Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2025
- 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) 00:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC) [7].
- Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm back, this time with another Grey's Anatomy-related list! I noticed that the Grey's episode list was already of FL quality, and I brought the LoE for the second spin-off to FL earlier this year, so I thought that this would complete a nice set of lists. Private Practice is an American medical drama in which a doctor from the Seattle-based Grey's moved to Santa Monica for a fresh start. This list was in somewhat of a poor shape beforehand, but after a cleanup on sources, expansion of the lead, addition of viewing figures, and addressing all of the accessibility issues, I believe it's up to par with the similar lists I've brought here thus far. Thanks in advance for any reviews! TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "another ABC medical drama created by Rhimes'." - no reason for the apostrophe on Rhimes
- "At the time, it was the second series from Shondaland" - the first three words are not needed and actually make the second clause of the sentence incorrect (it wasn't one of twelve at the time)
- "Rhime's production company" - apostrophe is in the wrong place
- "also crossed over into Sation 19" - title is spelt wrong
- "The series was broadcast internationally," - sentence ends with a comma
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Source review by Bgsu98
[edit]User:ChrisTheDude seems to have caught the issues with the lead, so I figured I would do the source review for you. Sources appear to be properly formatted and archived.
- Spot check
- No. 3 – Checks out.
- No. 5 – Checks out.
- No. 11 – Checks out.
- No. 15 – Checks out.
- No. 29 – Source identifies 10400 viewers, article states 10.36. I'm assuming 10400=10.40, but 10.40≠10.36.
- No. 35 – Source does not list Private Practice. The source also lists CBS programs, but PP was an ABC series.
- No. 43 – Source does not list Private Practice. Ditto.
- No. 51 – Numbers do not match.
- No. 66 – Checks out.
- No. 81 – Checks out.
- No. 99 – Checks out.
- No. 101 – Checks out.
- No. 113 – Checks out.
- No. 129 – Checks out.
User:TheDoctorWho: I am concerned that the numbers for seasons 1 and 2 are not matching up. I would recommend adjusting the figures in the article to match what's in the sources. Please let me know when these have been addressed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Thanks for catching this, the episode tables are the one thing I didn't make so I largely assumed good faith on the viewing figures outside of a few checks in the later seasons. I have however, now personally verified every number in the first two seasons and updated or replaced sources where necessary. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Second spot check (seasons 1 & 2)
- No. 24 – Checks out.
- No. 27 – Checks out.
- No. 33 – Checks out.
- No. 35 – Checks out.
- No. 38 – Checks out.
- No. 46 – Checks out.
- No. 51 – Numbers do not match.
- No. 52 – Numbers do not match unless you are averaging two scores; however, source no. 51 still does not compute even if you are also averaging.
- No. 53 – If this is an average, my calculator says it should be 9.23.
- No. 54 – Checks out as an average.
User:TheDoctorWho: There still seems to be something wonky with the ratings for the second half of season 2. Please check and let me know when these have been addressed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Refs 51-53 provide ratings down to the half hour (rather than full hour like most of the others) and also to three decimal places (rather than two). The third decimal place is rounded and then the two half-hours are averaged. So for 51: (10.80+9.27)/2=10.04, for 52: (11.15+9.80)/2=10.48, and for 53: (9.75+8.72)/2=9.24 TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, sounds good… Source review passed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
OlifanofTennant
[edit]- "Private Practice featured several fictional crossovers" as opposed to real crossovers?
- "into Sation 19" spelt wrong
- "Other cast members... were introduced later in the series" It states that these cast memebers joined later but did cast member later leave the series?
- Thats what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 14:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- @OlifanofmrTennant: Thank you for the review, I've addressed each of these! TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]There was nothing else I could see, so happy to support. Alavense (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
History6042
[edit]- Original release date for pilot in the table needs a citation.
- In the graphs, the colours used for seasons 1 and 4 are very similar. Please change one.
- Should the time the episodes aired be added?
- Per WP:AND, the word and should be used not &.
- In the season tables it talks about US viewership, but in the overview table it doesn't say US, but the numbers are the same. Please fix this.
- Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- A bit more;
- The alt text doesn't need a period.
- Why is the caption not showing up for the image?
- A table caption is necessary on all tables.
- History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- A bit more;
- @History6042: Added a source and removed the period. Season 1 is orange and 4 is purple, perhaps you meant a different season(s)? Timeslots are already covered on the parent article and in the season articles, so I don't think it's needed here. Per MOS:TV we list teams as credited, that includes using & where necessary. The caption doesn't display when using the frameless option, this is the intended behavior per MOS:IMAGE. All of the episode tables already have captions (which is a comment you've left on several of my reviews and that is always taken care of, this is something that could be verified by a quick check yourself.....) TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @TheDoctorWho, how I check the table captions is by going into source editor and looking for it. It is never there, is there a different place I should check for yours, otherwise support
- . History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- In some episode lists (not all) the tables are transcluded from the season articles. That's the case here. What that means is that the actual coding for the tables exists on the season articles (Private Practice season 1, Private Practice season 2, etc.) and copies of them are brought here for a comprehensive list. If you check the source editor at those articles, you'll see that
caption=List of Private Practice season X episodesis defined as a parameter on each.
TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- In some episode lists (not all) the tables are transcluded from the season articles. That's the case here. What that means is that the actual coding for the tables exists on the season articles (Private Practice season 1, Private Practice season 2, etc.) and copies of them are brought here for a comprehensive list. If you check the source editor at those articles, you'll see that
- @History6042: Added a source and removed the period. Season 1 is orange and 4 is purple, perhaps you meant a different season(s)? Timeslots are already covered on the parent article and in the season articles, so I don't think it's needed here. Per MOS:TV we list teams as credited, that includes using & where necessary. The caption doesn't display when using the frameless option, this is the intended behavior per MOS:IMAGE. All of the episode tables already have captions (which is a comment you've left on several of my reviews and that is always taken care of, this is something that could be verified by a quick check yourself.....) TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Promoting. --PresN 16:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC) [13].
- Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Since Canada was just promoted, this is the next national skating championship article in line. The results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, and the sources are properly formatted. This particular list has more in common with Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships, which was also promoted to FL. Special thanks to User:Estopedist1, who helped find the source for the very last competition installment that I could not locate. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "to crown the national champions of Estonia" - I would suggest maybe "the country's national champions" to avoid saying "Estonia" three times in one sentence I'm really hesitant to change that, because it's the same format used on all of the other articles that have been promoted, settled after a lengthy discussion a few reviews back...
- "due in part to Estonia hosting a number of high-profile events" - maybe same here Fixed.
- A few competitors seem to only have their surname listed. Assuming that this isn't a typo, maybe add a footnote to the effect that their full names are not recorded in reliable sources Yeah, we're lucky we still have these records at all. Footnotes added.
- in the footnotes under the records table, why are some names bolded? These skaters don't have wikilinks.
- OK, but why are they bolded? There is no guideline that says that if someone mentioned in an article doesn't have an article of their own then their name should be put in bold...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also, there are dozens of other people mentioned in this article who don't have articles of their own (eg Adolf Feldmann) and their names aren't bolded.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- User:ChrisTheDude: That's fine; I can unbold them; it's no big deal to me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's all I got - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- User:ChrisTheDude, thank you as always for the feedback! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much as always for your feedback and support! Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- The reigning Estonian figure skating champions: Mihhail Selevko (men's singles); Niina Petrõkina (women's singles); and Solène Mazingue and Marko Jevgeni Gaidajenko (ice dance) - Commas would be enough here.
- Changed.
- the men's championship event - Isn't that redundant? I guess it would suffice to say either the men's championship or the men's event.
- while his younger brother Mihhail has won the event four times - while his younger brother Mihhail has won it four times
- Both are good points and have been fixed.
- Isn't it worth explaining somewhere why the events were held in 1961 in a city which is not in Estonia?
- It sure would be if there were an explanation to give. I'd guess it was a joint competition, but Latvian skating records prior to its independence from the USSR are nonexistent.
- I think it's weird to have text for the men's singles sections but not anywhere else.
- Unfortunately, there's not really been anything notable about the other events. The Selevkos are the only ones garnering any sort of press internally. Niina Petrõkina has garnered some press as well, but for her international results, not her national results. I could move that text up to the History section if you think that might be better.
That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- User:Alavense: Thank you for your feedback. Please let me know if you have any other concerns or suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of them. I'm happy with the replies: if there's no more information, then I have no problem with it, I just found it a bit weird when I first had a look at it and that's why I asked both about Riga and about the text before the tables. Happy to support now. Alavense (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Comments from TheDoctorWho
[edit]- I'd suggest adding an a caption to the logo in the Infobox using
logo_caption =– normally I'd say it doesn't need one, but with the text not being in English it's not overly obvious to me
- Done.
- "Medals are awarded in men's singles, women's singles, pair skating, and ice dance at the senior, junior, and novice levels" ---> "Medals are awarded for each event at the senior, junior, and novice levels" – seems a little repetitive to list each event again so soon
- I have reworded that section slightly.
- "Since 2019, Aleksandr Selevko has won the men's event three times (2020–22),[14] while his younger brother Mihhail has won it four times (2019, 2023–25).[15]" – if Mihhail won first, why not list him first?
- Ha! I guess it was because Aleksandr is the older brother. I've switched them.
- In the Senior Medalist Pairs table, there are a few instances in which the end note is below both names. It looks like it may only apply to one of the two people? If so, could these be moved up to the name it applies to?
- Those names are in a template, so no.
- Just glancing at these tables, is there any information as to why the 1961 events were held in Latvia, or why there has been no pairs competitions since 2010? The history section seems just a tad lacking compared to similar ones you've brought here, if available both of these would be great to add to it.
- As mentioned above, I have no idea why the 1961 event was in Latvia. Latvian skating records prior to its independence from the USSR are nonexistent. As for pairs, you're asking for speculation. Yes, the history section is sparser than other articles I've promoted, but that's because the sources are non-existent.
- Almost seems like the records table may be improved by splitting up the column headers into individual/more descriptive titles. Something like "Record holder", "Titles won", "Years", and "Refs" (or something better, since you're more familiar with these), rather than one spanning the four columns
- This is how the table would look with those changes. I don't like that wide-ass column for the number of titles. You know how I am attempting to standardize these articles, and widening this table would also interfere with images that some articles show to the right (see French Figure Skating Championships, for example). That's why I have endeavored to keep this particular table as narrow as possible.
| Discipline | Most championship titles | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skater | No. of titles | Years | Ref. | |
| Men's singles | Alfred Hirv | 10 | 1929–35; 1937–38; 1940 |
|
| Women's singles | Vaike Paduri | 14 | 1930–34; 1936–38; 1940; 1947–48; 1950–52 |
|
| Pairs | Eduard Hiiop[a] | 10 | 1923–24; 1928–31; 1933–36 |
|
| Ice dance | Nikolai Salnikov[b] | 8 | 1971–78 | |
- ^ Eduard Hiiop won two championship titles while partnered with Hilda Laane-Leonova (1923–24), one with Helmi Kaarik (1928), and seven with Helene Michelson (1929–31, 1933–36).
- ^ Nikolai Salnikov won four championship titles while partnered with Natalia Tokareva (1971–74) and four with Tamara Prokopjuk (1975–78).
I think that's all that I have! TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- User:TheDoctorWho: I have implemented some of the changes you recommended. Please let me know your thoughts on the other issues discussed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- I thought about it and came up with this. It's not much wider than the original table. Of course, now I have to go implement this change to about two dozen skating articles. 😂 Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Happy to support with the changes that have been made so far. Won't hold this back for lack of available information or template limitations, because I know how frustrating that can be. Apologies for not suggesting changes to the records tables earlier, for some reason it caught my attention on this specific article. Nice work, as usal! TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
| Discipline | Most championship titles | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skater(s) | No. | Years | Ref. | |
| Men's singles | Alfred Hirv | 10 | 1929–35; 1937–38; 1940 |
|
| Women's singles | Vaike Paduri | 14 | 1930–34; 1936–38; 1940; 1947–48; 1950–52 |
|
| Pairs | Eduard Hiiop[a] | 10 | 1923–24; 1928–31; 1933–36 |
|
| Ice dance | Nikolai Salnikov[b] | 8 | 1971–78 | |
- ^ Eduard Hiiop won two championship titles while partnered with Hilda Laane-Leonova (1923–24), one with Helmi Kaarik (1928), and seven with Helene Michelson (1929–31, 1933–36).
- ^ Nikolai Salnikov won four championship titles while partnered with Natalia Tokareva (1971–74) and four with Tamara Prokopjuk (1975–78).
History6042's Source Review
[edit]- Source review soon. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- I will check every other online source for a spotcheck. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Citation 1 - Does not seem to support the source, nowhere does it even say the words "national champions".
- Removed.
- Citation 3 - All good
- Citation 5 - All good
- Citation 7 - Working off of machine translation - The word Soviet is not mentioned nor is 1991.
- Soviet Union in Estonian is Nõukogude Liit. NL Championship = Soviet Championship.
- Citation 9 - All good.
- More to come later today. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Citation 11 - All good but please mark as dead
Done - Citation 13 - All good
- Citation 15 - All good
- Citation 17 - All good
- Citation 11 - All good but please mark as dead
- History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- 15 to 58 - I didn't check them all - Didn't check all but the ones I did check were all good. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Citation 59 - All good
- Citation 61 - All good
- Citation 63 - All good
- Source review pass. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- No problem. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- 15 to 58 - I didn't check them all - Didn't check all but the ones I did check were all good. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- I will check every other online source for a spotcheck. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Promoting. --PresN 22:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC) [16].
- Nominator(s): History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a similar status to other Michelin FLs. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I am not familiar with FLC, so this is not a review, but I think the article as it stands is less than comprehensive in its background coverage. For example, it fails to mention how the Michelin Guide expanding to Thailand was sponsored by the Tourism Authority of Thailand, and how the inaugural Bangkok guide was part of of Michelin's effort expand its coverage to include street food in Asia. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Paul 012, I added those two facts. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - Just a few quick comments:
- Why are some restaurant links blue, some red, and some not even linked? For consistency they should all be linked, or just the blue ones linked.
- You mention in the lead that Nakorn Ratchasima was added, as well as other provinces, but this does not appear in the list. Was the province added but no restaurants given a star? This needs to be made clear and match the table.
- The location in the table is a bit confusing, as it follows city-district? Or province-district? Is that true for places outside of Bangkok? I clicked on Phang Nga - Khok Kloi but could not find what Khok Kloi is from the link. Some clarification here on this column is needed. I'm quite confused.
- This is better, if you think people may want to make pages of these restaurants in the future, I wouldn't be opposed to red linking them as well, but your choice! I added a few more comments above. Mattximus (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Mattximus, Done the rest. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Mattximus,
- I noticed some errors, for example Aulis restaurant is in Phang Nga but you wrote Phuket? I wonder if there are other errors? Mattximus (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Opposefor now until the locations are double checked for accuracy. Mattximus (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)- @Mattximus, the example you gave was the only one I could find, I fixed it. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is better, if you think people may want to make pages of these restaurants in the future, I wouldn't be opposed to red linking them as well, but your choice! I added a few more comments above. Mattximus (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support Mattximus (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Easternsahara
[edit]- File:Jay Fai, bangkok 20180406.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
- The single image has alt text.
- Image Review pass
- Many sources are not archived, please archive them.
- Please be consistent with dates, some are in prose but some are all in digits. Sometimes you use ymd and sometimes dmy. Choose one, use it in both date accessed, date archived and date published, add the template for it.
- In the location column, please add parentheses and the subdivision that you are using. Be consistent with the subdivision, ie. (Governorate)
- "about which eateries they should to visit."→"about which eateries they should visit." remove to from should to.
- "In 2023, 4 more provinces; Nakorn Ratchasima, Ubon Ratchathani, Udon Thani, and Khon Kaen, were added" link all of the provinces.
- Change dark gray "Reference" section at the bottom of the table to "References"
- Please add template of whatever english you are using in the article, american i believe, so it deters article deterioration
- first source checks out, added all the numbers
- source two is reliable and represented correctly
- Although source three isn't independent of michelin, it mostly only affirms what source two says.
- source 4 is good.
- Source 5 is cited twice in a row, since it is redundant you can remove it. However, after i inspected source 5, it doesn't mention anything about " Tokyo, Hong Kong and Macau, Osaka and Kyoto, Singapore, Shanghai and Seoul", so just remove the second instance.
- source 6 checks out
ill check the other ones out once you fix the issues i named Easternsahara (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- All Done, except archiving which I will do when the archive bot starts working again. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Easternsahara, Done, I ran IA bot. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I have no idea about the comprehensiveness, but source review pass. Also, the list says that some restaurants, which have merely moved, have closed, is this worth mentioning? This doesn't affect my source review pass but source 12, source 19 to 24 could have better publishers. They seem to be parroting the information from michelin guide, so could you try to find the Michelin sources for these? You can keep all of these in as additional verification though. Easternsahara (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Easternsahara,
- List seems generally compliant and consistent with similar Michelin-related FLs. I support promotion as long as the concerns by other editors are addressed. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Orangesclub
[edit]- There are some restaurant names that are in all caps for stylistic reasons, such as J'AIME. Per MOS:ALLCAPS they should be in sentence case for consistency with the other restaurants, unless you can let me know which of them are acronyms
- Michelin is also in all caps throughout most references
- Template:International dollars is good to use when mentioning a currency like Baht
- Some references are formatted as website=website.com while others are listed by their domain names. Consistency with one format would be better, I personally feel that domain names look better.
- Reference 14 has an author name that can be added (Arpiwach Supateerawanitt), should be "Time Out" not "TimeOut" and should have an article date
- All references should have archives. I can see others have mentioned this but many still do not have archives - looks like only 9 do?
- Reference 27 is missing a website/publisher
- Reference 7 is missing the authors name (Oliver Irvine)
I haven't checked all references but I'd recommend having a go through all of them to make sure all the available details are filled out. Overall the list looks good and the prose is well written. Please ping me when finished. orangesclub 🍊 06:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Orangesclub, all done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Great stuff! Happy to support. I wonder if I can count this as preparation for my Thailand trip next month... orangesclub 🍊 21:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Dantheanimator
[edit]- Completely optional but for concision, you could turn the footnote "A restaurant that is not starred can still be in the guide. This is why some of the regions listed are not represented in the table." into a single sentence: "A restaurant that is not starred can still be in the guide, hence why some of the regions listed are not represented in the table."
- Maybe add a See also section with a link to List of Thai restaurants
- In the lead, "It was the seventh Asian city or region to have a dedicated Red Guide.", this is the first mention of "Red Guide" but it isn't defined or explained. What is a Red Guide and why is important/valuable to have?
It was funded with 144 million [[Thai Baht]] ({{International dollars|144000000|Thailand}} [[USD]]) over five years by the [[Tourism Authority of Thailand]].
- International dollar and USD are two very different things. I would recommend changing to:
- for int. $:
It was funded with 144 million [[Thai Baht]] ({{International dollars|144000000|Thailand|round=yes}} [[international dollar]]s) over five years by the [[Tourism Authority of Thailand]].
- for U.S. $:
It was funded with 144 million [[Thai Baht]] ({{currency|4,456,000|USA}}) over five years by the [[Tourism Authority of Thailand]].
- Clarify what "it" refers to, i.e. what was funded 144mil Thai Baht? The Red Book? The Michelin Guide activities in Thailand? Where was the money sent/distributed to? How was it spent?
- "It was also part of an effort to increase street food's recognition in the guide"
- If "it" refers to the 144 mil funding, reword as "The funding was also part of an effort to increase street food's recognition in the guide"
- Also, I'd assume yes but to make sure, this is referring to street food in Thailand specifically (i.e. the money was not used by Michelin/others for general expenses unrelated to Thailand?)
- "In 2019, Michelin expanded its coverage to Phuket and Phang-Nga. In 2020, Chiang Mai was added, and Ayutthaya was added in 2022. In 2023, 4 more provinces; Nakorn Ratchasima, Ubon Ratchathani, Udon Thani, and Khon Kaen, were added. In the 2025 edition, Chonburi was added to the guide." ---> "Michelin expanded its Thailand coverage over several years: Phuket and Phang-Nga in 2019, Chiang Mai in 2020, Ayutthaya in 2022, four northeastern provinces (Nakhon Ratchasima, Ubon Ratchathani, Udon Thani, and Khon Kaen) in 2023, and most recently Chonburi in the 2025 edition."
- For the Key: "The restaurant did not receive a star that year" -> "The restaurant did not receive Michelin stars that year" (for consistency with the rest of the key and also slightly more accurate)
- For the table: I usually do this with my lists but the references for each year could be added just underneath the year text in the column title (so instead of
! scope="col"|2018
it would be! scope="col"|2018<br/><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-12-18 |title=Complete Guide To The 17 Michelin Star Restaurants in Bangkok - What's On Sukhumvit |url=https://whatsonsukhumvit.com/complete-guide-to-the-17-michelin-star-restaurants-in-bangkok/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250425181340/https://whatsonsukhumvit.com/complete-guide-to-the-17-michelin-star-restaurants-in-bangkok/ |archive-date=25 April 2025 |access-date=2025-05-26 |website=What's On Sukhumvit |language=en-GB}}</ref>
- This would remove the need for a separate "References" row, which seems somewhat off I think given it's shaded the same color as a closed restaurant
- Also for the table, for accuracy, the title column "Location (province)" province should be linked to Provinces of Thailand and a brief efn note along the lines of
{{efn|Thailand is divided into 76 provinces and two [[Special administrative area (Thailand)|special administrative areas]]: the capital [[Bangkok]] and the city of [[Pattaya]], with Bangkok also being at the [[Organization_of_the_government_of_Thailand#Provincial_government|provincial-level]] and often counted as the 77th province.<ref>{{Cite web |author=Ministry of Foreign Affairs |author-link=Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Thailand) |title=Administrative divisions |url=https://www.thailandembassy.org/administrative |access-date=4 July 2025 |website=thailandembassy.org |language=en}}</ref>}}
That's everything I got @History6042:. Great job with these Michelin lists and ping me when ready. :) Dan the Animator 23:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Dantheanimator, Done, except for the Key and Table requests which are built on consensus from the Michelin WikiProject. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks History6042! Everything looks perfect and the Key/Table requests aren't much of an issue for me. Great work with this list and happy to support it's promotion. :) Dan the Animator 21:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks History6042! Everything looks perfect and the Key/Table requests aren't much of an issue for me. Great work with this list and happy to support it's promotion. :) Dan the Animator 21:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Promoted. --PresN 22:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC) [17].
- Nominator(s): Medxvo (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Sherlock is a mystery and crime television series based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes detective novels and stories. It was created by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, and stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes and Martin Freeman as Doctor John Watson. The series garnered 47 BAFTA nominations, 39 Primetime Emmy nominations, 12 Crime Thriller nominations, 9 Critics' Choice Television nominations, and 3 Edgar Allan Poe nominations.
I believe the list is consistent with the recently promoted accolades lists and ready for an FLC. Any comments from all editors are very much appreciated. Medxvo (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- In the interest of finding something to pick up, I would suggest that "that were produced as four three-part series airing from 2010 to 2017, as well as a special episode" might be better as "that were produced as four three-part series airing from 2010 to 2017 and a special episode"
- That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Thanks a lot! I agree, and I've implemented your suggestion. Medxvo (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- He is assisted by Watson, who had returned - Shouldn't it be He is assisted by Watson, who has returned?
- Una Stubbs plays Mrs Hudson - Should it be Mrs. Hudson?
- It won the Peabody Award in 2011 (for "A Study in Pink") - I don't think the parentheses are needed here.
- As per MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". Maybe they are not near enough, but in the last paragraph I would have the tally of nominations all spelt out.
That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- User:Alavense, I think the "Mrs" v. "Mrs." is a British English v. American English thing. As this is a British series, the prose should adhere to British English. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the comments, Alavense! I believe all have been addressed except for "Mrs". I agree with Bgsu98 that the period is usually omitted in British English. 20:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- I was only asking because I saw that the article for the character uses the period, but I'm happy with the explanation. Good job. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the comments, Alavense! I believe all have been addressed except for "Mrs". I agree with Bgsu98 that the period is usually omitted in British English. 20:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment by Birdienest81
[edit]For the 2011 edition of the British Academy Television Awards, the recipients of the award for Best Drama Series should mention Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss, Sue Vertue, and Beryl Vertue as the credited winners of said award. According to the official BAFTA website, searching Sherlock in the awards database lists the four producers as winners of the award as seen here. You could use this article from The Guardian as a reliable source for the recipients.
That's about it. Could either review List of accolades received by Barbie (film) for its featured list candidacy or 55th Academy Awards for its own featured list nomination?
- Hi @Birdienest81: Thanks for this! I've added the credited winners and the source from The Guardian. I'll hopefully take a look at your nominations sometime tomorrow. Thank you again for your help! Medxvo (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Medxvo: Support - The list looks very ready for featured list status. Hopefully you could review the Barbie accolades list as well. No rush yet though.
Vestrian24Bio
[edit]- Add refs to notes as well.
- Done. Medxvo (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Replace WP:PRIMARY sources (refs 14, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 35, 37, 38, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 97, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 111, 113, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 130, 131, 132, 137, and 139) with WP:INDEPENDENT sources wherever possible.
- Tried to replace some of them. Secondary sources sometimes do not mention the actual recipients (they only mention the series name, etc.), so I couldn't find replacements.... I think they are fine as they are supporting straightforward claims. Medxvo (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Vestrian24Bio 13:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Vestrian24Bio: Thanks so much for the comments! I've responded above. Medxvo (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- All good then, support. Vestrian24Bio 10:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Source review by Bgsu98
[edit]Aside from the source review, this sentence in the lead – "Sherlock received thirty-nine Primetime Emmy nominations (nine wins)" – I would recommend somehow rephrasing that bit in parentheses. Maybe "with nine wins"?
- Done. Medxvo (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Sources appear to be properly formatted and are archived. There are a lot of sources, so if I missed one, I apologize.
- Spot check
- No. 3 – Checks out.
- No. 7 – Unable to verify as the source requires a subscription.
- No. 11 – This source does mention Sherlock's "critical acclaim" although the article is about Lucy Liu on Elementary. 😉
- No. 15 – Checks out.
- No. 20 – Checks out.
- No. 32 – Inaccessible as the source requires a subscription.
- No. 47 – Checks out.
- No. 53 – Checks out.
- No. 64 – Checks out.
- No. 71 – Does not check out. This source only identifies the winners, but source no. 70 verifies the information on the table, so I would delete no. 71.
- Yes, I agree that ref 71 is not really needed here. Removed. Medxvo (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- No. 88 – Checks out.
- No. 90 – Checks out.
- No. 101 – Checks out.
- No. 130 – Checks out.
User:Medxvo: Not much to address here at all: Let me know when you have a chance. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Bgsu98: thanks so much for your time! I've responded to some points above. I believe you can access the restricted sources via their archive links, but I can help with screenshots if needed. Medxvo (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- When I saw that the sources were subscription-limited (which you correctly noted; thank you!), I went directly for the archived copy,
but even the archive does not display the full article (at least in the few I examined).Source review passed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)- Actually, upon a recheck, the archive for source no. 32 shows the full article. I think I was confusing this with another source review I'd done where an archive copy did not show the full article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- When I saw that the sources were subscription-limited (which you correctly noted; thank you!), I went directly for the archived copy,
- Image review – The only image in the article is a public domain logo that doesn't reach the threshold of originality and has alt text. No issues here. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Promoted. --PresN 22:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC) [22].
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
With the list for 1991 just promoted, here's the 33rd entry in this particular series, covering the "middle of the road" number ones of 1993. In this particular year, Billboard changed/improved their data capture methodology, which (seemingly) led directly to the record for the longest run at number one being broken after 25 years. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- In 1993, 13 songs topped the chart, which was compiled based on playlists submitted by radio stations through the issue of Billboard dated July 10, after which a new methodology was introduced which used airplay data compiled by Nielsen Broadcast Data Systems, which provided a more accurate reflection of the numbers of plays which songs were actually receiving - There are five which in that sentence. Maybe it can be split into two sentences, the first one ending with dated July 10?
- spending two weeks at number one "I Have Nothing" - Is a with missing?
- which had been held by Paul Mauriat's "Love is Blue" since 1968 - I think a link to 1968 there would come in handy.
- Same for 1994.
That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Alavense: - done!
- Thanks. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Medxvo
[edit]- "the numbers of plays which songs were actually receiving" - "the number of plays that songs were actually receiving"?
- "the longest run atop the AC chart which had been held" // "the record set by Joel's song which had preceded it" // "longest stay atop the chart which had stood for 25 years" - I think a comma can be added before "which"
That's all, everything else looks great to me! Medxvo (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Medxvo: - done!
- Happy to support. Medxvo (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Vestrian24Bio
[edit]- According to link-dispenser,
- 51 refs are marked as redirects, add a slash (/) at the end of those urls to avoid it (just a suggestion).
- Ref 53 gives 404.
- 22 refs need archive urls.
That's all I got. Vestrian24Bio 11:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Vestrian24Bio: - addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- All good then, support. Vestrian24Bio 08:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- All 4 images have proper licensing and alt texts, Image review: pass. Vestrian24Bio 16:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Hey man im josh
[edit]- Source review:
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 11 sources match what they are being cited for
Looks good! Support Hey man im josh (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.