Dai Sijie

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process at the same time. Nominators who have previously successfully nominated a list may have two concurrent featured list nominations only if the first active nomination has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews: actionable objections have not been resolved in a timely manner; or consensus for promotion has not been reached after significant time; or reviewers are unable to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting. Once the director or a delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions

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

Nomination procedure Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. It is recommended that the list have no other open discussions. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Reviewing procedure Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page). To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. Supports are weighted more strongly if they are given alongside justifications that indicate that the list was fully reviewed; a nomination is not just a straight vote. To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. Please focus your attention on substantive issues or inconsistencies, rather than personal style preferences. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed, and nominators are encouraged to use {{reply to}} or other templates to notify reviewers when replying. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so, rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page. Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Nominations urgently needing reviews · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so: List of commercially available insulins (FLC) List of governors of Bayelsa State (FLC) List of Ukrainian placenames affected by derussification (FLC) 1972 Summer Olympics medal table (FLC) 2024 Men's T20 World Cup qualification (FLC) Source reviews needed List of governors of Bayelsa State (FLC) Doechii discography (FLC) · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Nominator(s): PresN 00:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, mammal list #57 in our perpetual series and rodent list #2: Sciuridae! Since we started the order off with a small list, lets follow it up with a big one: prairie dogs, marmots, chipmunks, and lots and lots of squirrels—if you're in Europe or North America you're probably thinking of squirrels as something that has a handful of varieties, but there's actually dozens and dozens of species in a variety of colors commingling in parts of southeast Asia and Africa. So here they all are: 284 species, which is the longest "species" list in our series to date with almost 5% of all mammal species in it, with only two lists (Old World/New World rats and mice) are expected to be longer. So enjoy all of our bushy-tailed friends; as always, the list reflects the scientific consensus as well as the results of prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "A few extinct prehistoric sciurid species have been discovered, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed." Same as before; you need a comma after "discoveries".

A lot more photos than the rodent list!

• You might consider wikilinking Borneo. Also "Island of Borneo" seems redundant.
• You have Indonesia wikilinked on the Aeromys table, even though it has appeared several times prior.
• The same with Philippines on the Hylopetes table.

User:PresN: Let me know when you've fixed that pesky comma. 😉 Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: All done! --PresN 02:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would replace "Island of Borneo" with just "Borneo" on all appearances, but that is probably just a personal preference. I enjoyed reading about squirrels more than rodents. 😉 Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since one of my articles has just been promoted to FL, here is another figure skating article for your consideration. This is a little-known competition that used to serve as a complement to the European Figure Skating Championships, but was really just a crosstown rivalry between the United States and Canada. Who emerged more victorious? The United States won more medals, but Canada won more gold medals, so... Anyway, I have personally verified all of the results and examined the sources, the tables are properly formatted, the history is thorough, I believe the sources are all properly formatted, and I have used a variety of photographs to showcase this competition. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Montgomery Wilson.jpg - Public Domain
• File:Tenley Albright at the 1956 Winter Olympics (cropped).jpg - Public Domain
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-G0313-0018-001, Cynthia Kauffmann, Ronald Kauffman.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0 de
• File:Montgomery Wilson.jpg - Public Domain
• File:ConstanceWilson.jpg - Public Domain
• All images add value to the article
• Alt text exists
• Image review pass
• Use comma before or don't, you have some instances which do and some which don't

• I don't follow; please clarify. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "biennial figure skating competition and although they were " add comma after and

• Fixed. Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC), Mediocre Legacy, Chorus Guy[reply]

I'd already tried to bring the article to FL level but didn't due to lack of time in 2022–2023. Nevertheless, I am willing to return on this project again. I've nominated users Mediocre Legacy and Chorus Guy as they've been keeping the page updated, whereas I've written the most characters in the article (cf. XTools). Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Serbia, Georgia and France" add a comma after Georgia → "Serbia, Georgia, and France"

Done

• "As of May 2025 award" what is this supposed to mean? Could you make it more clear. If you mean that the information is only till May 2025 then remove "award"

Done

• According to the MOS (forgot which page), links should not be bolded. So could you find a different way to phrase "known as the EA Sports FC Player of the Month

Done

• File:Franck Ribery 2019 (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0

Didn't understand

• File:FC Salzburg gegen AS Roma (UEFA Euroleague play-off, 2023-02-16) 38 - Paulo Dybala (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0

Didn't understand either

• • The image of Paulo Dybala looks unflattering, could you replace it, but it is okay if you can't.

Done

• All items need alt text, follow this guideline Help:Alt_text#Captions_and_nearby_text, will only take a minute or two.

Done

• Archive everything please, use internetarchivebot

I don't know if archiving source 3 would be sensible. As new players will be receiving new awards, the site will be updated with the new winners.

• Source one is good
• Add (in italian) disclaimer to source 2 as well. Otherwise, it is fine
• Source three is good
• Source four is good.
• The entire "Kalidou Koulibaly, Kim Min-jae, Alessandro Bastoni and Riccardo Calafiori are the only defenders to win the award, which has been given to 13 midfielders and 30 forwards. It has also been given to foreign players 41 times; the most represented foreign country is Argentina (nine titles), followed by Portugal (five), Serbia, Georgia and France (four each)." does not appear in the cited source for the paragraph (4).

Easternsahara, have a look and please, respond to my doubts.

Image review pass but the third paragraph isn't sourced at all, as well as table 2-4. Easternsahara (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Easternsahara, mathematical counting does not need to be sourced nor is it original research (I read it somewhere). Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review pass, but just put citation three on the end of that paragraph. I also think counting isn't original research, but you still need to provide the source that you are counting from. Also, why did you remove one of the citations? Easternsahara (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Easternsahara, put citation three on the end of the paragraph. Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's good I already passed your source review though. Easternsahara (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Easternsahara, are there other things you need to review? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Paulo Dybala have won" => "Paulo Dybala has won"

Done

• "him, Khvicha Kvaratskhelia, and Rafael Leão" => "he, Khvicha Kvaratskhelia, and Rafael Leão"

Done

• That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, have a look. Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): -- EN-Jungwon 11:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another Inkigayo list, eight one in this series that I'm nominating for FL status. Similar format to the previous lists and as always looking forward to your comments. -- EN-Jungwon 11:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I can't believe how long ago 2022 was by now!

• Mentions for "After Like" and "Love Dive" are missing quotation marks and capitalization in the caption for the Ive photo
• Is it necessary to include (pictured) in the caption when it's a single photo? Looks like other compatible lists do not have this
• "Triple crown for "INVU."" shouldn't have the period within the quote marks. Same for "Eleven." and "Attention."
• In the prose, Ive getting triple crowns for "Eleven" and "Love Dive" is mentioned twice, could probably cut the sentence "Their singles "Eleven" and "Love Dive" spent three weeks each at number one and achieved triple crowns."
• I would reorganize the second paragraph, as it jumps back and forth between acts who earned tripe crowns and acts who earned their first wins. I would recommend breaking it down into

• Triple crown earners
• Multiple trip crown earners (Ive, Blackpink etc)
• Other acts who earned more than 1 song at the top position (I-dle to note their high score, then NCT etc)
• First win (Nayeon)
• First Inkigayo wins

That's all for right now, though I might have another look later. orangesclub 🍊 12:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no need to have "(pictured)" in every caption, because obviously the named person or group is what is pictured. And why does the Nayeon caption say "(left)" when she is the only person in the photo......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2022, the chart measured digital performance in domestic online music services (5,500)," => "In 2022, the chart awarded points based on digital performance in domestic online music services (5,500),"
• "15 acts were awarded first-place trophy" => "15 acts were awarded first-place trophies"
• "Supergroup Got the Beat also achieved their first number one" - source?
• Also "Supergroup Got the Beat" is a WP:SEAOFBLUE issue. Maybe change to "Got the Beat, a supergroup consisting of [whoever]"?
• "Girl group NewJeans made their first appearance on the chart with their debut single "Attention"" - source?
• "Besides Ive, three other acts ranked more than one single at number one" => "Besides Ive, three other acts had more than one number one"
• "Both singles ranked number one for three weeks each" => "Both singles ranked number one for three weeks"
• "The only other artist to have two number one singles in 2022 is NCT Dream" => "The only other artist to have two number one singles in 2022 was NCT Dream"
• "and along with After like, they are the artist with the most weeks at number one in 2022." => "and along with After like, they were the artist with the most weeks at number one in 2022." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I echo the other editors' feedback to remove (pictured) due to redundancy.
• Could you include a note about the image being clickable in the caption for all clickable images?
• File:00108 (여자)아이들 (G)I-DLE Gaon Awards (tweaked) (2).jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:아이브 - 뮤직뱅크 출근길 직캠 IVE MusicBank Fancam 220624.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:"예쁨가득" 보아, 멀리서도 빛나는 물광 피부 BOA 보아 (디패짤) 02.png - CC BY 3.0
• File:220701 Nayeon(나연) of Twice MusicBank Fancam.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:220804 뉴진스(NewJeans), 비주얼 파티.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Blackpink Born Pink Tour LA 01 (brightened) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 4.0
• Could you include citations for the statements that you are making on the captions? Any information that can be reasonably challenged should have a citation according to policy
• Alt text, please following this guideline for the captioned images Help:Alt_text#Captions_and_nearby_text

Nominator(s): IAWW (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working through the Swimming at the 2024 Olympics good topic, and this featured list is one of the only remaining hurdles. This is my first FL nomination. Any reviews would be very much appreciated. IAWW (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "...through universality places to ensure a wide range of nations are included" That "are" should be "were".

Fixed

• "World Aquatics then considered athletes who had only qualified in a relay event, and then athletes qualifying through universality." There are too many uses of "then" in there. The first one should probably be "first".

I think this wasn't sufficiently clear, so I added "After accepting the two athletes from each NOC who achieved the OQT" to the start of the paragraph and cut the first "then".

• It's good that you have a wikilink for "universality" – a word I had never heard of before – but you should consider a brief explanation as well. Something along the lines of "that is, a system set up to ensure that blah blah blah..." offset with en-dashes or commas.

The post-semicolon clause was meant to do this, but I think the semicolon was not the correct punctuation to be used here, so I changed it to a dash

• I would alter the headings of the tables: {{Abbr|OQT|Olympic Qualifying Time}} and {{Abbr|OCT|Olympics Consideration Time}}.

Good point. Done.

• All tables need rowscopes. See MOS:DTAB for further information.

All done :)

• When you have two swimmers in one cell on the Qualifiers tables, how do you determine who is listed first and who is listed second? Without a good reason, I would list them alphabetically.

I believe it is in alphabetical order of last names, unless the names are from a culture where the first names are generally used like China

• On the Men's 200 m freestyle table, the Chinese swimmers should be reversed. Same with Japan. On the Men's 400 m freestyle table, the Chinese swimmers should be reversed. On the Men's 200 m backstroke table, Great Britain and Japan. Men's 100 m breaststroke: China, Individual Neutral Athletes. Men's 100 m butterfly: Australia. Men's 200 m individual medley: Great Britain. Men's 400 m individual medley: Australia. Women's 100 m freestyle: China, Great Britain. Women's 400 m freestyle: Australia, Canada. Women's 800 m freestyle: Australia. Women's 1500 m freestyle: United States. Women's 100 m backstroke: Australia. Women's 100 m butterfly: Canada, Italy. Women's 200 m individual medley: China. Women's 400 m individual medley: Australia.

• When you have multiple countries in one cell o the Relay events tables, how do you determine their order? Without a good reason, I would list them alphabetically.

These are in order of the fastest qualifying times, as in the source

• Without an explanation, the list looks random.

• You flip-flop between DM and MD formatting for dates. You should pick one, and since this event took place in France, I would recommend MD.

Changed to all use MDY

• I actually meant DM, but it doesn't really matter as long as it's consistent.

• On the 10km open water tables (by the way, was that in the Seine, because 🤢), I would just delete the rows where there were no qualifiers. You have already explained above the qualification process.

All done. Yes, it was in the Seine. The articles on the events explain some of the issues around water quality... the women's 10km winner deliberately drank some of the water because it was "nice" and "cold"!

• "Qualified through 800/1500m A Cut" What does this refer to? What is A Cut?

Fixed to use the same wording as in the qualification explanation section

User:It is a wonderful world: Overall, very nice, and not too many issues. Please let me know once you have addressed them or if you have any questions! 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:It is a wonderful world: I forgot that I wanted to welcome you to FL since you mentioned that this is your first FL nomination. It can be intimidating to bring your first nomination here and sometimes difficult to get others to examine your work. Please ask if you need anything, and good luck with your article! Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 Thank you so much for this review! IAWW (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:It is a wonderful world: Please see my follow-up comments above. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 I believe I fixed everything. Apologies for not checking the orders more thoroughly before. IAWW (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): TBJ10RH (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, this will be my second nomination for promoting a list status to featured. I am nominating this for the featured list because the page itself is looking to meet the same standards as other season-by-season articles. I believe that majority of the article is already structured, detailed, and has an informative record of the Stars' season-by-season history. The list is easy to read, consistently formatted, and provides a comprehensive look at the team’s performance over the years. Wanted to thank a few editors who have taken some time to review the article. I think once I get feedback here again, I will work towards my second star.

TBJ10RH (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Sourcing:

• Archived every Southern League seasons (1985-2014):TBJ10RH (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• One source is missing an archive, please add it.
• I don't think there should be a blank section, please summarize the article it points to and add that.
• Half the lede is unsourced, please fix, they are the first two paragraphs.
• Huntsville Stars Minor League Baseball is a WP:Sea of Blue violation.
• The note uses two tenses, please fix that.
• All Newspaper.com sources should have in the citation template "via = Newspapers.com".
• Double-A Southern League is another Sea of Blue violation.
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't reply to this until I say "Done" at the end of the page.

  • Point 1: if you are referring to the 1985 SL Championship source, I have fixed it, thanks for catching it.
  • Point 5: I fixed the tense to past tense.
  • Point 6: Yep, realized that early, thanks.
  • Point 4 & 7: Sea of Blue violations have been adjusted and fixed in the page, thanks.

  Working on Point 2 & 3. TBJ10RH (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @History6042 Done (ish). TBJ10RH (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems good, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you TBJ10RH (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (that was pretty quick, wow!) TBJ10RH (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Archived URLs in references need to use the "url-status=" parameter. (See: template documentation.)
• There's some inconsistency in reference styles. Some have only the website or publisher, some have both, some style the website as "whatever.com" other as "Whatever", etc. Some use sentence case, some title case. Also, when the website and the publisher are the same (i.e. Minor League Baseball), you can just list it once as the website.
• Newspapers.com doesn't need an access-date, since you're citing the paper, not the website.
• The postseason record in the lede is uncited. It's probably in one of the Southern League Media Guides.
• There are number of unsourced statements in the history section. I'd recommend liberally using an SL Media Guide for most of these and more specific references in the table.
• Most of the half-season titles and some of the division championships in the table are unreferenced.
• The source for the 1985 1986 championship series erroneously says Columbus won 3–1, when it was actually 3–2.
• The source for the 2007 championship series makes no mention of the series score.
• NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't reply until I say "Done" at the end of all of these

  • Point #1: Working on that today, thanks.
  • Point #2: Alr, will begin that work soon, thanks.
  • Point #3: Fixed, thanks.
  • Point #4: Where can I place the Southern League Media Guide via postseason record?

  • Move the first instance of what is currently ref no. 5 ("League Records (1964–present)". 2019 Southern League Media Guide..." to the last sentence of the first lede paragraph. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Point #5: Got your feedback, thanks
  • Point #6: Working on that. I will work on it a bit more during my summer break (6/18)
  • Point #7: "TIM CASH HELPS COLUMBUS ASTROS WIN CHAMPIONSHIP Tim Cash of Newnan played a role in the Southern League championship won by the Columbus Astros. They defeated Huntsville, a farm team of Oakland, three games to one, in the best of five series for the title." Columbus seems to have won the title 3-1 according to the source.

  • According to the source, but the source is wrong. The SL Media Guide and other papers from the time say 3–2. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh wow, you're right. I wonder if the Newnan Times-Herald wanted to make Huntsville look terrible lol. Anyways, I will be finding a better source for that TBJ10RH (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @NatureBoyMD I know I said I would ping once I am done but I am getting note from the Huntsville Times that it was 3-1

  https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/1184577791

  https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/854735498

  I am starting to think the SL Guide has a typo TBJ10RH (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're right. Here's a clipping from The Huntsville Times": [1]. Don't forget to update postseason and composite totals when making the change. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright. Reference #5 is now Reference #3. TBJ10RH (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Point #8: For the 2007 SLCS, I will probably use newspapers.com for better sourcing.

  Work to begin from 10:15-11:30 & 12:50-3:30 pm ET today. TBJ10RH (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What is finished?

  Point #1, #3-#5, #8.

  Working on: #2, #6-#7 TBJ10RH (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. 2 is done. #6 will take some time but #7 is odd because Southern League claims 3-2 series but many other outlets at the time only provide 4 game scores of the series, including The Huntsville Times. TBJ10RH (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Finished Point #7.

     Point #6 To-Do:

     Source the following:

     Oakland:

     • 1985 First-Half WDT
     • 1986 First-Half WDT
     • 1987 Second-Half WDT
     • 1989 Second-Half WDT
     • 1997 Second-Half WDT

     -

     Milwaukee:

     • 2007 First & Second-Half NDTs

     - TBJ10RH (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     @NatureBoyMD I will finish this by next month due to final examinations. I hope that is alright with you. I will try and do it one day at a time to keep the consistency. TBJ10RH (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     28/34 - 82% done. TBJ10RH (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraph 1:

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

Paragraph 2:

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

Paragraph 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominator(s): Tone 11:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Côte d'Ivoire has 5 WHS and two tentative sites. Standard style. The list for Uganda is already seeing support, so I am adding a new nomination. As a side note, WP article is named Ivory Coast but UNESCO uses the French name, which this list follows. I am open to modifications if needed. Tone 11:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "that once stretched West Africa" => "that once stretched across West Africa"
• "ombrophilous forest" - is there a link for that first word? I have literally no idea what it means and I doubt many other people will know either........
• "a Nzema fishing village which indicate " => "a Nzema fishing village which indicates" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, thanks. I suppose a wiktionary link does the job. Tone 07:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve-123989.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0 igo
• File:Taï National Park (24148248710).jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:Comoe river with wetlands.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:800px-Grand-Bassam.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0 quality is good enough, i personally like the old feeling
• File:Kong4.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Parc National des Iles Ehotilé .jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Ahouakro 4.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Côte d'Ivoire adm location map.svg - Creative Commons by-sa-3.0 de
• Good alt-text
• Images add to the quality of article
• Image review passed
• Lead is standard for these types of articles.
• Article is stable
• Covers all tentative and actual world heritage sites in IC
• Cant find any issues with the prose.
• All sources are official UNESCO.
• All sources are archived.
• Citations are also standard for these types of articles
• Source review pass
• add dmy template
• Why do you not have the blue color to indicate transnational sites as is standard? is because there is only one transnational site in ivory coast?

Easternsahara (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You mean Mount Nimba? It is both transnational and endangered, so I picked that one. I added the * to indicate both. Tone 07:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, I understand now. Easternsahara (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The most recent listing were
• The park spreads along the Komoé River which supports - Add a comma: The park spreads along the Komoé River, which supports
• From 2003 and 2017
• got adapted to a more humid climate of West Africa - Maybe to the more humild climate?
• There are several villages on the islands, the main activity of people is fishing - Those two statements seem rather disconnected, so I guess it would be better to link them with an "and": There are several villages on the islands and the main activity of people is fishing. What do you think?

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all, thanks! Tone 11:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, once again. Support. Alavense (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Some sources online are missing archives.

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

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

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

• Same with population density.

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

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

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

• Spanish seems to be overlinked.

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

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

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

• Ping when done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Blume is known for books such as Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing, Summer Sisters, and Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. After my previous FLC at Barbara Park bibliography, I decided to work on another bibliography for a similar author. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "predominantly-white neighborhood" - I don't think that hyphen is needed there
• "Blume wrote the book when divorce was becoming more common and accepted by American society, and reflected her own marital trouble at the time" => "Blume wrote the book when divorce was becoming more common and accepted by American society, and it reflected her own marital trouble at the time"
• "Michael and Katherine are a couple who decide have sexual intercourse" => "Michael and Katherine are a couple who decide to have sexual intercourse"
• "Blume wrote the book on the advise of her teenager daughter" => "Blume wrote the book on the advice of her teenaged daughter"
• "the aftermath of three different airplanes crash" - that doesn't sound right.....
• There's quite a few descriptions which consist only of a sentence fragment eg "A television series adaptation of the Fudge books." These shouldn't have full stops.
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ChrisTheDude Thank you! All changes made. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Deenie is a teenage girl who wants to become a model until she is diagnosed with the spine disorder scoliosis and must wear a brace, only for Deenie's mother to make her feel that she no longer met her expectations - Why is the tense switched there?
• A television series adaptation of the Fudge books. - You can lose that full stop as well.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alavense, is there a specific wording you have in mind? The sentence is written in present tense. I've removed the full stop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I got it all wrong here, but wouldn't it make more sense to have Deenie is a teenage girl who wants to become a model until she is diagnosed with the spine disorder scoliosis and must wear a brace, only for Deenie's mother to make her feel that she no longer meets her expectations? Alavense (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Comment - Just a few quick comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Can the 1909 cancellation be explained?

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

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

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

• 3 sources are not archived.

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

• Ping when done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominator(s): Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on it and it meets FL criteria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by commment - why does the article title use the UK English spelling "Honours" but the section heading uses the US English spelling "Honors"? I don't know which form of English is used in Nigeria but whichever it is should be applied consistently -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Nigerian English is based on British English. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude, I have changed them to Nigerian English spellings. Any other comment? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably. I will take a proper look later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add row and column scopes.
  • Done!
• Why are some category rows just not filled in?
  • Some awards doesn't have categories.
• Alt text of the second image need to be fixed.
  • Done!
• The dashes in the table should be centred.
• Please archive the sources.
  • So many sources are diddicult to arch9ve but I don't think it is that necessary.
• The last sentence of the second paragraph needs a citation.
  • I already cited it in the article. I wouldn't think it is still necessary
• More categories could probably be added.
  • I don't have any at hand, do you? Please suggest
• Are there any things that you missed adding in Academic distinctions or Other accolades. I think this because there is not just one sources, you have one for each.
  • All academic distinctions are listed there. While I used the one source for reference, I still saw online sources about the distinctions and I added them.
• The Harvard University award can be expanded to a full date.
  • I have expanded the date.
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also please add row and column scopes. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please an example would be ok.@History6042. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:Accessibility. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@History6042: There's a reason I have an entire block of text to copy-paste for these, lol, it's hard to describe and some people need more direct instruction than the stuff at ACCESS/DTAB. @SafariScribe:

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! 2002 becomes !scope=row |2002. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead (so, !scope=rowgroup rowspan="4" |2002).
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. 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 19:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• no problems with lead or prose.
• File:Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (2015).png-CC BY 3.0
• just a question but are there any usable pictures of Adichie receiving the awards? if not that's fine.
• image review pass
• source 1 checks out
• source 2 good
• source 3 good
• source 4 good
• "reported that it had sold only 187000 copies" remove "only" this is a weasal word
• Source 5 good
• Can you format the "Academic distinctions" and "Other accolades" tables like the previous ones.
• Source 15 is good, doesn't look independent but it is.

Full source review coming soon Easternsahara (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Easternsahara Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Please archive all online sources.

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

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

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

• Keys should be on the top, not bottom.

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

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

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

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

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

• There is an WP:Overlinking issue with names.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll be passing the image review, that's true... All good then. :) Arconning (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Some sources are missing publication dates.

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

• Ayuntamiento can be linked.

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

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

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

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

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

• Some more columns that could be added are, coats of arms and maps. See [2] for the images.

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

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

• Could Comarcas be added?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Could you archive all online sources?

I archived as many as I could: the ones from the Centro Nacional de Información Geográfica and Instituto Geográfico Nacional, the piece of news regarding the newly created municipality and all four laws. However, I'm afraid the data from INE cannot be archived: it all comes from the landing pages for both the 2024 and 2011 censuses, but then the specific links are selections of data I made myself to show only the municipalities from this very province and make it easier to check the information, and it's not possible to archive those. I hope that won't be a problem, though. Alavense (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Additionally:
• The note about the NWL using a split-season format needs a reference.
• The 2011 team did not win the second-half. They qualified via a wild card berth.[3]
• All first and second-half titles need references.
• The reference for 2019 doesn't verify divisional finish or GB.
• Reference style is still inconsistent. (For example: Ref 1 uses title case for article title, while Ref 2 uses sentence case.)
• That's everything else I see. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@CosXZ:

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

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

  is sort of untrue.

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

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

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

Vestrian24Bio 11:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Nominator(s): Olliefant (she/her) 07:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished a rewatch of Parks so I decided to work on the list so over the past few days I've been planning an FLC for this and now its done. Note that I belive most sources are archived as for the non archived sources IAbot is down so :( Olliefant (she/her) 07:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The follows - Something's missing there.
• the series waswas
• for a half season-worth of episodes - Shouldn't this be something like for a half-season's worth of episodes?
• The second season which aired from September 17, through May 20, 2010. On January 30, 2010.

There are a few like these. I'll have another look when the list has been carefully copyedited. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: done Olliefant (she/her) 16:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Please archive the rest of the sources.
  • Can’t do this because of IAbot being down. Although like I said in the nom I’m fairly certain all sources are archived. Do you know which are

missing? (Also note that archived sources aren’t need for FLCs.)

• What is rank in the overview table, I don't see it anywhere else.
  • it’s another metric for the show’s ratings. Showing that the season was the X highest viewed of the X year
• Is an episode view graph available like in List of My Name is Earl episodes?
  • It wouldn’t work as Parks and Rec is over the 100 episode limit for the graph
• Since citation cite a whole row they should be their own column
  • They don’t they just cite the viewship, the other stuff is covered by the episodes credits in MOS:PLOTCITE
• The Aubrey Plaza link is wrong. Fixed
• Could the ratings columns be made sortable.
  • No
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@History6042: Olliefant (she/her) 20:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the un archived sources are 1 to 12, 16, and 17. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This needs a short description per WP:SDLIST Done
• Add {{Use American English}} Done
• The NPR ref is missing an author and a date, NPR can also be linked here Done
• "Parks and Recreation stars Poehler alongside Aziz" ---> "Alongside Poehler, Parks and Recreation stars Aziz [...]"; we already know that it stars Pohler from the preceding paragraph Done
• "after having a recurring role in season one." --- anything better for this source as a WP:VALNET post-Mid 2023? The other VALNET's should be fine since they were published prior to that
  • I don't think VALNET is all that justified but i've replaced it anyways
• "During the course of the series, 126 episodes of Parks and Recreation aired over seven seasons." --- is this supported in the list by a source anywhere? I believe this falls outside of WP:CALC because the list could arguably be missing episodes
  • The only source that explicitly lists 126 is a Screen Rant one, so I used an Amazon listing for the 125 episodes and then to confirm the special.
• "Following season one, the series was originally renewed for a half-season worth of episodes, before being picked up for a full season in October 23." ---- not supported by the ref. It only mentioned a full season pick up, not what the initial order was for, a lot of times early orders were only for 6-8 episodes (i.e. season 1), which isn't "half". That's also easily a perspective issue because some shows only regularly produce 13, 8, or 6-episode seasons, etc. This should also be "on October 23" Fixed
  • removed the part about the early renewal
• "The first season of the show aired from April 9, 2009, through May 14." --- source?
  • Episode table
• "The fourth season ran from September 22, 2011 to May 10, 2012." --- the attached source was published in 2012 and is discussing a mid-season slate, the only mentioned date for Parks & Rec is January 17, this is likely referring to season 5, episode 10. Even if this was supporting season 4, no episode aired on January 17, and it doesn't support a September or May date.
  • that was a mistake from when I copied over the prose from the community list. The information is sourced in the table
• "which ran from September 20, through May 2, 2013" --- source?
  • Table
• Ref 13 appears to be a source about Community? I didn't read the whole thing, but a quick ctrl+f of "park" returned nothing
  • The ref 13 title is "NBC picks up "Community," "Parks and Recreation" and "Mercy" for season""
• "It ran from September 26 to April 14, 2014." --- source?
  • Table
• "the series was renewed for a seventh and final season" --- "final" isn't supported by the source, was this decided later/cancelled after it had aired?
  • The fact that it was the last one was announced later, sourced to THR
• IndieWire can be linked in the ref Done
• "which aired from January 13, 2015 to February 24." --- source?
  • Table
• Some of the ranks in the overview seem to be unsupported by the references. For example, in the 2015 season Deadline actually has it at 65 and 95, depending on the timeslot and for 2013-2014, there's just no rank mention of Parks & Rec altogether
  • I used the TV series finale for the average for season seven. As for the ranks, I just decided to remove the column all together because there is alot of conflicting sourcing regarding some and some have no sourcing
• "Average episode runtime" --> "The average episode runtime [...]" Done
• None of the air dates in the "Episode" section have a source
  • They are sourced alongside the viewership info, I have added an additional source
• In Ref 140 (the ratings table), the first three sources don't support the numbers for the individual episodes
• It also doesn't appear that you have the average column enabled (at least that's what I'm assuming the intention was considering every row has an additional number than there are episodes in the season)
  • Cut the excess number
• I would honestly suggest splitting the ratings graph like I did in List of Station 19 episodes to make the graph viewable, otherwise it's useless since the numbers are already in the episode table Done
• Refs 22 and 23 (in this version) are duplicates and can be merged
  • They shouldn't be dups (they use the same link for some reason) i've fixed it
• The usual date and CQ scripts need ran Done

TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: For the ratings table at the end of the article, I haven't been able to find a ref to cite all the episodes together, do you think that adding something like "for the first three seasons refer to the relevent listing above" as the table is a summary? Olliefant (she/her) 04:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure honestly, do you know if there's a guideline/policy/essay or any precedent that covers that method? If not, I would also suggest enacting something similar to what I did in the My Name Is Earl LoE page. If the references are the same name, and exact copies of each other, they'll group together, so that you're not flooding the sources. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s the same principle as MOS:leadcite Olliefant (she/her) 08:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this isn't in the lead section... this would be like saying if you were writing a television season article, the viewing figures don't need to be cited in a reception section if they're also cited in the episodes section of that same article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I’ll try and have individual citations soon hopefully Olliefant (she/her) 08:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: done Olliefant (she/her) 08:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding what was ref 13, the changes made prior to that shift its number. It's currently ref 16, the title is "‘Community’ Revived To Air On Yahoo In Fall With 13 Episodes", still no mention of Parks & Rec. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: done Olliefant (she/her) 22:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for future reviewers. I will be away from my computer for the next week or so, meaning I won’t be able to immediately get to your feedback. Olliefant (she/her) 14:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Can all online sources be given archives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Birdienest81:

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

    If iabot doesn't work, try archiving manually.

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

Vestrian24Bio 10:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Otherwise, that's about it,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @History6042 Thank you for looking!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominator(s): ActuallyElite (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because there are other tornado lists that are featured articles like List of California tornadoes and List of Connecticut tornadoes. I feel like the article for List of Iowa tornadoes has good enough quality to be nominated to be a featured list. ActuallyElite (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Map needs alt text.
• "An old brick college had its roof gone and major damage to it’s walls in Grinnell, Iowa" is not acceptable alt text. It should describe the image not the story, "had its roof gone" is also not correct.
• Units of measurement should be spelled out on the first time with the acronym in brackets. Them used as just acronyms.
• All sources should be archived, if IA bot doesn't get them you must do them manually.
• I do not think the source "Only In You State" is reliable and should be replaced.
• The acronym "KCCI" should be expanded, as with all other acronyms in references.
• PS: I peer reviewed this article.
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @History6042:Finished everything. I manually archived all the sources that were able to be archived on Internet Archive. ActuallyElite (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Three sentences is far too short for the lead of a potential FL. It needs to be significantly expanded -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude:I expanded the lead to more than 3 sentences. Is this expanded enough? ActuallyElite (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second last Winter Olympic medal table that is not featured status, and it's a relatively short one. What's interesting about this one is that Morocco competed for the first time, and East and West Germany entered separate teams for the time. This will be Olympic medal table #12 and Winter medal table #4 for me and I aimed to match the formatting of the other previously promoted lists. As always, I'll do my best to respond promptly and to address any and all feedback that is brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just one general comment to start. This article seems awfully short. Are the others in this series as short as this one? The only other article I've seen is another one you put forward recently – 1972 Summer Olympics medal table – and it looks like it has more meat. Maybe the 1968 Winter Olympics were just relatively uneventful?

More specific comments:

1. "The 1968 Winter Olympics, officially known as the X Olympic Winter Games, was a winter multi-sport event..." "was" should be "were".
2. "This included first-time entrants Morocco" "entrants" should be "entrant".
3. "including the team relay event in biathlon" I would say "in the biathlon".
4. "Norway won the most medals overall, with 14, and the most gold medals, with six." This may be personal style preference, but I would put the "with x" in parentheses (ie. Norway won the most medals overall (with 14), and the most gold medals (with six).) But either way is probably fine.
5. "French alpine skier Jean-Claude Killy had the most gold medals with three." I would use "won" instead of "had".
6. In the infobox: "Swedish cross-country skier Toini Gustafsson (pictured) won three medals (two gold, one silver) at the 1968 Winter Olympics..." I don't think the "(pictured)" is needed, and I would use the phrase "two gold and one silver" rather than just separating them with a comma. Ditto with that same scenario in the second paragraph.

Just a personal note: I never liked the purple shading of the host nation on these tables, but this is most definitely not the forum for that discussion. :)

Please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review @Bgsu98! I implemented your feedback, with the exception of 4 and the a part of number 6 (the medals in brackets). I feel these are stylistic choices and I wanted to remain consistent with other lists that have been done already. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they are personal preferences and I also understand wanting to maintain consistency among articles that are in a series. I'm happy to support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have nothing to add to the above. I will be happy to support once those points have been addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that they've been addressed to Bgsu98's satisfaction, and hopefully to yours as well @ChrisTheDude. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 18, 19, and 20 all spell the name of the host city as "Gronoble" in stead of "Grenoble."

• I went ahead and fixed those; those were obvious typos. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine...  ;) MikeVitale 18:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• All references have archive links, and spot-checked archive links go to the same place as the original article.
• Date formats are consistent.
• Spot-checked references (both original and archived) support the material in the article they purport to support.

That's all from me. --MikeVitale 18:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Gronoble typos have been fixed... Support. --MikeVitale 18:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, those are embarrassing typos! Thanks for the source review and fixing those @MikeVitale! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd love to take credit, I only pointed out the typos. It was @Bgsu98 who actually fixed "Gronoble".  :) --MikeVitale 02:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Norway won the most medals overall, with 14, and the most gold medals, with six - As per MOS:NUMBER: "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". I would go with Norway won the most medals overall, with fourteen, and the most gold medals, with six.
• Killy (three gold), along with Swedish cross-country skier Toini Gustafsson (two gold, one silver) and Finnish cross-country skier Eero Mäntyranta (one silver, two bronze), tied - Does this sentence really work? Wouldn't it be better to say Killy (three gold), Swedish cross-country skier Toini Gustafsson (two gold, one silver) and Finnish cross-country skier Eero Mäntyranta (one silver, two bronze) tied?
• As noted in another review, I believe there should be something at the beginning of the second paragraph of the section Medal table that brings the reader back from the general explanation of how the table works to the 1968 Games.

That's what I got. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Hey man im josh just in case. Alavense (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – The lead photo (the sole one used in the article) has appropriate licensing, caption and alt text. I have no concerns on this front. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 14:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Picture this: you're at the mall, shopping for groceries at 8PM. The radio is blasting the 100th top 40 song released within the past three years. And suddenly, you hear the opening tune of a timeless classic: "Somebody That I Used to Know". You're relieved, knowing that for once, no new songs are terrorizing the mall at the moment.

...except that isn't the voice of Gotye in the airwaves. You have been tricked; that's actually "Anxiety" (2025) by one of the fastest-rising stars of this decade, Doechii. She's a rapper who's been labelmates with SZA and Kendrick Lamar, already a legendary duo in their own right. And at this year's Grammys, she recently won a Best Rap Album Grammy for her latest mixtape.

Having witnessed Doechii's slow rise to stardom since 2023, I recently endeavored to bring this discography list to FL status as one of my latest content-creating projects. There aren't a lot of discography FLs for black women musicians out there, so I hope this is a step further into filling this particular niche. I hope you enjoy what I have to offer. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 14:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Image needs alt text.
  • It has alt text now
• All sources should be archived.
  • I chose not to archive some sources (e.g. chart history pages) because those are updated on a regular basis.
• In guest appearances, references should be their own column.
  • Done
• Same with the other tables.
  • I am not sure about this because some titles on those tables are directly followed by a citation and others do not. I don't want things to be inconsistent
• Music video count should be added to the first lede sentence.
  • Done
• Ping when done please. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the comments, @History6042. Replies above. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 03:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• References 5 and 70 are duplicated
  • Merged - Elias
• Some columns have widths defined but some don't, so one EP title is wrapped meanwhile titles for guest appearances have unexplained empty space. I would encourage consistency, especially seeing as her discography is still small enough that the tables aren't getting squished (see Michael W. Smith discography for an example).
  • I think I got it handled - Elias
• Can the intro prose be expanded a little, so that the summary table isn't cramped next to the infobox? Alternatively use of {clear} would be good, again so information isn't unnecessarily squished. This is perhaps more of a preference for me as I'm a Vector 2022 user but seeing as its a default it'll probably affect many readers.
  • I'm a bit apprehensive about this comment because I firmly believe the lead is already a proper summary of the list's contents, and there are no squishing issues on my laptop and desktop screens. I think in this scenario any possible issues with squishing are just dependent on what device is being used so I don't think it's one that needs addressing. - Elias
• All references should be archived - these chart websites have a way of rebranding and wiping all the old links
  • See my reply to a similar comment above + given Doechii's music is still charting and rising in many countries, archiving them may be a bit too soon. - Elias
• Is there a reason "Wat U Sed" is in the lead artist section? It seems to be described as a feature
  • I must have misplaced it, my bad! - Elias

That's all I have for now, it's great to see how much love she is getting! orangesclub 🍊 03:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangesclub, thank you! I appreciate these replies. It's indeed nice to see the former weed-smoking storytime vlogger finally get her flowers as the artist she is responses above Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 04:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following up to see if all your concerns have been addressed @Orangesclub. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with your changes, but I won't be able to support it without the archives. The live website will and should still be the source of truth, but chart websites change without any notice and if they haven't been archived they are just lost forever. I feel like this is the perfect time to capture an archive, ie when promoting to featured list, because too many of these charts will void out before anyone takes the care to preserve them. I will note that other featured discography lists of artists that haven't peaked yet have the archives in place. orangesclub 🍊 21:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangesclub, well I did the best I could. Certification references cannot be archived because they are template-generated and there is no parameter for archives. That aside, please check if everything is in order. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 04:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, happy to support! All good on the certifications, I'm aware of that (and so many certification websites don't support archiving anyway 🥲) but the rest looks good. orangesclub 🍊 04:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A short description needs added per WP:SDLIST
  • Per WP:SDNONE the short description "none" will suffice. In this page, the "entirety of the title will be reasonably clear to English-speaking readers worldwide."
• Not a requirement by any means, but this is one place where {{sronly}} would come in handy if you wanted to use it
  • Apologies, but I am unsure how this template can be used in the article. May you give an example?
• Alligator Bites Never Heal is missing a reference (which I assume is supposed to support a release date, label, etc.)
  • In discography pages, it's customary for album entries with their own articles to not require citations
• Any particular reason why this same album has two refs for the peak in the Irish column, which appear to list different peaks? If the one in the header is outdated, it can be removed and the Official Charts one moved up.
  • Not sure, I'm not the one who updates these peaks. I moved the Official Charts citation up, though I'd imagine someone will replace that citation months down the line when Doechii releases more albums.
• Ref 8 (currently Rolling Stone for me) needs |url-access=subscription
  • Added the parameter (though it should be "limited" because RS shows a limited amount of free articles before the annoying paywall)
• "The AV Club" --> "The A.V. Club" (official name; currently ref 22 for me)
  • Done

I think that's all I have! Wish you could've seen the pure shock on my face when I first heard Anxiety on the radio and thought it was gonna be Somebody That I Used To Know 😅 TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I had the same feeling while I was shopping in some gaudy upscale mall :^) more on-topic, I have replied to all of your comments above. Thanks for stopping by @TheDoctorWho! Sorry this took a bit. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 07:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few responses:

1. {{sronly}} essentially makes a table caption visible to screen readers only when nearby text (such as prose or headers) sufficiently describe the table being presented to avoid a duplication of text. So for example, with the first table, you could use {{sronly|List of mixtapes, with selected details and chart positions}}, this would still meet accessibility requirements by providing a caption, but would hide it from those that don't need it. (Like I said, using this isn't a requirement, and I wouldn't oppose if it isn't used. I just like to provide alternatives sometimes.)

I think the tables are already fine on their own. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. "In discography pages, it's customary for album entries with their own articles to not require citations I'm not convinced this is the case, Ithaca discography, Kittie discography, Tages discography, and Bini discography are all recent FL's that have sourced release dates despite album articles existing.

Not something I usually do (and not something that happens for discography pages of way more popular artists)... but I guess adding a citation here won't hurt... Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I also have to slightly disagree with the absence of a short description, because not all English speakers worldwide will know who Doechii is. SDLIST gives an example of this with the sitcom Friends, a good short description for List of Friends episodes would be "Episodes of American television sitcom". It should not be "none", since the term "Friends" – no matter how well known to readers familiar with American TV – will not necessarily be clear to other English-speaking readers worldwide. While "Discography" is clear, Doechii could easily be a British pop artist or an Australian country singer

Looking at a sample of entries on Wikipedia:Featured lists#Discographies, I see that SDNONE is consistently applied. I do not think this needs changing. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho, responses above. I do not know how to respond to individual comments on a numbered list so apologies that the numbering format got messed up. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately going to oppose on lack of a proper short description then. The instructions laid out at WP:SDESC are pretty clear to me, and I don't feel comfortable saying that this is one of Wikipedia's best lists with one that doesn't describe the contents of the list. WP:SDEXAMPLES is pretty clear on this too, in the entry for Burt Reynolds filmography where it says "Even very famous American celebrities may not be well known to all English speakers: a proper short description helps readers of different cultures as well as those who fall outside the person's usual fan demographic." and gives the example "Performances by American actor" an SD. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: hm alright... I can see where you are coming from with your rationale so I changed the shortdesc. Looks like someone has to change all the other shortdescs on those discography FLs then; maybe someone can run AWB on those? Though I am unsure if such a massive change will face some opposition... Regardless your suggestion seems convincing enough and I respect the way you stand your ground at least. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 04:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'm happy to support! This should definitely be changed on the other articles mentioned, but one article at a time (as done here) is a start. Nice work on this list by the way, apologies if I was a pain 😅. 06:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• with Janelle Monáe; Katy Perry; and Tyler, the Creator - Make it with Janelle Monáe, Katy Perry, and Tyler, the Creator
• On the Notes section, why are some charts linked while others aren't? Billboard Hot 100, for example, could be linked as well. This should be checked for consistency.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief intermission for NFL seasons lists, I'm back to nominating the series of Olympic lists! This would be Olympic medal table #11 and Summer Olympic medal table #8. As for what was notable about these individual games, Mark Spitz won SEVEN golds! Which was a record for 36 years until Phelps won eight at the 2008 Summer Olympics. There was also 11 new competitors, which is a lot for this late into the Olympics. As always, I'll do my best to respond promptly and to address any and all feedback that is brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading this article and only have a few comments.

1. In the infobox, I would put the flag before the city. ( Munich, West Germany)
2. There should be an and between Togo and Upper Volta.
3. "The games featured 195 events in 21 sports across 27 disciplines." What is the difference between a sport and a discipline?
4. You have several sports wikilinked, but not archery.
5. "In response, athletes from other African nations protested this invitation and again threatened to boycott the games over those policies." I would maybe say "In response, athletes from other African nations protested this invitation and again threatened a boycott."
6. "Four days before the opening ceremonies the IOC voted to rescind their invitation..." You need a comma after ceremonies.
7. "North Korea and Uganda won their nations' first Summer Olympic gold medals, which was the first medal of any kind for North Korea.[7][22] Colombia and Niger also won their nations' first Olympic medals of any kind." Just as a point of interest, you might specify in what sport these nations won their first medals.
8. "16-year-old American swimmer Rick DeMont had originally won gold in the men's 400 metre freestyle event but was disqualified..." You need a comma after event.
9. "Events in judo used a repechage system which also resulted in two bronze medals being awarded." You need a comma after system.
10. "In women's uneven bars..." I would put a the in front of women's uneven bars.
11. On the table of medal changes, I would probably left justify the first column.
12. "Biddle had tried to get tested following the race, at the advice of the team's manager, just in case of a disqualification, but he was turned away." – I would use the following: "Biddle had tried to be tested following the race on the advice of his team's manager, in the event of a disqualification, but this request was denied."
13. "The Belgian team finished fourth, but did not receive the bronze medal..." I would pluralize medal.
14. One doped athlete caused the entire team to lose their medals? *stares in 2022 figure skating team event*
15. "DeMont had declared... leading to the situation which resulted in his gold medal being stripped." The end of that sentence sounds awkward. Maybe "leading to his (or the) gold medal being stripped from him"

Please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review @Bgsu98!

1 – So, for whatever reason, it's apparently been common practice to do so before the country instead of the city name. Honestly this isn't something I had ever considered actually.

• I think it looks weird as hell, and some of the formatting of these Olympic articles baffles me, but it should probably follow whatever the precedent is for similar Olympic articles.

• I'm not opposed to changing them, and I could do it for all of them. Do you have an example of any series of events where it is shown at the beginning instead, just so I can point to that if questioned?

2 – Done.

3 – A good example would be "aquatics", which is defined as an Olympic sport. It has 5 sub disciplines, artistic swimming (synchronized swimming), diving, marathon swimming, swimming (the regular sprint or regular swim races), and water polo. Cycling as another example has BMX freestyle, BMX racing, mountain biking, road biking, and track racing. They're essentially sub sports of a large classification of sport.

4 – Done.

5 – So, I wanted to be clear when I wrote that that it was over the policies, as opposed to simply being upset that Rhodesia was invited in generic.

• There could still be a better way of wording it. Perhaps: "In response, athletes from other African nations protested this invitation due to Rhodesia's racist policies and again threatened a boycott."

• I'm not sure that would be an improvement though, I'm trying to highlight that they're doing so again. I've found that sources also specifically stated "racial policies" as opposed to "racist policies".

6 – Done

7 – I've considered it, but applying that consistently across these types of lists would actually end up being surprisingly difficult. There's often difficulties pinpointing which athlete won a NOC's first Olympic or gold medal, based on people winning on the same day but exact time keeping for when the medals were won being difficult to iron out. I think it would also make some of these lists far too large in prose and run on sentences.

• I do understand what you're saying, but in the case of North Korea, Uganda, and Niger, there is no question as they each only won one medal. Colombia is hazier.

8 – Done.

9 – I feel like this actually isn't a necessary comma, there's no pause or break up of the sentence. It's rather straight forward from my perspective.

• It's a relative clause and needs a comma.

• Done.

10 – Done.

11 – Unfortunately this is a preexisting template which I'm not comfortable modifying for this. Additionally, I think the rank being centered actually makes more sense.

• I thought this was a simple table and did not realize it was a template. Edited to add: I just looked and this is a regular table. If it were me, I would left-justify everything except the numbers, but it is not something I would hold up a FL promotion over. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12 – So, I was specific in the phrasing of "turned away", as that's what sources say. Oddly the phrasing denied didn't come up when I was working on this one. I've mostly implemented this suggestion though.

13 – Done.

14 – That is correct, the entire team was disqualified as a result. After looking at what you're referring to... Damn it! I wish it happened then as well to get Canada a bronze!

• I was heated for multiple reasons. I did want to see the Canadian team receive the bronze medals. Roman Sadovsky got yoked into the team event at the last minute after the original men's competitor was quarantined with COVID, didn't exactly have a great performance in front of the largest audience of his life, got tons of cyber-BS from the armchair critics, and I would have loved to see him become an Olympic bronze medalist by default.

15 – Done.

Most of what you've suggested has been implemented, but there's a few points for you to reply to. Thanks again for the solid review! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Bgsu98, I believe I've responded to everything that needed a response. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Mark Spitz 1972.jpg - Public Domain
• File:Ri Ho-jun 1972 (cropped).jpg - Public Domain, source link needs to be fixed for WP:V
• File:Rick DeMont 1972.jpg - Public Domain, source link needs to be fixed as well.
• All images have alt text.
• All images have appropriate captions, and are all relevant to the article.
  • @Hey man im josh: Here shall be my short comments. Arconning (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately I'm unable to fix the links, but I'm going to ping [[User:|]], who appears to have originally uploaded the Ri Ho-jun image at File:Ri Ho-jun 1972.jpg in 2017, as well as File:Rick DeMont 1972.jpg, also in 2017. I'm not an expert with images, so hopefully they'll be able to help out with this. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that sucks, my ping failed clearly. Lets try to ping Materialscientist again. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey @Materialscientist, hate to be a bother, but any chance you can help me with this? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for the delay @Arconning, I was hopeful that Materialscientist would come by and provide a source for the original images. Since we cannot verify them beyond what was listed on Commons, I've gone ahead and removed them. Unfortunately, there's no quality image of any first time winners, so I'll be leaving it at one image for the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Materialscientist has pings turned off. If you want their attention you will have to post to their talk page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Shall pass this image review. Arconning (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rhodesia had been barred from participating at the 1968 Games - Can the 1968 Games be linked?
• Among individual participants, American swimmer Mark Spitz won the most medals at the game with seven - At the game or at the games?
• In the paragraph about Spitz, wouldn't it make sense to also state that Phelps is American. Given that one's nationality is mentioned, I believe the other one's should as well.
• The medal table is based on information provided by the IOC and is consistent with IOC conventional sorting in its published medal tables. The table uses the Olympic medal table sorting method. By default, the table - Five table(s) make this a bit weird to read. For starters, the last one can easily become an it, I think.
• Events in boxing resulted - In the previous paragraph, you are referring to conventions about medal tables in general, so it would be worth stating that we are now speaking about these games. Maybe add At the 1972 Games, at the beginning, or whichever formula you prefer.
• Neither athlete who finished third was awarded the silver, which is considered vacant - Is this vacant thing important? I think it's the same for the two events mentioned above, isn't it? The way it's written, at least to me, makes it seem like it's something different.

That's what I got. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Hey man im josh just in case. Alavense (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As one would expect from someone with currently over 40 FLs, I can't find anything wrong here. All links are archived, all references check out, consistent date formatting, etc. Yeah...Support. --MikeVitale 18:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "11 teams making their Olympic debut at the Summer Games" - does this mean they were only making their summer Olympic debut (i.e. they had previously competed at the winter games) or their overall Olympic debut, which happened to take place at the summer games? If the latter then you can simply lose "as the Summer Games"
• "In response, athletes from other African nations protested this invitation" - given that you specify what they were protesting, I don't think you also need "in response"
• "North Korea and Uganda won their nations' first Summer Olympic gold medals" - were they their first summer golds specifically, or their first olympic golds period? It seems unlikely that Uganda in particular would have previously won winter gold but I suppose it's possible.......
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• After describing the division of the Eastern Region by Gowon in both the lead and this section, it needs to be explicitly stated that Bayelsa became a part of Rivers State. In the lead, "remained part of" gives the sense that the reader has missed the point where Bayelsa became part of Rivers State. In this section it's not specified at all.
  • @Toadspike: The point is, Bayelsa was nonexistent as of that time. Left for me, I do not think mentioning Bayelsa here is worth it at all, especially since we're dwelling on Rivers and Bayelsa wasn't existing. What do you suggest?--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vanderwaalforces: Bayelsa didn't exist at the time, but the area that is now part of Bayelsa State was part of Rivers State, which is why we're listing the governors of Rivers State at all. I think in a list of governors of Bayelsa it is worth mentioning this. On reading over it again, the wording in the lead seems clear enough, but I've added a few words [4] in this section – let me know if you don't like it. Toadspike [Talk] 07:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominator(s): MallardTV (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... MallardTV (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC) This list has been my passion for a very long time. I know this article has only been made over the past few days, but behind the scenes it's a culmination of months of research and years of curiosity. Being a diabetic myself, I've searched for an index of insulin brands to no avail. Since Wikipedia is my hobby and it's a general reference, I figured there would be no better place to input this research. Thus, I created this article. I do believe that this list is my best work, and meets all of the criteria. I'm excited to see what you reviewers think of it. (A bit scared too.) Best wishes, MallardTV[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Brand Name becomes !scope=col | Brand Name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |Admelog becomes !scope=row | Admelog. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. 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 16:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed all the accessibility issues you pointed out- thanks a lot! MallardTV (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/comments

I'm not going to commit to a full source review just yet but due to my knowledge of WP:MEDRS I feel like I might be able to help out a bit here.

• I'm not sure the exact threshold for using sources for images but File:Insulin short-intermediate-long acting.svg may benefit from a source.
• You have a couple bare URLS that should be fixed
• Some of the journals are wikilinked and some are not. I'd consider switching to either all linked or not linked.
• Upon first glance, while Basaglar and Abasaglar are regional., However, other smaller pharmacutical companies also produce insulin, such as Mannkind (Afrezza), Viatris (Semglee), Lupin (Lupisulin), and Biocon (Basalog and unbranded insulins)., It was developed by Sanofi-Aventis., providing a steady insulin level, in contrast to fast-acting bolus insulins., Insulin degludec is a modified form of insulin in which a single amino acid is deleted compared to human insulin. It is also conjugated to hexadecanedioic acid via a gamma-L-glutamyl spacer at the amino acid lysine at position B29., The most common side effects include hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea., Insulins that are used mostly in humans are sometimes also used in animals such as cats and dogs., and Lente insulin is currently produced by Merck Animal Health under the name Vetsulin. appear to be unsourced.
• The way the tables are cited (as in having the ref right by the name) makes it unclear where you are getting the information forthe manufacturer and other info from.
• [5] is giving me an error code
• Is there a more updated source for [6]
• Again I would look for a more updated ref for [7] (take a read through WP:MEDDATE)
• Same applies for any ciation before 2015 excluding cocherane reviews. If there is no newer sources or the newer sources are lower quality then no use in changing them but it's something to consider.

Additional comments

• From a technical point of view I see some things that could be improved upon such as Common side effects include hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) which should be written as low blood sugar (hypoglycemia) according to WP:MTAU. Additionally this only has to be stated the first time you use the term hypoglycemia and then you can either stick to using the term hypoglycemia or low blood sugar
• There is quite a few very short standalone sentences that should be merged or expanded per WP:LAYOUT.
• treat hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium levels). same as my first point
• gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications, including diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic states Since this bit is in the lead it could use some work to make it less technical
• A very brief explanation of the difference between type 1 and type 2 diabetes may be helpful but it depends more on if the list contents heavily revolve around the difference
• Some minor overlinking (liver is linked twice for example, and countries don't need to be linked)
• It is typically administered by injection under the skin it may be important (I'm not sure as I haven't read the source) if the medication is typically administered into the fat or muscle (assuming fat due to the locations you listed).

Okay I think I've given you quite a bit to work with right now. Let me know if you have any questions. Keep up the great work! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 18:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I dealt with the citation stuff and the technical stuff. It looks like i fixed the overlinking. The difference between types isn't important from an insulin standpoint. MallardTV (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know about the difference not being relevant. There is still some unrefernaced areas. This is optional but the pdfs that were bare links may benifet from the website name and/or an archive date just cause pdfs seem to be especially prone to link rot. Additionally, since you've added access dates for other websites, your other citations should have them aswell (when their is a url that is). I'm still seeing some inconsistancies in the linking of journals/publishers as well as some bare urls. [8] should have the doi added as well. Did you look into more updated studies for some of the older citations? Once you tidy up the refs a bit I'll continue with my source review. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense Checking the older refs, there are indeed some sparse more recent things that have the same info. However, these seem to be much less reliable and as stated earlier just say the exact same thing. As for the journal linking, I think I got all the ones that have wiki articles. I added some more refs in sparse areas as well. MallardTV (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the newer sources aren't as reliable then older sources work just fine. providing a steady insulin level, in contrast to fast-acting bolus insulins. and Lente insulin is currently produced by Merck Animal Health under the name Vetsulin. both appear to be unsourced. I'm going to go through each ref and point out any issues I find.

• [9] add DOI, add access date for url, link journal, add volume page number info etc
• [10] add volume, issue, page number etc
• [11] wikilink journal
• [12] Capitilize drug name. Side note, capitilization should be consistent throughout the article, instead of just using the capitilization the source uses meaning anything after a colon need a capital.
• [13] add journal link
• [14] wikilink journal
• [15] wikilink pub

I'm starting to realize that the vast majority of your refs have inconsistences. Could you please look through the sources and look for these inconsitencies yourself? use the suggestions I have provided thusfar to guide you. For each citation look for missing info, wikilinks that could be added, and punctiation/grammar within the citation title. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! I should be done in a day or so... MallardTV (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it- archived some stuff too. MallardTV (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* @Hey man im josh, Giants2008, and PresN: I'm pinging the FLC Coords here because I've never opposed a nom before and I'm not quite sure the threshold for such. I feel like I have gotten into a WP:FIXLOOP here. I've asked 3 times that the nominator fixes unsourced passages, be consistent with citation formatting etc. and each time they fix one or two of the issues and ignore the rest. I've tried really hard to lay out the steps to fix these issues but it seems like I'm not getting very far. I want to be clear, I think this is an interesting list, and especially as a medical editor I want to see it pass, I'm just not sure if I should step away or oppose. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too great with refs and I really do want to get this passed. I apologize for wasting your time and I'll really work to get everything fixed before I bother you again. MallardTV (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'm going to attempt a source review here. Starting with reliability;

• [16] is not a WP:MEDRS source. I would limit the usage of it for anything that falls under WP:biomedical information. Take a look at each time it is used and assess if a better source would be appropriate.
• [17] fails WP:MEDDATE
• [18] fails WP:MEDDATE
• Many of your sources fail WP:MEDDATE. These should be replaced with studies from the last 10 (preferably 5) years. If they cannot be replaced, be prepared to justify that. If you could go through your sources and try to replace as many of the older ones as possible, that would be great. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense Looking at the older refs, including the ones you pointed out, I would personally not want to change them. They may be older, but they have all the same info as new sources. This is becuase insulin analogues do not change. Once they are released, people adjust to them, so they can never be modified. This is the reason they just keep making new analogues. These sources I'm using are sometimes from right when these analogues released, but nothing has changed since them. The analogue I use: aspart, has remained unchanged for 25 years now. So I do believe I have proper justification for any older refs I could find. MallardTV (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I may need to seek some opinions from WP:MED here, would it be okay if I posted on your behalf there? To my understanding, the reason why more recent publications are important, is because even if you are right about nothing haven changed, readers won't know that unless they commit a significant amount of time to researching that. For example if I say "smoking cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer" and cite a 1987 study showing that, the readers only know that in 1987 we had evidence of that. However if I write the same thing and cite a 2024 study, readers know that this statement is backed up by the most recent literature we have available. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats's true, and feel free to post on my behalf. However, the article really only details the mechanism of action, which doesn't need anything to back it up since the original publications were what detailed it to start, and many newer works are based from. @IntentionallyDense MallardTV (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'm going to check for recent pubs for a couple of the older sources and then if nothing comes up I'm just going to WP:AGF regarding the rest of the sources. I checked a couple older refs and can confirm that at least in those there was no better substitute so I will be moving on with this source review.

Starting with formatting, ref 6 should have the journal wikilinked. 54 and 55 both say "accessed on xyz" while the rest of your refs say retrieved on. I would change this for consistency. ref 78 should have the journal wikilinked. Ref 152 should be changed so that there isnt just a url in it. Ref 123 journal should be wikilinked.

Next I'm going to make sure that all WP:Biomedical information is sourced appropriately.

It is prescribed for conditions such as type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis. is borderline and could do with a better source.

For your 4th paragraph in the lead I would just move the ciation to the end of the para to reduce the amount of citations in the lead.

The first two paragraphs under Insulin lispro contain biomedical info and should have a MEDRS source. Same with the first 2 paragraphs under Insulin aspart, the first paragraph of Insulin glulisine, the first 2 paragraphs of Insulin detemir, first 2 paragraphs of Insulin glargine, first 2 paras of Insulin degludec/liraglutide, and the first paragraph under Veterinary insulins.

Its effects usually begin within 30 minutes and last around 8 hours is biomedical info as well.

For the second paragraph in NPH insulin I would move some of the refs so you aren't citing the same sources after each sentence.

nsulin icodec is a medication used to enhance glycemic control in individuals with diabetes is biomedical info.

I would reduce the amount of refs in the first para of Insulin icodec as well.

The first 2 paragraphs of General mixtures are borderline and would benefit from some MEDRS sources.

is a fixed-dose combination medication that combines insulin glargine and lixisenatide for the treatment of diabetes. The most common side effects include (hypoglycemia, diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea. is biomedical info.

I know that's a lot of stuff but hopefully you can find some MEDRS sources for this. Let me know if you have questions. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense Good morning! I think I found suitable refs for all of the biomedical info. I also fixed everything you pointed out to me. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 13:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ref 35, 38, 93, 119, and 185 all have the accessed instead of retrieved which should be fixed. ref 6 should have the journal wikilinked.

I still think you could find a better source for It is prescribed for conditions such as type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis

I made an edit to show you what I meant about reducing the amount of refs.

Often, a longer-acting insulin, such as insulin NPH, is also required. and It is generally considered safe for use during pregnancy and breastfeeding needs a MEDRS source. Same with A longer-acting insulin, such as insulin NPH, is generally needed as well. and Intravenous injections may be used for severe hyperglycemia and Its effects usually begin within 30 minutes and last around 8 hours and all the info about safety during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and Other serious side effects may include low blood potassium levels and he most frequently reported side effect is hypoglycemia (low blood glucose)

Overall it's looking better but still needs some fixes. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense Did the best I cound for the accessed thing, but web citations seem to use retrieved no matter what I do. Everything else should be in order though. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 22:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to respond to this. The accessed thing may be a template thing so sorry on my part for that. For It is prescribed for conditions such as type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and diabetes-related complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis. is there not a MEDRS source which clearly states insulin analogs are used for these disorders? I'm hoping we can find one source to replace the 4 we have since many of them are not MEDRS. I can help look for some as well. This source [19] verifies the diabetes claims, this source [20] verifies the gestational diabetes claim, and this source [21] verifies the ketoacidosis claim. Other than that, I believe the only other source that should be changed is the The most frequently reported side effect is hypoglycemia (low blood glucose). IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense I was sick with the flue but I'm back and I think I fixed it all! MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 13:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a source spot check. I may break it up a bit cause there is a lot of sources to check.

• ref 2 [22] is verified
• Ref 9 [23] verifies For example, Rezvoglar and Basaglar are both formulations of insulin glargine. However, Rezvoglar contains insulin glargine-aglr, while Basaglar is simply insulin glargine but does not verify the general statement of Although two brands may contain the same insulin analog, they may contain different formulations of that analog, meaning they are not biosimilar, and therefore not interchangeable.
• ref 16 is verified [24] however it may be relevant to mention they are being discontinued
• ref 24 [25] verified
• ref 32 [26] isn't loading for me but this may be a regional issue
• ref 40 [27] is verified
• For ref 55 [28] remove BETTER as the author.
• ref 49 [29] verified
• ref 56 [30] verified
• ref 65 [31] verified
• ref 72 [32] verified
• Not able to find Insulin glargine on the WHO list [33] could you point me to which page it's on?
• ref 88 [34] verified
• Not seeing the preperation methods in ref 97 [35].

Going to take a break there for now. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 22:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the wrong year for the WHO list, it was included in 2021. Oops. I think I fixed thye other stuff too MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 00:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 31 [36] still isn't loading for me. An archive link would be appropriate here.
• Ref 54 [37] should have Better removed as the author
• Add year, publisher, and retrived date for [38]
• Could you copy and paste from the website where you found the preperation methods for [39]?
• ref 105 [40] verified
• Remove smithsonion as author for ref 112 [41]
• Having a hard time verifying Similarly to the modern brands of NPH and regular insulin, which are still sold, buffered regular insulins would be marketed under the name of the rest of the insulins in a brand's product line, followed by the letters BR from ref 113 [42] could you copy and paste from the source how it is supported?
• ref 120 [43] verified
• something weird seems to be going on with ref 122
• Could you copy and paste from ref 128 [44] where it verifies the manufacturer and the vial part
• refs 136 and 137 do not verify that the drugs are not approved for human use in the US just that they were discontunued
• ref 144 [45] verified although I'm not sure why the American society is in the ref
• ref 152 [46] is verified

I'm going to take another break for now. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the broken link for 32, I can't archive it archive site isnt loading for me rn but it should work. 35: "Liprolog medicines are available as solutions or suspensions for injection in vials, cartridges or prefilled pens." The BR name thing is simply supported by the fact that all BR insulins were sold under other broduct lines with BR replacing the normal letter. I agree ref 122 was messed up so I replaced it. For 128: Manufactured byPfizer Ltd, but it seems to be a really old generic and I can't find any other mention of it so I think it's best to get rid of it. I need to add a ref to include the withdrawn approval I'll do that now. I think that fixes everything this round @IntentionallyDense MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 23:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the BR thing is that the source does not make the differentiation between buffered and non buffered insulin (at least from what I could find) so BR could technically stand for anything.

• ref 160 [47] verified
• ref 167 [48] verified
• ref 177 [49] verified
• ref 184 [50] verifed
• ref 192 [51] verified
• ref 200 [52] verified

That concludes my source spot check. Get back to me regarding the BR insulin and then I'll take another look at formatting and such. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll take it out since nothing truly sources it. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 00:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

forgot to ping @IntentionallyDense MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 00:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should hopefully be my last round of feedback.

• Are all four citations needed for the row "Insuman" in the table?
• Same with "Ryzodeg"
• nsulin glargine/lixisenatide was approved for medical use in the United States... move citation to the end of the paragraph instead of having two identical citations in the para.
• Insulin analogs developed for human use after Lente insulin's discontinuation have not yet been same as above
• Not 100% sure here but I believe you could remove the brackets in the title for ref 2 [53]
• Wikilink journal for ref 6 (using and instead of &)
• Formatting across citations should be consistent, use a cite template for ref 10
• ref 16, remove company name from title
• wikilink journal for ref 20
• remove www from ref 32
• capitilize O for ref 36
• use ref template for ref 36
• same with ref 49 and 50 and 84 and 94 and 190 and 170
• ref 171 has the FDA listed twice in the ref
• wikilink journal for ref 156
• wikilink journal in ref 147
• same with ref 145
• remove practo name from title in 128 and 129
• wikilink journal for ref 113 (journal has since been renamed)
• expand and put ref 97 and 98 into cite templates. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cut down those citations for Insuman and Ryzodeg. Fixed everything else, thank you! @IntentionallyDense MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 12:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review is passed but I didn't evaluate enough of the prose to give a decision on that. I would also say that the references may benefit from someone a bit more experience with citation formatting, taking a quick look at them. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 14:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense Thank you so much! Will you be doing a prose review or should I ask around? Thanks, MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 02:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave some broad suggestions above, I'd suggest you take those and apply them to the entire article. Other than that I will not be doing a prose review. However if there are questions specifically related to WP:MEDMOS or medical stuff, feel free to tag me and I'll try my best to help. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you so much for the source review! With my obvious inexperience with citations, it helped a whole lot. Thanks, @IntentionallyDense MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 12:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• All images need alternative text.
• Dates in sources should be consistent format.
• References in tables should be moved to a separate column to show that it covers everything in the row.
• For "Insulin glulisine was approved for medical use in the United States and the European Union in 2004." the citation should be moved to the end because right now it looks like "in 2004" is unsourced.
• "while Basaglar and Abasaglar are regional." is unsourced.
• Why is liver linked twice?
• I think "Certain insulin brands can also have differing names regionally, such as how Novolog is called Novorapid outside of the United States. Brands may also be commonly referred to with different names" is unsourced.
• Ping when done, please. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @History6042: I think I got it all, let me know if I missed anything!. MallardTV (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @History6042 MallardTV (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! MallardTV (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This review is based on this version of the article.

• Link to Drugs.com in references that use it as the publisher instead of the unlinked or www.drugs.com (consistency in the works/website/publisher field is important)
• Ref 2 – Change website to United States National Library of Medicine
• Refs 8, 29, 39, 62, 65, 74, 78, 107 – Expand the reference from just the title of the PDF
• Refs 9, 28, 30, 73, 75, 106 – Link to European Medicines Agency as the website. Remove "| European Medicines Agency (EMA)" from the title
• Refs 16, 67, 79 – Change publisher to/wikilink American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
• Refs 19, 43, 111, 113 – Link to DailyMed as the website
• Refs 20, 46, 52, 82 – It should just be "Food and Drug Administration", not "U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)", to match the target page. It should also consistently be wikilinked.
• Ref 40 – properly expand the reference from a URL
• Refs 45, 81, 112, 114 – Remove (EMA) from the website field
• Ref 71 – Remove " - WebMB" from the title
• Ref 71 – Use WebMD as the website
• Ref 88 – Link to Medical News Today as the website
• Ref 98 – Wikilink European Medicines Agency
• Ref 100 – Link to Health Canada as the website
• Ref 111 – Remove "DailyMed - " from the title
• Date formatting in a number of these references are inconsistent, consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|February 2025}} template to the top of the article under the short description

That's what I've got to start. I can look it over for consistency in references again once there's been more consistency in the references. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Thanks man! The dates thing is really weird! I standardized then all but for some reason it reverted. MallardTV (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh I fixed everything you pointed out! MallardTV (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More feedback, without going through it with a fine toothed comb just yet:

• Drugs.com is still not linked everywhere it could be in the references (I think you just missed this point)
• Remove "www." from the website name of references
• Ref 2 – Link to United States National Library of Medicine
• Ref 6, 26, 61, 88 – Change website to "Lilly Medical"
• Ref 29 – Add publisher and access date
• Ref 8 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
• Ref 12 – Wikilink Afrezza
• Ref 13 – Change website to match other sources from this, and list it as Food and Drug Administration and remove Office of the Commissioner" as the author
• Ref 24 – Lets Wikilink to Admelog
• Ref 25 – Change website to match other sources from this, and list it as Food and Drug Administration and remove Office of the Commissioner" as the author
• Ref 39 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
• Ref 40 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
• Ref 47 – Add |via=[[Google Patents]] to the reference
• Ref 53 – Link to MannKind Corporation
• Ref 53 – Add date
• Ref 54 – Link to British National Formulary
• Ref 57 – List to WHO Model List of Essential Medicines
• Ref 60 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
• Ref 62 – Link to Medscape
• Ref 63 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
• Ref 66 – Link to GoodRx
• Ref 70 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
• Ref 103 – Expand reference from just the title of the link
• Ref 105 – Match target, use Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism instead of using "&"

I've been focusing strictly on reference formatting, not verifying references for what it's worth. I'm also sure there's more I haven't caught, but I figured I found enough with this pass to provide for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking to the insulin trade names is not something I think should be done, wince they are all redirects to the page for the insulin analogs and provide no info on the brands themselves. MallardTV (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since^ MallardTV (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the list and fixed everything you've pinted out to me @Hey man im josh MallardTV (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing Drugs.com linked everywhere yet @MallardTV. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh I just went into source and fixed all 6 unlinked. MallardTV (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per our discussion, it appears there are still some consistency issues with reference formatting. You also did not remove the "www." from website names in references. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh I got rid of the www, what are the other issues? MallardTV (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned elsewhere I think you should ask for a review to be performed by someone more familiar with WP:MEDRS. I typically look for consistent formatting styles and reliability of various sources, but this isn't one where I'd be comfortable doing so. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll ask around. I know it's probably annoying that I ask this, but I assume due to your unfamiliarity with MEDRS that you are unable to give a support. Is that the case? Either way the comments you have left are a huge help, thank you. @Hey man im josh MallardTV (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need to review this again, but a brief review yielded the following sporadic comments:

• The reference column should be centered.
• If only 2 of the 13ish rows in the 'General mixtures' mixtures have images, why note move the two to the text directly above and simply eliminate the column?
• "The most common side effects include (hypoglycemia, diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea" - errant parenthesis
• "approved for medical use in the United States in November 2016, and in the European Union in January 2017." - Does the exact month matter to the reader?
• Can you define/explain "Ultralong-acting" in its section?
• "All Insulin analogues" - capitalization issue.
• "The three companies which produce the most insulin are Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. These three corporations" - Bit repetitive. Rephrase for flow.
• "It is also of note that many insulin analogues are available unbranded" --> "Many insulin analogues are available unbranded" for WP:CONCISION

This list may require a visit to the WP:GOCE. ~ HAL333 18:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333 A few things. I don't know how to make the columns centered... I don't think there is enough space in the general mixtures section to put the images out of the table without making it cluttered. The months matters a bit becuase with just the years it could just as easily be a 18 month gap instead of 2. Thanks MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 18:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open for 3.5 months with only a single support. It did get a source review from someone with MEDRS experience, but it has gone way over time for what we'd normally allow for a nomination. If there's not review movement soon, I'm going to have to close it anyway. @HAL333: did the nominator address your concerns? --PresN 14:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

Table

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

3. Also fair point, will change that.

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

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

6. Yes.

7. Rovno to Rivne, will update.

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

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

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

Table

1. Will change this.

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

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

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

(To add to previous response)

Lead

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

Table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Yes.

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

8. Done.

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

11. Also done.

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

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

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

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

9/10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Maine, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States, User talk:Tompw

Article was promoted to FL in 2007 and seems to have been all but abandoned since.

• Begins with "this is a list", which has been discouraged in lists for ages.
• Multiple {{page needed}} issues throughout.
• Census.gov link is not formatted properly, and population data do not appear to have been updated for the 2020s.
• Is seven footnotes enough for a FL?

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: ThinkBlue, Staxringold, Courcelles, WikiProject Television

I am nominating this for featured list removal because not only does it not meet the current MOS:TVPRODUCTION standards (namely the omition of the Production and development sections), but season articles also not really considered FLs. See also the related FLRCs for seasons 1, 2 and 3. Please note that this is the final remaining 30 Rock season FL. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – While not stated anywhere definitively (see here), maybe this should wait to prevent too many active nominations by one person at one time? Otherwise, anyone who might object to these nominations might not get a fair chance to respond. I typically restrict myself to the FLC guidelines (two nominations, and only after one has significant support). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make a talk page post about this to get a consensus, since this episode list thing is a little different than most removals in that it looks to be a long series of removals for the same reason. --PresN 21:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Pedro thy master

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I don't believe this article meets the criteria for Featured List status. Unsourced statements, trivia, and improper table formatting are a few of the issues which are most obvious. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Yes I can see a lot wrong with this article. The count seems to be missing nearly a hundred episodes. Much of the table is unsourced an fairly trivial (see the notes column). Overall a bit of a messy article. Mattximus (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nomination rationale. The number of unsourced statements is the biggest issue for me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As above, delist Easternsahara (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]