Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2021

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC) [1].

---

List of plant family names with etymologies

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This will be my last Featured List nomination of plant names and meanings for a while (see my user page) ... and this one is only about a third as long as the others, since there aren't that many plant families (so, it's easier to review!) I'm expecting new, extensive sources to appear within this decade, but until they do, I'm happy with the lists in their current form. Fun fact: if you want to test your knowledge of Latin and Greek influences in English, stare at the photos in the right-hand column and see if you can match up the picture with the given name ... then you can see if you guessed right by clicking on the arrow. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Also: the rows with namesakes come from my previous four plant lists at FLC (with minor tweaks), so they should be good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• If I ever form a heavy metal band (which is highly unlikely) I will definitely name it Goat Poison :-)
• "From a Malaysian word for cassowary" - shouldn't start with a capital F
• Probably the same for "Open mouth"
• "black mouth. (The berries stain the mouth when eaten.)" => "black mouth (the berries stain the mouth when eaten)"
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • All done! Thanks again. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• @Dank – Okay, there are a lot of images to check (51, if I'm not wrong), and I tried to check each one of them. Just a few issues:
  • File:Xyris tenn.jpg – the source link is dead. Add this archived link.
  • File:Chumash basket, circa 1800.JPG – Not sure about this one, but it has "All rights reserved" on Flickr.
  • File:Elaeocarpus bancroftii fruit and nuts.jpg – I wasn't able to find the image usage rights on the source web-page.

Apart from these issues, other images are appropriately licenced. Overall, an excellent piece of work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of work, thanks. Removed all three. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Fine. Pass for image review. Would appreciate any comments at this FLC. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, changed my mind on File:Chumash basket, circa 1800.JPG. I admit that there's a lot that I don't know, but if the image tag is accurate, I can't stomach the modern trend of snapping a photograph of something in the public domain and claiming copyright to undermine the status and purpose of "public domain". We're not talking about Ansel Adams here ... we're talking about a common kind of attempt to steal copyright. Whether Wikipedians get the joke, I don't know, but I can't be a part of this. I'm restoring the image. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dank – Well, I wasn't too sure about that one either (as I already have mentioned before). For the image of basket, we need 2 licence. One of the basket (object), second for the image of that object. I see a valid licence for the object, but not for the image of the object. Any other interested reviewer can verify this. Thanks! (and please do let me know if I'm wrong) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The current license tag says "This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States". If anyone believes that tag is in error, all they need to do is remove it or replace it, and then I'll be happy to pull the image from the article. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know a lot about image reviews, but the general rule on the English Wikipedia is that if someone thinks something should change, then the burden is on them to change it. Without an edit history, there may not be any way to gauge consensus. I get that image reviews don't necessarily follow the usual rules, but there are downsides to that. Consider this a minor protest vote, but not one that I feel strongly about (and I'm too busy, and too lazy, to research it). - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Added "if the image tag is accurate" above. - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dank – Hi again. I asked User:Nikkimaria about the copyright status of the image, and it was concluded that the object is in public domain due to its age, but the image is not, due to the Flickr licensing. Thus, the image is nominated for deletion by Nikkimaria. About other images, I guess you can use File:Xyris tenn.jpg after updating the source link on commons. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks much, I've removed the bowl image here and from another list ... I'm sorry to hear it can't be used, but I trust Nikki's judgment on these things. And I was actually happy for an excuse not to use File:Xyris tenn.jpg, it's not one of my favorites. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

I don't really have any outright issues with the list, but there are two stylistic concerns I have.

• I find the mix of abbreviations and references in the Ref. column somewhat odd. Is there a reason the citations can't all be in <ref> tags?
  • I like to be consistent, and the previous 10 featured lists all have a column with symbols like "Bu", "St", etc. Two of those also mixed in ref citations, but I have no objection to separating these (all of which go to Christenhusz or Plants of the World Online) into a second reference column, if you prefer that. - Dank (push to talk)
• Is there a different symbol other than ← that could be used in the image captions? On mobile devices, the images may display above the table, making the arrows less useful.
  • I have no objection to some kind of code that detects whether the reader is using mobile and inserts a different character if so, but I don't know how to do that. The ← symbol seems ideal if the images are to the right of the table. We've had 24 supports so far in my previous lists for this format, but I have no idea what supporters thought about this ... it could have been anything from "I really like this" to "I don't like it, but I'm not familiar with the issue and don't want to make waves". I wouldn't want to just change it without asking for previous opinions. - Dank (push to talk)

Other than that, everything seems to be in order. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Very happy to hear that, I'm always interested in your feedback. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • These aren't major issues, and if the other lists use them then I suppose it's okay. I just wanted to see if you knew about these things and had any additional thoughts. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Eewilson

This list is full of good information! I have some comments and questions, which I will give in the order they come to mind. I tend to get detailed.

• I am finding the centered columns difficult to read. I think with so much info, it would be better left-aligned.
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
    • So fresh and so clean! thanks. Eewilson (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• This may be a function of images via a browser in Wikipedia, but if I decrease the width of my browser window enough, the images all precede the list and push the list down to the bottom of the section. In an app, they would all show before the table as well. I have seen this format in list articles – with a scattering of thumbnails to the right – and in normal circumstances (with wide resolution, wide browser window, on a laptop or desktop), it seems fine. What would your desired effect be under less common circumstances? I love images, but what is the function of them in this article as they are?
  • Above my pay grade; this is the way most FLC lists handle columns of images. (Your question is perfectly reasonable, but I think it's a question for the WMF, the whole community of coders and page designers, and the community of FLC writers and reviewers.) Since my list of right-side images is longer than in most FLs, I've added clickable left-arrows on each image caption that take readers to the proper row in the table. As a bonus ... for readers who know a little about Latin and Greek root words and want to take a minute to try to puzzle out how the word matches the picture before we give them the answer ... this format (usually) preserves the mystery until they click. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Well, if it's okay in general for lists, or featured lists, then who am I to argue? Saving and moving on... Eewilson (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Is this a list of plant families and their type genera and orders? A list of plant families and their etymologies? Or is it a combined list for both purposes? As I said, it is full of good information, but it appears to be doing too much of one and not enough of what the article title says it should do. The purpose of each item could be explained in the Key section, renaming the Key section to Conventions (or something similar), so the reader will understand how everything fits.
  • A feature of Featured Content, I think, is that it has to be suitable for readers of the Main Page ... and that's a really mixed bag. Botanists know without giving it any thought that the Greek for "thorn flower" didn't include "ceae"; that's just a botanical suffix. But if I lead Main Page readers to believe that "Acanthaceae" means "thorn", most of them won't know any better, so I need to be clear about that ... I'm giving etymologies in each case for the original genus name, not the family names. Key section: above my pay grade, that's usually what it's called at FLC. But I'm open to adding any information on conventions you'd like to see. Tell me a bit more about your impression of how it all fits together. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Aha! "I'm giving etymologies in each case for the original genus name, not the family names." That's one piece I did not understand, and neither the lead nor the list says that (unless I have completely lost all levels of comprehension, but I read it several times). One of my first comments was going to be (but I removed it), "The lead is missing something, but I don't know what..." I think this is part of what the lead is missing. It may not be appropriate for the lead, but could be in the Key section. Let me meditate deeply (not really) for a bit and see if something clearer comes to mind. Eewilson (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • In that descriptive section (Key, Conventions, or maybe Description?), include the text you have from your efns in the table so this information isn't hidden. First two examples I saw. Make it a nice prosey paragraph.
      • Page numbers are omitted for book references other than Plants of the World, since they all list genera alphabetically.
      • "(Language) name" means the name of some plant originally, not necessarily in this genus.

Eewilson (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Eewilson (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Latin name", "Greek name", etc., aren't giving the meaning. Perhaps, "Latin for..." and "Greek for..." including the definition would give a better etymology. Conversely, when giving a definition, such as "thorns" for Acanthaceae, it would make some sense to say that it was derived from the Greek ákantha, for example. Having the source languages (including indigenous ones), root words, and meanings would cover the etymologies. For sorting purposes, three columns may go well.
  • I'm not completely dug in on "Latin name", etc., but I'm working on my next list series as we speak, and I think the new list series is a better place to attempt translations of these names (because then I won't be forced to make insufficiently supported guesses, I can choose the words and the context). There weren't many Wikipedians around in the first century asking Pliny and his friends what they meant by the plant names they used. Some modern authors have been willing to guess, of course, but these are only guesses. The big difficulty has been the fact that modern sources often disagree. I'd rather not include Greek words like "ákantha" ... it's a long list of reasons, I can be more detailed if you like. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I understand about the guessing and about the conflicting sources. The latter can be dealt with by citing both sources individually. This table example is kind of what I was talking about regarding language, root word, meaning. This is probably way too much and too big of a change, and maybe you don't have the data for this, but for example. Also, is the Order column needed? I left it out of this example. Again, this is just my attempt to explain what might be lacking. Eewilson (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Families

Family	Original type genus	Category	Derived from	Meaning	Ref
Acanthaceae	Acanthus	[Greek or Ancient Greek or whatever it is]	[ákantha or whatever] [for example]	thorns	CS
Achariaceae	Acharia	[person]	Acharius, Erik (1757–1819)	[— or just blank since meaning would not apply to a person's name; I may prefer the dash so it appears intentional]	Bu
Achatocarpaceae	Achatocarpus	[some language]	[word in that language]	agate fruit	[src]
Acoraceae	Acorus	Latin [or Ancient Greek?]	[word in that language - acora/corea?]	[word meaning - pupil/cornea?]	CS

Those are the four biggies for now: left-alignment, image function or placement, list scope, and etymology coverage. I am looking at this list as standalone, not as an extension of or attempt to be similar to previous ones you have done, which I think is fair considering the reader would do the same. You are doing great work! I hope my input can help make it even better. Eewilson (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm so glad you liked it! I've aimed to give to-the-point answers above, but we can go into more detail on anything you like. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I think I can short-and-sweet the question about saying "Greek name" instead of giving a meaning: my Greek professors used to tell me that most of Greek scholarship (including etymology) is based on surprisingly fragmentary evidence. The evidence for the names and even the identities of ancient plant genera is worse, and modern sources disagree about many of these genera. Trying to answer more than the basic question here (namely: where did these words come from?) would be courting trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

True, you can only go on what the sources tell you. Eewilson (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Quick comment before my internet goes down again: my internet has been going down randomly for periods of time all week (since Comcast had issues beginning Tuesday). I can't do much Wikipedia editing on my phone. It's up now, though, so I'll save this then try to review your comments. If I disappear for a time, send help. Eewilson (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The order column isn't absolutely necessary, and we could lose it to create an additional sortable column. Beyond that, I can't commit to anything yet, I'll need to give it some thought. - Dank (push to talk) 05:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I think I can say this much. Most of my sources are much quicker to guess at, and spell out, Latin words than Greek words, and I'm going to follow their lead on that ... I'll only give a Greek word when the word is likely to be of some actual service. If that works for you, then I'll get started creating a sortable column, then self-revert so we can discuss it. - Dank (push to talk) 05:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think Latin is fine if that's what you have. Whatever you can pull out of the sources. Eewilson (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The new sortable category column is a single-letter column: 1. that's the way other plant FLs do it, 2. I don't want to have to discard the orders column, because orders are the parent taxa for families, and plant FLs generally give parent taxa. 3. I want to avoid the strangeness of "Greek ... Greek name". - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Single letter is fine. Keeping Order is fine. Eewilson (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been studying the sources today, and I'm sorry, I have no confidence at all that the sources can tell us where classical and pre-classical writers got their words from, in general. It's not usually hard to give etymologies for classical words that were assigned to genera after, say, 1700 (either the authors told us what they thought the words meant, or other authors were willing to guess). But cultivated plants have changed quite a lot over 2000 years, and even for the plants that haven't changed, we usually can't know for sure which classical names go with which plants ... even when the sources are willing to take a guess. And FLC requires some kind of consistent approach here, even if there are a few where we can come up with clever arguments. I don't feel ownership over this list (if I felt that way, I wouldn't choose Wikipedia for my articles), and if other people want to edit the list to try to do more with classical names, that's fine by me. But I think that would be a bad idea. I think it's fine to have a list like this one, as long as standards are consistently applied. I also think it's important to understand that the readership of the Main Page isn't the same as the readership of Stearn's Dictionary and the other sources here; it's not a safe or conservative approach to just copy words, because our intended readership isn't as sophisticated. (This is of course not an elitist position; it's the opposite, I think.)

Okay, back to you. I added the notes to the "Key" section as you asked, and I added an extra sortable column. I'm open to further changes. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I can’t give a good reply until my new modem comes in and I get it set up. I’ve had a very annoying lack of WiFi week. So I’ll be back soon. Eewilson (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've used a bit of bolding. There are a couple of new comments above, but most are here. As you can see, I'm back online (YAY). A few more things I want to bring up.
  • In a note above, you explained to me that you are giving etymologies in each case for the original genus name, not the family names. Can you make that clear in the Lead?
  • "The third column gives a meaning, derivation or person associated with this word." It is now the fourth column.
  • In the table, can you move what is in parentheses for items "(food for the) onager", "(prominent) stamens", and "(stamens) around a disk" to the end for sorting?
  • People are being sorted by last name. Can you list them last name first for clarity when sorting?
  • In the definition/person column, it's still unclear to me what exactly "Latin name", "Greek name", etc., are supposed to mean? (I'm not trying to be dense. It's just coming naturally.) "'(Language) name' means the name of some plant originally, not necessarily in that genus" isn't clarifying it.

—Eewilson (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• • • FLs generally sort by the person's last name but give first names first. Everything else shoul d be done now. - Dank (push to talk) 06:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Okay, that's fine. Guess that's all I have. Keep up the great work! Eewilson (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the sources both look strong throughout, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. The source review has been passed with flying colors. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:16, 21 November 2021 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 21 November 2021 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC) [2].

---

List of blues standards

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Since a major restructuring in 2014, this list has been steadily expanded and refined. It is extensively referenced, follows the applicable MOS guidelines, and is stable. I hope you find it informative and user-friendly. Ojorojo (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• The only image (File:Barack Obama singing in the East Room.jpg) is suitable licenced. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Opening question, perhaps I'm tired, but where are the inclusion criteria for this list defined? Who or what "decides" that a particular song is a "blues standard"? I have other comments to add but getting my head round this would be helpful... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The selection criteria is stated near the end of the lead: "Each song listed has been identified by five or more music writers as a blues standard." The citations in the "Refs" column show the sources used. Hope this helps. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for being too nit-picky here, but that brings me to another question, that is there any other song which is "identified by five or more music writers as a blues standard", but not included here? And why five music writers, why not 3 or 7? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I did a last thorough search to see if any more came up, which led to two more songs being added recently. As new books are published, more may be identified, but I only found the additional two since the last search in 2018. After some trial and error, five seemed to eliminate some songs that were briefly popular, but didn't last, yet not leave out some of the more important ones. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

On that note, I think it would be justified to add {{incomplete list}} tag. Rest seems fine to me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ojorojo thanks, I guess I'm too tired! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• American folk is overlinked in the lead.

Removed second link. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Could link record charts.

Linked. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• "main charts" which charts were these, out of interest? Mainly in the US?

Mostly U.S. Billboards's Race/R&B/Soul/Black singles charts, but also its Hot 100. The UK Singles Charts and the Australian singles charts were also used for a few entries. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Added efns to clarify the charts and moved all citations to them to the Refs column. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Weren't the Yardbirds called "the Yardbirds" not just "Yardbirds"?
• Same for the Stones?

Not much space savings, so I changed them to their official names (the Animals too). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

But that is about it for me, nothing much more to add. I guess there could be justification for a {{incomplete list}} tag here as we're not certain we've covered everything in this "definition"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the template wording would be misleading. As it stands, the list is not "missing items" – it includes all the standards that meet the selection criteria, based on thorough searches. WP:FLCR #3(a) includes "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items". New books may describe additional songs as blues standards or may not; requiring five sources sets the bar fairly high. Many WP articles would need to be expanded based on future published sources and wouldn't be considered incomplete or missing information for this reason.

An idea: would it be of interest to readers to include a sentence in the lead about who was the first to record the most standards (Robert Johnson and Tampa Red, 4 each; Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf 3 each) or most charting standards (B.B. King and Muddy Waters, 5 each; Little Walter, Bobby Bland 4 each)? Value added or too much peripheral detail?

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I think your idea is a good one. People are certainly going to be interested in who has more of these standards. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Added, but kept it simple. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

• "One half" should not have a hyphen

Fixed. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Bo Diddley's version of "I'm A Man" was also a hit, as Billboard listed the relevant single as a double-sided hit for 11 of its weeks on chart (see here). It's also listed in Joel Whitburn's R&B charts book (page 118)

I was uncertain of Whitburn's (used for most of the chart info) entry as "Best Seller flip" and "Juke Box flip", but without positions. Now that I see the actual Billboard entry, I'll add it. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• That's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Kavyansh.Singh

• I participated in the peer review, and my comments were answered promptly by the nominator. I have taken a second look at the list, and have made a small correction. Rest seems fine to me, and I support this list for promotion as a Featured list. Any comments or a source review for this nomination is appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Source review – The (exhaustive) list of sources is well-formatted throughout. I was going to ask whether the Ron Levy book could be replaced, as it is a self-published source, but given what the linked article reveals I think a decent case can be made that Levy is an expert in the subject of blues. While I wouldn't be inclined to hold up promotion over it, it might be worth a quick look to see if another good secondary source exists. Otherwise, the rest of the sourcing seems sufficiently strong, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe Levy would be considered an expert, but it was easy to replace him with an unquestionably reliable (academic) source. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Great. With that I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• Would it be helpful to add a link for urban blues? It is a redirect to the blues article, but it goes to a specific section that may be helpful for readers who are unfamiliar with this topic. However, since the blues article may change in the future, I could understand why this kind of redirect is less than ideal and could create future issues. I still wanted to raise this to your attention.

It contains some useful info, so linked. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Would it be beneficial to separate the sources listed in the Bibliography section into two columns? It is a rather long list, and I was curious if the columns would make it more accessible to readers and less imposing.

Making it user friendly is important, so I added {{refbegin|20em}} and it now matches the columns in "References". —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for jumping into this FLC very late. I only have two quick and very minor notes. You have done a very good job with clearly defining the qualifications for this list. I researched a few potential additions, like "See That My Grave Is Kept Clean", but I could not find any other song that fits the criteria. I know relatively little about blues, but I keep meaning to learn more and I believe this list would be useful for readers like myself. I hope this review is helpful, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Requiring five or more refs sets the bar fairly high, but I keep looking. Thanks for your comments, better late than never! —Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think a high bar is a good thing. It is good to have very clear criteria, as I would imagine that plenty of other songs are described as a blues standard by one or two sources, but that is not really the same as having it confirmed by multiple sources. I support the FLC for promotion. I hope my support will give this FLC the final push it needs to reach promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time and/or interest. Best of luck with this FLC and stay safe! Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2021 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 21 November 2021 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC) [3].

---

List of accolades received by The Hateful Eight

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The Hateful Eight is a Revisionist Western film written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. It stars an ensemble cast consisting of Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walton Goggins, Demián Bichir, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, and Bruce Dern. The film was nominated and won several awards for its screenplay, score, cinematography, and Leigh's performance. I am nominating this list for FL because I recently expanded it. Every notable award is listed. My criteria for the list is that every association has an article and that every nomination is listed by a reliable source. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Image caption is a complete sentence so should have a full stop
• In the recipient column, the film's title sorts under T when it should sort under H
• When sorting the result column, it goes Won > Nominated > 8th > 4th > 2nd, which seems a bit random......
• That's all I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• @ChrisTheDude: I have fixed the caption and sorting issues. How would you suggest I sort the 2nd/4th/8th place nominations? The awards list for Titanic was recently passed in June 2021 and was left sorting by number. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  I fixed the sorting issue, it was quicker to just do it than type it all here. Now happy to Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

• Formatting and reliability of all sources seem fine overall. Just a few suggestions:
  • Ref#1 – Do we need IMDb as publisher, and regardless, IMDb is not a reliable source.
    • That is added automatically by Template:Cite BOM. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Can be converted to {{cite web}} template as we consistently have not included publisher in the article, but no major issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref#19 – Daily Herald can take "ref access = limited" than subscription.
    • That website does not appear to give free articles. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Same goes with Ref#38
    • Same here ("26 WEEKS FOR 99¢"). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref#25 – Can CBS Detroit be linked to either just CBS or WWJ-TV?
    •  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref#36 – Can we drop "(Exclusive)" from the title?
    • No because that is part of the title. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, your choice, though I consider it reluctant. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh: I have added responses. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• Add link to Cinema Audio Society Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Mixing for a Motion Picture – Live Action for corresponding award in table
• Footnote a should not have a period
• Grammy Award for Best Instrumental Composition is awarded to a specific piece of music – in this case, "L'Ultima Diligenza di Red Rock" (Versione Integrale); the piece should probably be noted in the table

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

• The only images is appropriately licence, and has ALT text. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• I would clarify this part, some time after the American Civil War. According to the film's Wikipedia article, this film is set in a specific year so something more concrete than "some time" would be beneficial as that could mean countless different things for different readers (like a few weeks, months, years, etc.). For instance, you could say that this happens over a decade after the war.
• I have looked through a few similar featured lists, and while they include the Rotten Tomatoes score, they do not have the critical consensus. I do not think critical consensus is particularly beneficial for readers as this list is more focused on the awards and nominations rather than the reviews.
• I would revise this part, At the BAFTA Awards, the film, since the previous sentence starts with a similar sentence construction so it is somewhat repetitive.

I hope my comments are helpful. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Did the first two. I added "also" to the sentence mentioned in the third point. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. I support this FLC for promotion. Hopefully, this will be the push it needs to cross the line for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time and/or interest. Great job with the list and best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2021 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 21 November 2021 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Regine Velasquez live performances

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list after working on getting the singer's list of songs, awards, filmography, and discography to FL status. It has gone through a copy-edit to improve the lead. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated.

A pre-emptive comment – Philippine live entertainment/concerts are largely staged either as arena or theater (small-scale) events. These venues are mainly located in the capital region of Metro Manila. For logistical reasons, Filipino live acts rarely/never tour domestically, contrary to what is commonly seen for U.S. touring acts. I’ve tried my best to thoroughly search for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online, especially since information dating back in the 80s and 90s has been a challenge to find. I utilized a website/artist page that compiled a list of concert information, which perhaps can be an acceptable substitute where publications/newspapers/online articles are unavailable. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Placeholder for now. I'll likely leave comments tomorrow. Happy editing! Pamzeis (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support — apologies for the wait, I'd forgotten about this but no major issues that I can see. I've made a few minor tweaks. On the image, is there any chance that it could be replaced with one of her looking towards the article/text? At the current moment, it draws the reader's eye away from the article... BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: thanks for your edits, I've also replaced the image. I will have a look at the PR some time this week. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "She also [...] spawned the release" - "she spawned the release" is rather odd wording

Reworded the sentence

• "Throughout 2013 to 2016" => "From 2013 to 2016"

Done

• No need to link Bantay Bata Foundation twice

Done

• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: thanks for your review. I have addressed the above comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: many thanks for your support! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• For this part, televised performances on The Penthouse Live!, Triple Treat and other shows, I am not sure about the current wording, specifically the "and other shows" part. Would it be better to say something along the lines of televised performances on shows like The Penthouse Live! and Triple Treat instead?

Agreed, revised the wording.

This is my only comment (and it is admittedly super nitpick-y). Once this has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Great work as always. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thanks very much for your review, I have addressed the above comment. I hope your week is going well too! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. I support this FLC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Have a great rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: much appreciate your support! I will have a look at the FAC some time this weekend. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC) [5].

---

United States presidential elections in Arizona

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that these types of lists on United States presidential elections have a great potential to be FL. I almost completely re-formatted the list, added a lead, and key for political parties. It lists all the elections in which Arizona participated, with votes and percentage. I would respond to every comment, and try to bring this nomination to FL standards whenever needed. With one of the list (United States presidential elections in Alaska) currently a FLC, with a support, and reviewer's concerns have been substantially addressed, I nominate this too. Thanks! (45 states more to go) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "William Howard Taft was on the fourth position" => "William Howard Taft finished fourth" or "William Howard Taft finished in fourth position", but not what you have currently (same in note b)
• Is there any way to avoid having four consecutive sentences starting with "In the 19xx presidential election"?
• "Since the 1952 presidential election, Arizona was considered" => "Since the 1952 presidential election, Arizona has been considered"
• Notes c and d need full stops
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude – Done all. Thanks again! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from RunningTiger123

Two small things:

• Given its notability, it might be worth linking 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit somewhere in the lead. (Of course, we also have a lot of coverage of the 2020 election in the lead, so if it can't be noted in just a few words, it might be better to keep it out.)
• "recent political realignment led to Arizona becoming a swing state" → "recent political realignment has led some to consider Arizona as a swing state" (hedges a bit, but one election probably isn't enough to determine long-term trends)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123 Done the second one, left the first point, as we already have lot about 2020. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Reywas92

• Like Alaska, start the article with its topic, it doesn't need to be pointed out what region the state is in.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• "percentage of vote share" is redundant since vote share is implied to be a percentage.
  • Removed 'percentage' – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• "by 42.92%" implies a margin so "a margin of" is superfluous.
  • Removed 'a margin of' – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Reywas92^Talk 14:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92 – Done, thanks again! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92 – Just a courtesy ping. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support Reywas92^Talk 14:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review pass

The only image (File:Arizona_in_United_States.svg) is an original work with the copyright released by the creator. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 13:51, 14 November 2021 (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.

• @PresN – May I just bring to your notice that this has been promoted without a formal Source review. Now, in various other lists which you promoted without an source review, you mentioned that "Source review pass, promoting". Is that the same case here? Thanks anyways! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, yeah, I did check the sources before promoting. --PresN 14:34, 14 November 2021 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC) [6].

---

United States presidential elections in Alaska

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that these types of lists on United States presidential elections have a great potential to be FL. I almost completely re-formatted the list, added a lead, and key for political parties. It lists all the elections in which Alaska participated, with votes and percentage. I intend to make similar changes to all the lists within this series. I would respond to every comment, and try to bring this nomination to FL standards whenever needed. With one of the list (United States presidential elections in Hawaii) currently a FLC, with multiple supports, I nominate this too. Thanks! (46 states more to go) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from RadioKAOS

I'm coming to this discussion through WikiProject Alaska. Most FLs under that project came about because someone viewed the 50 states as venues to push the same MOS and the same sources so they could collect a whole bunch of hats, disregarding any context unique to that state. Your nomination statement leads me to believe that's the case here.

The biggest problem I see is the list's exclusive focus on the popular vote. In presidential elections, the actual election occurs via the Electoral College and there's zero mention of that process. For example, how many electors does Alaska have (it's always been three), where and when do the electors meet and any details about those meetings worth mentioning, etc. In just about every election, the electors have included notable people. Is there any value in mentioning some of these people?

The article text begins with "Alaska is a state in the Western United States, on the northwest extremity of the country's west coast.". It might be wise to replace "the country's west coast" with "the North American continent". Not only does the current statement sound redundant, there's also the matter of Canada falling in between Alaska and the contiguous 48 states, leaving it open to misinterpretation by some.

The table disregards the total votes cast. Any reason why? Additionally, prior to the 1976 election, write-in votes were included with the official canvass but were not included in published results. That means the percentages are approximate but not exact, whereas later percentages are exact. I see no evidence that this has been noted, either here or in any of the individual election articles. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

So here's some context related to Alaska, though I don't know how easy this would be to source. Looking at the table, Jimmy Carter's reelection bid gained the smallest percentage of any nominee of the two dominant parties. This is not surprising to me. Between 1977 and 1979, people were regularly burning Carter and Cecil Andrus in effigy on the streets of downtown Fairbanks. Carter was deeply unpopular because of the political battle in D.C. over what became the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @RadioKAOS – Thanks for your comments. I'll try to address all them. The number of electors Alaska has is indeed mentioned in the table. Moreover, the election does depends on the electoral vote, but that doesn't mean that popular vote doesn't count. For a strong Republican state like Alaska, where co-incidentally there never has been an faithless elector, the winner of popular vote has always carried the three electoral votes. Honestly, including details like "where and when do the electors meet" seems unnecessary to me; mostly because it is the same for every election. I made the change about including "the North American continent". As to the next point about the table disregards the total votes cast, it is because if I were to include the total votes, I also need to include all the candidates, so that it sums up correctly. That would make the table wide enough not to fit on the screen. The total voted are indeed included, but inside the {{percentage}} template. Next point about including write in votes, the official published result doesn't include the write in votes (60; 64; 68), so I haven't. Do you have any reliable source claiming that "prior to the 1976 election, write-in votes were included with the official canvass but were not included in published results", possibly providing the data, which would help me in citing it. Moreover, in a two party state like America, where third party candidates rarely receive more than 5% of the vote, it seems reluctant to me to include write in votes. The percentage points in every cell in approximate, rounded off to 2 places of decimal by the {{percentage}} template. The formatting and structure of there types of lists have been discussed in previous FLC's, and have been successfully implemented in three current featured lists. (Arkansas; Utah; Washington, D.C.) I try to make every list withing this series consistent, but surely include some or other thing with context unique to that state. For example, the Washington, D.C. list has write-in candidate votes noted because they have been recorded in the official results, and sometimes the total write-in votes also exceed the number of votes received by the candidate on the third place. I'll see what I can include from your Carter's unpopularity suggestion, but would prefer to hear what you think of this reply. Any further comments on the subject are welcomed. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @RadioKAOS – Any follow-ups? I have already replied to your comments, and still feel that the lists focus on the popular vote should not be an issue. I don't think that there is any guideline or a FL criteria preventing any user from using the same style and sources throughout a series of lists, given that the sources are reliable and the style meets the criteria. Any further comments are welcomed. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "defeating Democratic Party's candidate" => "defeating the Democratic Party's candidate"
• "the largest ever margin of victory in the state's history" => "the largest margin of victory in the state's history"
• "In the 1992 president election" => "In the 1992 presidential election"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks @ChrisTheDude – Done all – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Reywas92

• I still think the first sentence is weird since it's basically just the first sentence of Alaska. It's better to jump right into the topic for the introductory sentence. Like List of governors of Alaska doesn't need to remind us where the state is located either.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the Republican Party's candidate Ronald Reagan" could be simplified to "the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan" or even just "the Republican Ronald Reagan".
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "by a margin of 36.78%" could just be "by 36.78%" since you use "margin" in the clause right after that; just extraneous since "by" implies a margin.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "highest percentage of vote share" -> "highest vote share", which wouldn't be anything other than a percentage
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Gallup Poll has ranked Alaska in the top ten most Republican states" is not supported by the source, which begins with a list that doesn't include Alaska; the list at the bottom says 11th place. That's also a single data point from six years ago; it was only the 22nd most Republican in 2020...
  • Changes and added new sources. Even if it isn't most Republican, it surely is a "safe Republican" state. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Table seems fine.

By the way, WP:AWB/WP:JWB is great if you ever need to make changes affecting every list. Happy to help with that if needed. Reywas92^Talk 01:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92 – Addressed all the points. Thanks! Not sure how AWB should be used/will it help here where the data in every table is different. Appreciate your help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92 – Any followups? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Support All good. The data's different, but as you update the formatting styles, there's a lot you can do across articles with just a few clicks rather than manually one article at a time, like removing background shading, retitling columns, and other organizational changes. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by MWright96

• Try cutting down writing of the phrase "In the xxxx presidental election,"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Think all the % symbols in the lede can be replaced with the word "percent"
  • I think its fine as long as it is consistent. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Reference 46 is missing the page number(s)
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all I've got. Good job on redoing the list MWright96 (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@MWright96 – Addressed all the issues. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Nice job! MWright96 (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Grapple X

Resolved comments from 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

*For purposes of these lists, other candidates are defined as those who were in third place in Alaska. (I'm looking at end notes too). I'm not sure the plural is warranted here, this is a singular list, not lists; suggest For purposes of this list... "These list" here imply that the selection criteria is same for every list in this topic (United States presidential elections in <state>). But I see nothing bad in changing it to "of this list", so consider this done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Are there editors listed for the titled under "works cited"? I wouldn't expect this kind of statistical report to have an author per se but there is often an editor credited. No. They are just compiled data, compiled by the publisher. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Not sure it's best practice to italicise organisation names (Gallup, CNN); these would be best placed in the publisher= field. Done for Gallup, not sure whether CNN of The Washington Post needs it, as they seem to fit under the work= field. Some news organisations also have different publishers, so, I guess its fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC) The Post is a publication and would be italicised, but CNN shouldn't be--a programme or publication which they have published would be, for example CNN Newsroom, but not the organisation. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Spotcheck not done but can carry one out if needed. Its upto you. At FAC, we usually have spot-checks for first time nominations. At FLC, I guess it isn't a necessary requirement. If you decide to do so, all the news and web sources are linked, and the second book is available here at Open Library. Not sure if you can access the first book online ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC) I didn't carry one out as it's not your first time but if a co-ordinator wants one, I'll do it no problem, just leave me a ping. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC) As a general note, too, I wouldn't mind seeing mention in prose of the number of electors the state has--it's in the table but we're fairly light on prose and so it shouldn't be hard to fit a short sentence in to note that the state has (or if you can source it as such, has always had) three votes in the electrical college. Yeah, added. I don't think that source is necessary, as it is self explanatory from the table (and it is cited in the table). Alaska would continue to have 3 electoral votes, until at-least 2028 presidential election. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC) All I have for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC) @Grapple X – Thanks for taking a look! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Pass on sources. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Quick note for the coordinators

• Is there something else I need to do for this nomination? I've attempted to resolve all the actionable comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review pass

The only image (File:Alaska in United States.svg) is an original work with the copyright released by the creator. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 13:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC) [7].

---

Rihanna singles discography

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This list compiles the singles released by Rihanna, arguably the biggest hitmaker of popular music. Seriously, we have not seen anyone that matches the potentials of Rihanna, who seamlessly fits with every genre possible. I have cleaned up the list, and hope that this list is now up to FL standards. Any comment is very much welcomed. Thank you very much, Ippantekina (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• "52 as a lead artist, 18 as a featured artist, two charity singles and five" MOSNUM 52/18/2/5.

• Done

• Cross-check the maths and cross-check with the infobox, none of it adds up right now.
• Nowhere in the lead do you mention any platinum/gold ceritification.

• Almost all of her singles have gone multi-platinum, so I haven't found anything notable to add. Any ideas? Because saying "This went 7x platinum, that went 8x platinum..." would constitute a huge lead. Ippantekina (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Rated R, 2010" that links to a disambiguation page.

• Fixed. Ippantekina (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Plenty of spaced hyphens in the reference titles, should be en-dashes.

• Done

• NO NEED TO SHOUT in refs either.

• Done

That's it on a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank you for the comments. I have responded to them above :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• Firstly, I know this doesn't impact the article, but no way is Rihanna the "biggest hitmaker of popular music"

• It is totally objective! But I still think she is today's biggest hitmaker for her versatility :) Ippantekina (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• The clause after "Pon de Replay" starts with a dash but ends with a comma

• Done

• "reached the top ten on charts" => "reached the top ten on the charts"

• Done

• "The singles also reached the top five on charts" => "The singles also reached the top five on the charts"

• Done

• "The string of U.S. number-one singles as lead artist include" => "The string of U.S. number-one singles as lead artist includes" (the subject is string, which is singular)

• Done

• Why is the US chart listed first when she is not American?

• Much of her career is based in America, so I think that makes sense. Ippantekina (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Write all chart positions in the notes as numbers

• Done

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Done all. Thank you so much for the comments :) Ippantekina (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

Overall, this looks really good. Just a few small comments:

• "Umbrella", "Take a Bow", "Disturbia" → "Umbrella", "Take a Bow", and "Disturbia"
• Similarly, "Only Girl (in the World)", "What's My Name", "S&M" → "Only Girl (in the World)", "What's My Name", and "S&M"
• Run IABot to archive sources where possible

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• @RunningTiger123: Done all. Thank you for the comments, Ippantekina (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think you missed the first item, but it's not a huge issue and I'm sure you'll fix it, so I'm happy to support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

I will try not to screw this up

• marked some notable — notable? Do her milestones have articles? By whose standards?

• Her milestones don't have articles per-se, but they are included in the list that I linked. Ippantekina (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also, "some" seems unnecessarily vague
• claimed the fastest time span — can she really "claim" a time span?
• eighth studio album Anti — comma after album
• Be consistent on whether you use the MOS:SERIAL comma or not
• Also, per MOS:US, be consistent with U.S. vs. UK

• I spelled out "United States" as a noun and used "US" as an adjective; is it OK? Ippantekina (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ping me once these have been resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Hello, I have responded to your comments above. Thank you for reviewing the FLC. Ippantekina (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support but I'm trying to figure out how I didn't know who Rihanna was until I watched The Good Place (in around 2020). On an unrelated note, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

• The only image, File:Rihanna concert in Washington DC (cropped).jpg, is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. But, the Flickr page claims it to be in the Public Domain. Please update/correct the licence, and make the ALT text bit brief. Rest, everything seems fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Thank you for the image review. Ippantekina (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Source reliability looks okay throughout, and the link-checker tool shows no issues, but there are a few formatting bugs to take care of:

• Ref 41 needs an access date.
• Ref 95 has some odd formatting. It looks like the publisher name needs to be taken out of the ref title (ref 89 is a better-formatted cite from the same site).
• Ref 96 is missing a publisher. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Done all. Thank you for the source review. Ippantekina (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• With the issues all resolved, I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 13:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC) [8].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Armenia

Nominator(s): Tone 16:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Slovakia has been recently promoted and Czechia is almost there. Now I am covering the Caucasus. Armenia has 3 sites and 4 tentative ones, so the list is a bit shorter than the previous ones, but still long enough. The style is standard. Azerbaijan and Georgia lists will be next. Tone 16:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Following the breakup of Soviet Union" => "Following the breakup of the Soviet Union"
• "Armenia succeeded the convention" - "succeeded" definitely isn't the right word here, but I am not sure what is. Do you mean the country adopted the convention?
• "with additional four on the tentative list." => "with an additional four on the tentative list."
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you! Fixed. As for the "succession of the convention", that's the wording the UNESCO site uses. I could change it but it makes sense to me ... --Tone 08:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I saw that, but what does it actually mean? Does it mean the date the country adopted/signed up to the convention? "Succeed" used as a transitive verb can only mean either "to follow in sequence and especially immediately" or "to come after as heir or successor" (ref: Merriam Webster) so "the country succeeded the convention" definitely isn't a correct usage..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I would suggest using "ratified", like the Slovakia list...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
        • I guess ratified works. Probably some paperwork needed to be done before so it was not automatic anyway. --Tone 17:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Comments below. Aza24 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Aza24: Thank you for checking, comments below. --Tone 08:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• A missing retrieval date in ref 9, which I assumed is because the live link is dead, so no issues (?)
  • Updated.

Reliability

• The established convention has been to use UNESCO sources for UNESCO lists, so no issues here.

Verifiability

• Refs 7, 12 good
• Ref 10, not seeing some of this, shouldn't it be Khosrow II? The dates aren't matching either
  • It must be a typo in the UNESCO source, it was Khosrow III that is associated with Dvin in the 4th century CE. I added an extra reference for the time period, though sources are messy (Iranica says " The often expressed view that Ḵosrow had previously shifted the capital from Artaxata to Dvin is based on an unreliable report of Moses of Khorene (9th century), who relied on the much shorter text of Pseudo Faustus." But I don't want to get into such details for a brief description.)
    • Weird, thanks for the additional ref. Iranica is weird since they hide the author and date at the bottom (Erich Kettenhofen). Add those and we'll be good here Aza24 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I feel silly for requesting this—have added it myself. Aza24 (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ref 13 seems fine, though I think when the source says "This area of the Vorotan Valley is of considerable geological interest" they mean that there is much in the valley which is of particular geological value (i.e. important rocks or rock formations maybe). Your "The valley is also interesting from the geological point of view" seems to downplay this a little; am I making sense here? Aza24 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The source material is really short on this, I see your point but there's not much in the UNESCO text to work with here. --Tone 08:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Indeed... no worries. Aza24 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

*Ref 3 doesn't appear to mention the dissolution of the Soviet Union. True, but the Soviet Union ratified the convention already. Not sure how to source this independently, except if I link the Russia's UNESCO site where the date is shown? It needs citing, so however you do it, and it doesn't have to be a UNESCO source, it needs a reference. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Actually, I'll just remove it, we didn't mention it in the case of Lithuania, for example. Since no sites in Armenia were listed under the Soviet Union, this makes little differece. But I'll eventually figure out how to deal with it in some other countries. Why aren't we implementing row scopes, there's a clear candidate (the site name) each row. Ha, thanks for spotting, a remnant from the previous design. "From the architectural point of view" -> "Architecturally" In the lead you link "Upper Azat Valley", in the table you just link "Azat Valley" but in both cases you pipe them to a redirect. Fixed, apparently this was moved after I worked on the article. "4th century CE" you haven't added CE to other "century"s. Fixed "on the site, " which site? Rewritten. "Cathedral and Churches of Echmiatsin and the Archaeological Site of Zvartnots" article says ii, iii, not ii, iii and vi. I am not seeing vi anywhere? Yererouk appears to be (iii)(iv)(vi) and not ii, iv, vi. Typo fixed "The valley is also interesting from the geological point of view" can we explain this please. This has been mentioned above, the source is to short to make something decent up... But it's encyclopedically meaningless right now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC) I'll just remove it, indeed it is meaningless. No harm in that. These are very old nominations and they tend to be of poor content. I wonder if this section in the table ought to say "Year submitted" rather than "Year listed", as this aren't listed in the UNESCO sense, just in the candidate sense. Well, we've been using this style for a while. Listed on the tentative list is technically correct so I wouldn't change it. That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I'm through, please check. Thank you! --Tone 20:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I think I resolved the two remaining issues. --Tone 07:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Support by Grapple X

I've given this a combing over and I'm happy with it as it stands; my only concern is a minor one--we have a pretty short list here with no great reams of text, and yet the word "site" is used about thirty separate times. I know a lot of this is unavoidable but I think a few of these instances could possibly be reworded, for example All three sites are cultural sites could stand to simply drop the first "sites"; similarly perhaps As of 2021, Armenia had four such sites on its tentative list could switch it with "candidates" or something of that ilk. It's not an important concern and not one which would prevent my support, but worth some consideration. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Well, it is an official naming, I am sometimes using "nomination" instead, but often it is indeed unavoidable. --Tone 07:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

• File:Geghard entrance-IMG 2525.JPG — How do we know that this is licenced under CC Attr 2.5? Do we have a direct link?
• File:Tatev Monastery from a distance.jpg — How do we know that this is licenced under CC Attr 3.0? Especially as its uses Facebook as the source.

Please ping me whenever you reply. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh: Nice catch. Since there are alternatives without dubious licences available, I replaced both. --Tone 15:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • In that case, Pass for image review. I have nominated File:Tatev Monastery from a distance.jpg for deletion. The recently added images seem to be appropriately licenced. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Reywas92

• "important centres of learning" is vague, who is learning what?
  • I removed the sentence, this was one of key things the medieval monasteries did. The source does not directly say whether they were learning religious things or crafts and similar.
• "according to tradition by Gregory the Illuminator, following the adoption of Christianity as a state religion in Armenia" is too close to the source's text
  • Rephrased.
• khachkar should be italicized, and maybe defined instead of just linked
  • Done.
• "Armenia had four such sites" should be present tense
  • Fixed.
• Dvin: since the source says "regional administrative centre", maybe say "regional capital" instead of "regional centre", which is ambiguous for what it's a centre of. Though since it already says "serve as the capital of Armenia" either form seems redundant.
  • I'll go with regional capital, as the capital of the Sassanid Empire was elsewhere.
• The lead should summarize the sites, such as most being monasteries and religious sites.
  • Done, makes sense.
• https://armenia.travel/en/history/unesco-world-heritage-in-armenia should be an external link.
  • Why not, added.

Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• • @Reywas92: Fixed, thank you! --Tone 22:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    Support Any comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National preserve/archive1 would be appreciated. Reywas92^Talk 22:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 13:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC) [9].

---

List of Billboard number-one country songs

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I bet everyone thought when I nominated List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1958 that that would be it for country music at FLC for a while. Well, I fooled you all - here's one more. This is the "capstone" which will (assuming it passes) allow me to nominate the whole lot as a Featured Topic. This one is the overview of all 78 years to date, with each year linking to the relevant list and notes picking out noteworthy things for the year in question. To answer the inevitable question, a handful of years have no notes against them because I couldn't pick out anything especially noteworthy to list. Feedback as ever is welcomed and will be answered as quickly as humanly possible! For info, before I started working on it, it looked like this...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Addressed comments

Congrats on all the work you have put into these lists. You have done a great job. It's been a while since I have last reviewed one of your FLCs so apologies for that. My comments are below: There are some gaps in the "Chart history" table, like with 1984. Is there a reason for this? See my comment above. I couldn't pick out anything noteworthy from that year for the notes column. Nothing especially interesting happened that year :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC) For the 1980 and 1988 entries, there are a considerable amount of citations to the point that it could be citation overkill. Would it be possible to bundle the citations or do something else to avoid having so many citations in a row? Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC) The punctuation in the table is inconsistent. Some sentences have full-stops/periods while others do not. I would opt to give each sentence punctuation to be consistent. Done (I think - let me know if I missed any) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC) For this part, Billboard magazine has published charts, would it be beneficial to change the "charts" link to go to the Billboard charts article? Changed. I didn't realise that article existed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC) This is not required for the FLC, but I would highly encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid any future headache when it comes to link rot and death. For this part, to use only airplay data from country music radio stations, I would link country radio since it does have its own article and could be useful for readers who want to learn more about the subject. ....or that one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC) Link Billboard in the 1944 entry since items are being linked in both the lead and the list itself. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC) For this part, he goes on to achieve a number of posthumous number ones during the year, I would avoid "a number of" and instead say the specific number. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC) While I like the "spell" word choice in this part, for the longest spell at number one by an artist's debut single, I think it might be too informal for Wikipedia. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC) This may be a silly question so apologies in advance. It is about this part, the first former American Idol finalist. Is "former" really necessary? I do not think his status as a finalist was taken away from him. He may have been voted off, but he was not disqualified (a la Corey Clark) so I am not sure "former" is necessary. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC) Unlink American Idol in the 2006 entry as it is already linked in the one for 2005. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC) Reba McEntire is linked multiple times in the chart. Same with Taylor Swift. I have a question about how links are presented in the chart. I would think that they should only be on the first instance. Is that the approach you are taking here? There are other instances of multiple links so I wanted to ask before pointing them out. OK, I think everything is now only linked once. If I missed any, just let me know..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC) I hope this review is helpful. I will read through the prose for the "Chart history" table sometime tomorrow and post further comments then. I have made some minor edits to the lead, which are mostly about adding commas and removing extra spaces. Let me know if you have any questions. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the list one more time to make sure I have not missed anything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC) @Aoba47: - all done, I think. Many thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion. Apologies for missing your note about the years without notes. It makes sense that every year does not have a notable event. Best of luck with this FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - many thanks for your support! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Of course. Thank you for the work you have put into all these lists. I am just glad that I can help with that a little. Aoba47 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Other reviews

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. There are no sortable columns, which is fine in this case. I sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

• Support — mostly nothing from me. I've made a few tweaks (mostly changing "which" to "that" because apparently Americans (this article is written in American English, right?) use "that" (and only that) in defining clauses). Pamzeis (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Source review – The reliability of the sourcing looks fine throughout, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. There is one minor formatting item worth pointing out quickly: ref 69 is spelling out Country Music Television, while the other CMT refs are using the abbreviation. These should be made internally consistent. Also, it might be worth considering italicizing Guinness World Records in ref 2, as that is how the formatting is handled in our article on the topic. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Giants2008: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations on finishing the whole series!

Promoting. --PresN 13:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC) [10].

---

List of Formula One Grands Prix

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This list is about each and every one of the 1,040+ Formula One Grands Prix that have been held as part of the FIA Formula One World Championship since the inaugural world championship season in 1950. Such countries to have held Grands Prix include the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, France, Brazil and the United States. I began redoing this list in December 2020 and have made frequent changes. I believe it meets the FLC critieria and welcome all comments MWright96 (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "The information below is correct as of the 2021 Hungarian Grand Prix." but "Races have been held under 48 race titles as of the end of 2020" - should these not be consistent?
• "Colours ranging from airy green to black denote the number of how many Grands Prix a country has hosted." => "Colours ranging from airy green to black denote the number of Grands Prix a country has hosted."
• Per WP:MOSFLAG, should not the country name be against the first use of each flag?
• That's all I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Made changes based on each of the above points MWright96 (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Use Template:As of with the alt parameter wherever the article says as of the 2021 Hungarian Grand Prix Use Template:Hatnote for The information below is correct as of the 2021 Hungarian Grand Prix. Using smaller font serves no point, so keep the tables' text at 100% size for better accessibility. Country names in "By race title" don't need to be abbreviated, especially since the next table uses full names Note that map of Formula One World Championship races hosted by country is accurate as of 2019 For consistent capitalization, change Formula One Grands Prix by Multiples of 100 to Formula One Grands Prix by multiples of 100 External link for FIA should be updated — RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: Have made changes based on the points that have been raised above MWright96 (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC) I don't see any note of the map's age; to clarify, I meant that the caption should include that. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: Added MWright96 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

*"a series of races" that sentence could probably use a "around the world" or something to underpin the fact these GPs take place all over the place (unlike, say, the World Series....) Clarified MWright96 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC) "The results of each event..." potentially confusing because the last "multiple events" you mentioned were ones that might be happening in the same country, not the whole season overall. Rewritten MWright96 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC) "the highest number of" -> the most Done MWright96 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC) "The Circuit de Monaco in Monaco is second with 67 events" you sort of said this before, perhaps combine the previous 67 mention with "all on the same course, the Circuit de Monaco"? Rewritten MWright96 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC) "in each of 1982 and 2020" mildly confusing, it was the US in 1982, and Italy in 2020, so perhaps "respectively" is needed. Done MWright96 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC) "countries that hosted a " that have hosted Done MWright96 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Don't use just bold to signify something, it may be difficult for some readers to perceive. Done MWright96 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC) "hosted by country as of 2019" but what about 2020/2021 races? The map in question was last updated in 2019; should be updated by another user later in the year MWright96 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Some publishers/works are linked, some not... Added where applicable MWright96 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC) That's a first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Replied to each of the queries above MWright96 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• As far as I understand it, MOS:BOLD discourages the use of bold to signify something. On this basis, I think the bold in the table should be replaced by a colour, while retaining the symbol to comply with MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Would it be possible, or useful, to add a column to display the number of circuits used by each grands prix in the first table?
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all I've got. NapHit (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• @NapHit: Have addressed both of your above points MWright96 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support – Great work. NapHit (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

• Both the map files are suitable licenced. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Source review – The references all appear to be sufficiently reliable and well-formatted, and the links all appear to be in working order. Everything looks okay on the sourcing front. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 2 November 2021 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

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