Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 05:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having returned from a pretty chill holiday break, I've found myself in a better headspace to work on major projects. Inspired by the release of SZA's most recent album, I'd like to present the list of songs recorded by SZA. This was a daunting page to complete, but I hope with your comments, this list is brought to its best possible condition. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 05:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Glaston2024 2806 300624 (157 of 173) (53837667841) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Pulitzer2018-portraits-kendrick-lamar.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Isaiah Rashad Feb 2014.jpg - CC BY 2.0, original source shows a different tag or am I missing something?
• File:Travis Scott - Openair Frauenfeld 2019 08.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Cardi B 2021 02.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Doja Cat Planet Her Day Party 1 (cropped).jpg - CC0
• File:Glasto2023 (181 of 468) (53009327490) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Deshaymephi.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:RobBisel–NicKhang1 (2) (cropped) (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• Captions, alt text, pictures, all relevant.
  • Just have the one inquiry^ Arconning (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Arconning, the image was originally uploaded on Flickr under CC BY 2.0 (it seems the user who reposted it to Commons erroneously used CC BY 4.0). The Flickr license changed to CC BY-ND 2.0 in 2018, but that was two years after the license review Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 02:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Ooh I see, Support then. Arconning (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Psychedelic, lo-fi instrumentals and an urban musical style with "feminine inflections" characterize SZA's early songs" - "psychedelic" is an adjective, not a noun, so you can't say that "Psychedelic [...] characterize[s] SZA's early songs"
  • ....thinking about it, is it meant to mean "Psychedelic lo-fi instrumentals"? If so, then lose the comma as it causes confusion (to me at least, it seems ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the comma to an "and" (to prevent sea of blue issues)
• "As time passed, the media started to consistently label SZA in publications" - last two words are redundant I think - where else would the media label her thus?
  • Good point
• "SZA has appeared on dozens of soundtracks" - really? she has appeared on 25+ soundtracks? That seems a lot for an artist who released her debut album less than 8 years ago.....
  • That was definitely a stray phrase I forgot to remove before moving to mainspace. My bad.
• "her label's manager Punch said that leaks of the sort could cause" => "her label's manager Punch said that leaks of this sort could cause" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @PSA for followup. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you Josh for the reminder. Apologies that this totally slipped my mind. @ChrisTheDude, I hope the replies have addressed your concerns. Regards, Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 02:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @ChrisTheDude, just wanted to know if you have anything else to add. Thanks, Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 03:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, I will endeavour to revisit later today -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Feminine inflections" is a quote and should be attributed accordingly
  • Removed; I figured it made the sentence way too long
• "Dear Evan Hansen soundtrack" → "Dear Evan Hansen: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack"
• "Space Jam: A New Legacy soundtrack" → "Space Jam: A New Legacy (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)"
• "Trolls World Tour soundtrack" → "Trolls World Tour: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack"
• "Insecure soundtrack" → "Insecure (Music from the HBO Original Series)"
  • Any reason why all of these four should be changed?
    • Those are the names that the soundtrack albums were released under and thus it would be appropriate to label them as such in the table. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "SZA co-wrote one SOS track with Lizzo" → "SZA co-wrote "F2F" with Lizzo" per WP:EASTEREGG
  • Removed the link instead
• Wouldn't it be better to have a separate column for the refs in the unreleased songs table?
  • I do not think so. Moving all the references to another column will (1) make the column very cluttered and (2) make it hard for readers to determine which source supports which fact
    • Didn't think of the latter but it makes sense. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The acronym DSPs is invoked several times but it doesn't say anywhere what it stands for
  • Now defined in the "Back Together" entry

That's all I have! Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Sebbirrrr. responses above. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 02:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PSA: Thanks for the ping, just one more inquiry. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sebbirrrr done (for consistency with the For the Throne entry) Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This review is based on this version of the article.

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ref 12 – ASCAP and BMI shouldn't be listed as the authors, but as work/publisher or something similar
• Ref 12 and 106 – Typically we only do via Internet Archive when they're the host of said info, like a book or something.
• Ref 106 – ASCAP should be listed as the website or work instead of the author
• Ref 117 – Link American Songwriter
• Ref 118 – Missingauthor and publish date
• Ref 118 – Is there a reason you don't link to People (magazine) and pipe it as "People"?
• Ref 120 – No website listed

Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @PSA for follow up on this and the below comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Hey man im josh, and sorry for the wait. I believe I've addressed everything. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 08:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "They are former Top Dawg labelmates" - source?
• "He and SZA are current labelmates." - source?
  • Hello, @ChrisTheDude. Apologies for the wait. I have added citations for both facts Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 07:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The unreleased songs section contains several songs which were apparently released.......?

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Unreleased" refers to songs that neither SZA, her label, nor her collaborators released. Perhaps changing the header to "Unreleased music" will clarify things? If you're referring to "Die for You" and "Calling My Phone", then you'd be correct, but there were demo verses by SZA that were intended for the final songs and leaked online. That was what I meant by unreleased. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]}
    • In that case I would suggest "Songs not officially released" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @ChrisTheDude, done Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 15:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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) 17:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I posted any FL nominees, sorry about that, been fighting my personal demons. Anyways, this is a continuation of List of Billboard Latin Pop Albums number ones from the 1980s. As always, I'm open to any address any issues brought up on this list! Erick (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "has since became a sub chart" -> "has since become a sub chart"
• "established on the same week" -> "established in the same week"
• "requiring to have 70% of its content" -> "requiring it to have 70% of its content"
• "Latin albums in the US" -> "Latin album in the US"
• "Ricky Martin, Luis Miguel, dubbed" -> "Ricky Martin, and Luis Miguel, dubbed"
• "credited for reviving mainstream interest" -> "credited with reviving mainstream interest"
• History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @History6042 Fixed all that you addressed, thanks for the comments! Erick (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support on prose/grammar. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "The chart was published on a fortnightly basis" - when? Just in this decade? Or always?
• "The methodology for the chart was amended on the week of July 10, 1993" => "The methodology for the chart was amended with the effect from the week of July 10, 1993"
• "Additionally, the chart is now published weekly" => "At the same time, the chart began to be published weekly"
• "has since become a sub char of Top Latin Albums " - when did this happen? Also "chart" is spelt wrong
• "Billboard also imposed a linguistic rule of an album requiring it to have 70% of its content in Spanish" => "Billboard also imposed a linguistic rule requiring an album to have 70% of its content in Spanish"
• "which had been in the top spot since the issue dated November 18, 1989." - source?
• "Other female acts to reach number one on the chart include" => "Other female acts to reach number one on the chart in the 1990s included"
• "Luis Miguel had the most number one album of the decade" => "Luis Miguel had the most number one albums of the decade"
• "His album Romance (1991), was" - no reason for that comma
• "spent 16 weeks on the apex of the chart" => "spent 16 weeks at the apex of the chart"
• "also reached number-one" => "also reached number one"
• " Macarena Non Stop (1996) by Los del Río, Macarena Mix (1995)" => " Macarena Non Stop (1996) by Los del Río and Macarena Mix (1995)"
• "It would be the band's only number one album on the chart" - which band? You listed five in the last sentence.
• "Three non predominately Spanish-language albums" => "Three predominately non-Spanish-language albums"
• "Although Supernatural topped the chart on the week of July 3, 1999" => "Although Supernatural topped the chart in the week of July 3, 1999"
• "Los del Río (pictured in 2009) acheive their only number one on the chart" => "Los del Río (pictured in 2009) achieved their only number one on the chart"
• The top album on Billboard's year-end chart isn't necessarily the best-selling Latin pop album of the year. It's the best charting based on a methodology which allocates points based on its position each week. I would reword to "Indicates the number one on Billboard's year-end Latin pop albums chart"
• The note should probably have a bullet point before it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks as always Chris! Let me know if I missed anything! Erick (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "and has since become a sub char" - chart is still spelt wrong and "since" still doesn't specify when it became a sub-chart. Other than that, all looks great! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I think I nailed it down. The same week that the Top Latin Albums chart was established was also when the Latin Pop Albums became a sub chart of it. I fixed the sentence to the best I could, how does it look? Erick (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This review is based on version of the article.

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ricky Martin image has no alt text
• Ref 7 – It looks like your approach is to link the first instance of a source in references, so with that said... Link to the LA Times
• Ref 7 and 9 – Need url-access parameters added, as they request a subscription to read
• Refs 12, 15, and 16 – Your referencing practices seem to be to link the first time a source appears in the references, so only link Recording Industry Association of America in ref 12
• Ref 17 – First time AllMusic appears, so link it
• Refs 18, 20, 21, and 22 – For consistency with ref 17, it seems these should be using the website or work parameter for AllMusic instead of the publisher one.

That's what I've got, and you've got nothing to apologize for regarding any type of absence. I'm just thrilled whenever a FLC regular returns or sticks around. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Hey there, thanks for your kind comments! The only changes I couldn't fix were the {{Certification Cite Ref}} to disallow multiple to the RIAA and for AllMusic, I corrected the name and moved all of them to publisher since AllMusic is an online music datatbase. Erick (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: Makes sense, so long as the AllMusic references are consistent. I'm a bit hung up on the consistency for linking though, as that is one of the main things that I look at when doing reviews. Perhaps you could swap to a different citation template, or link to the source in all references (would be quick with the built in find and replace tool)? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh If I understand what you're saying, I can just link to the RIAA database and from there, the information can be verified with its searchable database? Erick (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: I see now what the purpose of that template is in regards to auto generating the reference. Yeah, that complicates things a bit, but linking to just the search itself isn't an improvement. This is what I meant when I suggested you convert the references so that the linking can be consistent. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh, whoops, heh, my bad. I'll keep that mind next time I do a FLC for these kinds of lists. Thanks Josh! Erick (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few reference bits spotted:

• Current references 55, 81, 86, 87, 125, 206, 230, 391 and 398 all link to wrong date of Billboard charts
• "February 15, 1997" is a repeated row
• References 308 to 310 link to correct date but use wrong year in the title of the reference
• References 115, 368 links to correct date but wrong date in the title of the reference
• Second use of reference 5 (Ana Gabriel chart history) placed after statement regarding Selena's 44 weeks at number 1, should this be to Selena's chart history?

JP (Talk) 10:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpeeling Thanks for catching those! Let me know if I missed anything else. Erick (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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) 17:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is Olympic medal table #7 for me (Winter Games nom #3), and it's the the shortest one I've worked on so far. There were no NOCs as a first time medalist or first time gold medalists, no stripped medals to mention, and only a single first time participant. It was a relatively run of the mill event, with high stakes of course. As always, I will do my best to respond to all comments as quickly as possible, and I appreciate any and all feedback that is given. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "665 athletes representing" - I would suggest "A total of 665 athletes representing" to avoid that whole "starting a sentence with a digit" thing which, while probably not technically wrong, always looks a bit "off" to me
• Infobox image caption needs a full stop
• "Athletes presenting 14 NOCs" => "Athletes representing 14 NOCs"
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done! Thank you as always for the feedback @ChrisTheDude. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dates are consistantly formatted

Everything is linked

Spotchecked all sources and everything lines up.

Support unrelated but "California, United States" violated MOS:GEOLINK I'm assuming this will be fixed so happy to support. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy am I grateful to have gotten a quick source review, thanks @OlifanofmrTennant! I've addressed the MOS:GEOLINK issue, which I appreciate you pointing out. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder. If you have a moment or are willing to review my FAC Ethan Winters, I'll also appreciate it! Unfortunately, it is not flc. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The 1960 Winter Olympics, officially known as the VIII Olympic Winter Games and also known as Squaw Valley 1960, were a winter multi-sport event held from February 18 to 28, 1960, at the Squaw Valley Resort (now known as Palisades Tahoe) in Squaw Valley (now known as Olympic Valley), California, United States. This seems to be a long ass sentence. Can you maybe reword/rephrase it?
• Can you bundle those 4 citations together so that the article will look better?
• Can you maybe capitalize the "D" from the surname "De Bruin"? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems to be a long ass sentence. Can you maybe reword/rephrase it? – Long as the sentence may be, it's following the standard format, and there's nothing technically wrong with it from my perspective.
  • Can you bundle those 4 citations together so that the article will look better? – I typically do not bundle citations unless there's five of them. My opinion is that this does not negatively affect the readability or make the article look worse.
  • Can you maybe capitalize the "D" from the surname "De Bruin"? – The source does not capitalize it, and if you look at De Bruin, you'll see it's a fairly common thing not to do so.

  I appreciate you taking a look over the article and providing a review @Boneless Pizza!. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just following up to see if I've addressed all of your points or whether there's any outstanding issue(s) @Boneless Pizza!. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi. I don't see any other issues at the article now. So, I'll Support this nom. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Image has alt text, appropriately licensed, and the caption fits the article. So I guess with just one image, the image review passes
• Do you need all 4 of the first references together, or is it possible to cut it down one or two?
• Not sure if it's something absolutely needed or not, but based on reviews of my lists in the past, I've been told to include |+ {{sronly|TEXT HERE}} for the tables, so maybe add that.

Overall the article looks good! My comments are mostly nitpicking. It's crazy how many more medals are awarded these days compared to this Olympics. -- ZooBlazer 22:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer: Thank you for the review! To address your points, I tried very hard to find the appropriate references to not use 4 refs on the lead sentence, but due to the name changes and the variety of information contained in the lead sentence, I was unable to. As for the suggested template, the purpose of that is to add a table title for screen readers. In that template, that heading is meant to only be displayed for screen readers. This is not necessary when there's already a title added to the table, but some people opt to hide a table title while others choose to include it. In this case, and in the case of most Olympic medal tables, it makes more sense to include the caption with the source as the top 10 entries for the table are often transcluded into the main Olympics article.

Never feel bad nitpicking any of my noms, it only serves to make them better and pushes me to consider various aspects of what I'm doing when I'm doing them! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good then. Happy to support! -- ZooBlazer 17:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have spot-checked the references and the medal totals look good.
• I believe a link to Category:1960 Winter Olympics would be worth a {{Commons category}} under the See Also section.
• Would it be worth adding an External Links section? There is an official site

All of these are minor nitpicks, list looks good otherwise. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 21:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review @Matthewrb! It's my perspective that the official site link is better shared from the main article, which it is shared from. I also feel the same way about the commons category, since this is, in a sense/from my perspective, a subset/subtopic of the event. If there were a relevant sub topic of the commons category I think I'd be on board, such as Commons:Category:Sportspeople with 2024 Summer Olympics medals or Commons:Category:Podiums at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that does make sense. Since all of my concerns are addressed, I support this nomination. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 18:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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