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/June 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) 00:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC) [1].

---

William Faulkner bibliography

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 21:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Quick comment: One cell in the last row of the Produced Screenplays appears to be centered instead of left-justified like the other cells. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I've always centered my "null" dashes and they are as such elsewhere in this list. If you want it for consistency, I can center all of the years instead. ~ HAL333 21:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

It's the last row. The text reads The Left Hand of God by William Edmund Barrett, and is centered whereas all of the other text in that column is left-justified. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, fixed. ~ HAL333 22:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• Please archive all online sources.

• It looks like the Internet Archive Bot randomly skipped some sources? I've manually archived the rest. ~ HAL333 22:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Could birth and death dates be added instead of just years?

• I've never done that for past list articles — it's just too much detail for a non-biographical article imo. It doesn't mean anything to the reader if he was born in June 1897 as compared to April. ~ HAL333 21:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keys should be on the top, not bottom.

• I ended up removing the key entirely. ~ HAL333 21:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• I am not sure about this one, but should the book cover images be given more descriptive alt text that describe the book?

• I expanded the alt text with an actual description of the cover art. If you mean a descriptions of the plot, that's probably beyond the scope of alt text. A non-screen reader, for instance, would not obtain that information from just looking at the image. ~ HAL333 22:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think there are too many images. I am doing this review on mobile and the images take quite a while to scroll past.

• Six images removed. ~ HAL333 21:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• There is an WP:Overlinking issue with names.

• Several links (e.g. Christ) removed. ~ HAL333 22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  While I am not sure there are too many images, I do agree that User:HAL333 could be more judicious in terms of choice of images, especially since this is a bibliography and not a biography. I would keep one image of Faulkner in the lead, but eliminate the rest. Keep all the book covers, movie posters, and screen shots from Faulkner’s movies; and probably eliminate the rest. Just my opinion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• As an aside, I really wish there were some way to mark an image so that it would appear only on desktop or mobile, in cases where sandwiching or overcrowding only appears in one version. I might need to raise that at the Village pump.. ~ HAL333 22:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• History6042, all addressed unless otherwise noted. ~ HAL333 22:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  Support History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

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

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

Alavense, all addressed. Thanks very much for the comments. ~ HAL333 02:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "Following novels in that decade—namely Light in August (1932) and Absalom, Absalom! (1936)—are regarded as among his best" - I think "subsequent" would work better than "following" here
• As the tables are sortable, publishers should be linked each time, not just the first
• "Flags in the Dust†" - why the dagger?

• Removed. ~ HAL333 20:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Titles starting with "The" should sort based on the next word in the title
• In the short stories table, are "Mississippian" and "The Mississippian" the same thing?

• Fixed. ~ HAL333 20:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Some of the short stories have no "First published in"......?

• They were not published in any literary magazine/journal before they were formally collected in a collection. I have added null dashes for clarity and adjusted the collection title. ~ HAL333 20:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• In the screenplays table, where the "based on" starts with a quote mark it should sort based on the first actual letter
• "Contract Writer, Uncredited" - no need for capital W

• Nor the U! ~ HAL333 20:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• In the "unproduced" table, dates starting with "c." don't sort correctly
• Why are the four tables after "unproduced" not sortable when all the previous one are sortable?

• I've made the longer "Essays" table sortable, but for those with only 3 or 5 entries, I don't believe that it adds much. ~ HAL333 20:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude, all addressed. Thanks for the comments! ~ HAL333 20:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:24, 20 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.

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, 21 June 2025 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Tennessee Titans seasons

Nominator(s): ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This is my sixth National Football League FLC, coming after List of NFL career passing touchdowns leaders. It was based on a few other NFL season FLs. This is my first FL in a while, so I may be a little rusty, but I believe it fits all the criteria. Thanks in advance to everyone who provides their feedback :)

• Drive-by comment - something seems to have gone weird with a lot of the links in the honours column..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  Whoops, not sure how that happened. Fixed! ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "Since 2002, they made the AFC Championship twice" => "Since 2002, they have made the AFC Championship twice"
• "the franchise has experienced both periods of success and struggle" - I think "the franchise has experienced periods of both success and struggle" reads better
• "Over their 65 combined seasons in the AFL and NFL, the team has posted" - the subject changes from plural to singular mid-sentence? This could be circumvented by changing "their" to "a"
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done all ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• One other thing I missed - why is NFL linked on the first use in the table but AFL is not.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Added ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• Alt text doesn't need a period.
• Some references already have archives, so please add them to the rest.
• What was their conference in the first few years?
• In the all time records table, the reference is very hard to see as it is blue on blue.
• Some rows can be merged when they are the same, as is done in the head coaches column.
• I think the stadium's original name should be added because it is talking about a time when it wasn't called Nissan Stadium.
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@History6042:Done all. They had no conference in their AFL years, added a dash to reflect that. I'm confused about what you mean by merging duplicate rows. I don't see any; do you mean the blank ones? I feel like that would be somewhat confusing to read. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay seems good, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 verification check

Table

• Pro-reference says the AFL division (60-69) was East, not Eastern.
• 1962 AFL Championship needs this reference or another to show the game was 2OT. The 1962 season reference says it was 1 OT.
• Extra source needed to show they finished 13th in 1982. PFR says they were 4th in the division before the strike, but doesn't state where they finished afterwards.
• Oilers were 2nd in 1995 per PFR, not 3rd.
• "The 1987 NFL strike caused the schedule to be reduced to 15 games." - USA Today said 4 games were cancelled, but doesn't give the total number of games played that year. Source needs swapping out.

Prose

Paragraph 1:

• "originally established as the Houston Oilers in 1959" - Houston Chronicle (Dansby) said they were established in 1960, not 1959.
• "by businessman Bud Adams" - Chronicle also doesn't state Adams was a businessman. If this means "co-founded the American Football League" per the source, then I think it should be clarified.
• "were one of the most successful teams in the early years of the AFL," - Dansby/Media Guide are only talking about the Titans being multi-time champs. Therefore, the sentence should be changed to "were successful in the early years of the AFL,"
• Which parts of the first paragraph are the Media Guide citing? The URL goes to page 353, which does not support any of the paragraph (it only says Team History). It would also be helpful to include the page number(s) in the reference if this citation is used.

Paragraph 2:

• "Following the AFL–NFL merger in 1970" - Dansby said "merged in the late 1960s".
• "the Oilers became part of the NFL's AFC Central division." - Dansby doesn't state the division they joined in 1970.
• "as the Tennessee Oilers at the Liberty Bowl Memorial Stadium" - Houston Chronicle (Romero) calls the Tennessee Oilers stadium Liberty Bowl and not the full name of Liberty Bowl Memorial Stadium. I think an extra citation here would be helpful. The prose can't be shorten to Liberty Bowl because that's the bowl game, not the place.
• "moved to Vanderbilt Stadium in Nashville in 1998," - The Athletic (Rexrode) says Nissan Stadium is in Nashville, but doesn't say Vanderbilt Stadium is also in Nashville. Extra source needed.
• "and was rebranded as the Tennessee Titans in 1999" - Rexrode doesn't say their new name happened in 1999. It says the Titans played in 1999. It also doesn't state that their name was the Oilers in 1998. Extra source needed as well or a source that also includes Vanderbilt per above.
• "opening of their permanent home stadium" - Rexrode says a new stadium is coming in 2027, making the stadium not permanent. I think it should be swapped to current home stadium"
• "reaching Super Bowl XXXIV in their first season" - Morale III doesn't give the Super Bowl name but Rexrode does. I think Rexrode should be added to the sentence as well. Otherwise, if you think WP:CALC works here (as Morale III stats 2000 was XXXV), let me know.
• Rexrode and Morale III's citations are from The Athletic, which is part of the New York Times.

Paragraph 3

• "having previously competed in the AFC Central and, before that, the AFL Eastern Division" - fails verification of ESPN. This source can be moved up to verify "Titans were placed in the AFC South division following the 2002 NFL realignment".
• "the AFC Championship twice, in 2002 and 2019" - Needs clarification that it was in the 2002 and 2019 seasons per Sports Illustrated and Tennessee Titans. Otherwise, you could link to the 2003 and 2020 AFC games and switch the years.
• "one AFC Championship (1999)," - not verified in PFR Tennessee Titans Franchise Encyclopedia. You could reuse the 1999 PFR season citation here.
• "four in the AFL Eastern Division, three in the AFC Central, and four in the AFC South." - PFR Franchise doesn't go into detail of which divisions they won. You could trim this part out as "eleven division titles" is verified in the source. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for now due to the handful of failed verification (such as AFC Central/Eastern cited by ESPN). There are also various mistakes, but they are not the main concern. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe I fixed everything. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@ULPS: Noticed a couple of things in the table that I missed earlier. The earlier prose/table changes have been confirmed:

• Blanda won the UPI AFL-AFC Player of the Year and American Football League Most Valuable Player award in 61 per PFR. You can include both awards if you want. If the MVP award is more important, the link in brackets needs to be changed as it's currently pointing to the NFL winners.
• McNair was the co-MVP in 2003 with Manning. PFR does say they received the same amount of votes, but puts McNair in 2nd. It might be better to use a source to show they both received the award. Also, I think a note should be added to state McNair was a co-winner.

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Now I think that's everything. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Support Thank you for the quick changes! @ULPS: --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Please delink years: 1959 and 1960, for example. It's alright if they lead to 1997 NFL season, as below, but the others need to go.
• I don't know if it's only my screen, but in the table, I get a very ugly line break which leaves (MVP, OPOY on one line and ) on the next. I sugggest using {{nowrap}} for these to prevent these kinds of problems.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe I fixed it all! ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment by Birdienest81

I only have one comment and it's due to MOS:Access standards. According MOS:COLHEAD, mid-table column headers (i.e. the blue bars that separate serve as headers of the tenures of the team as the Houston Oilers, Tennessee Oilers, and Tennessee Titans) aren't accessible. Screen readers do weird things with them, both because they're cells to which the top headers don't apply, and because you made them actual headers which is going to read weirdly for every cell below them. If you want to keep them, split the first table into three tables, otherwise they have to go.

That's all I got. If you could, can you review List of accolades received by Barbie (film) for featured list nomination? I would appreciate it.

--Birdienest81talk 01:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: I split the tables, does that work? I will check out the barbie list when I get the time ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• @ULPS: Support - That looks compliant with MOS:ACCESSIBILITY standard. I personally don't mind the bars, but because now that the FLC coordinators want Accessibility standards in place, we have to follow the guidelines.

Anyways, actually my more important FLC that needs review is the 55th Academy Awards since that one is already given a warning under the gold "Nominations urgently needing reviews" box. Already got one for the Barbie one. If you could review that list for its own featured list candidacy, I would appreciate it.

--Birdienest81talk 08:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Image review – No concerns with the one image in use in the article. The licensing, alt text and caption all look okay. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:24, 20 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.

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, 21 June 2025 (UTC) [3].

---

Canadian National Skating Championships

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Since British Figure Skating Championships was just promoted to Featured List, I am now nominating the last in the trifecta (the U.S., the U.K., and Canada). The results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, the history has been extensively re-written, I believe the sources are properly formatted, and relevant photographs are used to reflect both the present day and historical contexts. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• Can the 1909 cancellation be explained?

• No clue why it was cancelled. The sources just skip from 1908 to 1910.

• Can why WW2 events were cancelled for only some events in the article.

• I don't have an official source I can cite, but adult males would have been fighting in the war; hence no men's or coupled competitions.

• 3 sources are not archived.

• One of those sources was giving me trouble trying to archive it earlier today, but I was able to archive it just now. I can't find any other sources un-archived. If I missed any, please let me know the source numbers.

• Ping when done.

• User:History6042, thank you for your feedback! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, my only issue is how do you know that 1909 was cancelled and not just absent from the sources. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

My mistake, source no. 5 says "no competition/pas de compétition" but doesn't give a reason like it does for 1907 or WWI. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, Support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

No problem :). History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• It looks a little odd that the first table is headed "Men's singles" but then on the very first row you have Anne Ewan. Can you add a note above the table saying that prior to the establishment of a separate women's competition, the sole singles competition was called........whatever it was called
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  User:ChrisTheDude, it definitely is odd to see women listed in the men's category, but that's how it is for so many of these competitions. I have added a note per your suggestion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Medxvo

• Isn't it usually "organized" instead of "organised" in Canadian English?

I think that's all, prose and tables look great to me. Medxvo (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought Canadian English was like British English, but if I'm wrong, I'll change it to "organized". User:Hey man im josh: You're Canadian; which one should be used here? Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Medxvo: According to Canadian English#Orthography, it should be "organized". I'll fix it now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support. Great work on the list! Medxvo (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, that was the easiest review I've ever received. Thank you so much for the support! 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:24, 20 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.

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, 18 June 2025 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Vancouver Canadians seasons

Nominator(s): Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Recommendations

Hey Cos, I was wondering if you could potentially find some sources for each result the Canadians have done since their inaugural season. The first/second half titles, or just regular division titles would be fine. Also I love the touch with classifications tables below. Also, I highly discourage placing baseball reference citations (e.g. Ref #26) in the results tab (which is something I should fix up in the other milb seasons I've done but regardless). Last Suggestion is probably to add a split season record page (SWB RailRiders#Split-season records & NSH Sounds#Split-season records). Other than that, if you can fix up the necessary parts, I will be gladly able to support. TBJ10RH (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The reason why I used the BR refs for results is that I couldn’t find better sources. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 20:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Here is some help. I have a source for you:

https://www.milb.com/everett/news/gcs-14432402 -> 2010 West Division title vs. Everett AquaSox TBJ10RH (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/boise-hawks-beat-cs-for-championship/n-3085024 - Lost NWL championship vs. Boise Hawks, 3–0 TBJ10RH (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks better. Support. TBJ10RH (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

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

Does this change work: "The Canadians have been affiliated with the Oakland Athletics from 2000 to 2010, but are now affiliated with the Toronto Blue Jays since 2011." ? Cos ^{(X + Z)} 00:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

No. Since the first partnership is concluded, "were" is appropriate. Since the second one is continuing into the present, "have been" is needed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 01:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Being a language teacher has its advantages. ;) Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Vancouver Canadians are a Minor League Baseball team that plays in Vancouver, British Columbia for the Northwest League" - they don't play "for" the league. I would change this to "The Vancouver Canadians are a Minor League Baseball team based in Vancouver, British Columbia that plays in the Northwest League"
• "Apps" is in the key but not in the table
• Where you have eg "Won semifinals vs. Eugene Emeralds, 2–1 Won NWL championship vs. Tri-City Dust Devils, 2–1", I would put a line break after the first one
• I can't see any reason for parts of that column to be in italics
• As the table is sortable, NWL needs to be linked every time, not just the first time
• I don't understand what "first-half titles" and "second-half titles" are. Is there an appropriate link? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude done. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 16:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Not sure I understand the bit you have added about first and second half titles. So a team wins the NWL after playing only half the season's games but then another team wins the NWL after playing the rest......?

  @ChrisTheDude clarified. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Any more comments, @ChrisTheDude? Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

• Lead image is missing alt text
• Link "Vancouver" to the redirect "Vancouver, British Columbia" per MOS:NOTBROKEN
• The second half of paragraph 2 is just a run on sentence could it be broken up?
• Why is Oregon listed in ref 3 when no other source lists the publishing location
• Ref 6 shouldn't be in all caps per MOS:ALL CAPS
• Ref 10 needs to be marked as live
• Northwest League is linked twice in paragraph one

That's what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 17:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant done. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Any more comments, @OlifanofmrTennant? Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Support sorry I missed the ping in my notifications Olliefant (she/her) 20:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

NatureBoyMD

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

  Will implement comments to the article throughout the weekend. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 00:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  @NatureBoyMD Done. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 02:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Additionally:
• The note about the NWL using a split-season format needs a reference.
• The 2011 team did not win the second-half. They qualified via a wild card berth.[5]
• All first and second-half titles need references.
• The reference for 2019 doesn't verify divisional finish or GB.
• Reference style is still inconsistent. (For example: Ref 1 uses title case for article title, while Ref 2 uses sentence case.)
• That's everything else I see. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  @NatureBoyMD Done. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 01:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• @CosXZ:, one more: Regarding note "b" ("From 2010 to 2019, two division championships were played each year, consisting of the two highest-ranking teams of the division for a best-of-3. Divisions have been dissolved since the restructure of the MiLB leagues."): I don't think the cited reference supports this claim. Division championships weren't contested between the top two teams, but between the best team in the first-half (the first-half winner) and the best team in the second-half (the second-half winner). Sometimes these happened to be the top two finishers over the course of the full season, but the overall record didn't play into postseason qualification, except where one team won both halves. Also, the wording about "two division championships" being played is confusing and "3" should be spelled out. I'd recommend something like this (plus a source): "From 2010 to 2019, division championships were decided in a best-of-three series between the division winners of each half of the league's split-season. Divisions were eliminated in the league's 2021 restructuring." The last sentence clarifies that the NWL lost its divisional format, not all of MiLB. This may necessitate moving the sentence about their first and second-half titles before the division title sentence (or not?). NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  @NatureBoyMD I can't find a source for the note. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 17:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TheDoctorWho

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

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

• Either of those pictures – or both! – would make great additions to this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  @TheDoctorWho Done. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 16:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Happy to support, nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio

@CosXZ:

• Link Baseball Reference and Sports Reference in the citations.
• 40 refs need archive links.
• "Vancouver, British Columbia" could be just "Vancouver, British Columbia".
• The statement,

  In conjunction with the 2021 restructuring of the minor leagues, the Canadians were upgraded from the Short-Season A class to the High-A class and were placed in the new High-A West (A+W) in 2021. This league was renamed the Northwest League in 2022.

  is sort of untrue.

  According to the league page on wiki - "As part of Major League Baseball's 2021 reorganization of the minor leagues, the Northwest League was promoted to High-A, reduced to six teams, and renamed the "High-A West" for the 2021 season. The two dropped teams were the Boise Hawks and Salem-Keizer Volcanoes. Following MLB's acquisition of the rights to the names of the historical minor leagues, the High-A West was renamed the Northwest League in 2022."

So, it was the league that was promoted, renamed as High-A West, but was renamed back to old name and High-A West wasn't a new league.

• The key table should include Win % as well as a link to Winning percentage in it.
• Should mention how the division championships worked and that it's defunct following the restructure.

Vestrian24Bio 11:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Regarding the 2021 business, all MiLB leagues were dissolved. Teams were reorganized into new leagues that were similar to previous leagues. The Canadians were placed in an entirely new league called the High-A West at the High-A classification. In 2022, the High-A West was renamed the Northwest League, and it continued with the history of the Northwest League prior to 2021. The quote you're referring to reflects what Wikipedia editors have done to simplify the changes and merge the history of the leagues. In other words, the current wording in this list is accurate. See Minor League Baseball#Reorganization of 2021, especially the "League realignment" heading. NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Vestrian24Bio Wayback Machine hates archiving MiLB and MLB refs; keeps making archives that don't work. Anyway... archived as many refs as I can and done the rest. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 01:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  All else seems good, support. Vestrian24Bio 11:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 15:34, 17 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.

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, 18 June 2025 (UTC) [6].

---

List of Ukrainian placenames affected by derussification

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

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

Bgsu98

Comment: I don't think you're allowed to have the extra table headers in the middle of the table. For example, under Administrative divisions, the table has two headers (one for raions and one for urban districts). It's my understanding those would need to be two separate tables, with Raions and Urban districts as the table captions for each, respectively. Also, and this is just a personal preference, I usually put a column down the far-right side for references, as narrow as possible, because it makes a table look neater without the citations throughout. But, like I said, that's just me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

And with the table under Populated places, I would probably have the Raion as the first column, followed by Old name, New name, then Type, Date, and Notes. The type (village, city, etc.) is not really the focus; the focus is the raion. And breaking the tables up by Oblast would make them more navigable. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I find this article interesting, because I also have an article up for FL review on a Ukrainian topic (Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships), and one thing I did encounter while sourcing the article was a lot of changes from a Russian spelling to a Ukrainian spelling, particularly with a lot of skaters' names. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Bgsu98 for the comments! :) To reply to each point:

• About the extra table headers in the middle of the table, I haven't seen any policy against it and I remember seeing a successful FL before with some mid-table headers too. Just in case though, I'll make a post on the FLC talkpage about it.
• Shwabb and I considered having a ref column but we didn't think it was necessary plus the refs are mostly different for the law dates and for the name change reasoning so they don't align too well for their own separate column.
• I disagree, I think the current organization with type -> raions -> names -> etc. is easier to read and the focus isn't the raion, its the populated place (i.e. its a list of populated places, not raions which is what the admin. divs table is for). The list was originally divided into over a dozen separate tables by oblast but that removes the sortability/comparability feature between oblasts and really takes away from the value of the list imo. Feel free to see how it used to be in this diff.
• Thank you! It's a little different for personal names since its an individual/personal decision but both are related to the general decline of the Russian language in Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion.

Let me know if there's anything else that can be improved and many thanks again for the comments! Dan the Animator 01:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I had always been advised that the row header (the first column) should be what the row is about. Maybe the old name, maybe the new name, but the type is really not the focus and seems an odd choice for the header. As for the table headers, MOS:COLHEAD seems clear. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I feel like this is a case where the row headers should be allowed and that having 22 separate tables is really unhelpful though I'll defer to other editors for their opinions. Also pinging @Shwabb1: for their thoughts. Dan the Animator 01:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

More detailed expansion of my WT:FLC post: Pseudo-headers (MOS:COLHEAD) aren't accessible and need to be fixed for a nomination to be promoted. Pseudo-headers like that look like headers, but that's not the way screen-reader software interprets them because they aren't actually headers, so there's not a lot of leeway for exceptions. I'd personally make the oblast a column, but it's your list to decide if you want to do that or split up the tables. The other major accessibility concern is your row headers, which right now are like |scope="row" align="left"|Village. This has two issues: 1) a "header" cell is indicated with a '!', not a '|', so it should be !scope="row" align="left"|Village. 2), and more importantly, the row header cell should uniquely identify the row, which "village" very much does not. Just like how a column header cell says "what's this column about", the row header cell says "what's this row about" - and the first row of "populated places" is about Chervona Sloboda/Sloboda, not about "village". Since this is a list of municipalities, not raions/oblasts, that means the "old name" cell (or the "new name" cell if you want) should be the row header. Now, the row header doesn't have to be the first cell in the row, though usually it is. You can leave it in the middle if you want. But aesthetically, typically you want the uniquely identifying bit first; I'd personally go old name-new name-type-raion-oblast-date-notes, but it's your list. --PresN 02:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I was going to suggest making the oblast the new table caption (these tables do not seem to have captions unless they're hidden), but yeah, making it a column would allow one to proceed without splitting the tables up. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @PresN:! :) I think the ordering you suggested is good and between the two options, I would also prefer having the oblast as a column instead of making separate tables. Also will fix the markup typos in a second too. About having oblasts as columns though, would the TOC navigation capability be preserved? Dan the Animator 02:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, as long as you get the formatting right the 'id="Cherkasy Oblast"' thing works whether or not the cell spans the width of the whole table. That's the thing about pseudo-headers, they're actually the same as any other table cell, which is why non-visual software gets confused. --PresN 03:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I like the way the table is now but considering all the above including MOS:COLHEAD, I agree that the table should be rearranged. PresN's suggestion (with oblasts in a separate column) sounds good to me as well. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 05:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• I see where you've made improvements to the tables. Maybe it's just me, but I would left-justify that first column since all of the other columns are left-justified. Other than that, they look great! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks @Bgsu98:!! :) About the first column text alignment, the markup code for left alignment is there but it doesn't show since they're all row header cells? (or something else, I'm not too sure). I also think having the first column text left aligned would be better so any help or ideas with fixing it would be great though no worries if you aren't too sure either. Dan the Animator 23:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  I coded the first row for you so it’s now left-justified. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks!!! :) Dan the Animator 00:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Bgsu98: I completely finished fixing the table code and Shwabb and I have done a lot of improvements since your comments so let us know if there's anything else you think should be improved or if you're ready to support now. Thanks! Dan the Animator 07:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry I missed this earlier. I'm taking a look at the article now.

  • You use the word raion in the very first paragraph and it should probably be wikilinked, and actually probably defined in the prose, as that is not a term most people would recognize.
  • On the Populated places table, I would personally rowspan the Type column to match the Raion, Oblast, and Date columns. Also, what is the difference between a city, a village, and a rural settlement? Perhaps a brief explanation above the table (ie. "In Ukraine, cities are defined as..., while villages are defined as..., etc.")?

  These are just some suggestions. This article shows a tremendous amount of work and the improvements to the tables are great! I also appreciate seeing articles of Ukrainian interest brought to the forefront considering current events. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Shwabb for the edits about the above. Not sure how you feel about it but for the Type rowspan suggestion, I think the current table setup makes more sense so best to leave that part as-is for now so we can discuss it later this week maybe. The thing for the settlement types description I can help with (think it would make a good efn note) but feel free to start with it now if you want to. Dan the Animator 00:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Done, though I'm not sure if "district" should be wikilinked.
  • I think rowspanning the Type column could work, but it probably has to be limited by oblast, similarly to the Date column. Pinging @Dantheanimator for thoughts on this. As for the types of populated places, technically they don't have strict definitions. There is a relatively recent law that "defines" the three by population and population density, however these definitions can only be used as reasons to change status (if the process is initiated by the local government). While it's implied that cities are relatively bigger or more important, that's not always the case (extreme examples: Uhniv with under 1000 people is a city, but Sofiivska Borshchahivka with over 25,000 people is a village). But overall I agree that some kind of footnote could improve the Type column. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 00:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

    You chose to include the Type as pertinent information; I think it's probably important to draw some kind of distinction, whether it's "official" or not, or else decide whether it was really that important to merit its own column in the first place. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

    I just added an explanatory footnote to the Type column of the populated places table. Let me know what you think about it. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 12:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

    The note looks good. Personally, I would still rowspan the Type entries, even if it's, as you suggested, limited to oblasts. It just looks jarring to see Village repeated over and over and over. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

    I don't mind rowspanning those. However, I just noticed there's something that prevents that right now: the notes indicating populated places that are under Russian occupation. I suppose those could be moved to the Old Name or New Name column (or maybe even Notes), but for now I'll wait for Dan's comment on this. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

    You could always rowspan the Villages that have the same note, but not include the Villages that don't have that note, and vice versa. That way, the cells that have the same content are rowspanned. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

    I see what you mean, but that could look out of place. Moving the notes to a different column seems to me as a better option (if it is ultimately decided to rowspan). Now I realize that it could also be argued that whether the individual settlement is under occupation does not describe the type of the populated place, but the populated place itself, so those notes may need to be moved regardless. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

    Sorry for the delay (this week's been on the busier side off-wiki) but I see Shwabb's already added in the footnote and the part to the lead defining raions so all of that's set I think. About rowspanning, I agree the repetition is not ideal but per the reasoning Shwabb described really well just below, it just conceptually doesn't make sense to rowspan it. It's one thing to have raion/oblast/date rowspanned but the type col is fundamentally different: raion/oblast & date/law are defined by the specific places that they include; for example, village is not defined as meaning "the status type of the populated places of Sulynivka, Hrintal, Chorne, etc." but instead is a more general concept referring to places recognized by parliament as being rural and smaller than rural settlements. Plus, many other long and repetitive lists have avoided rowspanning the type column (check this FL for a great example with 1,000+ items). There's also a general concern I have about making the list markup too complicated with overlapping rowspans and I think three is already plenty enough. Hopefully this reasoning makes sense but I can explain it more if it helps and also Shwabb, if you feel strongly for rowspanning the type, I'm also open to considering it but I personally don't think it's the best change.

    About the territorial control efns, thanks for noticing that and great point Shwabb. Personally, I wasn't sure if it'd make more sense to put it on the old name/new name so I just opted to put them in the type column but we could definitely move them. I would think the new name column would make the most sense since the control efns have the role of implying that the new names are de jure and not de facto but I could also see the efns in the old name col as well. @Bgsu98: let me know if Shwabb's edits and this reply help and if there's any other suggestions you have/if you're ready to support. Thanks! Dan the Animator 19:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  I see why the current setup makes sense also. Raion, Oblast, Date are rowspanned as they cover multiple populated places (many are located in one administrative division / covered by the same law). However, the Type column is different - it describes individual populated places. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 00:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  Like I said, the rowspan is just my personal preference, but it is your article and certainly not a dealbreaker. I am happy to support your article for promotion to FL status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Bgsu!! :) Dan the Animator 15:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

History6042

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

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

• There are many dates that could be merged, for example 26 September 2024 in the Rivne Oblast.
• Vinnytsia Oblast, Volyn Oblast, Zakarpattia Oblast, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, and Zhytomyr Oblast can also be removed.
• Sumy Oblast can be removed.
• Cherkasy Oblast can be removed.
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  • We are planning to deal with the pseudo-headers and the arrangement problems (I see Dan already started a user subpage for that).
  • I think the dates in Rivne Oblast are already merged? Though not all populated places are grouped by date of renaming because the rows are arranged alphabetically (by oblast, then by raion, then by new name of individual populated place), for example see the Kyiv Oblast section that's broken up because of Pereiaslav.
  • Will work on the remaining cn tags soon. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

    To follow-up on what Shwabb said, I started all the table work that PresN suggested above and will hopefully have it completely/mostly finished by the end of the week (just a little earlier moved the beginning of that work from my user subpage to the article table and also completely fixed the Administrative divisions table markup so feel free to check that). @History6042: for the Oblasts removal, are you talking about the links in the table of contents? I tested them and they still work (on both the Admin. divisions table and the populated places table). Or is about something else?

    About merging dates, I can't see any that are left for merging either thought let me know if you spot any. The list is alphabetical like Shwabb described so there are some cases of the dates being separated though there's no way to avoid this without de-alphabetizing parts of the list. I think Shwabb fixed most of the cn tags though we both will be adding more in-line references over the week. Let me know what you think about the Administrative divisions table and anything else that could be improved. Thanks! Dan the Animator 22:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

    No, I mean the oblast pseudo headers, and for the date I just accidentally had it in sort by date mode. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

    Ah got it, thanks! :) Dan the Animator 23:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

    @History6042: all the table code issues were fixed up and Shwabb's added in all the references into the lead so everything should be done. Let us know if there's anything else that can be improved or if you're ready to support now. Thanks! Dan the Animator 07:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

    Good job, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

CMD

Lead

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

Table

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

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

Thanks for the detailed reply (I won't be able to address everything at the moment but hopefully will clear up most concerns and confusions).

Lead

1. I've looked through both laws, and neither uses the word "all" in this context. There are some exceptions to both laws (most notably the exclusion of Soviet Ukrainians who fought during WWII), so it is true that technically not all placenames related to the USSR were/will be renamed. However, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the footnote implies that all are included, as it says that "numerous" (some, but not necessarily the rest) Soviet-related placenames remained in place.

2. The recent law (focusing on derussification) does mention USSR and Russian SFSR in its definition of the term "Russian imperalist policy". Before this law, decommunization and derussification would be considered different, but now the two are essentially combined, and there's definitely a lot of overlap between the two even if they're viewed as separate. As for the "Russian communist figures" part -- good point, neither of the sources mentions Russian figures specifically, so I'll remove the word "Russian".

3. Also fair point, will change that.

4. It is because the names were spelled based on Russian orthography (or mixed Russian/Ukrainian, which could be considered Surzhyk).

5. That makes sense, I'll change it in a minute.

6. Yes.

7. Rovno to Rivne, will update.

8. Certain parties and organizations would call for derussification, but in practice it was limited, with only a few individual renamings in that period.

9. No part of the derussification laws implies that names of native Russian origin are to be excluded. Yes, the law is mostly a response to russification, but in its current state it does cover local Russian names.

11. Yes, the laws were passed in 2015 and enacted in 2016.

Table

1. Will change this.

3. In the case of Yuzhne, it is derived from Russian Юг (Yug), meaning "south". The Ukrainian word for south is Південь (Pivden), thus the correct spelling according to the Ukrainian language standards would be Pivdenne. However, that specific settlement (for a reason I can't find) was renamed to Svitanok, likely after a request from the local government, possibly based on another request from locals. Either way, the reason for renaming this populated place in the first place was to remove a toponym that didn't match Ukrainian language standards, although the outcome was different from the majority of such cases. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 17:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks CMD for the comments and Shwabb for following up on it!! :) I can finish addressing the rest of the suggestions either later today or Thursday. Also Shwabb what do you think of CMD's suggestion of rearranging the table. I think it's workable though I'd probably create a sample first to see how it looks before going fully with it. Dan the Animator 17:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I think Old Name and New Name should be next to each other, as this gives the reader an obvious "before and after". Adding a possibly long explanation inbetween would disrupt this simplicity. As this is the largest column by size and it stands out from the rest, I think it aesthetically fits in the far end. In general, I agree that the Date column is more relevant, but it contains information about the renaming (just like the Notes column), while the Type, Raion, and Oblast columns contain information about the specific populated place. I think it makes sense to group the columns with similar information together, thus I'm satisfied with the current layout personally. You should still test CMD's suggestion though to see how it looks. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

(To add to previous response)

Lead

10. I believe a lot of sources explain parts of this. The lead already gives some context to when the names affected by decommunization and derussification were introduced. Would you agree that more explanation is needed on the distinction between the two?

Table

2. Overall I agree with the idea, but would it not be repetitive if every single cell in the column started with "formerly named" or something similar? Even at the moment, there's a lot of repetition with "Old name" or "Previously named". This column definitely needs some rework. As for the new name explanations, some of them are indeed interesting but the problem with mentioning them is that (especially for villages) it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to find out why certain specific new names were chosen. I think the reason for why the name changes happened in the first place is more important to mention. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 14:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey Shwabb, many apologies for the long delay in my reply and I can't thank you enough for your extraordinary patience! :) I had some off-wiki challenges come up but after mostly resolving the last of them yesterday, I should be able to get back and finish up the rest of the necessary edits/replies hopefully very soon and I think I have a good idea of how to finish up everything. I'll send additional replies here sooner than later but I think there's not much left to do before this'll get passed. Also I saw and had to say, great work with the heritage sites the past few weeks! ;) Dan the Animator 19:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

1. Footnote 1 implies that 2015 left, so to speak, unfinished business. "narrow interpretations" suggests that there was a gap between the legislation's drafters, and the later actions of the executive, rulings of the judiciary, or similar. "and resistance" then suggests that in addition to the narrow interpretation, the number of names changed was further reduced. So there are two implied steps of names that were removed. "and were only later removed" indicates that all the names from these two steps, or at least all that are "connected to communism and the Soviet Union", were brought back into contention by the 2023 legislation.

2. To clarify, you're stating that the 2015 legislation was for "decommunization", which at the time was seen as distinct (albeit heavily overlapping) with "derussification". Then by 2023 (with a very changed national context) the "derussification" law broadly (per the footnote "more comprehensive") covered both of these previously somewhat distinct topics?

4. Is there a wikilink that could be used for this, or a footnote?

8. What about changing "derussification remained limited and was not actively pursued" to "derussification efforts were sporadic"? You'll have a better understanding of the source, but "sporadic" seems a better way to summarize the isolated local efforts.

9/10. I do think something more is needed here. Does the sentence "However, most Russian names not directly associated with communism or included in the decommunization legislation continued to stay in place as derussification remained less popular than decommunization" make sense to a reader if they don't already understand that Russian is a widely spoken native language in Ukraine, but also that it is not an official language? My assumption is that all Russian names have come under consideration due to the shift towards more Ukrainian over the past few years, even by native Russian speakers who (I assume again) in the past would be those objecting to changes such as the 2015 law. I think the current text hints towards this (eg. "derussification gained widespread public support"), but assumes to some extent the background knowledge.

11. Perhaps then sticking to just "[enacted in] 2016" would reduce potential misinterpretation.

Table.2/3. The arguments for not explaining the new names makes sense, however "historical name was returned" does do this, so current implementation is inconsistent. If the subject is kept the same each time (the "Old name" or the "Previous[ly] name"), then perhaps those words can be removed. "Old name alluded to the First of May"->"Alluded to the First of May", "Previously named after the Ural Mountains"->"Named after the Ural Mountains", "Renamed under the Soviet Union; historical name was returned"->"Name changed under the Soviet Union"/"Replaced historical name under the Soviet Union"? CMD (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

1. That all seems correct. Certain settlements (especially ones named after the color red and the First of May) could, by definition, fall under decommunization in 2015-16, but generally kept their names until recently as they're (arguably) not obviously glorifying communism (and some still keep such names but are to be renamed under current legislation).

2. Yes.

4. I'll look into that soon. Maybe Dan has some specific ideas on this (I'm not great with making footnotes!)

8. Done.

9/10. Your interpretation is correct here, I'll think on how to expand the lead for this part.

11. Also done.

Table 2/3. Dealt with the "historical name was returned" phrases. I agree that condensing the "Old name/Previously named" text would make the list better. @Dantheanimator, what are your thoughts on this? Should the title of the column be changed as well to something along the lines of "Reason for renaming"? Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

1. Made a slight rewording: Due to legal limitations and narrow interpretations of decommunization legislation enacted in 2016 as well as resistance amongst some local authorities to renamings at the time for further clarity. The "legal limitations" refers to the fact the decommunization laws excluded some names (e.g. Soviet Ukrainian soldiers in WWII). Also, about CMD your reply above for "Footnote 1 implies that...", I couldn't have said it better myself! ;) And I agree with Shwabb's replies too; the derussification process & this list does cover quite a bit of "unfinished business" from the decommunization efforts

2. To reply to your original comment (Further, footnote [b] about "communism and the Soviet Union" is appended to): true; when I put the footnote there, the intention was to clarify that this list includes placenames in themselves that would be considered in the category of "communism and the Soviet Union" even though the list is mainly about the removal of placenames in the category of "Russia and Russian imperialism". One example is the village on this list called Lenina (named for Lenin); most other places called Lenina in Ukraine were renamed as part of decommunization but for this village, even though the name/etymology is identical to those other earlier-renamed places, it was renamed as part of/during derussification. So it's important readers understand that these purely communist names changed later on are part of the derussification inclusion of this list even though they would seem like decommunization name changes. I think Shwabb said it well too: since the 2023 law, decommunization has been effectively subsumed into derussification so I think having the efn note where it is makes sense. Also thanks Shwabb for fixing the "Russian communist figures" part! :)

4. Yup I have an idea for this :) I'll add in a hopefully good, descriptive efn note regarding Ukrainian orthography's changes/derussification & the shift away from Russian orthography/Surzhyk and how these led to/affected the respelling/rewording name changes.

9/10.

• To build on Shwabb's first reply about the laws technically not prohibiting the removal of organic Russian names: footnote f ("Other exceptions to derussification provided by the laws include...") should basically list out most of the permissible exceptions to the 2023 law. Technically, based on those exemptions, it's not like most Russian-esque organic names are imminently at risk for renaming (i.e. the Krasnopil example from Zhytomyr Oblast and many other examples listed in ref #41) but there are still many "organic" Russian names that would fall outside the exemptions listed, like those named after Russian Tsars or other names potentially too (I can't think of any example at the moment of where the historical/"organic" Russian-esque name of a place was removed but maybe Shwabb might know some). In my opinion, I think another footnote would work fine enough to give additional context to readers. I can briefly explain the de facto & de jure status of Russian in Ukraine since independence, major changes in those statuses over the years with emphasis on public use/opinion & pre/post-2022 (also how Russian speakers affected the decommunization process), shift by essentially all Ukrainians towards full use of Ukrainian/abandonment of Russian, and some other helpful info.
• Also I saw CMD you mentioned in your first reply about the "entwined history linking Russia, Ukraine, and communism, or understand the history of the Russian language in Ukraine, and thus why decommunization might be seen as different to derussification"; I'm not sure I fully understand the suggestion but I'm also thinking it might not be applicable anymore since points 1/2 above and all the other points generally cover this? We could cover this part after finishing the other points and a footnote could work here too (I really do like footnotes ;)

@Shwabb1: I'll add in the efn notes for point 4 (about orthography), 9/10 (about the Russian language background info), & that efn note I've been meaning to add in for a while about the switch/standardization to Ukrainian (KyivNotKiev) hopefully before the end of this week but in any case at the earliest I can get it finished. I'll also expand two of the existing efns, one to add in your great list of cities to be renamed Pavlohrad, Khrustalnyi, etc., and the other to add in more exceptions/examples from the Vox source in that lead comment I made before. About the table & point 2/3, I'll give a more detailed reply tomorrow/very soon so I can more thoroughly look over/test out everything. From first impressions though, changing the column title to "Reason for renaming" sounds good. For condensing the text... I'll want to take a careful look through it later this week/soonish and try out different things before deciding on anything now so we don't have to unnecessarily switch between different wordings/formattings. Any idea that cuts back on excess text/repetitiveness generally works well with me though.

I think that should cover everything regarding the lead but in case I missed anything, feel free to let me know and I'll definitely be able to reply sooner than later and hopefully get everything finished as soon as can be. Also, I won't be able to say thanks enough but thanks Shwabb for fixing so many of the suggestions and especially with the table! :) Dan the Animator 06:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dantheanimator and Shwabb1: Has everything been finished? @Chipmunkdavis: Is the list in a state that you're happy with or not yet? --PresN 21:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

PresN thanks for the ping! I fell behind with things after catching a tough case of the flu last week but still working on this. Some footnotes to be added in/edited and some table work is left but otherwise it is close to being finished. I'll try to finish the rest of it soon as I can and will follow-up when ready. Dan the Animator 23:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis @Dantheanimator I've added a footnote that explains the historic context of Ukrainian and Russian languages, as well as Ukrainian orthography and romanization (4 and part of 9/10). Also added information on derussification's popularity (part of 9/10), changed the "Notes" column to "Reason for renaming", and added info on cities that are to be renamed and the situation with Crimea. I believe this should cover almost everything, the last major unaddressed point is how to condense the reasons for renaming. I can try emulating the style I used for Cherkasy/Chernihiv oblasts for now just to move on with this (improvements may still be added after this nomination goes through). Let me know what you think and if there are any other points I missed. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

To follow-up from my talk page reply, I'll be finishing the remaining work most likely before the end of next week. Also many thanks Shwabb for the recent additions! :) I took a quick look through them and they look great though I might add on/modify them a bit when finishing the remaining edits. About the point about condensing the renaming reason column, I wouldn't worry about it for now. I'm sure this list will be ready by next week for promotion with your and my new edits. Dan the Animator 18:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Dantheanimator and Shwabb1: This nomination has been open for nearly 4 months, with no movement here for 3 weeks. I've been stalling on it for honestly much longer than I should have, but at this point Chipmunkdavis's concerns haven't been fully addressed after nearly 3 months. I'm going to be closing the nomination in the near future if it isn't wrapped up soon. --PresN 21:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe all major points have been addressed, though Dan wanted to edit a few things so I'm waiting for that. There's not much else to do with the list. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 05:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

My deepest apologies everyone for the significant delays on my end! I've went through and I think the list as-is should be more than good enough now with Shwabb's footnote and edits. I'll still be improving and adding edits to the page in the future but I agree with Shwabb and think all the points have been well addressed. @Chipmunkdavis: take a look soon as you can and let us know if you can support now. PresN: I can't give enough thanks for letting the nom stay open this long and my many apologies again for the many months delay. The list should be ready as-is for promotion once CMD supports but let me know if there's anything else I can do to finally finish this nom. Dan the Animator 07:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, I've looked through this with much fresher eyes now. I think the lead is clearer, with a better explanation of the various factors that defined 'russification' (and thus what was looking to be changed). The leads examples and common themes are also helpful. I'm not seeing particular issues with any other FLCR. In regards to some of the discussion above, looking again I find "Previously named after Alexander Suvorov" clearer than "Named after Alexander Suvorov", I would suggest standardising the entries towards the former. There might be scope to give a bit more explanation in some areas, for example "Previously named after Iskra"->"Previously named after the Iskra newspaper". However, those seem to be normal and small editing considerations, so I will support. A very interesting list, lots of things to puzzle out. CMD (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I just applied your suggested changes. I agree with Dan that the exact wording may be changed later, but having consistent entries helps to bring the list to completion. Thanks for the support. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 15:34, 17 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.

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, 18 June 2025 (UTC) [7].

---

List of municipalities in Almería

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

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

Image review by Arconning

• File:Almeria in Spain.svg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Karte Gemeinden und Gerichtsbezirke Provinz Almería 2022.png - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:2007-12-18-04706 Spain Almeria edited.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.5
• File:LaRocalla3.JPG - CC0, the permission says Public Domain? Could this be clarified?
• File:El Ejido aerial.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:VistaNíjar.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• All of the image mostly have proper licensing, all have proper captions, relevant to the article, and alt-text for accessibility.
  • Just this one query. :) Arconning (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Arconning. The user uploaded that image to Wikimedia Commons and released it under that license. What else is required here? What can I do? Thanks! Alavense (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alavense Either delete it or replace the license on the original file to Public Domain. Arconning (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

But the original file on Commons already has a CC0 template on the licensing section. And the upload seems legitimate, as well as the other files uploaded by the same user. Isn't that enough? Excuse my ignorance, Arconning. Alavense (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll be passing the image review, that's true... All good then. :) Arconning (talk) 04:58, 25 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?

There's an article for INE, so I guessed it would be nice to use the name in English when there's one. Alavense (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Some sources are missing publication dates.

Dates were provided where possible (laws and pieces of news, for instance), but I couldn't find any for the statistical information (the census). Alavense (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ayuntamiento can be linked.

If you mean a link to ayuntamiento, I think that article is not specific enough and doesn't really provide more information than what we already have in the text. Alavense (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• While Alavense is correct, I did find this: Ayuntamiento (Spain) which I will link to. Mattximus (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  That one is nice, more specific, so nice. I added it to the other lists as well. Thanks, Mattximus. Alavense (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Is pointing out the provincial capital in the table nessecary, it has already been said in the lede and doesn't really add anything.

The capital is quite important within a province, so I I think it does no harm and it makes sense to have it highlighted there. Alavense (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Some more columns that could be added are, coats of arms and maps. See [8] for the images.

There are two maps at the beginning of the list, and one of them specifically points out where every municipality in the province is located. I believe that covers it. Personally, I don't think adding images of coats of arms to a table like this brings any additional encyclopedic value. My personal view aside, legally coats of arms are not a design, but a descriptive text of what they are expected to look like, so we would have to add a reference like this for every single one we added. Alavense (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I've seen this done in other lists, but a line has to be drawn to keep the column width accessible to the most number of users. Things like coat of arms are easily available at a click on are not really a good fit for a column since the column is there for comparison, and coat of arms are individual and follow no pattern. Mattximus (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Could Comarcas be added?

Comarcas are not official for the provinces of this autonomous community (it is for some, but a law hasn't been passed for this one yet), so I would prefer not to. Alavense (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• There are also images for all the municipalities, I don't know if those should be added though.

I think there are enough pictures already and I think it makes sense to have only a few for the most populous municipalities, as is usually the case with these lists. More information about each municipality and loads of images are only one click away. I don't know what Mattximus's view on this is, though. Alavense (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

While not a bad idea, I think adding 102 images would cause some issues with size and formatting and make it harder to access the table itself. I think a small sample of the largest municipalities gets you the idea of the style of this province. Mattximus (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the list, History6042. I replied above. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from HAL

• If it's not too awkward, could you include how many provinces are in Spain -- it might contextualize 21st largest by population, etc.

Does it work now? Alavense (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Mostly. I made a minor adjustment. ~ HAL333 19:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• "the second largest municipality by population in the province of Almería" --> "the second largest municipality by population in Almería" for sake of concision and flow.

Done. Alavense (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• I might include parenthetical square miles for all area values in the lead.

Done. Alavense (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Could you archive all online sources?

I archived as many as I could: the ones from the Centro Nacional de Información Geográfica and Instituto Geográfico Nacional, the piece of news regarding the newly created municipality and all four laws. However, I'm afraid 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. I hope that won't be a problem, though. Alavense (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all I got. Nice work. ~ HAL333 18:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do the review, HAL333. I replied above. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support. ~ HAL333 19:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 15:35, 17 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.

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, 18 June 2025 (UTC) [9].

---

List of Hot Adult Contemporary number ones of 1992

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Medxvo

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

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

• Happy to support. Medxvo (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

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

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

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

@Medxvo: @Alavense: - many thanks for your reviews, all done I believe! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Date format is consistent (though consider adding a "use MDY dates"
• Linking is consistent
• All sources should be archived
• Spot checks don't flag anything
• The book sources come from a reputable author

Literally all I found was the archive thing, great job on this! Olliefant (she/her) 19:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: - as mentioned in my nomination statement, the archiving bot is experiencing issues again so it is not possible to archive the sources at this time, but as archived sources are a "nice to have" and not a requirement for FL status, hopefully that won't be an issue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Support Olliefant (she/her) 07:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 15:33, 17 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.

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, 18 June 2025 (UTC) [10].

---

Black Country, New Road discography

Nominator(s): Cattos^💭 22:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Comments

• I kinda feel obligated to review this one given that I live in the Black Country, although I note that the band don't actually come from anywhere near here........??
• "Their discography has achieved critical and commercial success, particularly in the United Kingdom." - the "commercial success" part can probably be deduced from the tables without need for a further source, but is there a source for "critical success"?
• "The album was met with critical acclaim" - same here
• "Their third studio album, Forever Howlong, was released on 9 February 2024 to critical acclaim" - and here
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Do you think citing the Metacritic pages for each album would work? Those collate tons of reviews from reliable sources and critics, so it seems fitting. Or would another source(s) be preferable? Rambley (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Review aggregators says that Metacritic is considered a reliable source so I guess so -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Cited MC for the second and third claims, cited a NME article for the first claim which calls them "one of the most critically acclaimed bands to emerge from the South London post-punk revival scene". Rambley (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

History 6042

• Please add alt text.
• Please add archives.
• Some sources have URLs and some have website names. Please name them consistent.
• Most tables are seemingly uncited. The inline citations only show the peak positions and released by.
• If inline citations cover a whole row, they should be in their own column.
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 First three points are done, but I'm slightly confused about point four and five; tables are cited and discographies are typically meant to show peak positions (see Radiohead discography or Death Grips discography), but I possibly misinterpreted this. Could you also give example(s) of point five? Cheers. Rambley (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Rambley: Thank you for your responses! One thing since im not home yet: make sure to archive the charts in their most recent version. For example, the UK charts is archived in 17 February 2021, which makes recent albums like AFUT and FH don't appear as released. Cattos^💭 15:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Have tried my best to fix up the archives as best as I can + fix some incorrect archives Rambley (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  I mean that I don't see citations for Released, Labels, or Format. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  I've added citations for released dates and labels where I can. Extensive information on stuff like the limited "Never Again" EPs are hard to come across though.

  Formats are also quite tricky to cite, but hopefully a combination of the AllMusic page and the label's store (Ninja Tune) is enough. Rambley (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 Please take a look and let me know what you think. Rambley (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Rambley, you didn’t add archives to sources. They are not necessary though so I’ll support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

NegativeMP1

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

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

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

I have also seen many discography lists that do not cite release formats or record labels. I made those changes per the recommendations above. This is my first time working on any sort of featured list so this entire situation is.. a bit tricky to say the least. I'm thinking of going with your suggestion for citing the album itself, since it does feature the label information on the back, which would then make citing the Never Again EPs easy enough and hopefully verifiable. Let me know what you think. Rambley (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure, honestly. But I'm inclined to believe that release formats and a record label fall under easily verifiable information that can be presumed as cited to the album itself (worst case scenario, you could even just cite the liner notes to make it more clear). Track listings and album credits usually don't require sources on their article usually as a comparable instance. @History6042:, since you reviewed and provided the above comments regarding citing this material, what do you think? λ NegativeMP1 19:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

If they are sourced to the album itself I think it’s fine. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cathodography has (very nicely) went ahead and cited the media notes for the labels. Rambley (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, @NegativeMP1:! I've now added citations for the label information, including the Ninja Tune releases. Let us know if anything still looks off. Cattos^💭 00:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Everything looks good! I think I'm satisfied with how everything is at the moment, so I'm supporting. λ NegativeMP1 02:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Can you help confirm the reliability of Still Listening? Otherwise, sources appear reliable and have consistent format. I have no issues with YouTube per WP:VIDEOREF as the video was posted by Vevo

I originally got the source from Album of The Year's critic score, but that doesn't really help. One thing I found is that Still Listening does multiple interviews with international artists from the underground scene alongside album reviews and music news. The most notable established artist interviewed I found so far is the Lambrini Girls and Jockstrap. I will be asking to confirm the reliability of this source at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, if thats okay with you for now.

• I suggest linking Ondarock (ref 1), Official Charts Company (ref 40), and NME (ref 51) for consistency

Done

• I suggest merging the duplicate refs 36 and 54

Done

• The fact that they are an experimental rock group doesn't appear to be sourced, perhaps you could add this source?

Done

• I've done a spot check and I have two comments
  • Forever Howlong reached number 32 in Austria not 39

Fixed

• • Ref 1 doesn't confirm that the band was formed in 2018

Added [11]

Medxvo (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Medxvo: I have responded to your feedback. So far, are you convinced regarding the reliability of Still Listening? I really can't explain exactly the reliability of this source since they don't have an about page, but its articles don't seem too suspicious or advertisement-leaning, and I've never had any problems using it. Cattos^💭 18:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

After discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, I replaced the souce with Exclaim! and DIY. Cattos^💭 17:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up comments, I'm happy to support this FLC. Medxvo (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 15:35, 17 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.

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, 18 June 2025 (UTC) [12].

---

55th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 09:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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

History6042

• Can all online sources be given archives.

• Unfortunately the archiving bot doesn't seem to be able to archive the sources obtained from Newspapers.com. For some reasons, it gives me a "502 BAD GATEWAY" error page everytime I attempt to do it. For comparison, when I ran the same tool just today for List of Los Angeles Rams starting quarterbacks, there was no errors running the tool. However, this shouldn't affect whether the resource is valid or not because say in the event Newspapers.com ceases to exist, the fact that the source came from credible newspaper (even if the publication doesn't exist in the present) means that any person probably has access to the source (whether it be in a library or electronic data that is accessible like say episodes of Sesame Street viewable by the public in the Library of Congress According to Wikipedia:Published, Additionally, an accessible copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the copy to be accessible via the Internet.

• There doesn't seem to be any inline citations for the Films with multiple nominations and awards section.

• Unfortunately, I can't find any sources online or even in print that can outright confirm "multiple wins and nominations". Also according to Wikipedia:Counting and sorting are not original research, it reads, Being able to count and complete other basic mathematical analysis should not be impeded as well: 'Mario Cuomo served 12 years as governor of New York, from January 1, 1983 to December 31, 1994.' If you have the data stating that Mario Cuomo took office on January 1, 1983 and left December 31, 1994, there is no need to find another source that states he held the office for 12 years. You can count the number of years or otherwise complete basic calculations to arrive at a meaningful answer." In addition, the policy reads, "Counting is a simple and widely accepted operation. Certainly sources exist to provide that information, but such sourcing would become clumsy and would detract from the article rather than add to it. Therefore, counting the number of items in a simple list or group of data is acceptable. It is not original research." The only time citations are needed are if it is pertaining to the figures or data dealing with a large group such as the population of a given country. In this case, most people can implicitly count how many nominations and wins a film received based on the data given on the table.

• Alt texts should either be more descriptive or just say See caption. Right now the only new info is the year.

• I've added a bit more description which states what event the person was attending, if possible. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images#Importance_of_context, alt text should not describe a person's clothes or appearance unless the photo appears in an article about fashion or about the person's style.

• The part that says "commonly referred to as Oscars", should be moved to right after the bolded text.

• Placing the phrase "commonly referred to as Oscars" wouldn't work because technically, that nickname only refers to the award itself. The ceremony was not referred to on the broadcast as "The Oscars" until 2013, and even then, the award itself is known as the "Academy Award for Merit". There was a lengthy discussion about the name discourse on Talk:Academy_Awards#Official_name. I don't think that phrasing it as "The 55th Academy Awards ceremony, commonly known as the Oscars, was presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), honored films released in 1982, and took place on April 11, 1983, at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles." would make sense as every edition of the ceremony would be different. That would sound clunky because then it would be hard to differentiate each ceremony. Also, you couldn't just say the 1983 Oscars because even though the ceremony took place in April 1983, the Academy determines it as winners for achievements in films released the previous year the ceremony took place.

• Not sure about the standard for this kind of table but should there be scopes on the Awards table.

• I don't know how that would work out on this type of table. Unless PresN knows of something how to do so.

• I have a tool/script installed to point out harv errors and warnings, it is showing on some of the ones in ref 13.

• As SounderBruce and jlwoodwa mentioned in a previous FLC, that is most likely a warning, which is displayed by the user script you installed, and which happen to be false positives here – caused by using multiple citation templates inside a single reference footnote, which is permitted by WP:BUNDLING and does not violate the featured list criteria.

• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@History6042: Done – I addressed all your comments. Please read each response since there was only one I could outright change while others I could not do so.

--Birdienest81talk 21:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio

@Birdienest81:

• Add a language variant template ({{Use American English}}).
• No copyvios.
• Based on link-dispenser,
  • 1 ref that could be down is missing archive url.
  • 18 refs need archive links.

    If iabot doesn't work, try archiving manually.

• Liza Minnelli's image is missing alt text.
• Could be better if the latest images could be replaced with images taken around 80s, so they would be contemporary to the event.

Vestrian24Bio 10:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Vestrian24Bio: Done - I've read your comments and made changes based on them. However

• Not all the refs could be archived particularly especially the ones that come from actual physical books such as the ones from Wily & Bona, Osborne, and Kinn & Piazza. Some are available on the Internet Archive's Books to Borrow but I can't screenshot the pages and in some cases the book was made unavailable due to copyright restrictions by the publishers
• I tried to get images of the winners closest to the time of the ceremony, but some like Jessica Lange don't have great images closer to their win (her 1989 photos show only her side and not her full face in a visible position). Others like Ben Burtt and Dennis Muren have no images from the 70s or 80s.

Otherwise, that's about it,

--Birdienest81talk 10:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

All else seems good, Support. Vestrian24Bio 12:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "Matthau and Pryor hosted the gala time" - are there some words missing here?
• "Meanwhile, this was Minnelli and Moore's first hosting stints" => "Minnelli and Moore hosted for the first time"
• " Actor John Moschitta Jr. who was known for his fast talking delivery in commercials made an appearance" => " Actor John Moschitta Jr., who was known for his fast talking delivery in commercials, made an appearance"
• "Several members of the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps from the University of Southern California made an appearance at the beginning of the performance of Best Original Song nominee "Up Where We Belong" from the film An Officer and a Gentleman[" - full stop is missing at the end
• "he criticized the decision to reward Gandhi the Best Picture award" - this doesn't seem to make grammatical sense. Maybe "he criticized the decision to reward Gandhi with the Best Picture award"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Done - I've read your comments, and accordingly made corrections based off of them. Thank you for your feedback.

--Birdienest81talk 21:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:33, 17 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.

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, 11 June 2025 (UTC) [13].

---

List of Hot Adult Contemporary number ones of 1991

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Comments by Alavense

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

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

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

@Alavense: - thanks for your review! I've addressed the above. Re: point 2, the run in question ended in 1979 but actually spanned two years, so I have linked both -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Happy to support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• Alt texts should me more descriptive.
  • In what way? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Right blow they are just name, a better example could be “Singer Example singing on stage with a microphone.” History6042😊 (Contact me) 10:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042: - changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Please archive the rest of the sources.
  • I have run IABot multiple times on the article. Maybe it's being temperamental again? Unless the rules have changed recently, archiving sources is a "nice to have" and not a requirement for FL status...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  I know it’s not required and is just nice, I will not oppose on the grounds of archiving, so this is fine. History6042😊 (Contact me) 10:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• In the category template why is there a blank space in 1961–1979.
  • I changed the template so it doesn't any more....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @History6042: - see above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

    Support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from HAL

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

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

@HAL333: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support. ~ HAL333 21:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• All of the citations are reliable, high-quality, and appropriate for a FL about music. The citation structure is consistent. I do have some minor notes below, but it is nothing major.
• For Citation 4, I would recommend adding that a subscription is required to view the article. On a side note, should Billboard be in italics for the title?
  • Both done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• The Billboard charts in general now seem to require a Pro subscription to view, and I think that it would be helpful to mark that in the citation.
  • I wasn't sure whether this was needed as it's possible to view the number one without a subscription and that is all that is being cited, but I have added it anyway.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    • You are right. For some reason, I did not even think about that. The focus of the citation is on the number-one position, and since readers can see that even without a subscription, it is not really necessary to clarify that in the citation. Apologies for not catching that. Feel free to remove them from these citations if you would prefer. Aoba47 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would recommend archiving web links, but that is not required for a FL. It would just be helpful to avoid any potential headaches when it comes to possible link rot and death.
  • As noted above, I have run IABot multiple times on the article but it only archives some of the links for unknown reasons -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Understandable. Just wanted to make a note of it just in case. Aoba47 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Is there a reason for using the same citation for two sentences in a row for the lead's first paragraph instead of just having one citation at the end of the paragraph?
  • Just so it didn't look like I had forgotten to source the first sentence -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    • That is fair. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• This is more of a clarification question so feel free to disagree. Should the last few sentences of the lead have citations or is the information being cited through the tables in the list? Has this been something done in previous Billboard FLs? Again, this is just a clarification question. I am not saying that it is wrong, but it did catch my attention so I just wanted some clarification about it.
  • Yes, I consider things like Michael Bolton being the only artist with three number ones to be covered by WP:CALC. This is how I have done it in all of my 1previous number ones FLCs..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    • I had a feeling that was the case, but I just wanted to make sure. I have not reviewed lists for a while so I am a bit out of practice with it. Thank you for the link by the way, as I was not aware of that part of the MOS. It makes sense, and I am glad that it is there. Aoba47 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have done a spot-check of the sources, and from what I see, the citations support the information in the prose and tables.

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

@Aoba47: - many thanks for taking the time to do the source review, responses are above! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Medxvo

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

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

@Medxvo: - done (probably another UK/US English difference ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support :)) Medxvo (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 21:35, 10 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.

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, 11 June 2025 (UTC) [14].

---

List of governors of Cross River State

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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

History6042

• Flag needs alt text.
• So does insignia.
• Alt texts should be more descriptive than just names.
• References should probably be put in the notes column as it is mostly unused.
• Please add archives to sources.
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 Thank you for looking!

  • Alt text for flag already existed.
  • done.
  • I added more descriptive alts.
  • I do not understand what "References should probably be put in the notes column as it is mostly unused" means...
  • Archives are not part of the FL criteria, but it can be nice to have them.

  Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  References should be moved to their own column is what I meant. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 Ah, I see. I think that would be very unsuitable for a list of this nature (see similar lists here, here, and here). Every citation is coming after a fact they verify, moving all of them to a new column does not seem right, and might not be an appropriate WP:V practice. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, seems good, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• My only query is whether a massive "notes" column is needed when there are only two entries. Could these be converted to footnotes.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude That is honestly reasonable. Done. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

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

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

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

@Alavense Thanks for reading and giving input. I fixed that sentence, I think it needs to be capitalised because it is a title of a column in a table, and besides the abbr template already does the job perfectly. What do you think? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy now. Thanks for taking care of these so quickly, Vanderwaalforces. Happy to support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Support on Sources from Ibjaja055

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

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

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

Promoting. --PresN 21:34, 10 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.

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, 11 June 2025 (UTC) [15].

---

List of governors of Bayelsa State

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

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

History6042

• Infobox image need alt text.
• Table image need more descriptive alt texts than just a name.
• Election columns are unsourced.
• Same with most of the deputy governors columns.
• Same with most of the parties columns.
• When the political parties are the same they can be merged.
• Notes columns can be removed as they are not used.
• Why do some have birth dates, some death dates, and some neither.
• Ping when done, but currently there is just to much work to be done so I must oppose. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 Please see similar FLs List of governors of Edo State, and List of governors of Delta State. I am working on a format as it was recommended on these ones that are already FLs. The elections do not need citations, neither do the political party columns. I am presenting the dates of birth I could find, you don’t expect me to put up imaginary dates right? Please see the similar lists I worked on already above and check their review pages if possible. Thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  You cannot claim that certain things do not need citations. Every claim needs a citation. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 I mean, the pol parties have citations already, some birth dates are missing because they’re not published. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  I have just added an alt text to the infobox image. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, now just cite the elections column and I can support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 I did now. Please check, thanks. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Toadspike

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

@Toadspike Thanks for looking. This is good idea; I never thought of that. But how do I handle other entries that have several sources, each supporting their equivalent claim? Please let me know what you think, otherwise I think it’s safe to say the Notes column should go out? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike I just removed the notes column now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. If you wanted to, you could put refs in their own column, like at List of cabinets of Liechtenstein. This would separate them from the exact content they're citing, though, so I think the current format is better. Toadspike [Talk] 19:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike Okay, thank you for looking into this :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Lead

• The first sentence is very vague. We are talking about a list of administrators here, so I think it should be more like: "Bayelsa State, located in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, has been led by colonial, military, and civilian administrations." I am open to other wording, but it should emphasize that we are listing the administrations rather than discussing the political transformations.
  • done.
• "British officials governed the region until Nigeria’s first military coup in 1966" – I am not super familiar with the history of Nigeria, but I was under the impression that there were a few years between independence and military rule where presumably Bayelsa was not governed by British officials.
  • fixed.
• Footnote a, describing the region system, should be moved one sentence earlier, when the regions are first mentioned.
  • done.
• It's not clear whether Gowon was military leader of Nigeria or just Bayelsa – it would be nice if you could find a way to specify this in the lead.
  • fixed.
• "However, the Nigerian military government under Sani Abacha..." – "However" is not necessary. If you wish to retain a transition for smoother reading, I suggest moving the date to the start of the sentence: "In 1996, the Nigerian military government under Sani Abacha created Bayelsa State by carving it out of Rivers State."
  • done.
• "when Diepreye Alamieyeseigha became the first democratically elected governor" – as with Gowon, it is not entirely clear what he's governing. I suggest specifying "governor of Bayelsa".
  • done.
• A reminder that you are not required to fill out every possible field in the infobox. I think "Reports to", "Appointer", and "Constituting instrument" may not be quite correct and suggest removing them or switching to other parameters, but I am not the most informed on Nigerian politics so please clarify if I've got things wrong:
  • In most federal systems, state governors do not "report to" the head of state – they are fairly independent. For instance, I don't think the President of Nigeria can fire the Governor of Bayelsa. I think this field should be removed
    • done.
  • An "appointer" is usually a person who appoints, not the method by which the appointee is chosen. Seeing "popular vote" placed in this field is really weird. I admit that there is no better field to put "popular vote", which could be seen as an important fact. I suggest leaving it out.
    • done.
  • Is the post of governor of Bayelsa really defined in the constitution of Nigeria? Does the state not have its own constitution?
    • yes, it is defined in the constitution of Nigeria as I cited. It is defined as a governor of any Nigerian state, and not specifically Bayelsa.

Eastern Region

• "now constitutes Rivers State" – though technically also correct, I think this should say "Bayelsa State".
  • Fixed, this was definitely a copy-paste error, lol.
• "while Michael Okpara served as its second premier" – the distinction between "premier" and "governor" is not spelled out. Was the premier the deputy to the governor in the First Nigerian Republic?
  • I defined both roles now.
• It is stated in the lead and in this section that the regional system was abolished, but clearly the Eastern Region still existed and had a governor afterwards. This is confusing and should be clarified.
  • I clarified this one too now.

Rivers State

• After describing the division of the Eastern Region by Gowon in both the lead and this section, it needs to be explicitly stated that Bayelsa became a part of Rivers State. In the lead, "remained part of" gives the sense that the reader has missed the point where Bayelsa became part of Rivers State. In this section it's not specified at all.
  • @Toadspike: The point is, Bayelsa was nonexistent as of that time. Left for me, I do not think mentioning Bayelsa here is worth it at all, especially since we're dwelling on Rivers and Bayelsa wasn't existing. What do you suggest?--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
    • @Vanderwaalforces: Bayelsa didn't exist at the time, but the area that is now part of Bayelsa State was part of Rivers State, which is why we're listing the governors of Rivers State at all. I think in a list of governors of Bayelsa it is worth mentioning this. On reading over it again, the wording in the lead seems clear enough, but I've added a few words [16] in this section – let me know if you don't like it. Toadspike [Talk] 07:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

      @Toadspike okay that makes sense! Thank you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• "thus share the same party" should probably be past tense, "shared". Even if it is still true today, I assume it was not true for the subsequent periods of military rule.
  • done.
• "...and successive military administrators until another brief civilian transition..." – I suggest putting a period somewhere in there and splitting this into two sentences.
  • done.

Bayelsa State

• "Upon its creation, Bayelsa State was placed under military administration" – I would argue it wasn't placed under military administration, but already was under military administration. Suggest: "At its creation, Phillip Ayeni was made the first military administrator of Bayelsa State from October 1996 to February 1997."
• "Under the Fourth Republic" is a very abrupt switch with little context – I suggest explaining the transition to the Fourth Republic at least briefly and explicitly stating the date when it began. Perhaps add a paragraph break before this sentence.
• It might be interesting to state why Sylva's election was nullified. It would also be interesting to state what post Seibarugo had that qualified him to serve as acting governor.
• "...before the installation of an elected replacement. Henry Seriake Dickson, also of the PDP, was elected governor..." – These sentences are worded in a way that doesn't make it clear that Dickson was the replacement in question; it sounds as if we've started talking about someone completely different.
• "after the annulment of the election" – This part is confusing. Normally, I'd assume that if an election is annulled, it has to be re-run, but based on the source they simply eliminated the winner and chose Diri instead. I can't find a better wording, though, that doesn't require explaining what happened and naming David Lyon. Do you have a solution?
  • @Toadspike: I fixed all these too, thank you for all the comments and suggestions. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

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

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

@Alavense Thanks for looking and commenting. I have attended to your recommendations. The Governor and Premier are capitalised because they're referring to specific people. Thanks again. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, Vanderwaalforces. There's still one pending: After independence, Francis Akanu Ibiam (1960–1966) became the first Nigerian governor of the Eastern Region, while Michael Okpara served as its second premier (1960–1966) succeeding Nnamdi Azikiwe - I don't know what Nnamdi Azikiwe's part is in all this, as it's the first time he's mentioned. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alavense If Okpara served as second premier, succeeding Azikiwe, does it not mean Azikiwe was the first? Did you read it from this perspective? I think it is pretty clear, but please you can suggest a better way that can be written. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't really understand why we get to know earlier about the second premier than about the first. Alavense (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alavense should I remove his name entirely? Nnamdi Azikiwe actually does not make sense to be mentioned originally based on the chronology of the events. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Your decision, Vanderwaalforces, of course. I just pointed out because it confused me when I read it. Alavense (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alavense okay, done! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. Alavense (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Source review by LEvalyn - pass

• For a spot check, I randomly sampled 15% of the sources. Notes below:
  • Falola & Genova 2009, p. 103: I'm only able to access the 2000 and 2018 editions of this book, not the 2009 edition. The three citations to this page aren't supported by the entries I see for "Bayelsa State" on p 109 of 2018 and p 100 of 200, but the information is supported by the entry for "Eastern Region" on p 171-2 of 2018 and 178-9 of 2000. Please double check the page number here.
  • 9, 10, 16, 18, 34, and 50 all check out, no notes.
  • For 32, I boldly made some minor polishing edits.
• Also, Who's Who in Nigeria is a book, not "news", even though it's published by Newswatch-- it needs the book citation template.
• Overall, I don't see any red flags in the source list -- all appropriate RS.
• Not related to sourcing: I find the flow of events in This followed the death of Sani Abacha... to be a bit confusing. I don't see a good reason to be jumping back and forth in time like this -- can we put these events in chronological order? First Abacha suppressed opponents, then he died, then his successor had a transition programme, then the Fourth Republic begins.
• Once you've had a chance to address Falola & Genova 2009 I think you're looking good on sources. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  @LEvalyn Thank you so much! I could not grasp the Falola and Geneva 2009, p. 103 feedback. What exactly is not supporting what, please? All other comments have been addressed, thanks again. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, that one is a little complicated because I'm partly guessing about the page numbers of the edition you actually had. Based on the page number cited (103) I’m assuming the citation is to this encyclopedia’s entry for "Bayelsa State". However, based on the versions I can see, the "Bayelsa State" entry doesn’t support any of the info it’s cited for. A different entry, "Eastern Region", does support all the relevant info, so I’m assuming the page numbers are a mistake and you meant to cite that entry instead. You just need to double check your copy of Falola & Genova and update the cite with the right page number. Let me know if that explanation hasn’t clarified. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Please, what are the page numbers from your end? I did a fix to the misplacement though, but still didn't grasp the whole thing. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  I found the 2009 edition online here and it looks like everything is actually fine! I assumed that the 2009 edition would have very similar page numbers to the 2000 and 2018 editions, but that assumption was wrong. Because a highly related entry (on "Bayelsa State") was near p 103 in the editions I could see, and the "Eastern Region" entry was not near p 103 in those editions, I was just guessing that there might have been a mix-up in which entry was cited. But it looks the answer to my question was actually, the "Eastern Region" entry is on p 103 of Falola & Genova 2009 and double-checking shows there is bo problem. Sorry for the confusion! I suggest adding the Internet Archive link to the 2009 edition, but I am now happy to support on the sources. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, thank you so much, LEvalyn. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Image review – All of the photos used in the article have appropriate free licensing. While not strictly mandatory, it would be nice to see alt text added for greater accessibility. Only the flag image has it from what I can see. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Promoting, though please do add alt text. --PresN 21:35, 10 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.

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, 7 June 2025 (UTC) [17].

---

Men's T20 World Cup tournaments

Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio 09:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

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

History6042

• All sources should have archives.
• Super 8s, 10s, etc, should be explained.
• Some rows can be merged for example, the Canada and Uganda best performances in Overall team performances.
• Dates should use one format not both.
• Afghanistan has a new flag, the tables should reflect this.
• If there are wins in the table listed I think losses and ties should be too.
• The apps section of Team performances by tournament needs a citation.
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042:

  • The {{ESPNcricinfo 2}} template doesn't support archiving as stat links are unlikely to link-rot. It also re-formats date based on user preferences; should appear fine while viewing signed out. I've queued iabot for others.
  • I've linked the Super stage to the part of main article where they're explained.
  • Afghanistan national cricket team still uses the old flag.
  • Loses and Ties are already in the table at Men's T20 World Cup records which I put in the hatnote there, should they be still added??

  All else done. Vestrian24Bio 11:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Everything looks good, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Arconning

• The sole image used is from mapchart.net which explicitly says in its website that its works are copyrighted, so this should either be replaced or removed entirely as its a copyright violation.
• "West Indies...", "The West Indies..."
• "in Twenty20 International (T20I) format,", "in the Twenty20 International (T20I) format,"
• "World Twenty20 to Men's T20 World Cup.", "the World Twenty20 to the Men's T20 World Cup."
• "The table below provides a summary of the performances of teams over past T20 World Cups, as of the end of the 2024 tournament. *Teams are ordered by their best performance, then winning percentage, then (if equal) by alphabetical order.", this would work better as a note.
  • Here are my comments for now. Arconning (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Arconning:

  • Map removed.
  • Not sure if this is what you meant by a note, take a look...

  All else done. Vestrian24Bio 11:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'll give my support. Arconning (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "West Indies, England and India have won the title twice each" => "The West Indies, England and India have won the title twice each"
• "is the Super 8 appearance by the United States in 2024" - without further explanation somewhere in the article "Super 8 appearance" is meaningless
• "while the worst result by a Test playing nation is the Super 12 appearance by Zimbabwe in 2022" - same here
• "No title winners have yet defended their title in the following edition" => "No title winners have yet retained their title in the following edition"
• I would move the legend to above the "Team performances by tournament" table as that is the only table to which it applies. The bit about the dagger can be put above the tables to which it applies, and it should be reworded to simply "Test playing nations / ICC full members are indicated by a dagger symbol (†)."
• The last column of the debutant teams table looks odd with the individual numbers left aligned but the total centre aligned
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude:

  • Reworded Super 8 and Super 12.
  • Should the last column of the debutant teams table be all centered or all left..?

  All else done. Vestrian24Bio 11:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I would say all centred looks better -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  BTW I meant that the legend should be immediately above the "Team performances by tournament" table. It can be under the L2 heading for that section, it doesn't need its own L2 heading -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thanks, done. Vestrian24Bio 11:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Source review by Bgsu98

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

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

• As noted above, all sources need to be archived.
• Dates do not show a consistent format. For example, Source No. 3 shows an access date of 2024-12-12 and an archive date of 13 November 2024. I would recommend picking one format and ensuring that all dates adhere to it.
• Some sources have improper author citations. For example, Source No. 3 lists a last name of Media and a first name of USA Cricket. Either that's the most unfortunate name a set of parents could give a child, or else the citation template imported the data improperly. When entering sources, you have to ensure that data was input properly, and sometimes that means removing bogus authors and re-entering that information as a website or publisher. Source No. 4 also has an improper author.
• I spot-checked the following sources to see if they supported what they were purported to:

1. No. 3 – Checks out.
2. No. 6 – Used as a reference for the statement Kenya and Scotland were the only non-Test playing nations to be featured in the inaugural edition. Neither Kenya nor Scotland are identified in the source.
3. No. 8 – Checks out.
4. No. 12 – Checks out.
5. No. 18 – I'm going to be honest; I don't know anything about cricket, so I found it difficult to analyze this source, but it appears to check out. Did teams get to come back and play again after losing in an earlier round?
6. No. 25 – The only nations identified specifically in that source are India and Sri Lanka as hosts. None of the other nations with a Q next to them are identified in the source.

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

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

@Bgsu98:

• Most part of the lead are summary of article, thus don't have much citations as they're not mandatory per MOS:LEADCITE.
• Most ESPNcricinfo sources uses the {{ESPNcricinfo 2}} citation template which doesn't support archives as cricinfo sources are unlikely to link rot. Will have the others archived.
• The light blue rows are just for a visual sense, to differentiate each row, when the table gets too long and no other meaning or whatsoever.

All else done. Vestrian24Bio 13:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Using color for decorative purposes is inappropriate per MOS:COLOR. I would remove the blue. Most tables on Wikipedia are plain white and do just fine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: That's not what MOS:COLOR says; it actually doesn't say anything about decorative purposes at all. It says not to use color to convey information (on its own). This is just decorative; the only issue would be contrast between the blue background and the blue links, and [18] says it's fine for that (#0033cc vs #ddeeff). --PresN 18:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant by your first point, as I didn't say anything about the lead not having citations. As everything appears to have been addressed and the issue with the table clarified (though I still don't think the blue is necessary), I'm happy to support your article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Image review – The public domain pictograph of a batsman is the sole image of any kind in the article, so there are no issues in this regard. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 14:20, 6 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.

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, 7 June 2025 (UTC) [19].

---

List of songs recorded by Sigrid

Nominator(s): Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Comments

• "She also collaborated with other artists" => "She has also collaborated with other artists"
• " Norwegian state television NRK's show Urørt" - show title should be in italics
• "and was the first single off her debut EP, Don't Kill My Vibe (2017)" => "and it was the first single off her debut EP, Don't Kill My Vibe (2017)"
• "such as Noonie Bao who co-wrote "Business Dinners" and "Never Mine" and Oscar Holter, who co-wrote and produced the single "Don't Feel Like Crying"." => "such as Noonie Bao, who co-wrote "Business Dinners" and "Never Mine", and Oscar Holter, who co-wrote and produced the single "Don't Feel Like Crying"."
• "Sigrid worked again with Sjølie who co-wrote and produced "Mistake Like You", and Warren who contributed to three songs, including" => "Sigrid worked again with Sjølie, who co-wrote and produced "Mistake Like You", and Warren, who contributed to three songs, including"
• "A Driver Saved My Night" correctly sorts under D so it should also be placed under D alphabetically
• The Hype (in the album column) should sort under H
• "The song was initially meant for Sigrid, however it was given to and released by Lxandra" - this is a complete sentence so it needs a full stop
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the comments! I believe I've addressed everything. Cheers, Sebbirrrr (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio

@Sebbirrrr:

• Add language variant and date format templates.
  • I used {{Lang}} solely for Urørt and {{Date table sorting}} for the table. I hope this is what you meant. Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Some refs (10, 11, 14, 18 and 20) using {{cite AV media notes}} template, isn't using |others= proper way; see Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes).
  • Fixed, I believe the error doesn't show up anymore. Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Could use WP:SDNONE to avoid repetitive description.
  • Done. Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• In the table headers instead of {{Abbr|Ref.|References}} could use the {{Ref.}} template.
  • Replaced. Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• SoundCloud is an unreliable source, replace it with a better source.
  • Removed entirely as The Irish Times provides the most relevant information. Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Instead of a generic alt text should specify who's in the image.
  • Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio 11:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• • @Vestrian24Bio: Thank you for the comments. Let me know if everything is alright. Cheers, Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

    All good, Support. Vestrian24Bio 13:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Orangesclub

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

• Reference 12 should include her name, it is the only reference that does not
  • Good catch! It seems that I somehow missed that. Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Is there a reason iTunes Store is listed as the website for the references that are at Apple Music?
  • At some point there was the option to purchase the albums/singles from the Apple Music links but now it seems that it's been removed. All refs now mention Apple Music. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Is there a reason Caroline Ailin is credited under her stage name, while all others are listed under their legal names?
  • I used the names that are listed in the album's liner notes and this is the name that she uses when writing songs. Ditto for Noonie Bao. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• @Orangesclub: Thank you for the feedback! I've addressed your comments above. Cheers, Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Great! Happy to support. Side note, this has got me onto her "Lost" cover and wow, her voice is lovely. orangesclub 🍊 23:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! I agree, her cover of "Lost" is great. Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

A couple of comments:

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

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

• @Alavense: Thanks for the suggestions. I removed that comma and added the other one. Cheers, Sebbirrrr (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:20, 6 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.

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, 7 June 2025 (UTC) [20].

---

List of My Name Is Earl episodes

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Comments

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

  @ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• Is an viewer count graph available like some other FLs like this?
• Why does the caption not appear?
• I think most columns should be for sortable. I think a least a few people would want to sort by viewer count.
• I think it is standard to link something multiple times if it is in table.
• Why are some things that are available to be merged are, and some are not?
• What is the difference between "&" and "and". If there isn't one they should be consistent.
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042:

  • I have added a viewing figures graph
  • Table captions are not required to appear when they would substantially duplicate nearby text from the heading (see the technical details at {{sronly}}))
  • Episode table/list is the standard across LoE FL's and there's not an option to make the tables sortable
  • MOS:DUPLINKs are permitted in tables if it "significantly aids the reader", I don't believe that's the case here as the tables aren't that big, and the same link can easily be found within the same table
  • The only merged content are for two-part episodes where they are within the same instance of {{Episode list}}, they can't me merged across different uses of those templates
  • More info on the difference between "&" and "and" can be found here, but essentially "&" is used for teams that regularly write together while "and" is used for teams that don't. For reference, the uses here are based upon the actual credits of each episode, and not personal interpretation of when "regularly" is met

  Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  Seems all good, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Aoba47

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

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

@Aoba47: Always happy to see you stopping by my review pages! Pressly is a fantastic performer, I also saw her a few years ago in Welcome to Flatch where she plays a different character with the same vibes. I've addressed your three comments, thanks pointing them out! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I will have to check that show out! Everything looks good to me. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

• "The series was unexpectedly cancelled" I think more than one citation should be used here as "unexpectedly" seems somewhat MOS:PEACOCKy
• in the tables could the distinction of "And" and "&" be explained with an EFN?
• In ref 17 "(VIDEO)" should be "Video" per MOS:ALLCAPS
• There is some inconsistancy with the source linking, for example: Ref 37 says "[American Broadcasting Company|ABC Medianet] while ref 36 says "[American Broadcasting Company|ABC] Medianet" and ref 68 has "ABC Medianet" and then has "[American Broadcasting Company|ABC] Medianet" as the publisher.
• The lead image has a caption but is not showing up
• NBC is spelled out as "National Broadcasting Company" on its first use while ABC isn't spelled out.
• Ref 4 should be listed as subscription rewquired

Thats what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 15:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: I've left a comment on a help page to get assistance with the transclusion of the EFN. Ref 4 (now ref 6) doesn't appear to require a subscription. The caption for the lead photo displays when you hover your mouse over the image, this is the expected behavior of using a frameless image (see MOS:IMGSIZE). Everything else has been addressed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

support Olliefant (she/her) 18:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:20, 6 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.

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, 7 June 2025 (UTC) [21].

---

Grand Prix de France (figure skating)

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• Pinging User:Arconning. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Support from HAL

• "When the FFIS was forced to cancel the event in light of the COVID-19 pandemic" --> to something like "when the FFIS canceled the event due to the COVID-19 pandemic" for concision

•  Done I shortened it even further than that.

• There are WP:SANDWICHING issues in the "history" section.

• It displays fine on my desktop, laptop, and iPad. I could understand if the text were super narrow like in the example in the link. WP:SANDWICHING says to "a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages hor­i­zon­tally op­po­site each other", but in this case, one image is vertical, allowing sufficient space for the text.

• Looks like you corrected it when you added the horizontal image template! ~ HAL333 21:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Does "glass-maker" need the hyphen?

•  Done My computer at home flagged "glassmaker" as a misspelling, but my laptop just now flagged "glass-maker" as the typo. Weird. I've changed it to "glassmaker".

• I would center the references column (|style="text-align:center;"|)

• Every column on these tables is left-justified, including other articles in these series, so I think it's fine as is.

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

• Thank you for taking the time to comment. Please let me know what other comments or suggestions you might have! Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Pinging User:HAL333. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Another read through only yielded this imperfection:

• "as well as compete against the skaters with whom they would later compete at the World Championships" - "the" is not needed before "skaters" and the use of "compete" twice is a bit repetitive.

• I changed it to "...as well as compete against the same skaters whom they would later encounter at the World Championships." Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• As this is relatively minor and I'm sure you'll address it as you see fit, I'm happy to go ahead and support this for promotion. Nice work. ~ HAL333 21:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

• Under "History" I don't think bolded text should be used in the body, although given that its for the name I might be wrong

• As I understand it, if it is a circular redirect, the use of bold one time is acceptable. All of those are links that come back to this article, since the competition has changed names numerous times. For example, the use of Swedish Challenge Cup at British Figure Skating Championships.

• Could there be some more prose near the tables? Perhaps a brief summary of the Inaugural winner and maybe some records?

• A summary of the inaugural competition is in the first paragraph of the History section and the records are identified in the lead, with a table at the end of the article. I try to include prose at the results/medalists tables only if it's a unique or noteworthy situation with sourcing. For example, I'm working on 2024 World Figure Skating Championships right now, where there are special circumstances at both the men's and pairs tables. Or at European Figure Skating Championships, where Kamila Valieva's disqualification is mentioned. This competition doesn't really have any of that. The closest would be the 2015 competition, which was cancelled after the first day, and it is mentioned in the History section.

• Why is "Skating Scores" reliable?

• I guess the answer to that is that it is a well-respected source in the figure skating community. It also provides results in an easy-to-follow format. It's my understanding that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources as opposed to primary sources, so the official results from the ISU would be the primary source, and sites like Skating Scores (or Tracings, Rink Results, Golden Skate) aggregate those results, thus making them secondary sources.

• Why is "The Figure Skating Corner" reliable?

• I would just copy my previous response, except this site is now defunct and only accessible via the Internet Archive. It is still a good source for results from the late 90s/early 2000s.

Good job on this, that's all I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 02:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• User:OlifanofmrTennant, I appreciate your feedback as always! Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Pinging User:OlifanofmrTennant. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  Support Sorry I somehow missed your last ping in my alerts Olliefant (she/her) 15:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  It happens. Thank you as always for your input and support. :) Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TheDoctorWho

• There appears to be a WP:SANDWICHING issue between the photos below the Infobox on the right and the trophy on the left

• It displays fine on my desktop, laptop, and iPad. I could understand if the text were super narrow like in the example in the link. WP:SANDWICHING says to "a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages hor­i­zon­tally op­po­site each other", but in this case, one image is vertical, allowing sufficient space for the text. (Emphasis mine) Besides, there is nowhere else to put the Trophy photo.
• Edited to add: I have reset the medalists' photos into a horizontal gallery because there was a whitespace at the bottom of the History section before the Medalists section. I liked the vertical gallery, but I disliked that whitespace even more, so this should solve both problems. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm assuming the flag in the Infobox here isn't necessary per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG (we already know the competition takes place in France, and nowhere else)

• There's never been an issue raised before about flags (see U.S. Figure Skating Championships, Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships), and the country is also named.

• 1987 Grand Prix International de Paris is a WP:CIRCULAR redirect

• It wasn't until I redirected it. ;) Now it's fixed.

• "in the summer of 2016" is a MOS:SEASON violation

• Perhaps you can offer a solution, because that is the phrase the source uses; they do not specify a month. I re-edited that whole paragraph today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• The records table being aligned to the right feels visually odd when all other tables are left-aligned. Is it possible to swap these?

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

TheDoctorWho, what am I missing, because the records table is showing as left-justified to me, the same as the other tables. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion, that was poor wording on my part. It may technically be left-aligned, but the size of the images is making it look very cramped to the point that I initially believed it to be right-aligned (see hre). Perhaps a {{clear}} or something, that would force the table below the images would make it more visually appealing? TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I did not realize it was displaying like that. It was always showing the table under the photos for me, but I added a CLEAR that should solve the problem. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

TheDoctorWho, thank you as always for your comments. I am going to take a look at the fifth paragraph of the History section again tomorrow to see if I can clarify it a little better. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

TheDoctorWho, I have made additional changes to the article per my above comments. Let me know what you think when you have a chance. Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing these, I'll give that history section another read over tommorow. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The expansion to the history section is definitely helpful! It reads well enough to me, that I'm happy to support, nice work TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Arconning

• The images in the lead could be moved down into the "History" section.

• Ideally, they would go down the right-hand side of the article (see World Figure Skating Championships as an example), but the lead and history were not long enough to avoid a whitespace prior to the medalists section, so this was an alternative. See the discussion right above this one.

• The captions of the images in the images in the lead need periods, image used in "Medalists" as well.

• Even though those aren't sentences?

• I don't think I see information about the French Federation of Ice Sports' being the organizer... being cited.

• I linked one of the existing sources to the first sentence of the lead. From the source: "An initiative of the City of Paris and of the Federation Francaise des Sports de Glace..."

• The infobox states that the competition was inaugurated in 1985 though the body states 1987?

• That was a typo.

• • Here's what I can get for now. Arconning (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• User:Arconning, thank you so much for your feedback. Please let me know if you have any other concerns or suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Arconning (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:20, 6 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.

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, 7 June 2025 (UTC) [22].

---

Billboard Latin Women in Music

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Comments from TheDoctorWho

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

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

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

History6042

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

  Support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio

@Magiciandude:

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

Vestrian24Bio 10:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

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

Reply from magiciandude

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

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

All good, Support. Vestrian24Bio 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• I spotted a couple of issues with the descriptions of the awards. "The Rising Star Award is presented to an artist's "emerging talent’s success....."" doesn't make sense at all. I would suggest "The Rising Star Award recognizes an "emerging talent’s success....."" There's a couple that say the award "recognizes an artist who have", which should be "an artist who has". I also think that "The Unbreakable Award is presented to an artist for "collaboration between Latin women artists who have made an indelible impact on the music industry"" would be better as simply "The Unbreakable Award is presented for "collaboration between Latin women artists who have made an indelible impact on the music industry"" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Sorry for the late response, how does it look now? Also pinging @History6042: for their comments. Erick (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

  I fixed the one that said the artist was "presented to an artist's success", because it isn't presented to their success. Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:20, 6 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.

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