Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list statistics Wikipedians by promoted featured list nominations Today's featured list This month's queue TFL submissions TFL statistics Featured lists that have appeared as TFL Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log

This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, with the most recent at the top. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log.

Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2025. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2025.

Full current month log

view - edit - history

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC) [1].

---

List of governors of Akwa Ibom State

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

This is the list of governors of Nigeria's state of Akwa Ibom from when the region was called Eastern then splitted into South-Eastern and two other states, then South-Eastern ranamed to Cross River and Akwa Ibom created out of Cross River. I have significantly worked on this and it now meets the criteria for FL. Feedback would be very much appreciated. Thank you already. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• Please add archived to all online sources as they are already on some of the.
  • I've been told that this isn't part of the featured content criteria, which I why I stopped adding (if you watch my most recent FLcs).
• Why are some rows in the party columns merged while others are not? Please make this consistent.
  • The rows are merged because they have common contents across two or more columns. I think it makes sense to just merge the rows and put the content once instead of adding the contents over and over again.
• The free use rationale for File:Photo of Brigadier Udokaha Jacob Esuene.jpeg is incorrect, it says, "It will be used in only one article" even though it is used on two. It also says "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of their biographical article", this use is neither at the top of the article nor is the article a biography.
  • Thanks, I fixed these.
• The purpose in the rational is also wrong for File:Joseph Adeusi.png.
  • Also fixed this.
• The alt text "Godswill Obot Akpabio portrait on suit" is not grammaticaly correct.
  • I rephrased.
• Some entries in the Deputy Governor column are missing citations.
  • I added citations
• Are the redlinked Deputy Govenors important enough to have an article? If not please remove the links.
  • Yes, they are; deputy governors are important and notable.
• In citation 13 is there an available link for "Nigeria National Assembly Senate"?
  • I linked to Senate of Nigeria
• In that same citation it should be publisher, not the author's surname.
• Ping when done.
  • @History6042: Thanks for taking a look and providing feedback. I have attended to all comments. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  For the archiving, it is not technically part of the criteria, it is just helpful for accessing links when they stop existing. For the merging, I mean the 4 rows of PDP at the bottom can be merged. @Vanderwaalforces. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 Merged, and it looks cool. Thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  Support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "After independence, Francis Akanu Ibiam (1960–1966) became the first Nigerian governor of the Eastern Region, while Michael Okpara served as its second premier (1960–1966)" - those date spans are the same, is this a typo?
• Note b needs a full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude yeah; one is a governor and the other a premier. Period added, thanks for looking! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Gotcha. In that case why mention the second premier but not the first.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude The paragraph starts with "After independence..." and the first premier was before independence. Also, based on other reviews, I said that the first premier does not make sense to be mentioned originally based on the chronology of the events. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  As the fact that the first premier was before independence isn't mentioned, it's still super unclear IMO. Maybe just remove "second" or say "first premier after independence".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude In fact, that's better! I removed "second". Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• The South-Eastern State, comprising present-day Akwa Ibom and Cross River States, - I find that a bit weird. Wouldn't it be better to say The South-Eastern State, comprising the present-day states of Akwa Ibom and Cross River,?
  • thanks, fixed.
• Quotation marks should be straight, not curly.
  • fixed.
• the state reverted to military rule under administrators like Yakubu Bako, Joseph Adeusi, and John Ebiye - Does that mean there were other administrators?
  • rephrased, thanks!
• with leaders such as Edet Archibong (1984), Dan Archibong (1984–1986), and Ernest Attah (1986–1992) - Same here with such as.
  • for this, yes there were others, but based on the chronology and Cross River's relation to Akwa Ibom, it stops with Princewill since he was the one ruling as of when Akwa Ibom was created.
• And why is Attah mentioned there but not included in any of the tables?
  • thank you! I replaced Attah's name with Princewill here.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alavense Replied, thank you very much for looking! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support. Alavense (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment by Reywas92

• This one isn't as bad when it comes to excessive detail and duplication rather than summarization in the lead, but consider if anything should be trimmed or structured differently between the lead and body.
• Since this list is about governors, please mention governors in the first paragraph, if not the first sentence. Even if there's important historical context to the various polities, the lead should get to the point. The same goes for your other lists as they are summarized.
• This also lacks any explanation of what the governor's responsibilities actually are. Since Nigeria is a federal republic I presume the governor has a certain amount of executive power so please add some about what they do.

Reywas92^Talk 15:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Reywas92 Thank you so much! I have now fixed this one and the others. Kindly re-check. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Support on Sources from Ibjaja055

• Spot checks pass (Citations 1, 5, 7, 9, 4, 10, 50, 34, 30, 45)
• Article is sourced reliably
• Proper and consistent wiki links to publications wiki pages
• Authors were added relevantly to citation template
• Dates too were added appropriately and consistently formatted (using DDMMYY format)
• Archives are not required and not a problem.

Nice work. Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC) [2].

---

Estonian Figure Skating Championships

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Since Canada was just promoted, this is the next national skating championship article in line. The results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, and the sources are properly formatted. This particular list has more in common with Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships, which was also promoted to FL. Special thanks to User:Estopedist1, who helped find the source for the very last competition installment that I could not locate. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "to crown the national champions of Estonia" - I would suggest maybe "the country's national champions" to avoid saying "Estonia" three times in one sentence I'm really hesitant to change that, because it's the same format used on all of the other articles that have been promoted, settled after a lengthy discussion a few reviews back...
• "due in part to Estonia hosting a number of high-profile events" - maybe same here Fixed.
• A few competitors seem to only have their surname listed. Assuming that this isn't a typo, maybe add a footnote to the effect that their full names are not recorded in reliable sources Yeah, we're lucky we still have these records at all. Footnotes added.
• in the footnotes under the records table, why are some names bolded? These skaters don't have wikilinks.
  • OK, but why are they bolded? There is no guideline that says that if someone mentioned in an article doesn't have an article of their own then their name should be put in bold...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Also, there are dozens of other people mentioned in this article who don't have articles of their own (eg Adolf Feldmann) and their names aren't bolded.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

    User:ChrisTheDude: That's fine; I can unbold them; it's no big deal to me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• That's all I got - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• User:ChrisTheDude, thank you as always for the feedback! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you so much as always for your feedback and support! Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• The reigning Estonian figure skating champions: Mihhail Selevko (men's singles); Niina Petrõkina (women's singles); and Solène Mazingue and Marko Jevgeni Gaidajenko (ice dance) - Commas would be enough here.

• Changed.

• the men's championship event - Isn't that redundant? I guess it would suffice to say either the men's championship or the men's event.
• while his younger brother Mihhail has won the event four times - while his younger brother Mihhail has won it four times

• Both are good points and have been fixed.

• Isn't it worth explaining somewhere why the events were held in 1961 in a city which is not in Estonia?

• It sure would be if there were an explanation to give. I'd guess it was a joint competition, but Latvian skating records prior to its independence from the USSR are nonexistent.

• I think it's weird to have text for the men's singles sections but not anywhere else.

• Unfortunately, there's not really been anything notable about the other events. The Selevkos are the only ones garnering any sort of press internally. Niina Petrõkina has garnered some press as well, but for her international results, not her national results. I could move that text up to the History section if you think that might be better.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• User:Alavense: Thank you for your feedback. Please let me know if you have any other concerns or suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of them. I'm happy with the replies: if there's no more information, then I have no problem with it, I just found it a bit weird when I first had a look at it and that's why I asked both about Riga and about the text before the tables. Happy to support now. Alavense (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TheDoctorWho

• I'd suggest adding an a caption to the logo in the Infobox using logo_caption = – normally I'd say it doesn't need one, but with the text not being in English it's not overly obvious to me

• Done.

• "Medals are awarded in men's singles, women's singles, pair skating, and ice dance at the senior, junior, and novice levels" ---> "Medals are awarded for each event at the senior, junior, and novice levels" – seems a little repetitive to list each event again so soon

• I have reworded that section slightly.

• "Since 2019, Aleksandr Selevko has won the men's event three times (2020–22),[14] while his younger brother Mihhail has won it four times (2019, 2023–25).[15]" – if Mihhail won first, why not list him first?

• Ha! I guess it was because Aleksandr is the older brother. I've switched them.

• In the Senior Medalist Pairs table, there are a few instances in which the end note is below both names. It looks like it may only apply to one of the two people? If so, could these be moved up to the name it applies to?

• Those names are in a template, so no.

• Just glancing at these tables, is there any information as to why the 1961 events were held in Latvia, or why there has been no pairs competitions since 2010? The history section seems just a tad lacking compared to similar ones you've brought here, if available both of these would be great to add to it.

• As mentioned above, I have no idea why the 1961 event was in Latvia. Latvian skating records prior to its independence from the USSR are nonexistent. As for pairs, you're asking for speculation. Yes, the history section is sparser than other articles I've promoted, but that's because the sources are non-existent.

• Almost seems like the records table may be improved by splitting up the column headers into individual/more descriptive titles. Something like "Record holder", "Titles won", "Years", and "Refs" (or something better, since you're more familiar with these), rather than one spanning the four columns

• This is how the table would look with those changes. I don't like that wide-ass column for the number of titles. You know how I am attempting to standardize these articles, and widening this table would also interfere with images that some articles show to the right (see French Figure Skating Championships, for example). That's why I have endeavored to keep this particular table as narrow as possible.

Records

Discipline	Most championship titles
	Skater	No. of titles	Years	Ref.
Men's singles	Alfred Hirv	10	1929–35; 1937–38; 1940
Women's singles	Vaike Paduri	14	1930–34; 1936–38; 1940; 1947–48; 1950–52
Pairs	Eduard Hiiop	10	1923–24; 1928–31; 1933–36
Ice dance	Nikolai Salnikov	8	1971–78

I think that's all that I have! TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• User:TheDoctorWho: I have implemented some of the changes you recommended. Please let me know your thoughts on the other issues discussed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• I thought about it and came up with this. It's not much wider than the original table. Of course, now I have to go implement this change to about two dozen skating articles. 😂 Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  Happy to support with the changes that have been made so far. Won't hold this back for lack of available information or template limitations, because I know how frustrating that can be. Apologies for not suggesting changes to the records tables earlier, for some reason it caught my attention on this specific article. Nice work, as usal! TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Records

Discipline	Most championship titles
	Skater(s)	No.	Years	Ref.
Men's singles	Alfred Hirv	10	1929–35; 1937–38; 1940
Women's singles	Vaike Paduri	14	1930–34; 1936–38; 1940; 1947–48; 1950–52
Pairs	Eduard Hiiop	10	1923–24; 1928–31; 1933–36
Ice dance	Nikolai Salnikov	8	1971–78

History6042's Source Review

• Source review soon. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  I will check every other online source for a spotcheck. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Citation 1 - Does not seem to support the source, nowhere does it even say the words "national champions".

  • Removed.

  • Citation 3 - All good
  • Citation 5 - All good
  • Citation 7 - Working off of machine translation - The word Soviet is not mentioned nor is 1991.

  • Soviet Union in Estonian is Nõukogude Liit. NL Championship = Soviet Championship.

  • Citation 9 - All good.
  • More to come later today. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

    • Citation 11 - All good but please mark as dead  Done
    • Citation 13 - All good
    • Citation 15 - All good
    • Citation 17 - All good

    History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

    • 15 to 58 - I didn't check them all - Didn't check all but the ones I did check were all good. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

      • Citation 59 - All good
      • Citation 61 - All good
      • Citation 63 - All good
      • Source review pass. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

        Thank you so much! 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

        No problem. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC) [3].

---

List of municipalities in Córdoba

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)

We are continuing to bring the list of municipalities of all Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. This is the 56th (!!!) nomination with consistent format for list of municipalities. This nomination is very similar nomination to the previous list of Spanish municipalities Alavense has made some excellent changes to this article reflecting the previous nomination. Formatting is similar to the others but of course, all comments are welcome and will be acted upon in a timely manner. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Two brief comments:

• Is reference 2 also used for the land areas in the table footer? (Since there are separate references for population in those rows, I want to confirm if that should be the case for land area – but maybe ref. 2 addresses it.)

Yes, in this case, reference number 2 covers it. It provides information for the whole of the country, so basic sums allow one to get those figures. Alavense (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• This is very nitpicky, but the sum of the municipalities' populations doesn't match the total provincial population. For 2024, I get a sum of 774,323 (vs. 774,313), and for 2011, I get 802,577 (vs. 802,575). If the numbers match the census, don't worry about it – just check the numbers again if you have time.

I did check and I found out that one of the municipalities had the wrong figure for 2024, so I fixed it. Anyway, I've checked the numbers once more and the total I get for 2024 is in fact 774,313. The sum for 2011 is indeed 802,577 as you say, so, given that I rely more on the individual population figures than on the sum, I regarded that as a mistake on their side and I went with 802,577 as suggested. Alavense (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing major here, happy to support despite these small issues. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, RunningTiger123. I replied above. Alavense (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Cordoba in Spain.svg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Karte Gemeinden und Gerichtsbezirke Provinz Córdoba 2022.png - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Centro Histórico, 16.9 -- 2023 -- Córdoba, España.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0, and a Featured Picture!
• File:Iglesia San Mateo.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0, source and author?
• File:Puente Genil 2.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Vista de Montilla (Córdoba) (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:Priego de Córdoba (25992045644) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• Images have alt-text for accessibility, proper captioning, and are relevant to the article.
  • Here are my comments! Arconning (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Arconning. I replaced that image and I hope everything's fine with the new one. Alavense (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Pass - Arconning (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

• The population change and population density columns appear unsourced

They both rely on simple mathematical operations, which is allowed by WP:CALC: both the 2024 and the 2011 populations are sourced, so it's easy to get the population change, and both the 2024 population and the land area are sourced, so it's equally easo to get the density. Alavense (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• At the end of paragraph three the phrase "more than" is used twice in consective sentences, could one of these be changed to "over" to avoid sounding repetative.

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Alavense (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I feel that second one is quite nitpicky but I wanted to have something written down. Overall this is a nicely put toghether article. Olliefant (she/her) 07:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, OlifanofmrTennant. I replied above. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Support Olliefant (she/her) 15:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Dantheanimator

• Per the comprehensive edits from the other FLNs for Cádiz and Granada which were all added to this list too, support promoting this list to FL. Alavense: something I hadn't noticed earlier which would be good to lookout for for the future lists, many of the autonomous communities have their own separate articles for their regional governments, which are all listed/linked in this template. Dan the Animator 14:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 22:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC) [4].

---

List of municipalities in Cádiz

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)

A very similar nomination to the previous list of Spanish municipalities. We are trying to bring up the list of municipalities of all Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made some excellent changes to this article reflecting the previous nomination. Formatting is similar to the others but of course, all comments are welcome and will be acted upon in a timely manner. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Image review by Arconning

• File:Cadiz in Spain.svg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Karte Gemeinden und Gerichtsbezirke Provinz Cádiz 2022.png - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:(Jerez de la Frontera) DSC 0560 (6271831479) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Puerto de la bahia de Algeciras.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Cadiz Quay and Cathedral edited.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:San Fernando - Panteón de Marinos Ilustres.JPG - CC BY-SA 3.0
• All images have proper captions, have alt-text for accessibility, and are relevant to the article.
  • Don't see any issues, shall pass the image review. :) Arconning (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Arconning. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• Why is National Statistics Institute in English but Instituto Geográfico Nacional is in Spanish, when both official names are in Spanish?

Simply because there's an article on this Wikipedia for the first, so I guessed it would be the correct name to refer to it in English. Same answer as here. Alavense (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Some sources online are missing archives.

Everything that could be archived (data from both the Centro Nacional de Información Geográfica and the Instituto Geográfico Nacional, pieces of news for the new municipalities and all four laws) was archived. I'm afraid that the data from INE cannot be archived: it all comes from the landing pages for both the 2024 and 2011 censuses, but then the specific links are selections of data I made myself to show only the municipalities from this very province and make it easier to check the information, and it's not possible to archive those. Anyway, I hope that won't be a problem, as providing archives is not compulsory.

• In the table could conversions to miles be added for land area?

I believe that would overpopulate the table. Spain only uses square kilometres, not miles, so I think having the conversions in the lede for comparative purposes is enough. Alavense (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Same with population density.

Replied above. Alavense (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• The first sentence is somewhat confusing, is Spain split into 45 municipalities or is Andalusia, or is Spain.

It's the province that is divided into 45 municipalities: "Cádiz is a province [...] which is divided into 45 municipalities".

• Spanish seems to be overlinked.

Done. Alavense (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Why is square kilometres written about but sq mi is abbreviated.

The abbreviation comes form the {{convert}} template - I guess that's the way it works. Alavense (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ping when done.

Thank you very much for the review, History6042. I replied above. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems good, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Source Review by Easternsahara

• The prose is good, you use em dash correctly and it is engaging.
• First source is good, it is a government agency, matches what is cited, calculating that it is the eighth largest in population is basic arithmetic
• The second source is a link to a downloader, which doesn't actually have any relevant information. Could you cite the PDF instead, with page number? But the provider of the source itself is reliable.

If I'm not wrong, the second link leads to a page where there's only one possible thing to download. I tried to directly point to the download link, but I couldn't. Anyway, one only has to download the "Nomenclátor Geográfico de Municipios y Entidades de Población" document, as specified in the reference, and then one finds a document for "Municipios" (municipalities), with all the relevant information for each municipality. Alavense (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alavense: Sorry to ping here but this reminded me of a problem I had on a FL nom last year. See Refs #7 and #8 in List of cities in Crimea, I think having the instructions in the ref is the most effective way to handle webpages with downloadable file links. Dan the Animator 22:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a very good suggestion, Dantheanimator. Please let me know if you like the result, because I want to add it to every list in the series. Thanks again. Alavense (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I added in a minor wikilink to Zip folder but everything else looks perfect! Thanks Alavense and amazing work with these lists :) Dan the Animator 12:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, much appreciated. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Alavense: Wait really sorry I missed this before but I would also add in the following details and maybe reword it so it says: To access the information, scroll down the page and download the file in the row titled "Nomenclátor Geográfico de Municipios y Entidades de Población" by clicking the left icon in the column "Descarga". Then open the downloaded zip folder and the .xlsx file titled "MUNICIPIOS", which provides the land area for every municipality in Spain under the header "Superficie".

Also, I assumed this was just a computer setting on my end but just to make sure, the MUNICIPIOS file always downloads as an .xlsx file? Mines shows as .csv file after I download it. If it depends on the computer, maybe just take out ".xlsx" Apologies again about not noticing these earlier and let me know if the above is alright with you and I can help maybe update the rest of the lists. Dan the Animator 13:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Would the following work, Dantheanimator? To access the information, scroll down the page and download the file entitled "Nomenclátor Geográfico de Municipios y Entidades de Población" by clicking the left icon in the column "Descarga". Then open the downloaded zip folder and the file titled "MUNICIPIOS", which provides the land area for every municipality in Spain under the header "Superficie". Alavense (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Alavense: Sure that works. Let me know if you'd want some help with updating the references in the lists. Dan the Animator 13:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

That's done now. Thanks once again, Dantheanimator. Alavense (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Third source provides approximately the same data for land area, population is different but due to date, good publisher.
• Fourth citation checks out
• 5 good
• 6 checks out
• Citations 7 to 9 need page numbers, the cited pdf is massive, I will check these after you provide page numbers. After seeing comments made by Alavense, you do not need page numbers for 7 and 8.

Agreed for citation number 9: we are dealing with a general law there, so it makes sense to point to the exact place where the relations between the regional government and the municipalities are dealt with - I did, added the page. However, for the other two, we are speaking about general facts ("The organisation of municipalities in Spain is outlined in a local government law" and "finalised by an 18 April 1986 royal decree"), so there's nothing specific about those two documents that needs to be pointed at. That's why I believe that providing the source itself already verifies those two statements. Alavense (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• 9 also checks out
• 10 checks out
• 11 is good
• 12 is good
• 13 is good, but you cite 64-65. From my screen, it looks like all the relevant information is found on page 65. Not a big deal, just clarify why this is or remove and merge with 14.

Easternsahara: Well spotted. Now reference 13 (page 65) verifies both sentences. Alavense (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Just a question but is it possible to include quotes of text for your citations? If not that's perfectly fine and the current page citations suffice but I have seen other pages which do include quotes. Easternsahara (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather keep it the way it is now. Alavense (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Easternsahara. I replied to your queries above. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I will complete the source review later today or perhaps the weekend, thank you for your feedback. Easternsahara (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, Easternsahara. Is there anything else we can do here? Thanks in advance. Alavense (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Source review pass, nice work increasing coverage of non-English speaking countries. Easternsahara (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Support from Z1720

Prose review of the lead: no concerns. Happy to support. Z1720 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Dantheanimator

Per my ref comment above and the suggestions applied from the Granada list FLN, happy to support this list's promotion too. Thanks Alavense and Mattximus for making these great lists :) Dan the Animator 12:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 22:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC) [5].

---

List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Thailand

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

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

• Comment: I am not familiar with FLC, so this is not a review, but I think the article as it stands is less than comprehensive in its background coverage. For example, it fails to mention how the Michelin Guide expanding to Thailand was sponsored by the Tourism Authority of Thailand, and how the inaugural Bangkok guide was part of of Michelin's effort expand its coverage to include street food in Asia. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Paul 012, I added those two facts. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Just a few quick comments:

• Why are some restaurant links blue, some red, and some not even linked? For consistency they should all be linked, or just the blue ones linked.
• You mention in the lead that Nakorn Ratchasima was added, as well as other provinces, but this does not appear in the list. Was the province added but no restaurants given a star? This needs to be made clear and match the table.
• The location in the table is a bit confusing, as it follows city-district? Or province-district? Is that true for places outside of Bangkok? I clicked on Phang Nga - Khok Kloi but could not find what Khok Kloi is from the link. Some clarification here on this column is needed. I'm quite confused.

• Mattximus (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Mattximus,  Done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• This is better, if you think people may want to make pages of these restaurants in the future, I wouldn't be opposed to red linking them as well, but your choice! I added a few more comments above. Mattximus (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Mattximus,  Done the rest. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• I noticed some errors, for example Aulis restaurant is in Phang Nga but you wrote Phuket? I wonder if there are other errors? Mattximus (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose for now until the locations are double checked for accuracy. Mattximus (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Mattximus, the example you gave was the only one I could find, I fixed it. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Support Mattximus (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Easternsahara

• File:Jay Fai, bangkok 20180406.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• The single image has alt text.
• Image Review pass
• Many sources are not archived, please archive them.
• Please be consistent with dates, some are in prose but some are all in digits. Sometimes you use ymd and sometimes dmy. Choose one, use it in both date accessed, date archived and date published, add the template for it.
• In the location column, please add parentheses and the subdivision that you are using. Be consistent with the subdivision, ie. (Governorate)
• "about which eateries they should to visit."→"about which eateries they should visit." remove to from should to.
• "In 2023, 4 more provinces; Nakorn Ratchasima, Ubon Ratchathani, Udon Thani, and Khon Kaen, were added" link all of the provinces.
• Change dark gray "Reference" section at the bottom of the table to "References"
• Please add template of whatever english you are using in the article, american i believe, so it deters article deterioration
• first source checks out, added all the numbers
• source two is reliable and represented correctly
• Although source three isn't independent of michelin, it mostly only affirms what source two says.
• source 4 is good.
• Source 5 is cited twice in a row, since it is redundant you can remove it. However, after i inspected source 5, it doesn't mention anything about " Tokyo, Hong Kong and Macau, Osaka and Kyoto, Singapore, Shanghai and Seoul", so just remove the second instance.
• source 6 checks out

ill check the other ones out once you fix the issues i named Easternsahara (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

All  Done, except archiving which I will do when the archive bot starts working again. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Easternsahara,  Done, I ran IA bot. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea about the comprehensiveness, but source review pass. Also, the list says that some restaurants, which have merely moved, have closed, is this worth mentioning? This doesn't affect my source review pass but source 12, source 19 to 24 could have better publishers. They seem to be parroting the information from michelin guide, so could you try to find the Michelin sources for these? You can keep all of these in as additional verification though. Easternsahara (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• List seems generally compliant and consistent with similar Michelin-related FLs. I support promotion as long as the concerns by other editors are addressed. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Orangesclub

• There are some restaurant names that are in all caps for stylistic reasons, such as J'AIME. Per MOS:ALLCAPS they should be in sentence case for consistency with the other restaurants, unless you can let me know which of them are acronyms
• Michelin is also in all caps throughout most references
• Template:International dollars is good to use when mentioning a currency like Baht
• Some references are formatted as website=website.com while others are listed by their domain names. Consistency with one format would be better, I personally feel that domain names look better.
• Reference 14 has an author name that can be added (Arpiwach Supateerawanitt), should be "Time Out" not "TimeOut" and should have an article date
• All references should have archives. I can see others have mentioned this but many still do not have archives - looks like only 9 do?
• Reference 27 is missing a website/publisher
• Reference 7 is missing the authors name (Oliver Irvine)

I haven't checked all references but I'd recommend having a go through all of them to make sure all the available details are filled out. Overall the list looks good and the prose is well written. Please ping me when finished. orangesclub 🍊 06:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Orangesclub, all done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Great stuff! Happy to support. I wonder if I can count this as preparation for my Thailand trip next month... orangesclub 🍊 21:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Dantheanimator

• Completely optional but for concision, you could turn the footnote "A restaurant that is not starred can still be in the guide. This is why some of the regions listed are not represented in the table." into a single sentence: "A restaurant that is not starred can still be in the guide, hence why some of the regions listed are not represented in the table."
• Maybe add a See also section with a link to List of Thai restaurants
• In the lead, "It was the seventh Asian city or region to have a dedicated Red Guide.", this is the first mention of "Red Guide" but it isn't defined or explained. What is a Red Guide and why is important/valuable to have?
• It was funded with 144 million [[Thai Baht]] ({{International dollars|144000000|Thailand}} [[USD]]) over five years by the [[Tourism Authority of Thailand]].

• International dollar and USD are two very different things. I would recommend changing to:
• for int. $: It was funded with 144 million [[Thai Baht]] ({{International dollars|144000000|Thailand|round=yes}} [[international dollar]]s) over five years by the [[Tourism Authority of Thailand]].
• for U.S. $: It was funded with 144 million [[Thai Baht]] ({{currency|4,456,000|USA}}) over five years by the [[Tourism Authority of Thailand]].
• Clarify what "it" refers to, i.e. what was funded 144mil Thai Baht? The Red Book? The Michelin Guide activities in Thailand? Where was the money sent/distributed to? How was it spent?

• "It was also part of an effort to increase street food's recognition in the guide"

• If "it" refers to the 144 mil funding, reword as "The funding was also part of an effort to increase street food's recognition in the guide"
• Also, I'd assume yes but to make sure, this is referring to street food in Thailand specifically (i.e. the money was not used by Michelin/others for general expenses unrelated to Thailand?)

• "In 2019, Michelin expanded its coverage to Phuket and Phang-Nga. In 2020, Chiang Mai was added, and Ayutthaya was added in 2022. In 2023, 4 more provinces; Nakorn Ratchasima, Ubon Ratchathani, Udon Thani, and Khon Kaen, were added. In the 2025 edition, Chonburi was added to the guide." ---> "Michelin expanded its Thailand coverage over several years: Phuket and Phang-Nga in 2019, Chiang Mai in 2020, Ayutthaya in 2022, four northeastern provinces (Nakhon Ratchasima, Ubon Ratchathani, Udon Thani, and Khon Kaen) in 2023, and most recently Chonburi in the 2025 edition."
• For the Key: "The restaurant did not receive a star that year" -> "The restaurant did not receive Michelin stars that year" (for consistency with the rest of the key and also slightly more accurate)
• For the table: I usually do this with my lists but the references for each year could be added just underneath the year text in the column title (so instead of ! scope="col"|2018 it would be ! scope="col"|2018<br/><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-12-18 |title=Complete Guide To The 17 Michelin Star Restaurants in Bangkok - What's On Sukhumvit |url=https://whatsonsukhumvit.com/complete-guide-to-the-17-michelin-star-restaurants-in-bangkok/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250425181340/https://whatsonsukhumvit.com/complete-guide-to-the-17-michelin-star-restaurants-in-bangkok/ |archive-date=25 April 2025 |access-date=2025-05-26 |website=What's On Sukhumvit |language=en-GB}}</ref>

• This would remove the need for a separate "References" row, which seems somewhat off I think given it's shaded the same color as a closed restaurant

• Also for the table, for accuracy, the title column "Location (province)" province should be linked to Provinces of Thailand and a brief efn note along the lines of {{efn|Thailand is divided into 76 provinces and two [[Special administrative area (Thailand)|special administrative areas]]: the capital [[Bangkok]] and the city of [[Pattaya]], with Bangkok also being at the [[Organization_of_the_government_of_Thailand#Provincial_government|provincial-level]] and often counted as the 77th province.<ref>{{Cite web |author=Ministry of Foreign Affairs |author-link=Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Thailand) |title=Administrative divisions |url=https://www.thailandembassy.org/administrative |access-date=4 July 2025 |website=thailandembassy.org |language=en}}</ref>}}

That's everything I got @History6042:. Great job with these Michelin lists and ping me when ready. :) Dan the Animator 23:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Dantheanimator,  Done, except for the Key and Table requests which are built on consensus from the Michelin WikiProject. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks History6042! Everything looks perfect and the Key/Table requests aren't much of an issue for me. Great work with this list and happy to support it's promotion. :) Dan the Animator 21:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 22:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC) [6].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Sherlock

Nominator(s): Medxvo (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Sherlock is a mystery and crime television series based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes detective novels and stories. It was created by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, and stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes and Martin Freeman as Doctor John Watson. The series garnered 47 BAFTA nominations, 39 Primetime Emmy nominations, 12 Crime Thriller nominations, 9 Critics' Choice Television nominations, and 3 Edgar Allan Poe nominations.

I believe the list is consistent with the recently promoted accolades lists and ready for an FLC. Any comments from all editors are very much appreciated. Medxvo (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• In the interest of finding something to pick up, I would suggest that "that were produced as four three-part series airing from 2010 to 2017, as well as a special episode" might be better as "that were produced as four three-part series airing from 2010 to 2017 and a special episode"
• That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks a lot! I agree, and I've implemented your suggestion. Medxvo (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• He is assisted by Watson, who had returned - Shouldn't it be He is assisted by Watson, who has returned?
• Una Stubbs plays Mrs Hudson - Should it be Mrs. Hudson?
• It won the Peabody Award in 2011 (for "A Study in Pink") - I don't think the parentheses are needed here.
• As per MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". Maybe they are not near enough, but in the last paragraph I would have the tally of nominations all spelt out.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Alavense, I think the "Mrs" v. "Mrs." is a British English v. American English thing. As this is a British series, the prose should adhere to British English. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the comments, Alavense! I believe all have been addressed except for "Mrs". I agree with Bgsu98 that the period is usually omitted in British English. 20:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I was only asking because I saw that the article for the character uses the period, but I'm happy with the explanation. Good job. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment by Birdienest81

For the 2011 edition of the British Academy Television Awards, the recipients of the award for Best Drama Series should mention Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss, Sue Vertue, and Beryl Vertue as the credited winners of said award. According to the official BAFTA website, searching Sherlock in the awards database lists the four producers as winners of the award as seen here. You could use this article from The Guardian as a reliable source for the recipients.

That's about it. Could either review List of accolades received by Barbie (film) for its featured list candidacy or 55th Academy Awards for its own featured list nomination?

--Birdienest81talk 01:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Birdienest81: Thanks for this! I've added the credited winners and the source from The Guardian. I'll hopefully take a look at your nominations sometime tomorrow. Thank you again for your help! Medxvo (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Medxvo: Support - The list looks very ready for featured list status. Hopefully you could review the Barbie accolades list as well. No rush yet though.

--Birdienest81talk 05:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio

@Medxvo: as of this rev

• Add refs to notes as well.
  • Done. Medxvo (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Replace WP:PRIMARY sources (refs 14, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 35, 37, 38, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 97, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 111, 113, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 130, 131, 132, 137, and 139) with WP:INDEPENDENT sources wherever possible.
  • Tried to replace some of them. Secondary sources sometimes do not mention the actual recipients (they only mention the series name, etc.), so I couldn't find replacements.... I think they are fine as they are supporting straightforward claims. Medxvo (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio 13:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: Thanks so much for the comments! I've responded above. Medxvo (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

All good then, support. Vestrian24Bio 10:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Source review by Bgsu98

Aside from the source review, this sentence in the lead – "Sherlock received thirty-nine Primetime Emmy nominations (nine wins)" – I would recommend somehow rephrasing that bit in parentheses. Maybe "with nine wins"?

• Done. Medxvo (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Sources appear to be properly formatted and are archived. There are a lot of sources, so if I missed one, I apologize.

Spot check

• No. 3 – Checks out.
• No. 7 – Unable to verify as the source requires a subscription.
• No. 11 – This source does mention Sherlock's "critical acclaim" although the article is about Lucy Liu on Elementary. 😉
• No. 15 – Checks out.
• No. 20 – Checks out.
• No. 32 – Inaccessible as the source requires a subscription.
• No. 47 – Checks out.
• No. 53 – Checks out.
• No. 64 – Checks out.
• No. 71 – Does not check out. This source only identifies the winners, but source no. 70 verifies the information on the table, so I would delete no. 71.
  • Yes, I agree that ref 71 is not really needed here. Removed. Medxvo (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• No. 88 – Checks out.
• No. 90 – Checks out.
• No. 101 – Checks out.
• No. 130 – Checks out.

User:Medxvo: Not much to address here at all: Let me know when you have a chance. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Bgsu98: thanks so much for your time! I've responded to some points above. I believe you can access the restricted sources via their archive links, but I can help with screenshots if needed. Medxvo (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

When I saw that the sources were subscription-limited (which you correctly noted; thank you!), I went directly for the archived copy, but even the archive does not display the full article (at least in the few I examined). Source review passed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, upon a recheck, the archive for source no. 32 shows the full article. I think I was confusing this with another source review I'd done where an archive copy did not show the full article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Image review – The only image in the article is a public domain logo that doesn't reach the threshold of originality and has alt text. No issues here. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 22:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Hot Adult Contemporary number ones of 1994

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's #34 in this series. This year the number ones included two songs from movies, one of them (the movies, not the songs) far better known than the other IMO. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received. In roughly ten days I will be going on a two-week road trip and will not be as active on WP if at all. But I will address anything raised before I go before I go, and pick up anything else upon my return...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Can 1993 be linked?

Nice job. Support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alavense: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio

@ChrisTheDude:

• According to link-dispenser,
  • 53 refs are marked as redirects, add a slash (/) at the end of those urls to avoid it (just a suggestion).
  • 3 refs need archive urls.

That's all I got. Vestrian24Bio 16:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Vestrian24Bio: - addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  All good then, support. Vestrian24Bio 08:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• All 4 images have proper licensing and alt texts, Image review: pass. Vestrian24Bio 16:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Medxvo

• "retaining a position which the song had occupied" / "set by the song which it had displaced" - I think "that" would read better than "which"
• "in the top spot it was displaced" - perhaps a comma after "spot"?

That's all, great work as always! Medxvo (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Medxvo: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support. Medxvo (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Source review:
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 11 sources match what they are being cited for

Looks good! Support Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC) [8].

---

List of glirids

Nominator(s): PresN 03:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, we're back! Mammal list #56 in our perpetual series and... rodent list #1! It's been a long journey, y'all, but we're finally done with bats and have arrived at the last mammal order that's big enough for lists. Unfortunately for me, rodents have... 40% of all mammal species, and a projected 30% of all lists in this series. So, with ~2300 species and a projected 25 lists, get comfortable, because we're going to be here for a while. This one starts us off small: the 29 species of Gliridae, or dormice. Confession: before I started this list, I thought a "dormouse" was a cute British name for a mouse wearing a waistcoat, like in Alice in Wonderland. But no, they're actually their own thing, cute little cousins to squirrels, little mice-like creatures with big eyes and bushy tails. In any case, as always, the list reflects the scientific consensus as well as the results of prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 03:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support - always hard to find anything to pick up with these lists of yours, and on this occasion I failed completely :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Support, same, I really couldn't find anything of note. Good job.

  History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98

This is the 56th list of mammals you've sent through FL? Wow! Based on the comments above, I'm sure by now you've honed these articles based on previous FL comments since you know what people are expecting.

• "...though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number" There should be a comma after "discoveries".
• I take it "genera" is the plural of "genus"? I haven't forgotten everything from high school biology.
• I take it not every species has an available photo?
• Some of the ranges on the tables are very broad, but there are not maps available? (for example, "west-central Asia")

User:PresN: Really, that missing comma is the only problem I found. The others are just general questions, but I'm guessing that if there were photos or maps available, you'd have included them. I will go ahead and add my Support on the assumption you'll add that comma. 😉 Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Comma added. Yep, genera is the plural, and I dug through commons and inaturalist for free photos but a lot of species don't have one (and consensus is that we can't use non-free photos on these lists). Maps are also often not available; one day I'll find a way to make them but for now I just use what's available already. The IUCN cites do have more precise maps if needed. --PresN 17:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Since User:PresN was kind enough to do the source review for my last two submissions, I figured I would return the favor. And to be honest, I don't really expect to find any problems, especially if this is his 56th mammal list to undergo the FL process.

• No. 1 – I'm not sure how much of the lead this source is meant to verify, but it does verify the longest rodent at 190mm (19cm), while it says nothing about the shortest rodent. However, the tables below also have citations, so it's likely everything is covered. If it's meant to only apply to the one sentence – "The desert dormouse feeds primarily on insects and spiders" – then it checks out.
• No. 6 – Checks out.
• No. 13 – Checks out.
• No. 27 – Checks out.
• No. 33 – Checks out.

Source review passed Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Image review – I reviewed a good sampling of the photos/maps used, and all had appropriate free licensing and alt text, and the maps I checked all had sources for their underlying data. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Review by Z1720

• I also did an image review, but Giants2008 beat me to it! No concerns with licensing.
• Why is the map sometimes in range for each species, and other times not? Considering that animals do not care about our country's borders, the image might be more helpful in describing their range. For example, Spectacled dormouse has South Africa listed as the range, but the article's map only has the southern coast highlighted, not the whole country.

• The images are more helpful, but I don't make the maps (making 6000 maps would be its own multi-year project), so whether there's an image or not is entirely dependent on if one has already been created.

• I clicked on the first three articles of "Subfamily Graphiurinae", and their corresponding articles have a map in their infobox. Should these be added to this list article? Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Ah! I made this list in March, and it looks like in May someone made a bunch of maps for that genus (and some chinchilla-relatives, and some fish) which I hadn't seen. I've now added them all, thank you so much for spotting that!

• No concerns with the lead.
• In each heading, the second entry is something like "Thomas, 1906". Is this the date and person who classified it? Maybe that can be explained above the table.

• See below

• Under each entry for "Scientific name and subspecies", there is something in parenthesis (like "(Schinz, 1845)") but it is not explained in the article what this is. I suggest adding a note at the top of the first table or with a efn note explaining this.

• Added a sentence to "Conventions" to explain- it's the author citation, and the parentheses indicate that the species was originally placed somewhere else (typically under a different genus). Once this FLC closes (e.g. after any wording tweaks are settled) I'll add it to the other 50+ lists, I do think that could be useful to readers.

• Sorry for creating so much extra work, but I think the readers will appreciate this. Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• No worries, the goal is to make it as useful for readers as I can!

• Under "Scientific name and subspecies", sometimes that information mentioned above is bracketed, and sometimes it is not. Is this supposed to be consistent?

• Not sure what you mean by bracketed, is this a repeat of the parentheses question?

• In the "Subfamily Graphiurinae" chart, Angolan African dormouse's entry for Scientific name and subspecies is "G. angolensis De Winton, 1897" but Jentink's dormouse's entry is "G. crassicaudatus (Jentink, 1888)" Should there be brackets in all the entries of the Scientific name and subspecies column, or no brackets? Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Ah, no, it's per-species. De Winton described G. angolensis under that scientific name (e.g. in the genus Graphiurus) in 1897 (so no parentheses), but Jetink described G. crassicaudatus originally as Claviglis crassicaudatus in 1888, e.g. as part of a different genus than where it is today (it appears it was first moved to Graphiurus in 1912, e.g. it was first proposed then that Claviglis was actually the same genus as Graphiurus, so they should be merged to whichever name came first, which was Graphiurus, and that's still the scientific consensus). Since the original genus description isn't what it is today, the convention is to put the author citation (for that species) in parentheses.

Hope this helps. Please ping me when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720: Responded inline, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• @PresN: Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Z1720: responded again! --PresN 22:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Concerns are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC) [9].

---

Leading Ladies of Entertainment

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

With Billboard Latin Women in Music now FL, my attention is now for a similar award presented by the Latin Recording Academy. Just like the previous nomination, I look forward to addressing any concerns. Erick (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Easternsahara

• This looks like a drive-by nomination, you do not seem to have made any contributions to the article? I'm probably wrong though, could you clarify if this is true? I'm blind
• Add a short description of the article, the title is not self-explanatory
• File:Leilacobo2.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Erika Ender pic by Raymond Collazo.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Becky G.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:Pamela Silva Conde by Gage Skidmore.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Martha 2.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0 The "own work" looks suspicious here, it looks professional
• File:Tatiana Bilbao.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:Joy Huerta (35822340346) (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:Alondra de la Parra 2014.jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:2018 MX TV CONCIERTO VOCES DE MUJERES (46290771292) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Dayanara Torres 2011.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:191125 Selena Gomez at the 2019 American Music Awards (cropped).png - CC BY 3.0
• File:Goyo martinez.JPG - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Maria Elena Salinas on the Valder Beebe Show.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Ivy Queen.jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Kany García cantando.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Simone Torres (audio engineer).jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:VIVIR QUINTANA XXI FILZ.jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:MX GL CONCIERTO DE JULIETA VENEGAS EN EL ZÓCALO - 53603011666 (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• Copyright looks good, will pass after you change alt-text.
• The alt text is redundant because you have the recipient section. For sighted readers, the images serve to show what the people look like. So could you instead provide a short description of the people?
• Should Gabriela Martinez be linked and should Rebeca León be redlinked?
• Link "galas"
• Add a notes section and put "^[I] With the exception of the 2019 Mexican edition, each year is linked to an article about the Latin Grammy Awards ceremony of that year. " into that section.
• Why do you have a "general" reference, can you cite it directly along with the other citations where it applies?
• Source 1 is primary but it is used for a definition and a quotation, which is acceptable use on Wikipedia. wp:primary, specifically the careful use and not all primary sources are bad section. Information on article matches what is cited,
• "a string of galas prior". The article that you have provided actually does not mention galas. The articles that do, right below it and the bottom one, are called "Raphael Named 2025 Latin Recording Academy Person Of The Year™" and "The Latin Recording Academy® Announces The 26th Annual Latin GRAMMY Awards® To Be Held On Nov. 13" could you cite whichever one you used for the gala information?
• "to Marcella Araica, Leila Cobo, Erika Ender, Rebeca León, and Gabriela Martinez", you don't mention Jessica Rodriguez?
• More comments after you respond to the currently outlined ones

Easternsahara (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Easternsahara: Their signature is misleading; "Erick" is Magiciandude, the editor who made nearly every edit to the list. --PresN 00:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Easternsahara I believe I got them all. Ready for the next batch of comments. Erick (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no more, I pass source and image review and support the promotion of the list to fl. Easternsahara (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't catch that, thanks for notifying me. I have crossed that out.

History6042

• Alt texts could probably be more descriptive than repeating the table.
• The penultimate sentence does not accurately reflect the table.
• Why do some rows in the Occupation(s) column start with a capital letter and some do not?
• The note should use an EFN template.
• Is there a link for the 2019 (Mexican edition).
• Not sure about this but if "Leading Ladies of Entertainment" is plural, shouldn't it be "are an honor presented".
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me)

@History6042: Fixed everything brought up for the no link for the Mexican edition since the Latin Grammys have only been held once a year. Erick (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Support^{History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)}

Comments

• "The Leading Ladies of Entertainment are [plural] an honor [singular]" reads really oddly (to me at least). I would suggest maybe "The Leading Ladies of Entertainment is an annual event organized by the Latin Recording Academy, the same body that distributes the Latin Grammy Awards, at which awards are presented to women "excelling in the arts and sciences.....". This is consistent with the first reference, which describes The Leading Ladies of Entertainment as an event
• "Then-president of the Latin Recording Academy, Gabriel Abaroa explained" - when did this occur? No dates have been mentioned at this point so it's a bit vague
• In fact the lead should probably more generally mention that the event first took place in 2017
• That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks as always for your comments! How does it look now? Erick (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Then-president of the Latin Recording Academy, Gabriel Abaroa explained - Wouldn't Gabriel Abaroa, then-president of the Latin Recording Academy, explained work better here?
• We have fortitude, and grace under pressure but Gabriela Martinez and Jessica Rodriguez. I think there should be consistency as to the use of the Oxford comma.
• {{ill}} could be used for those who have an article on Spanish Wikipedia but not here.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alavense Thanks for bringing those up. I addressed everything brought up (I used the ill in sortname so it should work to link to the Spanish Wikipedia). Erick (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. Alavense (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Source review by LEvalyn - pass

• I checked sources 2, 8, 9, and 12.
  • For 2, the explanation that "Latin Grammy Week" is a string of galas-- this source is fine reliability-wise as WP:ABOUTSELF, but it doesn't actually state that the Grammy Week involves multiple galas, it just mentions one gala. This is definitely a really basic/obvious fact about Latin Grammy Week so it might honestly be a little hard to find someone spelling out what the week in question is, but it would be better for verifiability to look for a source about the week in question.
  • For 8, I get a 500 error when I try to follow the link, so you should probably mark is as "dead" in the citation and let the archive take over. Otherwise, 8 looks good; appropriate WP:ABOUTSELF and verifies the info.
  • 9 and 12 look good, no notes.

Changing the source for 2 is the only "major" recommendation I have. Feel free to ping me when you've had a chance to revisit that and I'll be happy to pass the source review. The list overall looks appropriate, no red flags. A relatively large number of primary sources but that's to be expected for this kind of topic; they are the best sources for simply identifying who the honorees are. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@LEvalyn Thanks for sources review! I changed from "galas" to "events" and changed refs 2 and 8 to another source. Source 2 now mentions what other events take place and Source 8 is now a live source. Erick (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@LEvalyn sorry to ping you again, it's been a week.How does it look now? Erick (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, and sorry for the delay! (I was travelling, and just returned home.) Both these fixes look good and I am happy to pass the source review. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh I should clarify -- the live source is nice for 8, but just marking the existing source as "dead" would also have worked for me, since it did have a viable archive. And I think on some more exploration that archiving of online sources is not actually an FL requirement, since it's not part of the verifiability policy or citation MOS... though it is nice to have. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC) [10].

---

2024 Men's T20 World Cup qualification

Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio 03:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Source review and additional notes.

It's been 15 days and no reviews, I think you might have poisoned you nomination by advertising your exit, anyways I'll be the first to put the knife in your tenure.

• Alot of inconsistency weather a source is linked or not
• Alot of inconsistency weather sources use DMY or slash dates
• Refs 31 and 58 have MOS:DASH violations
• Some sources are showing up as dead despite being alive (56-58) for example, they need to be marked as being alive.
• Spots checks flag nothing
• Why is "Emerging Cricket" reliable?
• Why is "Czarsportz" reliable?

That's what I found ping me when done, and if you do plan to take a wikibreak after this, thanks for all the fish. Olliefant (she/her) 02:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: Hi! thanks for the review, I was going to take a break but, things have changed now for good..

• Emerging Cricket is a reliable site for Associate Cricket news; not sure if it has been discussed in WP:RSN though.
• Czarsportz is the highest reliable independent source we have for associate cricket.

All else done..! Vestrian24Bio 13:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Support Olliefant (she/her) 14:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Image review: No concerns.

Prose review:

• What reference is verifying the information in the "Summary of the qualification process" table? This should be made clear somewhere.
• What reference is verifying the information in the "Details of the teams qualified for the T20 World Cup" table?
• Suggest archiving sources using IA Bot.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720: done. Vestrian24Bio 16:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Concerns addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• Cant't find anything against the criteria, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Support from Easternsahara

• I couldn't find anything wrong with the list, seems to meet all the criteria

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC) [11].

---

List of Hot Adult Contemporary number ones of 1993

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

With the list for 1991 just promoted, here's the 33rd entry in this particular series, covering the "middle of the road" number ones of 1993. In this particular year, Billboard changed/improved their data capture methodology, which (seemingly) led directly to the record for the longest run at number one being broken after 25 years. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• In 1993, 13 songs topped the chart, which was compiled based on playlists submitted by radio stations through the issue of Billboard dated July 10, after which a new methodology was introduced which used airplay data compiled by Nielsen Broadcast Data Systems, which provided a more accurate reflection of the numbers of plays which songs were actually receiving - There are five which in that sentence. Maybe it can be split into two sentences, the first one ending with dated July 10?
• spending two weeks at number one "I Have Nothing" - Is a with missing?
• which had been held by Paul Mauriat's "Love is Blue" since 1968 - I think a link to 1968 there would come in handy.
• Same for 1994.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Alavense: - done!

Thanks. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Medxvo

• "the numbers of plays which songs were actually receiving" - "the number of plays that songs were actually receiving"?
• "the longest run atop the AC chart which had been held" // "the record set by Joel's song which had preceded it" // "longest stay atop the chart which had stood for 25 years" - I think a comma can be added before "which"

That's all, everything else looks great to me! Medxvo (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Medxvo: - done!

  Happy to support. Medxvo (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio

@ChrisTheDude:

• According to link-dispenser,
  • 51 refs are marked as redirects, add a slash (/) at the end of those urls to avoid it (just a suggestion).
  • Ref 53 gives 404.
  • 22 refs need archive urls.

That's all I got. Vestrian24Bio 11:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Vestrian24Bio: - addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  All good then, support. Vestrian24Bio 08:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• All 4 images have proper licensing and alt texts, Image review: pass. Vestrian24Bio 16:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Source review:
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 11 sources match what they are being cited for

Looks good! Support Hey man im josh (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

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