three countries around Lake Victoria, six of which are in Uganda - As per MOS:NUMBER: "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". So it should be 12 and 6 or twelve and six.
  • Red finger-painted geometric motifs, such as concentric circles and lozenges were - A comma is missing after lozenges.
  • In a process, which is an exclusively female occupation, salt is extracted - I think you could lose those commas, as I think it's a defining clause.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all, thanks! Great comments, as always. Tone 10:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great work again with this one. Congratulations. Support. Alavense (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1972 Summer Olympics medal table

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief intermission for NFL seasons lists, I'm back to nominating the series of Olympic lists! This would be Olympic medal table #11 and Summer Olympic medal table #8. As for what was notable about these individual games, Mark Spitz won SEVEN golds! Which was a record for 36 years until Phelps won eight at the 2008 Summer Olympics. There was also 11 new competitors, which is a lot for this late into the Olympics. As always, I'll do my best to respond promptly and to address any and all feedback that is brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bgsu98

[edit]

I enjoyed reading this article and only have a few comments.

  1. In the infobox, I would put the flag before the city. (West Germany Munich, West Germany)
  2. There should be an and between Togo and Upper Volta.
  3. "The games featured 195 events in 21 sports across 27 disciplines." What is the difference between a sport and a discipline?
  4. You have several sports wikilinked, but not archery.
  5. "In response, athletes from other African nations protested this invitation and again threatened to boycott the games over those policies." I would maybe say "In response, athletes from other African nations protested this invitation and again threatened a boycott."
  6. "Four days before the opening ceremonies the IOC voted to rescind their invitation..." You need a comma after ceremonies.
  7. "North Korea and Uganda won their nations' first Summer Olympic gold medals, which was the first medal of any kind for North Korea.[7][22] Colombia and Niger also won their nations' first Olympic medals of any kind." Just as a point of interest, you might specify in what sport these nations won their first medals.
  8. "16-year-old American swimmer Rick DeMont had originally won gold in the men's 400 metre freestyle event but was disqualified..." You need a comma after event.
  9. "Events in judo used a repechage system which also resulted in two bronze medals being awarded." You need a comma after system.
  10. "In women's uneven bars..." I would put a the in front of women's uneven bars.
  11. On the table of medal changes, I would probably left justify the first column.
  12. "Biddle had tried to get tested following the race, at the advice of the team's manager, just in case of a disqualification, but he was turned away." – I would use the following: "Biddle had tried to be tested following the race on the advice of his team's manager, in the event of a disqualification, but this request was denied."
  13. "The Belgian team finished fourth, but did not receive the bronze medal..." I would pluralize medal.
  14. One doped athlete caused the entire team to lose their medals? *stares in 2022 figure skating team event*
  15. "DeMont had declared... leading to the situation which resulted in his gold medal being stripped." The end of that sentence sounds awkward. Maybe "leading to his (or the) gold medal being stripped from him"

Please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review @Bgsu98!
1 – So, for whatever reason, it's apparently been common practice to do so before the country instead of the city name. Honestly this isn't something I had ever considered actually.
  • I think it looks weird as hell, and some of the formatting of these Olympic articles baffles me, but it should probably follow whatever the precedent is for similar Olympic articles.
  • I'm not opposed to changing them, and I could do it for all of them. Do you have an example of any series of events where it is shown at the beginning instead, just so I can point to that if questioned?
2 – Done.
3 – A good example would be "aquatics", which is defined as an Olympic sport. It has 5 sub disciplines, artistic swimming (synchronized swimming), diving, marathon swimming, swimming (the regular sprint or regular swim races), and water polo. Cycling as another example has BMX freestyle, BMX racing, mountain biking, road biking, and track racing. They're essentially sub sports of a large classification of sport.
4 – Done.
5 – So, I wanted to be clear when I wrote that that it was over the policies, as opposed to simply being upset that Rhodesia was invited in generic.
  • There could still be a better way of wording it. Perhaps: "In response, athletes from other African nations protested this invitation due to Rhodesia's racist policies and again threatened a boycott."
  • I'm not sure that would be an improvement though, I'm trying to highlight that they're doing so again. I've found that sources also specifically stated "racial policies" as opposed to "racist policies".
6 – Done
7 – I've considered it, but applying that consistently across these types of lists would actually end up being surprisingly difficult. There's often difficulties pinpointing which athlete won a NOC's first Olympic or gold medal, based on people winning on the same day but exact time keeping for when the medals were won being difficult to iron out. I think it would also make some of these lists far too large in prose and run on sentences.
  • I do understand what you're saying, but in the case of North Korea, Uganda, and Niger, there is no question as they each only won one medal. Colombia is hazier.
8 – Done.
9 – I feel like this actually isn't a necessary comma, there's no pause or break up of the sentence. It's rather straight forward from my perspective.
  • It's a relative clause and needs a comma.
  • Done.
10 – Done.
11 – Unfortunately this is a preexisting template which I'm not comfortable modifying for this. Additionally, I think the rank being centered actually makes more sense.
  • I thought this was a simple table and did not realize it was a template. Edited to add: I just looked and this is a regular table. If it were me, I would left-justify everything except the numbers, but it is not something I would hold up a FL promotion over. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
12 – So, I was specific in the phrasing of "turned away", as that's what sources say. Oddly the phrasing denied didn't come up when I was working on this one. I've mostly implemented this suggestion though.
13 – Done.
14 – That is correct, the entire team was disqualified as a result. After looking at what you're referring to... Damn it! I wish it happened then as well to get Canada a bronze!
  • I was heated for multiple reasons. I did want to see the Canadian team receive the bronze medals. Roman Sadovsky got yoked into the team event at the last minute after the original men's competitor was quarantined with COVID, didn't exactly have a great performance in front of the largest audience of his life, got tons of cyber-BS from the armchair critics, and I would have loved to see him become an Olympic bronze medalist by default.
15 – Done.
Most of what you've suggested has been implemented, but there's a few points for you to reply to. Thanks again for the solid review! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Bgsu98, I believe I've responded to everything that needed a response. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Arconning

[edit]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]
  • Rhodesia had been barred from participating at the 1968 Games - Can the 1968 Games be linked?
  • Among individual participants, American swimmer Mark Spitz won the most medals at the game with seven - At the game or at the games?
  • In the paragraph about Spitz, wouldn't it make sense to also state that Phelps is American. Given that one's nationality is mentioned, I believe the other one's should as well.
  • The medal table is based on information provided by the IOC and is consistent with IOC conventional sorting in its published medal tables. The table uses the Olympic medal table sorting method. By default, the table - Five table(s) make this a bit weird to read. For starters, the last one can easily become an it, I think.
  • Events in boxing resulted - In the previous paragraph, you are referring to conventions about medal tables in general, so it would be worth stating that we are now speaking about these games. Maybe add At the 1972 Games, at the beginning, or whichever formula you prefer.
  • Neither athlete who finished third was awarded the silver, which is considered vacant - Is this vacant thing important? I think it's the same for the two events mentioned above, isn't it? The way it's written, at least to me, makes it seem like it's something different.

That's what I got. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by MikeVitale

[edit]

As one would expect from someone with currently over 40 FLs, I can't find anything wrong here. All links are archived, all references check out, consistent date formatting, etc. Yeah...Support. --MikeVitale 18:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Portland Trail Blazers seasons

[edit]
Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the team's season is over, I felt like it was a good time to finally nominate the list. I took inspiration for the table from List of Seattle SuperSonics seasons since it is a recent related FL. -- ZooBlazer 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

It seems like the first two columns of the table are redundant. You could remove the first one and it wouldn't affect anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 One covers the NBA season, while one covers the Blazers specific season. I didn't originally include both, but added the NBA one because List of Seattle SuperSonics seasons passed FLC a few months ago with it included. -- ZooBlazer 15:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it’s redundant there too. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98 Alright, I removed it. -- ZooBlazer 15:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • Most sources are archived, all of them should be.
  • There is a column for Conference standings and Division standings. I think one should be added for overall for example when they won the NBA, 1, if they lost in NBA finals, 2, and so on.
    • I'm not sure if that is necessary when that info is included else where in the table already.
  • I do not really follow American sports so please tell me if this is wrong but are there promotions and relegations to different leagues, if so please add those seasons where they were in different leagues.
    • Nope, nothing like that in the NBA.
  • Is it necessary to list which conference when they are in western every time?
    • It's just something that is included with NBA and other leagues like the NFL seasons
  • I think linking seasons is overlinking.
    • Unlinked
  • Like how some of the head coach's rows are merged, I think that should be done to the rest of the columns too.
    • I feel like that would create a lot of empty space as some columns would be really long compared to coaches.
  • Ping when done please. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @History6042 Thanks for the feedback! I think I've addressed everything. -- ZooBlazer 06:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]
  • 1992–93 row – you put both refs after Porter, move the appropriate one to be after Robinson instead
  • 1998–99 row – you did the same thing here for Grant and Dunleavy
  • Duplinks are allowed in tables and I think you should link Damian Lillard again in the 2018–19 row, this would also be consistent with your linking of Bill Walton in earlier rows
  • You linked Rolland Todd twice in the head coach column but you didn't do this with other coaches. Be consistent please
    I unlinked him. Should I do it that way with no extra coach links, or go the opposite route and always link the coaches in the table? -- ZooBlazer
  • Fix spacing for the P. J. Carlesimo entry, you're missing a space between the period and J
  • Might I suggest usage of the hr template, similar to the head coach column, when there are multiple award winners in a single row?
  • I'd probably suggest changing "basketball-reference.com" to "Basketball Reference – This is what's often been done for other sites under the Sports Reference umbrella. I'd at least ask for it to be "Basketball-reference"
  • Ref 4 – add Associated Press as the agency
  • Ref 9 – the title does not match what you're apparently trying to reference (not NYT, not correct title, etc.), and you would also want to add the via parameter pointing to Google News Archive. You'd also want to include the page number.
  • Ref 22 – add Associated Press as the agency
  • Ref 81 – link is dead
  • Ref 88 – note as subscription needed
  • Ref 98 – the author is Tadd, not Todd(!?)

That's what I've got for now, but I expect I'll have more after a second look over. Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Thanks for the comments! I think I addressed everything. -- ZooBlazer 20:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer: I think the only suggestion I have left is to move Robinson below Porter in the 92/93 row to keep entries consistently sorted by last name when they're both in the same cell. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Done. -- ZooBlazer 18:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]
  • The Blazers were members of the Pacific Division from their initial season until after the 2003–04 season when - I would add a comma before when
  • The caption of the first image should also have a full stop, given that it is a full sentence.
  • on the grounds that Oregon was too far - Too far from where?
  • Podoloff's successor, J. Walter Kennedy expanded - A comma is missing after the name.
  • throughout the 60's - As per MOS:DECADES: "always use four digits and an s, as in the 1980s".
  • The name "Trail Blazers" received 172 entries - And what does that mean? Was it the one that got the most entries or...?
  • against fellow expansion team, the Cleveland Cavaliers, - I'd say that either against fellow expansion team the Cleveland Cavaliers without commas or against a fellow expansion team, the Cleveland Cavaliers, with commas.
  • where they won the game 115–112 - Where? I'd go with which they won 115–112, as game is implied.
  • You have 4–2 but 0-2, be consistent with dashes.
  • an 0-2 - I don't really know what the word for 0 is in basketball terms, but is the an correct or should it be a? Just asking out of ignorance.
  • former Blazers player, Rick Adelman - Lose that comma.
  • Shouldn't there be consistency with scores? You say 0–2 deficit from the perspective of the Trail Blazers, but then you also say lost 4–1.
  • by Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls - Why put it that way? Maybe by the Chicago Bulls, led by Michael Jordan?
  • back to back conference finals appearances - back-to-back conference finals appearances, I think.
  • Lillard helped lead the Blazers to their first playoff series win - I would simplify it and say either helped or led.
  • game winning shot at the buzzer - Shouldn't it be game-winning shot at the buzzer?
  • Please link buzzer beater there.
  • vs. the Spurs - to the Spurs
  • In the first round of 2019 playoffs - In the first round of the 2019 playoffs
  • another series winning buzzer beater - Shouldn't it be another series-winning buzzer beater?
  • Chauncey Billups was hired before the 2021–22 season, with the team having a losing record each season since - Specify that he was hired as coach.
  • The team has had 32 winning seasons, 20 losing seasons, and three seasons with a 41–41 record - Per MOS:NUMBER: "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". So it should be 3 seasons as well.
  • The franchise's all-time points leader is Damian Lillard with 19,376 points - The franchise's all-time points leader is Damian Lillard with 19,376, as it's obvious we are speaking about points if he is the points leader.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of governors of Bayelsa State

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is now know as Bayelsa was previous Rivers, and was also previously Eastern Region. This list covers the governors that rule(d)/(s) this state of Nigeria till date. I think it passes the FL criteria, but I need feedback from my FLC regulars, comments and contributions are greatly appreciated :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Support from Toadspike

[edit]

Can't promise a full review, because I'm gonna be on on-and-off wikibreaks for a while, but the citation placement in the tables is odd. The "Notes" column is empty in both tables, so I'm not sure why it exists. Normally citations would go in that column, especially with rows that only cite one source like Alfred Diete-Spiff. OTOH, I can see the utility of having refs right after the content they cover when there are several backing up different parts of the row. I am ambivalent on this but would like to hear the nominator's thoughts, and if they decide not to use the Notes column then it should be removed. Toadspike [Talk] 18:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike Thanks for looking. This is good idea; I never thought of that. But how do I handle other entries that have several sources, each supporting their equivalent claim? Please let me know what you think, otherwise I think it’s safe to say the Notes column should go out? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike I just removed the notes column now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you wanted to, you could put refs in their own column, like at List of cabinets of Liechtenstein. This would separate them from the exact content they're citing, though, so I think the current format is better. Toadspike [Talk] 19:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike Okay, thank you for looking into this :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through my suggestions below and everything looks good now – I support this FLC on prose quality. Toadspike [Talk] 07:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
[edit]
  • The first sentence is very vague. We are talking about a list of administrators here, so I think it should be more like: "Bayelsa State, located in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, has been led by colonial, military, and civilian administrations." I am open to other wording, but it should emphasize that we are listing the administrations rather than discussing the political transformations.
    • done.
  • "British officials governed the region until Nigeria’s first military coup in 1966" – I am not super familiar with the history of Nigeria, but I was under the impression that there were a few years between independence and military rule where presumably Bayelsa was not governed by British officials.
    • fixed.
  • Footnote a, describing the region system, should be moved one sentence earlier, when the regions are first mentioned.
    • done.
  • It's not clear whether Gowon was military leader of Nigeria or just Bayelsa – it would be nice if you could find a way to specify this in the lead.
    • fixed.
  • "However, the Nigerian military government under Sani Abacha..." – "However" is not necessary. If you wish to retain a transition for smoother reading, I suggest moving the date to the start of the sentence: "In 1996, the Nigerian military government under Sani Abacha created Bayelsa State by carving it out of Rivers State."
    • done.
  • "when Diepreye Alamieyeseigha became the first democratically elected governor" – as with Gowon, it is not entirely clear what he's governing. I suggest specifying "governor of Bayelsa".
    • done.
  • A reminder that you are not required to fill out every possible field in the infobox. I think "Reports to", "Appointer", and "Constituting instrument" may not be quite correct and suggest removing them or switching to other parameters, but I am not the most informed on Nigerian politics so please clarify if I've got things wrong:
    • In most federal systems, state governors do not "report to" the head of state – they are fairly independent. For instance, I don't think the President of Nigeria can fire the Governor of Bayelsa. I think this field should be removed
      • done.
    • An "appointer" is usually a person who appoints, not the method by which the appointee is chosen. Seeing "popular vote" placed in this field is really weird. I admit that there is no better field to put "popular vote", which could be seen as an important fact. I suggest leaving it out.
      • done.
    • Is the post of governor of Bayelsa really defined in the constitution of Nigeria? Does the state not have its own constitution?
      • yes, it is defined in the constitution of Nigeria as I cited. It is defined as a governor of any Nigerian state, and not specifically Bayelsa.
Eastern Region
[edit]
  • "now constitutes Rivers State" – though technically also correct, I think this should say "Bayelsa State".
    • Fixed, this was definitely a copy-paste error, lol.
  • "while Michael Okpara served as its second premier" – the distinction between "premier" and "governor" is not spelled out. Was the premier the deputy to the governor in the First Nigerian Republic?
    • I defined both roles now.
  • It is stated in the lead and in this section that the regional system was abolished, but clearly the Eastern Region still existed and had a governor afterwards. This is confusing and should be clarified.
    • I clarified this one too now.
Rivers State
[edit]
  • After describing the division of the Eastern Region by Gowon in both the lead and this section, it needs to be explicitly stated that Bayelsa became a part of Rivers State. In the lead, "remained part of" gives the sense that the reader has missed the point where Bayelsa became part of Rivers State. In this section it's not specified at all.
  • "thus share the same party" should probably be past tense, "shared". Even if it is still true today, I assume it was not true for the subsequent periods of military rule.
    • done.
  • "...and successive military administrators until another brief civilian transition..." – I suggest putting a period somewhere in there and splitting this into two sentences.
    • done.
Bayelsa State
[edit]
  • "Upon its creation, Bayelsa State was placed under military administration" – I would argue it wasn't placed under military administration, but already was under military administration. Suggest: "At its creation, Phillip Ayeni was made the first military administrator of Bayelsa State from October 1996 to February 1997."
  • "Under the Fourth Republic" is a very abrupt switch with little context – I suggest explaining the transition to the Fourth Republic at least briefly and explicitly stating the date when it began. Perhaps add a paragraph break before this sentence.
  • It might be interesting to state why Sylva's election was nullified. It would also be interesting to state what post Seibarugo had that qualified him to serve as acting governor.
  • "...before the installation of an elected replacement. Henry Seriake Dickson, also of the PDP, was elected governor..." – These sentences are worded in a way that doesn't make it clear that Dickson was the replacement in question; it sounds as if we've started talking about someone completely different.
  • "after the annulment of the election" – This part is confusing. Normally, I'd assume that if an election is annulled, it has to be re-run, but based on the source they simply eliminated the winner and chose Diri instead. I can't find a better wording, though, that doesn't require explaining what happened and naming David Lyon. Do you have a solution?

Comments by Alavense

[edit]
  • Subsequent governors included Timipre Sylva, Henry Seriake Dickson, and the incumbent governor, Douye Diri - It's obvious that it's the incumbent governor, I think it would suffice to say Subsequent governors included Timipre Sylva, Henry Seriake Dickson, and the incumbent, Douye Diri
  • After independence, Francis Akanu Ibiam (1960–1966) became the first Nigerian governor of the Eastern Region, while Michael Okpara served as its second premier (1960–1966) succeeding Nnamdi Azikiwe - I don't know what Nnamdi Azikiwe's part is in all this.
  • The Governor was a ceremonial role that represented the British monarchy until Nigeria became a republic in 1963. The Premier was responsible for the region's executive functions - Do those roles have to be capitalized? According to MOS, titles should be lower case in generic use. The same goes for President of Nigeria in the lede and president in Bayelsa State section.
  • At its creation, Phillip Ayeni was made the first military administrator of Bayelsa State from October 1996 to February 1997 - I don't think he was actually made for that period, so I believe something like At its creation, Phillip Ayeni was made the first military administrator of Bayelsa State in October 1996, a position he held until (or whichever wording you prefer) would be better.
  • The Fourth Republic is linked twice.
  • However, his tenure was terminated when the Supreme Court ruled against the extension of his tenure - Avoid repeating tenure.
  • In the table, is upper case necessary for Military Administrators, Executive Governors and Military Administrator?
  • For the map, don't use pixels, but a scaling factor - see MOS:IMGSIZE.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by Gen Hoshino

[edit]
Nominator(s): IanTEB (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second time at the FL procedure after Gen Hoshino discography last year. That went well so I am now nominating this list of songs by the same artist. This includes songs from his solo catalogue (but not tracks with his instrumental band Sakerock), and also guest appearances and writing credits. These guest writing credits are marked with blue in the table. For reference, this list was primarily modeled after List of songs by Taylor Swift and other FLs about songs.

As with last time, I would like to explain my use rationale for some of the Japanese-language sources since I believe they will be new to many reviewers. Most of these (Oricon, Cinra, Real Sound, Rockin'On Japan, and others) are used in several of my GAs and have not posed a problem. I believe songwriting information could be verified on digital music platforms like Apple Music, but I've cited the CD releases for convenience. Releases since 2018 are sourced to Hoshino's website, which has since then included specific credits. Any comment is appreciated! IanTEB (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]
  • from his solo discography that consists - I would go with from his solo discography, which consists
  • and the Haruomi Hosono-co-written "Tadaima" - Maybe and "Tadaima", co-written with Haruomi Hosono?
  • songs by former Beatles - How about song by former members of the Beatles?
  • He remixed Dua Lipa's "Good in Bed" for Lipa's - I don't think there's the need to reiterate Lipa's name: He remixed Dua Lipa's "Good in Bed" for her.
  • from 2010–16 - from 2010 to 2016
  • his alter ego persona - Wouldn't alter ego be enough?

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: Thank you very much for the comments. I've implemented all suggested changes, but changed 'alter ego persona' to 'alter ego character'. I fear that just using 'alter ego' would not clarify that it is a stage-only thing, rather than an actual alter ego. IanTEB (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now what your concerns were with that alter ego thing. I'm happy with your solution. Nice work on the list. Support. Alavense (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12th Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheUzbek (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I am trying to establish a WP:Featured content for the 12th National Congress of the CPV. My previous nomination in this content category were/are 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Members of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam and Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam. TheUzbek (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Arconning

[edit]
  • Done Image in infobox needs alt-text.
  • Done "Nguyễn Phú Trọng was elected \general", slash should be removed.
  • Done "is a central leading organ", "is the central leading organ"
    • its a central leading organ; there are other central leading organs as well.
  • Done "handling the day-to-day work", omit "the".
  • Done "responsible for the day-to-day work", "responsible for its day-to-day work"
  • Done "as permanent member", "as a permanent member"
    • wrote "the" instead since its a specific office with only one officeholder
  • Done Why is "Female" the only one highlighted?
    Thank you, I have replied to you're comments! TheUzbek (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Arconning (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Done "responsible for executing the decisions of the politburo and the Central Committee are executed" - this doesn't make grammatical sense
  • "supervising, and leading the work of the Central Committee apparatus" - supervising what? If it's the work of the Central Committee apparatus then you don't need to say both "supervising" and "leading" as they mean the same thing
  • Done "remained in office for the duration of his term" - this is stating the obvious. Maybe you mean "remained in office for the duration of the five-term term of the secretariat".....?
    • Reworded to "It is tasked with handling day-to-day work as well as leading and supervising the work of the Central Committee apparatus, that is, the administrative agencies of the CPV Central Committee"
  • Done That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded to "was elected general secretary on 27 January 2016 and remained in office for the duration of the Central Committee's term"
    Done, and thank you very much for reviewing this list! TheUzbek (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

Oppose per FL criterion 3c): "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article", in this case 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Very little in the lead is not already covered in the 12th Central Committee article, and the table can easily be incorporated in another section below that article's prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is common to have separate articles for the Secretariat: Secretariat of the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 8th Secretariat of the Communist Party of Cuba, 20th Secretariat of the Chinese Communist Party el. cetra. The reason is that it is one of the most important institutions of the party in question and is a distinct agency. If you want me to expand the text, I can do that without any problems whatsoever.
I feel this "oppose" is based on little factual understanding of the system in place. Do you have any specific comments that I can fix? I can write a 10-page analysis of the 12th Secretariat that is based on reliable sources if that is what you want. TheUzbek (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done as you pleased, and added more information in the lead. I will admit that I hastily put this text together, so it was good of you to point it out. Is there any more information that you feel is needed/lacking? TheUzbek (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCONTENT. Yes, if it is possible to write a ten-page analysis of the 12th Secretariat based on reliable sources, then this list is not comprehensive, which is an FL criterion. I maintain my oppose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a list; not an article............ TheUzbek (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either this is a simple list of the members of the 12th Secretariat, in which case it can simply be merged with 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam per FL criterion 3c), or it is an incomplete article on the 12th Secretariat which can stand alone but which is not currently comprehensive. Your choice, but either way, not ready for promotion to featured status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I did not take you're opposition at all seriously, but now I do.
Firstly, yes, you can write an analysis of 12th Secretariat - and 10 pages of it - but that would be an analysis, and WP does not do analysis, it informs readers on the subject neutrally. We must remember that Vietnam is a communist state with a non-transparent form of information spreading about its government. An article on the 12th Secretariat could be written, but I don't think it would be interesting for our readers. It would mostly be "That Secretariat member did this, said that, met there, etc" Not a very interesting article in itself.
As for you WP:OTHERCONTENT point, that is plain nonsense. First, we, as Wikipedia editors, need to think of our readers. The Secretariat is one of the most important institutions governing Vietnam. Could the article on the 12th Central Committee accurately focus on its importance while being overtly focused on the plenary sessions of the CPV Central Committee? I don't think so, and that article is already borderline long. The best way to inform our readers about the 12th Secretariat would be to have a separate article that is solely focused on it. If you feel more information is lacking, I can add it, but I wanted to make a clean and concise list, and this is what I have done.
As for the wider point, dismissing the need for this article is problematic on many grounds: 1) reliable sources, 2) the scholarly acknowledgement of the unique status of this institution, 3) that it is independent of other articles, 4) its independent status as a list is the best way to inform readers on the topic and 5) a list gives readers a proper overview of who was elected, reelected, not elected and important statistical information on each member. Now, you can, of course, continue to insist on your point, but in reality, you lack a killer argument here. You brought up a valid point, and that was also brought up with the Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, but that passed. This list should also pass. TheUzbek (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add - since you clearly don't know enough about this topic - that it is not very easy to merge this article with the 12th Central Committee. The Central Committee is empowered to elect the members of the Secretariat, but the Politburo is empowered to assign their work. Therefore, it cannot be merged with the 12th CC; the 12th CC is only empowered to elect it. The article on the 12th CC is about the political layer (which is normal), but the 12th Secretariat leads the administrative layer beneath, which is not covered in that article. The administrative layer is not elected, and people there are "ordinary employees", not politicians. Since you don't accurately grasp Vietnamese politics, you're counter-proposal does not make very much sense either. TheUzbek (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your expert-level introduction to Vietnamese politics. One of the great things about Wikipedia is the ability to interact with people who understand subjects a whole lot better than yourself. You have succintly explained the importance of the Secretariat, its distinct nature from the Central Committee, and its separate focus. You have convinced me that this page would be better suited as a separate article.
That said, your explanation has also left me convinced that this page would work better as a prose-focused article. To start with, the lead is now 805 words on its own—over twice as long as the leads of most featured articles, and increasingly overshadowing the short "Members" section, which is the basis of this nomination as a list. I would suggest introducing a section header titled "Operations" (or whatever word is usual in sources) and include the details of appointments/assignments/elections therein. Then, you can add details on what they actually got up to, and on that note:
I must disagree with you about prioritising "interest for our readers"—as Wikipedia editors, we must summarise what reliable sources say without caring about our personal opinions/interest. There is a reason that our notability guidelines do not mention "interesting"—otherwise anyone who finds the entirety of the topic of the 12th Central Committee uninteresting would be able to delete all the lists and articles.
So to summarise: thanks for the explanation, but I do think at present the page must be considered more an article than a list, and should be nominated at FAC, not FLC; if it were expanded and reorganised, it would actually have a good chance of passing there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I have seldom experienced this on Wikipedia! A user that reads and changes his opinion. My respect for you increased markedly! And you're also calling me an "expert", which my ego, of course, likes to hear very much! :) To show my respect, I will propose a counter-proposal that would make both of us happy, I think :)
Reason for rejection: "must summarise what reliable sources", yes, I agree. What I am trying to say is this. Information on what these politicians do and think is non-transparent. Very little information on what the Secretariat actually does is published. That is, the public is not informed of the Secretariat's meetings, but what each Secretariat member is up to is stated. Instead of creating a separate article on the 12th Secretariat, I would rather propose that information be added to the respective biographies of the members of the 12th Secretariat. That is the best way not to duplicate that information because information on Vietnamese politicians is sparse. I mean, believe me, I would love to write an article on the 12th Secretariat if that was possible (I mean, I have come into contact with users that argued that the text on the 12th Central Committee was wasteful and the article deleted), so I am a user who believes that we should create and article if we can. But, I don't think we can this time, I really don't. In contrast, I am looking into the possibility of creating an article for the 12th Central Inspection Commission of the Communist Party of Vietnam and creating a separate list for it. There is at least a lot of information available about it convening and working collectively.
My counter-proposal: I've been thinking of creating an article titled Apparatus of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, but concluded that it was unwise. The 12th Central Committee did not have a distinct apparatus; it would constitute WP:Original research to have that title. I can merge information I would include in that list into this one since it would mostly replicate it. Therefore, I propose keeping the members, not expanding the list, and adding a separate list of the supervised administrative working organs and which one of them was represented on the 12th Secretariat. Before you respond positively or negatively, let me at least make the changes to the list first before you make a final decision on the matter. TheUzbek (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented my counter-proposal; better? TheUzbek (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never got a response here! TheUzbek (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Pinging in case you missed this. Toadspike [Talk] 20:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from Toadspike

[edit]

I am unlikely to provide a full review, but I seriously question whether the information currently listed for members is relevant. Why do we need to least each member's gender? Is their birthplace really relevant, or would it be better to say where they are "from"/where they live? And the education column really feels like trivia. Even profession/occupation would be slightly more interesting and varied. Toadspike [Talk] 20:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The color coding, especially red to denote incumbent members, seems odd. It implies being a reelected incumbent is somehow a bad thing. Toadspike [Talk] 20:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Age is extremely important in communist politics, as the communists actively institute age balance in key leadership positions as a form of succession planning.
  2. Party membership is also important, since it's commonly a denominator of their power, whether they are technocrats or not.
  3. Birtplace is extremely important since communist politics is based on provincial balancing (sectional interests).
  4. Educational attainment is also important, highlighted both in primary and tertiary sources. Profession/occupation would not make sense since they are all party and/or state cadres...
  5. Not necessarily bad, but the best, from the communist perspective, is institutionalised renewal. That is, because communist Eastern Europe developed into a gerontocracy. That red is a bad colour, I would deem subjective.
  6. Gender is also important, highlighted both in primary sources and by outside observers interested in studying female representation in communist party-state organs. Why would gender not be important?
  7. We can, of course, discuss the colour code
TheUzbek (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and other comments

[edit]
  • The layout of sources confuses me. You use SFNs and have a dedicated "News sources" for the proper citations yet also a biblography?
  • Add a {{Use DMY dates}}
  • "Quân ủy Trung ương nhiệm kỳ 2020–2025 tổ chức Hội nghị lần thứ nhất" has a MOS:DASH violation in the years (same with the translated title)
  • The captions on the two tables should be {{sronly}} as they duplicate the section headings
  • I believe the {{abbr}} is being misused, could these be {{EFN}}s instead?
  • The lead is really long, could "History" and "Background" headings be established?
What I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 15:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fixed
  2. Fixed
  3. Fixed (I think)
  4. I have no clue what "sronly" is, and I did not grasp it by reading that page either.
  5. It was approved at 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam and Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam (both are FLs); it takes less space and is efficient.
  6. Fixed
TheUzbek (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Screen readers are used by people who have difficulty seeing, the {sronly} template does not show it to sighted users, because it no longer appears on the page. However, readers using screen readers can still hear it because the screen reader will read it. Easternsahara (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added screenreaders :) TheUzbek (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercially available insulins

[edit]
Nominator(s): MallardTV (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... MallardTV (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC) This list has been my passion for a very long time. I know this article has only been made over the past few days, but behind the scenes it's a culmination of months of research and years of curiosity. Being a diabetic myself, I've searched for an index of insulin brands to no avail. Since Wikipedia is my hobby and it's a general reference, I figured there would be no better place to input this research. Thus, I created this article. I do believe that this list is my best work, and meets all of the criteria. I'm excited to see what you reviewers think of it. (A bit scared too.) Best wishes, MallardTV[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

[edit]
  • 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. !Brand Name becomes !scope=col | Brand Name. 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. |Admelog becomes !scope=row | Admelog. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 16:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed all the accessibility issues you pointed out- thanks a lot! MallardTV (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IntentionallyDense

[edit]
Source review/comments

I'm not going to commit to a full source review just yet but due to my knowledge of WP:MEDRS I feel like I might be able to help out a bit here.

  • I'm not sure the exact threshold for using sources for images but File:Insulin short-intermediate-long acting.svg may benefit from a source.
  • You have a couple bare URLS that should be fixed
  • Some of the journals are wikilinked and some are not. I'd consider switching to either all linked or not linked.
  • Upon first glance, while Basaglar and Abasaglar are regional., However, other smaller pharmacutical companies also produce insulin, such as Mannkind (Afrezza), Viatris (Semglee), Lupin (Lupisulin), and Biocon (Basalog and unbranded insulins)., It was developed by Sanofi-Aventis., providing a steady insulin level, in contrast to fast-acting bolus insulins., Insulin degludec is a modified form of insulin in which a single amino acid is deleted compared to human insulin. It is also conjugated to hexadecanedioic acid via a gamma-L-glutamyl spacer at the amino acid lysine at position B29., The most common side effects include hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea., Insulins that are used mostly in humans are sometimes also used in animals such as cats and dogs., and Lente insulin is currently produced by Merck Animal Health under the name Vetsulin. appear to be unsourced.
  • The way the tables are cited (as in having the ref right by the name) makes it unclear where you are getting the information forthe manufacturer and other info from.
  • [6] is giving me an error code
  • Is there a more updated source for [7]
  • Again I would look for a more updated ref for [8] (take a read through WP:MEDDATE)
  • Same applies for any ciation before 2015 excluding cocherane reviews. If there is no newer sources or the newer sources are lower quality then no use in changing them but it's something to consider.
Additional comments
  • From a technical point of view I see some things that could be improved upon such as Common side effects include hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) which should be written as low blood sugar (hypoglycemia) according to WP:MTAU. Additionally this only has to be stated the first time you use the term hypoglycemia and then you can either stick to using the term hypoglycemia or low blood sugar
  • There is quite a few very short standalone sentences that should be merged or expanded per WP:LAYOUT.
  • treat hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium levels). same as my first point
  • gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications, including diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic states Since this bit is in the lead it could use some work to make it less technical
  • A very brief explanation of the difference between type 1 and type 2 diabetes may be helpful but it depends more on if the list contents heavily revolve around the difference
  • Some minor overlinking (liver is linked twice for example, and countries don't need to be linked)
  • It is typically administered by injection under the skin it may be important (I'm not sure as I haven't read the source) if the medication is typically administered into the fat or muscle (assuming fat due to the locations you listed).

Okay I think I've given you quite a bit to work with right now. Let me know if you have any questions. Keep up the great work! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I dealt with the citation stuff and the technical stuff. It looks like i fixed the overlinking. The difference between types isn't important from an insulin standpoint. MallardTV (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know about the difference not being relevant. There is still some unrefernaced areas. This is optional but the pdfs that were bare links may benifet from the website name and/or an archive date just cause pdfs seem to be especially prone to link rot. Additionally, since you've added access dates for other websites, your other citations should have them aswell (when their is a url that is). I'm still seeing some inconsistancies in the linking of journals/publishers as well as some bare urls. [9] should have the doi added as well. Did you look into more updated studies for some of the older citations? Once you tidy up the refs a bit I'll continue with my source review. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense Checking the older refs, there are indeed some sparse more recent things that have the same info. However, these seem to be much less reliable and as stated earlier just say the exact same thing. As for the journal linking, I think I got all the ones that have wiki articles. I added some more refs in sparse areas as well. MallardTV (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the newer sources aren't as reliable then older sources work just fine. providing a steady insulin level, in contrast to fast-acting bolus insulins. and Lente insulin is currently produced by Merck Animal Health under the name Vetsulin. both appear to be unsourced. I'm going to go through each ref and point out any issues I find.
  • [10] add DOI, add access date for url, link journal, add volume page number info etc
  • [11] add volume, issue, page number etc
  • [12] wikilink journal
  • [13] Capitilize drug name. Side note, capitilization should be consistent throughout the article, instead of just using the capitilization the source uses meaning anything after a colon need a capital.
  • [14] add journal link
  • [15] wikilink journal
  • [16] wikilink pub
I'm starting to realize that the vast majority of your refs have inconsistences. Could you please look through the sources and look for these inconsitencies yourself? use the suggestions I have provided thusfar to guide you. For each citation look for missing info, wikilinks that could be added, and punctiation/grammar within the citation title. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! I should be done in a day or so... MallardTV (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got it- archived some stuff too. MallardTV (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* @Hey man im josh, Giants2008, and PresN: I'm pinging the FLC Coords here because I've never opposed a nom before and I'm not quite sure the threshold for such. I feel like I have gotten into a WP:FIXLOOP here. I've asked 3 times that the nominator fixes unsourced passages, be consistent with citation formatting etc. and each time they fix one or two of the issues and ignore the rest. I've tried really hard to lay out the steps to fix these issues but it seems like I'm not getting very far. I want to be clear, I think this is an interesting list, and especially as a medical editor I want to see it pass, I'm just not sure if I should step away or oppose. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too great with refs and I really do want to get this passed. I apologize for wasting your time and I'll really work to get everything fixed before I bother you again. MallardTV (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm going to attempt a source review here. Starting with reliability;
@IntentionallyDense Looking at the older refs, including the ones you pointed out, I would personally not want to change them. They may be older, but they have all the same info as new sources. This is becuase insulin analogues do not change. Once they are released, people adjust to them, so they can never be modified. This is the reason they just keep making new analogues. These sources I'm using are sometimes from right when these analogues released, but nothing has changed since them. The analogue I use: aspart, has remained unchanged for 25 years now. So I do believe I have proper justification for any older refs I could find. MallardTV (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I may need to seek some opinions from WP:MED here, would it be okay if I posted on your behalf there? To my understanding, the reason why more recent publications are important, is because even if you are right about nothing haven changed, readers won't know that unless they commit a significant amount of time to researching that. For example if I say "smoking cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer" and cite a 1987 study showing that, the readers only know that in 1987 we had evidence of that. However if I write the same thing and cite a 2024 study, readers know that this statement is backed up by the most recent literature we have available. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thats's true, and feel free to post on my behalf. However, the article really only details the mechanism of action, which doesn't need anything to back it up since the original publications were what detailed it to start, and many newer works are based from. @IntentionallyDense MallardTV (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm going to check for recent pubs for a couple of the older sources and then if nothing comes up I'm just going to WP:AGF regarding the rest of the sources. I checked a couple older refs and can confirm that at least in those there was no better substitute so I will be moving on with this source review.
Starting with formatting, ref 6 should have the journal wikilinked. 54 and 55 both say "accessed on xyz" while the rest of your refs say retrieved on. I would change this for consistency. ref 78 should have the journal wikilinked. Ref 152 should be changed so that there isnt just a url in it. Ref 123 journal should be wikilinked.
Next I'm going to make sure that all WP:Biomedical information is sourced appropriately.
It is prescribed for conditions such as type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis. is borderline and could do with a better source.
For your 4th paragraph in the lead I would just move the ciation to the end of the para to reduce the amount of citations in the lead.
The first two paragraphs under Insulin lispro contain biomedical info and should have a MEDRS source. Same with the first 2 paragraphs under Insulin aspart, the first paragraph of Insulin glulisine, the first 2 paragraphs of Insulin detemir, first 2 paragraphs of Insulin glargine, first 2 paras of Insulin degludec/liraglutide, and the first paragraph under Veterinary insulins.
Its effects usually begin within 30 minutes and last around 8 hours is biomedical info as well.
For the second paragraph in NPH insulin I would move some of the refs so you aren't citing the same sources after each sentence.
nsulin icodec is a medication used to enhance glycemic control in individuals with diabetes is biomedical info.
I would reduce the amount of refs in the first para of Insulin icodec as well.
The first 2 paragraphs of General mixtures are borderline and would benefit from some MEDRS sources.
is a fixed-dose combination medication that combines insulin glargine and lixisenatide for the treatment of diabetes. The most common side effects include (hypoglycemia, diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea. is biomedical info.
I know that's a lot of stuff but hopefully you can find some MEDRS sources for this. Let me know if you have questions. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense Good morning! I think I found suitable refs for all of the biomedical info. I also fixed everything you pointed out to me. MallardTV Talk to me! 13:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ref 35, 38, 93, 119, and 185 all have the accessed instead of retrieved which should be fixed. ref 6 should have the journal wikilinked.
I still think you could find a better source for It is prescribed for conditions such as type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis
I made an edit to show you what I meant about reducing the amount of refs.
Often, a longer-acting insulin, such as insulin NPH, is also required. and It is generally considered safe for use during pregnancy and breastfeeding needs a MEDRS source. Same with A longer-acting insulin, such as insulin NPH, is generally needed as well. and Intravenous injections may be used for severe hyperglycemia and Its effects usually begin within 30 minutes and last around 8 hours and all the info about safety during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and Other serious side effects may include low blood potassium levels and he most frequently reported side effect is hypoglycemia (low blood glucose)
Overall it's looking better but still needs some fixes. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense Did the best I cound for the accessed thing, but web citations seem to use retrieved no matter what I do. Everything else should be in order though. MallardTV Talk to me! 22:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I forgot to respond to this. The accessed thing may be a template thing so sorry on my part for that. For It is prescribed for conditions such as type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis. is there not a MEDRS source which clearly states insulin analogs are used for these disorders? I'm hoping we can find one source to replace the 4 we have since many of them are not MEDRS. I can help look for some as well. This source [20] verifies the diabetes claims, this source [21] verifies the gestational diabetes claim, and this source [22] verifies the ketoacidosis claim. Other than that, I believe the only other source that should be changed is the The most frequently reported side effect is hypoglycemia (low blood glucose). IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense I was sick with the flue but I'm back and I think I fixed it all! MallardTV Talk to me! 13:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a source spot check. I may break it up a bit cause there is a lot of sources to check.
  • ref 2 [23] is verified
  • Ref 9 [24] verifies For example, Rezvoglar and Basaglar are both formulations of insulin glargine. However, Rezvoglar contains insulin glargine-aglr, while Basaglar is simply insulin glargine but does not verify the general statement of Although two brands may contain the same insulin analog, they may contain different formulations of that analog, meaning they are not biosimilar, and therefore not interchangeable.
  • ref 16 is verified [25] however it may be relevant to mention they are being discontinued
  • ref 24 [26] verified
  • ref 32 [27] isn't loading for me but this may be a regional issue
  • ref 40 [28] is verified
  • For ref 55 [29] remove BETTER as the author.
  • ref 49 [30] verified
  • ref 56 [31] verified
  • ref 65 [32] verified
  • ref 72 [33] verified
  • Not able to find Insulin glargine on the WHO list [34] could you point me to which page it's on?
  • ref 88 [35] verified
  • Not seeing the preperation methods in ref 97 [36].
Going to take a break there for now. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the wrong year for the WHO list, it was included in 2021. Oops. I think I fixed thye other stuff too MallardTV Talk to me! 00:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 31 [37] still isn't loading for me. An archive link would be appropriate here.
  • Ref 54 [38] should have Better removed as the author
  • Add year, publisher, and retrived date for [39]
  • Could you copy and paste from the website where you found the preperation methods for [40]?
  • ref 105 [41] verified
  • Remove smithsonion as author for ref 112 [42]
  • Having a hard time verifying Similarly to the modern brands of NPH and regular insulin, which are still sold, buffered regular insulins would be marketed under the name of the rest of the insulins in a brand's product line, followed by the letters BR from ref 113 [43] could you copy and paste from the source how it is supported?
  • ref 120 [44] verified
  • something weird seems to be going on with ref 122
  • Could you copy and paste from ref 128 [45] where it verifies the manufacturer and the vial part
  • refs 136 and 137 do not verify that the drugs are not approved for human use in the US just that they were discontunued
  • ref 144 [46] verified although I'm not sure why the American society is in the ref
  • ref 152 [47] is verified
I'm going to take another break for now. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the broken link for 32, I can't archive it archive site isnt loading for me rn but it should work. 35: "Liprolog medicines are available as solutions or suspensions for injection in vials, cartridges or prefilled pens." The BR name thing is simply supported by the fact that all BR insulins were sold under other broduct lines with BR replacing the normal letter. I agree ref 122 was messed up so I replaced it. For 128: Manufactured byPfizer Ltd, but it seems to be a really old generic and I can't find any other mention of it so I think it's best to get rid of it. I need to add a ref to include the withdrawn approval I'll do that now. I think that fixes everything this round @IntentionallyDense MallardTV Talk to me! 23:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the BR thing is that the source does not make the differentiation between buffered and non buffered insulin (at least from what I could find) so BR could technically stand for anything.
  • ref 160 [48] verified
  • ref 167 [49] verified
  • ref 177 [50] verified
  • ref 184 [51] verifed
  • ref 192 [52] verified
  • ref 200 [53] verified
That concludes my source spot check. Get back to me regarding the BR insulin and then I'll take another look at formatting and such. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'll take it out since nothing truly sources it. MallardTV Talk to me! 00:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
forgot to ping @IntentionallyDense MallardTV Talk to me! 00:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should hopefully be my last round of feedback.
  • Are all four citations needed for the row "Insuman" in the table?
  • Same with "Ryzodeg"
  • nsulin glargine/lixisenatide was approved for medical use in the United States... move citation to the end of the paragraph instead of having two identical citations in the para.
  • Insulin analogs developed for human use after Lente insulin's discontinuation have not yet been same as above
  • Not 100% sure here but I believe you could remove the brackets in the title for ref 2 [54]
  • Wikilink journal for ref 6 (using and instead of &)
  • Formatting across citations should be consistent, use a cite template for ref 10
  • ref 16, remove company name from title
  • wikilink journal for ref 20
  • remove www from ref 32
  • capitilize O for ref 36
  • use ref template for ref 36
  • same with ref 49 and 50 and 84 and 94 and 190 and 170
  • ref 171 has the FDA listed twice in the ref
  • wikilink journal for ref 156
  • wikilink journal in ref 147
  • same with ref 145
  • remove practo name from title in 128 and 129
  • wikilink journal for ref 113 (journal has since been renamed)
  • expand and put ref 97 and 98 into cite templates. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cut down those citations for Insuman and Ryzodeg. Fixed everything else, thank you! @IntentionallyDense MallardTV Talk to me! 12:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source review is passed but I didn't evaluate enough of the prose to give a decision on that. I would also say that the references may benefit from someone a bit more experience with citation formatting, taking a quick look at them. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 14:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense Thank you so much! Will you be doing a prose review or should I ask around? Thanks, MallardTV Talk to me! 02:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave some broad suggestions above, I'd suggest you take those and apply them to the entire article. Other than that I will not be doing a prose review. However if there are questions specifically related to WP:MEDMOS or medical stuff, feel free to tag me and I'll try my best to help. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you so much for the source review! With my obvious inexperience with citations, it helped a whole lot. Thanks, @IntentionallyDense MallardTV Talk to me! 12:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

This review is based on this version of the article.

  • Link to Drugs.com in references that use it as the publisher instead of the unlinked or www.drugs.com (consistency in the works/website/publisher field is important)
  • Ref 2 – Change website to United States National Library of Medicine
  • Refs 8, 29, 39, 62, 65, 74, 78, 107 – Expand the reference from just the title of the PDF
  • Refs 9, 28, 30, 73, 75, 106 – Link to European Medicines Agency as the website. Remove "| European Medicines Agency (EMA)" from the title
  • Refs 16, 67, 79 – Change publisher to/wikilink American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
  • Refs 19, 43, 111, 113 – Link to DailyMed as the website
  • Refs 20, 46, 52, 82 – It should just be "Food and Drug Administration", not "U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)", to match the target page. It should also consistently be wikilinked.
  • Ref 40 – properly expand the reference from a URL
  • Refs 45, 81, 112, 114 – Remove (EMA) from the website field
  • Ref 71 – Remove " - WebMB" from the title
  • Ref 71 – Use WebMD as the website
  • Ref 88 – Link to Medical News Today as the website
  • Ref 98 – Wikilink European Medicines Agency
  • Ref 100 – Link to Health Canada as the website
  • Ref 111 – Remove "DailyMed - " from the title
  • Date formatting in a number of these references are inconsistent, consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|February 2025}} template to the top of the article under the short description

That's what I've got to start. I can look it over for consistency in references again once there's been more consistency in the references. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Thanks man! The dates thing is really weird! I standardized then all but for some reason it reverted. MallardTV (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I fixed everything you pointed out! MallardTV (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More feedback, without going through it with a fine toothed comb just yet:
  • Drugs.com is still not linked everywhere it could be in the references (I think you just missed this point)
  • Remove "www." from the website name of references
  • Ref 2 – Link to United States National Library of Medicine
  • Ref 6, 26, 61, 88 – Change website to "Lilly Medical"
  • Ref 29 – Add publisher and access date
  • Ref 8 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 12 – Wikilink Afrezza
  • Ref 13 – Change website to match other sources from this, and list it as Food and Drug Administration and remove Office of the Commissioner" as the author
  • Ref 24 – Lets Wikilink to Admelog
  • Ref 25 – Change website to match other sources from this, and list it as Food and Drug Administration and remove Office of the Commissioner" as the author
  • Ref 39 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 40 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 47 – Add |via=[[Google Patents]] to the reference
  • Ref 53 – Link to MannKind Corporation
  • Ref 53 – Add date
  • Ref 54 – Link to British National Formulary
  • Ref 57 – List to WHO Model List of Essential Medicines
  • Ref 60 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 62 – Link to Medscape
  • Ref 63 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 66 – Link to GoodRx
  • Ref 70 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 103 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
  • Ref 105 – Match target, use Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism instead of using "&"
I've been focusing strictly on reference formatting, not verifying references for what it's worth. I'm also sure there's more I haven't caught, but I figured I found enough with this pass to provide for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinking to the insulin trade names is not something I think should be done, wince they are all redirects to the page for the insulin analogs and provide no info on the brands themselves. MallardTV (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since^ MallardTV (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the list and fixed everything you've pinted out to me @Hey man im josh MallardTV (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing Drugs.com linked everywhere yet @MallardTV. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I just went into source and fixed all 6 unlinked. MallardTV (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per our discussion, it appears there are still some consistency issues with reference formatting. You also did not remove the "www." from website names in references. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I got rid of the www, what are the other issues? MallardTV (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned elsewhere I think you should ask for a review to be performed by someone more familiar with WP:MEDRS. I typically look for consistent formatting styles and reliability of various sources, but this isn't one where I'd be comfortable doing so. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll ask around. I know it's probably annoying that I ask this, but I assume due to your unfamiliarity with MEDRS that you are unable to give a support. Is that the case? Either way the comments you have left are a huge help, thank you. @Hey man im josh MallardTV (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

I'll need to review this again, but a brief review yielded the following sporadic comments:

  • The reference column should be centered.
  • If only 2 of the 13ish rows in the 'General mixtures' mixtures have images, why note move the two to the text directly above and simply eliminate the column?
  • "The most common side effects include (hypoglycemia, diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea" - errant parenthesis
  • "approved for medical use in the United States in November 2016, and in the European Union in January 2017." - Does the exact month matter to the reader?
  • Can you define/explain "Ultralong-acting" in its section?
  • "All Insulin analogues" - capitalization issue.
  • "The three companies which produce the most insulin are Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. These three corporations" - Bit repetitive. Rephrase for flow.
  • "It is also of note that many insulin analogues are available unbranded" --> "Many insulin analogues are available unbranded" for WP:CONCISION

This list may require a visit to the WP:GOCE. ~ HAL333 18:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333 A few things. I don't know how to make the columns centered... I don't think there is enough space in the general mixtures section to put the images out of the table without making it cluttered. The months matters a bit becuase with just the years it could just as easily be a 18 month gap instead of 2. Thanks MallardTV Talk to me! 18:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainian placenames affected by derussification

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dan the Animator and Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 00:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We started working on this list together some months ago but a lot of the progress came more recently after we did a lot of edits and fixes that have really improved the list. Shwabb's done an especially amazing job researching and expanding the list and fixing the table and so many other things that we think with the recent edits we can get this promoted! :) It's quiet a long list (much longer than my city lists promoted last year) but Shwabb and I will continue to be working on it diligently and addressing any comments and suggestions that come up. Looking forward to all the feedback and many thanks in advance for the support! Dan the Animator 00:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think you're allowed to have the extra table headers in the middle of the table. For example, under Administrative divisions, the table has two headers (one for raions and one for urban districts). It's my understanding those would need to be two separate tables, with Raions and Urban districts as the table captions for each, respectively. Also, and this is just a personal preference, I usually put a column down the far-right side for references, as narrow as possible, because it makes a table look neater without the citations throughout. But, like I said, that's just me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And with the table under Populated places, I would probably have the Raion as the first column, followed by Old name, New name, then Type, Date, and Notes. The type (village, city, etc.) is not really the focus; the focus is the raion. And breaking the tables up by Oblast would make them more navigable. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find this article interesting, because I also have an article up for FL review on a Ukrainian topic (Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships), and one thing I did encounter while sourcing the article was a lot of changes from a Russian spelling to a Ukrainian spelling, particularly with a lot of skaters' names. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bgsu98 for the comments! :) To reply to each point:
  • About the extra table headers in the middle of the table, I haven't seen any policy against it and I remember seeing a successful FL before with some mid-table headers too. Just in case though, I'll make a post on the FLC talkpage about it.
  • Shwabb and I considered having a ref column but we didn't think it was necessary plus the refs are mostly different for the law dates and for the name change reasoning so they don't align too well for their own separate column.
  • I disagree, I think the current organization with type -> raions -> names -> etc. is easier to read and the focus isn't the raion, its the populated place (i.e. its a list of populated places, not raions which is what the admin. divs table is for). The list was originally divided into over a dozen separate tables by oblast but that removes the sortability/comparability feature between oblasts and really takes away from the value of the list imo. Feel free to see how it used to be in this diff.
  • Thank you! It's a little different for personal names since its an individual/personal decision but both are related to the general decline of the Russian language in Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion.
Let me know if there's anything else that can be improved and many thanks again for the comments! Dan the Animator 01:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had always been advised that the row header (the first column) should be what the row is about. Maybe the old name, maybe the new name, but the type is really not the focus and seems an odd choice for the header. As for the table headers, MOS:COLHEAD seems clear. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link! I feel like this is a case where the row headers should be allowed and that having 22 separate tables is really unhelpful though I'll defer to other editors for their opinions. Also pinging @Shwabb1: for their thoughts. Dan the Animator 01:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More detailed expansion of my WT:FLC post: Pseudo-headers (MOS:COLHEAD) aren't accessible and need to be fixed for a nomination to be promoted. Pseudo-headers like that look like headers, but that's not the way screen-reader software interprets them because they aren't actually headers, so there's not a lot of leeway for exceptions. I'd personally make the oblast a column, but it's your list to decide if you want to do that or split up the tables. The other major accessibility concern is your row headers, which right now are like |scope="row" align="left"|Village. This has two issues: 1) a "header" cell is indicated with a '!', not a '|', so it should be !scope="row" align="left"|Village. 2), and more importantly, the row header cell should uniquely identify the row, which "village" very much does not. Just like how a column header cell says "what's this column about", the row header cell says "what's this row about" - and the first row of "populated places" is about Chervona Sloboda/Sloboda, not about "village". Since this is a list of municipalities, not raions/oblasts, that means the "old name" cell (or the "new name" cell if you want) should be the row header. Now, the row header doesn't have to be the first cell in the row, though usually it is. You can leave it in the middle if you want. But aesthetically, typically you want the uniquely identifying bit first; I'd personally go old name-new name-type-raion-oblast-date-notes, but it's your list. --PresN 02:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest making the oblast the new table caption (these tables do not seem to have captions unless they're hidden), but yeah, making it a column would allow one to proceed without splitting the tables up. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @PresN:! :) I think the ordering you suggested is good and between the two options, I would also prefer having the oblast as a column instead of making separate tables. Also will fix the markup typos in a second too. About having oblasts as columns though, would the TOC navigation capability be preserved? Dan the Animator 02:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as long as you get the formatting right the 'id="Cherkasy Oblast"' thing works whether or not the cell spans the width of the whole table. That's the thing about pseudo-headers, they're actually the same as any other table cell, which is why non-visual software gets confused. --PresN 03:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I like the way the table is now but considering all the above including MOS:COLHEAD, I agree that the table should be rearranged. PresN's suggestion (with oblasts in a separate column) sounds good to me as well. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 05:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see where you've made improvements to the tables. Maybe it's just me, but I would left-justify that first column since all of the other columns are left-justified. Other than that, they look great! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Bgsu98:!! :) About the first column text alignment, the markup code for left alignment is there but it doesn't show since they're all row header cells? (or something else, I'm not too sure). I also think having the first column text left aligned would be better so any help or ideas with fixing it would be great though no worries if you aren't too sure either. Dan the Animator 23:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I coded the first row for you so it’s now left-justified. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!!! :) Dan the Animator 00:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bgsu98: I completely finished fixing the table code and Shwabb and I have done a lot of improvements since your comments so let us know if there's anything else you think should be improved or if you're ready to support now. Thanks! Dan the Animator 07:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I missed this earlier. I'm taking a look at the article now.
    • You use the word raion in the very first paragraph and it should probably be wikilinked, and actually probably defined in the prose, as that is not a term most people would recognize.
    • On the Populated places table, I would personally rowspan the Type column to match the Raion, Oblast, and Date columns. Also, what is the difference between a city, a village, and a rural settlement? Perhaps a brief explanation above the table (ie. "In Ukraine, cities are defined as..., while villages are defined as..., etc.")?
    These are just some suggestions. This article shows a tremendous amount of work and the improvements to the tables are great! I also appreciate seeing articles of Ukrainian interest brought to the forefront considering current events. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Shwabb for the edits about the above. Not sure how you feel about it but for the Type rowspan suggestion, I think the current table setup makes more sense so best to leave that part as-is for now so we can discuss it later this week maybe. The thing for the settlement types description I can help with (think it would make a good efn note) but feel free to start with it now if you want to. Dan the Animator 00:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, though I'm not sure if "district" should be wikilinked.
    • I think rowspanning the Type column could work, but it probably has to be limited by oblast, similarly to the Date column. Pinging @Dantheanimator for thoughts on this. As for the types of populated places, technically they don't have strict definitions. There is a relatively recent law that "defines" the three by population and population density, however these definitions can only be used as reasons to change status (if the process is initiated by the local government). While it's implied that cities are relatively bigger or more important, that's not always the case (extreme examples: Uhniv with under 1000 people is a city, but Sofiivska Borshchahivka with over 25,000 people is a village). But overall I agree that some kind of footnote could improve the Type column. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 00:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You chose to include the Type as pertinent information; I think it's probably important to draw some kind of distinction, whether it's "official" or not, or else decide whether it was really that important to merit its own column in the first place. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I just added an explanatory footnote to the Type column of the populated places table. Let me know what you think about it. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 12:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The note looks good. Personally, I would still rowspan the Type entries, even if it's, as you suggested, limited to oblasts. It just looks jarring to see Village repeated over and over and over. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't mind rowspanning those. However, I just noticed there's something that prevents that right now: the notes indicating populated places that are under Russian occupation. I suppose those could be moved to the Old Name or New Name column (or maybe even Notes), but for now I'll wait for Dan's comment on this. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You could always rowspan the Villages that have the same note, but not include the Villages that don't have that note, and vice versa. That way, the cells that have the same content are rowspanned. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I see what you mean, but that could look out of place. Moving the notes to a different column seems to me as a better option (if it is ultimately decided to rowspan). Now I realize that it could also be argued that whether the individual settlement is under occupation does not describe the type of the populated place, but the populated place itself, so those notes may need to be moved regardless. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry for the delay (this week's been on the busier side off-wiki) but I see Shwabb's already added in the footnote and the part to the lead defining raions so all of that's set I think. About rowspanning, I agree the repetition is not ideal but per the reasoning Shwabb described really well just below, it just conceptually doesn't make sense to rowspan it. It's one thing to have raion/oblast/date rowspanned but the type col is fundamentally different: raion/oblast & date/law are defined by the specific places that they include; for example, village is not defined as meaning "the status type of the populated places of Sulynivka, Hrintal, Chorne, etc." but instead is a more general concept referring to places recognized by parliament as being rural and smaller than rural settlements. Plus, many other long and repetitive lists have avoided rowspanning the type column (check this FL for a great example with 1,000+ items). There's also a general concern I have about making the list markup too complicated with overlapping rowspans and I think three is already plenty enough. Hopefully this reasoning makes sense but I can explain it more if it helps and also Shwabb, if you feel strongly for rowspanning the type, I'm also open to considering it but I personally don't think it's the best change.
      About the territorial control efns, thanks for noticing that and great point Shwabb. Personally, I wasn't sure if it'd make more sense to put it on the old name/new name so I just opted to put them in the type column but we could definitely move them. I would think the new name column would make the most sense since the control efns have the role of implying that the new names are de jure and not de facto but I could also see the efns in the old name col as well. @Bgsu98: let me know if Shwabb's edits and this reply help and if there's any other suggestions you have/if you're ready to support. Thanks! Dan the Animator 19:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see why the current setup makes sense also. Raion, Oblast, Date are rowspanned as they cover multiple populated places (many are located in one administrative division / covered by the same law). However, the Type column is different - it describes individual populated places. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 00:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, the rowspan is just my personal preference, but it is your article and certainly not a dealbreaker. I am happy to support your article for promotion to FL status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Bgsu!! :) Dan the Animator 15:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

[edit]
  • The pseudo header should be moved to their own column that states the oblast something is in. This is for accessibility, I don't think screen readers know they are headers.
  • Raion and name should be switched because I am pretty sure it is standard to have what the row is about in the first column.
  • There are four cn tags that most definitely need to be removed.
  • Dnipropetrovsk Oblast,

Donetsk Oblast, Kharkiv Oblast, Kherson Oblast, Khmelnytskyi Oblast, Kirovohrad Oblast, Kyiv Oblast, Luhansk Oblast, Lviv Oblast, Mykolaiv Oblast, Odesa Oblast, and Poltava Oblast can be removed as they are not used.

  • There are many dates that could be merged, for example 26 September 2024 in the Rivne Oblast.
  • Vinnytsia Oblast, Volyn Oblast, Zakarpattia Oblast, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, and Zhytomyr Oblast can also be removed.
  • Sumy Oblast can be removed.
  • Cherkasy Oblast can be removed.
  • Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are planning to deal with the pseudo-headers and the arrangement problems (I see Dan already started a user subpage for that).
    • I think the dates in Rivne Oblast are already merged? Though not all populated places are grouped by date of renaming because the rows are arranged alphabetically (by oblast, then by raion, then by new name of individual populated place), for example see the Kyiv Oblast section that's broken up because of Pereiaslav.
    • Will work on the remaining cn tags soon. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To follow-up on what Shwabb said, I started all the table work that PresN suggested above and will hopefully have it completely/mostly finished by the end of the week (just a little earlier moved the beginning of that work from my user subpage to the article table and also completely fixed the Administrative divisions table markup so feel free to check that). @History6042: for the Oblasts removal, are you talking about the links in the table of contents? I tested them and they still work (on both the Admin. divisions table and the populated places table). Or is about something else?
      About merging dates, I can't see any that are left for merging either thought let me know if you spot any. The list is alphabetical like Shwabb described so there are some cases of the dates being separated though there's no way to avoid this without de-alphabetizing parts of the list. I think Shwabb fixed most of the cn tags though we both will be adding more in-line references over the week. Let me know what you think about the Administrative divisions table and anything else that could be improved. Thanks! Dan the Animator 22:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I mean the oblast pseudo headers, and for the date I just accidentally had it in sort by date mode. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah got it, thanks! :) Dan the Animator 23:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @History6042: all the table code issues were fixed up and Shwabb's added in all the references into the lead so everything should be done. Let us know if there's anything else that can be improved or if you're ready to support now. Thanks! Dan the Animator 07:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Good job, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CMD

[edit]

Lead

  • Footnote [b] seems to imply that the goal of the initial 2015 efforts, and the conclusion of the efforts in 2023, was the renaming of all "placenames connected to communism and the Soviet Union". Is that a stated goal of either/both legislations, or a secondary analysis of the result? All is a high bar.
  • Further, footnote [b] about "communism and the Soviet Union" is appended to "Russia and Russian imperialism". Obviously the topics are linked, but they could be used differently, so it's curious the wordings are different. (Also the text later in the paragraph specifically states "Russian communist figures", rather than all communism, which does have a different implication.)
  • "restoration of original historical placenames", would suggest removing "original", no guarantees there weren't earlier names. (A similar thought may apply to the table, where "Original" might be better replaced with "Former".)
  • "Derussification has also included the respellings or rewordings of names to match standard spelling and word usages in the Ukrainian language." Is this because of a particular change or changes in Ukrainian orthography (and if so is there a subsection of Ukrainian orthography that can be linked), or is it because names were spelt with a more Russian orthography, or both? (The same question applies for the "numerous placenames have had spelling and grammatical adjustments" sentence.)
  • "During the Soviet period, particularly in the 1920s and 1930s, officials engaged in a significant renaming campaign", the links to 1920s and 1930s here don't help the reader understand the topic, but a link to a specific section of Russification of Ukraine would help. Same with footnote [c].
  • "generic propaganda toponyms", just checking assumptions, "generic" here is implying not connected to the particular place?
  • "notably with the renaming of the city and oblast of Rivne on 11 June 1991 to bring it in line with Ukrainian language standards" From what to what! Even if just in a footnote, that would be helpful.
  • "derussification remained limited and was not actively pursued", this is a bit of an odd statement. If derussification was an ongoing (albeit limited) process, that would mean it would have to have been actively pursued in some respect.
  • "most Russian names". This small linguistic implication raises an important point. The paragraph up to this point has framed derussification as a response to russification. However, "Russian names" is broader, and could imply the changing of even organic/local Russian names.
  • The last sentence also brings me back to my footnote [b] point. I'm not sure a reader without background knowledge will understand the entwined history linking Russia, Ukraine, and communism, or understand the history of the Russian language in Ukraine, and thus why decommunization might be seen as different to derussification. Do any of the sources try to explain this?
  • Footnote [b] says decommunization was passed in 2015, whereas the text says it was enacted in 2016. I assume that's due to a delay between passing and enacting, but it would be clearer if both used the same date if referring to the same legislation (whichever is the more relevant one).

Table

  • "Followed renaming of its administrative center to Samar", perhaps this could be changed to "In line with the renaming of its...", as following may imply a temporal difference and these seem to have happened at the same time.
  • "Named after Alexander Suvorov", perhaps this should be changed to "Formerly named...". It would also be interesting to get an explanation of the new name, but I understand that might overclutter the already extensive table.
  • Related to above comments on orthography, "Did not match Ukrainian language standards" is also very vague. Гудзівка to Ґудзівка seems very different to Южне to Світанок, and in another case Южне turned into Південне!

On the topic of making the "Notes" column clearer, is "Notes" used for anything besides "Reason for change"/"Meaning of old name"? If not, has making that the second column been considered? That would make it Old name -> Explanation -> New name -> the other columns which are more for sorting/context than providing information about each change. Perhaps date should be the fourth column, as it seems more relevant than the broader location. CMD (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply (I won't be able to address everything at the moment but hopefully will clear up most concerns and confusions).
Lead
1. I've looked through both laws, and neither uses the word "all" in this context. There are some exceptions to both laws (most notably the exclusion of Soviet Ukrainians who fought during WWII), so it is true that technically not all placenames related to the USSR were/will be renamed. However, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the footnote implies that all are included, as it says that "numerous" (some, but not necessarily the rest) Soviet-related placenames remained in place.
2. The recent law (focusing on derussification) does mention USSR and Russian SFSR in its definition of the term "Russian imperalist policy". Before this law, decommunization and derussification would be considered different, but now the two are essentially combined, and there's definitely a lot of overlap between the two even if they're viewed as separate. As for the "Russian communist figures" part -- good point, neither of the sources mentions Russian figures specifically, so I'll remove the word "Russian".
3. Also fair point, will change that.
4. It is because the names were spelled based on Russian orthography (or mixed Russian/Ukrainian, which could be considered Surzhyk).
5. That makes sense, I'll change it in a minute.
6. Yes.
7. Rovno to Rivne, will update.
8. Certain parties and organizations would call for derussification, but in practice it was limited, with only a few individual renamings in that period.
9. No part of the derussification laws implies that names of native Russian origin are to be excluded. Yes, the law is mostly a response to russification, but in its current state it does cover local Russian names.
11. Yes, the laws were passed in 2015 and enacted in 2016.
Table
1. Will change this.
3. In the case of Yuzhne, it is derived from Russian Юг (Yug), meaning "south". The Ukrainian word for south is Південь (Pivden), thus the correct spelling according to the Ukrainian language standards would be Pivdenne. However, that specific settlement (for a reason I can't find) was renamed to Svitanok, likely after a request from the local government, possibly based on another request from locals. Either way, the reason for renaming this populated place in the first place was to remove a toponym that didn't match Ukrainian language standards, although the outcome was different from the majority of such cases. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 17:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks CMD for the comments and Shwabb for following up on it!! :) I can finish addressing the rest of the suggestions either later today or Thursday. Also Shwabb what do you think of CMD's suggestion of rearranging the table. I think it's workable though I'd probably create a sample first to see how it looks before going fully with it. Dan the Animator 17:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Old Name and New Name should be next to each other, as this gives the reader an obvious "before and after". Adding a possibly long explanation inbetween would disrupt this simplicity. As this is the largest column by size and it stands out from the rest, I think it aesthetically fits in the far end. In general, I agree that the Date column is more relevant, but it contains information about the renaming (just like the Notes column), while the Type, Raion, and Oblast columns contain information about the specific populated place. I think it makes sense to group the columns with similar information together, thus I'm satisfied with the current layout personally. You should still test CMD's suggestion though to see how it looks. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(To add to previous response)
Lead
10. I believe a lot of sources explain parts of this. The lead already gives some context to when the names affected by decommunization and derussification were introduced. Would you agree that more explanation is needed on the distinction between the two?
Table
2. Overall I agree with the idea, but would it not be repetitive if every single cell in the column started with "formerly named" or something similar? Even at the moment, there's a lot of repetition with "Old name" or "Previously named". This column definitely needs some rework. As for the new name explanations, some of them are indeed interesting but the problem with mentioning them is that (especially for villages) it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to find out why certain specific new names were chosen. I think the reason for why the name changes happened in the first place is more important to mention. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 14:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Shwabb, many apologies for the long delay in my reply and I can't thank you enough for your extraordinary patience! :) I had some off-wiki challenges come up but after mostly resolving the last of them yesterday, I should be able to get back and finish up the rest of the necessary edits/replies hopefully very soon and I think I have a good idea of how to finish up everything. I'll send additional replies here sooner than later but I think there's not much left to do before this'll get passed. Also I saw and had to say, great work with the heritage sites the past few weeks! ;) Dan the Animator 19:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Footnote 1 implies that 2015 left, so to speak, unfinished business. "narrow interpretations" suggests that there was a gap between the legislation's drafters, and the later actions of the executive, rulings of the judiciary, or similar. "and resistance" then suggests that in addition to the narrow interpretation, the number of names changed was further reduced. So there are two implied steps of names that were removed. "and were only later removed" indicates that all the names from these two steps, or at least all that are "connected to communism and the Soviet Union", were brought back into contention by the 2023 legislation.
2. To clarify, you're stating that the 2015 legislation was for "decommunization", which at the time was seen as distinct (albeit heavily overlapping) with "derussification". Then by 2023 (with a very changed national context) the "derussification" law broadly (per the footnote "more comprehensive") covered both of these previously somewhat distinct topics?
4. Is there a wikilink that could be used for this, or a footnote?
8. What about changing "derussification remained limited and was not actively pursued" to "derussification efforts were sporadic"? You'll have a better understanding of the source, but "sporadic" seems a better way to summarize the isolated local efforts.
9/10. I do think something more is needed here. Does the sentence "However, most Russian names not directly associated with communism or included in the decommunization legislation continued to stay in place as derussification remained less popular than decommunization" make sense to a reader if they don't already understand that Russian is a widely spoken native language in Ukraine, but also that it is not an official language? My assumption is that all Russian names have come under consideration due to the shift towards more Ukrainian over the past few years, even by native Russian speakers who (I assume again) in the past would be those objecting to changes such as the 2015 law. I think the current text hints towards this (eg. "derussification gained widespread public support"), but assumes to some extent the background knowledge.
11. Perhaps then sticking to just "[enacted in] 2016" would reduce potential misinterpretation.
Table.2/3. The arguments for not explaining the new names makes sense, however "historical name was returned" does do this, so current implementation is inconsistent. If the subject is kept the same each time (the "Old name" or the "Previous[ly] name"), then perhaps those words can be removed. "Old name alluded to the First of May"->"Alluded to the First of May", "Previously named after the Ural Mountains"->"Named after the Ural Mountains", "Renamed under the Soviet Union; historical name was returned"->"Name changed under the Soviet Union"/"Replaced historical name under the Soviet Union"? CMD (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. That all seems correct. Certain settlements (especially ones named after the color red and the First of May) could, by definition, fall under decommunization in 2015-16, but generally kept their names until recently as they're (arguably) not obviously glorifying communism (and some still keep such names but are to be renamed under current legislation).
2. Yes.
4. I'll look into that soon. Maybe Dan has some specific ideas on this (I'm not great with making footnotes!)
8. Done.
9/10. Your interpretation is correct here, I'll think on how to expand the lead for this part.
11. Also done.
Table 2/3. Dealt with the "historical name was returned" phrases. I agree that condensing the "Old name/Previously named" text would make the list better. @Dantheanimator, what are your thoughts on this? Should the title of the column be changed as well to something along the lines of "Reason for renaming"? Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Made a slight rewording: Due to legal limitations and narrow interpretations of decommunization legislation enacted in 2016 as well as resistance amongst some local authorities to renamings at the time for further clarity. The "legal limitations" refers to the fact the decommunization laws excluded some names (e.g. Soviet Ukrainian soldiers in WWII). Also, about CMD your reply above for "Footnote 1 implies that...", I couldn't have said it better myself! ;) And I agree with Shwabb's replies too; the derussification process & this list does cover quite a bit of "unfinished business" from the decommunization efforts
2. To reply to your original comment (Further, footnote [b] about "communism and the Soviet Union" is appended to): true; when I put the footnote there, the intention was to clarify that this list includes placenames in themselves that would be considered in the category of "communism and the Soviet Union" even though the list is mainly about the removal of placenames in the category of "Russia and Russian imperialism". One example is the village on this list called Lenina (named for Lenin); most other places called Lenina in Ukraine were renamed as part of decommunization but for this village, even though the name/etymology is identical to those other earlier-renamed places, it was renamed as part of/during derussification. So it's important readers understand that these purely communist names changed later on are part of the derussification inclusion of this list even though they would seem like decommunization name changes. I think Shwabb said it well too: since the 2023 law, decommunization has been effectively subsumed into derussification so I think having the efn note where it is makes sense. Also thanks Shwabb for fixing the "Russian communist figures" part! :)
4. Yup I have an idea for this :) I'll add in a hopefully good, descriptive efn note regarding Ukrainian orthography's changes/derussification & the shift away from Russian orthography/Surzhyk and how these led to/affected the respelling/rewording name changes.
9/10.
  • To build on Shwabb's first reply about the laws technically not prohibiting the removal of organic Russian names: footnote f ("Other exceptions to derussification provided by the laws include...") should basically list out most of the permissible exceptions to the 2023 law. Technically, based on those exemptions, it's not like most Russian-esque organic names are imminently at risk for renaming (i.e. the Krasnopil example from Zhytomyr Oblast and many other examples listed in ref #41) but there are still many "organic" Russian names that would fall outside the exemptions listed, like those named after Russian Tsars or other names potentially too (I can't think of any example at the moment of where the historical/"organic" Russian-esque name of a place was removed but maybe Shwabb might know some). In my opinion, I think another footnote would work fine enough to give additional context to readers. I can briefly explain the de facto & de jure status of Russian in Ukraine since independence, major changes in those statuses over the years with emphasis on public use/opinion & pre/post-2022 (also how Russian speakers affected the decommunization process), shift by essentially all Ukrainians towards full use of Ukrainian/abandonment of Russian, and some other helpful info.
  • Also I saw CMD you mentioned in your first reply about the "entwined history linking Russia, Ukraine, and communism, or understand the history of the Russian language in Ukraine, and thus why decommunization might be seen as different to derussification"; I'm not sure I fully understand the suggestion but I'm also thinking it might not be applicable anymore since points 1/2 above and all the other points generally cover this? We could cover this part after finishing the other points and a footnote could work here too (I really do like footnotes ;)
@Shwabb1: I'll add in the efn notes for point 4 (about orthography), 9/10 (about the Russian language background info), & that efn note I've been meaning to add in for a while about the switch/standardization to Ukrainian (KyivNotKiev) hopefully before the end of this week but in any case at the earliest I can get it finished. I'll also expand two of the existing efns, one to add in your great list of cities to be renamed Pavlohrad, Khrustalnyi, etc., and the other to add in more exceptions/examples from the Vox source in that lead comment I made before. About the table & point 2/3, I'll give a more detailed reply tomorrow/very soon so I can more thoroughly look over/test out everything. From first impressions though, changing the column title to "Reason for renaming" sounds good. For condensing the text... I'll want to take a careful look through it later this week/soonish and try out different things before deciding on anything now so we don't have to unnecessarily switch between different wordings/formattings. Any idea that cuts back on excess text/repetitiveness generally works well with me though.
I think that should cover everything regarding the lead but in case I missed anything, feel free to let me know and I'll definitely be able to reply sooner than later and hopefully get everything finished as soon as can be. Also, I won't be able to say thanks enough but thanks Shwabb for fixing so many of the suggestions and especially with the table! :) Dan the Animator 06:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dantheanimator and Shwabb1: Has everything been finished? @Chipmunkdavis: Is the list in a state that you're happy with or not yet? --PresN 21:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PresN thanks for the ping! I fell behind with things after catching a tough case of the flu last week but still working on this. Some footnotes to be added in/edited and some table work is left but otherwise it is close to being finished. I'll try to finish the rest of it soon as I can and will follow-up when ready. Dan the Animator 23:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis @Dantheanimator I've added a footnote that explains the historic context of Ukrainian and Russian languages, as well as Ukrainian orthography and romanization (4 and part of 9/10). Also added information on derussification's popularity (part of 9/10), changed the "Notes" column to "Reason for renaming", and added info on cities that are to be renamed and the situation with Crimea. I believe this should cover almost everything, the last major unaddressed point is how to condense the reasons for renaming. I can try emulating the style I used for Cherkasy/Chernihiv oblasts for now just to move on with this (improvements may still be added after this nomination goes through). Let me know what you think and if there are any other points I missed. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To follow-up from my talk page reply, I'll be finishing the remaining work most likely before the end of next week. Also many thanks Shwabb for the recent additions! :) I took a quick look through them and they look great though I might add on/modify them a bit when finishing the remaining edits. About the point about condensing the renaming reason column, I wouldn't worry about it for now. I'm sure this list will be ready by next week for promotion with your and my new edits. Dan the Animator 18:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for removal

[edit]

30 Rock season 4

[edit]
Notified: ThinkBlue, Staxringold, Courcelles, WikiProject Television

I am nominating this for featured list removal because not only does it not meet the current MOS:TVPRODUCTION standards (namely the omition of the Production and development sections), but season articles also not really considered FLs. See also the related FLRCs for seasons 1, 2 and 3. Please note that this is the final remaining 30 Rock season FL. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – While not stated anywhere definitively (see here), maybe this should wait to prevent too many active nominations by one person at one time? Otherwise, anyone who might object to these nominations might not get a fair chance to respond. I typically restrict myself to the FLC guidelines (two nominations, and only after one has significant support). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to make a talk page post about this to get a consensus, since this episode list thing is a little different than most removals in that it looks to be a long series of removals for the same reason. --PresN 21:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

30 Rock season 3

[edit]
Notified: Staxringold, WikiProject Television

I am nominating this for featured list removal because not only does it not meet the current MOS:TVPRODUCTION standards (namely the omition of the Production and development sections), but season articles also not really considered FLs. See also the related FLRCs for seasons 1 and 2. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Seasons are not lists so whatever the quality of this article is it cannot be a FL. Editors are free to renominate it on the article scale. Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my comments at the season 2 FLRC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per other comments here and on season 2. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

30 Rock season 2

[edit]
Notified: User:Jamie jca, WikiProject Television

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer meet the present-day standards for TV season lists as laid out in MOS:TVPRODUCTION in the years since it was promoted (namely the missing of key sections like filming and writing, along with sourcing to IMDB). The original nominator hasn't been active since 2010. I'm also going to nominate the remaining 30 Rock season FLs one at a time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist from a quick glance this could likely be a good candidate for GA with a little work for the issues noted above, but as myself and many have said before, season articles aren't lists. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Seasons are not lists so whatever the quality of this article is it cannot be a FL. Editors are free to renominate it on the article scale. Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – the expected sections are all there and would be good after some polishing, but this type of page should be structured as an article first, not a list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Family Guy cast members

[edit]
Notified: Pedro thy master

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I don't believe this article meets the criteria for Featured List status. Unsourced statements, trivia, and improper table formatting are a few of the issues which are most obvious. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1292491155"