Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 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, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): CaptainGalaxy, Pokelego999 14:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list covers the fictional Pokémon species that have been introduced in the second generation of the Pokémon media franchise, specifically Pokémon from the video games Pokémon Gold, Silver and Crystal. Me and co-nominator Pokelego999 have gone through the list and included what information we could find about each species using high quality sources in order to create as comprehensive a list as possible with what sources exist, with a summary of the franchise, the second generation's setting included in the article's lead, and a detailed inclusion of the development and beta of the Pokémon in the second generation. We both believe this meets FL criteria due to its expansive scope of coverage and verifiability in reliable publications. CaptainGalaxy 14:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "National Pokédex": explain/replace with what a Pokedex is
  • Let me know if the new wording is sufficient. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "evolution via various means, such as exposure to specific items.": evolution, via various means such as exposure to specific items.
  • I don't believe that's grammatically correct? The comma there is largely unnecessary. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • commas on both sides, maybe (it just looks like the process is being called "evolution by various means")
• "unlike other generations": unlike other subsequent generations
  • Changed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "and a stand-alone Pokémon based on the shell on Slowbro and Slowking.":would be confusing to non-fans
  • Slowking's shell is defined in the list itself for non-fans, but if you feel this is better off removed I will do so. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's fine now
• Pokémon Gold and Silver ... in a future Pokemon game": split this paragraph in two for readability?
  • Already split. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no issues in reception, and I have not looked at the actual list

• The Japanese(an other non-english) titles should have a translation
• Ref-58:"Bachelor Degree thesis": I don't think that's reliable?
  • They are usable if cited by other, verifiable papers and sources, at least if I'm remembering the rule correctly. Galaxy can give you more on this than me, as he's the one who dug up the source.
• Some of the "TheGamer" refs do not have it wikilinked

I might check some of the pokemon in the list later. Ping me when replying. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and wikilinked the remaining TheGamer sources that weren't prior. I am currently in the process of getting help for the translation of the non-english sources, it just may take some time. As for ref-58, I had confirmation from Cowboygilbert off-site that the thesis had been used in other academic sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I have also asked this user additional questions on this thesis on their talk page here. CaptainGalaxy 02:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google-translated titles might be fine, atleast as placeholders. The reference seems fine enough, I just brought it to attention to confirm how reliable it was.

Checking the starters and pure-electric types(17 Pokemon):

• Grass starters: I see no issues
• Fire starters: Just like the grass starters, combine the statement about anime cydaquil and it evolving into one. "Due to the leak ... Pokémon community.": I'm not sure that's needed, especially when Typhlosion has its own article
  • Typhlosion's info I felt was worthwhile to retain for those who don't want to read the original article but want a basic lowdown on what makes the species notable. Made the other alteration. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine probably, kinda borderline about typhlosion
• Water starters: I see no issues
• Pichu: "Several alternate forms of Pichu ... game's competitive scene.": Way too detailed- remove/shorten/make a separate article.
  • Pichu was already deemed non-notable via AfD a while back, and there isn't enough standalone coverage to support an article at this time. The other roles are significant roles for the Pokémon that at least warrant brief mention, particularly the Smash stuff, as it's some of Pichu's real only Reception that was carried over from the AfD's merge. The Smash stuff has significant coverage, so it felt worthwhile to include given it's one of Pichu's important things outside of the series. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shorten the third paragraph at least, perhaps "Several alternate forms of Pichu appear in the series, such as a "Spiky-Eared" Pichu in Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver, and a ukelele playing Pichu in the 2010 spin-off game Pokémon Ranger: Guardian Signs." and merge with the 4th para
• Mareep line: "re-growing only a week": re-growing completely only a week. "This light can even be seen ... lighthouses": make this out-of-universe
  • Made changes. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Elekid: "Elekid become happy upon the sound of thunderstorms.": remove, feels in-universery
  • I do feel this gives insight into the species' personality, which is otherwise not covered by Elekid's section and is helpful for understanding the subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Borderline again
• Raikou+Entei+Suicine: "In the film, the character Molly Hale, ... out of control Unown.": shorten.
  • Done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a very great list, but gets too detailed and in-universe at times. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91: addressed the above. Let me know if anything else should be changed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the only changes you didn't make were borderline ones, I think will be worthy of being an FL once all of it gets reviewed, so a support from my side. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91: Thank you for supporting this list. All non-English sources have now been translated. CaptainGalaxy 22:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am bolding some text; it means those particular word(s) have been added or changed.

• The image Gold and Silver Beta Pokemon.jpg needs an alt text
• "The generation was unvailed at the beginning of the Nintendo Space World '97 event." => "The generation was unveiled at the beginning of the Nintendo Space World '97 event."
• franchise before Gold and Silver released => franchise before Gold and Silver was released
• In these games and their sequels, the player assumes the role of a Trainer whose goal is to capture and use the creatures' special abilities to combat other Pokémon. => In these games and their sequels, the player assumes the role of a Trainer whose goal is to capture Pokémon and use their special abilities to combat other Pokémon
• Each Pokémon have one or two elemental types => Each Pokémon has one or two elemental types
• Typically the options are between a Grass Type, a Fire Type and a Water Type. => Typically, the options are Grass-type, Fire-type, or Water-type Pokémon.
• additionally allowed for more freedom in regards to creating the colors => additionally allowed for more freedom in creating the colors of species
• At this point in the game's development, the game had a massively larger world map than the final game => At this point in the game's development, it had a significantly larger world map than the final game
• This line were given the Electric-typing => This line was given the Electric-typing
• it was discovered that the Kotora line were scrapped from both => it was discovered that the Kotora line had been scrapped from both
• a viking longship => a Viking longship
• the Kotora line being scrapped and hoped for the line's return => the Kotora line being scrapped and hoped for its return
• Some designs that were scrapped designs => Some scrapped designs

That was all I could find :) The AP (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAstorPastor: I believe my co-nom has gone through and addressed your concerns. Let us know if anything else needs to be done! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All problems have been addressed, including the beta image alt text. As Pokelego mentioned, ping for anymore suggestions needing to be addressed. CaptainGalaxy 03:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain Galaxy @Pokelego999

• International Pokémon logo.svg needs an alt text
• Add italics to Nintendo Life and Kotaku for publication names.
• Change semicolon to comma in "poll held by The Pokémon Company"

In reception

• There are two mentions of Pokedex, change it to Pokédex
• believing the generation to have particularly memorable designs. → noting its particularly memorable designs.
• to be highly favorable and well-designed. → as highly favorable and well-crafted.
• believed the games' designs to be among the most creative in the series → regarded the games' designs as among the most creative
• the former three → three aforementioned Pokémon

The AP (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and added most of the changes you suggested. However, I am confused about the suggestion "Add italics to Nintendo Life and Kotaku for publication names." I looked and I couldn't find examples where that wasn't already the case. Is it ok if you could show where I may be missing this? CaptainGalaxy 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain GalaxyNintendo Life - Gamer Network, Celeste_(video_game)#Farewell, Tetris_Party and see MOS:ITALICTITLE

Kotaku - The title itself is in italics,GTA VI, The Backrooms (it is also a GA) The AP (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell this has already been applied. I don't see anywhere in this article where Nintendo Life or Kotaku aren't in italics. CaptainGalaxy 13:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain Galaxy Hmm, it appears so . As for the notes :

• is not believed to have influence on the design → is not believed to have influenced on the design
• as well as National Pokédex number → as well as National Pokédex number are provided

Ping me when you made the change :) The AP (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAstorPastor: Both suggestions have now been implemented. CaptainGalaxy 16:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support prose - Great work @Pokelego999, @Captain Galaxy The AP (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article, I'll post my review here once I'm done! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my review, amazing work!

• Strengths: The prose is generally clear, concise, and engaging. The writing flows well, explaining complex topics (like game mechanics and design choices) in an accessible way. The language is appropriate for the topic and avoids jargon.
• Weaknesses: There are some minor grammatical inconsistencies (e.g., inconsistent use of Oxford commas). A few sentences could be rephrased for better clarity, particularly in the "Design and Development" section. For example, "This close association between the generations resulted in many species in the second generation being related to ones introduced in the prior games, or being designs that were scrapped from Red and Blue" could be tightened to something like "This resulted in many second-generation species being related to earlier ones, or reviving designs scrapped from Red and Blue."

• Strengths:The lead provides a good overview of the topic, including the number of Pokémon introduced, the original games, and the region where they're found. It also mentions key features of the generation, like new types and Baby Pokémon.
• Weaknesses: The lead could be more engaging. While informative, it lacks a hook to grab the reader's attention. Consider starting with a more compelling sentence about the impact or legacy of Generation II. Also, the inclusion criteria are implied (Pokémon introduced in Generation II) but not explicitly stated.

• (a) Scope and Coverage: The list appears to cover all 100 Pokémon introduced in Generation II, meeting the requirement. The annotations provide a wealth of information about each Pokémon's design, origins, and role in the franchise.
• (b) Sourcing: The article is well-sourced, with citations provided for key facts and claims. The use of inline citations is appropriate and consistent.
• (c) Stand-alone Requirements: The list is substantial enough to stand alone as an article. It doesn't appear to fork content, duplicate material from other articles, or be suitable for inclusion within a related article. The eight-item minimum is easily met.

• Strengths: The table of contents and section headings make the article easy to navigate. The sortable table is a significant asset, allowing readers to organize the Pokémon by name, type, or evolution stage.
• Weaknesses: The initial table of contents listing every individual Pokémon name feels redundant given the sortable table below. Consider removing this list and linking directly to the section containing the detailed table.

• (a) Visual Appeal: The article is visually appealing, with appropriate use of formatting, tables, and images. The use of color in the Pokémon type icons is helpful. The proportion of redlinks is minimal.
• (b) Media Files: The image of the Pokémon logo is relevant and appropriately captioned. The image of the beta Pokémon sprites is a valuable addition, illustrating the design process. More images of individual Pokémon could enhance the visual appeal, but it is understood they may be problematic due to copyright issues.
• (c) Accessibility: The formatting appears to be accessible, with correctly structured lists and tables. Alt text for images would further improve accessibility; ensure this is present where possible. While not used now, consistent and correct utilization of alt text for any future media additions is recommended.

The page is stable, which satisfies this criterion.

This is a strong featured list candidate. The article is comprehensive, well-sourced, and well-structured. The prose is generally strong, though minor improvements could be made for clarity and consistency. The lead could be made more engaging. More images of individual Pokémon could enrich the visual experience, but the currently included images are relevant and well-chosen. Addressing the minor weaknesses outlined above will further strengthen the article.

Therefore, I support this featured list candidacy. My suggestions for improvement are minor (and don't have to be addressed), but overall it is a very good list. Amazing work Pokelego999! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 02:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and added the example suggestion for the prose, and already added alt text for the beta sprite image for a prior suggestion. You are also indeed correct when it comes to more images being a copyright concern. If it is ok, could you elaborate a bit more about your suggestion for the lead? CaptainGalaxy 03:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read the lead and I can say that I like the current version, so no further changes are needed. Thanks for making the amazing list! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you italicize game and film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have gone ahead and done this for every source I could find. CaptainGalaxy 11:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "before Gold and Silver was released." -> "before Gold and Silver were released."
• "shell Pokémon which bares resemblance" -> "shell Pokémon that bares resemblance"
• "and were based on tigers," -> "and was based on tigers,"
• "it was discovered that the Kotora line" -> "It was discovered that the Kotora line"
• "That's all I've got. Ping me when completed please. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have gone ahead and applied all suggestions made. CaptainGalaxy 20:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support on grammar. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Arvidsson (2018) is not a reliable source. There is a misreading of WP:SCHOLARSHIP here, which states that "masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." It does not mention undergraduate dissertations, implying a higher bar. The only reference I can find is in a bachelor's dissertation, which doesn't show "significant scholarly influence". References should be replaced unless significance can be demonstrated. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar vein, what makes Vainisto (2017) a reliable source? The only reference I'm seeing is in Arvidsson (2018), so I'm unsure that it meets the bar of "significant scholarly influence". UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mulling this over for a few days, but the thesis use just doesn't sit right with me. With regret, I oppose here on source reliability per the FL criteria. Arvidsson (2018) and Vainisto (2017) are not reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP but are used extensively in the list—Arvidsson (2018) is cited nine times, Vainisto (2017) is cited thirteen times—so this is a pretty widespread issue. I'd be more than happy to reconsider once these references are removed or replaced with reliable sources; please ping me once this is done. Edit [20:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)] Struck per below. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UpTheOctave!, sorry for the late response. I have been very busy IRL so I haven't had the time to address the matter until now. With that being said, all mentions of these two sources have been replaced or removed. The only reason those sources were originally there was due to a misunderstanding on my part as well as missing context when talking about WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I hope that the recent edits made by me have addressed the issue you may have had regarding this list. CaptainGalaxy 01:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick reply, I'm happy that this comment is dealt with so have struck my oppose. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead image shouldn't used a fixed pixel size, use upright and the equivalent measurement instead (MOS:UPRIGHT)

Fixed to "upright=1.14". CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Both images have alt text
• The lead image is free as it doesn't meet a TOO; the second image has a proper fair use rationale
• Ref 9 is missing an author

Author added. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 28 is a dead (direct) link, update the citation template so that it places the archive first

Now correctly displayed, I also fixed all the other sources that link to Kotaku Australia. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 46 and 47 cite the same author, but the first and last names are swapped, one of them needs to be fixed to the correct order

Fixed citation 47. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 54 should be "GamesRadar+" for consistency with other citations from the same source

Fixed. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Eurogamer.de -> Eurogamer in Ref 101, 352, 355, 358

I didn't implement this change as Eurogamer.de is the name of the German version of Eurogamer as seen here. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 116 is missing an author

Author added. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 333 is missing an author
  • This is also still alive link, citation template needs adjusted

Author added and correctly displayed live link. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 166 is missing an author

Author added. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I ask about the reliability of The Daily Dot? A lot of click bait in my personal experience, but I may have just been on the wrong side of the website.

Deemed reliable according to WP:VG/S as seen here and here. CaptainGalaxy 13:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spot checked references 6, 12, 22, 30, 43, 91, 130, 176, 209, 242, 294, 323, 354, 401, 417, 420; everything checks out.
• I ran a few scripts for MOS purposes.

Looks great, just the few issues above. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: I have gone ahead and addressed the above with additional comments on The Daily Dot and Eurogamer.de points. CaptainGalaxy 13:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Source and image reviews pass, happy to support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 414 – Make consistent with one ref 362, this one capitalizes differently
• Refs 414 – and Link to MeriStation

Corrected capitalisation and linked to MeriStation. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 260, 308 – Remove "| RPG Site" from the reference title

Removed. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 335 – Remove "RPG Site Staff", it's typically assumed the site staff have written it if no author is listed

Removed. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a place RPG Site can link to? It comes up as reliable for me, and appears to be such, but if possible I'd prefer it to be wikilinked. I understand if it's not able to be though.

Unfortunately as of now RPG Site does not have an article nor a parent company article to be wikilinked to. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 340 – Mark as dead.

Now correctly formatted to indicate reference link is dead.

• Ref 1 and 151 – Both cite the same website, one uses "Nintendo" while the other uses "Nintendo Co, Ltd." - make them consistent

Corrected Ref 1 to now follow Ref 51's labelling of Nintendo. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 351 – Add the url-access parameter to note that this story is accessed in full with a subscription by adding |url-access=subscription

Subscription indicator implemented. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 86 – There was an RM a few months ago that changed "Yahoo!" to just "Yahoo", which is why the section targeted by the redirect is at Yahoo Japan. Remove the exclamation point

Removed. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 89 – The URL used is a redirect, please use the target page as the source instead

Redirected link implemented. 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 225 – The URL used is a redirect, please use the target page as the source instead

Redirected link implemented. 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 106 – Add |via=[[Google Books]] to note that the source is on Google books

Google Books indicator now implemented. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I believe all suggestions are now implemented. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 28 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) 18:21, 29 January 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, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC), Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the 20th anniversary of the revived era is coming up. Doctor Who has two similar lists which are already FLs- List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials, so I would like for it to be an FL too. I have tried to make it look like these two, but the first one is old and the second is theme-specific, so I'm not sure if I have fixed everything per the criteria. But I would fix any issues that will get listed here. It's my first time nominating an FL, so apologies if I accidently missed something major. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have marginally more experience with FLCs (this is my ninth? nomination) I also plan to address the problems stated Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink showrunner in the lead. Done
• I would suggest swapping the second and third paragraphs, so that the two paragraphs about episode/story numbers follow each other. The flow feels odd to discuss episode/story numbers, move on, and then circle back to them. Done
• I feel that the paragraph about Doctors and showrunners could just do with some general copyediting. Another reviewer may be able to provide specific suggestions on that paragraph, but it reads oddly to me. Done (as far as I could see)
• There's an error message at the end of the notes section. Done (fixed)
• since the 1965–1966 season, each episode has a title -> since the third season, each episode has its own title Done
• Unlike the classic series, most were stand alone as complete stories. -> Unlike the classic series, most episodes told stand-alone stories. Done
• During Eccleston's tenure, the episodes were all set on either Earth, or in its orbit, in its past, present and future. -> During Eccleston's tenure, all episodes were set on Earth, or its orbit, in the past, present, or future. Done
• The 2005 series introduces Billie Piper as the companion Rose Tyler, and constitutes a loose story arc, dealing with the consequences of the Time War and its impact on the Doctor, and the mystery of the seemingly omnipresent phrase 'Bad Wolf'. -> The 2005 series introduces Billie Piper as the companion Rose Tyler. A loose story arc deals with the consequences of the Time War, its impact on the Doctor, and the mystery of the seemingly omnipresent phrase 'Bad Wolf'. Done
• cast even before the first series aired. -> cast before the first series aired. Done
• Doctor Who needs italics in the following sentence. Done
• in various episodes in the 2006 series. -> in various episodes of the 2006 series. Done
• leaving the series at -> leaving the programme at (series here is also used to refer to a season, helps avoid confusion) Done
• tenure also ends -> tenure ends (there's nothing being compared here so "also" feels unnecessary) Done (added "as a companion")
  • As a side note I don't know that "tenure ends" is correct here either. It was a long term plan for Martha to return the following series. Perhaps something along the lines of [...] who leaves the Doctor in the finale [...] or [...] who returns home in the finale [...]
• and the new companion -> and his companion (has explained in the following sentence, Donna isn't new
  • she is new as companion, not character)
• which also brought back all the companions in the revived series up to that moment. - factually incorrect, re: Adam Mitchell and Astrid Peth Done(added "long-term")
• and deals with cracks spreading throughout time and space and erasing things and the opening of the Pandorica which are mentioned in various episodes. feels very run-on sentency Done
• Series 7 started with five episodes and a Christmas special in late 2012, followed by eight episodes in 2013. I thought "Christmas special" here was referring to The Doctor the Widow and the Wardrobe at first. It feels weird to leave one special out but include the other. Done (differently)
  • Maybe A Christmas special preceded the seventh series, which was once again split into two parts. The first five episodes aired in late 2012, followed by a second holiday special. The remaining eight episodes were broadcast in 2013. - doesn't have to be that exactly, just giving an idea of what may clear it up.
• and the reveal -> as well as the reveal, Ten didn't fight in the Time War intially Done
• "heroic" feels fancrufty Done
• exclusively of two-parters -> exclusively of two-parters and loose story arcs - helps cover the gap of TGWD/TWWL and FTR/HS/HB Done
• oath, and later -> oath, later Not Done
• both of whom depart in the finale "The Doctor Falls". - they both appear in the following special, Mackie more importantly even receives main billing Done
• The Thirteenth Doctor was portrayed by Jodie Whittaker,[55] becoming the first woman to play the role, with Chris Chibnall taking over as showrunner from the eleventh series onwards, and the reduction of episodes from twelve to ten. - run-on again Done
• no enemies from the previous seasons returned. -> no antagonists from the programme's history returned. (again the season/series thing) Done
• This series dealt with a new incarnation of the Master,[60] the return of Jack Harkness,[61] and the appearance of an unknown incarnation of the Doctor who existed at some point before the Time War,[47] while following the destruction of Gallifrey and the secret of the Timeless Child. run-on again Done
• in an attempt to take over Earth and the destruction of large parts of the universe. -> in an attempt to take over Earth and destroy the universe. Done
• regeneration,[69][70] with both Dan and Yaz departing in the finale. -> regenration.[69][70] Both Dan and Yaz departed in the final special. Done
• Russell T Davies returned as showrunner, partnering with Bad Wolf to co-produce and Disney+ regarding distribution outside the UK to celebrate the 60th anniversary and "series beyond". -> Russell T Davies returned as showrunner to celebrate the 60th anniversary and "series beyond". [[Bad Wolf (production company}|Bad Wolf]] and Disney began co-producing the programme while Disney+ handled international distribution outside of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. - Disney is also a co-producer, I feel the Northern Ireland mention can't hurt since it was listed in most news articles at the time Partly Done
  • first part, NI is in the UK
• Wikilink Destination: Skaro somewhere in there about the CiN special. Done
• and is the current -> who is the current Done
• saw the reduction of episodes from ten to eight - wasn't Flux only allocated eight episodes?
  • series 13 was allotted 10, Covid changed it to eight, not a production decision
• following season centred -> following series centred Done
• Perhaps a mention of the time released a day prior on D+ after the bit about a midnight iPlayer release? A mention of it being marketed as "Season 1" also couldn't hurt. Partly Done
  • it was released at the same time everywhere, only those west of the UK got it a day prior
• Filming occurred between 23 October 2023 and 25 May 2024. - filming isn't mentioned in any other section?
  • not released yet, so that's why

Ping me when done or replying, I may decide to take a brief look at sourcing. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done/replied TheDoctorWho DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you for the review, and sorry for so many corrections being required. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91: No need for the apology, I'm actually impressed how much this list has improved over the last few months as a result of your efforts, and just want it to be the best it can be.

I'm content with the reasoning on all the Not Done's other than the one regarding series 4 and Donna being a "new" companion. You stated it wasn't done because she is "new as companion" which is still factually inaccurate as she fulfilled the companion role in The Runaway Bride, just in a one-off role. Is Astrid Peth, or Christina de Souza or Joy Almondo, NOT a companion because they only appeared in one episode? It further causes a discrepancy because Donna is listed as the companion in the Infobox at The Runaway Bride.

What about something like [...] binding the Doctor and his now full-time companion Donna Noble together, [...]? Alternatively, if readjusting sentences, I could also see something like In this series, Catherine Tate reprises her role as Donna Noble from "The Runaway Bride", this time as a full-fledged companion. The coincidences binding the Doctor and Donna together are explored. Donna departs in "Journey's End", which also brought back [...] (followed by the rest of the paragraph as is). TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 and OlifanofmrTennant: Looks fantastic!

One last thing, the newly added images need alt text (just the actors names should be sufficient), and I also suggest adding the performers names to the visible caption as well. Something similar to what the one at The Power of the Doctor#Casting looks like.

I won't hold back if the above isn't done though, it's merely a suggestion, so I'm more than satisfied with going ahead and giving this list my support, great work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a lead image that can be added?
  • Not particularly, maybe I can add the images of the six actors of the Doctor
• "Six actors have lead the revived series" => "Six actors have led the revived series" Done
• "Tennant only portrayed him through the 60th anniversary specials" => "Following this, Tennant only portrayed him in the 60th anniversary specials" (we do not use "through" in British English in the way you have here) Done
• "most episodes told stand alone stories" => "most episodes told standalone stories"Done
• "binding the Doctor and his new companion Donna together, portrayed by Catherine Tate," => "binding together the Doctor and his new companion Donna, portrayed by Catherine Tate, " Done (I think the grammar is already fine?) (done now)
• "The Doctor continued to travel alone through all the specials" => "The Doctor continued to travel alone in all the specials" Done
• "Series 7 started with five episodes, was split by a Christmas special in late 2012, and was followed by eight episodes in 2013" => "Series 7 started with five episodes, was split by a Christmas special in late 2012, and was completed by eight episodes in 2013" - current wording indicates that series 7 was followed by 8 episodes in 2013, which isn't right) Done (I feel like it being under series 7 is context enough)
  • Currently the article says "Series 7 started [...] was split [...] and was followed by eight episodes in 2013" - the subject of all the verbs is "series 7", so as worded it says that series 7 was followed by eight episodes in 2013. This is indisputably not correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done now
• "and as well as reveal of the War Doctor" - use either "and" or "as well as" but not both, also "the" is missing before "reveal" Done
• "and the Doctor questioning of him being a good man" => "and the Doctor's questioning of him being a good man" Done
• "The series dealt with the mystery of the vault and the Doctor's oath, and later exploring the Doctor and Missy's relationship" => "The series dealt with the mystery of the vault and the Doctor's oath, and later explored the Doctor and Missy's relationship" Done
• "coressponding Christmas special" - first word is spelt wrong Done
• Pipe the link at the end of that same sentence Done
• "This series dealt with a new incarnation of the Master,[61] and the appearance of an unknown incarnation of the Doctor,[48] and following the destruction of Gallifrey and the secret of the Timeless Child" => "This series dealt with a new incarnation of the Master,[61] the appearance of an unknown incarnation of the Doctor,[48] the destruction of Gallifrey and the secret of the Timeless Child" Done
• "Both Dan and Yaz departing in the finale" => "Both Dan and Yaz departed in the finale" Done
• "The series released at midnight on BBC iPlayer in the UK" => "The episodes were released at midnight on BBC iPlayer in the UK"
• "The BBC broadcast the episodes on the following Saturday evening" - this is a bit meaningless as the previous sentence did not specify on which day of the week they were released at midnight (also it would be worth stating in which timezone the aforementioned midnight was, as I may be wrong but I am pretty sure the episodes were not released at midnight all over the world, with Australia getting them hours before the UK)
• Disney+ is linked twice in consecutive sentences. Check for overlinking generally.
• "A third series with Davies as showrunner was being planned by November 2023.[3] By that June, Davies was working on the fourth script for the series" - "that June", given the sentence structure, would be June 2023. I presume this is not what you mean.....? Done (removed a sentence, and forgot to change this sentence)
• Footnotes: "Episodes for the fourteenth series released simultaneously at midnight" => "Episodes for the fourteenth series were released simultaneously at midnight" Done (this was in the footnote, so removed it from the prose)
• That's what I got. Mostly little niggles, this is great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review ChrisTheDude DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing I didn't pick up above (apologies) - there's inconsistency in the tense used to refer to different seasons. For example, you have "This series introduces Freema Agyeman as the companion Martha Jones, whose time as the companion ends in the finale "Last of the Time Lords", and deals with the mysterious Mr. Saxon" (all in the present tense) but then you also have "The series consisted almost exclusively of two-parters and loose story arcs, and dealt with the consequences of the changing dynamics of Doctor and Clara's relationship, which led to her departure in the finale "Hell Bent", and the prophecy of the Hybrid" (all in past tense) and then in other cases you mix and match e.g. "This series introduced Karen Gillan [....] It deals with....." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't notice that either. I'll change it all to present tense. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The viewers figures for the 11 April 2009 to 1 January 2010 specials and the whole of Series 5 appear to incorporate BBC HD viewing figures as well as BBC1. An additional BARB top 10 reference which shows the BBC HD figures should be added to the columns in these sections, possibly also add a note to explain the viewers figures are a combination of the two channels. JP (Talk) 13:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an alternative, I just handled a similar issue on the second series table at List of Torchwood episodes by subtracting the secondary network and (where necessary) adding a footnote for the additional data. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I'm gonna change the ref- as there seems to be issues for the data in that time period for some reason. Thanks for seeing that, I did not check the data for all series this thoroughly. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Been meaning to comment on this one.

-Perhaps include a brief synopsis of the show in the lead? As a casual reader I would have no idea what Doctor Who is about just reading the first paragraph, and no clue who the Doctor is and why they're played by so many actors.

Added

-As I mentioned previously on the talk page, I object to the referencing of so many classic era episodes in the revived era article, as a casual reader does not need the name drops. This can probably be simplified down to something like "The episode numbering fluctuates depending on the source" or something similar. This is not imperative, so if you feel the list is better off as is, I will not attempt to force you to change this.

Changed

-Do we need the note on Doctor Who season 22 in the table saying the episodes for the Sixth Doctor were broadcast in 45 minute episode blocks? That doesn't seem to really be useful for this list, and is basically trivia.

it technically relates to the numbering- the whole section is transcluded, so I would rather not change it

-Captain Jack is a series 1 companion who plays a major recurring role, though is not mentioned at all in the synopsis. Mickey is also taken on as a companion in series 2, though is not mentioned at the summary. Done

-I feel the plot summaries at the start of the series are very brief. They don't really give much info on what each series is about, and without context as to how the series even works, feel extremely confusing. Using series 3 as an example, who is Martha? Why is she travelling with the Doctor, and why does she leave at the end of the series? Who is Mr. Saxon, and why is he important? Other series are much the same. What is the vault? Where is the Doctor during this? How is the series changing by series? While I understand that this is not a main series article and thus does not need a degree of depth, I feel at least some summary of the basics is needed, as otherwise readers are going to be left confused about nearly every aspect of the show, making it unhelpful for navigation since readers aren't getting a decent picture of what article they're looking at.

I will make slight changes, but they are not too brief, it is not the article for the series or the show as a whole

-Additionally, the fact no dev info is included anywhere is strange to me. No information about how the series is evolving and changing behind the scenes, bar slight changes in episode counts or a change in lead actor or showrunner? That stuff is important for understanding how the environment and context of the episodes is shifting as the production evolves. Things like changes in production techniques, script-writing methods, reasons for why characters are taking the roles they are, etc. This is a topic inherently related to the revived era's episodes, and not the main Who article.

Same as above

-"Donna departs in "Journey's End", which also brings back all the long-term companions in the revived series up to that moment." I'd reword, since this implies every companion comes back for regular adventures after this point, when they are only back for an episode. Additionally, though this is semantics, the companions technically returned in The Stolen Earth, not just Journey's End.

changed

-"for ones involving convoluted time travel, which remained a staple for the entirety of Smith's tenure as the Doctor." "Convoluted" feels very opinionated. Perhaps "complicated"? Keeps the same meaning without any of the emotional connotations.

• convoluted is no more opinionated than complicated is

-"It deals with cracks spreading throughout time and space erasing things" Specify that it's from existence. The current wording could imply and erasure of something in a variety of contexts.

fixed

-Series 6's synopsis introduces River Song, even though she was introduced in Series 4 and played a large role in Series 5. Her backstory is not elaborated on in the synopsis, so a reader has no idea why she's important. Additionally, her actress is not mentioned, unlike the other Companions when they are introduced.

-The 2013 specials synopsis is primarily only focusing on the events of Day of the Doctor and entirely ignores the events of Time of the Doctor.

-"and the Doctor's questioning of him being a good man." I'd reword this, since the current wording implies the Doctor is questioning if Missy is a good man.

Fixed

-"after his last stand against the Cybermen" The Cybermen are not introduced before this, and his stand with them was not in Twice Upon a Time. Additionally, they are not hyperlinked.

Fixed (I think "against" the Cybermen is enough to say they are bad guys)

-"two-parters" I'd reword to "two-part episodes" for those unfamiliar with the usual lingo.

Done

-"and the prophecy of the Hybrid" This coming after the mention of Clara leaving in the finale of Hell Bent implies the Hybrid takes root only after Hell Bent, even though it is a series wide arc. The arc with Ashildr is also not mentioned at all despite being the only other major story arc not mentioned here.

Done, plus I don't think Ashildr is important enough

-"The time slot was changed to Sunday." The series' time slot was never mentioned before this, so this change comes a bit out of nowhere.

Saturday is mentioned at the very top

-" For the first time in the revived era, no enemies from the programme's history return in the series." We have no context for returning enemies since bar the Master (Who is only mentioned under different aliases) no enemies are explicitly mentioned or stated to be recurring.

I don't think it needs context

-"the destruction of Gallifrey" What is Gallifrey? It is not mentioned at all prior to this, and its previous destruction and rescue are not acknowledged in prior summaries.

Fixed

-This article is still sourcing Audience Appreciation from Doctor Who News, which has been deemed an unreliable source by the WikiProject. These should be removed.

It's for series 14. DWN was deemed borderline unreliable, minimal use should be fine

-" Russell T Davies returned as showrunner to celebrate the 60th anniversary and "series beyond"" Davies returned for reasons beyond celebration, and the current phrasing implies he was brought back as part of festivities and not for any other reason. Done

I do not think the phrasing implies that

I think it does Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-Hyperlink Davros and the Toymaker in the 2023 specials. Done

-"His tenure saw the episode count reduced from ten to eight. For marketing purposes, the series' numbering system was reset, starting with "Season 1"." This statement is unsourced.

Added

Sourcing looks good at a glance, however, I do not believe this is Featured List caliber. It gives absolutely zero context in every place context is needed, with random names being thrown around with the readership expected to know what they mean. The individual series need some form of production information and plot summary beyond the barest of information to really understand the context as a whole, both in and out of universe. I'd either expand the summaries, or just drop the summaries entirely and just make it a bare episode list. As it stands, it's not very helpful as a standalone or navigational article.

There are some good positives on this list; I'm glad you guys were able to find AI sourcing for some of the episodes, since that was previously a point of complication, and overall the citation quality is very well done. This list, however, needs more meat on the bone to function independently. If you need it, I'd be willing to help with some of my requested changes, since I understand I'm asking a lot, but as of now I don't feel I can support this just yet, as there is a lot of work that needs to go into this list to make it reach a Featured standard. Let me know if I can elaborate on anything I've brought up here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91: I feel that we should considered withdrawing this. I as the co-non felt that the nomination was a bit premature though didn’t say anything. Pokelego has above listed various problems that have yet to be fixed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant, most of the changes are small or I think unnecessary. Let's not withdraw, we would just have to nom it again in a week or two even if it takes time. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego999 all the changes have more or less been made, or replied to. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego999, could you clarify if you are going to oppose(and on what criteria(s)), given that I do not believe that it is undetailed. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. While it's probably not the best it can be (balancing depth and conciseness is always difficult in lists), it does meet the FLC criteria. No one expects readers to know the names, just to give a summary. Lists do not need to function completely independently though. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 sorry for the late reply, thought I commented already.

-"The specials focus on a premonition of "four knocks" leading to the death of the Tenth Doctor, starting from "Planet of the Dead"." I feel Planet of the Dead may be confusing here, implying the Doctor's death starts here instead of the Knocks thread. Probably just easier to say the specials focus on the premonition without mentioning the episode, though if you choose to fix this I'd definitely fix the grammar here.

-Remember to back up any new additions to the summaries with reliable sources if you haven't already. For instance, the statements that River Song appeared in prior episodes in Series 6 is not sourced to Collider.

-"which brings several enemies together in an attempt to take over Earth" Slight nitpick for Flux here, as technically the enemies weren't all united in an attempt, as the various antagonists (Serpent and Sontarans, the Ravagers, the Daleks/Cybermen, Tecteun, etc) were mostly working individually of each other, so this is a slight inaccuracy.

-Overall I think the rest of the changes to the summaries are satisfactory, and your responses to my above requests well-answered. Since the above are pretty small issues that I have faith will get fixed, I'm fine with Supporting this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a marker here, expect a forthcoming source review with some other comments. For transparency, I was asked neutrally on the community Discord server to provide thoughts; this will not influence my final opinion. Please ping me if I don't respond in 48 hours. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 16:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UpTheOctave!: pinging bcs it's been 48 hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the lateness, source review below. I know I said I'd provide additional comments, but a source review of this size has been quite draining – sorry for that. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed as seen at Special:diff/1271356389

Reliability

• I'm aware this is a different subject area, but WP:VG/S lists Screen Blend (refs 22 & 41) as unreliable. Unless it's significantly different in its coverage of television, this should be replaced.
  • I checked the website, seems to be as reliable as WP:VALNET (see below)
  • confused with a diff source, yeah, it's probably unreliable, removed
• I'm not thrilled with the citing of various WP:VALNET sources (refs 23, 30, 34, 36, 46, 51, 71 & 86) and would probably ask for removal if at FAC. Although FLCs don't require "high quality" sources, are there any more reliable sources that could verify this information?
  • I'll look, though I don't think I'll find alternative sources for most
  • Removed most of them, only three remain, though replacements are getting harder to find
    • Collider has a higher standard of quality then most valnet sources, so I've re-added it.a
    • I've looked, these substitutions might work: ref 27 could be replaced with [3], ref 46a with [4], ref 46b by [5], 31a by [6][7], and 31b by [8][9]
      • Thank you, I'll replace the ones that are replacable,(Done, though I am not able to add or take the Digital Spy refs from archive)
• What makes Doctor Who News (refs 53, 88 & 91) a reliable source?
  • I'll remove 53; Doctor Who News is a fan-site, so it's deprecated for use in the wikiproject, but I can't find the source where they found the info from, so I haven't yet removed it (their info is basically always correct, but they don't usually list their sources)
  • They are now one ref used four times- I can't find the sources for them
  • two Valnet and four Doctor Who News left- I have made basically all changes that I possibly could
    • Not wild on this use, I don't feel comfortable passing the source review with a deprecated source present. Are there really no other possible sources for the appreciation index?
  • Definitely not, I have checked all the official sources - I can't find anything(the BBC usually releases the AI late or never now, usually unofficial channels like DWN find the data first)

Consistency

• References should either be in title or sentence case, not both.
  • I copy-pasted the titles, I'll convert all to one of these (Done)
    • Missed refs 30, 39 and 84.
      • Done, forgot refs transcluded in
• The date format for "Doctor Who: The Complete History" should be consistent with other magazine sources.
  • I'll do that
  • Done
    • Missed ref 1.
      • Apologies, done now
• All "Doctor Who: The Complete History" references should be {{cite magazine}}, not {{cite journal}}. They should also use the same parameters (see later).
  • Done
    • Missed ref 1.
      • Done now
• BBC News should either be {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}, not both.
  • Done
    • This has not been done
      • Ctrl+f gives no cite news templates?
        • Sorry, I was mistaken. What I should have said is that BBC News should be in the website parameter as BBC News Online is not a publishing company.
          • Done
• Linking (or not linking) of publishers should be consistent.
  • I believe all websites with pages are now linked
    • Might be worth linking The Mary Sue, but that's a a redirect. Not a problem though.
• I'm a bit confused on the use of sfns here, other sources with several pages are just using one reference template?
  • They are used in several places, the rest are used only in one place
  • Changed
• Names of sources should be consistent. For example you give "Doctor Who: The Complete History" and "Doctor Who – The Complete History"; "DoctorWho.TV" and "Doctor Who"; "Screen Rant" and "ScreenRant". There's other examples here as well, please check throughout.
  • Done
• Some "Doctor Who: The Complete History" references give "Panini Comics, Hachette Partworks" as a publisher, some only the former.
  • Done

Other comments

• Ref 5 is a dead link, switch to archive.
• Ref 7 has a missing author.
• Ref 12 is missing an archive.
• Ref 16 is missing publisher.
• Ref 20 is missing an author. Allcaps should be reduced to title or sentence case per MOS:CONFORM.
  • Still missing author.
    • Done
• Ref 21 is missing an archive.
• Ref 26 is missing an archive.
  • You forgot to strike this out, I assume?
    • It's now ref 23 in the current version. The other Barb reference has an archive, so I'm presuming this can be done as well?
      • Oh, archive won't work, info is stored on the server side- I have removed the archive from the other barb too
• Ref 29 is missing an author.
• Ref 39 has a superfluous tagline in the title.
• Ref 46 is missing access date and archive.
• Ref 49 is missing archive.
• Ref 52 is missing archive.
• Ref 59 should drop "(magazine)".
• Ref 61 has K in the last name parameter: this is a middle initial.
• Ref 65 is missing author.
• Ref 68 is missing author.
  • Now ref 70.
    • All refs on and around that have authors/editors?
      • I'm not being clear enough, sorry. The reference without an author is Radio Times (2 March 2020) and is ref 70 in the current version.
        • Apologies, I'm not sure how I missed that
• Ref 69 is missing author.
• Refs 88 and 91 are duplicates of ref 53.
  • Added missing authors, and the other issues except archives. Archives I'll add after the list is in it's final version, as the bot sometimes gives issues when run multiple times- would need to add the archives myself, the bot is not working correctly

Spotchecks

• I'll spotcheck 25% of the listed references.
• Could you send me over copies of the following sources: Aldridge and Murray (2008); Pixley (2006); Pixley (2008); Pixley (2010); Ainsworth (2015).
• I'll check these and the following online sources soon: Barb Audiences (a) and (b); Cornell, Day and Topping (1995); The Register (2013); Anders (2017); Turner (2017); Jones (2018); Jeffery (2019); Oganesyan (2020); Allcock (2021); Cremona (2021); Petski (2021); Brit (2022); Scott (2023); Axford (2024); Craig (2024); Mellor (2024); Whitbrook (2024); Wilkinson (2025).
  • Pixley and Ainsworth sent on Discord, Aldridge I copied from Russell T Davies, which became an FA while having it, so I believe the data would be correct(I don't have access to them, I'll have to search for it more)

Print sources:

• Aldridge and Murray (2008): AGF per offwiki discussion, I cannot find any versions of this online.
• Pixley (2006): checks out apart from p. 101. Where is the AI for 177a&b coming from?
  • Sorry, forgot to add the ref for that (Done)
• Pixley (2008): all good.
• Pixley (2010): all good.
• Ainsworth (2015): all good.

Online sources:

• Barb Audiences (a) and (b): checks out.
• Cornell, Day and Topping (1995): I don't think this verifies the text it supports. I see no mention of Shada not being broadcast, or information on the numbering of episodes.
  • Added partially why the numbering differs
• The Register (2013): assuming this is based on the chart. I think it verifies the content.
• Anders (2017): all good, but I'm not sure the quotes around "turning good" are needed.
  • The quotes are due to the ambiguity of her turn
    • Not a Dr Who buff by any means, but if there is only a possibility of a turn, isn't the turn by its nature ambiguous?
      • Removed quotes
• Turner (2017): all good.
• Jones (2018): unless I'm missing something, "For the first time in the revived era" is not verified.
  • Emphasis on no old monsters+ the prev series had atleast one episode where an old enemy was part of its name. Apologies-I know it is kinda of a strech
    • I'd much rather there be a supporting citation. I'm fine with "no enemies from the programme's history return in the series", but this seems like unsourced analysis.
      • Removed "for the first time ... "
• Jeffery (2019): all good.
• Oganesyan (2020): all good.
• Allcock (2021): all good.
• Cremona (2021): all good.
• Petski (2021): all good.
• Brit (2022): all good.
• Scott (2023): all good.
• Axford (2024): all good.
• Craig (2024): not seeing how "swapping the melodramatic stories of his predecessor for ones involving convoluted time travel, which remained a staple for the entirety of Smith's tenure as the Doctor" is verified.
  • It's for moffat started with the eleventh doctor in series 5 only
• Mellor (2024): All good.
• Whitbrook (2024): ditto Craig (2024).
  • "questionable mysteries and twists, to his defenders, a penchant for tight, twisting thrillers"+ the episodes themselves as a unmentioned primary source
  • Changed melodramatic to emotion-driven as well
    • I'm fine with the use of primary sources for simple description, but for this conclusion I'd need a source to say that the previous stories were emotion-driven, that the new stories are based on "convoluted" time travel, that Moffat consciously swapped to this style, and that this style lasted until the end of the 2013 specials.
      • Changed to only talking about Moffat's style
• Wilkinson (2025): all good.

That's all for now. I realise I've been quite thorough, if you think I'm being too harsh on any of these points please say! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to all points, thanks for the review! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost done, UpTheOctave!. Some questions for clarifications asked.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replies and spotchecks added. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied, UpTheOctave! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over to you, only a few things left (BBC News formatting, Barb archiving, Radio Times missing author, "turning good" quotes, and verifiability concerns with Jones and Whitbrook). Re Doctor Who News, I'm really not comfortable with the use of this source. If it is deprecated by the Wikiproject and seen as unreliable, I don't think I can pass this review per WP:FLCR until they are removed. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done all, UpTheOctave!. Regarding Doctor Who News, it is used on the WikiProject, though at minimal levels. The site provides accurate and semi-reliable information, and has passed GAs(it was only deprecated recently). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content with all but the Doctor Who News references, which I feel I must take a firm stance against. Fundamentally, it is a blog run by volunteers. Blogs should generally not be used anywhere, let alone in an FL or GA. The recency of the deprecation doesn't factor into this. If anything, it explains why there are lingering uses. Even if it is the truth, we must use reliable sources per WP:V. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 15:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check to see if anything can be found to replace them. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UpTheOctave! I disagree with your assessment of DWN, but to fulfill the criteria, I have removed the index for those four seasons from transclusion (as the search goes on to remove/replace them there too). Hope that it enough for the criteria to be satisfied. Once again, thanks for the review! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'm happy to pass this source review now. If you have an argument that Doctor Who News is a reliable source, I'd be happy to revisit. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 17:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has recently and regretfully come to my attention in an FLC of mine, that usages of {{Episode table/part}} are an accessibility issue per MOS:COLHEAD. Courtesy pinging @MPGuy2824 and PresN: as they can probably answer any specific questions on the issues with it better than I can. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it now, I think, TheDoctorWho. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, as looking through how you dealt with the issue helped. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my comment since this was addressed, my support !vote above still stands. Thanks for taking care of this so quick, I plan on bringing it up at WT:TV later today since it's obviously a wider issue beyond the scope of just this list. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Regular seasons" table will also have to be split. It has the same issue. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a controversial edit, but I'll split that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've done this, so support. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed a different type of split with the article, using pre-existing auxiliary columns, so that we can keep the entire programme history in one table, hope it's still valid! -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This review is based on this version of the article.

• External link is formated as "DoctorWho.TV" whereas the references use "Doctorwho.tv"
• Ref 5 – Change publisher to BBC Online instead
• Ref 7 – Add publish date
• Ref 12 – Link to The Mary Sue
• Ref 14 – Add author
• Refs 23 and 67 – What's with "(No permanent link available. Search for relevant dates.)" included in some references? This implies that the information is not necessarily verifiable, which is an issue.
  • It's verifiable, but the date needs to be entered manually to see the numbers
• Ref 27 – Add author
• Ref 27 – Change "A. V. Club" to "The A.V. Club", to match the target
• Ref 32 – Add the url-access parameter to note that this story is accessed in full with a subscription by adding |url-access=subscription
  • Added =limited(bcs the first few are free to see), also below
• Ref 69 – Has an error, appears to be missing a "|" in the ref, as it shows the access date in the reference
• Ref 81 – No website listed
• Ref 84 – Add publish date
• Ref 88 – Add the url-access parameter to note that this story is accessed in full with a subscription by adding |url-access=subscription
• I think it would also make sense to link DoctorWho.TV (or whatever capitalization you chose)

That's what I've got. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: thanks for the review, did all. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way BARB (ref 23) works is you type In the dates you want information on and it will tell you, all information is hosted on the one page so its the same URL. The information is correct Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for the explanation @OlifanofmrTennant. I guess I'll go ahead and support then. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:55, 28 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) 18:21, 29 January 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) 00:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 10:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temples! Shrines! Ancient castles! Japan has 26 World Heritage Sites and 4 sites on the tentative list. Standard style. The nomination for Kazakhstan is already seeing support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 10:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"and natural sites which are important" -> "and natural sites that are important" History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty" -> "point of view of science, conservation, or natural beauty" History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I've got. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! Tone 13:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have a bit more. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the map the N in Nara overlaps with a dot, if that can be fixed it should be. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sane with Itsukushima Shrine, its covered by the dot for Okinoshima. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was playing a bit, I cannot really fix that. We would either need to enlarge the map, which I don't fancy, use numbers, which is also not ideal, or say X,Y,and Z are in the Kyoto area (and mark only Kyoto, but this is again not ideal because Nara is another city). I suggest we keep it as it is. Tone 13:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, its not too big of a deal, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Even if though the complex has undergone"
• "reaching almost to 2,000 m"
• wikilink "montane temperate rainforest" to Montane ecosystems#Temperate climate
• "substantial exchange between Japan and countries in Asia and Europe" -> "substantial exchange between Japan and other Eurasian countries"
• "the area of the Mount Kinkeizan."
• "Ogasawara Archipelago" - I'm unsure if archipelago needs to be capitalized. Please check.
• "the islands have a high number of endemic species"
• "Mount Fuji is a solitary stratovolcano with thea height of"
• "transition of Japan into a modern industrialized era" - I would replace "era" with "nation" since the subject is Japan.
• " and the northern part of Okinawa Island"
• "site comprises a heritage of gold and silver mines" OR use another word instead of "heritage"
• That's what I have for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, thanks! The Ogasawara article uses Islands and Archipelago when together with the name, so probably yes. Tone 13:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • " and the northern part of Okinawa Island" isn't done yet.
  • Support in advance, since I'm sure you'll get to it. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Got it, thanks! Tone 15:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• first entries to the list took place in 1993 when four sites → first entries to the list took place in 1993,(adding a comma) when four sites
• In Himeji's description : main keep are the multiple roof layers → main keep is the multiple roof layers
• In Yakushama's description : Add a comma between "over" and "1,000"
• In Shirakami-Sanchi's description : Add the before "Japanese black bear"

I am going to sleep now, I will leave more comments tmrw The AP (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! Tone 13:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tone In Shirakami-Sanchi's description

• northern Japan after the Last Glacial Period → northern Japan following the Last Glacial Period

In Kyoto's description:

• was the capital → served as the captial
• To the middle of the 19th century → until the mid-19th century
• The designs of Japanese gardens has had → The designs of Japanese gardens have had

In Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama's description:

• remote mountain area → remote mountain region
• With steeply pitched thatched roofs → featuring steeply pitched thatched roofs

In Hiroshima Peace Memorial's description:

• the ruin of the only building → the ruins of the only building
• atomic bomb above the city of Hiroshima → atomic bomb over Hiroshima
• Originally, this was the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotional Hall, built in 1914. → Originally constructed in 1914, it was the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall.
• commemorates the effects of humanity's most destructive weapons and at the same time expresses hope for world peace → commemorates the devastation caused by humanity's most destructive weapons while simultaneously expressing hope for world peace

In Itsukushima Shinto Shrine's description:

• holy place → sacred site
• founded → established
• in the 13th century → in the ?? century (The founder Taira no Kiyomori died in 12th century, so how come it was founded in 13th century?)
• and even if → although
• setting on the coast with mountains in the background → coastal setting, framed by mountains

In Ancient Nara's description:

• cultural landscape with → cultural landscape including
• developments of styles → stylistic developments

In Temple of Niko's description:

• have → contain
• interactions between man and the nature → the relationship between humans and nature
• carving of three wise monkeys → carving of the three wise monkeysIn Gusuku Sites's description:

In Gusuku Sites's description:

• from → spanning
• developed → evolved
• south-east Asia → Southeast Asia

In Kii mountain's description:

• have sacred sites → are home to sacred sites
• there is a well-documented → with a well-documented
• shape → shapes

I have more to comment but first make these changes and ping me :) The AP (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done with this round, great suggestions, thanks! Tone 09:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 28 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) 14:55, 28 January 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, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is the first nomination of 2025. I decided to go with a different continent (N. America) this time. I’ve improved the lead and table accessibility. This would be the first FL within the ambit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bahamas. Similar FLs: Nepal and Zambia. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude

• "The current Assembly was elected by the general elections held on 16 September 2021" - there were multiple elections held on that day......?
• "and its use the first-past-the-post system for elections" - doesn't make sense
• "The Members of Parliament (MPs) serve 5-year-terms" => "The Members of Parliament (MPs) serve five-year-terms"
• "when a Representative Assembly was setup" => "when a Representative Assembly was set up"
• "The first elections [....] was" - subject is plural, verb is singular
• "recommendations of the Counstituency Commission in 2016" - "Constituency" is spelt incorrectly
• "review of the electoral boundaries every 5 years" => "review of the electoral boundaries every five years" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed these issues, but I'm planning to make some changes. I'll ping you here after that so that you can take a second look. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I wasn't able to find anything interesting enough to add to the prose. Please take a look when you can. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92

• I see you deleted the columns for current members and parties. While I agree that duplicates 14th Bahamian Parliament, I'm unsure why a separate page is even needed for this then. Since the electorate is as of 2021 Bahamian general election, that article could also contain the list of elected members and their constituencies. Even Parliament of the Bahamas is quite short and could also include this list. I know you don't work on Bahamas articles generally but the content seems unnecessarily spread out or duplicated and I'm just not convinced this passes criterion 3c. I noted this on the Zambia list as well. Only a fraction of countries even have lists like this in Category:Lists of constituencies, and some others there like Jamaica, Vanuatu, Tanzania, Uganda, Trinidad and Tabago, Iceland, and more could also be merged. Just because some countries have standalone lists of constituencies doesn't mean all countries need to when there aren't a lot of constituencies or much unique content that won't fit elsewhere.
• Do the numbers actually mean anything? They don't match the ones on the map, though that only has them for two islands.
• The map has the left and bottom cut off so you can't see the labels for 12 and 24.

Reywas92^Talk 17:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the numbers from the table and fixed the map. Regarding point 1: I think I can expand on the history parts of the lead and see if that warrants a split into a new section. You can take a look at the list after that to see if it passes criterion 3c in your opinion. I will ping you here when I'm done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: I compiled the changes in the number of constituencies over time since independence, but it turned out to be quite dry. e.g. Constituency Commission recommended minor change in number of constituencies to X, and that lasts for 1 or 2 elections, followed by another minor change, and so on. No secessions or annexations happened nor did any military coups occur (which would have made this data of more interest). Given that, I haven't added this information to the list.

The numbers on the map seem to be for ease of locating them while looking at the map legend. I've kept the order of the constiuencies the same as it is in the election results of 2021. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Coat of arms of the Bahamas.svg - Public Domain, link goes to an error page which needs to be fixed
• File:BahamianParliamentPanorama.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:The Bahamas on the globe (Americas centered).svg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Bahamas general election map blank.svg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• Don't use fixed px size on the images, use |upright if you'd like to make an image with a certain size. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images for more.
• All images have suitable alt text and captions.
  • MPGuy2824 Here are my comments. Arconning (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Arconning: Thanks for the review. I've fixed both of these problems. I also fixed the fixed-width issue in previous constituency FLs. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. Arconning (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review in progress; should be finished within the next few hours. One thing I noticed upon starting was that refs 3 and 7 lack archives, which I think should be added so as to maintain consistency with the other refs. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 15:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added archive urls for those 2 refs. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that. Some further comments:

• Ref 1 is a dead link.
• I am choosing to assume good faith wrt ref 3, which I am not able to access.
• The commission conducts a review of the electoral boundaries every five years – The source used to cite this (ref 8) makes no mention of it, but the information is verified by ref 7, so I would recommend adding another cite to ref 7 at the end of this clause.
• Everything else checks out wrt source-text integrity (though one thing about the table did confuse me: is there any particular reason why Freetown is alphabetized before Fort Charlotte and Fox Hill?)
• All refs are formatted consistently.
• All sources appear reliable enough for the information they're being used to cite.

I think that's about it. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 1 is a dead link Marked the url-status as dead.
• The commission conducts a review of the electoral boundaries every five years ref 8 is for the "ensure that there is parity of numbers in each constituency" bit, but I added another citation to ref7 for the first part of that sentence.
• why Freetown is alphabetized before Fort Charlotte and Fox Hill? Good catch. Fixed. It is alphabetized correctly in the election results too.

@Dylan620 Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me, MPGuy2824. Happy to support. Btw, if you have any time or interest, I'd appreciate a prose review on a rather old FLC I currently have up. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 12:52, 26 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) 14:51, 28 January 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, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kline • talk • contribs 23:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to round two of me nominating a list for FL! This time, I decided to take a more interesting team rather than one that is currently playing; the Atlanta Flames. As the first iteration (1972–1980) of ice hockey in Atlanta, they had minimal success and could not keep attendance numbers high enough to stick around, so they had to move to Calgary. Might as well give it a go! Kline • talk • contribs 23:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Flames played their homes games" -> "Flames played their home games" History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "season in 1972 to until their relocation" -> "season in 1972 until their relocation" History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "where they both miss the playoffs" -> "where they both missed the playoffs" History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "them against 1-seed" -> "them against the 1-seed" I'm not sure about this one. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Flames qualified the last in their" -> "The Flames qualified last in their" History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "were paired against the Los Angeles Kings, series they would lose 0–2 and 1–2 respectively." -> "were paired against the Los Angeles Kings, a series they would lose 0–2 and 1–2 respectively." History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 2024, an ownership group ran by former NHL player Anson Carter requested that the NHL start an expansion process for Atlanta." -> "In 2024, an ownership group run by former NHL player Anson Carter requested that the NHL start an expansion process for Atlanta." History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• That's all I've got. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @History6042 Addressed all comments except the Los Angeles Kings one, these were two different series played in different years. If I am correct, series is the correct plural but I do understand it sounds odd. Not sure how I'd reword it though. Kline • talk • contribs 00:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, thanks for the clarification. Maybe do "were paired against the Los Angeles Kings twice, in which they lost 0–2 and 1–2 respectively.". History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done with a bit of different wording. Kline • talk • contribs 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @History6042 pinging to make sure you didn't forget :) Kline • talk • contribs 15:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, sorry support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not active enough to decide on a FLC anymore, but I do have to question the final paragraph of the lede. I don't really see much value in an entire paragraph of trivia related to other hockey teams in the city. None of that advances an understanding of what this list's purpose is. Perhaps a mention of the Thrashers' creation to note that NHL hockey did return to the market later, but I personally would not go much farther than that. I'm curious to get input on this from both yourself as nominator, and other reviewers. Resolute 03:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Resolute I wouldn't mind trimming it, but I would like to include at least a couple of sentences post-Flames. Perhaps I can change it into more about Calgary's success rather than just hockey in Atlanta. Kline • talk • contribs 03:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "marked the 8th and final year of operation" => "marked the eighth and final year of operation"
• "appeared in the playoffs 6 times" => "appeared in the playoffs six times"
• "did not win any division or conference championships, and never advanced past the first round of the Stanley Cup playoffs" => "had not won any division or conference championships, and had never advanced past the first round of the Stanley Cup playoffs"
• "The Flames started play in the 1972–73 season along with the New York Islanders, where they both missed the playoffs" - the use of where doesn't make sense grammatically. I would suggest just "The Flames started play in the 1972–73 season along with the New York Islanders; both missed the playoffs"
• "ranked 7th and 8th " => "ranking 7th and 8th "
• "In the 1973–74 season, the Flames would qualify for the playoffs" => "In the 1973–74 season, the Flames qualified for the playoffs"
• "pairing them against the 1-seed Philadelphia Flyers in the quarterfinals" => "pairing them against the first-seeded Philadelphia Flyers in the quarterfinals"
• "The Flames would lose the series in a sweep" => "The Flames lost the series in a sweep"
• "The Flames would fail to make the playoffs" => "The Flames failed to make the playoffs"
• "paired against the Los Angeles Kings twice, where they would lose 0–2 and 1–2 respectively" => "paired against the Los Angeles Kings twice, losing 0–2 and 1–2 respectively"
• "Detroit Red Wings and Toronto Maple Leafs respectively in 2 games" => "Detroit Red Wings and Toronto Maple Leafs respectively in two games"
• " the Flames would only win one game out of four" => " the Flames only won one game out of four"
• "bought the franchise and moved them" => "bought the franchise and moved it"
• "From 1999 to 2011, the Thrashers would have very limited" => "From 1999 to 2011, the Thrashers had very limited"
• "2007, where they would also make their only playoff appearance" => "2007, when they also made their only playoff appearance" (2007 is not a location, so "where" is not appropriate)
• "the franchise would be sold" => "the franchise was sold"
• Is there any point in the Key of colors and symbols when literally none of them are used in the table?
• "Playoffs Result" => "Playoffs result"
• I would put the notes above the "see also" so that it comes right after the table
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude All comments addressed.. evidently I still have a bit of WOULDCHUCK left in my system :) Kline • talk • contribs 13:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that bolding is just for what should be changed or added

• "The Flames started play in the 1972–73 season along with the New York Islanders; they both missed the playoffs, ranking as 7th and 8th team in their conference respectively." => "The Flames started play in the 1972–73 season along with the New York Islanders; they both missed the playoffs, ranking as the 7th and 8th teams in their conference, respectively."
• "The Flames qualified last in their division two years in a row and were paired against the Los Angeles Kings twice, losing 0–2 and 1–2 respectively." => "The Flames qualified last in their division two years in a row and were paired against the Los Angeles Kings twice, losing 0–2 and 1–2,(add comma) respectively."
• "In 1997, the Atlanta Thrashers were founded as an expansion franchise following the relocation of the Atlanta Knights in the International Hockey League (IHL), which had moved to Quebec City, and began play in 1999." => "In 1997, the Atlanta Thrashers were established as an expansion franchise after the Atlanta Knights of the International Hockey League (IHL) relocated to Quebec City; the Thrashers began play in 1999."
• As an affiliate of the Nashville Predators and Milwaukee Admirals, the Gladiators play in the East Coast Hockey League. => As an affiliate of the Nashville Predators and Milwaukee Admirals, the Gladiators compete in the East Coast Hockey League.
• In 2024, an ownership group run by former NHL player Anson Carter requested that the NHL start an expansion process for Atlanta. => In 2024, a group led by former NHL player Anson Carter requested that the NHL initiate an expansion process for Atlanta.

The AP (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAstorPastor All comments have been addressed. I've reworded some of the sentences mentioned differently if you want to check it over again. Kline • talk • contribs 00:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose atleast. The AP (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The table needs citations for its data columns, similar to other seasons lists.
• Citation 1: HockeyDB doesn't seem to be a particularly good source, especially when Hockey-Reference is also available.
• Citation 3 does not support the first sentence of the second paragraph.
• Citation 4 does not support most of the information between citations 3 and 4.
  • For both citations 3 and 4, I suggest using newspaper reports to backfill the history where possible, if only to prevent the list from being too heavy on database sources.
• Citation 6 is a self-published blog and need to be replaced.
• Citations 5 and 12 are missing location information for the publishers; the latter should also link to Stoddart Publishing.

Based on this revision; please ping me when replacements and changes have been completed. SounderBruce 06:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce concerns should be addressed. Kline • talk • contribs 15:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The table's Conference, Division, and Postseason columns still lack citations. There are also missing citations in the second paragraph, as Citation 5 (1979-80 standings) cannot support all of the information in that chunk of text. SounderBruce 00:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce I have never had a concern raised with conference, division, and postseason columns being uncited, and even then they are covered by the two citations in the regular season column. If you want me to cite those already mentioned I can do so but it seems unnecessary in my opinion. Other concern addressed. Kline • talk • contribs 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum, the postseason column or the individual results need to be cited. SounderBruce 03:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce Done. Kline • talk • contribs 04:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass source review, but still think that HockeyDB's reliability could be challenged. SounderBruce 05:04, 8 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) 14:59, 28 January 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) 00:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 08:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC), 金色黎明[reply]

This list covers 34 presidential elections in which the citizens of the Evergreen State voted, mostly for the ultimate winner. It is formatted similar to recent election FLs and its data has been double-checked for accuracy. This is a co-nomination with 金色黎明, who nominated this list a month ago before it was quite done. SounderBruce 08:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bolded word(s) signify changes or addition

• during reappropriation based → during reapportionment based
  • Fixed.
• incumbent president Benjamin Harrison → incumbent President Benjamin Harrison
  • Per MOS:JOBTITLE, it seems that this should not be capitalized.
• remains the most only third party candidate to have won Washington's presidential election. → is the only third-party candidate to have won Washington's presidential election.
  • Fixed.
• which was reflected by Democrats and Republicans both holding state offices and majorities in the state legislature. → which resulted in Democrats and Republicans alternately holding state offices and majorities in the state legislature.
  • Fixed.
• Washington had voted for → Washington has voted for
  • Fixed.
• The Cascade Mountains marks the boundary → The Cascade Mountains mark the boundary
  • Fixed.
• Western Washington had been generally characterized as liberal or progresive, while Eastern Washington was characterized as conservative. → Western Washington has been generally characterized as liberal or progressive, while Eastern Washington has been characterized as conservative.
  • Fixed.
• which has the majority of the state's population → which contain the majority of the state's population

The AP (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. @TheAstorPastor: Thanks for the review, I have fixed all but one of the suggested changes. SounderBruce 00:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey per MOS:JOBTITLE , When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII. - so it should be President Benjamin The AP (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheAstorPastor: Done, also dropped "incumbent" since it's redundant with the last part of the sentence. SounderBruce 05:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support on prose The AP (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full review coming, first note is it talks about the total republican vs democrat votes in the lead. I don't know if thats necessary as the paragraph talks about it and the paragraph before talks about Rooselvet being the only third party president. Additionally it's just a repeat of the infobox. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved up the count to make it flow a bit better.

• "The state had a voter turnout of 71.5 percent in the 2020 election—the ninth-highest rate in the United States." This seems like recentism and not particularly relevant. If a turn out column was added to the table it would be alright but alone it seems quite trivial
  • Removed, though I think a turnout column would be great to have (if it can be standardized across all the election tables).
• Why is the bit about the 1892 election important? I know why because its the first but to someone less familiar it just seems like a random example.
  • Added "the first since Washington became a state".
• I feel that the 2016 faithless elector stuff is far too long to keep as a note and should be discussed in the lead. Replacing the note with something like "Clinton earned 12 pledged electoral votes, but lost four to faithless electors."
  • Added it to the third paragraph.
• Good job ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @OlifanofmrTennant: Thanks for the review. I have responded to your comments. SounderBruce 00:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I think if sourcing for the turnout column can be found then it should be added. I considered adding a turnout column to my election in Oklahoma list but didn't due to inconsistant sourcing Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I couldn't find anything to nitpick :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The only image is fine for use under a CC-BY license.
• The image needs alt text.
  • The map's alt text is generated automatically by the infobox and seems to work according to this tool.
• Princeton University Press can be wikilinked in Ref 9.
  • Added.
• Ref 17 is published via Substack, is this a self-published source?
  • Replaced.
• Can I ask about the reliability of Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections? Despite calling itself an Atlas, it appears that it may also be self-published.
  • Leip seems to be a subject-matter expert in the field of U.S. elections and his data is used by other reliable sources, as listed here. The website has also come up a few times at WP:RSN, most recently in this discussion and consensus seems to approve of its use, even at FLC.
• Washington Secretary of State -> Secretary of State of Washington in Ref 118 for consistency with other uses from the same website
  • Fixed.
• The atlas is consistently wikilinked every time it's used, but other sources such as Secretary of State of Washington and The Seattle Times aren't. Duplicate links are allowed in references, but there should be some consistency here, whether it's only linked on first used or linked on every use.
  • Removed all but the first use.
• Spotchecked references 2, 10, 12, 16, 19, and 21, all checks out. Most references in the table (beyond the atlas) are sources I don't have access too, so assuming good faith on those.

Great work! Just a few questions/comments. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: Thanks for the review. I have made the changes suggested and addressed the remaining points. SounderBruce 03:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied accepting Leip as an expert source after reading over the linked discussion and section on the article. Source and image reviews pass and I'm happy to support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:51, 26 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) 22:17, 26 January 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) 00:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another Olympic list from me, I'll respond to comments as fast as I can. Arconning (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Medals awarded at these cities → Medals awarded in these cities
• 3,314 athletes representing → A total of 3,314 athletes representing
• enacted a boycott against the games → boycotted the games
• their boycott → its boycott
• Bahamas → The Bahamas
• consistent with IOC conventional sorting → consistent with IOC's conventional sorting
• The number of silver medals is taken into consideration next and then the number of bronze medals → The number of silver medals is considered next, followed by the number of bronze medals
• the losing semi-finalists, as opposed to them fighting in a third place tie breaker → the losing semi-finalists, instead of fighting in a third-place tiebreaker
• three-way tie and all athletes that placed second awarded a silver medal → three-way tie and all second-place athletes awarded a silver medal
• and women's vault due to a third-place tie in these events → and women's vault due to [remove a] third-place ties in these events
• awarded in women's high jump → awarded in the women's high jump The AP (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheAstorPastor Done! Arconning (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two bronze medals were awarded in each boxing event to the losing semi-finalists, instead of fighting in a third place tie breaker. → Instead of competing in a third-place tiebreaker, the losing semi-finalists in each boxing event received two bronze medals.

  In Notes

  • 3,155 athletes in Melbourne, 159 athletes in Stockholm → A total of 3,155 athletes participated in Melbourne and 159 athletes in Stockholm.
  • 145 events in Melbourne, 6 events in Stockholm → There were 145 events held in Melbourne and 6 events in Stockholm.
  • An additional bronze medal not included in the table was presented to John Ian Wing → An additional bronze medal, not listed in the medal table, was awarded to John Ian Wing

  The AP (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheAstorPastor Also done! Arconning (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support on prose The AP (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a contemporary photo of Keleti. If there isn't then note that the picture is from 2021 otherwise it gives the impression that she was 101 at the time of the games.
• The second image, Habibi, needs to be cited. Just copy over ref 25.
• "holding the gold medal he won at these games." -> "holding the gold medal he won at the games."
• alt text is present
• unrelated but ref 25 is considered dead despite being active. Fix that please

Ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant I believe I'm done. :) Arconning (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Bahamas, Iceland, and Pakistan won their first Olympic medals." -> "The Bahamas, Iceland, and Pakistan won their first Olympic medals." The "the" is the first word in the sentence, it should be capitalized.
• "winning four gold medals in two silver medals for a total of six medals." -> "winning four gold medals and two silver medals for a total of six medals."
• The caption for the image of Adhemar da Silva should have a source, I think.
• "two silver medals and no bronze medal were awarded" -> "two silver medals and no bronze medals were awarded" I'm not sure if this is the right way to fix it but having were after a singular noun sounds strange.
• That's all I've got, if these are fixed than I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @History6042 Done! Arconning (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:37, 9 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 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Article has no short description. You should add one that says none: {{Short description|none}}
• A number of references are defaulting to the archived version instead of the live version because of a lack of a the |url-status parameter, please address this.
• Refs 5 and 12 – Note the page number
• Refs 5 and 12 – Add |via=[[Newspapers.com]]
• Ref 5 – Note the agency as Associated Press
• Ref 8 – Add the url-access parameter to note a subscription is required
• Ref 9 – Link to Voice of America instead of the abbreviation
• Ref 13 – Add the url-access parameter to note a subscription is required
• A see also section should be added, as these are relatively standard in these tables and there's a number of relevant articles to link to
• The last paragraph needs an extra source added, as it doesn't verify who led in medals. Consider using this link to verify that info, that's my go to for finding who leads in any medal

Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Donezo! Arconning (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "with the equestrian events being held prior from 10 to 17 June 1956" - the word "prior" is a) not grammatically correct and b) not needed as I suspect most readers can work out that June was before November
• "These included first-time entrants" => "This figure included first-time entrants"
• " also being the first games to hold events" => " and the first games to hold events"
• "in response to the Hungarian Uprising, where the Soviet Union invaded the country" => "in response to the Hungarian Uprising, when the Soviet Union invaded the country"
• "Two bronze medals were awarded in each boxing event to the losing semi-finalists, instead of fighting in a third place tie breaker." => "Two bronze medals were awarded in each boxing event to the losing semi-finalists, instead of the competitors fighting in a third place tie breaker." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Done! Arconning (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ref 24 does not match the table here due to the six Equestrian events not being included in the IOC figures. Do the IOC officially recognise them? Is there an alternative source to support the figures listed here or can you switch to the IOC figures with notes added regarding Equestrian events? JP (Talk) 13:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jpeeling The IOC does recognize them! I have added a source! Arconning (talk) 12:52, 18 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) 22:12, 26 January 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third nomination of this list. Please be informed that the list is extensive, and I have made every effort to address the issues raised in the previous nomination, including improvements in table formatting, an explanation of how state boundaries have changed and been renamed, and the inclusion of reliable references. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@25 Cents FC: I think the list is lovely. I only have a few proposals.

1. "The party during the post-independence era has governed most of the states and union territories of India. It has the status of a "national party" in India." -----> "In the post-independence era, the party has governed most of India's states and union territories, and by extension, has the status of a "national party" in India."
2. "As of 20 November 2024, INC is in power in the three states of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka and Telangana." ------> "As of 20 November 2024, INC is in power in three states: Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka and Telangana."
3. "In Tamil Nadu and Jharkhand it shares power with alliance partners Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha respectively" ----> "In Tamil Nadu and Jharkhand, it shares power with alliance partners Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, respectively" ... Aren't you missing two commas?
4. "A chief minister is the head of government of each of the twenty-eight states and of two union territories (Delhi and Puducherry). According to the Constitution of India, at the state level, the governor is de jure head, but de facto executive authority rests with the chief minister." ---> "According to the Constitution of India, at the state level, the governor is de jure head, but de facto executive authority rests with the chief minister. The chief minister is, therefore, considered the head of government in his jurisdiction."
5. "While not a constitutional office, it seldom carries any specific powers" (that seems very logical, what about) ---> "Because the deputy Chief Minister is not a constitutional office, the amount of powers the officeholder has is in large part influenced by the Chief Minister."
6. "The chief minister's term is usually for a maximum of five years with the confidence of the assembly" ----> "The chief minister's term, if he has the assembly's confidence, is normally limited to five years."
7. Could you write somewhere that the list is organised "according to states and union territories"? For a person who knows nothing about Indian politics, I was first very unaware of what "Andhra Pradesh" was. It may sound stupid, but it helps the reader.

• If you have time and interest, you can review the list Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leader of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia/archive1.
• I will support the list if you are able to solve these concerns :) --TheUzbek (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your valuable comments @TheUzbek. I have addressed the list of points you raised. Please have a look and let me know if anything else is required. Thanks again.25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 14:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support! TheUzbek (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, respectively. – not seeing a need for that comma.

 Fixed

• The chief minister is, therefore, considered the head of government – should be changed to "Therefore, the chief minister..."

 Fixed

• his party (or coalition) – brackets probably not needed here.

 Fixed

• whose council of ministers are collectively responsible to the assembly. – I'm going to presume this means the state legislative assembly but this is a bit ambiguous, not really aware of Indian politics.

My apologies for the confusion, I have simplified the sentence. Let me know if it helps.

• The chief minister's term, if he has the assembly's confidence, is normally limited to five years. – should be changed to "is normally limited to five years if he has the assembly's confidence." Also, he? Five have been women, should probably be changed to "they"

 Fixed Awesome observation.

• amount of powers the officeholder has is in large part influenced by the chief minister. – not seeing a need for "in large part". If it's influenced by other factors as well, you might want to add them.

The sentence means that powers and responsibilities held by the person in that role are largely determined by the Chief Minister. In other words, the Chief Minister has significant influence over the scope of authority and duties the Deputy Chief Minister can perform. I have changed it and simplified the form. Let me know if it works.

• A deputy chief minister usually also holds a cabinet portfolio – usually also is quite a weird word combo, recommend changing it to "can also" or just removing "also".

 Fixed

• Okram Ibobi Singh who was chief minister of Manipur for 15 years and 11 days between March 2002 and March 2017 has been the longest-serving chief minister of the state – commas needed here, specifically after 'Okram Ibobi Singh" and "March 2017".

 Fixed

• I'm not sure what the assembly numbers are for, is that for each assembly elected since the first election was held?

Assembly numbers refer to the legislative assembly a chief minister was/is a part of.

Other than that, good work! I'll probably give a second round of comments once these have been resolved. Kline • talk • contribs 19:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kline Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have addressed all the points you mentioned. Please review them and let me know if any further adjustments are needed. Thanks again!-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@25 Cents FC I would recommend adding "st", "nd", "rd" and "th" suffixes to the assembly numbers but other than that, it looks good! I fixed a super minor mistake myself if that matters :) Kline • talk • contribs 03:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kline  Done Please have a look.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@25 Cents FC; Looks good, support! Added periods to notes. Kline • talk • contribs 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:10, 25 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.

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, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Nominator(s): dxneo (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 30th Annual South African Music Awards celebrated the best albums, songs, and music videos. Tyla was the biggest winner of the event. Hosted by Minnie Dlamini, it featured performers from the likes of Nasty C. Every winner was awarded a prize fund for that specific award. Special pings for peer reviewers, PSA and Medxvo. dxneo (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my concerns were previously addressed during the PR, but I want to add some comments

• Citation 1 can probably be placed just once at the end of the first paragraph of the background section since it supports all of the preceding information—WP:CONSECUTIVECITE, WP:REPCITE
• Same issue for the last sentence of the third paragraph
• Same issue for the first two sentences of the presenters section
• Same issue for the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the reaction section
• "highlighted in bold were necessary" - "where necessary"?
• The RiSA abbreviation can be removed from the lead since it wasn't mentioned again there
• Why are the performances section tables not sortable and why are the presenters not even listed in a table?
• Most Streamed Song of the Year seems to be presented by CAPASSO
• The Mthandeni SK and Nyovest controversy can have its own paragraph instead of being separated between the first two paragraph of the reaction section

Medxvo (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done. As for tabulating the presenters, I just didn't think it would look good since they presented awards and other presenters. dxneo (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the first, third, and fourth issues are still there. Would you like me to explain further or did you forget to fix them? Also please see Help:Sortable tables#Background colors in sortable headers to fix the sortable tables with a background color issue (just use "background-color" instead of "background"). I also just noticed that most of the FLs of the award shows have the winners and nominees section placed before the performances/presenters sections. Why is it not like this here? Medxvo (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

must've missed them opps. All good now.

---

Question: Why must the table be sortable when there's no rowspans?

• I put the presenter and performances before the awards and nominations because during the show we saw the presenters and performances before the awards haha and I was referencing BET Awards 2024. Should I change it?

dxneo (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the sortable tables are only used when there are rowspans? It just helps the users to navigate the data, see Help:Sortable tables#Using sortable tables, and also 96th Academy Awards#Presenters and performers from a 2024 featured list for a similar example, which has the sortable table.
• 2024 BET Awards isn't a FL, see Wikipedia:Featured lists#Awards for FL references, I'm pretty sure all of them have the winners/nominees placed before the presenters/performances. I also think that the SAMAs performances were between the awards during the show not before them, no? The show even ended with the "Umlilo" and "Manzi Nte" performances :)

Medxvo (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I moved the section and sorted the table. SAMA 30 opened with performances from Ishmael, Thebe, Skwatta Kamp and so on, before they even introduced the presenters. I watched the whole show live. Anything you'd like to add? dxneo (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Best of luck! Medxvo (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a source review and some spotchecks during the PR, but also some comments

• "Entries for nomination consideration were open from 1 March 2024 to 14 April" - the source says 15 April
• The source says that the cash prize for Album of the Year is 25 000 ZAR not 20 000 ZAR

Everything else seems fine to me. Medxvo (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Med, you the best. I like how you also noticed the inaccuracies on Prizes and entry dates. dxneo (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, the conjoined tables (everything in Winners and nominees) are pretty problematic from an accessibility perspective. Fundamentally the issue is that they are presented like a table of data, but it's actually just boxes stuck together. You can't use pseudo-header rows like that (MOS:COLHEAD), but even if you make every "row" its own table, the two columns aren't really related, it's just that you wanted to save space. Fortunately, there's a way to do exactly what you're trying to do (MOS:LTAB), and it's not hard to fix. See the code in e.g. 54th Academy Awards - add role="presentation" before the class="wikitable" to let screen-reader software know that it's not a data table, just a layout/presentation scheme, and then instead of columns and rows, you just use the {{Award category}} template, or else make each box a div yourself if that seems better to you. See the documentation at the Award category template for instructions on how to convert a psuedo-table to use that template.
• I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 02:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Never done this before. So far I have only used {{Award category}} on the Top 5 categories, can you please verify if I'm in the right direction before I move on. dxneo (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All done. dxneo (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good! I added in screen-reader-only table captions, but that's minor and I hadn't mentioned it. --PresN 19:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Appreciate the ping. Thanks for reminding me about this FLC; onwiki priorities went all over the place because of usual irl reasons... anyway. expect a response by the end of the week :) Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 06:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PSA, it's been almost 2 weeks now. Just a follow up. dxneo (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we need two different photos of Tyla right next to each other

Fixed. dxneo (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to confirm, although the category is called (for example) "Female Artist of the Year", it is awarded not to the artist generically, but to a specific recording by the artist////?

Honestly, this has always been something I never quite understood. I mean, it's Female Artist of the Year, I think it's awarded to both. dxneo (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the difference (apart from one letter ) between "Best Pop Album" and "Beste Pop Album"?

Haha, Best is English and Beste is Afrikaans. dxneo (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Beste Kontemporêre Musiek Album" - how come this is the only category title not in English? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that you said "how come" haha. There are just some things that do not have answers to, but there's Best Contemporary Faith Music Album, Best Adult Contemporary Album (English), and Best African Adult Contemporary Album (Presented by Ikwekwezi FM). Very few are in Afrikaans I guess. dxneo (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tyla won the most awards, receiving four awards." => "Tyla won the most awards, receiving four." (avoid repeating "award")
• "Kabza de Small received three awards alongside Mthunzi." => "Kabza de Small and Mthunzi received three awards."
• "and R4,600.00 ($311.23) for non-members including value-added tax per entry for all categories" => "and for non-members it was R4,600.00 ($311.23) including value-added tax per entry for all categories"
• "Tyla emerged as the most awarded artist with four accolades; trailing behind was Kabza de Small and Mthunzi with three" => "Tyla emerged as the most awarded artist with four accolades, ahead of Kabza de Small and Mthunzi with three" ("trailing behind" sounds a bit judgmental)
• "Below is the list of winners highlighted in bold where necessary." => "In the list below, winners are highlighted in bold where necessary."
• In the Main show performances tables, some songs are centred and others are not
• "were in attendance of the main event" => "were in attendance at the main event"
• "Tyla's "Water" lost Record of the Year award" => "Tyla's "Water" lost the Record of the Year award"
• First two tiny paragraphs under "Reaction" should be merged
• "he should've reached out privately" => "he should have reached out privately" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you Chris, one thing I did not understand is that "some songs are centred and others are not." So, I don't really know what to fix since I don't see anything wrong, because I did not use {{center}}. Any suggestion on how I can fix this? dxneo (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On my screen at least, the whole column is centred with the exception of some rows with use {{ubl}} (don't know what that is), which seems to have the effect of over-riding the default alignment of the column and making them left-aligned -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On my screen they were and they still are all centered. I replaced {{ubl}} with <br/>. How does it look now? dxneo (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:10, 25 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.

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) 00:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, I decided to set a challenging goal for myself: make every list under WP:PACKERS a featured list. Well ladies and gentlemen, here we are. With the expected passing of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Green Bay Packers all-time roster/archive2, all that is left to reach this goal is Lists of Green Bay Packers players. The passing of this list will also achieve a secondary goal: finishing a Green Bay Packers players Featured Topic! This list of lists provides the summary lead list for the larger topic. Now this list is not tabular in form, but still meets all the requirements for a standalone list and for the featured list criteria. As always, I am happy to address any comments quickly. Thank you for taking the time to review and making it possible for me to achieve this goal! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Additionally, Packers' players have been recognized nationally for their performance..." -> "Additionally, Packers players have been recognized nationally for their performance..."
  • Fixed! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Should there be periods after the description for each list? I don't think they're sentences - but I'll defer to your judgement!
  • I honestly don't know. They look right to me, but I don't feel strongly either way. If other reviewers feel like they shouldn't be there, happy to remove them. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Is "a list of" necessary in the descriptions? Again, I'll defer to your judgement - I just think it might be a little redundant given many of the lists already have "List of" in the article title. Reminds me a bit of WP:THISISALIST.
  • Yeah, I worried about that. Again, happy to defer to other reviewers opinions. The only other way I could see to write it is to list the exact number of players, which would require a lot of updating. This was my way of trying to make a somewhat static list that doesn't need updating, since this is a general, high-level overview LoL. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images: passed!

• Perhaps swap the Lambeau Field & 1919 team images? Lambeau Field is mentioned in the lede but not later (lest I'm missing something). Otherwise, all images are relevant to the article.
  • The Lambeau Field image shows the retired numbers on the facade, which connects to one of the lists in that section. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• All images have alt text and are captioned appropriately.
• All images licensed properly.

That's it from me; support after minor comments above are resolved. (Expected) congratulations on achieving your goal, and well done @User:Gonzo fan2007! Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Staraction! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For the description of "List of Green Bay Packers NFL All-Rookie Team selections", I think this should say "a list of players who selected for a PFWA NFL All-Rookie Team while on the team." to properly reflect other stylings. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the link for "Category:Green Bay Packers players" in "See also" necessary since that is already emulated by one of the lists mentioned in the list?

Other than that, good work! Kline • talk • contribs 04:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • This category includes many other types of players for the Packers, including draftees who never played for the team and players who only were signed to the practice squad. I think this link is fine. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kline, I should have my new laptop tomorrow and will work to address these then. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All responded to or addressed Kline. Thanks for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, support! Kline • talk • contribs 15:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]