Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2024

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

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

---

List of World Heritage Sites in New Zealand

Nominator(s): Tone 10:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

New Zealand has 3 WHS and 8 sites on the tentative list. Standard style. Since both Senegal and Ecuador lists have been promoted, this is the sole nominaton from my side at the moment. Tone 10:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Commments

MPGuy2824

• ", it became in 1993 the first site" => ", in 1993 it became the first site"
• "between the people and the nature".
• "until the early 1980s but now survives" - Add a comma after "1980s"
• "is characterized by" - Use a different phrase.
• "maintains 8eight properties" - I think just the numeral was intended.
• "shaped by the volcanic activities" => "shaped by volcanic activity".
• I'm unsure whether "Te Whare Runanga" needs to be italicized or not.
• The image for "Kermadec Islands and Marine reserve" is missing alt-text.
• "November 22, 1984" - Convert to dmy format, for consistency.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! I added Māori meeting house to Te Whare Runanga, the article does not used italic. Tone 11:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The remaining glaciers are limited to the slopes of the Mount Ruapehu." => "The remaining glaciers are limited to the slopes of Mount Ruapehu."
• "the ancient Gondwana biota" - what's a "biota"? Never heard that word before.
• That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Biota refers to animal and plant life, I linked to biome, which is the most direct link. Tone 08:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Tongariro National Park. The UNESCO description page has no details. They may have been deleted, but as the archived version is down I cannot check. Your description is not supported by the only useful source, the second ref, which does not mention the Last Glacial Maximum and emphasises the site being on the Pacific ring of fire. The document also mentions the site having deposits from the Taupo Supervolcano, but it exaggerates the size of the most recent eruption.
  • True, the main UNESCO source is short so I used the IUCN nomination summary which should work. The source says "Extensive glaciation up to 14,700 years ago" which is literally the Last Glacial Maximum. Any suggestions?

• 14,700 years ago is well after the end of the LGM and implies over a longer period during the Last glacial period, but in any case it is dubious emphasising glaciation as it is not mentioned in the 'justification for inclusion' section. This covers volcanism, biota and beauty, which should be the basis for your summary. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What about now? Even when cited, I was often getting comments not to directly mention "scenic beauty" :) Tone 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• In this and next site, Southern beech should not be capitalised.
  • Fixed.
• "the ancient Gondwana biota". A date - or rather period - would be helpful.
  • This refers to the fact that the species that lived in Gondwana and were gradually replaced elsewhere still remain here. This is on a geological timescale and goes probably back to the time of dinosaurs but I wouldn't want to guess without a strong source.
• " The outer shores are typical of the New Zealand's western coasts". This tells us nothing useful without further details.
  • Rewritten.
• "The main function of the islands is the conservation of the species that are threatened on the mainland". Referring to conservation as the function of the islands does not make sense and is not supported by the source.
  • Rewritten more in line with the source.
• The External links heading for Wikimedia is odd and unnecessary. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Someone keeps adding them, I am neutral on this front. I don't mind removing them.
  • @Dudley Miles: I am through the comments, thanks! Let me know what you think. --Tone 08:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Generalissima

All the statements I could find are sourced. Sources are consistently formatted and in line with your other World Heritage Site lists. Checking a few, everything seems to match up. Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC) [2].

---

List of governors of Edo State

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the list of governors of Nigeria's state of Edo from when the region was called Mid-Western renamed to Bendel and then splitted into Edo and Delta, this is focusing on Edo. I have significantly worked on this and think it meets the criteria for FL. This list looks very similar to other lists of governors. Feedbacks would be greatly appreciated. This would be part of the ongoing Developing Countries Wiki Contest which I am participating in. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: You haven't completed step 5 of the nomination procedure laid out in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 Whoops, done, thanks for pointing out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• The party colors in the Edo state table make no sense without a legend. Alternatively, you can move the party color next to the party name and skip the legend.
• When images aren't there for a particular person, you can add a centered emdash.
• Some of the refs are missing archive links.
• In order to avoid cluttering the table with references, you could move them all to a new column at right-end of the table.
• Every image should have alt text. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 Please can you suggest how I can add a legend? Where to place it? templates I can use? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you are going with that option, you can either use {{Legend}} or just a normal table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 Oh, I think there's no need for that. Because I just put the colours before the party names. That makes sense now. Do you think the table is currently cluttered with refs right now? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I just put the colours before the party names Yup, no need to add a legend now.

  Do you think the table is currently cluttered with refs right now? I had noticed refs in quite a few columns at the time, but now I see that each ref is supporting a particular piece of data. I think this is fine as is. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 Hi there, pinging as you did not seem to practically vote on this :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Some things to be fixed:

  • "executive functions, while the Governor's role" => "governor"
  • "George Agbazika Innih and Husaini Abdullahi later served as military governors." This line isn't needed at the end of the Mid-Western Region section, since they are rightly mentioned in the next section.
  • "Following the administrative changes"
  • "and local governments under the regime of General Murtala Mohammed" add a comma after governments.
  • "style="height:2em;" isn't really needed since the photos take up more space than that anyway.
  • "first military governor of the newly Edo State." or "newly formed"
  • "Oversaw the transition period following Ogbemudia's administration."
  • "Brief return to civilian rule under the umbrella of the National Party of Nigeria before the 1983 military coup." Use brackets (or commas) before and after the phrase "under the umbrella of the National Party of Nigeria"
  • "The 15 January 1966, military coup" Eliminate the comma.
  • Wikilink "Dimka"
  • User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-sb.js is showing some seemingly fixable issues with the references.

  -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 I cleared all now, except that the second entry in the "Sources" section is showing "Missing archive link" even though I do not have a URL parameter, I'm sure it is misinterpreting the DOI as one.

  Thank you very much for spotting these :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  • 'style="height:2em;" isn't really needed' - you've ignored this one, but I hadn't mentioned that it was mandatory.
  • Link to "Dimka" in the footnotes. - It might be better to link directly to the relevant section (Participation in the 13 February 1976 Coup and death) of the article.

  Support based on prose and table accessibility. Supporting in advance, since I'm sure you'll fix the last point. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Done, thank you so much :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

SnowFire

Nice work. However, I'm not so certain on the prose. I made some sample edits to the lede that you should feel free to adjust to try to "tell a story" more, as the old lede bounced around in time. In general, it's not good to replicate the table in prose - it's better to indicate something that isn't already in the table, ideally, rather than just name-drop people. A few other questions:

• Was Osadebay's title really "Civilian Premier"? https://nigeriareposit.nln.gov.ng/items/fd2b27ce-45c7-4a60-9459-afcd4fc9a566 just calls him "premier" and that seems an unusual title.
• Similarly, it'd be one thing if this was only post-1991 leaders, but being that the earlier pre-1991 stuff is included... the obvious starting point seems like it'd be independence, but the article doesn't discuss 1960-1963 at all. How was the region organized in that period? Even if the answer is "as an insignificant part of a much larger unit" or "not at all", it would still be good to mention what structure did exist.
• Feel free to restore if it's a quirk of Nigerian English, but I don't think "civilian" titles are used typically on Wikipedia per MOS:CREDENTIAL. It's fine to mention military titles mostly to quickly signify the role was military, but "Prof." or "Dr." is more questionable unless it's also a COMMONNAME.
• Why is "Deputy governors represented the same party as their governor." a footnote to the Deputy column? That seems like something more for prose in the table introduction to explain the role of Deputy Governor.
• First, I'm not sure the birth & death dates for governors is really relevant to include at all, but I know lots of similar lists include it, so if you want to include it that's fine. That said... I'm not a fan of ???? for unknown dates. Just omit them, IMO (but feel free to push back if this is in fact the standard). And is Baba Adamu Iyam really dead at an unknown year? His article suggests he is alive. SnowFire (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@SnowFire

• I removed the Civilian
• I am confident that this list is as concise and inclusive as it should be right now. I don't want to come up with information I have no source for. Which is why I am sticking to information from sources that are available.
• This is okay by me.
• Please can you explain further what you mean?
• I could omit the birth/death dates that are unknown, but I don't think it is not really necessary to not include their birth/death dates at all. I have seen similar lists in formats like this. Iyam's article does not suggest he is alive, his death date is unknown.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Is there really no information on how the 1960-1963 Western Region was governed and who by? I get that sourcing can be tough for these topics, but I don't really see a reason why the chart should start in 1963 but not 1960, so this seems a clear gap. If the records were lost or the region really was in chaos and had no governor, then fine, we can say so ("the governors of the Western Region in 1960-63 are unknown"), but that seems like it'd be surprising if really true.
• I don't feel like the Deputy Governor party footnote makes the most sense as a footnote rather than prose. If you disagree, that's fine, it's not mandatory, but I would suggest explaining the Deputy Governor in the prose introduction is preferred if it's going to be included in the table. This can include the way they're elected and why they usually match the party of the Governor.
• The guideline is that for anyone who would be older than 115, if there isn't an explicit source saying they're alive, we assume they're dead. But otherwise, we assume they're alive, because falsely reporting someone as dead is much worse than falsely assuming a dead person is alive. So maybe ???? is fine for people born in 1909 and before in charts, but we should use "born 19XX" or "b. 19XX" when it's unknown. (And Iyam's article has no death date listed and has him in Category:Living people?). If you have a source saying Iyam is dead, then let's update his article, but if we're not sure on his status, we should default to only showing the known birth date and no marking implying a death date.
• There are still some prose concerns. I suppose I can just make the changes myself but see the example on the lede - the body still has stuff like "Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole," without it being clear that these are COMMONNAME titles. SnowFire (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Checking in again. You wrote " I don't want to come up with information I have no source for." but I really don't think these are THAT hard to find sources on. While there are premiers in this list, it looks like there was both a governor AND a Premier in the Western Region of the time. It looks like Adesoji Aderemi was governor 1960-63, while Samuel Ladoke Akintola was Premier of the Western Region in 1960-1962. Some sort of political crisis broke out in 1962 and Akintola was dismissed by Aderemi. The WP article says he was dismissed due to a declaration of emergency and M. A. Majekodunmi was sent on a temporary basis (sourced to "The Fate of Africa" p.193, which isn't that expensive as an e-book - maybe more there? I don't have access.). This contemporary 1962 news article suggests that Dauda Soroye Adegbenro sought to become Premier, but a court blocked it (unclear if it stuck) and tried to restore Akintola. But this was just from a quick surface-level search. This suggests that there are surely deeper sources if the basics aren't that hard to find. Unless there is some other reason to exclude the material?
• On death dates, this is something that I'm more insistent on. "born 1942" suggests just that, a birth date, but "1942-????" implies an unknown death date very clearly to me. SnowFire (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  @SnowFire Hi there, I have made significant cleanup per the COMMONNAME titles. I have also a subsection called Western Region you can take a look at, based on your recommendations above. Also did some MOS fixes to the dates. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• (de-indent) Sorry, it looks like I phrased my comment unclearly above. What I meant was not literally "19XX", but rather the actual appropriate date for when the birthdate is known but the death date is unknown. For example, if someone was born in 1943 but we aren't sure when or if they died, we should write "born 1943" or "b. 1943". Checking, MOS:APPROXDATE does not include any guidance for when everything is unknown, but I presume omitting is the default. I remain firmly opposed to any form of an end date with ???? (or 19XX) when we aren't sure whether they're dead at all.
• As I wrote above, to be clear, I wasn't complaining about the military titles. That said I won't complain given that you've removed most of them, the above complaint was on stuff like "Prof." or "Comrade" without evidence of a common name. (If it's a common name like "Mother Teresa" then feel free to just say so.)
• Question: Did you get access to "The Fate of Africa", or AGFing it? Because I was just offering that reference from elsewhere on Wikipedia to investigate, if you were depending on me here.
• I'm still not happy with the prose in parts, but just going to edit it myself. One area I didn't edit - The Mid-Western Region's administrative history is relevant to the formation and early governance of Edo State - this seems taunting. How is it relevant? You're leaving the reader hanging! Can you explain what is meant here, or rephrase? I made my changes in this diff, feel free to speak up if I erred in here. SnowFire (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  @SnowFire Oh yes, I got access to The Fate of Africa source. Thank you for your edit, I ended up removing that statement entirely. Thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Just following up to see if all of @SnowFire's concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I attended to these already, waiting for SnowFire's comment. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've been completely swamped the past week or so. Sorry about the delay. Support. SnowFire (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

Putting myself down for later, per request from Vanderwaalforces. I'll likely tackle a source review in the process. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Following up to see if you're still interested in doing a source review @TechnoSquirrel69. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, everyone — life called and I was unable to edit these last couple of days. Anyways, have a review, Vanderwaalforces! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Citation numbers from this revision.

• Remove the uppercase letters from citations 2, 5, 7, 11, and 26.
• Synchronize the use of dashes between citations 2, 12, 19, and 27. Don't use double hyphens per MOS:DASH.
• Citation 12: The article prose uses em dashes between dates, but this citation uses an en dash; use one or the other.
• Citation 12 again: Remove the author parameter. Also, can this be linked to The Nation (Nigeria)?
• Citation 18: remove the |publisher=.
• Citations 19 and 20: remove the newspaper names from the titles.
• Citation 23: straighten out the spacing in the title.
• Citation 24: what does |publisher=[s.n.] mean? Don't initialize the first name. Archive links are not needed for Google Books.
• Citation 35: add |lang=pcm.
• I'm not going to ask for it, but you might consider standardizing the casing of the titles — this script might be able to help.
• The use of shortened footnotes is a bit confusing. Both Abernethy 1964 and Iweze & Anyanwu 2021 are cited only once, so consider putting the full citations in a footnote instead.
• Eweka 2013, on the other hand, cites multiple pages, but the full citation is in a footnote instead of the sources list.

The Internet Archive seems to be having server issues, so I wasn't able to get to many of my checks. More comments are on their way. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 Thank you so much for these comments, I fixed all of them now. The script didn't help, lol, I had to do them myself, thanks for pointing to it. I'd await your further comments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work so far! The Archive outage continues, which is rather hampering my progress here, especially on the sources I really want to check the reliability of. I decided to just post the rest of the formatting comments I have. I'll get to the spot-checks when the Archive comes back online. Now working from this revision.

• I keep timing out when trying to access citation 1. Does it need a |url-status=dead?
• Format citation 2 with |last= and |first=.
• The ISSN in citation 4 doesn't appear to be valid.
• Remove the redundant author parameters from citation 5.
• & → and in citation 5 per MOS:&.
• Do we have the first name for the author in citation 6? Link The Africa Report.
• Capital letters in citation 7.
• Link Vanguard in citation 8.
• Link Premium Times in citation 10.
• Citation 16 needs a first name.
• There's a stray space in the title of citation 17. Italicize Not His Master's Voice. Is allafrica.com the proper name of this publication? If so, please capitalize it and remove it from the title.
• Same question for Nigeriaworld.com in citation 19.
• Link Daily Trust in citations 20 and 21.
• Maybe link Nigerian Armed Forces in citation 24?
• Citation 27 needs fixes for spacing, dashes, and an ampersand as above. Probably switch the |work= to |publisher=, along with citation 28.
• Link The Punch in citation 29.
• Add |lang=pcm to citation 30. Would you mind doing another scan for non-English sources in case I missed any and marking them as needed?
• Remove the author parameters from citation 32.
• I'd recommend removing the author parameters from citation 34 and expanding the initialism in the |publisher= parameter. The year in the title is not needed if you're also putting it in the citation.
• Standardize the inclusion of ISSNs, please. For example, citation 36 has one but not citation 10 from the same publication.

Bottom text —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 Hi there. Looks like archive.org is live now? I was able to access some archive links, just letting you know. I will get to these comments now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69

• Added the dear url parameter as it is indeed dead.
• I formatted.
• The ISSN, while not showing properly from WorldCat, it appears to be valid from https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/2315-506X
• I removed the first= and last=, I hope that is what you meant.
• Linked. Yes please, I got David to be the first name from https://www.proquest.com/openview/ca57d2f6acae95a02f469ce5b4923115/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1820943
• Fixed caps
• Linked Vanguard
• Linked Premium Times
• Added full first name
• Thank you, I fixed this
• Added author name to NigeriaWorld.com
• Linked Daily Trust
• Linked Nigeria Armed Forces
• Fixed spaces and ampersand
• I could not find a |work= in any citation in this article, neither did I find an & in citation 28, so I assume fixed.
• I added |lang=pcm, I also checked for others, just in case and could not find any (I wrote the article and can't remember using any other language :))
• Fixed
• Fixed, and expanded PDP
• I fixed this too.

Thank you so much for spotting these. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing these and for the heads-up; it looks like the Wayback Machine is partially online, which I just found out this morning. I'll get back to the spot-checks and have those up here soon. By the way, feel free to reply to my comments inline if you wish. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 Hi there, I hope you are doing well. Any update on this? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh boy; I'd let this slip off my radar these last few days while I was down with a flu, my apologies for that! I have some time to myself this afternoon, so let's see if I can't wrap this up today. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Now working from this revision.

• I'm assuming good faith on the verification of sources I can't access, such as books.
• Citation 2a does not verify the "1960 to 1963" dates, as it was published in 1962.
  • I removed that entire sentence. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Still need a full name for the author of citation 4. (Side note: the journal's website is dead, but they appeared to have an editorial board, so this looks good.)
  • I did this. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• However, could you point me to the part of the paper which supports the statement "in 1963, influencing Edo State's subsequent governance structures"?
  • I restructured this sentence as The political instability during this period contributed to the regional tensions that persisted even after the Western Region was split and the Mid-Western Region was created in 1963. and added Falola & Genova 2009 page 229 to verify the date. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for adding this. A couple of formatting things since this source wasn't in the article before: as with Eweka 2013 earlier, move the full citation to the bottom reference list; The Scarecrow Press → Scarecrow Press; link Scarecrow Press. —TS

  I did this. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Are the given names for the author in citation 7 ordered correctly?
  • I fixed the order. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• What makes citation 9 a reliable source? Their about page is... rather unenlightening.
  • Changed source to the above Falola & Genova 2009 page 230 which mentions that In August 1967 it was occupied by Biafran forces, and on 19–21 September 1967 the region was declared the independent Republic of Benin. and page 283 which says Okonkwo was governor of the Mid-Western Region from August 1967 to September 1967, during the brief period when the Republic of Biafra controlled it. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• I can't get citation 10 to load. Does it need a |url-status=dead?
  • It works, the problem was the "?tztc=1" in the URL. I have removed that now. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Citation 12: The Nation Newspaper → The Nation
  • I did this. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• What makes citation 19 a reliable source?
  • It is considered reliable by one of our reliable historian Falola, see Salola & Genova 2009 page 385. It has been an online newspaper for decades? --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't currently have access to that book as archive.org still isn't completely functional, and isn't allowing sign-ins. For clarity, did the authors specifically state that Nigeriaworld.com was reliable, or just cite the website themselves? —TS

  Quoting from page 385 The Internet resources available on Nigeria are constantly expanding. The most reliable websites are the online editions of daily newspapers from Nigeria. This Day (www.thisdayonline.com) and The Guardian (http://www.ngrguardiannews.com) are the most popular and informative. In addition, several comprehensive websites offer news, weather, online chatting, and basic information about Nigeria. They include Nigeriaworld (http://nigeriaworld.com), E-Nigeria (http://www.e-nigeria.net), and Online Nigeria (http://onlinenigeria.com). Permit me to give you a hack :) I think you can get the book here. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• I have questions with citation 21. Is the person mentioned here even the same person as Abubakar Waziri? The obituary lists none of the things mentioned in that article and vice versa. This person also reached only a lieutenant colonel rank, while the governor in the list is a major general (also mentioned in Eweka 2013 as a brigadier general, for what it's worth).
  • This is interesting. I have removed both sources, and replaced them with Fejokwu 1992 page 132 which says Abubakar Waziri was born on 28th September, 1940 at Potiskum the Headquarters of Fika Local Government Area. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have questions about this new source. I can't find much on the Internet about either of the authors, and the publisher Polcom Nigeria appears to be a telecommunications company — not exactly a trusted academic press. Do you have any information about this book that would establish its reliability? —TS

  I do not see an issue here at all. This Polcom was actually the press and not the telco. For example, see another of Fejokwu's publication under Polcom Press [3], here, it is Polcom Press and not Nigeria and it is the same publisher as the one for the publication being cited here. From here, I can see other publications of Fejokwu from the CBN. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Is citation 22 reliable enough for this application? This discussion brings up some concerns with its reliability.
  • Per above. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Citation 29: Punch Newspapers → The Punch or Punch
  • I used The Punch. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Citation 32: The Sun Nigeria → The Sun
  • I used The Sun.
• Also, is The Sun a reliable source? I don't see evidence of editorial oversight on their about page.
  • Without further arguments, The Sun is a reliable Nigerian national daily. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Further explanation needed. I am not familiar with Nigerian newspapers, and I questioned this source because I didn't see any of the usual indicators of reliability (editorial oversight, peer review, RSN discussion, etc.). —TS

  Okay, I think I see where the confusion is coming from. The Sun recently changed their domain from sunnewsonline.com to thesun.ng and has since been updating their site, see here for editorial board, etc. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  You can, in fact, access it from the new domain https://thesun.ng/the-team/ Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 Thank you so much, I fixed the above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Vanderwaalforces; replies are above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 Thank you, see my replies above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Good responses to my questions and good work! Thanks again for your patience during this review. Source review passed! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 Thank you so much for this work that you did here! It is very much appreciated! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Ref 2 – Add the url-access parameter to note that this story is accessed in full with a subscription by adding |url-access=subscription
• Ref 2 – Note the page number by adding |page=12
• Ref 9 – Make it "Dawodu.net" instead of "Dawodu.Net"
• Ref 10 – Missing publish date
• Ref 13 – Change website from "Tribune Online" to Nigerian Tribune
• Ref 27 – Based on the target, it seems like the website should be Government of Edo State instead of Edo State Government
• Ref 30 and 35 – Link to BBC News Pidgin
• Ref 33 – The newspaper appears to be called The Guardian, not Guardian, based on The Guardian (Nigeria)
• Source listed under "Sources" – Link to The Nigerian Observer instead of Nigerian Observer
• Should change the entry from David Akpode Ejoor tp David Ejoor, based on the target.

Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh I can’t believe I am just seeing this, thanks for the comments. I have fixed them now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that's all from me then, good stuff Vanderwaalforces. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Josh! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1977

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

With the 1975 list having just been promoted and the 1976 list having multiple supports, here's 1977. Here we have a song from a Bond film, a song from a disco film, and a song from a film which is that Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper film but forty years earlier. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

(No) Comments by Alavense

I got nothing. Support. Nice work, as always. Alavense (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Chris, the Carly Simon image is from 1989, while the Barbra Streisand one is from 1965. Both captions will need a "pictured in 19XX".
• the "January 8" ref and ref3 (Saturday Night Fever) are missing archive links.

I didn't see any problems with the prose or table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

NØ

Placeholder. I am seeking comments on a current FAC on urgent basis in case you are interested.--NØ 06:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I have to agree with the other reviewers that there are no issues here. Another great list to join the series!--NØ 16:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

I got nothing. Yet another great nomination by Chris. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Image review – All of the photos have appropriate free licenses/public domain status, captions and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [5].

---

List of state presidents of the Indian National Congress

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list has been written with the FL criteria in mind. "All sorts of suggestions and inputs are welcome. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• "a state presidents is tasked"

 Fixed

• "including the appointment and coordination of leaders at various levels viz" - What is that supposed to mean? I don't understand the "viz" at the end.

 Fixed

• "District committee, block committee and for each panchayat development block or panchayat samiti." - Is that sentence missing a verb or something?

 Fixed

• "As of now" reads a bit vague.

 Fixed

• "the INC has state and UT presidents for all states and union territory in India" - If I'm not mistaken, there are several union territories in India, so why say "union territory"?

 Fixed

• Conversely, the abbreviation in the second table should read "Union territory" instead of "Union Territories", as there's only one in each row.

 Fixed

• In the tables, the name of the incumbent should be moved to the second column, leaving the portrait for the third one.

 Fixed

• Could anything be said about those vacancies?

Actually their appointment date is not available at this time. Hence, I have added a note.

• All the article titles read like this: "X Pradesh Congress Committee". Why then, in the tables, do we sometimes have "Andhra Pradesh" and sometimes just "Assam"?

 Fixed

Thanks in advance for your responses, 25 Cents FC. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Dear Alavense, I have addressed all the issues you raised. If you have any further questions, please feel free to include them in your response. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, 25 Cents FC, I was away on holidays. A few more things:

• "decision making body" should be "decision-making body".

 Done

• In addition, A state

 Done

• reaching out to diverse sections of society, and addressing - That comma is not needed.

 Done

• That last "currently" feels a bit vague. Since when?

 Done

• For Varsha Gaikwad, there's an image of her available in Commons, so maybe you could crop it and include it.

 Done

Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable comments, Alavense mate. I’ve addressed the points. Let me know if everything looks good.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. Alavense (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "indulging in political campaigns" - not sure "indulging in" is the right term. I suggest "leading"

 Done

• "Also known as the leader of the state and UT party,"- write union territory in full

 Done

• "Pradesh Congress Committee" - is there a link for this? Or if not, can you take a few words to explain what it is?

 Done

• "each panchayat development block" - same comment as above

 Done

• "Appointed by" column should sort on surname, not forename

Could you please help me with this? Just one example, and I will take care of the rest.

 Done

• As the tables are sortable, the names in the "appointed" column should be linked each time

Need help on this one too.

• That's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi ChrisTheDude Help me with the last two options. An example will be sufficient for me to take care of the rest. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @ChrisTheDude, looks like the user's ping to you failed. Just letting you know! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother @ChrisTheDude, just checking whether you support this or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hello @PresN, @Arconning, @MPGuy2824, @Hey man im josh Sorry to bother you, but I just wanted to confirm if this list has your support. Thank you. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 11:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  @25 Cents FC: Please don't ping people unnecessarily who haven't participated. I followed up on your behalf with another reviewer, while PresN hasn't commented yet. As noted at the top of WP:FLC, this list is still awaiting a source review. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Hey man im josh Sure. I just wanted to ensure that the list is not ignored and receives sufficient support, as this is its second nomination. Thanks again 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 14:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  @25 Cents FC: We do not ignore nominations, this nomination is still waiting for a source review. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/backlog/items, which is shown at the top of WP:FLC, above all of the nominations but below the reviewing procedure. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [6].

---

List of parliamentary constituencies of Nepal

Nominator(s): MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2024‎ (UTC)

The fifth in the constituency series. I've improved the lead and table accessibility and added a history section. Similar FL: Zambia. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Note for reviewers: Nepal uses the Vikram Samvat as their calendar system, which is about 56-57 years ahead of the Gregorian calendar that is used in most other places. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Additional disclaimer: I can't read Nepali.
• "through proportional electoral system": maybe "through a proportional electoral system"
• "voters vote for": not wrong, but consider "voters choose"
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Dank: I've fixed the two issues that you pointed out. Thanks for the review and the copyedits. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review – pass

• There are two relevant images with appropriate CC tags. simongraham (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• I think the caption in the infobox should comply with MOS:GEOLINK.
• How are provinces sorted? What's the logic behind it? Why does Madhesh come before Bagmati, for instance?

That's what I saw, MPGuy2824. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense:

• Fixed the MOS:GEOLINK issue in the infobox caption.
• How are provinces sorted? What's the logic behind it? Why does Madhesh come before Bagmati, for instance? If you look at the maps in Provinces of Nepal#List of provinces of Nepal, they were ordered by geographic location (starting from the east and ending in the west). In fact a few of the provinces had numbers as tentative names when they were created. (Madhesh was "Province No. 2" and Bagmati was "Province No. 3"). That said, the ordering of the constituencies follow the order shown in the election results, but adding a number column to the table should reduce reader confusion. I'll be doing that. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - can't spot anything -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Alavense, ChrisTheDude, PresN, Hey man im josh, and MPGuy2824: Maybe one of you can spot the problem here, I can't see it. When I was pulling up WP:FLC, nothing was showing below this page, until I commented this transclusion out with <!-- ... --> (so at the moment, this page isn't showing up at WP:FLC). I'm guessing that something is wrong with some wikicode on this page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, PresN just fixed a <small> tag, that seems to have fixed it. Thx! - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all, for fixing this problem. Looks like I removed the "Nominator" line when first starting the nomination. I think i was trying to remove the pre-added html comment. A good reminder to slow down sometimes. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Well that's an embarrassing destruction of the page I temporarily caused lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ref 1 – Missing publish date
• Refs 1 and 5 – Change Kathmandu Post to The Kathmandu Post to match the target
• Ref 3 – Change website toto Republica
• Ref 3 – Mark link as dead
• Ref 3 – Remove "Republica" as the last name of the author
• Ref 3 – Missing publish date
• Ref 4 – add a status=live parameter, it's linking to an archive link instead by default
• Ref 5 – Missing publish date and author
• Ref 5 – The URL is a redirect, update it to the target
• Refs 8, 10, and 12 – Change the publisher from International Parliamentary Union to Inter-Parliamentary Union
• Ref 9 – Remove the "www." from the website parameter
• Refs 9 and 11 – Are there alternative sources for these, or are they linked to reputable organizations? Not finding a page for them on wiki, but that obviously doesn't mean they're necessarily unreliable.
• Ref 15 and 16 – Use "Election Commission of Nepal" as the publisher whereas refs 13 and 14 use Election Commission (Nepal). Format consistency and link all.
• Entries 105, 106 – It's interesting that these are the only two entries which have a name that don't match the district. Perhaps a note explaining that could be useful.
• Entries 117 and 118 – Shouldn't these be under Nawalparasi (West of Bardaghat Susta) district instead? It looks like Parasi District redirects to Nawalparasi (West of Bardaghat Susta) district.
• Not necessary for my support, but to make it more readable (for myself) while evaluating things I moved the province column over to the left one. I know that throws off the numbering, so it's obviously not ideal, but the province column doesn't feel like it's ideal where it's at personally. Just something to consider.

Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've moved the constituency name column to after both the province and district columns since it didn't make sense to separate the those two columns.
• Refs 9 and 11: I've replaced both nepalresearch.com refs with a single (sadly dead) one from the ECN. Luckily web archive has a snapshot.
• Fixed the rest.

Thanks for the thorough review @Hey man im josh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 16:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Detroit Lions Pro Bowl selections

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The Pro Bowl is the National Football League's version of an all-star game, and an accolade that's very often discussed when comparing players and considering their candidacy for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I'm excited to nominate this list in hopes it'll be my sixth Detroit Lions featured list. It's based on List of Green Bay Packers Pro Bowl selections, which was promoted in March of this year. Please let me know if there are any issues or concerns and I'll do my best to respond in a timely manner. Thank you in advance to anybody willing to review or provide any feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support I often wonder what would have happened if we had drafted Barry Sanders instead of Tony Mandarich. This list reminded me :( As the originator of the Packers companion list, I don't see any issues. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review @Gonzo fan2007 and the original that I based this off! If you had drafted Barry... he might be universally recognized as the GOAT like he should be and he might not have retired early lol. You also wouldn't be able to point out that people who have a claim for the best peak at their positions (Barry and Calvin Johnson) both retired with plenty left in the tank (quietly sobs in Lions fandom before remembering the current team's trajectory). Hey man im josh (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• MOS:GEOLINK for Detroit, Michigan.
• The Lions compete in the National Football League (NFL) as a member - Would it be better to say as members?
• Five of these exhibition games were played, with the last occurring after the 1942 NFL season before the NFL reduced the number of teams and games in the season due to players serving in World War II - I think a comma between season and before would make it clearer?
• following the 1950 NFL season. From the 1950 season - A bit repetitive. Maybe something like From that season?
• or the fact they are playing - or the fact that they are playing?
• If a Pro Bowl selectee ... alternates are named in the players' place - Two things: 1) it should be in the player's place; and 2) how many alternates are named in one player's place? If it's only one, then it should be an alternate is named in the player's place. If that's the case, have a look at the following sentence as well.
• selections with 10, while Yale Lary (nine selections), and Lou Creekmur (eight selections) round out the top four - 9 selections and 8 selections, as per MOS:NUMNOTES.
• Regarding the images, I guess it would be nice to have links to the playing positions, but I don't think it's possible for most of the cases, as including them would create seas of blue...
• I think it would be better to be consistent and always state when each picture was taken, as long as it's possible and as long as the picture is not contemporary to the decade alongside which it's included. Jason Hanson, for instance.

That's what I saw, Hey man im josh. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding @Alavense, I'm back to my regular activity now and will be responding in a much more timely manner.

• I've applied the MOS:GEOLINK fix to all of the Detroit Lions articles I've worked on.
• The Lions compete in the National Football League (NFL) as a member - Would it be better to say as members? – I don't think so in this case as the team itself is a singular entity.
• Five of these exhibition games were played, with the last occurring after the 1942 NFL season before the NFL reduced the number of teams and games in the season due to players serving in World War II - I think a comma between season and before would make it clearer? – Done.
• following the 1950 NFL season. From the 1950 season - A bit repetitive. Maybe something like From that season? – While I agree it's a bit repetitive, I'm a bit hesitant because I want to be absolutely clear in the wording, and with all the years thrown out it might get a bit confusing if not clearly stated in my opinion.
• or the fact they are playing - or the fact that they are playing? – Done.
• If a Pro Bowl selectee ... alternates are named in the players' place - Two things: 1) it should be in the player's place; and 2) how many alternates are named in one player's place? If it's only one, then it should be an alternate is named in the player's place. If that's the case, have a look at the following sentence as well. – Only one alternate player replaces each selectee. I believe I've addressed this by changing the text to ...an alternate is named in the player's place. Alternate players are still considered official Pro Bowl selectees.
• selections with 10, while Yale Lary (nine selections), and Lou Creekmur (eight selections) round out the top four - 9 selections and 8 selections, as per MOS:NUMNOTES. – I can't recall which of my past FLCs this has come up in, but mentally I had a bit of an understanding that >10, use digits, and less than 10 use words. Nevertheless, I've made those changes, and I hope I can sort out why I had this thought in my head.
• Regarding the images, I guess it would be nice to have links to the playing positions, but I don't think it's possible for most of the cases, as including them would create seas of blue... – I agree, it's a problem with sea of blue in my experience, and the terms are already included in the table when necessary, except for the two examples highlighted below by ChrisTheDude, which have been addressed.
• I think it would be better to be consistent and always state when each picture was taken, as long as it's possible and as long as the picture is not contemporary to the decade alongside which it's included. Jason Hanson, for instance. – I responded to a point about this same thing at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Detroit Lions draft picks (1970–present)/archive1, in which I stated I typically only did this for instances where an image shows a person who's not currently in playing shape/attire. Unfortunately it's difficult to determine the year in a lot of instances. If I had it my way, it would be players in Lions gear the entire way through with no years being necessary to state. But I felt it better to include images of the players in their 60s as opposed to vast parts with no images at all. In short, I don't think it's quite necessary to add this information if it's not outside the realm of when they may have been playing.

I hope that addresses everything. Thank you so much for taking the time to review this nomination! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. I'm happy with all of them. Support. Alavense (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Lions first selections " => "The Lions' first selections "
• Some terms in image captions would benefit from links: return specialist, sack
• That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry for the delay @ChrisTheDude, I'm back to my regular activity now and I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [8].

---

List of cities in Odesa Oblast

Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 21:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

With my Crimean list FLN promoted sometime ago, my Kherson list looking like it'll pass, and seeing that I won't be able to finish up the other lists I was working on too soon, thought I'd use the intervening time to continue the series! In the southwest of Ukraine, Odesa has never been occupied by Russia (except Snake Island and I suppose maybe some oil rigs off the coast) in contrast to the other lists that've come through FL. Lots of history and sights, this list might also have some of the most-picturesque photos imo. Looking forward to suggestions and excited to continue to improve the series! :) Dan the Animator 21:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Image and accessibility review by Arconning

• Accessibility
  • 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.
• Images
  • File:Odesskaya oblast location map.svg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Arcadia-Odessa-aerial-9.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Lebiazhe Lake, 2020.05.03.jpg - CC BY 4.0
  • File:Chornomorsk-aerial-2.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • Images have proper licenses, captions, and have alt text
• These are all my comments, hope they can be addressed. :) Arconning (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review Arconning! :) I think I added in the caption param into the table but take a look just in case. For the images, sounds like everything's good so nothing to do with that? Let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the article and thanks again for the review! Dan the Animator 18:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support Nice work! Arconning (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• As of 5 December 2001 - There's a space missing between the reference and the beginning of that sentence.
• From independence in 1991 until 2020 - I think From independence in 1991 to 2020 works better.
• The Port of Kiliya in Kiliia - I think it's weird to have two different transliterations so close together. It makes it look as if they were different places.

That's the only thing I saw, Dantheanimator. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Alavense! :) I fixed up everything. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Dan the Animator 04:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Great work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Generalissima

Sources seem consistently formatted and laid out. Everything is cited to quality government-affiliated or otherwise reliable sources on the topic. I don't see any statements that lack citations. The data checks out, as does the English language sources. I'm good to Support here. Thank you as always for your good work, Dantheanimator. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• A complete aside; Since you've done a fair bit of research on this topic, have you considered writing a City status in Ukraine article? That could be something that gives more context on this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Generalissima! :) About my research on the topic, I've been sporadically working on for a few weeks since CMD's comments on the Kherson FLN to find additional sources and try to rework the standardized beginning of the lead to be more precise since it generalizes quiet a bit as-is and could better reflect how city status was handled historically. That said, a City status in Ukraine article is a great idea! :) I'll try to get that article started eventually but probably won't be for a little while and will do it over time since there's a few other things I'm working on (hoping to make my next FLN one of the non-cities Ukrainian lists I've been editing for a while). In any case, let me know if you have any other article suggestions... they're very helpful! Thanks again, Dan the Animator 18:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Dantheanimator The only other suggestion I had would be improving List of renamed cities in Ukraine, which doesn't seem to haave any context, mention the Russian occupation, or include updated info from the (extremely long) List of Ukrainian toponyms that were changed as part of derussification and List of Ukrainian toponyms that were changed as part of decommunization in 2016. If you really wanted to, you could probably split and merge those other two lists into a list of renamed settlements in each Oblast. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  List of renamed cities in Ukraine is definitely in need of a lot of work. My opinion is that that article would probably benefit from a change in scope so that it only lists name changes not covered by the Crimean, derussification, and decommunization lists (which there are a lot of). About the derussification and decommunization lists, I've already been working with Shwabb1 in improving the derussification list and I think it's going in a good direction. I don't think splitting would be necessary and the current organization with the derussification and decommunization lists, even as long as they both are, are each still readable and not excessively long though @Shwabb1: has more familiarity with the subject area and probably could comment more on this. Dan the Animator 19:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, after second thought, the List of renamed cities in Ukraine could keep its scope and just be redone to have an oblast-by-oblast alphabetical layout with a format similar to List of craters on Mars, with sub-articles if necessary though a single article with a long list like List of craters on Venus makes sense to me. I'd also add that I'm working on making Ukrainian lists of villages by oblast and a lot of them will have over a 1,000 items like the FL List of municipalities in Quebec so the length of the list isn't necessarily always an issue. Dan the Animator 19:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just looking at the name, List of renamed cities in Ukraine is supposed to include only cities (although in its current form, some rural settlements and villages slipped in as well), which means it shouldn't be extremely long. In contrast, the derussification and decommunization lists specifically mention toponyms, not only cities, thus they are much longer. Another problem I see with the renamed cities list is that occasionally it counts the change of the official language as a name change (e.g., Golaya Pristan (1786) → Hola Prystan (1923), or Żółkiew (founded) → Zhovkva (1939), where the language changed from Russian or Polish to Ukrainian but no official renaming occurred). Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 03:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 16:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [9].

---

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1976

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

With 1974 having just been promoted and 1975 having plenty of support, here is the list for 1976. In this particular year, Billboard began compiling this particular chart based on airplay alone, a policy which has remained ever since. Although the tide was slightly starting to turn in terms of easy listening music also dominating top 40 radio, there was still enough crossover for a chilled-out guy in a sailor's hat and his wife to have the biggest-selling single of the year. Comments as ever will be most gratefully received and as swiftly acted upon as humanly possible..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• from the television show "Welcome Back, Kotter" - The title of the TV show should be in italics, rather than between quotation marks. There are two instances of this.
• A number of Easy Listening number ones of 1976 also topped the Hot 100 including - I'd add a comma before including.

That's what I saw, ChrisTheDude. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Alavense - thanks - both done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Nice work. Alavense (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Gonzo_fan2007

• It may be helpful to define what "easy listening" music is.
• With effect from --> easier to just say In
• Source review: sources are appropriate for what is being cited, are formatted consistently and spot checks matched.

Support, source review passed. Neither recommendation would prevent my support. Nice work ChrisTheDude. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Gonzo_fan2007 - I changed the second one. I'm going to pass on the first one if that's OK, as Billboard did not provide any more in-depth definition of what songs/styles were eligible for the chart, so to attempt to define it would (IMO) be bordering on OR.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

I know Gonzo did a source review, but I typically like to as well, and I found no issues with the sources. My only feedback is that you should change Only Love is Real to Only Love Is Real, based on the target article's capitalization. I'm confident you'll address this, as you normally do, so I'll note my support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: - thanks for your review. I'm not 100% convinced that the capitalisation of that article title is actually correct, but I agree that it makes sense to match it here so I have done so! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC) [10].

---

List of municipalities in Cuenca

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)

This list is one more step in our quest to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made considerable changes based on our last nominations. Should go smoother each nomination but we are happy to make any recommended changes. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• My only query is that normally in sortable lists of songs/books/films/whatever, any entry that starts with "The" sorts based on the next word in the name. Just wondering if that should also apply here to any starting with "El/La/Los".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Definitely. Please let me know if I've done that properly, ChrisTheDude. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I see no concerns with this list after a review. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 14:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Gonzo_fan2007

• As of the 2023 Spanish census, the province is the 44th largest by population with 198,436 inhabitants[1] but the 5th largest by land area, spanning 17,138.65 km2 (6,617.27 sq mi). --> As of the 2023 Spanish census, the province is the 44th largest by population, with 198,436 inhabitants,[1] and the 5th largest by land area, spanning 17,138.65 km2 (6,617.27 sq mi). Done
• division in Spain,[3] and can only comma isn't needed. Done
• Unless there is some weird European thing I am unaware of, Firefighting is one word. Done
• You are inconsistent with the Oxford comma. The last sentence of the second paragraph doesn't use it, although it is used elsewhere.

• Done - Caught 2 instances and added the Oxford comma.

Nice work @Mattximus and Alavense:. That's all I got. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• All changes made, thanks (talk)! Mattximus (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Support nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC) [11].

---

List of cities in British Columbia

Nominator(s): Cos ^{(X Z)} 20:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I did some work on this list in honor of my 1 year anniversary editing Wikipedia. This is my first FL nom. Cos ^{(X Z)} 20:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

The first collum, in this case "Name", should be using:

!scope=row | Foo

per MOS:DTAB example: Peter Capaldi filmography

The image is good but it needs ALT text.

Ping me if needed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant I have resolved your comments. Cos ^{(X Z)} 22:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• As mentioned above, the cells in the first column, which are the beginning of each row, need the row scopes added
• There's something wrong with the population density column header that's making the cells at the top of the table very tall, I believe it's all of the <includeonly>||City</includeonly> inclusions directly until the text for population density
• Everything after the regional district column should probably be right aligned instead for readability. It's currently difficult to follow the populations which vary wildly.
• Why are the corporate names listing the name first? That should essentially be covered by the column to the left.
• References have inconsistent date formatting
• Some references missing the source of the information (who published it?)
• Some sources contain wikilinks to the source while other do not, make consistent when an article is available to target
• Former cities should probably be made into its own table instead of being four sentences
• Percent column should include percentages next to the figures
• Km column should include km² next to the figures

That's what I've got for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh I have resolved your comments. Cos ^{(X Z)} 20:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@CosXZ:

• Refs 2, 4, 14 – Should use Government of British Columbia as the website instead
• Ref 8 – Remove "| Britannica" from the reference title.
• Ref 10 – Wikilink Province of British Columbia
• Refs 11, 12 – Should be Province of BC, not government of it.

That's what I've got at the moment. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh I have resolved your comments. Cos ^{(X Z)} 16:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Mattximus

Just a few comments, I still believe this is a fork of the list of municipalities, but that being said:

• What makes a city "notable" as per first image?
• What functions do cities carry out? Could be mentioned in the lead.
• Gallery images in strange format, lack alt text (which is needed as per WP:ACCESS), and have non-descript captions. Suggest using common gallery format, adding alt-text and some informative captions.
• While not necessary, it would be nice to colour code the %change as was done in the municipalities page.
• Any explanation on why there are some cities below the threshold of city population but are still cities (were they grandfathered in due to losing population?)

That's it for now! Mattximus (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mattximus

• I have removed that image as it is useless, because it doesn't display all the cities in British Columbia.
• I can't find sources for your questions "what functions do cities carry out" and "why there are some cities below the threshold of city population but are still cities"
• Fixed the gallery.
• I am not colour coding the %change, because I tried {{Change}} and it would break the table.

Is there any other comments that you want to put down here? Cos ^{(X Z)} 19:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mattximus? Cos ^{(X Z)} 21:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I still do view this as a fork of the municipalities list so I can't support, but I also won't oppose as others have differing opinions on the importance of forks. Mattximus (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting | caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting | {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• 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 15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  @PresN this nomination has three supports. Is this list ready to promote? Cos ^{(X Z)} 18:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Lists are promoted when one of the coordinators that has not done a full review feels that consensus has been reached to promote and is able to get to promoting it. Please be patient. --PresN 01:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ok Cos ^{(X Z)} 17:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• " Although the populations of Enderby, Grand Forks, Greenwood and Rossland fall below this threshold, they are still categorized as cities." - why?
• Although it's not compulsory to have an image in the lead it does look unusual. Maybe consider including this image of the capital city.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude I have added your suggested image. I can't find a source that answers your question. Cos ^{(X Z)} 21:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I guess if there's no explanation as to why these tiny places are classed as cities then you can't add it. Lost in the mists of time, I guess..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 21:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC) [12].

---

International Film Music Critics Association Award for Best Original Score for Television

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 17:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is complete and well-sourced. I have split the table into individual tables, illustrated this article with pictures of the composers, and checked references. Thanks to TophatCounselor who built the first version of this article. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 17:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The awarding period runs January 1 through December 31 every year" - it's not really the "awarding period". I would suggest "The eligibility period runs from January 1 to December 31 every year"
• "The most recent recipients was" => "The most recent recipient was"
• "Network" is a very US-specific term. BBC One and BBC Two are not networks. Maybe "broadcaster" would work better.
• Composer column should sort based on surname, not forename
• Titles beginning with "The" or "A" should sort based on the next word in the title
• Ref heading should be "Ref(s)" as in a number of cases there are multiple refs on a row

• I am using {{refh}} for the ref headings. Per the documentation page of that template, "It's best for the abbreviation to be as short as possible, to keep the column narrow and create more space elsewhere. Communicating to the reader that the column contains references is essential; letting them know whether to expect one or multiple references per line is not."

• "Frontier Love" had no broadcaster.....?
• Names in image captions should be linked
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Done, except for one note above. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 19:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I am going to assume that (although it sounds very bizarre to me) "runs January 1 through December 31 every year" is valid in US English -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Is that __TOC__ and {{Clear}} really needed?
• In the captions, the year in which they were awarded the award is more important than the year the picture was taken, so I would say something like: Danny Elfman (pictured in 2022) was the 2004 winner. and so on.

That's what I saw, Matthewrb. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Done @Alavense: I've fixed everything. The __TOC__ and the {{clear}} are no longer needed - they were a workaround for the old vector skin. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 15:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Matthewrb. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Feedback:

• Reference columns should be unsortable
• I see that you link the broadcaster only once per year and I think this might be a bit of a confusing linking style. At first I thought it might be an ABC affiliate that was simply unlinked, but I realized it was just because it duplicated in that year. You might want to consider this linking style and whether it's the best choice (I personally would just link all), but that's not something I'll hold against you since it is actually consistently applied.

• Thank you for the 2 hour ADHD hyperfocus deep dive into our policies. There is nothing that says that a sortable list has to have all instances linked, but there is also nothing that says they shouldn't be linked. The closest thing I have is an example on WP:DTT which has everything linked. When I feel like it I might bring something up at VPP I agree that links on every instance is appropriate in this case. I've adjusted as such.

• In this case, I think you were looking for WP:DUPLINK. Nothing says that it needs to be linked in every instance, the only thing we ask at FLC is consistency, which you did have. But, as mentioned, was more a general note and not anything I felt would be worth blocking this nomination for.

• 2010 – Time of Honor actually redirects to Days of Honor, what's the deal with that? Are there alternate translations for Czas honoru?

• On the infobox for Days of Honor - please note the "Also known as... Time of Honor" underneath the image. I did a dig through the redirects and I believe they are the same series.

• As long as you've checked

• Some references contain wikilinks while others do not, so I'd recommend you add links to publishers/websites/works in the references.
• Ref 5 – Dead but not marked as such
• A lot of these references could use archive links (User:IABot)
• Ref 17, 19, and 21 – Remove Kinetophone as the last name for these refs, leave it as just the publisher
• What makes Kinetophone a reliable source? Can you find anything to replace it?

• If you click "about us" on the site, you get redirected to the bio of Eleni Mitsiaki, who is a member of the IFMCA as well as a published journalist. She would then be a "recognized expert" under WP:RSEDITORIAL.

• Ref 22 – Variety Media, LLC is unnecessary in this instance

That's what I've got for now, please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Done except for a couple of notes above. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 01:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Last thing I have to say is about ref 27; change to Awards Daily instead of AwardsDaily to match the target. With the assumption you're going to do so, I'll note my support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Matthewrb as a follow up. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: What are we following up on here? ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

... That's a good question @Matthewrb. I was perusing for things to follow up on, but was clearly too hasty with my response as you actually did addressed all of my concerns. I'm sorry for the unnecessary ping, I didn't see my own bolded support. Self-trout worthy for sure!!! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted to be sure! Thank you again. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 19:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Not a full review from me, but ref 26 is marked as a dead link. That will need to be resolved. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Since archive.org is down, I've removed the citation. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC) [13].

---

Terminology of transgender anatomy

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC) and Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe)

Me and Tamzin cooked up just what it says on the tin; terminology associated with the body parts of trans folks.

This is pretty heterodox form for a list, but since its main purpose is to explain and list a set of terminology, I feel it's a bit closer to the list side of things, even though it could potentially fit into either camp. A demi-list, so to speak. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thought from QoH

Nice work on this list by both of you. I added col headers while this list was still in draft, but was reverted as "not needed". I'd think all tables should have col headers, but couldn't find any guidnance on this and would like to hear other's thoughts. Queen of Hearts (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. So, typically both row and column headers are required, but also typically the tables are more complex than two columns. Working through "how does it sound with a screen reader", the 'Attested replacement words' table is fine- it reads like "Menstruation. Menstruation: bleeding, shark week", so it's pretty clear that it's standard term: alt terms. For the 'Medical terminology' table... I think it's fine? It honestly works a bit better audibly than visually, where it sounds like "term: alt1, alt2, alt3. term2: alt4, alt5, alt3", so the repeats/merged cells on the right are clear. Visually, it's a little messy- you typically want the combined cells to be on the left and get more diffuse as you go across to the right, but the genitals/gonads combos make that messy, and column headers wouldn't make that better. I guess what I'm saying is: I think in this case it's okay to not have column headers. --PresN 14:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Source check by CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath

I will be doing a source check for this article. I will update this as I check. To be comprehensive I'm going to break down my source check by section and also include any sources I could not access.

Section	Status	Sources I couldn't access	Comments
Context	Verified	None	I just want to ask for clarification regarding the statement "Prior to the 2010s, there was little research on the social aspects of transgender bodies". I'm assuming you got the year 2010 from the sources cited in the reference you gave. I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something here. Otherwise I was able to access and verify all the sources used Yes, that's per Edelman and Zimman's description of the state of the art at the time they wrote their paper (2014). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Colloquial terminology	Pending	Steinbock, Eliza (2017). "Representing Trans Sexualities". In Smith, Clarissa; Attwood, Feona; McNair, Brian (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Media, Sex and Sexuality. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315168302. Bellwether, Mira (2013). Fucking Trans Women: A Zine About the Sex Lives of Trans Women. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 9781492128939.	I'm not able to verify the statement "Some transmasculine people refer to their clitorises as a dick or cock" from either of the sources listed in ref 9. Fielding 2021 does discuss alternative terms for the vulva but doesn't reference the clitoris or list dick or cock as alternative terms. Ref 10 cites Zimman 2014, pp. 14–15 which doesn't exist as the reference provided for Zimman 2014 cites pages 673–690. I think you mixed this up with the Zimman 2011 source as it verifies the information present. The statement "at the time Zimman documented its usage in 2014" isn't verified either for the same reason. If you did mean to use the Zimman 2011 source then this also needs to be changed from 2014 to 2011. In re ref 9, I have added a cite to Zimman 2014. In re [what was previously] ref 10, I think you might have the sources mixed up? If you click on "Zimman 2014", it'll take you to (Terminology of transgender anatomy#CITEREFZimman2014), which is the one paginated 1–24. Edelman & Zimman 2014 is 673–690, but is not what I'm trying to cite there. And there is no Zimman 2011. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC) My mistake I did get the references confused, I will cross out that part of the comment. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC) I noticed a couple statements had refs to sources that don't actually back up what's being said. Most of the examples I found were borderline however in the table "Attested replacement words" the term front hole references Hill-Meyer & Scarborough 2014 however this source doesn't mention the term front hole.CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC) It's at the bottom of p. 355. You've gotta sorta massage Open Library on this, but go to https://archive.org/details/transbodiestrans0000unse/mode/2up?q=355, then click the first result that says "Page 355". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) Thank you for pointing this out, I don't know how I missed it. I will cross out that part of my check! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Medical terminology	Done	Rider, Nic G.; Caso, Taymy J.; Czech, Spencer; Karasic, Dan H. (2022). "Terminology in Transgender Medicine". In van Trotsenburg, Mick; Luikenaar, Rixt A. C.; Meriggiola, Maria Cristina (eds.). Context, Principles and Practice of TransGynecology: Managing Transgender Patients in ObGyn Practice. Cambridge UP. doi:10.1017/9781108899987. ISBN 9781108899987.	Was not able to access one source however the rest of the citations I was able to verify.

Finished on August 18 2024 with one minor issue of some refs containing sources that do not contain the information the article is claiming to cite. All but 3 sources have been verified. The people working on this page did an excellent job of putting things in their own words and clearly put a lot of time and effort into this article. Well done! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support I did the source review for this article and I wanted to show my support for the article based on that. I only found one very minor sourcing issue that was immediately addressed by the nominators. I was able to access almost every single source they used. Everything was put into the writer's own words and there were no plagiarism issues. The nominators clearly put significant time into finding several unique and reliable sources. I've never voted for any featured article or list before so hopefully I did this right. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

I'm going to disclose upfront that I was informed over Discord that a prose review was still needed here – I should be able to do one in the next day or two. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Support on prose. I've read this list quite closely twice over. I've got nothing. I did make a bold attempt at a minor capitalization fix, but the original turned out to be in line with one of MOS's nooks and crannies with which I was unfamiliar. Excellent work, Tamzin and Generalissima. For what it's worth, if either of you have the time or interest, I have a rather old FLC that could still use some feedback. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Airship

This seems quite far away from a list to me. A couple of embedded lists in an article does not mean it becomes a stand-alone list, which is FL is for. As a comparison, none of the five "Terminology of..." articles I just spotchecked are classified as lists. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29: Plenty of majority-prose articles are classified as lists; for instance, Moons of Uranus. I also don't think similar articles are a good judge, as Moons of Mars and Moons of Pluto are not classified as lists. (Or for another example, Cartography of Jerusalem vs Cartography of China). I feel the ultimately quality of a list is enumerating the notably attested members of some set, which this article does; it just has to do this with large amounts of context in prose or it'd be nonsensical. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Well no, it could be a glossary, which would have no prose. Instead, this article has been structured to require the large amounts of context in prose, which makes it ... not a list, in my eyes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

    Does the addition of large amounts of text in "Moons of Uranus" make it no longer a simple list of astronomical bodies, typically lacking prose? How much supplementary context a given list needs varies dramatically, and there are numerous examples of lists with similar prose lengths to this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, I wouldn't consider "Moons of Uranus" a list either, and the same with other "lists" like Emirates Cup which I brought up here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I'm coming at this from a different direction than you or my coäuthor. I do think it's a list, but not for quite the reason that Generalissima does. The relevant variable isn't the amount of prose, but rather to what extent does the article serve to list things rather than describe them. A list should be about the breadth of examples more than the depth of context. A list should be more about the items in the set than the set itself.

Apart from the lede and the Context section, both of which have the standard amount of prose for an FL, most of the rest of the prose in the article is still devoted to the act of listing things, not to exploring the overarching subject in depth. Most of the prose in §§ Colloquial terminology and Medical terminology is devoted to pulling out specific examples from the tabled lists and discussing them in greater detail. By my count, both sections have about 100 words each that discuss the set rather than the items within them. The prose in these sections constitute lists just as much as the tables do. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

"The prose in these sections constitute lists just as much as the tables do." that is fundamentally altering the definition of a standalone list on Wikipedia, viz. "articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list". It's an interesting thought, but just not how lists currently work.

"most of the rest of the prose in the article is still devoted to the act of listing things, not to exploring the overarching subject in depth" this is the case for most articles. Biographies are devoted to listing the events of lives (in chronological order). It would be a bit odd if I were to slap a timeline at the end of each section of Tolui and say "Most of the prose ... is devoted to pulling out specific examples from the timelines and discussing them in greater detail"—why look at it like this, and not the reverse, the default way?

"By my count, both sections have about 100 words each that discuss the set rather than the items within them." and added to the 200 words in the context section that's more than half the prose? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't really follow your logic. The thing that makes it a list is that it is primarily devoted to listing things, and there's nothing in any guideline giving another definition. If we want to wikilawyer this, then from WP:SAL there's Glossaries are usually titled Glossary of X or Glossary of X terms, though if they contain substantial non-list prose about the nature or history of terminology relating to the topic, as well as a glossary list, a title such as X terminology may be more appropriate. So that's the controlling guideline, the one that WP:FLCR incorporates by reference, saying that this kind of article is a list. If you want to open up a general discussion of whether a list can have too much prose to count as a list, then I think that's reasonable, although per Generalissima it might lead to a few existing FLs getting delisted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with Tamzin on this being a list. It's not a traditional one, but it is still an article with the intent of listing relevant terminology. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'll trust your judgement. Support on prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting Airship, it was not clear to me based on your earlier comments that this had your support. I'll proceed with this. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

I was surprised to see this nomination is still pending! Comments to come in the next few days. I'm here from a neutral invitation to review that I saw on the Wikimedia Discord server, if that matters to anyone. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC) [14].

---

List of molossids

Nominator(s): PresN 01:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Bats list #4 and mammal list #45: Molossidae. These are the 120 species of free-tailed bats, yet another pack of very small bats, but this time with little tails sticking out. These are the ones I think of when I think of bats, primarily because of the 1.5 million Mexican free-tailed bats living under a bridge in downtown Austin, where I grew up. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• The family Molossidae consists of a two subfamilies
• Shouldn't it be Ibáñez, with the tilde?
• Why are some surnames between parentheses but others aren't?

That's what I saw, PresN. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: Done both, good eye. The parentheses are something from Binomial nomenclature that a reviewer pushed for a while back - it means that the original namer put that species in a different scientific name and its since been moved to its current one. For example, the New Guinea free-tailed bat is now Austronomus kuboriensis but it was originally described as Austronomus australis kuboriensis, and Miller's dog-faced bat, Cynomops milleri, was originally Molossops milleri; you can see in those articles' infoboxes that the namer is in parentheses. --PresN 11:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know that, so thank you for the explanation. Support. Alavense (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - nothing more to say really :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support – there's no real issues but I'll show I did read through it with a nitpick; "A member of this family..." uses a singular subject but the following sentences ("They are named...") use a plural subject, so I'd change the first sentence ("Members of this family..."). RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Support, excellent work as always. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC) [15].

---

List of Green Bay Packers stadiums

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I am bringing this back to FLC after six years with the sense (and hope) that the concerns from the previous nomination regarding this being a standalone list have evolved since they were brought up then (again bringing to focus List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers, which is one of the lowest number of entries of any FLC). The Packers have played in 8 stadiums throughout their history, the most of any NFL team. They play in Lambeau Field, the oldest and most iconic stadium in the NFL. Their unique community ownership in a small market required a very unique split of playing home games in Green Bay and Milwaukee for decades, a notable enough topic to justify its own article (Green Bay Packers home games in Milwaukee). The Packers also have three training facilities, one training camp location and a historic training camp location that is captured in this list. Based on the tenure of this article (8 years), the established notability of the topic, and the evolving feeling on standalone lists, I believe this clearly meets our criteria for standalone lists and the WP:FLC criteria. That said, and as always, I am happy to address any actionable concerns « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image caption doesn't need a full stop
• I would link Milwaukee as I don't believe that on a global scale it is well-known enough not to need a link
• "After threats of forcing the team to move to Milwaukee, the City of Green Bay" - this kinda reads like the city did the forcing, which I presume isn't correct.....?
• Don't think New City Stadium should be in italics
• "After the Packers founder Curly Lambeau died" => "After the Packers' founder Curly Lambeau died"
• As the table is sortable, the locations should be linked each time
• "located across the street from the Lambeau Field" - this is the only place where you use "the" before the stadium name.....?
• "The lodge is believed to be the first self-contained team training facility" => "The lodge is believed to have been the first self-contained team training facility"
• That's all I got - great work as ever on another article for your team! I would produce a similar article for my team but as they have spent their entire 131-year history playing at the same stadium I don't think it could really be justified ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks ChrisTheDude for the review. I have addressed all your comments! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• were set-up around the field should be were set up around the field.
• making it one of the largest football stadiums in America - That's a bit vague.
• Besides, I'd say in the US rather than in America.
• I think Seats in Capacity (Seats) should be lowercase.
• It should be Refs. and you could also add {{abbr}}.
• The Green Bay, Wisconsin for the City Stadium is missing the link.
• pro football history - professional football history maybe?
• The lodge is believed to have been - By whom?

That's what I saw, Gonzo_fan2007. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Alavense thanks for the review. All have been addressed! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Drive by

May do a full review later but shouldnt the first column be the one with the names of the stadiums because that's the one with the column header? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant, in all of my lists I place any table photos to the farthest left column. The column scope and header doesn't have to be the first column, just the primary one. Let me know if this makes sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 2 – Link to Cliff Christl
• Ref 4 – Target article is just Oshkosh Northwestern
• Refs 17 and 18 – Based on the article at Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the hyphen between Journal and Sentinel should be removed (also to be consistent with ref 15)
• Bypass the redirects in the see also section

Noting that, based on the referencing styling that you typically do, the references are otherwise formatted consistently and appear to be reliable enough for the information cited. Good stuff as always Gonzo. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh all fixed. Thanks for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [16].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Senegal

Nominator(s): Tone 08:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Senegal has seven WHS and five tentative sites. Standard style. The other nomination, for Ecuador, is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 08:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• and second time because of - A second time? The second time? There are two instances of this, both in the lede and in the table.
• the French under which slavery was abolished - the French, under which slavery was abolished
• Why are manatees linked, but not crocodiles?
  • I suppose the species is the Nile crocodile or West African crocodile but the source does not say that, and linking crocodile seems too broad. True, there are three species of manatee but they do not overlap in range.
• each circle contains between eight and fourteen of them - I think containing would fit better.
• has been inhabited for at least two millennia by societies who engaged with fishing and shellfish gathering - When did they stop engaging with fishing and gathering?
  • I modified the text, does it make more sense now?
• Link Aéropostale (aviation).
• I think the mention to Argentina is unnecessary.
  • I clarified that the line was from Senegal to Argentina, so it seems relevant enough. Also, Aéropostale (aviation) is already linked in the name, so I avoided repetition.
• The French established a trading post in 1836, it later developed in the regional capital until being replaced by Ziguinchor in 1904 - I would go for either The French established a trading post in 1836, which later developed or The French established a trading post in 1836 – it later developed.
• These earthen buildings were once common in the region, today only some have been preserved - These earthen buildings were once common in the region, but today only some have been preserved
• for its colour which ranges - for its colour, which ranges

That's what I saw, Tone. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: Done, thanks! --Tone 15:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with the edits and the replies. I added this as well. Nice work, as always. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• "The Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary was listed as endangered twice, from 1984 to 1988 and from 2000 to 2006; the first time because of the risks posed by the planned construction of a dam downstream, and a second time because of the spread of the invasive plant Salvinia molesta."
• "because of low mammal populations, managements problems, and the planned construction of a dam on the Gambia river"

@MPGuy2824: Fixed, thanks! --Tone 15:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding more now since it is less confusing after you've incorporated Alavense's points:

• "first time" -> "the first time". One instance in the lead and one more in the table. - Alavense had pointed this out too. Also add a semicolon before this part of the sentence.
• "finally the French, under which" -> "under whom".
• I understand your point about being unsure if they mean the Nile crocodile or the West African crocodile, but maybe you could link to the common genus.
• "home to substantial population" -> "home to a substantial population" OR "home to substantial populations"
• "managements problems" - Remove the "s" after "management". - Not yet done
• "and the planned construction" - Not yet done
• "which later developed ininto the regional capital". Also add a comma after "capital".
• "fishing community and are according to the tradition home" add commas after "are" and "tradition".
• See if there is there a good wikilink for "Ndoek-Daour"?
• One of the refs is missing its archive link.

Please ping me when you are done with these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks! I am still not happy with linking crocodile, because it is too general. And no good idea about Ndoek-Daour, I checked some religion articles but no direct mentions. Tone 21:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• Images are relevant and have ALT text for accessibility.
• Senegal adm location map.svg has an appropriate CC license.
• La Maison des Esclaves.jpg is an image from Flicr. The license is compatible although the reviewer notes a potential conflict between the published licenses.
• CormoransDjoudj.JPG has an appropriate PD license.
• UNESCO Niokolo-Koba National Park Senegal (3687354820).jpg is reviewed and has an appropriate CC license.
• Saintlouis ile pecheur.jpg has an appropriate GNU CC license.
• Stone circles Sine Ngayène TP10.jpg has an appropriate CC license.
• Saloum.gif has an appropriate PD license.
• BedikVillage.jpg is reviewed and has an appropriate CC license.
• Lignes Aeriennes Latécoére (Latécoére-Toulouse).jpg has an appropriate GNU CC license.
• Carabane-Church1.JPG and Enampor-Impluvium1.JPG have appropriate PD licenses.
• Îles de la Madeleine, Dakar.jpg, Fort de podor.jpg, RetbaLakeShore.jpg and RufisqueQuincaillerie.JPG have appropriate GNU CC licenses.

@Tone: Excellent work. Happy to support. simongraham (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - nothing else to add, really :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Airship

• Labels to identify individual blue and yellow dots in the lead image would be nice.
  • Agreed, I would have done that if there were individual articles available, but here they are just sites.
• Would it be possible to go into more detail on UNESCO's ten criteria?
  • That would be too much, that's why there is a link with the full explanations.
• "The architecture of the island reflects the mixture of influences, with elegant houses of slave traders, fortifications, and warehouses where slaves were kept." this is oddly phrased: the first comma grammatically implies that the houses, fortifications, and warehouses were the influences on architecture. Would suggest "The architecture of the island, consisting of elegant houses of slave traders, fortifications, and warehouses where slaves were kept, reflects the mixture of influences" or similar.
• Would be worth noting whether the House of Slaves was a slave trader house or a warehouse.
  • I rewrote it in a way that it should be clearer that the slaves were kept at the House of Slaves.
• I suggest "(pictured)" instead of "(pictured)"—looks better.
  • I considered it often is these lists but since I am sometimes using (x is pictured), this would ruin the consistency.
• "Societies, who engaged with fishing and shellfish gathering" clumsy, I suggest "societies who fished and gathered shellfish" or similar.
  • Modified.
• "This resulted in a specific cultural landscape," as opposed to ... a non-specific one?
  • Well, there is an explanation later in the sentence what is specific about it :)
• "People living in this remote area between the 11th and 19th centuries have created" also a little clumsy, and the imperfect tense is not suitable. Suggest instead "Inhabitants of this remote area between the 11th and 19th centuries created..."

Good otherwise. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I am through, thanks! Comments above inline. --Tone 10:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

I found no issues, support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [17].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Ecuador

Nominator(s): Tone 07:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ecuador has 5 WHS, including the Galapagos Islands, and 5 tentative sites. Standard style. The list for Egypt has just been promoted, the list for Brazil is seeing support, so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 07:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• and the City of Quito - Is that capital c needed?
• There's an extra space between the lede and the first section.
• Galápagos tortoise, Galapagos penguin - Should be Galápagos in both instances.
• from the 18th century and from the 19th century, when the city was modernized - I guess the reiteration of from the is needed because the modernization only took place in the 19th century? Anyway, I think it reads a bit odd.
• Why are some sites' names translated when others aren't? What's the rationale behind that?
• A move forward came the second half of the 19th century - There's a preposition missing there, isn't there?
• where stoneware - There's a comma missing before where.
• {{commons}} should not be used on its own in the External links section. It would be better to use {{Commons-inline}}.

That's what I saw, Tone. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed all, thanks! As for translations, at some point I thought that using non-English names if in the source was better but have since changed my mind, after all, the reference has the original name anyway. Happens often especially with French-speaking countries. Fixed the rest. I'll have a look at your nominations soon if time allows. I know I should be doing more reviewing myself... Tone 20:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits. Nice work. Keep these lists coming. :) Support. Alavense (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Image and accessibility review by Arconning

• Accessibility
  • 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.
• Images
  • File:Ecuador location map.svg - GNU FDL
  • File:Bartoleme Island.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
  • File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 154.JPG - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Sangay2.jpg - Multiple licenses which are suitable
  • File:Domes of the New Cathedral in Cuenca, Ecuador.jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:Jujuy Sección Quebrada Grande-Las Escaleras, Foto 1 (14960178156) (2).jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
  • File:Ecuador aguablanca sulfur laguna.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0 FR
  • File:Puyango fossil tree 02.JPG - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:Vista de Zaruma.jpg - Multiple licenses again
  • File:Alausi tourist train.jpg - PD
  • File:Sitio arqueológico Santa Ana - La Florida.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • Images have proper alt text and are relevant to the article.
• Hope my singular comment can be addressed^ Arconning (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think the sronly|World Heritage Sites was misplaced, if that is what you are saying. I fixed it, please check. Tone 20:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support Arconning (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Good stuff as always Tone. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC) [18].

---

Timeline of the Second Temple period

Nominator(s): SnowFire (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

As a tool for keeping track of a blizzard of events and names, I found it useful to keep a scratch timeline in a Google Doc while I was researching some of the areas in this time period. I decided to turn it into a full proper article, and, well, here we are. There's some comments on methodology on the article talk page for what events were included and which weren't (a 600 year range means that including every single loosely related item isn't feasible), but the short version is that Lester L. Grabbe's "A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period" is the most important source. It's spread across 4 volumes, and is 2100 pages discussing just about everything of importance on the era, as well as bibliographies where various feuding scholarly opinions about whether this undated line in Josephus refers to something that happened in 145 BCE or 135 BCE or didn't happen at all. This is important when quite a lot (most?) of the dates need a "circa" around them, and have a range of scholarly estimates. This is my first nomination at FLC. SnowFire (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Airship

As always, these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to refuse with justification.

Lead

• If information in the lead doesn't appear in the body, it needs citations (see WP:LEADCITE) e.g. "Hellenistic Judaism blended both Greek and Jewish traditions." which I can't see cited in the body.
• "A new temple to replace the destroyed Solomon's Temple was built by the returnees, and the Second Temple was finished around 516 BCE." this is a bit clunky, especially the first "a new temple".
• "The Persians were largely tolerant of Judaism. Persian rule lasted for two centuries..." these sentences could easily be combined.
• "was initially a fight for Judean autonomy against a suppression of traditional Judaism" ... by? Why aren't the Seleucids/Ptolemaics mentioned by name in the lead?
• "The revolt's success brought about the formation of an independent Hasmonean kingdom of Judea under the rule of the Hasmonean family which had led the Jewish resistance." could be trimmed à la "The revolt's success brought about the formation of an independent Hasmonean kingdom of Judea, named for the family which had led the resistance." to reduce repetition.
• "That too would end in 37 BCE" the antecedent of the "that" is "the Roman Republic", which is normally stated to end later; presumably you are referring to the end of Hasmonean rule?
• "direct Roman control by the governors of Roman Judea. Direct Roman rule of Judea ..." could be combined and condensed.
• Same for the last two sentences of the paragraph.
  • Added a bullet point for Hellenistic Judaism. (That one is a little tricky in a timeline since it lasts for centuries without really a clear start date - it's not like Alexander waved a magic wand - but went with the Ptolemaic era & the Septuagint.)
  • It could, but then the sentence feels too long if kept combined with the Macedonian conquest. And if we have to have two sentences, I think linking the end of Persian rule with the Macedonian conquest flows better; the short first sentence is on religion, and the longer second sentence is on politics & the regime change. Open to other suggestions, but I'd rather avoid one really long sentence.
  • Honestly, I would have the lead be even shorter if I was going fully by my own preferences to avoid duplication with Second Temple period ("This is a timeline" then bam, straight to it, but FL critierion 2 expects a more detailed lead). Explaining this requires getting into the diadochi successor states which is a little too in-the-weeds for very casual readers; it was Greek rule is the important high-level thing. That said, I added a sentence giving it a shot; take a look.
  • Done. (Although usual disclaimer goes here that as far as contemporary names, it's murkier as to what these polities called themselves - they probably called themselves "Judea" or the like.)
  • Yes, it's the end of Hasmonean client-king status. Unfortunate that the Roman Republic ends in 31 BC and thus could possibly be confused. I rephrased it to just repeat "Hasmonean" again (oh well for it being a close repetition).
  • It's a close repetition but I don't see a good way to combine it? The first sentence is talking about the complex political situation of 4 BC - 63 AD, and the second is talking about vibes. Happy to take suggestions but couldn't really find something satisfactory myself.
  • Similarly, I prefer the shorter, punchier sentences here. Yes, could change the period to "...in which the Romans defeated the Jewish rebels, Jerusalem was conquered... ", but I feel the sentences are more powerful as written. End of an era, period, and then all of the bad stuff in a dramatic list.

Persian Empire

• "of its former territories" might want to specify that includes the region of Judeah.
• Many won't know what "satrapy" means, so a gloss would be helpful.
• "existed...Persian religious policy does allow...as they do not" confusing differences in tense
• " Cambyses expands the Persian Empire further beyond Yehud" it was not previously mentioned that Yehud was the frontier.
• What's the logic behind which Achaemenid kings get their reigns highlighted?
• "Building of the new temple starts in earnest, creating the Second Temple," again clumsy, why not "The building of the Second Temple starts in earnest"?
  • Fair, but I think the next bullet point covers that.
  • Done.
  • Standardized on simple past tense.
  • Hmm, is that really a big deal though? I don't think Yehud being the frontier for a decade is really that important to discuss earlier, I don't get the impression it was a contested warzone or the like. I think the conquest of Egypt is relevant enough for a bullet point but I don't think fully "setting it up" is worth extra text earlier on the boundaries of the Neo-Babylonian Empire or the like.
  • That's a great question! I was trying to focus on the ones with some relevance for Jewish history & literature. Artaxerxes is the big one because Ezra is sent in the seventh year of Artaxerxes rule, but which one is unclear. So we have to list them out. Nehemiah also worked under the reign of Artaxerxes. Darius was the king while the Second Temple was built, so I figure he's relevant to mention as well. Cyrus & Cambyses are mentioned indirectly but only via their relevant deeds, not in terms of their overall reign. Xerxes I is... awkward. He is ARGUABLY the most famous in later years culturally because later literature / adaptations of the Book of Esther generally identify him with Ahasuerus, but this is strictly a later-culture deal and almost assuredly not historical, and thus an awkward fit to a timeline. I stuck with simply saying that the Book of Esther's setting is the Persian era, which seems fair enough. Most other Persian rulers have short reigns that aren't discussed in relation to Jewish history at all.
    • While on this note, the same applies to later rulers. I didn't include a full timeline of every single Roman procurator of Judea either, just the ones where something "interesting" happened and histories bother to say something relevant. Only a single Ptolemaic ruler's reign is mentioned, but it's one with something relevant to Jewish history. (The Seleucid rulers are all pretty relevant, though, at least before quasi-independence.)
  • Rephrased a bit, though not quite as you suggested. (Maybe a me-thing, but this kind of positional designator is weird to do anachronistically. Like "the Second President was born on October 30, 1735" is odd, while "John Adams was born on October 30, 1735" is fine. It was just a temple being built at the time, and it only became the Second Temple As A Title In All Capitals later, in retrospect.)

Macedonian conquest

• Looking back to a previous list I rewrote, List of cities founded by Alexander the Great, there is a disputed tradition that Alexander refounded the city of Samareia (modern Sebastia, Nablus). Might be worth mentioning?
  • I'll give it a look. The timeline does mention Samaria's destruction by John Hyrcanus later, FWIW. The one awkward part is that many Jewish histories simply don't consider the Samaritans of this era Jews at all and thus wouldn't consider this that relevant. (As in, one of the festivals mentioned in Megillat Taanit is the destruction of the Samaritan Temple at Mount Gerizim. Those were not friendly relations!)
  • I added a line on this ( diff).

Ptolemaic Kingdom

• The heading has "301 BCE – 199 BCE" but the intext span is "301–200 BCE". Any reason for the discrepancy?
• "Book of Ecclesiastes (Qohelet)" no clue what "Qohelet" means without clicking on the link, which MOS:NOFORCELINK disapproves of. Same for many other brackets up and down the article (e.g. "Battle of Panium (Paneas)", "priestly source (P)").
• "by Philopator" I don't think it's common to refer to Hellenistic kings by their epithets.
  • It is a little confusing. Jerusalem is conquered in 200 BCE, but the war ends and the boundaries "officially" change in 199 BCE, so the argument is that Ptolemaic rule stops in 200 BCE (the first item on the list), but the era only stops in 199. Also, a lot of the sources for these events say something like "this happened in the 3rd century BC" rather than "in the Ptolemaic era" even though they're near synonymous. If you prefer, though, I'm happy to switch to 199 as the end date; hopefully nobody will be annoyed and betrayed that the long 3rd century BCE now includes 199.
  • All of these are just alternative names for the same thing, e.g. Augustus Caesar (Octavian). This was in case someone recognizes Qohelet but not Ecclesiastes or the like, since it can be a little confusing to read about the Battle of Paneas and not find it in a CTRL-F or being unsure if there was a typo somewhere. We can throw in "also known as", but there's also an argument that this is an exception to NOFORCELINK - that we expect a lot of "click the link for more" on a timeline which is inherently a collection of article links. That said, I've rephrased or thrown in some explanations (diff), feel free to chime in if you think they're still insufficient.
  • Hmm. I agree that for Seleucid kings, I usually see "Antiochus IV" rather than "Epiphanes." But for Ptolemies, I'm not so sure. Hadas's book does indeed refer to him as Philopator for short, though (see p. 16-17), usually after introducing as "Ptolemy Philopator" which is done earlier in this line. Sara Raup Johnson's book does as well (p. 135, 145, 147), and similarly refers to other Pharaohs as such (e.g. just "Philadelphus"). Maybe a difference in styles between literary analysis and other histories? It seems writers on 3 Macc do use the epithets alone.

Seleucid Empire

• Say who Scopas is?
• "Roman troops" first mention of Rome should probably come with a link. Also, "further increasing Roman sway and influence" this is the first we're hearing about any sway/influence. Lastly, the article should probably mention that this battle took place nowhere near Judea.
• "The "Abomination of Desolation" is set up in the Second Temple" the what????
• Say who Lysias is.
• So the rebels took Jerusalem but not the Acra? Might need to say that explicitly—I was quite confused for a bit.
• "The Battle of Caphar-salama occurs." ... and how did it go?
  • Adjusted to "led by" rather than "left by" - he was just the opposing commander.
  • Hmm, this one I disagree. The relevant link is "Battle of Pydna", not the Roman Republican military - if someone is really interested, they'll find links to the Roman Republic military at that article, but that's not the 168 BCE event. And it is the first we're hearing about Roman influence, but that's because Roman influence wasn't that significant in Judea before and therefore not that relevant to mention. It seems Pydna was a turning point where, without the Antigonids to worry about, Rome started meddling more in Seleucid / Ptolemaic disputes. (There's a reason that this one is included despite being very far off - Bar-Kochva includes it in his timeline and thinks it's relevant to the Maccabean Revolt, just because it frees up the threat of a Roman intervention.) Anyway, tried spelling it out a bit more, take a look.
  • That's what it's called! Badass name, I know, metal bands should get one of those things. But no, nobody is really sure WTF it was, so it's difficult to be less mysterious here. Was it an idol? Was it a profaned altar? Was it just the act of pagan sacrifices itself? Whatever it was, the later Jews sure didn't like it (but didn't want to describe it in detail either), and Judas got rid of it after three years. But I'm not sure there's a great way to sum that up. "The Abomination of Desolation, a very very bad something something, is set up..."
  • Done, for Lysias.
  • Correct. I'm a little worried about saying so in the line on the 163 taking of Jerusalem, because we just know that suddenly we're besieging the Acra later, but the sources don't say "We took Jerusalem except the Acra", they say "We took Jerusalem." And then suddenly we're besieging the Acra later, so I guess they didn't take it, but we don't have any details on why or what did happen. (My understanding is that the best guess is that there were a lot more Hellenist-friendly Jews in Jerusalem than the surviving sources would like to admit, and the Maccabees didn't try to take the Acra immediately because they didn't want to provoke a revolt. Which would suggest the Maccabee occupation of Hellenist-friendly Jerusalem was somewhat nominal and didn't stop supplies from reaching the Acra. This wasn't deeply recorded in 1 Maccabees because it's "embarrassing". As a reminder, Jerusalem got wrecked in 168-167, so it wouldn't be surprising if the Maccabee-friendly inhabitants of Jerusalem were killed or enslaved in 168-167, and the main factions that the Seleucids left untouched were the Hellenist-friendly ones there, making the remnants still in the city a natural Seleucid base of power in 167-142. But this is a guess, not a fact.) I did expand the line on the Acra siege, take a look and see if it helps.
  • Added the result.

Hasmonean kingdom

• "Ptolemy son of Abubus" who's this?
• "The community is speculated to be Essenes" by who?
  • Just a name in a book. The only thing he's known for is doing this murder. I added his rank (governor of Jericho), but we really don't know much about him - the main thing he's known for is probably being the source for Dante's naming of Ptolemea in the 9th layer of hell.
  • When unstated, it's "most historians", but I think Wikipedia style is generally to discourage qualifying "consensus" opinions. There are some scholars who think the Qumran community were not Essenes nor particularly close to them in theology, but my understanding is that they're in the minority, and I think writing "speculated" already communicates that this is an educated guess rather than historical fact.

Herodian kingdom

• " into Octavian's victorious side" not sure this makes sense.
  • Agree phrasing was awkward; rephrased it.

Roman Judea and the Herodian tetrarchy

• "Herod Archelaus is deposed as ethnarch" should probably specify that this was done by the Romans.
  • Expanded this. (It was Emperor Augustus himself! Surprised he had time for that... Archelaus musta screwed up bad.)

Aftermath

• Good.

Will continue. If you have the time/inclination, I have another historical FLC which would appreciate some reviews. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! And sure, I'll take a look. Made some replies, and the same disclaimer you made that these are just current thoughts, so feel free to disagree. SnowFire (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Pokelego

Listing as a note that this FL review is the result of a trade of nominations between me and SnowFire.

I have very little familiarity with this part of history, so I'll be giving this review from the perspective of an outsider to the topic. This should hopefully help iron out points that may make sense without more context, but if I do confuse things that should be obvious, then you do not have to follow through if anything seems misguided.

Lead

-Make sure the information in the lead is cited if it's not mentioned in the article body.

-Would it be possible to define the importance of the Second Temple? While I understand this list is mostly for navigational purposes, a basic overview of why this Temple defined such a large part of history would likely be of great benefit to readers and provide needed background on the topic.

• • I believe everything in the lede should be in the bullet points below - if I missed something, feel free to point it out. (The "Empire X runs Judea" stuff is sorta mass sourced by all the details I hope, although per above conversation with Airship, the end of the Ptolemaic period is kinda interesting as it could be either 200 or 199 depending on how you count.)
  • That's a good request, but also a can of worms! I've added a sentence to the lead, but I'm not sure how helpful it is. I will say to clarify though that "Second Temple Judaism" is a term invented long after the period, and the Second Temple itself only defined a fairly narrow slice of religion-in-the-region for much of the period. Quite a bit of the history here was entirely out of the Second Temple's hands - e.g. not everything that happened in the Edwardian era really had that much to do with King Edward; similarly, it's just a term for a time period sometimes where the Second Temple itself isn't actually relevant.
    • Admittedly not sure how much can be done myself, then. Should be fine for the time being regardless. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Persian Empire

-"eventually part of the satrapy (province) of Eber-Nari." When does it become part of Eber-Nari? Immediately? Many years later?

• • See Eber-Nari#Babylonia,_Egypt,_and_Persia - it sorta unofficially continued as a Babylonian province but with Persian leadership in 539-535, it becomes part of "Babylonia and Eber-Nari" in 535 BCE (so not very long after), and it's split into a province just called Eber-Nari in around ~450 BCE. But I'd rather not add these details in - seems like something more for the linked article itself. Happy if you have better suggestions for the uncertain state of the satrapy that "owned" Yehud than "eventually" though; I figured that was safely true, but I'm really not certain what precisely the organization was in 539-535.
    • Perhaps "which would later become"? Not too terribly sure if that works or not, though. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
      • I think I'm just gonna cut "eventually" as adding too much mystery. There were reorganizations but all the various province types - Babylonian, Bab-immediately-post-Persian conquest, and later Persian, are all covered at the same article. Hope that helps.

-The section on the Edict of Cyprus treats the Edict as fact before stating it was in fact debatably a real event. I'd clarify its authenticity as to whether or not its status is debatable or factual.

• • I would argue that "Traditional date" already hints that this is an edict from tradition, even in the first sentence, but point. I've added "said to" to add even more doubt (the source, Grabbe, definitely does not think it was real, but also thinks it was "Effectively" real - i.e. the Bible writers took a de facto yet implicit policy, and turned it into a direct decree).

-" The first two chapters of the Book of Joel are probably written, and possibly the whole book, although the date of the last two chapters is contested." Wording feels iffy here. I'd change the "probably written" to something more professional and reword from "and possibly the whole book" onwards, since that section doesn't really work well with the prior sentence half.

• • See below. Unfortunately, we just aren't sure on when a lot of this stuff was written, so this section is inherently compiling "common scholarly estimates." The consensus of scholars hypothesize that the first two chapters of Joel are written in this period, but even the ones who support the theory aren't sure - they just think it fits the best. If you look at Book_of_Joel#Date, you'll see estimates ranging from 900 BCE to 200 BCE, a mere seven centuries of possibilities, none of which have any direct proof! I've rephrased the second half of the sentence some to split it off but I'm not sure it addresses your concern - feel free to chime in if it doesn't.

-I'm noticing a couple of "probably"s, which I'd reword, since it's making big assumptions that are largely attributed to one source. I'd change them to things like "believed to be" or similar phrases with the same meaning, but with less uncertainty and potential confusion. If there's some guideline stating this alright, it's no biggie, and more personal preference than anything, but I figured I'd bring it up just in case.

• • This one I will have to hold firm on, I'm afraid. The sources themselves discuss the uncertainty so reference-source integrity requires reflecting it here that this is just a probable guess - "believed to be" makes it sound like the scholar is actually advocating being certain for it a bit to me. Which does happen, but those entries don't get a "probably" if they're on sure backing (e.g. archaeological finds).
    • This, I believe, is miscommunication on my part. I am not trying to question the fact the historical accuracy of some of this is uncertain, but moreso just trying to suggest rewording for professionalism, since most of the areas I tend to edit tend to shy away from uncertain terms that come across as editor uncertainty more than the source's own uncertainty. If you feel this is unneeded, it's again mostly nitpicking, but I did feel it might be good to bring up given I know this kind of confusion does arise at times. If you choose not to do anything, this will not affect the passing or failing of this nom, but it is just a suggestion from my own experience. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
      • It is indeed a very tough area, expressing editor's doubt vs. scholarly doubt!

Macedonian Conquest

-"There is a migration of Jews from Palestine to Egypt amid the chaos, possibly prompted by Ptolemy I." He is referred to just as Ptolemy in the prior paragraph, so I'd either change this one to Ptolemy I or change the prior paragraph to just Ptolemy.

• • Removed the "I" and added a sentence in the prior paragraph about how he went from being just General Ptolemy of the Macedonian Empire to Ptolemy I, king and pharaoh. (Which is what I was vaguely attempting to hint at, but maybe best to just state it explicitly.)

Ptolemaic Kingdom

-Looks good

Seleucid Empire

-" the Seleucid army crushingly defeats the Ptolemaic army." Feels a bit opinionated. I'd personally re-word to be more neutral while still emphasizing the severity of the loss.

• • Tried "Decisively." (It was a Big Victory, even from a neutral perspective.)

-Another crushing later at 168 BCE.

-"Negotiations and a tentative pact of mutual aid between the Maccabees and the Roman Republic." I'd add "is formed" or something toward the end as right now it reads like a sentence fragment

• • It is a sentence fragment, but timelines do this sometimes. e.g. "Reign of King Bob I." rather than "King Bob I reigns." I checked some other FA Timeline articles before nominating and some of them use mixed sentence fragments & sentences, too. That said, I rephrased this as a sentence, just it ends up with a very long wikilink as a result.
    • Would it be possible to shorten the Wikilink to start from "hold negotiations" and end at "tentative pact"? Just trying to suggest a way to shorten it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
      • Moved the link around - I kinda liked having both parties in the link, but agree it was a little long.

Hasmonean Kingdom

-I'm noticing a lot of repeated hyperlinks throughout the article; Hyrcanus II is a prime example I'm noticing right now. I'm not sure the repeated linking is super necessary, though again if this is something standard for these kinds of articles, feel free to disregard this.

• • It's dealer's choice I believe. In theory, every entry stands alone and thus only has to worry about overlinking within a single entry, but I obviously haven't gone hardcore "link everything constantly" mode. I do have some repeated wikilinks, but there's a horde of names that often differ by just an "II" or "son of", so I feel like a few extra wikilinks helps in case there's confusion over which Hyrcanus. That said, I did cut a wikilink to Hyrcanus II.
    • Shouldn't be an issue then. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Herodian Kingdom

-Looks good

Roman Judea and the Herodian tetrarchy

-"War between Herod Antipas and Aretas IV of Nabatea goes poorly for Antipas, and his army is destroyed" Again a bit unprofessional in terms of wording. Personal preference mostly, but I'd reword this a bit to remove the "poorly" while conveying the same meaning.

• • Don't really see the issue with "poorly" myself, but changed it to "badly". Does that work?

Afermath

-Looks good

Overall this article is in very good shape. The above are mostly nitpicks, so address and clarify the above points and I'll be happy to support this list. Very well-made and well-researched article. Well done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the review! diff of changes so far. SnowFire (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    • @SnowFire: left a few replies to some comments. Most of them are minor touch-ups, with some that you can choose to ignore, but let me know how you feel about them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
      • @Pokelego999: Replied to your comments above and made two more minor changes. SnowFire (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

        @SnowFire should be all from me. Happy to Support. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

====Comments==== Looks like a great piece of work overall. I'll provide a fuller review at a later date, but, in the meantime, here are a couple of quick thoughts from me: Some of the wikilinks seem to be a bit overlinked. Second Temple, Herod Antipas, Antigonus II Mattathias, Simon Thassi, Hellenistic Judaism and Herod the Great are all wikilinked three times in the prose. Hyrcanus II is wikilinked four times. There may be others. "shahnashah" -> "shahanshah" "Jeozadak" -> "Jozadak" A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Thanks for the look! I talk about the linking issue some on the talk page, but the guideline says "Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader", and this is a list. I believe these do significantly aid the reader. It could also be argued that similar to a glossary, each entry can stand on its own, because people might read the list out of article. Per above I did just cut a wikilink to Hyrcanus II, but personally, I believe that the amount of wikilinks is valid - sometimes the same person is referred to much earlier, sometimes they're part of a pair, sometimes it's a person who shared names with relatives. (As an example: Hyrcanus II is mentioned in passing in a side note "early" and gets a wikilink on first mention in the maybe story about the undated raid on Joppa, then he gets a wikilink on first important mention that definitely happened in 67 BC, and then he gets a wikilink for his tenure as ruler, like all such "reign of XYZ" entries.) All of these are good reasons to repeat wikilinks IMO. The OL guideline itself was weakened some awhile back even for prose to only be "don't repeat wikilinks within a section" which also covers some of these cases - e.g. I only count 2 wikilinks to "Second Temple", not three (excluding the lede, which of course has a link), and one is in the Persian section and another is in the Roman section on its destruction, quite distant and in two different sections. I only count 2 links to Herod the Great as well, and both seem very important to me - one is when he's introduced as just Herod-the-person (not yet king), and the other is when he starts his reign as king. SnowFire (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC) There's "King Herod the Great took control as ruler of the Herodian kingdom", "Antipater's son Herod executes Malichus" and "Herod the Great, given the kingship of Judea earlier by the Roman Senate, now takes control". I'll leave it to you to decide if all three of these are necessary. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 08:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC) The typo fixes got lost in the shuffle before - fixed now, thanks for the double-check. To clarify, I was counting it as two links because I was excluding the link to Herod in the lead section. (Similar to how Simon Thassi is linked twice, but in different sections.) But fair enough that I should have specified - note that MOS:DUPLINK was updated to only be against repeated links within a section. I swapped the second Herod link in the "Hasmonean kingdom" section over to a new entry in the "Herodian kingdom" section, which should hopefully comply by the letter of MOS:DUPLINK more closely. I've removed a few other repeated links although I still think that these links were helpful. Some repeated links within a section remain but they're for high-value cases IMO, e.g. when something very important happens later but a wikilink on first mention is also important. SnowFire (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: Do you think you'll have time to come back and look into the fuller review? SnowFire (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Apologies for my lateness. In all, the article looks very good; these are my edits; please revert any you disagree with. Here are some further comments from me: Per MOS:PERIOD, sentence fragments (for example, the ones beginning "Reign of..." and "Death of...") don't need to end with periods. I checked some featured timelines before, and some of them did indeed have fragments with periods. I'd rather that they do end with periods for consistency - it is jarring to have them "hanging" IMO, especially when mixed in with sentences. (Normally one fix would be to just use sentences everywhere, but unfortunately the sentence versions of "Reign of" sound very awkward.) List citations in ascending order, e.g., [15][11] -> [11][15], [17][42][36][37] -> [17][36][37][42], [54][53] -> [53][54], etc. Unfortunately, you've met someone who is opposed to this practice. To my knowledge, there is no rule mandating or even suggesting this (although I know some editors like to do it for their own articles). I think references should only care about the line they're next to, as they might be ordered by "usefulness", and this kind of change isn't maintainable if citations are refactored or moved around. For example, in a FAC I'm involved in, I ended up entirely switching the order of two sections, which renumbered all the references automatically. More generally, I don't think readers care - most readers ignore citations, and those who pay attention aren't really looking at the number, just clicking / pressing it. It's work that doesn't last for unclear gain, IMO. That said, if you really feel strongly, I'll go ahead and switch 'em around, just wanted to state my case first. ;-) (Also, double-checking, but WP:CITEORDER specifically says that there is no consensus that this is a beneficial change. Obviously harmless if someone wants to do it, of course.) "if a later date is assumed?" and "possibly the Righteous Teacher?" -> I'd get rid of these question marks, as it makes it look like Wikipedia isn't really sure what it's talking about. If there's disagreement between scholars about the information then this can always be explained in a note, but adding uncertainty into the prose will just confuse our readers. Done, but in side chatter, we indeed don't know what we're talking about. It is hard to overstress just how little we know and how weak the foundations are for these guesses - maybe they should have more like ????? to indicate that it's the classic "drunk searching under the lamppost for their wallet" where we can only guess people whose names are known to history, even when there's a ton of unlit territory of names lost to history. 221–204 BCE: any way that you could rewrite this paragraph slightly so that the word "however" isn't twice quite so quickly? You could probably just get rid of the second one entirely. Done. MOS:SEASON suggests avoiding references to the seasons, which appear several times in this article (e.g., "Spring 166", "summer 165", "Autumn 162", etc.). MOS:SEASON is good advice a lot of the time, but I don't think it applies here. First, all of these events are in the Northern Hemisphere; second, the season is actually relevant as far as military campaigning in the era goes (i.e. spring is when military operations can start, and you don't usually want to fight in late fall or winter). All of the seasonal references are during wars like the Maccabean Revolt or the Roman-Jewish war, so I'd say they're relevant. As a lesser note, the sources themselves use the names of the seasons directly, so "Q2" isn't exactly accurate since it's referring less to "a specific period of 3 calendar months" and more "the literal, physical weather patterns outside". "2nd document" -> "second document", per MOS:ORDINAL. Done. 170 SE is the only year for which you don't list its BCE equivalent (142 BCE, presumably?). It's in the 143-141 BCE subheader. The problem is that scholars argue about which Julian year it represents, so it's either 142 BCE or 141 BCE. 'War of Scepters' -> Per MOS:SINGLE, either replace the single quotation marks with double ones, or else remove them altogether. If the War of Scepters is how the conflict is most commonly known, then I'd say get rid of them. Removed, although I'm a little worried it won't come across as a title now. You have "3rd century" and "1st century", but also "first and second century". Per MOS:CENTURY, you can use either, as long as you're consistent. I'd go with the latter, personally, but it's up to you. Switched to the numerical form. Second Temple Judaism is already linked in the main body of the article, so it doesn't need to appear in the SA section too. Was The Wars of the Maccabees definitely published by Casemate? Both Google Books and WorldCat are saying that it was published by Pen & Sword Books Ltd. It's the Pen & Sword imprint of Casemate ( https://www.casematepublishers.com/pen-and-sword-series/ , https://www.casematepublishers.com/author/john-d-grainger/ ), so they're both sorta correct. That said, checking, it does say "Pen & Sword Books Ltd" in the front matter, so maybe best to reflect that rather than mention their corporate parent - modified. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: Thanks for the review! Replied above, and made some changes (diff). SnowFire (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed (well, as much as I could access); promoting. --PresN 18:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC) [19].

---

List of FIA GT Champions

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The FIA GT Championship was a sports car racing series for Grand Touring cars that was held from 1997 to 2009. This list contains the names of every driver, team and manufacturer to have won a title in the series. All comments are welcome EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "For 2005, both categories reverted to the GT1 and GT2 titles" => "For 2005, the two categories reverted to the GT1 and GT2 titles"
• "There were 16 drivers who had won a Drivers' Championship in either of the GT1 or GT2 categories and there were 17 racers who had won titles in either of the GT2 or N-GT classes" - this is slightly confusing. Should the second one read "GT or N-GT".....?
• "The cup was not formally awarded in 2008 due to a lack of eligible non-professional drivers throughout the season" - but there are winners listed.....?
• "the FIA moved it to the GT2 class for seven races in 2009" - yet it was clinched in race 7 of 8? Slightly confused by this......
• That's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: I've amended the list based on all of the above points. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs addressing EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "At the end of the 2009 season, 31 drivers had won an FIA GT title. There were 16 drivers who had won a Drivers' Championship in either of the GT1 or GT2 categories and there were 17 racers who had won titles in either of the GT or N-GT classes" - by my count there are actually 17 distinct drivers in the GT1/GT2 tables, 15 distinct drivers in the GT/N-GT tables, and 30 distinct drivers overall
• "The Citation Cup was introduced by the SRO in partnership with Cessna Citation in 2007 for non-professional racing drivers participating in the GT1 category over a series of eight rounds" - table shows that Aucott clinched in race 9 of 10......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Have addressed both issues EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• The caption needs a full stop.
• JMB were declared champions because it - Maybe "were" and "they" or "was" and "it", I think.
• Maybe I'm too obtuse, but why are there seasons with one driver and seasons with two?

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Alavense: Have amended the list based on the above points. As for the third point, the reasons that there are seasons with one champion instead of two is because their regular co-driver did not participate in all of the races that the champion took part in and was replaced by another driver. Hence, they are not listed. Sources listed in the list as well as each individual FIA GT Championship season article can provide further detail as to what races they entered EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Would it be worth explaining that somewhere, EnthusiastWorld37? Thank you for the other edits. Alavense (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: Done EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• "German drivers had won more titles..." and "Vitaphone Racing Team had won..." – just say "won" instead of "had won"
• When a row header spans multiple rows (i.e., when a year has multiple winners), use scope=rowgroup instead of scope=row
• "A Manufacturers' Cup was introduced..." – awkward run-on sentence; I suggest "A Manufacturers' Cup was introduced for the 2005 season and was awarded in both the GT1 and GT2 categories through 2007; it was not awarded in 2008 and was limited to the GT2 class in 2009."
• For the 2008 Citation Cup, could they really have clinched after only 2 races? Nobody else got points after that race, but theoretically there were enough points available that someone could have passed them, right? (I am not an expert so I could be missing something.)
  • It would not have been realistic with a full eight-race season but I have amended the table to reflect the fact there were only two races that ended up being held as part of the 2008 Citation Cup EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Link Cessna Citation family at the first occurrence of "Cessna Citation"

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• @RunningTiger123: Have made changes based on the issues raised above EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC) [20].

---

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1975

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

With the 1973 list having just got promoted and the 1974 list having multiple supports, here's the 1975 list. In this particular year we have one of the Beatles, most of the Osmonds (no Little Jimmy!) and (what are the chances?) two different songs called "Please Mr. [something]". Comments as ever most gratefully received! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• the second former member of The Beatles - Doesn't that capital The clash with what you taught me in the previous nomination? :)
  • Fixed - can't believe I missed that!
• What is top 40 radio? Could a link be added?
  • Done!

That's what I saw, ChrisTheDude. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: - thanks for your review, both points addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice work, as always! Support. Alavense (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Could run IABot, as a few refs are missing archives
• There's an open </ref> at the end of the second item in the works cited section

Good stuff Chris. Support on the assumption the ref tag will be fixed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: - that's done. I'll try running the bot again (I've run it multiple time on this article, but sometimes it seems to just randomly ignore some citations.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

NØ

• Image review - pass: The images are all appropriately licensed with working source links as far as I can tell.
• "which retained its position from the last chart of 1974, but held the top spot for only one week in 1975 before being replaced by Ringo Starr's recording of the 1950s song" - Comma should be removed
• "Easy Listening chart-toppers by Manilow, Netwon-John and The Carpenters also topped Billboard's pop singles chart, the Hot 100" - "the" in "the Carpenters" should be lowercase mid-sentence

All good otherwise!--NØ 12:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: - thanks for your review, both points actioned! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support--NØ 13:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC) [21].

---

IEEE Medal of Honor

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Another technology award list. There are a lot of things that can be wikilinked (especially in the award citations). I’ve added some, but please go through the citation column carefully to see if more should be added. Similar FL: Turing Award. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• I've never seen an article before that has what amounts to multiple "see also" sections, neither of which is titled "See also". I would simply put all five wikilinks under the heading "see also" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed: Merged the two sections and removed a couple of the links. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "a gold medal, a bronze replica," - a bronze replica of what? Of the gold medal?
• "a certificate, and an honorarium" - is there an appropriate link for "honorarium"? I for one have no idea what that is.
• "when the IRE merged with the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) to form the IEEE, in 1963" - no need for that comma
• Source(s) for second paragraph of lead?
• Because the table is sortable, anything which is linked will need to be linked each time it appears eg I can see piezoelectricity used twice but only linked once -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed the rest and wikilinked the second instance of piezoelectric in the table. I'll ping you here when I finish checking for other such terms that need to be wikilinked a second time. Meanwhile, please take a look at the citations column specifically to see if other terms need wikilinking. I tried to avoid overlinking, but I might have been too stingy while assessing what needs to be linked. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. I've now added repeated wikilinks in the table. I've purposely left out a few to avoid SEAOFBLUE issues. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• 104 people have been awarded the medal - MOS:NUMNOTES: "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure".
• Could a photograph of each recipient be added? Turing Award, which you cite as a similar featured list, has them.
• I feel there's no need for the uppercase in the second word in both No Award and No Citation.
• Ref(s) should be "Ref(s).", shouldn't it?

That's what I saw, MPGuy2824. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the rest. I'll work on adding the images and then ping you here. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, MPGuy2824. I was having another look at it and realized there's no row for the year 1925. Why? Alavense (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense:

• there's no row for the year 1925. Why? IEEE has a couple of places where they have the whole list of winners. For some of the years, they explicitly mention "No award". 1925 wasn't mentioned at all. But, going by [22], there wasn't any winner in 1925 too. I've corrected the table to show this.
• I've also added the images to the table. A lot of the photos are there, but it is only allowed to use them at the main article about the person, so I've skipped those.

Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice work, MPGuy2824. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

Pegging myself down for a review in the very near future. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 08:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Dylan620, just following up about this. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Josh, and apologies MPGuy2824 for the delay. Some unanticipated concerns sprung up at my own FLC and I got sidetracked. I still want to review this, but I also don't want to hold things up, so please proceed without me if I still haven't posted here in the next couple days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Matthewrb

• The short description in the article is "American annual technology prize" while the description on Wikidata is "award conferred by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers" - I recommend reverting to the Wikidata description since it's more descriptive.
• Awarded for [...] Exceptional contribution or an extraordinary career in the IEEE fields of interest - source?
• Alt text is meant to provide additional context for screen readers, per MOS:ALT. Most of the alt text for the images in the table only restate their name. I recommend adding some more information to the alt text. For example, the alt text for Edwin Howard Armstrong could be "A headshot of Edwin Howard Armstrong, taken around 1954." The alt text of the image in the infobox also has this problem.
• Out of 114 citations, only 4 are from third-party sources. While I understand this is a list of awards and it's hard to find reliable mentions consistently over nearly 100 years (as well as WP:NLIST), I might recommend seeing if there are some more third-party sources to use in the lead. I was able to find two after a brief search.
• Citation 4 is treated as dead when it is still live. I did a spot check of the other citations and didn't see any other issues.
• Commons has a category: commons:Category:IEEE_Medal_of_Honor_recipients - I recommend adding a new "External Links" section with {{Commons category-inline}}.
• I would recommend adding {{IEEE Medal of Honor}} to the footer.

~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 02:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Awarded for [...] Exceptional contribution or an extraordinary career in the IEEE fields of interest - source? This is from the website mentioned in the same infobox, so I don't think a separate ref is needed.
• I've fixed the rest per your recommendations and will get to the alt texts for the images soon. I'll ping you here when I'm done with those. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Just following up to see if this has all been addressed @MPGuy2824. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, not yet. Need a couple of days. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Matthewrb: I've done the alt texts for the images. Some of the images don't have dates, and some aren't exactly headshots, so I've left the alt text as just the name in those cases. Please have a look when you get the chance. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good! Support ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 15:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Good stuff MPGuy! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@FLC director and delegates: This is old enough and has source, image and prose supports. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

We know, we've just all been very busy in real life for the past week or two. Promoting. --PresN 18:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC) [23].

---

1994 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This is my fifth Olympics medal table list and is it the only winter medal table between 1972 and 2022 which is not already featured. As always, I will do my best to respond in a timely manner and to address any and all concerns or comments that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• 1,737 athletes - MOS:NUMNOTES: "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure".
• Due to scheduling changes made in 1986, with the intent to have the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics held in different years, this was the first time the Winter games were held in a different year than the Summer Olympics - That reads a bit repetitive.
• the only time that the Winter Olympics took place two years after the previous one - Shouldn't it be ones.
• The link to the article about the dissolution of the Soviet Union should be included the first time it's mentioned, not the second.
• Norweigen - Norwegian?
• Are there no more images that could be included?

That's what I saw, Hey man im josh. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review @Alavense!

• 1,737 athletes - MOS:NUMNOTES: "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure". – Blech, well this conflicts with feedback I received at the 2016 Summer Olympics medal table nomination. Not entirely sure which would be best, any thoughts on whether you're comfortable with the numbers at the beginning, or should I ping Gonzo to iron this out a bit more?

• I don't think an A total of would do much harm, because the way the sentence is currently written collides with what MOS says. Alavense (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hey Gonzo_fan2007, just pinging you about the above because I'm aiming for consistency in these lists. Is there a counter argument to be made about this portion? Or would you be okay with me preceding "x athletes..." with "A total of" again? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• The MOS here isn't definitive. Avoiding something doesn't mean you can't do it. I think for a large number, there is no issue with starting the sentence with that number. That said, I will defer to whatever you all decide. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• No problem, then. Leave it as it is, Hey man im josh. Thank you, Gonzo_fan2007. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Due to scheduling changes made in 1986, with the intent to have the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics held in different years, this was the first time the Winter games were held in a different year than the Summer Olympics - That reads a bit repetitive. – Do you have any recommendations on how to refactor to highlight that the Olympics were held in the same year prior to this? I wanted to make that clear and despite not totally loving the language, I felt this was the best I could come up with.

• I think you should say that the 1994 edition of the Winter Olympics was held only two years after the previous one. And maybe that would also help avoid the reiteration. Alavense (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Due to scheduling changes made in 1986, with the intent to have the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics held in different years, this was the first time the Winter games were held in a different year than the Summer Olympics, and the only time that the Winter Olympics took place two years after the previous one.
• Due to scheduling changes made in 1986, with the intent to begin holding the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics in different years for the first time and moving forward, the Winter Olympics took place only two years after the previous one.
• Thanks for pushing me on the wording. I think this phrasing is closer to what's ideal, but could possibly use more work. Any thoughts on the changes? I feel it's more concise but maybe a bit choppy. The changes happened in 1986, but I also want to highlight this is the first time in a way as I feel the first Olympic Games not held in the same year as another is a noteworthy fact. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Due to scheduling changes made in 1986 with the intent to begin holding the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics in different years for the first time and moving forward, this edition of the Winter Olympics took place only two years after the previous one.

Do you like it this way, Hey man im josh? I think you could do without the first comma. And the way you worded it now, it's pretty clear that these Games being held only was an odd one out. Alavense (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I like that. I've made the changes based on your suggestion @Alavense. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• the only time that the Winter Olympics took place two years after the previous one - Shouldn't it be ones. – Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but despite "Olympics" being plural, I believe it's still treated as singular when referring to the event, hence the usage of "one" instead of "ones". I do hope to be corrected, because honestly, I'm not sure now.

• I'm not sure, either, but you do say The 1994 Winter Olympics [...] were at the beginning of the list, though. Alavense (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Good point, I think you're right after sleeping on it and reading this. Fixed. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• The link to the article about the dissolution of the Soviet Union should be included the first time it's mentioned, not the second. – Booo, you're right, I just really like that the wikilinked portion was exactly the title of the article. Oh well, you're right, fixed.

• I removed the double [[.

• Oops, thanks, sloppy work Josh. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Norweigen - Norwegian? – Fixed.
• Are there no more images that could be included? – I looked for...
  • First medalist for each country mentioned in the league
  • First gold medalist for each country mentioned in the lead
  • Leaders in gold medals
  • Leaders in overall medals (used)

In those, there was an image of Manuela Di Centa, which appeared to be significantly after the age she competed at. Not that that's necessarily a problem, but I feel the size of the image (165 x 228 pixels / 67 KB) made it too small to add anywhere but her article. Others either did not have an image or their image was a stamp / memorialization of the person by the country. Because of this, I felt it best to just use the one image, though believe me, I absolutely did look for relevant images that weren't just "this person won a medal at the games!"

• No problem, then. Nobody can say that you didn't try. :) Alavense (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I replied above, Hey man im josh. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, so that should be everything except for the top two points now Alavense. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice work, Hey man im josh. Please keep these lists coming! :) I'll support right away, although it would be nice to reach an agreement, so to speak, with Gonzo and see which one's the lesser of two evils, whether to use A total of or to ignore the MOS for once. Kind regards and nice work, Alavense (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm all for consistency and I totally agree. Thank you for the review, keep your awesome reviews coming @Alavense! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "this edition of the Winter Olympics took place only two years after the previous ones" - this doesn't really work, because you use "this edition" (singular) but then say it took place two years after "the previous ones" (plural), which makes it sound like multiple editions took place in 1992. Maybe "this edition of the Winter Olympics took place only two years after the previous event".....?
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  That is better, thank you @ChrisTheDude, done! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks so much for your review @Dank! I very much appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, anytime. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hey man im josh, check with PresN or Giants2008 regarding MOS:NUMNOTES (specifically, avoiding a numeral at the beginning of a sentence). I don't know if we handle these things differently at FLC, but if so, that would surprise me a little. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Matthewrb

• The short description for the article is currently "Award" - I might recommend none for this article since the title is descriptive.
• I did a spot check of the medal totals and they look good.
• I did a spot check of the sources and they look good.

Support ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 15:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look over the list @Matthewrb, I've fixed the short description. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – The link-checker tool shows no problems, and reliability and formatting of the sources both look okay. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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