Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and at peer review at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Object''' or * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature, rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

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

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


Bart Starr Award[edit]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bart Starr Award has been presented to an NFL player each year since 1989 on the Saturday before the Super Bowl. The award, named after Green Bay Packers quarterback Bart Starr, is given to a player who exhibits outstanding character and leadership. This is my first FLC in quite some time, so please bear with me. Thank you for your consideration and review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man im josh

Drive by comment, I'll be back later on to do a more thorough review, but the table does not currently pass an accessibility review (MOS:DTAB). PresN has a standard comment I find helpful for accessibility which can be found here. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man im josh, did I do this correctly? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: The column scopes are good, and I'm assuming that table title works properly for screen readers, so you're good on that front. The row scopes don't appear to be correct though. I know how to correct it when cells are on new lines in the editor, but I'm not familiar with how to do so when multiple cells are divided by two vertical bars. A sign that you've done it correctly is if the cell that you've applied the scope to is the only one in the row that is shaded grey. See List of National Football League annual rushing touchdowns leaders as an example of this. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey man im josh My understanding is that the grey shading is achieved by the exclamation mark and not row scope field. Since the name of the player is the scope of the row, I'm not sure grey shading down the middle of the table would look appropriate or make sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh wow, I guess I just had never realized the correlation, how silly of me. Absent a screen reader, I'm frankly not sure how to check the accessibility. I'll assume it's good for now until PresN does their accessibility review.
One thing I should have mentioned though, I noticed that sort names are not applied to the list. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images are relevant
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have alt text

Source review: Passed

  • References are reliable for the information being reported
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent publisher/website formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Links are archived

Assuming that the rows are properly defined (no screen reader to verify this for myself), I support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the image review, source review and your support Hey man im josh, and congrats on the new tools :) Nice to see another Josh get adminship! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Probably worth specifying at the start that this relates to American football. Maybe start with "The Athletes in Action/Bart Starr Award is an American football award given annually..." I know you mention the National Football League in the first sentence, but it is not the only "National Football League" in the world.......
  • "The award is presented by Athletes in Action (AIA), which is a sports ministry" => "The award is presented by Athletes in Action (AIA), a sports ministry"
  • "The nominee list is compiled from a group of individuals made-up" => "The nominee list is compiled by a group of individuals made up" (as currently worded it indicates that the PR Directors, etc, are considered for nomination)
  • "However, some past awardees have been chosen at times by fellow NFL players" => "However, some past awardees have been chosen by fellow NFL players"
  • "Bart Starr, the former hall of fame quarterback" - as far as I know he is not a former hall of famer, so change to "Bart Starr, the hall of fame former quarterback"
  • "to present the award that bared his name" => "to present the award that bears his name"
  • "Since 2015, Tony Dungy and" => "Since 2015, former NFL coach Tony Dungy and" (can't assume readers know who Dungy is)
  • "Steve Largent, the former hall of fame wide receiver" - as above
  • How come the second and third entries under "see also" are more indented than the first? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ChrisTheDude, thanks for your comments. I implemented all of them except the first. After a quick perusal of other NFL awards, I don't really see a precedent of stating it's an American football award. I understand where you are coming from, but this isn't an American football award per se, it's an NFL award, and the NFL happens to be an American football league. I could add "NFL, an American football league in the United States" but that seems excessive. I think the NFL brand is largest enough that most readers won't mistake a small Irish league with the Internationally known NFL. And even if they do, NFL is linked. Thoughts? On your last question, I double indented those two items because article #2 and #3 are included in article #1. I've seen this done before but don't have a strong feeling either way, so let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • who returned the award after being arrested the night after he received it for soliciting sex from an undercover police officer - "after" twice in close succession is confusing; reword it, perhaps split it into two sentences or just put the reason in an efn
  • The "References" header is commonly shortened with the abbr template, so that the column doesn't display so wide: Ref(s)
  • Ref 34's website should not be formatted as a link, and wl it
  • Fox is unreliable per WP:FOXNEWS, though I'm not sure if Fox Sports applies; still worth bringing up, though

Gonzo_fan2007, all done, great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks MyCatIsAChonk for the comments. I implemented your recommendations. Regarding WP:FOXNEWS, I believe this only applies to, not the entirety of Fox's programming. A quick read of WP:FOXNEWS shows that the focus of editor's concerns were politics, science and talk shows. That said, I just updated the source to WCNC in Charlotte, since there were other sources easily available. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of tarsiiformes[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 22:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next animal list: #4 out of 6+capstone for the order Primates, and #33 overall in our series of mammal FLCs, we have another subgrouping of Primates, following the lorisoids, cercopithecoids, and hominoids, with the infraorder Tarsiiformes. We're sticking with the "largest grouping that contains all of the species" naming convention, but while Tarsiiformes lends its name to the list title, it contains only one extant family, Tarsiidae, whose members are in turn called the tarsiids or, more commonly, tarsiers. They're the monkeys with the giant eyes and giant hands, and the all live in forests in a cluster of islands in Southeast Asia. Unlike some of their cousins, instead of sticking to fruit, they'll eat most any insect or animal they can get in their mouth- which isn't much, seeing as they range from a small 8 cm (3 in) long to a... small 16 cm (6 in) long. Plus a tail that's at least twice as long as the rest of them. Tiny monkeys and a tiny family at only 14 species, which was a good breather before the next 100+ species list. As always, the list follows the pattern of the previous lists and reflects previous FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "it, along with the Peleng tarsier, pygmy tarsier, and Sangihe tarsier are" - need a comma after "Sangihe tarsier" to close off the clause started by the one after "it"
  • Also, as the subject of the verb is "it", the verb should be singular
  • "Diet: Flying insects and others" - does the "others" mean other insects?
  • That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk/Source review
  • All extinct genera, species, or subspecies listed alongside extant species went extinct after 1500 CE, and are indicated by a dagger symbol "†". - why is this present if none are extinct?
  • Dians tarsier says: Diet: Insects, as well as small vertebrates[8], but Gursky's spectral tarsier says Diet: Insects as well as small vertebrates[12] - add or remove comma on all for consistency

That's all I got- no issues with sources, so that passes. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: Removed the dagger bit (it's the template for all these articles, but not needed for this list), added a comma. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 13:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Groves, Shekelle, 2010" shouldn't there be an and instead of a comma?
  • The above comment actually applies to the authorities in most of the multi-authority species.
  • The "Insects as well as frogs, lizards, and other small vertebrates" still isn't consistent, Gursky's through Peleng tarsiers lack the commas.
  • All I got. AryKun (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of international goals scored by Davor Šuker[edit]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Davor Šuker is a Croatian former professional footballer who represented both the Croatia and Yugoslavia national teams during the 1990s and early 2000s. He only made two appearances for Yugoslavia and as of nominating he is Croatia's all time top scorer with 45 goals. I had only created his list of international goals recently, but I'm very confident that this list meets FL standard. Thanks in advance :) Idiosincrático (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Add Template:Use British English or otherwise appropriate
  • Wl striker; could be to an appropriate wikipedia page, or perhaps wikitionary has an entry
  • it was Croatia's second game since reforming the national football association in the early 1990s, the team previously had not played a match since 1956. - some sort of conjunction is needed after the comma; something like "since reforming the national football association in the early 1990s, as the team previously"
  • Wl hat-trick
  • Remove wl from France, since it's already a well-known place
  • Image caption: Šuker scored two international hat-tricks for Croatia, they were scored against Estonia and Australia in 1995 and 1998 respectively. - replace the somma with a semicolon

Idiosincrático, that's all I got, nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers @MyCatIsAChonk, all addressed :) Idiosincrático (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - lovely job! By the way, if you get any time, would appreciate any comments at this FLC- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "it was Croatia's second game since reforming the national football association in the early 1990s, as the team previously had not played a match since 1956." => "it was Croatia's second game since reforming the national football association in the early 1990s; the team previously had not played a match since 1956."
  • "He made his official debut for Croatia on 22 October 1992 against Mexico, during the friendly match at the Stadion Maksimir he scored a brace" - the comma after Mexico should be a comma. Also, why not just say he scored two goals, rather than the slightly slangy "a brace"? If you are really keen to use the term "brace", please wikilink it, as I am reasonably sure people who don't follow football really closely will have no idea what it means.
  • "In combination with his impressive club career" - this doesn't really work, as you don't say what his club career is being considered in combination with. I would suggest changing it to "Based on his international performances and his impressive club career...."
  • "Does not include match for Croatia against Romania on 22 December 1990, the friendly was not recognised by FIFA" => "Does not include match for Croatia against Romania on 22 December 1990, which was not recognised by FIFA"
  • That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All addressed, I assumed that you meant a semi-colon after Mexico for your second suggestion, Cheers @ChrisTheDude. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I did indeed :-) Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of songs recorded by Alessia Cara[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 19:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the list of songs recorded by Canadian singer-songwriter Alessia Cara. My interest in her is probably hardly surprising considering "Scars to Your Beautiful" is basically a Meghan Trainor song... A lot of work has gone into making sure this list is comprehensive since Miss Cara does a lot of features so I hope you guys enjoy it. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 19:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comment
  • I will do a full review later, but one thing that jumps out is that you have a key item for "Indicates songs written solely by Alessia Caracciolo", but you don't indicate anywhere in the article that Alessia Caracciolo and Alessia Cara are the same person. I know it's kinda obvious, but it's probably worth making it absolutely clear....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I added a note.--NØ 08:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More comments
  • "Cara has contributed songs to film soundtracks: "How Far I'll Go" (2016) to Moana, "The Other Side" to The Get Down Part II, and "Feel You Now" and "Last Goodbye" (both 2021)" - when you say "both", does that actually cover all three songs mentioned since the first comma?
  • The songs starting with "The" are placed alphabetically based on the next word (which is correct), but if you re-sort the table and then sort that column, they all jump to being with the Ts
  • Albums starting with "The" sort under T when they should sort based on the next word
  • Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Add Template:Use Canadian English or otherwise appropriate
  • three studio albums, three extended plays (EP), one live album, and guest features - add "numerous" before guest features; otherwise, it seems like the "one" from "one live album" is carrying over
  • including Logic's "1-800-273-8255" and Zedd's "Stay" in 2017 - not sure if this is the case for pop music, but for classical articles you don't link the artists' name before the song, since one could easily click the article to get to the composer's article
  • For modern pop music, I believe we link these, generally.
  • Sebastian Kole is sorting by his first name, not last

MaranoFan, that's all I got, great work as usual MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ChrisTheDude @MyCatIsAChonk - Thanks for the reviews, guys. Greatly appreciated! I think everything should be sorting properly now.--NØ 18:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Latvia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 07:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latvia just got its third site inscribed to the WHS list these days, which means that got to the club where I am comfortable to nominate the list for a FL (those countries with two or less sites on the main list are on the waiting list in my book). Standard style, short and compact. The list for Canada is already seeing some support and Costa Rica has just been promoted. Tone 07:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Add Template:Use British English or similar
  • Natural features (consisting of physical and biological formations), geological and physiographical formations (including habitats of threatened species of animals and plants), and natural sites which are important from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty, are defined as natural heritage - you introduce the subject of natural features at the start and end of this sentence
  • The area has been inhabited for millennia and features several cultural landscape types - ritual landscape - the way the dash is used, it should be an endash instead of a dash (for copying –)
  • The map box's caption should have no period at the end since it's not a complete sentence

Tone, all done, lovely job MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed, thanks! As for natural, I think it reads fine. This is the formulation that we have distilled after several iterations so I am using it everywhere. Tone 08:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - lovely work! Also, if you get time, would appreciate any comments here- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "15-13 thousand years ago" en-dash, and I think typical usage would still be "13–15 thousand years ago", not the other way around. Also, source mentions "formed before 13 - 15 thousand years", so "over 13–15 thousand years ago" would be most accurate.
  • "social landscape, economic landscape" needed a conjunction.
  • "since retained the 18th century integrity" Hard to understand what this means.
  • All I have. AryKun (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ... has retained its 18th century integrity. Makes more sense? I agree it was not very clear. Tone 15:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps "has retained the integrity of its 18th century architectural design, unlike many other European palaces which have been subject to extensive later modifications.", although you can just use the first clause if that's too long. AryKun (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Excellent. I'll use the first clause indeed, as the second part is kind of obvious :) Tone 15:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Tone, think you missed the first two comments. AryKun (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hm, it looks so. Fixed now :) Tone 17:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. AryKun (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source and image review

Might as well do this since the article's so short.

  • Pass source review – all sources as reliable, properly formatted, and spot-checks on most of them found no issues with source-text integrity.
  • Pass image review – all images are properly licensed and used, with alt text. I will note that Latvia only has a non-commercial freedom of panorama, but the only image that would be affected by this, House of the Blackheads, is an FP, so I'll assume its licensing is fine. AryKun (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Really nice to see another WHS FLC! I remember commenting on a lot of these; you now reminded me of the Indo article which I've put on to-do (and which you copyedited ages ago~). I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 09:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • No problem found on the prose outside of table!
  • Shouldn't Riga be linked at the table?
  • Second row's second sentence is quite wordy, suggest "who first carried out an accurate measurement" --> "who first accurately measured"
  • Suggest making Kuldiga's alt text more descriptive of the building depicted
  • Moving on to tentative: after the first "landscape" I think the rest "landscape"s can be removed since it's already clear and quite repetitive
  • "The Baroque-style"

List of Hot Soul Singles number ones of 1977[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi everyone, here's #35 in this series of articles for your consideration. In this year, the Floaters floated to million-selling success, but they sank without a trace pretty soon afterwards...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • for the table header add {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
  • Thelma Houston's "Don't Leave Me This Way" -- except for this, the series mentions the name of single followed by artist, perhaps it should be consistent?
  • could only climb as high as number 63 -- perhaps only peaked at number 63
  • That's all I got. Another solid work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk and source review

I see no problems with the prose, so why not a source review too:

  • Ref 6: Use apostrophes for quotes in quotes, per MOS:QINQ

ChrisTheDude, that's it, great work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of cranes[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of tapaculos already has three supports, so here we are with our next order of birds. Cranes are definitely more interesting than tapaculos, and more importantly, had up-to-date IUCN refs on their articles instead of me having to go out and format 60 different references manually (the joys of editing, I tell you). Thanks for reviewing! AryKun (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The Clements Checklist of Birds of the World and HBW and BirdLife Taxonomic Checklist should be italicized
    • Done.
  • Header: Genus Grus – Brisson, 1760 – 8 species - Grus is linked to a disambig page
    • Fixed.
  • The top image should have no period at the end of its caption, since the caption isn't a complete sentence
    • Done.

AryKun, that's all, lovely work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, addressed all. AryKun (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - if you get any time, I'd appreciate any comments here- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two Tigers

Some quick comments, nothing too major:

  • Ref. 1 uses a different format
    • Changed to Cite journal
  • Images need alt text (the maps aren't critical, but the pictures of cranes should briefly describe appearances)
    • Added, I think maps don't need alts because the range description provides a sufficient alternative
  • If BirdLife International is going to only be linked once in references, it should be at the first occurrence (ref. 3)
    • I currently count 3 such links – either link only 1 or all of them
      • Linked all.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another list! And of some very striking birds, too.

  • First off, I suggest you change the section heading for the list proper from "Cranes" to "Gruids" to match previous lists.
    • Done.
  • Cranes fly with their necks extended outwards instead of bent into an S-shape and their long legs outstretched. Why is this significant? Does it differentiate them from, say, storks or herons? You might want to note why this fact needs saying.
    • Added that it helps tell them apart from herons; I'd like a better reference for that, but most proper field guides assume that you know this.
  • The cladogram is a bit big; I'd say extend it horizontally so the names aren't being pushed down a line but I understand that that involves technical aspects out of your expertise.
    • Expanded.
  • Why doesn't the Siberian crane have a range map? There's one in their article.
    • Added.
  • All the sources look good, a spot check reveals no issues, and there is (unsurprisingly) no copyvio per Earwig.

Cheers! --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Bath City F.C. seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): Krashaon19 (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is high enough quality... Krashaon19 (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • No article should start with "This is a list...."
  • Bath played in leagues prior to 1908 (eg Bristol and District League), so it isn't true that they only "joined competitive football" in that year
  • Link Western League in first sentence
  • "The club spent the first three years of its history in the early 1890s as Bath association football club" - is this relevant if the list doesn't start till 1908?
  • "though Bath has missed out" => "though Bath missed out" (election has not been an option for over 30 years, so this tense is more appropriate)
  • "including 1935, 1978 and in 1985" - why is "in" randomly in front of the last date?
  • "beating league sides such as; Crystal Palace" - no reason for semi-colon there
  • "Albeit, they were promoted" - no reason for "albeit"
  • "played in the conference for the first time since 1997" - Conference should have a capital letter, also it isn't linked, also you say they played in the Conference "again", but this is the first mention of it
  • "In total, Bath have won two Southern League Western Section titles - 1929–30, 1930–33, three" - you need a closing dash to mirror the starting dash, not a comma
  • You need the arrows to indicate promotion and relegation in the key
  • The top goalscorer column sorts alphabetically based on forename. It should sort based on surname
  • You should add a note indicating how Bath went from the WL to the SL in 1921
  • Bath were in the SL Premier Division from 1959 onwards, why do you just show this as "SL" in the table (making it look like they were relegated from the Southern League to the Southern League Division One, which makes no sense)
  • The Conference was a single division from 1986 until 2004 and was not called the Conference Premier, so the abbreviation CP is not appropriate
  • "Includes goals in the, Conference" - that comma is not needed
  • "League and cup matches (including Southern League, Alliance Premier League/Conference and National League South, and FA Cup and FA Trophy are counted, but excluding Western League and play-off matches)." - the closing bracket should be after National League South
  • "From 1920 to 1958, one of the highest levels of non-league football was The Southern League" - no reason for capital T on The
  • "....being on a similar level to that of the Football League Third Division" - this is not true
  • "Football League Fourth Division was created" - why is this relevant?
  • "no non-league teams were allowed to apply for election to the English Football League that year." - this is not true
  • "Though winning the division, Bath missed out on election to the English Football League for a second time." - it was not called the English Football League at that point in time
  • Also that note needs a full stop
  • "Bath missed out on election to the English Football League for a third time" - both those last two points apply here too
  • "With the formation of the Conference South in 2004, The Southern league became tier seven" - there should not be a capital on The, but there should be one on league
  • "Subsequently, The club" - no reason for capital T on the
  • What makes a reliable source? It just looks like some random guy's personal website on a free hosting service
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks Chris will try and resolve these issues. Krashaon19 (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One thing I would add, is that the source is reliable, though it's appearance is rather un-professional and a tad tatty, the creator and editor of the site is an employee of the club, he has been with City for 15 years and has vast knowledge of the club's history, the archive used to be on the official club site, but was moved when the Bath City website was redeveloped, though it looks like it, it is not just a random fan's free hosting service.
    Everything else you mentioned seems spot on though, and I will change it strait away. Krashaon19 (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't understand the note "Bath's closest chance to gaining entry into the football league, gaining 23 points, 3 points short of Wigan Athletic." Do you mean they got 23 votes in the election? If so, use the word "votes", as "points" is confusing given that they gained points during the season. And I am baffled where Wigan come into the picture. They were in the Third Division in 1985 so wouldn't have factored into the election voting in any way..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry the note was meant for the 1977–78 season. Krashaon19 (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It still doesn't make sense. In 1977-78, Bath finished top of the SL (Premier Div) with a record of played 42; won 22; drawn 18; lost 2; GF 83; GA 32; pts 62. Wigan finished second in the NPL with pld 46; w 25; d 15; l 6; gf 83; ga 45; pts 65. I don't see the figure 23 anywhere in these records. Also, you cannot compare points in one league with those in another league covering a different part of the country, especially when the number of matches played differed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No sorry, it isn't clear, as Chris says the club claimed 23 votes in the election to the football league, not 23 points, I'll change it now. Krashaon19 (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Earwig is showing a big copyvio issue on this site- though, I'm not sure if the site copied from Wikipedia. ChrisTheDude, what're your thoughts on this, being a much more experienced editor? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Add Template:Use British English or the like
  • The club is affiliated to the Somerset FA - to the Somerset? Should be with the Somerset- Or is this some football standard term Im unaware of?
  • The club were crowned Southern League champions - was crowned
    • Jumping in to add, it's actually correct as it stands in British English - team names are considered plural when referring to the actual team competing on the pitch (as opposed to the corporate entity which they represent). See, for example, this news article, the opening words of which are "Manchester United were crowned champions", or this one, which actually uses the exact wording "the club were crowned champions".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In total, Bath have won two - has won
    • Same as above. It's always "Liverpool have won the league" and never "Liverpool has won the league" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying! Struck out those points MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In total, Bath have won two Southern League Western Section titles - 1929–30, 1930–33 - three Southern League titles - 1959–60, 1977–78, 2006–07 - one Southern League Cup - one Football League North - 1943–44 and twenty five Somerset Premier Cups - this is divided oddly, and the dashes are not being used correctly. I think it'd be better with parentheses: "In total, Bath have won two Southern League Western Section titles (1929–30, 1930–33); three Southern League titles (1959–60, 1977–78, 2006–07); one Southern League Cup; one Football League North (1943–44) and twenty five Somerset Premier Cups"
    • Also, why no years for the Southern League Cup?
  • I know nothing about football, so I don't know what the letters in the headers under "League" mean; add a link or efn
  • All the names under the "Player(s)" header should be sorted by last name (see Help:Sortable tables for more info)
  • Why is the "Average attendance" column not sorting in number order?
  • The "Ref" header doesn't need to be sortable (see Help:Sortable tables#Making selected columns unsortable for details)
  • Footnotes a, d, e, f, g, h, i, and j all need citations
  • Why is Miller 2003 listed under "References" if no citations point towards it?
  • All the citations to the Bath Chronicle should have "Bath Chronicle" removed from the publisher parameter and put in the website parameter. Then, put British Newspaper Archive in the via parameter
  • Remove ISSN from ref 4 to comply with the style of other citations
  • What makes the following sources reliable:
  • Remove the period from the caption of the image, per MOS:QINQ

Krashaon19, all done; a bit of work needed, but lovely job on the consistency of the table cells! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, is it allowed if you edit some of the issues you listed above, or does it have to be the nominator? Just fairly inexperienced. Thanks. Krashaon19 (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Krashaon19, I certainly can, if you're confused about some- I do realize it can be confusing, particularly regarding the table formatting. What do you need assistance on? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much! I'm not great at putting sources into notes and also changing the way in which a column is sorted. Probably some of the things that confuse me the most about what you listed. Krashaon19 (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Krashaon19, go ahead and address all the ones you can above. If you're confused about one, just leave it as is- if you fix it, use <s> and </s> to strikethrough the comments. This will tell me which ones need fixing by me. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay I'll do my best :) Krashaon19 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angeline Quinto discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After bringing Angeline Quinto's list of songs and awards to FL status, here's another related list I am nominating. I've worked on her discography by adding a concise and readable introduction/lead, formatted the tables, and thoroughly searched for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "Other songs from the album were also released as soundtracks for television shows" - I would say "Other songs from the album were also used on the soundtracks of television shows" would probably be more correct
  • "In 2018, Quinto was featured in Dingdong Avanzado's single" => "In 2018, Quinto was featured on Dingdong Avanzado's single"
  • For the section currently headed "Usages as soundtracks", I would simply this to "Soundtrack appearances"
  • That's all I got. Great work as ever from our leading Filipino pop contributor :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your review ChrisTheDude, all actioned. Appreciate the very kind words ;) Hope to see more contributors in this space as well. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Under "Soundtrack appearances", the song "And I Love You So" is linked to a different song- is this a cover of that song? Clarify
Yes, the theme of the show is a cover version of the Don McLean song.
  • Perhaps include her songs and awards in a "See also" section?

Pseud 14, nothing else from me, fantastic work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much for your review MyCatIsAChonk. All comments actioned. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "including four as featured artist" - Shouldn't this be "including four as a featured artist"?
  • "In 2011, she won the television talent show Star Power and was signed to a record deal with Star Music" - I'd go for the simpler phrasing "In 2011, she won the television talent show Star Power and signed a record deal with Star Music"
  • ""Saan Darating ang Umaga" for Budoy, "Hanggang" for Walang Hanggan, "Nag-iisang Bituin" for Princess and I, and "Kung Ako'y Iiwan Mo" for the series of the same name" - Were they used "for" the shows or "in" the shows? I could be wrong here
I think "in" is much more appropriate as you suggested. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's it from me. Would be more than happy to support once these are addressed. I've put up an FAC in case you are interested.--NØ 19:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your review MaranoFan. All comments have been actioned. Let me know if I might have missed anything. Did a media review for your FAC and will endeavor to review the prose soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi! It is pleasing to see you are working on another discography of a Filipino artist! I am happy to review. I will be reviewing this revision.

  • I see a lot of capitalization issues with the title of works, especially those written in Filipino:
    • "Patuloy Ang Pangarap", "Sana Darating ang Umaga", "Kunin Mo Na Ang Lahat Sa Akin", and others – There are inconsistencies in the capitalization of Filipino articles. Since the Filipino article "ang" is used as an article here (an equivalent to the English word "the"), it should be written in lowercase, the same as for other entries in the lead and the list (MOS:TITLECAPS).
    • Filipino prepositions and conjunctions (e.g., sa, pero) in song titles, such as "Kunin Mo Na Ang Lahat Sa Akin" and "Parang Tayo, Pero Hindi" should be written in lowercase.
    • In the "Singles / As featured artist" section, the preposition "With" in "In Love With You" should be written in lowercase (MOS:5LETTER).
    • In the "Soundtrack appearances" section...
      • ...the letter "l" in "lahat" in "Kunin Mo Na Ang lahat Sa Akin" should be capitalized.
      • ..."Nag-Iisang Bituin" should be written as "Nag-iisang Bituin".
      • ..."Maghihintay Sa'Yo" should be written as "Maghihintay Sa'yo".
      • ..."Fall In Love Again" should be written as "Fall in Love Again".
  • Is there any particular reason why Ladzkie is all capitalized ("Aking Pagmamahal" featuring LADZKIE)? I think it can just be written in title case instead, the same for the other entry in the list (MOS:ToW/TE).
  • Under the "Albums" section, the sources provided do not seem to verify or mention whether all her albums are released in CD and LP formats.
The media itself is the primary source (i.e. Daya discography, Julia Michaels discography). Pseud 14 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would remove the second link to PARI (specifically the one in the same row as Fall in Love Again) in the table under the "Studio albums" section since it is not a sortable table, and it's linked to the previous row, similar to what has been done to other FLs.
  • The table in the "Reissues" section is titled List of reissues, with sales figures and certifications, where no sales figures and certifications are present. Just title it List of reissues.
  • Under the "Promotional singles" section, I think it will be misleading if you use rowspan for the Himig Handog P-Pop Love Songs since it gives the impression that those songs belong to the same album when they are not. Each is part of a similarly titled album released at a different time. I suggest removing the rowspan and adding the year after the album's title (i.e., Himig Handog P-Pop Love Songs 2013 and Himig Handog P-Pop Love Songs 2014, respectively).
  • This one is just a question: how do you identify if a song is a single / promotional single?
Per WP:PROMOSINGLE there is no black and white distinction in the day and age of streaming. But for this list, and consistency with previous work, they would fall under songs that have not receive the same amount of attention as a proper single, used in ad campaigns, or included in a compilation release. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is my first time giving an entire review for an FLC, so feel free to object to any of my comments. Most of my comments are just about changes in capitalization by Filipino practice. This list is a solid list and deserves that star. Best of luck with your nomination! (P.S., Please do ping me once you are done in addressing them.) – Abacusada (t • c) 12:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review Abacusada. All actioned. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (season 3)[edit]

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now, season 3! This season contains probably the most famous of LWT episodes, Donald Trump, which broke the HBO viewership record for any piece of content. Also, why not forgive $15 million in medical debt just to beat Oprah? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • a second Peabody Award -- for the lead, since the first win seems to be for the previous season, and you are listing all awards won this season, perhaps only mention it as a Peabody Award.
  • that the show is "makes people dumb" -- that the show "makes people dumb"
  • 62 million views on Facebook -- worth linking Facebook
  • Great job as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Pseud 14, all fixed- thank you so much! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

Reserving a spot for later. Hopefully this is of similar quality to the season 2 list, which was very good.


  • Lead section, paragraph 2: "Episodes in the season were credited with influencing US law and culture, a phenomenon dubbed the "John Oliver effect": the main segment of episode three, titled "Donald Trump", set an HBO viewership record and received widespread media attention; in episode fourteen, which covered debt buyers, Oliver forgave almost $15 million in medical debt for 9,000 Americans." - Perhaps this should be two sentences.

Epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Paragraph 2: Not really an issue, but I remember seeing these blurbs a lot on NYC buses. Are there any other examples of blurbs, though?
  • Paragraph 3: It might be worth noting that Oliver did end up going into depth into Trump, though I'm not 100% sure. After all, Last Week Tonight segments about Donald Trump mentions that there are multiple episodes in this season specifically about his campaign.
  • Critical reception: "others found that these quips are what made the show compelling" - I'd change "are" to "were" to match the tense of the rest of the sentence.
  • Ratings: "Donald Trump" set an HBO viewership record, according to a spokesperson from the network" - Would it be sufficient to say ""Donald Trump" set an HBO viewership record", or is the spokesperson mentioned since it's disputed? (The main article on this episode says By the end of March, the segment had been viewed 23.3 million times on YouTube and 62 million times on Facebook, for a total of 85 million times on the two social media platforms, making its viewership "a record for any piece of HBO content".)
  • Awards: "for the segment "F*ck 2016"" - What episode was this?
  • Influence: ""Donald Drumpf" (a joke about the surname of Trump's ancestors)" - The parenthetical seems unnecessary since it's already described in "Critical reception".
  • Influence: Would it be worth splitting the medical debt segment into another paragraph?
That's it from me. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Para 2: I didn't want to add more than one quote just because they're all essentially the same message: "LWT bad". Besides, one could look at the poster in the infobox to see other quotes
Ratings: the "according to" is because it's a quote from a spokesperson in the episode's own article. To my knowledge, HBO (like many other streaming services) doesn't release data reports, so this is all according to that one spokesperson.
Influence point 2: The other season articles just have it in one paragraph, and splitting it would result in a three line para. IMO, doesn't look very clean
@Epicgenius: replies above, everything else was fixed, thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are fair points. Regarding the quotes, I was just wondering if more existed; that wasn't meant as a request to add more of them.
Anyway, I support this nomination. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Made a couple of tiny changes which it was easier to just make than list here - more than happy to Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm seeing three supports so I'll get the other stuff done

  • Image review - pass: The poster image is appropriately licensed with a source link provided.
  • Source review - pass:
    • I haven't heard of The Mary Sue but it does not appear to be used for any controversial claims here.
    • Other sources appear reliable for the purposes they are used. Spotcheck upon request.--NØ 09:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Did some copy-editing that was too minor to mention here.
  • "Last Week Tonight aired on Sundays at 11 pm, totaling 30 episodes in season three" These two clauses aren't logically connected, and "Totaling 30 episodes" sounds weird. I'd suggest "and had a total of 30 episodes".
  • "average high" sounds weird.
  • All I got. AryKun (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @AryKun, thank you very much- all fixed! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay, support on prose. AryKun (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Resolved comments from GeraldWL 07:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Should probably link Tim Carvell, John Oliver in Production
  • Why does the infobox alt text only mention the WSJ quote? IMO it should mention all of them
    • ALT text should be short as said at WP:ALT; but, for the sake of consistency, I cut the WSJ quote from the alt text so that it's summarized by

"Various negative quotes..." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Link Republican
  • For Critical reception I think you can put "Reception and aftermath" of the Drumpf article at a See also or More info hatnote.
  • For the social media views, I think it's safe to say it might be outdated, so I suggest specifying the time the spokesperson looked at it, also maybe including the latest one for the YT.
  • "Emmy" --> "Emmy Awards"
  • Suggest removing ref 30's ISSN to be consistent with the other refs
  • ref 32 should use publisher not website parameter

That should be it! Relatively short article so there's not much to talk about; the list looks fine to me. GeraldWL 05:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis, all fixed, with some replies above. Thank you very much! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Supporting~ :) GeraldWL 07:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Looks good overall.

  • 11 pm -> 11{{nbsp}}pm. Similarly, 5.6 million -> 5.6{{nbsp}}million.
  • Several wikilinks appear in the lead and are then repeated in the main body of the text (e.g. HBO, John Oliver, Tim Carvell, YouTube, Donald Trump). Per MOS:LINKONCE, they only need to be linked the first time.
    Note that the MOS only states "Generally." Furthermore, repeating links in main bodies is fairly common practice and also recommended, assuming some might decide to skip the lead entirely. GeraldWL 17:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm happy to go with the community's consensus if it's against me, but I just don't see what makes this specific article an exception to the general rule. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See other television FLs like 30 Rock (season 1) and The Office (American season 8); it's common practice in season articles (as far as I know) to link thing the first time in the lead and the first time outside the lead. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Likewise, per MOS:SURNAME, "Tim Carvell, John Oliver, and Liz Stanton" -> "Carvell, Oliver, and Stanton" in the Production section.
  • "in depth" or "in-depth"? The article uses both. I think the latter is correct.
  • "others found that these quips were what made the show compelling". What's the source for this? I checked the DeJarnette citation, but I don't see anywhere that he said that critics found Oliver's quips compelling.
    • Quote from the article: "In fact, when covering issues as esoteric as net neutrality, an occasional joke about dingos might be exactly what it takes to get the audience to the finish line. Of course, it’s probably not possible (or advisable) for journalists to match Oliver’s comedic chops." DeJarnette explains that the comedic quips make the show compelling. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "winning winning" -> "winning"

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Thousand Doors, replies above- thank you for the review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Hot Soul Singles number ones of 1976[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the 34th nomination in this series of lists and this time round it's all (well, largely) about disco, baby :-) Feedback as ever most gratefully received -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Use abbr template in the "Ref" column header
ChrisTheDude, I see nothing else, great work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk - very cross with myself for forgetting that :-) Now fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • more than one number one during the year; both acts had two chart-toppers -- more than one number one reads a bit repetitive or in close proximity with each other. Maybe tweak a bit like were the only two acts to achieve more than one chart-toppers, with two each or something alongs those lines.
  • That's all I got. Another great work in your series as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Pseud 14: - thanks for your review. I've made a slight tweak. Not exactly what you suggested but hopefully it works....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reads even better. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Did we ever make a decision on whether "partial subscription needed" applies to Billboard?
  • Everything looks great. Here comes the boilerplate.
  • 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 list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual 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, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 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) 20:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • One more thing: WP:UPSD puts the New York Post in a category of "source should generally be avoided, but context matters a lot here". If you can find a different newspaper for that story, great; if you can't, then leave it as is. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Dank: - I replaced that NYP ref. It was only being used to ref that McCoo and Davis had previously been in the Fifth Dimension -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support--金色黎明 (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of hominoids[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 01:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next up in our journey of animal lists, we another list of primates (#32 in our series of animal FLCs). This list is the third of the six-ish subgroupings of the order Primates, following the lorisoids and cercopithecoids, and is another superfamily. This one you may recognize: it's us! Hominoidea (hominoids) contains Hominidae (hominids) contains Homo (humans), so there we are in our fur-less glory, which really does set us apart visually, and never mind the bipedalism. Besides humans, we have 27 species of gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas, aka "apes". This one wasn't as hard to source, and is mostly filled out with pictures- people seem to care a bit more about our close relatives then they do about the endless minor varieties of southeast Asian monkeys. As always, the list follows the pattern of the previous lists and reflects previous FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The human list, I see! Nice to know the IUCN hasn't bothered to assess H. s. sapiens. (I have some confabulated memory of it once being "Least concern"?). I'll make a full read later, but a query: is this intentionally a list exclusive to extant families? Sorry if this is an obvious question; I haven't seen so many of the prior lists. It may be worth making it a little more explicit in the lead, though I'm unsure if FLC prohibits breaking the fourth wall that way, so to speak? I can read the "sorry, we don't know well enough" undertone in the lead after I stopped jumping around and read through it, but I'm not sure if every reader would read this implication well enough, and in the absence of an explication the absence of Neandertals et al stands out. Vaticidalprophet 13:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, all the prior lists restricted themselves to extant species and species that went extinct post-1500 CE. The reasoning being that paleontological taxonomy is extremely unstable and decentralized. I have more extensive lists of fossil cats that some paleo databases, for example, and paleontologists frequently disagree over what species and genera are valid or not, and the apparent consensus can change without warning. Oh, and new species, genera, and even higher-level taxa are named every year. Some earlier lists did have fossil taxa sections, which have since been removed as unmaintainable. SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, the "The twenty-eight extant species of Hominoidea" line that starts the second paragraph is supposed to indicate that this does not include prehistoric species, and then Classification starts with "The superfamily Hominoidea consists of two extant families: Hominidae and Hylobatidae." And yeah, the IUCN doesn't evaluate humans (or domesticated "pet" animals like cats or dogs, actually). --PresN 15:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)\Reply[reply]
  • Added, though I note that this is not a required template and I don't know why you want it added? All it does is add a category to the article.
  • Not sure how other FLs look, but I think "Conventions" would make more sense just above the tables
  • It's in that order (for this and the other lists) because it explains why the IUCN codes (which are used in the template on the right, which due to text length needs to be in the first text section, not the second) and what the daggers mean (which can be included in the Classification section), so it has to go before that section
  • A lot of the sfns lack years, but it is (to my knowledge) standard to include them
  • The only requirement is to be consistent. I'm not using Sfn, but even if I was it only marks the name as required, not the year. Some standard referencing styles may require a year always, but as per WP:CITESTYLE Wikipedia does not conform to any one style guide.

PresN, I got nothing else, great job as usual MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: replied inline. --PresN 20:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "hominoids, or apes" maybe drop the comma?
  • Dropped
  • "They range in size...including limbs" I can't quite put my finger on why but this sentence reads a bit weird.
  • Yeah, maybe because "limbs" is a weird word? I feel like I should put something, though- for animal lengths in general, the "size" is the head-body length, which doesn't include legs... but like humans, gorillas sometimes walk upright, and for humans we count the leg lengths in our overall size. If I don't include that bit, then I'm saying that the biggest hominid is shorter than a lot of humans. Open to alternate wording suggestions!
  • Does citing human habitat and diet fall under SKYISBLUE? I feel like it probably does.
  • Yeah, that was my thought
  • Link truffles?
  • Done
Image review
  • All images are correctly licensed and used.
  • Human range map is technically depicting population density, not distribution, as noted in the Human article.
  • True, though that's even better - added a note to the caption
  • The photo for humans is low quality, but I don't want to get involved in that flamewar, so no need to change it.
  • Yeah, I'm staying out of that one too
  • The Hainan black crested gibbon photo is basically just a silhouette; we don't have great options, but maybe a screengrab from this would be better?
  • Because of the terrible video quality and shaky camera, any screengrab would be a blurry mess that only shows half of the gibbon... I'm not happy with the silhouette, but I think that would be worse.
  • Okay, pass image review and support on prose. AryKun (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments by SilverTiger

Well, I held off to give others a chance to comment, but since it looks like one is still needed, I'll give it a look-see. I don't expect to have many comments.

  • aside from humans, the only exception is the eastern hoolock gibbon, which is classified as vulnerable.
  • There's a bit of an image issue what with the two range maps, the opening image, the Red List box, and the cladogram. On my screen, the cladogram is pushed down far enough that it sits on the left below the species list, which doesn't look great. And the Red List box is pushed down below the Conventions section where it normally sits. Would it be possible to get the two range maps to sit horizontally beside each other instead of vertically? Or you could request a combined range map be made for all non-human hominoids, and note that humans are found on every continent, everywhere, in the caption.
  • All sources look trustworthy and there's no copyvio, so pass on that.

And that's it. Nice work as always. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of international goals scored by Emmanuel Adebayor[edit]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emmanuel Adebayor is a Togolese former footballer who played for the Togo national team for almost two decades, he also played for European giants such as Arsenal, Manchester City and Real Madrid. With the national team he scored 32 goals in 87 caps (excluding a non-FIFA rec cap, according to the RSSSF), cementing himself as arguably the greatest football export from Togo.

I created this list a few months ago and I now believe it is FL standard. This is the 7th list of international goals I've nominated for featured status and I think these are almost always a speedy review due to their simplicity. Thanks in advance. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "87 FIFA recognised" => "87 FIFA-recognised" (also in the image caption)
  • "He made his international debut against Zambia on 8 July 2000 in a FIFA World Cup qualification match, he scored" - comma before "he scored" should be a semi-colon
  • "qualification win against Swaziland (Eswatini since 2018) on 11 October 2008, he scored four goals in the match" - so should that one
  • "Adebayor helped Togo qualify for their first and only FIFA World Cup" - I would change that to simply "their first FIFA World Cup", as it might not be their only one forever
  • "With the remainder of his goals, five, have come in friendlies." => "The remainder of his goals, five, have come in friendlies."
  • "Adebayor scored in his final game for Togo against Benin in March 2019, he later" - comma should be a semi-colon
  • "helped glorify Togolese football" - I really don't think that "glorify" is the right word here. I would suggest "helped raise the profile of Togolese football"
  • "Does not include the match against Burkina Faso on 14 August 2012, it was not considered a full A-international match by FIFA, but it is for the Togolese Football Federation." => "Does not include the match against Burkina Faso on 14 August 2012. The match is not considered a full A-international match by FIFA, but is by the Togolese Football Federation."
  • That's what I got....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All addressed. Cheers @ChrisTheDude. Idiosincrático (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk/Source review

I see no issues with the content and prose, so great job! I'll do a source review while I'm at it- no spotcheck needed, looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Is AfroSport Now reliable?
  • All the links to National Football Teams are showing up dead for me. If that's the case for you too, add "dead" to the url-status= parameter

Idiosincrático, I got nothing else, very nice work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't 100% sure on the AfroSport Now citation as it seems to be a relatively new outlet, I've changed the phrasing a bit and replaced it with a few other sources including Sports Illustrated, Goal and Vanguard Nigeria, which is seemingly rather reputable. As for the National football teams sources, each of the links are working for me and the website is working very well, its a site used commonly on these types of articles. Perhaps the site is geoblocked for where you live, or maybe an ad-blocker? Cheers @MyCatIsAChonk. Idiosincrático (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of accolades received by No Time to Die[edit]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 06:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After the Skyfall accolades article becomes a featured list, I will nominate this one too! Chompy Ace 06:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "becoming the third consecutive series theme song (starring Craig)...." - this reads a bit oddly, as it kinda sounds like he starred in the songs. I would suggest changing to "becoming the third consecutive theme song from a film starring Craig as Bond....."
  • That's it, I think - great work as ever on these lists! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 10:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I just thought of something else (on the same sentence). You say "the third consecutive theme song [....] after Skyfall (2012) and Spectre", but Skyfall and Spectre are films, not songs, so you should really name the songs. So it should be "the third consecutive theme song [....] after "Skyfall" (from the 2012 film of the same name) and "Writing's on the Wall" (from Spectre)". Sorry for not thinking of that earlier...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ChrisTheDude, done again. Chompy Ace 12:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you sort the Recipients header from A to Z, why does "Ana de Armas" sort with the C/Es?

That's it, great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, Ana is a first name while de Armas is a surname. Chompy Ace 12:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - thanks for clarifying, great job MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Older nominations[edit]

List of books bound in human skin[edit]

Nominator(s): Vaticidalprophet 02:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anthropodermic bibliopegy lurks the shadows of the collective consciousness, manifesting in the form of dark occult grimoires, Nazi atrocities, French Revolution contumacies, and lurking serial killers. The truth is stranger than any myth; most books bound in human skin come from respected 19th-century doctors, men acting with the approval of their peers and untethered by ethical qualms. The history of anthropodermic bibliopegy is the history of medical ethics, one of those histories where every law is written in blood.

The full list of books seriously thought to be bound in human skin is short enough for this to be as comprehensive as a semi-dynamic list will ever allow. Some authors chronology longer lists, but these generally predate the capacity for serious testing and have so little written on them as to make including them irrelevant; on the other hand, the number of books that have undergone gold-standard testing is so short even the ones with very little known are worth mentioning, and I've mentioned all I can. It's a fascinating story of medical overreach, ethical debate, and the historical dedication that lurks in the soul of every archivist. I recently split this list from the main anthropodermic bibliopegy article, which is currently in poor shape and had a rather outdated and speculative version of it. This is my first FLC (but not my first featured content), but from consultation with editors more experienced in the process than I, I believe it's ready for prime time. Vaticidalprophet 02:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from PMC[edit]

Putting myself down to comment. ♠PMC(talk) 02:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • In the lead, "the existence of 18 books bound in human skin, out of 31 claimed cases" - is this 31 claims ever, or 31 claims that they tested?
    • Tweaked to 'tested', though the number of total claims also seems really low. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "the first book confirmed through its use" might be nice to put what year this was done, or maybe what year peptide testing was invented at least
    • An earlier version had it, but it got trimmed out at some point (maybe that was during the Dark Archives FAC, because this is adapted from that background section). I remember trying to find a way to put it back in and finding they all read weirdly. I've reworded here (produces "in 2014", but eh, it's not like the article's at risk of proseline). This and other additions produced a very overstuffed second paragraph, though, so I've split it at what's hopefully a vaguely natural point. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The first mention of executed criminals comes in the 3rd paragraph of the lead, I might mention it a bit earlier first to set it up
  • What is your sort order based on? I can't see any logic to it. It's not alphabetical by book and although I see that you've grouped by collection, the collections don't seem to be alphabetical to me either. If it's by testing/confirmation date, you might want to make that explicit by adding a column.
    • I swear there is an order here, but it may not be apparent to any other person in the entire world. Having said that, there's much more of one for the confirmed books, because I had multiple "oh shit, forgot one [adds to end of list]" for the latter tables. I'll see what I can do about making the there's-an-order-I-swear clearer for the others. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • At the very least, if the default sort order is arcane, I would recommend putting a note explaining it. ♠PMC(talk) 01:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • It's based on vibes. There are definitely vibes here, I swear. (More formally, 'thematically similar' things are meant to be close to one another, but I'll see what I can do about making the...theme...apparent to anyone else, especially in the later sections where it's weaker.) Vaticidalprophet 09:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Shuffled a it at all clearer now? There are definitely 'thematic' groupings/similar books and claims near one another. The arrangement of those clusters is a little more arbitrary -- I've tried to put stranger or more attention-getting claims higher up. Vaticidalprophet 10:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why does "Essai sur les lieux..." have no comments at all? The empty cell stands out
    • God, it does, doesn't it? Given how many times this has been queried now, I'm considering adding something along the lines of "mentioned in Rosenbloom's list with no further details", cited to that list. Do you think that's...not going to get OR-accusations? I mean, there are no further details. {{cite entire rest of book}}? Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I don't see why it wouldn't work. I got away with something similar at Neptune, where I note that one author didn't even bother to remark on the clothing. ♠PMC(talk) 01:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Same question about sorting applies to all the tables
  • I might split up "supposed" into two tables - supposed individual copies, and widely-printed books that have been generally believed to have some anthropodermic copies somewhere. So "De integritatis" would be in the first, but De Sade's books would be in the second. Or at least sort them so they're together.
  • Should the goat skin book not be under "inauthentic" or is that just for ones confirmed inauthentic by PMF?
    • I'm trying to go for "hard confirmed either way" in each table, yeah -- multiple books in the suspected table are pretty much confirmed either way, but you can't rule it out. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I might put a note to that effect somewhere. ♠PMC(talk) 01:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all I have. No complaints/comments about the actual prose in the tables, which are fairly tight summaries of the circumstances. ♠PMC(talk) 19:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much! First replies, including some changes and some queries. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I still don't love the vibes-based sort order, but given that it's easily sortable for the reader, I don't feel it's worth dying over. The rest of my comments have been reasonably addressed, so I'm a support. ♠PMC(talk) 22:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I audibly gasped when I saw this hit the FLC list. Fantastic work- truly deserving of Wikipedia:Unusual articles! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Add Template:Use British English or otherwise appropriate
  • Should "The Gold Bug" be sorted at the top? I'd think it sorts with the rest of the "G"s
  • it "disappeared" in the 1990s. - why quotes? Is it not really gone?
  • Many of the citations are all to different pages to the Dark Archives, but it just duplicates the citation. IMO, putting Dark Archives in a "works cited" section and using sfns is much cleaner, or you can have one citation to Dark Archives and use Template:rp for the pages
  • IMO, the "Notes" column doesn't need to be sortable
  • Ref columns don't need to be sortable either

Vaticidalprophet, all done, fantastic job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for the review! I've added the BrEng template (usually I'd try to standardize to Oxford spelling, but this article has so few uses of ize/ise words it's easier to go for the more recognizable one). On the other points:
  • I've tried to sort a little more by collection and theme (i.e. what readers actually see in the Notes section -- putting all the Hough books alongside each other, etc) than alphabetical, because I think that's a little more reader-friendly and because people who want specifically alphabetical orders can arrange it that way. I haven't made all that many lists, though, and I'm willing to discuss that.
    • I think the default sorting is fine, but I was unclear on what I meant, sorry. When you click the "Book" header under Confirmed, it sorts alphabetically from A to Z. Poe's story is appearing at the top because it starts with a quotation mark, but I believe it should sort with the "G"s. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Disappeared" is what the source says and doesn't elaborate, so I quoted. I'm guessing along the lines that it hasn't been accounted for in the library since the 90s.
    • Ok; I think you should add "according to the library, the book 'disappeared'" somewhere near it; otherwise, it may insinuate theft or some other act that's unrelated to it (at least, that's what I think of when I see "disappeared" in quotes like that) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not a huge fan of shortened footnotes (it looks 'cleaner' to an editor, but readers from non-academic backgrounds don't necessarily recognize them -- I've seen edit wars moving sfns to 'further reading' because they "aren't references"). For rp, in this case the chapter titles are relevant in and of themselves because of one such chapter being a list of known anthropodermic books in libraries.
  • I haven't made a ton of tables, so I'm not sure how I'd go about making some sections sortable and some not. Any advice?
Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vaticidalprophet Responses above MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've fixed the table sorting and not-sorting, and reworded the Belgian library statement a bit to avoid a direct quote while getting across the intent of the source. Vaticidalprophet 03:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - excellent job! By the way, if you get time, would appreciate comment at this FLC- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by SilverTiger[edit]

Placeholder, ping me when Chonk is done with their review. I, too, was excited to see this at FLC, and can't wait to see what you do with the main article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SilverTiger12, Chonk has supported if you still want to comment :) Vaticidalprophet 02:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I do, I just didn't want you to have to deal with two (potentially conflicting) reviews at once. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The ability to unequivocally identify book bindings as being of human skin dates only to the mid-2010s. "only dates back to"
  • The origin of peptide mass fingerprinting permitted conclusive testing.. "The development of.."
  • Most legitimate anthropodermic books have passed through the hands of physicians, and many of them are dedicated to the practice of medicine. I get what you are trying to say here, but I feel like you could be clearer about it. Most of these books were bound by physicians- I think it's being implied that they were re-bound, unless these were new books being bound- right? And most of them seem to be about the practice of medicine and medical topics.
  • ...bibliopegy expert Megan Rosenbloom relatesconnects this to changing standards...
  • Another book from Hough's collection believed to trace to Lynch. "traced to" sounds like a massive understatement.
  • Another book from Hough's collection, speculated to be bound quite late in his life... "bound later in his life". And in that same entry, last sentence, remove the comma between authentic and due.
    • Well, not necessarily. The timeline on these bindings isn't great. I'll see if I can revise the others a little, actually -- I think they were all bound around a similar time, but this one is chronologically distinct from the others (the skin itself is much later, and it doesn't seem to have been done professionally). Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've tried to clarify the timelines here a bit -- it's tricky. Vaticidalprophet 14:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is that supposed to be a semicolon and not a comma after Cincinnati Public Library?
    • Yes. There are confirmed copies of that book in the University of Cincinnati Library and in the Cincinnati Public Library, which are different places. Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why does the Poems of Various Subjects have the While several purportedly anthropodermic books have made claims about the race or ethnicity of the people used to bind them, all such copies have turned out to be inauthentic. - it feels like it's going somewhere with that, like they're the only books where the race/ethnicity claims are authentic - but then it doesn't. Also, how many copies?
    • Two, presumably, or at least if one of the libraries has multiple copies Rosenbloom didn't see fit to mention (which would be odd). I'm not sure where else to go with that summary; we don't know any details about the people whose skin was used to bind those copies, including their race. We do know that other, different books that explicitly mention race are fake. Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Honestly, I would suggest removing that whole sentence since the same information is also given more generally in the lede, since such claims don't seem to have been made about Poems specifically. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I've tried to revise this and get across the idea more clearly (it's hard to get that nuance in a table). There's a lot of speculation on why books by the first black woman publishing in the US, specifically, were anthropodermic, and it'd be amiss not to mention it at all, but there's no evidence to base anything off so it's all very up in the air. Vaticidalprophet 07:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The last two entries of the confirmed list are very short on information. Is there really nothing more that can be added?
    • The fully blank one I tried very hard for and turned up nothing. The last one there might be some more -- I'll see if and what can be revised -- but it would still be on the shorter end. Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • If the information isn't out there, then it's not out there- a disappointing but uncontrollable circumstance. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overall, in the suspected list, I'd like you to be a little more consistent about why a given book hasn't or can't be tested- some are apparently lost, some the library in question refuses to allow testing, but some you just don't explain why.
    • If I don't explain why, I don't know why, unfortunately. In some cases the last source discussing the book is pre-2014 and I can't find further details on it at all. Rosenbloom does give a little detail on different reasons why a book might be untestable, so I'll add a little on that to the lead, which should hopefully cover most cases. Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've added a little to the lead about reasons an organization may decline testing. Vaticidalprophet 14:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In that same vein, you could stand to more consistently mention when the books were tested.
  • Source-wise, everything looks fine except the use of Facebook as a source, which I consider... questionable at best.
    • FB in this case is the official University of Memphis Library page, which I'm using as ABOUTSELF -- Gordon, the other cite, cuts off before the book was officially tested, and the primary source is the one that makes it clear it was found to be inauthentic. Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's pretty much it from me. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks so much for your review! I've replied to a few of these and will work on general tweaks/expanding the lead a little. Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SilverTiger12, I think most of these should be handled now. I've tweaked "passed through the hands of physicians", though I'm not sure if saying something that implies they were all bound by doctors is quite supported by the source, so it's still a little evasive. The "dates back to" one I think is mostly a subjective wording difference. How do you feel about the article right now? Vaticidalprophet 13:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. This list is well-written, informative, and fascinating. It manages to lay out details about the books and the practice without veering into the lurid and sensational, which I consider quite a feat. Though some might say a clinical, matter-of-fact tone makes it all the more chilling... --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional source review

Several comments have been raised about the sourcing and style of citations before, but it looks like a separate source review is still needed.

  • Earwig reveals no copyvio.
  • The source most often cited is Dark Archives, which is more or less THE book on this subject, so that's 90% checked right there. As I don't have access to that book, though, spot checks were not possible and I choose to assume good faith here.
  • The most obviously questionable source is Facebook used for a fairly trivial about-self factoid (asked and answered above), so while it isn't ideal I will give this a pass.
  • Citation 21 is to Atlas Obscura, a website with user-generated content. Is the author of the cited article a known subject-matter expert? Otherwise a different source should be found.
  • The rest of the sources look fine, mostly published magazines, newsletters, and scientific papers.

@Vaticidalprophet: so you see this. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Hey man im josh[edit]

Image review:

  • Images are relevant
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have alt text

Support: Looks good and it was a great read. Thanks for the work that you put into this. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of National Football League annual scoring leaders[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is #8 in the series of NFL annual statistical leaders. Formatting is based off of past successful featured lists from the series. As always, I will do my best to respond and address issues as quickly as possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Nowhere in the lead is "scoring leader" defined- this is likely very simple, but I'm not sure if it means something else (I have no AmE football knowledge); perhaps define it somewhere
  • As above, I'm struggling to understand something- all the ways to score points that you described in para 1 seem to be done by the team, but the list only describes individuals having points. What's going on here?

Hey man im josh, I see no other issues- again, apologize for my lack of knowledge on the subject! Excellent work on the tables! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @MyCatIsAChonk, thank you for taking the time to review my nomination. I believe I've better defined who the scoring leader is and how that's determined. The wording can be a little clunky when trying to describe these concepts, so please do tell me if it's not clear enough. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - much better! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drive-by comment
  • I concur with MyCatIsAChonk - the lead would benefit from clarification that in the case of a touchdown, the player scoring it is credited with the points, in the case of a kicking player the kicker is credited with the points..........are those the only options? I confess my knowledge of American football is not that wonderful either..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It's also striking that it always used to be non-kickers who were the leaders and now it's pretty much kickers all the way. Is there a reason why the game has evolved in this way that could (if appropriately sourced) be mentioned in the lead? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Hey @ChrisTheDude, thank you very much for the feedback. I've made some changes that I hope address your concerns. Kicking and scoring a touchdown are the primary ways of scoring, with a safety being the only other way to score, though these are not common.
The positional changes over time are more to do with the fact that positions in football were often not well defined early on in the league's history. As time went on, teams began to have dedicated, specialized placekickers, whereas before then the person who kicked field goals would usually be someone who played a different position on the team. In fact, if I were to do a full break down of how each player scored their points, you would find that a lot of the early "non-kickers" were actually kicking in addition to their regular duties. Don Hutson, the player who led the league in five consecutive seasons, has actually scored by rushing, receiving, returning interceptions, kicking, AND causing a safety! You can see this at the scoring summary section of this page. This means that Hutson scored in all 3 phases of football (offense, defense, and special teams), which would be unheard of nowadays. In short though, it's been the evolution of the game to have people become more specialized in positions instead of playing multiples like Don Hutson did. I considered trying to explain this in the lead, but I felt as though when working on it that it ended up being too heavily based on synthesis. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of accolades received by Avengers: Infinity War[edit]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 06:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the fourth MCU film to nominate to a featured list, with similar formats to other WP:FLs. Chompy Ace 06:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Image review passed: alt text looks good and the file is appropriately licensed.
  • I noticed that the unlike other lists you nominated, the awards column is aligned in the center in this list. Shouldn't this be kept similar between all these lists?

That's all from me. -- EN-Jungwon 17:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EN-Jungwon, done. Chompy Ace 19:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- EN-Jungwon 16:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snooker world rankings 1980/1981[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this list is in line with the standards for the Snooker world ranking lists for the previous years which are featured lists. In 1980/1981, Ray Reardon still topped the rankings as he had since 1976. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Thank you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Add Template:Use British English or other
  • Aren't refs 3 and 5 to the same site?
  • Location use in the refs is inconsistent; ref 1 has the city, while ref 7 has the same publisher but no city, yet ref 8 has a city and it has no publisher

BennyOnTheLoose, nothing else from me, another great article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support - I got nothing, you know what you are doing with these lists :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from EnthusiastWorld37

That's all I have for this list EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May thanks, EnthusiastWorld37. I've made the amendments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support – EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of tapaculos[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another bird list, this time the somewhat larger and lot more homogenous family that is the tapaculos. There are technically 65 species recognized by the IOU, but I'd say around 40 of them are clones of each other that no sane person would bother differentiating; taxonomists are not particularly good at avoiding such activities, so here we are. Have at it! AryKun (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from SilverTiger

Ooh, another list!

I'm hoping to get through a nice portion of the non-passerines before the end of the year, especially the smaller (<50 species) orders and families.
Nice, you can probably expect me to show up at a fair number of them. I hope this doesn't come across as rude, but are hummingbirds or owls likely to show up soon? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm currently trying to do the smaller orders, hummingbirds is really really huge. I'll probably do it at genus level (113 genera) and then also have separate species-level lists for four of the subfamilies (Florisuginae, Phaethornithinae, Lesbiinae [this is definite DYK bait], and Trochilinae). Owls is also probably done best at genus level, and then I don't really know what rank you could have a species-level list at. AryKun (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strigidae and Tytonidae are the next level below Strigiformes, which makes it the natural division for the lists. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strigidae has like 200 species by itself, but does seem to have three subfamilies, so I guess you could makes lists for those. AryKun (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will point out, List of parrots is 402 species and is currently an FL. So lists of several hundred species are definitely possible. But it is ultimately your call. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List of parrots is honestly absurdly long and needs to be split up to be of use. At that length, the reader's eyes are probably going to glaze over a fourth of the way through; any list longer than 150 species is probably too long. AryKun (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It probably could be split along superfamily or family lines, true. But nonetheless I would hesitate to make lists for anything below family level (at least for vertebrates), with few exceptions. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really see we shouldn't make lists of families at genus level and then make subfamily lists at species level. Some of the larger passerine families (tanagers, Old World flycatchers, tyrant flycatchers) would be really unwieldy at species level. AryKun (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • detected by their vocalizations. and ...are best identified by their vocalizations. - repetition.
    • Changed second instance to "calls"
  • Is the plural tapaculos or tapaculo? You seem to use both in the lede.
    • Both are alright I think, changed to "tapaculos" everywhere to be consistent.
  • ...with more than 30 species being described from the region. "having been described", or "endemic to that region".
    • Changed to "having been described".
  • ...are difficult to differentiate on the basis of appearance and are generally described based on the basis of genetic data...
    • Done.
  • Conventions and Classification sections are good.
  • "Boa Nova tapaculo" redirects to an article under a different name. Why the difference?
    • Article's at the wrong name, IOC uses Boa Nova on the checklist.
  • The rest of the table itself looks fine, although you're right those are a bunch of "small brown birds" that most people including me would not bother to tell apart. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since no-one else seems interested:

  • Spot checks of sources 3, 22, 44, and 62 match what they're being cited for.
  • All citations are to reliable source.
  • No copyvio per Earwig (really, I think copyvio in these lists is night impossible)

Therefore, pass source review. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'd have to be a really special kind of editor add copyvio into an article with essentially 2 paragraphs of non-boilerplate text. AryKun (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like there's very little wrong here, so I wouldn't be surprised to find no issues. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Support - Yeah, I got nothing, excellent work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "Tapaculos are ... best detected by their vocalizations. [one sentence] Tapaculos are ... best identified by their calls.": Oops. Should be combined somehow.
    • But neither of those sentences are about their vocalizations, and the vocalizations bits are to emphasize other aspects. In the first one, it's to emphasize their secretiveness and how hard they are to detect, and in the second, it's to emphasize how similar they look and how hard they are to visually differentiate.
  • "International Union for Conservation of Nature. [7 sentences] International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species": This isn't a mistake, since opinions vary on how many things from the lead can or should be repeated in the text below the lead, and the second sentence is (just) below the lead. But I think "(IUCN)" would work better after the first mention, and then the second mention could be "IUCN Red List of Threatened Species".
    • It's not in the lead, so I don't really see a reason to change it.
  • Chestnut-throated huet-huet, Ochre-flanked tapaculo: range doesn't match the map.
    • Fixed; consequence of having a lot of repetitive text copy-pasted.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. Otherwise, nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. There are no sortable columns. I 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 list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual 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, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At least two images don't have alt text; I stopped checking images at this point.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of presidents of New York University[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 22:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New York University was founded in 1831 and has had 17 permanent presidents. A fairly short article, this lists all of them. I based this on List of presidents of Georgetown University, which I had promoted to FL status. Ergo Sum 22:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Mills seems to be the first female president - worth a mention if you can source it
  • Any chance the photo captions could be made more informative than just the person's name?
    • I was trying to keep the captions minimal, since the list really should be predominant. I used the Georgetown presidents list as a template for the image captions. I'm not sure what else the captions would say that the reader might find useful, as opposed to clicking on the subject's article link and reading further there. Ergo Sum 15:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In Bennett's note you use a full stop to separate two factoids, whereas everywhere else you use a semi-colon
    • I did that to separate the statement about his leadership of NYU from the statement about his other positions. Also borrowed from the Georgetown presidents list. Ergo Sum 15:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 15:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't love the current division of the lead- I think the fourth para could be merged with the third, and the third could even be merged with the second. Your choice though
    • I've merged the third and fourth paragraphs. Those pertain to rather transient facts, while the second paragraph is about facts that are structural and unlikely to change. Ergo Sum 15:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The president recommends persons to fill - persons? No, people
    • I tend to like the distinction of "persons" is for multiple individuals separately and "people" is for multiple individuals collectively, but I realize "persons" is less common. I've changed it. Ergo Sum 15:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The tooltext for Ref. should just say "Reference" since "Ref." insinuates singularity
    • That is the automatic output of the template and contemplates the addition of future references. Ergo Sum 15:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ref 4 needs a website/work

Ergo Sum, all done, good work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 15:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - very nice job. If you get time, I'd appreciate any comments here. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Canada[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 08:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canada has 20 WHS and 12 on the tentative list. Standard style for this type of articles. The list for Costa Rica is already seeing support so I am adding another nomination. Tone 08:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a side note, Canada just got two new sites listed while this nomination is ongoing, so the lists do change every now and then. UNESCO lately started to use rather truncated texts at the site descriptions, so I am leaving the web-archived nomination refs as well. Tone 08:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Canada has served as a member of the World Heritage Committee four times, 1976–1978, 1985–1991, 1995–2001, and 2005–2009. - after "four times" I suggest using a colon instead of a comma
  • Centuries use "th" per MOS:CENTURY - looking specifically at "11-century", but there may be other instances
  • The complex contains eight turf houses, three of which were dwellings, one forge, and four workshops used for ship repair. - using commas for "three of which were dwellings" makes it look like part of the list; use parantheses to avoid confusion: "The complex contains eight turf houses (three of which were dwellings), one forge, and four workshops used for ship repair.
  • The site at Joggins has produced some of the best fossil record from the Carboniferous period... - fossil record? Do you mean fossil records? Or possibly fossils recorded?
  • a historical photo from Chilkoot Pass in 1898 is shown - replace shown with "pictured"
  • No image for Qajartalik?
  • The landscape in the high Arctic is defined by ice, however... - semicolon after ice

Tone, all done, very nice work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for checking! Fossil record is the correct term, and there is no free image for Qajartalik (the one in the dedicated article is fair use, which does not fly in this one). Fixed the rest. Tone 16:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The rivers" You don't mention any rivers that this could refer to previously.
  • "is the breeding ground" a breeding ground, whooping crane has two breeding populations.
  • "exhibit mountain landscape" landscapes?
  • "Landlocked freshwater fjords, glacier-scoured headlands" needs a conjunction
  • "present on a small area" in a small area?
  • "some of the best fossil record" pluralize
  • "brought around tens of thousands of prospectors" Tens of thousands is already approximate, around is redundant.
  • "assemblies at the Anticosti Island" remove "the".
  • "and they disappeared" "They" seems kind of unnecessary.
  • All I got, mostly just nit-picking on prose. Close enough to a support, but prose issues should still be addressed. AryKun (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed, thanks! I believe "fossil record" is singular, as it is a separate term, not "records". For Dorset, I wanted to highlight that they have not met Thule people as they have disappeared before their arrival. Tone 15:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If record is singular, it should be "one of the best fossil records" instead of "some of". AryKun (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Works with me :) Tone 17:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Source review – Reference formatting and reliability looks okay across the board. Unfortunately, it appears as if the site hosting the link-checker tool has bitten the dust, so I can't do that check, at least not without knowledge of a replacement tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indianapolis 500 Rookie of the Year[edit]

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This list is about the winners of the Indianapolis 500 Rookie of the Year and the Indianapolis 500 Fastest Rookie of the Year. I began reworking this list in December 2022 and now believe it meets the FLC criteria. All comments are warmly welcome EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't quite understand the point of the quotes in the opening sentences, these could very easily be paraphrased (and, IMO, they should be)
  • Is there any other photo that could be in the infobox? The current one is rather ghastly (no offense to uploader)
  • Sportsmanship is a drivers' relationship to fellow racers and fans - "with" fellow racers...
  • Voters are encouraged by the Indianapolis Motor Speedway (IMS) - who votes is defined? Also, does the speedway itself encourage them, or does the organization that runs it encourage them?
  • Competitors who outperform in their equipment during qualifying and the race, as well as those who led laps but retired, are given leeway. - could be my lack of knowledge on IndyCar, but what does "led laps but retired" and "given leeway" mean in this context?
  • It has formerly been sponsored by - who sponsors it now?
  • The rules state that the driver must be a rookie - likely worth defining rookie or linking to a definition page
  • drivers were evaluated on their willingness to follow United States Auto Club regulations, mental attitude, willingness to listen - willingness is used twice; replace one of them with a different word
  • The term "appearance" was defined by officials in 1958 as a driver who paid for or took part in prize money for one of the race's 33 starting spots. - why is this sentence here? Appearance is not mentioned in any of the criteria; in fact, this is the only time "appearance" is seen in the prose
    • Clarified that this was a rule change regarding who would be counted as a rookie from 1958 onward 11:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
  • They disqualified drivers - who's they?
  • It was established - "the award" was established, or similar; just don't use a pronoun to start a paragraph
  • Wl "points-based voting system" to Positional voting
  • The Herff-Jones Co. spent $6,000 - when? If before 2000, we should get a price in parentheses or an efn that says the price adjusted for modern inflation
  • It features the number 500 - avoid "it" here, as you've now brought many parts of the trophy into the question, so I'm not sure what "it" is
  • Footnote d: if the years are stated in the other footnote listing price changes, years should be listed here too
  • Under "References" what is the point of the "General" subheader? I cannot find any sfns or other references that direct to those
    • I was using those to verify the extra details in the main tables but have incorporated the references into the main ref list EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EnthusiastWorld37, quite a few issues with the prose, but I'm sure you'll get them fixed up well! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outline of lichens[edit]

Nominator(s): MeegsC (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm testing the waters a bit, because regulars here tell me that no outline has yet reached FL status. I'm hoping to change that, and to get the first featured list for our relatively new lichen task force. As well as informing our readers, this outline is helping us to figure out what articles we still need to create. It's all referenced, but I am wondering whether the lead should be in outline form (as suggested in the outline documentation) or a full lead (as suggested by the FL criteria). Open to suggestions, and looking forward to hearing what others think. MeegsC (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Alright, not really sure how to review an outline, but I'll have a stab at this.
  • This looks pretty comprehensive and doesn't really have much prose to review, so pretty close to a support; my only comments are that the images all need alt text and that the spot test image could use the more descriptive caption present at the article to better contextualize what's going on. AryKun (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks AryKun! I'll get those sorted ASAP. MeegsC (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AryKun, I've made the changes you suggested. Can you please have a look and tell me if they meet your approval? Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, support on prose. AryKun (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source review

Doesn't look like there's any prose issues, so I'll do a source review- no spotcheck, just looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Ref 26 needs page number; ditto 44, 46, 54, 55, 56
  • What's ref 60 pointing to? As far as I can see in the "References" section, there's no British Lichen Society 2022a
I'm not sure why that wasn't working. I had a "ref=" parameter that had the same name as one of the article subsections, and for whatever reason, it was going to that subsection instead of the reference! I changed the ref name and it's working now. (The ref was already there.) MeegsC (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. MeegsC (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kraichak 2018a: no doi? No JSTOR? Not even an SC2ID? If none apply, I'd be surprised if there were no webpage available
Added DOI, S2CID and Researchgate link. MeegsC (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MeegsC - That's all from me, nice work on the prose. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks MyCatIsAChonk! I'll work on fixing these and will let you know when I'm done. MeegsC (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of songs recorded by Basshunter[edit]

Nominator(s): Eurohunter (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of songs recorded by Swedish musician Basshunter. The last song "Ingen kan slå (Boten Anna)" was released on 23 June 2023. He has recorded a lot of unreleased tracks like "Livets fard", "Horn of Orcs", "Ni är det bästa som finns" or "The Indian" but they never were mentioned in any publication so I had to omitted them. It previously passed GOCE and was peer-reviewed. Structure is after similar featured lists. Eurohunter (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from MyCatIsAChonk[edit]

Surprised to see no comments after three weeks on the market- happy to review. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • He published his music mainly through the internet. - rather vague, to what sites? BandCamp? YouTube?
    •  Comment: Unfortunately there is no source mention certain websites but I added "for free download on platforms such as chat channels and gaming websites.". Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's better. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Done Eurohunter (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Every time a year is used as a dependent clause (e.g. "In 2008...") it needs to be followed by a comma. Right now, only some instances have commas.
  • Same thing for "According to ____...", anytime a clause like that is stated it must be followed by a comma
    •  Done. I added commas but I'm not sure of first case - "According to Swedish magazine Filter, in 2004, Basshunter had already composed up to 300 songs." - not too many commas? Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's just fine. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • His album, The Old Shit, and The Bassmachine were... - is that not two albums being listed? If not, clarify
    •  Comment: What do you mean by "being listed"? The Bassmachine is a studio album and The Old Shit is a compilation album. Both albums were released at the time in 2006 on Basshunter website. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now I understand, my confusion was between the difference of the two. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Done Eurohunter (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not sure if I'm misunderstanding, but the article for LOL says it was his second studio album, while this article says it was his first- same numbering issue with Now You're Gone
    •  Done. Yes. LOL is the second studio album and Now You're Gone – The Album is the third studio album. I don't know what happened, but I fixed it. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "Writer" cell for "Al final" needs a cross
  • Songs that start with "the" should be sorted by the word after it (e.g. "The Basshunter" should be sorted as "Basshunter, The")
  • Footnote "as" has a typo, should read, "Originally released as single, "Welcome to Rainbow" was released on later release of Now You're Gone – The Album.[9]"
    •  Comment: Do you mean just missing comma? I added it. Should I also add comma to note i and t? Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ironically, I think I made a typo in my own comment. Disregard this comment. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Done Eurohunter (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:James Lord Pierpont.jpg - source link is dead and it needs an international PD tag
    @Eurohunter, firstly, yes, the archive url needs to be added to be description. Secondly, the tag under "Licensing" only covers its PD status internationally (I got it backwards in the comment, my apologies). It need another tag to cover its status in the US. PD-old-expired should be right. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Comment: @MyCatIsAChonk: I added link to archived version. Why it need another tag to cover its status in the United Status? What about Mexico and the other countries? Template PD-old-expired for the United States mention United States Copyright Office, but I don't know if it's registered there. Eurohunter (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Eurohunter, Wikimedia servers are in the US, so they must comply with US copyright law. But, because media on Commons are used across all Wikipedias, media must also be available internationally. Now, I realized an error on my part- how can it be PD in countries with a 70+ author death copyright term if the author is unknown? My bad- PD-anon-expired should be right because it states that it was published before 1928 (making it public domain in the US) and that it was published over 95 years ago (making it public domain in most countries). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Done @MyCatIsAChonk: I changed template PD-old to PD-anon-expired. Eurohunter (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eurohunter, that's all from me, good work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Summary: @MyCatIsAChonk: Your comments have been noted and issues has been taken into account. Some issues require further comments from you. 👍 Thank you. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See responses above- only one requires further action. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support- very nice work, all my points have been addressed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from ULPS[edit]

Not too many, (MyCatIsAChonk commented on most of my concerns) but I'll add to them if I see anything else. ULPS (talkcontribs) 23:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • His album, The Old Shit, and The Bassmachine were released on his website in 2006.. You already mentioned The Bassmachine being released in 2004, as well as his music being released through the internet, what is special about this release that you stated it again? Did it come out for free? Probably clarify.
    •  Comment: Yes, I added it because actually both albums were released on the same time on Basshunter website, so I think just to mention The Old Shit would be not enough or out of context. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I still think it's a bit weird to mention again, perhaps say The Old Shit and The Bassmachine were made available to purchase through his website in 2006? ULPS (talkcontribs) 15:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
       Comment: Yes, they both were released in 2006 on Basshunter website, but only The Old Shit was actually premiered and The Bassmachine was released already earlier in 2004. Eurohunter (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Then that is fine I guess, no way to really write that without being too clunky. ULPS (talkcontribs) 18:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
       Done Eurohunter (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The album consisted of seven songs from two previous Basshunter albums, The Old Shit, and all 10 songs from The Bassmachine. I am not quite sure what this is saying, is it 7 songs total from two previous albums, something from The Old Shit and all of The Bassmachine? Why is the number of tracks from The Old Shit not mentioned? The sentence should be reworded for clarity.
    •  Done. I don't know why, but it was kinda unclear. I changed it to "The album mostly consisted of songs from two previous Basshunter albums, 7 songs from The Old Shit, and all 10 songs from The Bassmachine." Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The grammar in footnote "b" is a bit off, I believe the meaning is something along the lines of "According to the ACE Repertory, the song "Utan stjärnorna" was co-written by Basshunter and Ali Payami. However, in the 2006 release of Basshunter's "LOL" album, the song, translated as "Without Stars," is credited solely to Basshunter as both the writer and producer.
    •  Comment: It's good idea, but I wanted to mention that LOL had different versions released in different time, and it was just one of the versions. So I would like to use your idea but there need to be mention that it is not the original/first/premier version of LOL - I don't know how to mention it. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I think the way I stated it works (2006 release implies there was another release IMO), but you could say "second release" (or whatever number release it was). You could also say the "2006 re-release" ULPS (talkcontribs) 15:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
       Comment: @ULPS: There is a lot of physical and digital versions - exact release dates are not known for some versions, so then it would be very hard to count if it's 6th or 7th version etc. Eurohunter (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      So why not say the 2006 re-release? ULPS (talkcontribs) 18:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
       Comment: @ULPS: Hard to say. For example, if someone released an album in the United Kingdom on CD then two weeks later the same or other version would be released in Sweden - would we call it a re-release? Eurohunter (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Eurohunter: Yeah I guess not. I think the grammar can still be cleaned up from Later 2006 release of LOL album at "Without Stars" it indicates that Basshunter solely written and produced song to On the later 2006 release of LOL at "Without Stars" it indicates that Basshunter solely wrote and produced the song. This doesn't change the meaning, just the grammar. I made this change myself, feel free to revert if you think of something better :) ULPS (talkcontribs) 15:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @ULPS:  Comment: I think it's better and I will fix the other cases in the same way. Eurohunter (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Great! ULPS (talkcontribs) 15:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
       Done Eurohunter (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all from me, nice job! ULPS (talkcontribs) 23:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Summary: @ULPS: Your comments have been noted and issues has been taken into account. Some issues require further comments from you. 👍 Thank you. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support ULPS (talkcontribs) 15:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from A Thousand Doors[edit]

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good overall. These are my edits, please revert if you don't agree with them.
  • "A cover for "Angel in the Night"." Does "cover" here mean the single's cover art?
    •  Done. It was messed during copy edit. It was supposed to mean single, so I chanted it to "A single "Angel in the Night", and cover of "I Miss You" by Westlife were later released.". Eurohunter (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "7 songs" -> "seven songs", per MOS:SPELL09.
  • All songs beginning with "The" (including "The Indian") needs to sort under their second word.
  • Per WP:GALLERY, image galleries like the one in this article generally shouldn't be added. If there's no space to add the images next to the table, as in similar lists, then I'd suggest just removing them altogether.
    •  Comment: Before images were on the right but someone moved them to gallery due to some problem on small screen or mobile version. I would add them on the right again or remove them. Do you have the other idea? Eurohunter (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Citation 31 is a dead link.

My current open FLC is Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of Brexit/archive1. If you have any time, I'd welcome any comments on it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Summary: @A Thousand Doors: Your comments have been noted and issues has been taken into account. Some issues require further comments from you. 👍 Thank you. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A Thousand Doors: What do you think? Eurohunter (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for not responding to this sooner. I have made some further edits here. Please revert if you don't agree with them.

  • The article says that The Bassmachine was released in 2004, but then also says that it was released in 2006. I'm a bit confused by this – was it re-released in 2006, or did Basshunter make it available for free on his website, or something else?
    •  Comment: The Bassmachine was released in 2004 but in 2006 album was released on Basshunter website together with new compilation album The Old Shit. Eurohunter (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Maybe you want to use a verb other than "released", then? How about "were made available to buy on his website", or something similar? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Similarly, "Ingen kan slå (Boten Anna)" needs to be below "In Her Eyes" when the table loads.
    •  Done It's a good question. Should I ignore hyphens, apostrophes, periods, commas and also spaces? I did it right now. Eurohunter (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Don't ignore spaces, no. Ideally, when the table first loads, it should match how the table looks when you sort by title. At the moment, if you sort by title, "Bass Worker" jumps above "The Bassmachine", "Här kommer Lennart" jumps above "Hardstyle Drops", "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA" jumps above "Vifta med händerna", and "Fest i hela huse" jumps above "Festfolk" [2006 Remix]. Speaking of which... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The prose in the fourth paragraph could be improved. At the moment it's just a collection of sentences about the singles from Calling Time, and it just doesn't flow together very well. There's one sentence on "Saturday", then one sentence on "Fest i hela huset", then one sentence on "Northern Light", etc. I don't think you need to go into this granular detail by listing every single from the album. I'm happy to work with you on rewriting this, if you'd like. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: If you have any better idea for it, let me know. Eurohunter (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If LOL was his second studio album, then what was The Old Shit? Was that compilation album?
  • A compilation of what, exactly? Songs that weren't on The Bassmachine? B-sides? Remixes that he's done? Something else? The lead would benefit from explaining this. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment: Strictly it "consists of songs from two previous Basshunter albums, seven songs from The Old Shit, and all ten songs from The Bassmachine. "Go Down Now" from single "Angel in the Night" and a promotional single "Wacco Will Kick Your Ass" and four unreleased songs.". I think the second sentence not fit well but I don't have idea how to connect it in better way with the first sentence. Eurohunter (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It sounds like you're describing The Early Bedroom Sessions there, but I asked about The Old Shit. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: Oh you mean what is on compilation album The Old Shit. It consists of unreleased tracks. Eurohunter (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What about table sorting? Titles with spaces should be above these which has no spaces? Eurohunter (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Was "Festfolk" [2006 Remix] a new recording, or just a remix of the original "Festfolk"? If it was just a remix, should it be included in this list, since it isn't technically a song recorded by Basshunter? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment: Hard to say. It's described just as "[2006 Remix]". If you look at 2006 "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA" and 2007 "DotA" - they could describe it also as "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA [2007 Remix]". Instead of it they relead new version as "DotA" in 2007. In the same way there are 2008 "I Can Walk on Water" and 2009 "Walk on Water" instead of "I Can Walk on Water [2009 Remix]". Eurohunter (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've just listened to both tracks, and they sound pretty much the same. It doesn't sound like Basshunter has recorded anything new for the 2006 remix, so personally I think it can be removed, since you don't list any other remixes, but I'll leave that with you to decide. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The final sentence in the thrid paragraph is a sentence fragment. What are you trying to say there? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment: As above. It is related to compilation album The Early Bedroom Sessions. Eurohunter (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's still an incomplete sentence though, which needs to be addressed. It might be best just to remove it entirely. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The final sentence of the third paragraph is "Go Down Now" from single "Angel in the Night" and a promotional single "Wacco Will Kick Your Ass" and four unreleased songs. This is an incomplete sentence and doesn't really make any sense, so I've removed it for now. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: The Early Bedroom Sessions actually "consists of songs from two previous Basshunter albums, seven songs from The Old Shit, and all ten songs from The Bassmachine" and include ""Go Down Now" from single "Angel in the Night" and a promotional single "Wacco Will Kick Your Ass" and four unreleased songs.". Should I add "and include" - connect two sensence or is it possible to write it in other way? Eurohunter (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I just don't think it's necessary to go into that granular level of detail. Here's what I've come up with instead. Let me know what you think. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: @A Thousand Doors: Okey but there were also four unreleased songs so "The 23-track album consists of songs from The Old Shit and The Bassmachine, plus three songs from Basshunter's early single releases" would mean that all 23 tracks are just from The Old Shit, The Bassmachine and from early single releases while actually 4 tracks from 23 were never released. Eurohunter (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • If you sort the table by a column such as year, and then re-sort the "title" column, all the songs starting with "The" now appear under T. This is wrong, they should appear under the first letter of their second word (as they do when you initially arrive on the article) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline of Brexit[edit]

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(This is my first FL nomination in over four years, so I hope the process hasn't changed that much since then...) I've been working on this list for a few months now, and, following a peer review from User:Llewee, I now feel that it is worthy of the bronze star. The structure of the article is largely based on Timeline of the Manhattan Project, currently a FL. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • Spell out United Kingdom and European Union at their first occurrence (and probably link them as well)
  • "Prime Minister" should be / should not be capitalized in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLE
    • Same for "Leader of the Opposition", "Chief Negotiator"
  • "post-war" – not a fan of this term since it's unclear which war it refers to
  • "the 'long campaign'" – capitalize "The"
  • "and will now be placed" – don't use future tense (comes off as awkward for an article set in the past)
  • "Royal Assent" – use lowercase (occurs several times)
  • "will now take place" – don't use future tense
    • Rewriten. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)