Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log

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

This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, with the most recent at the top. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log.

Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2025. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2025.

Full current month log

view - edit - history

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) [1].

---

World Figure Skating Championships

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Since European Figure Skating Championships was just promoted to FL, here is its counterpart: the World Figure Skating Championships. Only the Olympics carry greater weight. As such, this is one of the flagship articles of the Figure Skating WikiProject and should be of the highest quality. Hyperion82 and I worked very hard a while back to improve both this article and the European article, and I believe the quality here is evident. The results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, a well-sourced history is provided and I believe the sources are properly formatted, and relevant photographs are used to reflect both the present-day and historical contexts. Additionally, I have already adapted changes that were requested on the European article to this one so as to avoid the same issues. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose from Airship

Not a list. Nominate at WP:FAC instead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• The fact that European Figure Skating Championships, Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships, and List of Olympic medalists in figure skating have all been promoted as Featured Lists seems to nullify this argument. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  By my rough estimation, this is less than 10% prose by length. The remainder consists of some very long tables. I can see why a glance at the lead would give the impression that this should be an article, but I respectfully disagree that judging this at FAC is any more appropriate than FLC. Toadspike [Talk] 20:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  His point, which I don't think has been made very clear, is that World Figure Skating Championships could be a standalone article and a list of medal holders should be a distinct one. That is, we Wikipedians are turning articles that should be rightfully articles into lists. That might be true, but even if someone made that article, I would presume the medalholders would just be moved to a distinct article. TheUzbek (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  That is a reasonable point, thank you for clarifying. I agree with your last sentence, though – until someone splits the history from the list of medal holders, this is a de facto list. If that happens, we can move the FLC star to the new page as needed. Toadspike [Talk] 08:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TheDoctorWho

Putting this down here as a placeholder. I disagree with the above oppose and will leave some comments within the next 72 hours. Feel free to ping me if it's been that long and I haven't responded here yet. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Finally got a chance to look this over:

• I'd suggest adding a very short summary of the history into the lead; specifically that it was first held in 1896
• Perhaps also a short sentence in the lead about the women's competition initially being a separate event
• I believe per MOS:BOLD that ISU Championships should only be in bold if it redirects to that section
• "Compulsory figures were retired from the World Championships after 1990." - can I suggest merging that sentence into the paragraph above. I think it would fit since they're both describing changes to the competition (WP:PARAGRAPH talks about using single sentence paragraphs sparingly)

•  Done Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• There's several empty columns for the upcoming competitions, not sure how long it'll be until announced, but perhaps add {{TBA}} in the meantime?

• This 2025 competition begins this week (and I'll be in attendance!), so those cells will be filled by the weekend. I previously removed the 2026 rows which had been added so as to avoid having empty rows sitting on these tables for a full year. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

To explain my disagreement with the above oppose in more detail, the primary content of this page is the lists of medalists. It's not unusual for lists like this to have a larger introductory section, to explain background in further detail. The above named lists also provide a clear precedent for this. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

  Noted on the 2025 cells, they'll likely be filled before this article is promoted. That said, I'm happy to support. Nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TheUzbek

• "The World Figure Skating Championships are an annual figure skating competition sanctioned by the International Skating Union (ISU)." ---> "The World Figure Skating Championships is an annual figure skating competition sanctioned by the International Skating Union (ISU)."

• "Championships" is plural. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• "The competitors were from either Germany, Austria, or Russia and were all men." ---> "The competitors were all men from Germany, Austria, or Russia. "
• "The championships have been organized since 1896 with only four interruptions" ---> "The championships have been organized since 1896, with only four interruptions."

• That comma would not be correct. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• "A separate competition for women was established in 1905, with the men's and women's competitions held separately for several years." ----> "A women's competition was established in 1905, with men's and women's events held separately for several years."
• "Pair skating was added in 1908 and ice dance in 1952. " ---> "Pair skating was added in 1908 and ice dancing in 1952. "

• Ice dance is the correct term for the event. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Skaters may compete at the World Championships if they represent a member nation of the International Skating Union and are selected by their federation." ---> "Competitors are eligible to participate in the World Championships provided they represent a member nation of the International Skating Union and have been selected by their respective federation."
• "The championships were presumed to be all-male since competitive skating was generally viewed as a male sport. " ---> "The championships were initially exclusively male, as competitive skating has historically been regarded as a male sport."

• This is not true as women did compete, but it was rare. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• "However, there were no specific rules regarding the gender of competitors. " ---> "However, there were no rules barring women. "
• "Originally there were no any age restrictions at all." ---> "Originally, there were no age restrictions at all."
• "Beginning with the 1996–97 season, skaters had to be at least 15 years old before July 1 of the previous year." ---> "Starting from the 1996–97 season, skaters must be at least 15 years old by July 1 of the previous year."
• "However, there were some exceptions during a few following seasons. One exception allowed those who already had skated in senior events to stay at that level. " --> "However, the federation allowed for two exceptions. Firstly, skaters younger than 15 who had already competed in senior events could continue competing at the championships."
• "There was also an exception that skaters who had won medals at the World Junior Championships were eligible to compete as seniors at the ISU Championships." -- > "Secondly, skaters who won medals at the World Junior Championships were allowed to compete as seniors at the ISU Championships."
• Readers who don't know much about this topic don't know what a "ISU Congress" or "ISU Council" is. Just add a by-sentence :)

•  Done Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Tables good!

--TheUzbek (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

TheUzbek, thank you for your feedback! I am not going to address each point above individually, but did implement several of your suggestions. You can examine the revisions here. Basically, if there's no comment above, it was probably implemented, although maybe not word-for-word. Please let me know if you have any other concerns or suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• "featured only four competitors" ---> "featured four competitors"

• This was nullified by a change you recommended below. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Ice dance" and not "Ice dancing"... Even the article on "Ice dance" says "Ice dancing" is not incorrect.

• Ice dance has replaced ice dancing as the official name of the sport. I don't know what else to say. It's the same as with women's which replaced ladies'. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• "The championships were presumed to be exclusively for me since competitive skating was generally viewed as a male sport" ---> "Since competitive skating was generally viewed as a male sport, the championships were presumed to be an exclusive male event."

•  Done Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• YOu changed the sentence "The World Championships have been cancelled 16 times in the competition's history" to "The World Championships have been interrupted four times in the competition's history" without changing sources.

• The information didn't change. The original text counted total years; I switched it to interruptions, as each interruption for war lasted several years. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• "The first World Championships were held in 1896 in Saint Petersburg" --> "The first competitions were held in 1896 in Saint Petersburg, and the championships have been held every year since, except for four interruptions."

•  Done Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• The tidbit about featuring "only four competitors, all of whom were men from either Germany, Austria, or Russia" does not seem relevant to the lead and does not fit well with the other information.

•  Done Flushed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

1. No need to thank me, I am not Kim Jong-un or any sort of deity.

• This is a volunteer project and everyone's time is valuable. When anyone chooses to spend their time assisting me with an endeavor, I try to remember to thank them for their time.

TheUzbek (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• TheUzbek, updated. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  • "The first World Championships were held in 1896 in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and have been held since 1896 with only four interruptions." - Two 1896 in the same sentence seems a bit much.

  TheUzbek (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  TheUzbek Oops. Fixed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Support! TheUzbek (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Support from Toadspike

Lead

• "The first World Championships were held in 1896 in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and have been held ever since..." – for some reason this reads really weirdly. I think the second half of the sentence is missing a subject ("it" or "they"). Also, no comma needed before "and" since there are only two items in the list.

• I believe the comma is required because of the ,Russia before it. It’s some Wikipedia peculiarity. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• When you say that men's and women's competitions were "held separately" in the lead and body, what does that mean? Were they in entirely different cities, or just not at the exact same time? I see that in 1906 they had different locations, but in '07 and '08 they had the same location.

• Sometimes yes to all of that. I did slightly reword it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Might want a comma before "provided" in the second paragraph of the lead, but I'm not sure if it's required.

•  Done Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• What are "element scores"? If it's too complex to explain, is there a good wikilink?

• Yes, way too complex. I did add a wikilink. You can let me know (please) if it is useful. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bgsu98 I think the section has been retitled, so the section link takes me someplace weird. I suggest adding an TM:Anchor to the section you want to link to. That aside, that article is indeed very helpful; thank you for adding the link. Toadspike [Talk] 12:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Toadspike, it wasn't, I just had it directed to the wrong section. It should be good now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• "the most prestigious annual event" followed by "second only to the Olympics" feels odd, even though it is technically correct. I would stick the word "quadrennial" before "Olympics" to make the distinction clear. Or you could reword the sentence to remove "annual", but that might only add to the confusion.

•  Done Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• "for junior-level" sounds incomplete on its own. Suggest rewording to: "The corresponding competitions for senior and junior-level synchronized skating are the World Synchronized Skating Championships and the World Junior Synchronized Skating Championships." You could also drop "senior and junior-level" entirely, given that the name says which is which.

•  Done Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Unless I'm mistaken, "the most World championships" --> "the most World Championships"

• I changed it to “World Championship titles”. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure you need to mention "four while partnered with Alexei Ulanov and another six with Alexander Zaitsev" in the lead, since Ulanov is only given a footnote in the body. If you want to keep it, I would reword it as "the pair with the most titles is Rodnina and Alexander Zaitsev (with six)" or similar.

• I believe it is worded better now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

All the changes made to the lead look good, thank you. Toadspike [Talk] 12:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

History

• Internationale Eislauf-Vereingung should be placed in a langr template and marked as German (MOS:FOREIGN). Unless it was commonly used in English, but when I checked the cited source (8) I couldn't find that name at all. I'm guessing this is from source 9?
• "The first championship [...] was held in Saint Petersburg, Russia, in 1896" – the cited source (8) says that they were preceded by some European Championships, jointly with speed skating. Is this worth mentioning? If not, I would reword "The first championship" to "The first World Figure Skating Championships" to be very clear, since the ISU apparently did host championships before then. If you don't like the capitalized proper name, "The first world championships in figure skating" (lowercase, generic) also works.
• "called the ISU Championships rather than the World Championships" – add a comma before "rather"
• Also, if they were retroactively "upgraded" to World status, perhaps change "were known as" to "were known at the time as". Not required, though, since it's a minor technicality.
• Same sentence, replace ", and" with ";". The comma is incorrect but removing it would make the sentence too long and confusing, so a semicolon is a good solution.
• "all three competitions" – for those of us lacking in short-term memory, it might be helpful to list them in parentheses afterwards, but not required.
• For better flow and clarity, suggest: "Every four years, the Winter Olympics take place roughly a month before the World Championships, causing a number of Olympic medalists to miss the World Championships." (second-to-last P of the section)
• What does "turning professional" mean and why would it prevent them from competing at the World Championships?

• All of these items should now be addressed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks great now! Toadspike [Talk] 12:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Records

• The table in the Records section was very confusing to me. I spent a good while wondering how Henie, who competed in the 20s and 30s, could sweep a competition in 2021. (It looks like the people on the left are somehow connected to the sweeps on the right). Do you think it'd be a good idea to split the "Most championship titles" and "Medal sweeps" into two separate tables?

• I ditched it. That table was a carryover from a sister article and I’ve never liked the inclusion of the medal sweeps. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• I would also clarify the two separate entries for the Pairs with footnotes: the first is the pair with the most titles, the second is the individual with most titles. After reading the lead, it took me a while to figure out why Rodnina is listed twice.

• There is a footnote present. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I meant adding another footnote, one for each row. However, on re-reading it now, it seems clear enough as-is, especially without the confusing Sweeps column. Toadspike [Talk] 12:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Toadspike, thank you for your feedback and suggestions! Please let me know if you have any other suggestions or concerns. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Toadspike, let me know if you’ve had a chance to look over the edits I’ve made per your recommendations, and thank you! 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Qualifying

• "the minimum total element scores, which is determined" – since "scores" are plural, shouldn't it say "are determined"? I think a better solution might be to remove "which is" altogether and just begin with "determined" after the comma.
• "the accumulation of points" – what points? Is 1 point = 1 eligible competitor? This part is a little confusing to me. I don't mind the long quote, but (based on how excellent your other explanations have been) I think you could explain it better.
• "skaters younger than 15 who had already competed in senior-level events" – does this mean "international events"? If the list of such events is short enough (like two or three), could you list them all here? I'm assuming countries cannot just set up a "senior-level event" with no age limit today and then send tiny children to the World Championships.

The rest of this section looks good, as do all the medal tables, which I've skimmed over. I don't know how active I'll be over the next few days, and I trust you to address the three things I've listed, so I will preemptively leave my support for this FL nomination. Toadspike [Talk] 12:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they are international events, and there are dozens and dozens of them (way too many to list; many don't even have Wikipedia articles), but they are all sanctioned by and overseen by the ISU, so countries can't monkey around to try and skirt the rules. (They find other ways to do that; see the controversy with the Chinese gymnastics team a few years back...)

I will address these issues and try to find some way to make the second issue a little clearer. Honestly, the point system is not even clear for diehard skating fans. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Toadspike Just verifying that I did address those issues. Thank you for your input and suggestions! Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bgsu98 The first and third points look good now. I think you may have misunderstood my confusion on the second one: The long quote from the ISU's "Special Regulations & Technical Rules", which you have now rephrased/summarized, is not the issue. The issue is that the article doesn't say what the points are used for – looking at the "Special Regulations & Technical Rules", I'm referring to the part under Rule 378, 3.b), where there is a table answering my question. I also didn't understand that more points is worse, not better. Now that I've understood it I suggest rephrasing the last two sentences of that paragraph as:

ISU member nations are allowed to enter at least one competitor in each discipline. A points system allows member nations to enter additional competitors, up to a total of three in a discipline, based on a the nation's performance in that discipline at the previous World Championships.

If you want to, you can also add something like "Nations with better placements in a discipline at the previous World Championships are allowed to enter more competitors in that discipline."

I think that covers all the important bits; I can't figure out a way to explain only some of the details of the points system without making it really confusing, and explaining all of the details is undue, so this is the best I've got. If you can improve this, please do. Toadspike [Talk] 13:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Toadspike, I inserted your recommended sentences (with slight modifications). You can take a look at the previous version of this article here with the "explanation" it provided. I'm a pretty diehard skating fan, and even I was like, What the hell? Nobody wants to see how the sausage is made, and it's about the same with figure skating point allocations. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! The previous version has made my eyes glaze over...they somehow took the ISU rules and made them even more incomprehensible. Toadspike [Talk] 14:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ref 9 – Add the url-access parameter to note that this story is accessed in full with a subscription by adding |url-access=subscription

• Does it, because I don't have a subscription and I'm able to read the full article?

• Ref 10 – Link Associated Press
• Ref 10 – Add |via=[[Google News Archive]] to note that the source is on Google News Archive
• Ref 11 – Link NBC Sports
• Ref 13 – Set the work to ESPN and the agency to Associated Press
• Ref 3 – Link to Tampere
• Ref 5 – Link to University of Illinois Press

Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• User:Hey man im josh, these should all be fixed, including the Los Angeles Times one which didn't require a subscription for me to access. Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Support. It may be a limited amount of views of articles before access is blocked for LA Times. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) [2].

---

List of performances by Josette Simon

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I am nominating this as a featured list because I think it would be a nice complement to the main Josette Simon article. I've had a pretty thorough look through various lists of performances and the ones I couldn't get a good source for are listed on the Talk Page. I am open to all improvement suggestions, and, indeed, for any better suggestions for the title of the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "cast by Kyle as Rosaline, in Love's Labour's Lost" - don't think that comma is needed
• Titles that start with "A" or "The" should sort based on the next word in the title
• Roles that have a surname should sort based on the surname

• Fixed the three points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• MIdsomer Murders shows the channel (ITV) for one row but not the other

• It airs in the UK some time after the US, and perhaps hasn't been broadcast in the UK yet. I'm looking into this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• I added Acorn TV, where it seems to have been available first. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Zapped can't have aired on U&Dave in 2018 as it wasn't called that until 2024

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• You have both "BBC1" and "BBC One" in the table

• BBC1 and BBC2 became BBC One and BBC Two in 1997. Do I need to change the pre-1997 entries? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Some of the RSC productions have no director listed - are they not known?

• I'll have another look around sources. The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust website seems to have the same info as Michael Mullin's Theatre at Stratford-Upon-Avon: First Supplement: A Catalogue-Index to Productions of the Royal Shakespeare Company 1979-1973 which sounds like it ought to be definitive. Some of the ones with no director listed were single performances or very short runs and some of them were concert performances rather than plays. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• I managed to fill in one of the blanks, and added "unknown" elsewhere. Also added some clippings which are arguably redundant but do give some idea of what those performances were about. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• "BBC Radio 4, including two episodes in 2006)" - there's a stray bracket at the end

• Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've replied inline. Please let me know about anything else that is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Source Review by History6042

• Sources are reliable enough.
• Nothing is unsourced.
• Dates in references all use DMY format.
• Some sources still need to be archived.
• I spotchecked 15 sources and they were all fine. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TheDoctorWho

• The short description could be dialed in just a tad more, perhaps something like "English actress filmography" or "Filmography of English actress"

• Amended. (See Talk:Josette_Simon#Question.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Josette Simon OBE" generates a MOS:BLUESEA

• Looks like potnominals are the subject of ongoing discussion. I've removed OBE per my reading of the current MOS:POSTNOM. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Wikilink breakthrough role in the lead

• Done. I'll bear that in mind for other articles. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Ref" ---> "Ref(s)" in the table headers since many have more than one reference

• Hmm, seems to be a feature of the template I used. The FAQ at Template:Reference column heading has "Communicating to the reader that the column contains references is essential; letting them know whether to expect one or multiple references per line is not." I can change this if you think it's required. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Several of the episode lists are linked in the notes section, but not all. For example, Casualty doesn't link to any of the Lists of Casualty episodes articles; this should be consistent in one format or the other.

• I split the row with two series into two rows. I also saw the Poirot link was inconsistent. I think it's OK now but let me know if naything else needs fixing. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• The third listing for Silent Witness has an extra quote in front of the episode title
• Ref 159 links to a Golden Girls cast listing instead of The Party
• Ref 171 links to a The Tin Can People cast listing instead of Great Peace

• Fixed those three issues. 21:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that's all I have! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Many thanks, TheDoctorWho. Please let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I'm used to people using {{abbr}} for that rather than the template you linked. That said, since the "(s)" is in the actual tooltip, I'm satisfied with it. Happy to support, nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC) [3].

---

List of mormoopids

Nominator(s): PresN 19:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Mammal list #54 in our perpetual series and bat list #13: Mormoopidae, or the ghost-faced and mustached bats. This is the last little list of little bats- after this, it's just the giant capstone list. Eleven bats, all 2-3 inches long, eating bugs around the tropics of the Americas. They do have the funnest family name to say, though- try it out yourself! As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support - I couldn't find anything. Awesome work once again PresN! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment by MikeVitale

• Literally the only thing I could find is that, after having read this article, I still don't know how to pronounce "mormoopids" properly. I can come up with 5 different ways to say it, but would perhaps including an IPA transcription help? --MikeVitale 16:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  @MikeVitale: I don't actually know the correct latin way myself; I just like to say mor-moop-ids. --PresN 18:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  OED says it's "mor-moh-OP-id" or "mor-moh-AH-puhd" depending on if you're British or USian. (No word on what the pronunciation is if you speak Canadian English. :) ) https://www.oed.com/dictionary/mormoopid_n?tl=true. --MikeVitale 19:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  @MikeVitale: Added an IPA template. --PresN 22:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  ... :parrot-dad-emoji: Support. --MikeVitale 00:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• "The family Mormoopidae consists of eleven species in two genera: Mormoops and Pteronotus." needs an inline citation.

• It's a WP:CALC summary of the below tables

• Same with "No mormoopids have population estimates, though the Paraguana moustached bat is categorized as an endangered species."

• It's a WP:CALC summary of the below tables

• Where are the sources for the second and third columns?

• The IUCN ref for the species ("Ranges are based on the IUCN Red List for that species unless otherwise noted."), though it doesn't actually say that the author citations are too, does it? Now added to that sentence.

• If the sources cover everything in the row they should be moved to their own column.

• After 54 lists, it seems that most people are fine with it where it is given the "Conventions" bit.

• I can't fully tell by looking at the source code, but do the tables have captions?

• Yep, the e.g. "Genus Mormoops – Leach, 1821 – two species" is the caption element

• Same for row and column scopes and alt text for images.

• Yep, the template(s) set the scopes and alt text

• Are more detailed dates than just the year available for sources?

• There are not, though journal citations are typically just the year anyway.

• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• @History6042: Responded inline, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 13:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

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

Looks good! Support Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Minnesota Golden Gophers women's ice hockey seasons

Nominator(s): MikeVitale 03:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the Golden Gophers women's ice hockey team is very notable within the realm of women's college ice hockey in the United States, and I believe that their list of seasons meets FLC criteria. --MikeVitale 03:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Minnesota Golden Gophers women's ice hockey team plays for the University of Minnesota at the Twin Cities campus in Minneapolis." - I think "The Minnesota Golden Gophers women's ice hockey team represents the University of Minnesota and plays at the Twin Cities campus in Minneapolis." would work better

• Done

• "in their third season of play[4], " - ref should be after punctuation, not before

• Done

• "Brad Frost took over as the Gophers coach" => "Brad Frost took over as the Gophers' coach"

• Done

• "Laura Halldorson was the first head coach for the Minnesota Golden Gophers women's ice hockey team" - needs a full stop

• Done

• "Brad Frost is the current head coach of the Minnesota Golden Gophers women's ice hockey team" - also needs a full stop

• Done

• "Season Result" should not have a capital R

• Done

• "Lost Semifinals vs. " - "semifinals" isn't a proper noun so there is no reason for a capital. Also, where I live, it's written as "semi-finals", but maybe without a hyphen is valid in US English......?

• Lower-case done, but I left it as an un-hyphenated word, as its normal to do so here.

• Same (both comments) for "Quarterfinals"

• Same comments as above

• "First Round" also doesn't need capitals

• Done

• What is "Frozen Four"? Is there an appropriate link?

• Added link (after creating appropriate information on linked page)

• Other university names should probably be linked

• Done -- Note that I elected to add wikilinks for all opponents, once per row. So if Minnesota played (for example) Wisconsin in both the WCHA tournament as well as the NCAA tournament, they should only be linked in the WCHA tournament (since that column is first.)
• This might lead to a follow-up comment of overlinking, because Wisconsin is linked in many rows. If ya think I'm in violation of MOS:OVERLINK, then I'll fix it. But that's the choice I made when responding to your comments.

• "OT" and"2OT" abbreviations are unexplained

• Added to Key as well as Added {{abbr}} inline

• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, and taking the time to review the FLC, @ChrisTheDude. Please let me know if you find anything else! --MikeVitale 21:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

History6042's review

• References should be moved to their own column in the table if they source everything in the row.

• Done

• Nothing is unsourced.
• Sources consistently use MDY.
• All sources need archive links.

• I ran IABot on the page; it archived one link.

• There seems to be excessive reliance on primary sources as most sources are from the team's website.

• Only for factual information like records. I intentionally found non-primary sources for everything in the lede section. Unfortunately, this type of information is notoriously hard to find for women's sports, especially for 25+ years ago.

• What is Frozen Four, if it is the semi-finals please explain that in the article.

• Please see response above to ChrisTheDude, who had a similar comment.

• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the page, @History6042. I look forward to your future comments and suggestions. --MikeVitale 22:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

If it is all done than I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment

• Color/symbol: Season results of 2015–16 does have the " † " symbol in the box.

• Done

• I am reading the article from desktop view, and the images do not fit on the right side of the table and looks odd as the two images seem hanging on right side above the box, then starts the table. If you add " |140px " in the template, it perfectly fits on the right side. And put the image template after the As of March 27, 2025.

• Done

Below are suggestions (you may or may not follow) which may give some value to the article and make the article more interesting:

• "See Also" section is for readers not for research purpose, better keep it before Reference section, reader mostly do not go for reference(navigate from the citation number) or below reference.

• Done

• For research purpose, you may provide few important "External Links" below Reference section.(e.g. link of stats or history of Minnesota Golden Gophers/WCHA/AWCHA, bio/career of Laura & Brad, or link of books/magazine if available under "Further Reading" section, any link which you think can be valuable for future purpose)

• If I come across some things to put in such a section, I will definitely add them.

• Since, I understand the value of stats, I would suggest for archived links, can be done with available tools or manually.

I think that's all from me. Drat8sub (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and ideas. Per above, most have been implemented. Let me know if you come up with other improvements. --MikeVitale 01:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- I think that's it, article is well structured, mos checked, follows all criteria, well written, comprehensive, well sourced and stable.

Drat8sub (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TheDoctorWho

• This would benefit from a short description per WP:SDLIST (which overrides that of SDNONE) just because not every reader will know who the "Minnesota Golden Gophers" are (could be professional, college, recreational, intermural). I'd suggest something like "American university ice hockey seasons"

• Done. It's now "Seasons of American women's collegiate hockey team"

• Seems like "List of seasons" or even something simple like "Seasons" would be a more descriptive section header than "Year by year"

• Done.

• What's up with the empty column header at the top of the main table?

• Done. It wasn't actually an empty column header, but I could definitely see where it appeared that way. I changed the column headers to make it more clear.

• The 10 empty cells at the top of the table can be filled with {{N/A}}

• Done.

• The documentation for {{ref label}}/{{note label}} says that this isn't the currently preferred style because it doesn't work with reference tooltips. Can I suggest converting to {{efn}}/{{notelist}} (or something similar that does) to help aid readers?

• Done.

• No link to this article exists in {{Western Collegiate Hockey Association women's navbox}} or {{University of Minnesota campus}}, they should either be removed or one should be added per WP:BIDI

• Removed.

I think that's all I have. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and comments. Please let me know if you find anything else I can improve in the article. --MikeVitale 00:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support, nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review by Bgsu98

I will do a proper source review when I get home this afternoon, but I noticed right away that most of the sources are not archived, so that will need to be done before the article can be promoted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

History6042 (I'm intentionally not tagging them) mentioned the same thing up above. As I said in response, I ran the IABot, and it found archives for one link.

What action can I take that will create archives for the rest of the source links? --MikeVitale 18:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I hate to break the bad news to you, but you will have to do it manually. Yes, it sucks, but once you get the hang of it, it should go quickly. Please let me know if you have any questions about the process. Meanwhile, I will proceed with the rest of the source review momentarily. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'm currently in the process of adding the archive-url links, etc. Might finish this evening, might not be done until tomorrow. I'll mention here when I'm done. --MikeVitale 23:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

All done. The last archive-url is from before the most recent season started, so the archive-url shows a 0-0 record. All URLs are still live. --MikeVitale 01:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• If one of those links is from a season in progress (or otherwise not over), you might choose to remove the archive now and then add it once the season is ended. I did that at World Figure Skating Championships so as to not archive a link that didn't show the results from the 2025 competition. But that's up to you. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Source Review:

• All sources need to be archived.

• Done

• It seems to me that having both the website and publisher fields is redundant. For example, Ref. 2 includes the parameters |website=MNDaily.com |publisher=[[Minnesota Daily]] when |website=[[Minnesota Daily|MNDaily.com]] should suffice. Pinging PresN or Hey man im josh for clarification.

• Awaiting clarification; will act upon it then.

• So, to be very clear: there are no rules here. The only rule for citations is that you should have a consistent style, so the result is dozens of styles and if this one is internally consistent then it's fine. That said, my personal feeling is: the purpose of the website/work parameter is to give the name of the work, not the url. So, I wouldn't do "work=TwinCities.com, publisher=St. Paul Pioneer Press", I'd do "work=St. Paul Pioneer Press, publisher=MediaNews Group", or maybe leave off publisher altogether. Additionally, not going to track down the MOS rule or whatever, but there is guidance that you shouldn't bother putting in the publisher if the name of the publisher is nearly identical to the work; so "work=New York Times, publisher=New York Times Media" is redundant and should be skipped. But ultimately the way you have it is okay. --PresN 02:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification. The style is consistent, so it's good. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Other than the question I just raised above, sources appear to be properly formatted with a consistent date format.
• I spot-checked the following sources chosen at random:

1. No. 3 – Checks out.
2. No. 8 – Checks out.
3. No. 11 – Checks out.
4. No. 21 – Checks out.

I will await clarification about the website/publisher issue, but in the meantime, please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, @User:Bgsu98. As mentioned, I'm awaiting clarification on the website/publisher thing. Let me know if you find anything else. --MikeVitale 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Everything looks good and the source review checks out. I'm happy to support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC) [5].

---

List of governors of Rivers State

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This is the list of governors of Nigeria's state of Rivers from when the region was called Eastern then splitted into Rivers and two other states, this is focusing on the former. I have significantly worked on this and it now meets the criteria for FL. Feedbacks would be very much appreciated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

IntentionallyDense

• Countries (such as nigeria) don't need wikilinks
• It was originally part of the Eastern Region would specify Rivers State here just because the previous sentence mentions quite a few different places
  • Fixed.
• A wikilink, footnote, or brief explanation of "regional system" would be nice
  • Explained.
• military leader Yakubu Gowon restructured Nigeria assuming you meant that he reorganized the way things are governed and not literally recontructed the whole country, is there a way you could word this differently?
  • Reworded.
• wikilink Vice Admiral
  • Wikilinked.
• I'm not super familiar with table formatting but it may be helpful to add a legend for the colours
  • Legends aren't needed for this, see this.

That's all for now. Ping when done! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 18:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense Thank you, I replied. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Support. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "The newly created Rivers State" => "The newly-created Rivers State"
  • Fixed.
• Party names (eg NPN) are not written in full anywhere
  • The full names appeared originally, so I just added their initialism in brackets now.
• " due to graft allegations" - what are "graft allegations"? I personally have no idea what this term means. Is there a link?
  • I wikilinked graft to Graft (politics).
• "Suspended by President Bola Tinubu since 18 March 2025 for six months." - this is not a sentence so it should not have a full stop
  • Done.
• That's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Thank you, I replied. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Source review by Reaper Eternal (talk)

Per the author's request, I am reviewing this article. Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with Nigeria, so I do have a few questions regarding the reliability of some of the sources.

• [6] What makes Muhammad Jameel Yusha'u a reliable source? (He may be reliable, but I'm not familiar with him or the quality of his book.)
• [10] What makes Solomon Ogwutum a reliable source? (Same as above.)
• [13] What makes Amayanabo Opubo Daminabo a reliable source? (Same as above.)
  • After doing some digging, I was able to find ResearchGate profiles for a couple of these authors, which at least implies they are academic.
• [25] Is there a better source for Ada George's birth date than "Welcome to Ada George"?
  • I can't find anything better either, and this fact doesn't appear to be contentious. We'll AGF here.
• [33] Is Prime 9ja Online a reliable source? Do they have appropriate reviewers and fact-checkers to ensure accuracy?
  • We can AGF on this one per their fact-checking policy for now, absent any evidence of misinformation.

One thing I am concerned about is the heavy reliance on Nigerian (The Tide) or Chinese (This Day) state-sponsored newspapers for much of the article's content. While many may indeed be truthful, these state-sponsored media often have significant biases. Are there any other neutral third-party sources that you could use to support the claims made in this article? Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal Thanks for looking. I do not think we need to be familiar with authors of works before they're reliable or not. The sources you mentioned above (apart from Welcome to Ada George) all tick the boxes of what a reliable source should be for use on English Wikipedia (as described at WP:RS) hence, why I used them. I see a fact-checking policy for Prime 9ja Online here, I also see this.

For Welcome to Ada George, I do not think if Ada George says he was born in so so year, I would doubt him, hence why I used that. The Tide and This Day are used because I couldn't rely on the .wordpress or free webhosts I saw, I mean, I would rather rely on them than a free webhost. Also, in this context, they are indeed state-sponsored media but are not unreliable, at least for this list. They (The Tide, This Day and Prime 9ja Online) are all gen-rel sources per WP:NGRS.

Please, take a look at other current FLs I put up like List of governors of Edo State List of governors of Delta State for context. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal Hi, do you have time to revisit this? thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about the very high usage of state-sponsored media, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal The reason I wasn’t really worked out while compiling them was that the facts they support aren’t contentious in themselves, such that they are actually available in their various standalone articles already. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal, I saw this while scrolling through. None of the newspapers you mentioned are state-sponsored. Why do you think they’re state-sponsored? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Reaper Eternal, your response would be very much appreciated, please. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Paragraph #1 of The Tide's about us page.

This Day. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Nudging Vanderwaalforces. Do you think maybe getting a 3rd opinion from either WP:RSN or WP:3O would help us decide whether this is an issue? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal The reason I mentioned related FLs above is so that you get a grasp that this is not an issue at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Reaper Eternal, @Vanderwaalforces asked me for a sanity check on this one and I'm not really sure what the concern would be even if these were state-run media and not just state-funded. The only place that looks to me like it might have something contentious is the section beginning However, President Bola Tinubu, in March 2025, through to the end of that paragraph. One of those sources is Channels TV, which going by our article on them would be a good source for this info: The Channel's mission is to act as a watchdog on governmental policies and activities.. The other is The Punch, and I don't see any reason to question that source either. -- asilvering (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. I wanted another pair of eyes on this just to verify that it was OK. Usually, I'm more into the technical articles on meteorology, biology, mathematics, and engineering. Happy to support. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC) [6].

---

List of chiropterans

Nominator(s): PresN 01:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright, mammal list #55 in our perpetual series and bat list #14: Chiropterans, or... bats! That's right, we're finally done with the flying mammals, and close it off with our capstone list for the order. This follows the pattern of our previous order capstone lists (carnivorans, artiodactyls, lagomorphs, diprotodonts, primates, eulipotyphlans) as a list of the genera in the order, e.g. one level up from all of our bat species lists. This reduces the hefty ~1300 species into a more manageable 226 rows of the second biggest mammal order, containing almost a quarter of all mammals. Unfortunately, we're still left with the largest article on Wikipedia; unlike the rest of the top 10, which are 95% pointless details, 5% references, this list is 2/3 references by volume, because I need an IUCN reference per species for the habitat/range. Not much to do there without linking to search pages instead of the species pages. In any case, this is all the bats! Some of them are big, most of them are small; some of them are cute, some of them are... well, still cute, but with horrifying little insect-munching needle teeth. But ultimately, legions of readers asking "how many types of bats are there" now get a nice list to look at. As always, the list reflects the scientific consensus as well as the results of prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• First few images need alt text.

• Which images? The set of six at the top has them, as does the map, and when I inspect the html the result has it despite the imagemap.

• The rest need more detailed alts than "brown bat".

• Alt text describes what the image is, along with nearby information, not what it looks like; the images + context for e.g. the first bat image is "brown bat, Balantiopteryx plicata, "Gray sac-winged bat"). I am not aware of any guideline for alt text that would require a more detailed description of what the bats look like, nor do I think it is useful to readers to know that the bat is hanging on a wall, looking at the viewer. Did you have something specific that you think should be added to the images?

• I know they will be a pain to add but I think all sources need to be archived.

• As journal citations, not web citations, it's not expected for there to be archive urls (and I haven't for the past 54 lists). The web citations have archives.

• Why do some have maps for locations and some have words? Could more maps be made?

• I just use the maps that are available, so if there isn't one for the genus then the list doesn't have one; people generally have not made as many maps for genera as opposed to species, so most have to make do with just a text description. Wikipedia-wide needs more maps, but it's a lengthy process to do one and this list would need 100+.

• "Emballonuridae comprises 54 extant species, divided into 14 genera. These genera are grouped into two subfamilies: Emballonurinae, containing sheath-tailed, sac-winged, ghost, and other bat species, and Taphozoinae, containing pouched and tomb bats." needs an inline citation.

• Done, at the end of the summary section

• The whole paragraph of classification needs inline citations.

• Done, at the end of the summary section

• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• @History6042: Replied inline/done, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  Seems good, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

• Family is linked twice in the lead
• When only one is listed habitats should be singular
• Why are some dropdown menus auto open while some are auto closed?

Ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 23:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, added to template and fixed, and they're auto closed when there's more than seven species, which is about the point that it starts stretching the row to fit. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Support Olliefant (she/her) 12:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Reywas92

Wow, another amazing page!

• I wouldn't say "colloquially bats" – that's the name used by anyone not discussing scientific taxonomy not merely "colloquial" so reword for a lay reader.
• Eliminate "currently", content is already implied to be accurate to now.
• "classified mammal species" – any species is implied to be classified
• "but also including"
• "families Furipteridae, Mormoopidae, Mystacinidae, Myzopodidae, Noctilionidae, Phyllostomidae, and Thyropteridae and containing the mustached, sucker-footed, bulldog, leaf-nosed, vampire, long-tongued, big-eared, broad-nosed, and disk-winged bats" and the rest of the paragraph is hard to follow with all the common and scientific names. Perhaps put the family names into parentheses after each common name. This paragraph also says "containing" a lot, so changes could make it more concise or clearer. Reywas92^Talk 03:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Done all of these. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien

General notes:

• Is there any source for the number of endangered species anywhere in the body of the list?

• There is not, it's a summary of the child lists (where it is present), so I'm going to remove that part of the sentence for now.

• Just for my own understanding, I'm assuming the numbers of extinct species are supported by adding up the ones that are individually listed as "extinct" in their respective entries per WP:CALC?

• Yes

• Does Mammal Species of the World (2005) support the names and years throughout the list (e.g. Gervais, 1856).

• It does, as does the IUCN cites for each species

• I understand that this might be standard for this sort of list and that there are practical considerations, but don't the collapsed lists of species fall afoul of MOS:COLLAPSE?

• People have been fine with it as it's not text content, just lists of species names, and I've verified that it shows up correctly if you have javascript off or "do not collapse" features turned on and on mobile.

• It's confusing that "unknown" is listed alongside known habitats. I'm guessing that one or more specific species within the family are unknown here? If that's what's happening, it should be made clear in some way.

• Change it to be "(some species unknown)" and always at the end of the list of habitats

None of these are things that I'd count against the article, but I feel they're also worth noting:

• "the order as a whole" feels informal to me.

• Changed to just "the order"

• "capable of true and sustained flight" – Would this still be correct if we omitted "true" and just said "sustained flight"? I want to say that gliding mammals would still be excluded by sustained.

• I think so, changed

• "both with no tail" – This seems like a minor detail; the size of the animal is what matters, not what body parts contribute to it.

• I'm fine with dropping the ", both with no tail" bit, it does read oddly here. The reason it's there is that sizes are typically (well, always in these lists) given as e.g. "10 cm long plus a 3 cm tail", because for e.g. a cat "head/body + tail" as two measurements gives more information than just "total length if the tail was stretched out" and matches better what readers think of as "size". In this case, both the largest and smallest bats don't have tails, but the sizes given throughout the tables follow the HB + T pattern so the lead was doing the same.

• The list of families in the lead is rather cluttered. This is normally something I'd suggest should be bulleted, and I'm wondering if it should be removed since the bulleted version immediately follows this.

• Yeah, I rearranged it for the above reviewer, but it's still a lot of latin names in a big paragraph. I've reworked it again to just use the common names and link to the families; is that better?

I love that this exists. Certainly worthy to hold the title of largest article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Thanks, and thanks for the review! Responded inline. --PresN 14:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks good! The brief list of species in the lead is especially satisfying to read now. Support. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Source review: Passed
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 20 sources match what they are being cited for

Looks good! Support Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC) [7].

---

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm back with another Doctor Who-related episode list. This one for The Sarah Jane Adventures, a spin-off series featuring a former companion of the Doctor and targeted towards children. This entire lead was practically unsourced, and those in the remainder of the list were poor. I've spent the last 48 hours cleaning everything up and bringing it to FL standards which has lead me here. Thanks in advance for any review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Drive by comment

• BBC stands for British Broadcasting Corporation, not Broadcast
• Back to do the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Fixed the DBC, thanks. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Olifant

• “ former time-travelling companion of The Doctor portrayed by Elisabeth Sladen.” Wording seems to imply that Sladen portrayed the Doctor
• Since “comic relief” is a term may be worth explaining what the “Comic Relief” charity is
• Mention that Sarah Jane originated in the 70s
• Mention the previous attempt to make a Sarah Jane spin off with K9 and Company
• EFNs B C and D have two periods at the end
• Under see also why is only the Doctor Who 2005- present list included and not the 1969-1989 one? If either were to be included I would have the latter as Sarah Jane originated in those episodes

That’s what I found pi n me when done Olliefant (she/her) 14:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• @OlifanofmrTennant: Thank you for the review. I originally only included the '05-pres. list since it's considered a spinoff of the revived series, but since we're not hurting or space I added the other one. Everything else has been addressed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Support Olliefant (she/her) 17:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "returned to the programme several times prior to the spin-off, then-most recently in the 2006 episode "School Reunion"" - aside from reading a little oddly, I don't think "then-most recently" works here, as at this point you have not stated that SJA started in 2007. Is there another way to word this? Maybe just note that it was her first appearance in NuWho....?
• "A full fifth and sixth series were commissioned" - I don't think "a full" works here, as you are referring to two different series. Maybe "The fifth and sixth series were commissioned"
• "however, Sladen died after only six of the intended twelve episodes had been recorded." - specify that this is 6 of 12 of the sixth series, as the first half of the sentence refers to two different series
• In footnote s, the word "special" is mis-spelt as "pecial".
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Medxvo

• "companion of The Doctor" - ".... the Doctor"?
• "neighbour Maria Jackson and friend Clyde Langer" - I believe a comma can be added after "Jackson" for consistency with other similar incidents
• "The first serial Revenge of the Slitheen premiered" - "The first serial, Revenge of the Slitheen, premiered"?

I think that's all, great work! Medxvo (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Medxvo: fixed all three, thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Support. Medxvo (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

History6042

The image at the top should have a caption.

• It should also have alt text.
• Tables need captions.
• They should also have row and column scopes.
• Is it possible to not have the white squares around table references?
• When rows are the same they can be merged. An example being Written by, Phil Ford, Series 2.
• In the graph, color shouldn't purely be used to differentiate per WP:COLOR.
• All sources should be archived.
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@History6042: This review perplexes me a little, because nearly everything was done prior to this review. For example, the image already has alt text, and the tables already have captions. The white squares around the references are for accessibility reasons where needed, because the color of the reference is too similar to the color of the table. Cells cannot be merged across multiple instances of {{Episode list}}, but even if they could I feel that it would be a time that it's not useful. The graph below the table handles differentiation by providing the exact same information in a separate format, without the need to visualize color. All that said, I have, however, just added archives to the remaining sources, where possible. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about the image, I was checking in visual editor and the image wouldn't let me click on it to see alt text. Otherwise, I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC) [8].

---

List of accolades received by Little Women (2019 film)

Nominator(s): Medxvo (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Little Women is a 2019 coming-of-age period drama film written and directed by Greta Gerwig, and is the seventh film adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's 1868 novel. It was met with commercial success and critical acclaim, garnering nine Critics' Choice nominations, six Oscar nominations, five BAFTA nominations, and two Golden Globe nominations.

I've revamped the list to ensure that it has a consistent format with the recently promoted accolades lists and added several notable accolades that were missing. I believe it is now complete and ready for an FLC. Medxvo (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• All the notes from d onwards are not sentences so should not have full stops
• That's literally all I've got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot ChrisTheDude, I believe I've fixed your concern! Medxvo (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Dxneo

• On ref33, is the red link necessary when you have linked an alt language page?
  • I believe I've fixed that. Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• I like how you listed the actual dates instead of years, nice one!
• The note states that the runner-ups are considered winners, any reason why they are in blue instead of green?
  • It's better to avoid confusion with actual wins and number-one placements, so the {{runner-up}} template is used. Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• I think "In 2020, At the 92nd Academy Awards…" instead of "At the 92nd Academy Awards…" would make a lot of sense, thoughts?
  • I think it wouldn't be consistent with the other award shows (BAFTAs, Golden Globes, Critics' Choice), where we didn't mention the year of the ceremony. If I include the year for the Academy Awards, I would also have to include it for the others (also 2020), which would be a bit repetitive... What do you think? Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Why is the prose not in chronological order? I mean, the 92nd Academy Awards was in 2020, but "The American Film Institute selected Little Women as one of the top-ten films of 2019. Time deemed it one of the 100 best movies of the 2010s".
  • It's just so we can mention the award ceremonies first and then the placements of organizations and publications. I think it makes sense this way but let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

That's all I can spot in the meantime. dxneo (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Dxneo, I appreciate the comments! I mainly based the format off of the Oppenheimer and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse accolades lists (recently promoted lists), if you're interested to know where some stylistic choices came from. Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments and image review from TheDoctorWho

Comments

• Needs a short description per WP:SDLIST
  • Hope I did this correctly, couldn't find similar accolades shortdescs to use as examples. Medxvo (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• coming-of-age period drama film is a MOS:BLUESEA issue
  • The main genre of the film and the novel is coming-of-age, so I've removed period drama. Medxvo (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• No link to this article exists in {{Little Women}}, the template should either be removed or a link added per WP:BIDI
  • Removed. Medxvo (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• The first image in the Infobox was uploaded to commons directly under a CC-By license
• The other two images were originally uploaded to Flickr, where they were (at one time) there under a CC-By license
• All images have captions and alt text

Image review passes just my few initial comments above that need addressing. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you TheDoctorWho for the comments! All should be done, please let me know if anything needs further adjustments. Medxvo (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

"is a 2019 coming-of-age and period drama film written" would also work if you wanted to include both. Either way, everything looks good. Nice work, support! TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Source review by Bgsu98

Before I start the source review, a quick comment about the table. I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the dark blue shading. The other colors signify a specific quality that is also reflected in the text (ie. lime green = won, pink = nominated, etc.), but that dark blue cells have several different contents. I would simply remove that color altogether.

• The dark blue color is generated from the draw template, which is mainly used for 2+ placements (i.e. multiple winners); the runner-up template is used for 2nd placements and so on. Most of the recently promoted accolades lists follow this format to differentiate between wins, 2nd placements, and +2 placements. I just wanted to be consistent, but please let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think it's unnecessary, because the dark blue doesn't really communicate anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @Bgsu98: Yes, I see what you mean, though I'm not sure how to improve this part... I think this might be more of a template problem. The draw template is mainly used here because there are multiple winners. Some of the recently promoted accolades lists include Green Book, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Jojo Rabbit, etc, and they all seem to follow this format... Medxvo (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

    I would replace {{sort|7|{{draw|7th Place}}}} with {{sort|7|7th Place}}. That should eliminate the blue, but still allow for sorting. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

    I'm not sure this is even a MOS:ACCESS issue, because the blue doesn't communicate anything here. I just don't know what purpose it serves. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

    • @Bgsu98: I've replaced it with the CFinalist template (with a yellow color), what do you think? I've tried removing the colors but it just didn't look nice to me at all due to the existence of the other three colors... Medxvo (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

      You just replaced one color with a different color. The fact is that any color is not going to match the contents of the cells, which are all different. I’m going to ping PresN; if he says the color is fine and not a violation, then you can reset it to whatever you want and we’ll move forward. The rest of the article is great. 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

      Thank you! For reference, I noticed that the exact placements can be added/changed using the CFinalist template; it doesn't seem like they are limited to just a third or fourth place, I think. I'm not sure if that applies to the Draw template as well, but it seems like it. Thanks for pinging PresN! Medxvo (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

      So, right now it looks like it's green=won, lightblue=runner-up, yellow=any other numbered placement, and lightred=nominated? That's fine. The deal with accessibility is just that you can't convey information only through color, but what's there right now is fine as either yellow or darker blue, since the cell text explains what (non-first or second) place the film got and both colors have good contrast with the text. --PresN 00:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Source Review:

• All sources appear to be archived.
• Publications appear to have appropriate wikilinks.
• Sources appear to be properly formatted with a consistent date format.
• I spot-checked the following sources chosen at random:

1. No. 8 – This source is used to verify the release date, but this is not mentioned in the source.
   • Quoting the source ("following its release on Wednesday"), which was December 25. Medxvo (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Okay, that makes sense. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

1. No. 13 – Checks out.
2. No. 22 – This Rotten Tomatoes citation matches the 95% approval rating stated in the article, but I don't see where it has an average rating of 8.5/10. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place?
   • No, you're correct. Rotten Tomatoes removed average ratings from their website last week or so. It is accessible through the archive link, but I removed it now. Medxvo (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
3. No. 34 – Checks out.
4. No. 49 – Checks out.
5. No. 60 – Checks out.
6. No. 81 – Checks out.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for the review, Bgsu98. I left some replies above. Medxvo (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  Since the issue with the colored cells is settled – feel free to go with either the blue or the yellow as you see fit – I am happy to support this nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC) [9].

---

List of Los Angeles Rams starting quarterbacks

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 08:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

For my first American football list that I will nominate for featured list status, I have chosen this list of Rams starting quarterbacks because the team is my favorite ever since they returned to Los Angeles after spending 20 years in St. Louis. Please note that due to the fact that the team was founded in 1936, this list resembles List of Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks rather than List of Los Angeles Chargers starting quarterbacks.

1. Unlike some other starting quarterbacks lists, this list does not include any statistics. Imho, statistics other than games, starts and QB record is superfluous to this topic and better covered in existing list (in this case, List of Los Angeles Rams team records, which is described and linked in the See also section). Yards, passes, etc are all accumulated regardless of whether a QB starts or not. Note, WP:FLCR #3(c) states that a FL should not largely duplicate material from another article.
2. There is two existing team quarterback start FLCs: List of Los Angeles Chargers starting quarterbacks (passed in Jan 2023) and (passed in April 2024). You will notice that the former utilizes a static table instead of a sortable table. I chose to follow the Packers' starting quarterback list table for a couple reasons: first, this is a list of players (specifically starting QBs), thus I feel like the reader expectation is a list of quarterbacks, not a list of seasons. Second, the sortable table provides a lot more functionality to understand who started the most games, who had the best record, etc. I believe this layout also speaks more closely to satisfying WP:FLCR #4 Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
3. Unlike the two existing team quarterback start FLCs, the Rams history dates back well before 1950. Based on Gonzo fan2007's research on the Pa, there are no reliable sources showing quarterback starts or win/loss record prior to 1950. PFR doesn't list them and even in individual player pages, it only shows total starts, not starts by position (and no QB record). Thus, for this list, the cut-off is 1950, when my source (PFR) provides reliable information showing QB starts. All other pre-1950 Rams QBs aren't included (note, {{Los Angeles Rams starting quarterback navbox}} still has these included; assuming consensus forms here on this issue and this FLC promotes, I would then utilize this list to update the template).

Nevertheless, I feel that this has the potential to become a featured list. I would greatly appreciate the feedback and addressing any concerns.

--Birdienest81talk 08:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• The regular season table has MOS:COLHEAD issues.
• Scott Covington should have a win percentage of 0, while Case Keenum's should be 0.5. Please check the rest.
• 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. ! 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. | 1987 becomes !scope=row | 1987 (on its own line). 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. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• @MPGuy2824: Done - I have read your comments, and made the necessary adjustments based on them. I should point out that I removed the entire season by season tables since as I mentioned in the intro of this nominations, this is primarily a list about starter quarterbacks rather than a season-by-season record. I am following how List of Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks was formated. However, an editor decided to restore the old format underneath the current one without knowing that the list is undergoing FLC. Anyways, hope this clarifies things.

--Birdienest81talk 10:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The refs column in both tables should be unsortable. Support on table accessibility since I trust that you'll get this done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

History6042's source review

• Sources are reliable enough.
• Nothing is unsourced.
• Dates in references all use MDY format.
• All are archived except citation 81. Please archive it.
• I spotchecked 10 sources and they were all fine.
• Note: I don't really know how the sport percentages work but I will WP:AGF because everything else I checked made sense.
• I will support once you archive the one source that doesn't have it. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  • @History6042: Done - I added that archived url manually since the archive tool doesn;t some to archive to page.

--Birdienest81talk 12:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Support, good job. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TheDoctorWho

• Add {{Use American English}}
• Add a short description per WP:SDLIST (overrides SDNONE), non-American readers aren't likely to know who the Los Angeles Rams are. Something like "American football starting quarterbacks" would probably suffice
• "in Cleveland, Ohio as" ---> "in Cleveland, Ohio, as" (MOS:GEOCOMMA)
• "to Anaheim, California in" ---> "to Anaheim, California, in" (same as above)
• Once more with "to St. Louis, Missouri in" ---> "to St. Louis, Missouri, in"
• Refs 26 and 43 both link to stats for Gus Freotte, rather than one linking to Brock Berlin

I think that's all I have! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• @TheDoctorWho: Done - I've read your comments and have made the necessary corrections based on your feedback. Thank you for your help!

--Birdienest81talk 06:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support, nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ref 16 – Yahoo Sports not linked
• Ref 19 – This would be a better reference, as it seems like you might be expecting people to click this link anyways
• Ref 20 – Pro Football Talk would be a more appropriate link in this case
• Why do you have Pro Football Reference listed as a publisher instead of a website? It's an online sports statistics database, I would think website makes the most sense here
• See also section – bypass redirect of List of starting quarterbacks in the National Football League to List of starting quarterbacks in the NFL
• See also section – remove explanations of the links, they're self descriptive in their titles

Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Hey man im josh: Done - I've have made corrections based on your comments and a few more adjustments. Thanks for your help.

--Birdienest81talk 04:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC) [10].

---

Barbara Park bibliography

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've been at FLC, but after finishing the article on Barbara Park I decided to fill out the bibliography as well. The Junie B. Jones books were childhood favorites of mine, so it's been fun to revisit them. I've annotated each entry with a brief description of the book and wrote a lead that summarizes the sequence of the publications. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by (QoH)

FYI I've moved the page to Barbara Park bibliography, for consistency with the rest of Category:Bibliographies by writer. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Would it break anything if we renamed this page and updated the name at WP:FLC? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Since no one answered you, no, and it didn't :P Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "Barbara Park, an American author, has written many children's books" - as she is deceased, this should be "Barbara Park, an American author, wrote many children's books"
• "This was followed by The Kid in the Red Jacket" - as the previous sentence covered two books, the subject should be plural
• "Junie B. starts her first day of kindergarten" - suggest linking kindergarten, as this is not a term commonly used outside the United States and readers in other countries may not know what it means
• "Junie B. is not allowed to take her dog to Pet Day at school" - Pet Day was not written with caps earlier....?
• That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  ChrisTheDude all changes made. Thanks! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• All sources need archive links and dates.
  • Are archive links required by the featured list criteria? My understanding was that they are often considered unnecessary and in-the-way if there isn't a specific reason to include them.
• All sources should have source date.
  • All sources with available dates already have the dates listed. For those that do not, there is an access date in its stead.
• I think all instances of Judie B. Jones where they are just Judie B. should be Jones because people (I am not sure about fictional characters) are normally referred to by last name or full name, almost never first name.
  • MOS:SURNAME says to use common names for fictional characters.
• Could any images be added?
  • None of the author's works are in the public domain, and her article uses a non-free image.
• Should a link to Judie B. Jones be added in the article body and the lede, not just the lede.
  • I've added {{Main}} with a link.
• "Junie B. My Valentime" has a typo.
  • As shown by the source, that is the correct spelling of the title.
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  • History6042, I've replied to your points above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

    Okay, the only thing I would respond to that is that I would perfer archive links but if they are not needed then I am happy to support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

IntentionallyDense

Source review

• Citations are consistently formatted
• Sources are appropriately reliable for the topic
• The book citations are all verified
• Spot checked some of the other refs and they all checked out

Pass for the source review! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Your references all use YYYY-MM-DD format, which really isn't standard. You should pick MDY or DMY and add the relevant template. This will also help for consistency if any references are changed in the future.
• Do you typically not just not add wikilinks? I only ask because of ref 8, the New York Times, which I would normally ask for a link for (but I understand not everyone links, which is consistently applied in this case, so no need to do this necessarily)
• Ref 8 – Add the url-access parameter, as it's behind a paywall for me
• Ref 10 – Is there a reason you're using just 2013 instead of the listed original publish date of 16 January 2013?

That's all I've got, good stuff Alien! Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh Thanks! I've made all of the suggested changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

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