Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2024
- 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, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [9].
- Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I recently reworked this list and split out the individual selections to Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969) and Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) due to page size and accessibility issues. The goal of this list is to provide a high-level summary of each Packers draft. Happy to address any issues or concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude, Hey man im josh, and ZooBlazer:, just a litlle update, I added linking to the table to the individual draft selections for each year. So a reader can then click on that link and see who exactly was selected. I assume this is a net-benefit, but just wanted to give you all the chance to take a look. See here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "became the Packers first draft selection" => "became the Packers' first draft selection"
- No need to link American football twice in the lead
- "the Canadian Football League [CFL] was also included" - use normal brackets not square brackets
- Is there a style guide related to this on Wikipedia? Most style guides recommend avoiding nested parentheses and state to use brackets on the inside of parentheses. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- "The number of rounds peaked to 30" => "The number of rounds peaked at 30"
- "over a 7 year period" => "over a 7-year period"
- "selected All-Pro Dan Currie and Pro Football Hall of Famers " => "selected future All-Pro Dan Currie and future Pro Football Hall of Famers " (current wording could be taken to imply that they were already in the HoF when drafted)
- "in 1957 with the aforementioned Hornung" - I think just "in 1957 with Hornung" is fine
- Because the table is sortable, you need to link to List of second overall National Football League draft picks both time the Packers drafted second, not just the first time
- "The Packers have only had the first selection in a draft twice, in 1957 with the aforementioned Hornung" - this contradicts the table, where it says they drafted 5th in that year
- Their normal draft order that year was 4th, however as the recipient of the last "bonus lottery pick", they got a bonus 1st round pick. This is mentioned in the lead. Let me know if you think it warrants a note in the table itself (note, fifth was a typo, they were 4th). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review ChrisTheDude, responses noted above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude, let me know if you have any additional comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support - the CFL in square brackets still looks odd to me but I guess it's no big deal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh
Source review criteria and status: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for
Source review notes:
- I noticed Encyclopedia Britannica is Wikilinked, as are a number of other publishers. Could you Wikilink the first instance mentions for websites to keep it consistent?
- Ref 18, 19, and 28 – All use the same publisher as the source but each one uses a different variation, one with an underscore, one with a hyphen, and one with just spaces. Please make them consistent and unlink the latter two to be consistent with your wikilinking.
- Ref 23 – No publisher listed
- Ref 7 – Seattle Times is subscription based, needs url-access parameter
- Ref 7 – Add publish date
Other comments:
- Infobox has a link to "List of first round draft picks" but the target is List of...first-round draft picks"
- Earl Girard redirects to Jug Girard. Perhaps you should list this name there instead?
- Vito Parilli redirects to Babe Parilli. Same comment as above.
- Your date formatting is good and consistent, but could you add
{{Use mdy dates|date=February 2024}}under the short description? That way if anybody adds sources later on it should still end up properly displaying whatever date formats they use in refs.
That's what I've got. I found this formatting to be interesting for draft history and preferably over a whole list of picks at that article title instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed all your comments except the first. This may be personal preference, but generally when I use {{Cite web}}, I use the website field and write out the literal website without linking. However, if I use {{Cite magazine}} or {{Cite encyclopedia}}, the link is ancillary (imho), as the work itself isn't necessarily digital. So typically in that case I would write out the work itself and link it (i.e. Sports Illustrated), because there is some relevance. {{Cite web}} says the work or website field is
Name of the work containing the source; may be wikilinked if relevant.
All this to say I think there is some wiggle room to leave the encyclopedia linked while not wikilinking anything that ends in ".com" or similar. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)- @Gonzo fan2007: I respect that it's personal preference and we that we more or less focus on aiming for consistency in the formatting, but I didn't realize the logic you were using was based on the type of cite. Just for my own clarity so I know how to properly evaluate your lists moving forward, you're wikilinking in every ref that this applies to, or just the first occurrence in the type of references this applies to? I imagine some of these sources do strictly post some of their content online, but I get what you're getting at. Regarding Sports Illustrated specifically, any thoughts on the fact citation expander, in my experience, has always changed references I've used that use Sports Illustrated to cite magazine instead of cite web? Lastly, maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel be Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, re Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, my bad. I always confuse Green Bay Press-Gazette and MJS on which has the dash. My general process (and I am sure I'm not 100% on this) is that if I am using {{Cite web}} to cite an exclusively online source, I typically don't link to the article (so ESPN.com and not ESPN). For other sources which were primarily offline, like magazines, newspapers, or encyclopedias, I will link every occurence in each citation (so Green Bay Press-Gazette for each citation). Does that make sense? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed the one use of SI.com, I fixed that to {{Cite magazine}} and linked the magazine field. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I understand better now about your process and stylistic choices so it should be more to the point in any future lists you nominate. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonzo fan2007: I respect that it's personal preference and we that we more or less focus on aiming for consistency in the formatting, but I didn't realize the logic you were using was based on the type of cite. Just for my own clarity so I know how to properly evaluate your lists moving forward, you're wikilinking in every ref that this applies to, or just the first occurrence in the type of references this applies to? I imagine some of these sources do strictly post some of their content online, but I get what you're getting at. Regarding Sports Illustrated specifically, any thoughts on the fact citation expander, in my experience, has always changed references I've used that use Sports Illustrated to cite magazine instead of cite web? Lastly, maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel be Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comments from ZooBlazer
The article looks pretty good overall already, so my comments are probably mostly nitpicks.
The Packers have only had the first selection in a draft twice
- You can remove "only"and Tony Mandarich in 1989. The selection of Mandarich has been much maligned over the years. Of the first five picks of the 1989 NFL draft
- Mostly just curious if there's a reason throughout the article why you technically link the second instance of a draft year instead of the initial one? I think in the context, readers would understand the link is for the draft, and not 1989 for instance. Not a big deal if that's just what you prefer or if that's how it is handled in NFL articles in general or something, but I figured I'd at least mention it.- My mo is that if I am just generally statin something happened in a year, I don't use a piped link, especially if later in the same sentence I actually state out the full name of the draft. That way the reader is clear on the link and there is no easter egg/surprise involved. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
selected over a 7-year period
- Aren't single digit numbers usually spelled out?- Per MOS:NUMBERS,
Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently
. Since10
comes a few worts earlier,7
stays as a number. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per MOS:NUMBERS,
over 7 rounds
- Ditto- See response above. Since
13
is right before it,7
stays as a number. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- See response above. Since
- I bring the last two points up because in other parts of the article, you do write out the numbers such as
with picks three, four and five
- See response above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
That's all from me. Like I said, at this point these are mostly nitpicks. Great job on the article. -- ZooBlazer 17:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks ZooBlazer for the review. Responses above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Works for me. Happy to support. -- ZooBlazer 20:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Promoted. --PresN 15:01, 23 March 2024 (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, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [18].
- Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review this nomination. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time a "Pro Bowl selection" by team list has been nominated at WP:FLC, and the table layout is updated to make it sortable. With all that said, I would appreciate any feedback or input, and will address any issues quickly. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Comments by RunningTiger123
[edit]Figured I'd help out with this one after my comments at the Packers MVPs list.
- "Northern Division" – never heard this usage, "North division" or "NFC North division" is probably better
- "until 2014, until the NFL" → "until 2014, when the NFL"
- "the highest voter-getters are named starters" → "the players with the most votes were named starters"
- "the common thread" – don't think this is the right wording since the whole point is that it changed a lot; maybe try "a common option"
- "every year since 1950 except for ten seasons" – I count nine? (Ten if you count the All-Star Games)
- Spell out 10, 9, 8, and 4 in the last paragraph in the lead (MOS:NUMERAL)
- Image captions are complete sentences, so use periods
- "also playing in the January 1939 All-Star Game" – the Packers played in the 1940 game
- "possibly best known in his role blocking for the famous Packers sweep" – citation needed or remove
- "only selected for one Pro Bowl in his career after the 1964 NFL season" – wording is awkward and implies he was picked for more games before 1964
- "a dynamic pass-catching duo in the 1960s" – citation needed or at the very least "dynamic" should not be used in WP:WIKIVOICE
- "three of them he was the only Packers player selected" – "he was the only Packers player selected for three of them"
- "became the third member of the Matthews family to be selected for a Pro Bowl..." – citation needed or remove
- "Packers only representative" → "Packers' only representative"
- Footnotes shouldn't have spaces between them and the word they follow (MOS:REFSPACE)
- Refs. column should not be sortable
- MVP background colors are too dark – need a 4.5:1 contrast ratio between link text and background to meet WCAG AA (MOS:COLOR)
- "NA" → "N/A" (MOS:ABBR)
- Sort keys need to be set to enable correct date sorting in All-Star Game table (dates are automatically sorted correctly, but not when written as month-year only)
- 1982 and 2004 seasons: Fix reference rowspan
- Davante Adams' selection for the 2022 game was his fifth, not fourth
- Optional: "# of All-Star Games/Pro Bowls with Packers" might look better in key instead of header
— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- RunningTiger123, thanks for the review. Two comments: (1) regarding the 10 seasons without a selection, that included 2024 originally, but Kenny Clark just got announced. When I updated the table I forgot to update the lead. (2) Will you check the colors to see if they are good? All other comments have been addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Colors are closer, but still not enough. I suggest #88FFFF instead of #00FFFF and #AFFFAF instead of #00FF00 . RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- RunningTiger123, thanks for the review. Two comments: (1) regarding the 10 seasons without a selection, that included 2024 originally, but Kenny Clark just got announced. When I updated the table I forgot to update the lead. (2) Will you check the colors to see if they are good? All other comments have been addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh
Only includes the position that the player was selected for inclusion in the Pro Bowl.
– This feels a bit clunky, what about something like "The position which the player was elected to the Pro Bowl for"?- None of the refs contain Wikilinks to the website/publisher. Some people choose to link in every ref while others choose to link the first mention
- Ref 103 links to 2029 instead of 2019
- For the image of Clay Matthews, perhaps you could end the sentence after Bruce Matthews, then start a new sentence to state that "Jake Matthews, the son of Bruce and cousin to Clay, later became the fourth." Just feels like it could be a bit better to start a new sentence than to stick that in brackets.
- References don't verify that Henry Jordan (1961) was Pro Bowl MVP (the other Pro Bowl MVPs are verified)
- Spot check on 15 (other) sources match what they are being cited for (spot checked more than I normally would based on the above)
- I checked out the Green Bay's media guide and I wanted to note that this also confirms note E about John Martinkovic being a Pro Bowler in 1955 (page 481).
- Do you think a separate table of "Most selections while with team" could be useful? I'd imagine an inclusion threshold of 5+ selections, which would be 14 players.
That's all I've got for now. My only issue is really just the ref formatting, otherwise it passes a source review. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review Hey man im josh. I have addressed all of the above except the following:
- I don't link websites when using the "website" field. Maybe just a personal preference, but my understanding is that the only requirement is consistency.
- I contemplated trying to add a new column for "Total selections", but with the sort function it doesn't really look very nice. I also contemplated a separate table, but it's already a long page as is. Idk, I guess I don't feel strongly either way, but lean towards not making the page any longer. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonzo fan2007: Fair enough about the ref formatting, the references do include all of the relevant information from the targets, it was just the website/publisher aspect I was focused on, which you've of course addressed. Yeah I don't think a separate column for total sections would be ideal. I think the only way it works out is if you do it similar to the annual statistical leaders lists we have for the NFL, such as this. But like you said, it's a long page already and I understand the hesitance towards including such a list.
- I see that you added a reference for the Henry Jordan bit I mentioned. Did you notice that it mentions "most-valuable lineman", as opposed to Pro Bowl MVP? What do you make of this? I found this from the NFL that mentions a back and lineman being selected, which is why Fred Carr received it it seems. Then I found this ref from 1962 Pro Bowl, which does confirm that he was selected. Not sure what to make of this, except that it does seem like two players were selected from the 1957 through 1972 Pro Bowls, with the exception of the 1962 Pro Bowl on PFR, which is clearly missing Henry Jordan. Do you think we need to make a clarification or explain a bit? I'm just looking into it now because I didn't understand the history of the Pro Bowl as well as I do now after reading this article and I had some questions.
- 1970 should include ref 5 instead of 1969, as the 1969 row doesn't need any addition refs for verification while the 1970 does (I missed this, as I was checking the page against MVPs originally)
- The clarification regarding the Pro Bowl isn't necessary for my support, but I'm kind of just musing based on some of our past discussions. Thanks. 16:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. Jeez, the whole "Pro Bowl occurs the year after the season" has killed me with this list. Regarding the MVP, would a note suffice? Something explaining that Pro Bowl MVP was selected differently throughout the years? I'll contact PFR on Henry Jordan. They are usually pretty quick to reply. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just as extra, the note would say something like
From 1951 to 1956, the MVP of the Pro Bowl was called the "Player of the Game". From 1957 to 1971, MVP Awards were given to two players: the best back and the best lineman. From 1972 to 2007, the award was again called the "Player of the Game". Since 2008, a Pro Bowl MVP Award has been given and starting in 2013 the MVP Award was handed out to two players: the best on offense and the best on defense.
I would obviously need to cite it all, which isn't a small order, but you get the gist. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)- Makes sense to me. This is definitely a pain to clarify, that much I understand. Sorry for the excess work load but it's definitely been educational for me to review this list! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, I have added the note. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. Source review passed. Support! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, I have added the note. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. This is definitely a pain to clarify, that much I understand. Sorry for the excess work load but it's definitely been educational for me to review this list! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Dylan620
I'm starting an image review now. If I don't finish tonight, then I should be able to get it done tomorrow morning or early afternoon. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- As promised:
- I appreciate how well-illustrated this listicle is; I count 22 images! The only caveat is that I'm not certain if a second image of Aaron Rodgers is really necessary, although I understand why a second would be included, considering he holds the team record for most Pro Bowls.
- Even taking the above minor reservation into account, each image adds encyclopedic value.
- The caption for the lede image reads like a full sentence, and punctuation should probably be added accordingly. (There should be a period at the end, and I personally think it would be a good idea to add a comma before
with 10
as well.) - Alt text checks out for the most part, although I think first names should be included alongside surnames.
- Licenses and image sources mostly check out as well. The source for the James Lofton image is a dead link for which I can't seem to find an archived URL, but I did find the image on an Etsy listing which provides a year that corroborates with the license provided. I do have a couple reservations:
- The alt text for the Eddie Lacy image states that he is riding a bicycle. This can indeed be seen in the original Flickr upload, but there is no sign of the bicycle in the cropped image which is used in the listicle. Maybe replace
riding a bicycle
withholding a sports drink bottle
? - The caption for the Davante Adams image states that he was selected to four straight Pro Bowls. This is technically true due to the 2021 Pro Bowl's cancellation, but could be confusing because the table shows five consecutive selections for Adams. Maybe this caveat should be added to the caption, whether in writing or in reusing the footnote from 2021's row in the table?
- The alt text for the Eddie Lacy image states that he is riding a bicycle. This can indeed be seen in the original Flickr upload, but there is no sign of the bicycle in the cropped image which is used in the listicle. Maybe replace
- Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Dylan620, I believe I have addressed all of your comments. The Adams caption was a typo, should be "five", fyi. The 2021 Pro Bowl was cancelled, but that didn't cancel out his selection as a Pro Bowler. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me Gonzo fan2007. Image review passes; support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Dylan620, I believe I have addressed all of your comments. The Adams caption was a typo, should be "five", fyi. The 2021 Pro Bowl was cancelled, but that didn't cancel out his selection as a Pro Bowler. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Promoting. --PresN 15:05, 10 March 2024 (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, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [21].
- Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
After a short break from working on list articles, and previously working on Filipino solo music artists, I decided that taking on a band would be a nice change. It started with expanding their main article, until I've finally gotten to their list of songs. Filipino indie folk band Ben&Ben is a nine-member ensemble whose music is known for its anthemic quality and emotional engagement that appeals to a wide range of audiences. Their songs have been featured in films, television shows, and soon on stage (Philippine theater!) Regarded as prolific songwriters, the band is also the most-streamed Filipino artist of all time. The band's discography was brought to FL status by GWL a while back, so I thought I'd work on the their song list this time. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Placeholder
[edit]- "They then renamed and released their self-titled EP" - as written this indicates that they renamed their EP, which I don't believe is what you mean. I would change it to "They then changed their name and released their self-titled EP"
- Back for a full review later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the initial review. Made the change as suggested. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
More comments
[edit]- "Filipino indie folk band Ben&Ben has recorded.....They have collaborated with" - is the band singular or plural?
- My bad. Should be plural, I've made the changes, and parts of the lead as needed to be consistent.
- "By 2018, two singles from the EP were featured" - both films seem to have come out in 2018, so change to "In 2018, two singles from the EP were featured"
- Done
- "and the brothers' assistance on writing" - this reads a bit strangely. Did they help someone else (Verona?) write the songs? The articles on the songs suggest they just wrote them by themselves......
- I've removed the phrase so it's not ambiguous. Hopefully that reads better.
- "lyrics that delve on" - you can't "delve on" something in English. I would suggest "lyrics that deal with"
- Done
- "The band members have co-written some of their songs" - on this album specifically or generally?
- Just for the second album, tweaked so it specifies that.
- That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional comments ChrisTheDude. All actioned. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support and edits. Appreciate your time in reviewing as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]- Images are all CC or PD. Positioning is fine on both my desktop and mobile views.
- Infobox image is not ideal as it appears on the page, but seems to be the best of a limited selection of free-to-use images available. I wonder if it's worth making a cropped version to make the band members a little clearer?
- Thanks for doing the image review. I thought about cropping it initially, but found the cropped version to be much lower quality, since this is a screen capture from a free-to-use video upload. The better quality, seems to be making use of the wide-angle shot. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Images and their captions are relevant and I didn't see any MOS issues.
- Alt text is included.
- Pass for image review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]- There are many uses of Spotify for factual and, I would assume, uncontroversial information. It looks from discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#Spotify and elsewhere at RSN that editors are mostly happy with Spotify as a source for uncontroversial information. (Co-ords, please correct me if necessary)
- There have been a few discussions about BandCamp at RSN. Like for Spotify, my reading is that this source is fine if used for uncontroversial content, as it is here.
- The YouTube source used is the official channel for Studio Three Sixty so seems fine here.
- Spot check on "embraced themes of romance and positivity" - no issues.
- Spot check on "move towards sociopolitical themes reflected in lyrics that deal with social justice, mental health, and individualism" - no issues.
- I think "sparse instrumentation, harmony, and handclaps" should either be attributed as a direct quote, or rephrased.
- Thanks for doing a review of sourcing as well BennyOnTheLoose. I have rephrased the quotation instead. Let me know if that works. Look forward to the rest of your comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- No copyvio or close paraphrasing issues found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector or in a couple of spot checks.
- Pass for source review as it looks fine to me now. Regards, 22:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh
I've wanted to review this list, but I've been hesitant because the citation highlighters I use are showing a whole lot of red in the reference section (Spotify and YouTube).
- I believe that's been covered per Benny's source review above, where there was a discussion linked that Spotify is acceptable for informational and non-controversial use, i.e. song credits, date/year of release, etc. The same goes with YouTube where official accounts are used (i.e. for trailers, music videos, lyric videos identifying musicians and songwriters). Per WP:RSPYT: Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. I think this verified content also applies to official uploads from film studios, production companies or television networks. In my experience, I believe, these sources have been considered acceptable within the FL spaces with regard to its use in FLs for List of Songs, Discography, etc.
- Has there been past consensus that Spotify is an acceptable source for lists such as these?
- Answered above.
- "Autumn" is not sorting properly, it's being sorted as "Could autumn" for some reason.
- Thanks for catching, should be fixed now.
- "The Ones We Once Loved" is sorted as "Ones We Once Loved" but "The Way You Look At Me" is sorting as "The Way You Look At Me". These should be consistent, in that, they either both use "The" as part of the sort name or neither does.
- Also fixed.
- Needs to be more consistent with linking in the notes. Note U and AC for example link to the song whereas notes F, N, and R do not.
- For note F, I believe the song article on wiki is a different one, For note N there isn't a article to link from what I've checked, and note R has been linked.
- Ref 2 – add a publish date
- added
- Ref 9 – Wikilink SPOT.ph
- linked
That's what I've got for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review Hey man im josh, I've addressed all comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Sorry for the delay in supporting since your last response @Pseud 14. I missed this in a flurry of notifications. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- No worries at all Hey man im josh. Thanks for your support and patience in reviewing. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Sorry for the delay in supporting since your last response @Pseud 14. I missed this in a flurry of notifications. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comments from ZooBlazer
as well as rock opera-inspired music.[13][12]
- Flip the ref order
I tried to find other issues, but I think everything has mostly been covered already. So in the end, I ended up with this one measly thing. Great job with this article. I think I've only briefly heard of Ben&Ben, so it was fun to actually learn a bit about them. -- ZooBlazer 18:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ZooBlazer: that was exceptionally fast :) And thanks for the review and kind words. I've made the change per your comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I had already started looking at it when i saw you mentioned it in my FLC.
Happy to support. -- ZooBlazer 19:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support. Look forward to reading more of your work. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I had already started looking at it when i saw you mentioned it in my FLC.
- Comments from Relayed
Salute to you for how fast you can work with multiple articles in just a short time! I am happy to review.
- Lead: The band formed in 2016 as The Benjamins composed of Paolo and Miguel Benjamin Guico. → The band formed in 2016 as The Benjamins, composed of Paolo and Miguel Benjamin Guico. – add comma
- Lead: "The Way You Look At Me" by Christian Bautista, → "The Way You Look at Me" by Christian Bautista, – capitalization of title of works
- Lead: "Tuloy Na Tuloy Pa Rin Ang Pasko" by the APO Hiking Society, → "Tuloy Na Tuloy Pa Rin ang Pasko" by the APO Hiking Society, – capitalization of title of works
- Lead: 2007 drama One More Chance will feature Ben&Ben's discography, and is scheduled → 2007 drama One More Chance will feature Ben&Ben's discography and is scheduled – remove comma
- Table: {{Anchor}} templates are not placed properly in the table, particularly for entries that start with letters B, D, and T.
{{Anchor|B}}was placed next to Ebe Dancel instead of the song title,{{Anchor|D}}was placed next to the title of the second "D" song entry, and{{Anchor|T}}was placed next to the title of the second "T" song entry. - Table: Ben&Ben (with Clara Benin and Bea Lorenzo) – It appears that "Di Na Muli" is a Clara Benin and Bea Lorenzo song that features Ben&Ben, so perhaps it should be written as Clara Benin and Bea Lorenzo (featuring Ben&Ben)?
- Table: "Nakikinig Ka Ba Sa Akin" → "Nakikinig Ka Ba sa Akin" – capitalization of title of works
- Table: "SUNRISE" → "Sunrise" – MOS:ALLCAPS
- Table: "Tuloy Na Tuloy Pa Rin Ang Pasko" and "The Way You Look At Me" − ditto (Don't forget the notes and references too)
- Table: Two songs in the table are not sorted properly by title:
- "Di Na Muli" → "Doors" → "Di Ka Sayang" should be "Di Ka Sayang" → "Di Na Muli" → "Doors"
- "Upuan" → "The Way You Look At Me" → "War" should be "Upuan" → "War" → "The Way You Look At Me"
Ref 18: "Ben&Ben, Belle Mariano collaborate for "Autumn's" duet version". ABS-CBNnews.com. → "Ben&Ben, Belle Mariano collaborate for "Autumn's" duet version". ABS-CBN. — The source appears to be from the corporate website of ABS-CBN, not ABS-CBN News.
- This came up in a previous source review, and as a matter of consistency all news originating from ABS-CBN I have cited to appears as ABS-CBNnews.com (whether Entertainment, Corporate, News, etc). Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I see; crossed out
- This came up in a previous source review, and as a matter of consistency all news originating from ABS-CBN I have cited to appears as ABS-CBNnews.com (whether Entertainment, Corporate, News, etc). Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ref 31: Ben&Ben. "Di Na Muli (feat. Ben&Ben)". → Lorenzo, Bea; Benin, Clara. "Di Na Muli (feat. Ben&Ben).
- Ref 33: Ben&Ben. "Di Ka Sayang]". → Ben&Ben. "Di Ka Sayang". − unwanted bracket
- Ref 37: Arias, Jacqueline (May 28, 2021). "Hear Ben&Ben and DAY6 member → Arias, Jacqueline (May 28, 2021). "Hear Ben&Ben and Day6 member – MOS:ALLCAPS
- Ref 41: SB. "Mapa (Band Version)". → SB19; Ben&Ben. "Mapa (Band Version)". − incomplete author name, probably it is worth adding Ben&Ben too
- Added Ben&Ben; note that writing SB19 in full yields a cite error, so it is listed as just SB. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you are referring to the maintenance error on numeric names. However, you can bypass the error if "SB19" is surrounded by double parenthesis as
((SB19))and would render it as "SB19" without yielding an error. Consider doing that. – Relayed(né Abacusada) (t • c) 15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you are referring to the maintenance error on numeric names. However, you can bypass the error if "SB19" is surrounded by double parenthesis as
- Added Ben&Ben; note that writing SB19 in full yields a cite error, so it is listed as just SB. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ref 50: Ben&Ben. "SUNRISE". → Ben&Ben. "Sunrise". − ditto (MOS:ALLCAPS)
I think that is all I got for now. Good luck! – Relayed(né Abacusada) (t • c) 07:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing Relayed. All done, unless otherwise stated. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Pseud 14 Thanks for responding. Only left would be my suggestion above, and once that is sorted out, I will be happy to support.
- @Relayed: done. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Good work! Good luck for the rest of your nomination. – Relayed(né Abacusada) (t • c) 22:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Relayed: done. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Pseud 14 Thanks for responding. Only left would be my suggestion above, and once that is sorted out, I will be happy to support.
Promoting. --PresN 20:39, 5 March 2024 (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, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [31].
I am nominating this for featured list because I wish to improve my impact as a wikipedian and I feel as this is a good step towards that. I compared to other FA episodes lists (specifically Arrested Development and The Sopranos). I think what I did should be good enough and hopefully if its not I can learn what is good enough.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have just ran the internet archive bot on the page to archive various URLs. Past this point I plan not to mess with the page until someone begins their review. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment: Having worked on a fair number of Community articles, I know the production codes are not listed in the end credits, so they need to be sourced externally. I've used the Library of Congress in the past (example at "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons"), but if you can find a better source, that would also work. I'll probably come back for a full review later. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- This past discussion might help. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Question I feel that some of the entry on the webisodes list are not webisodes and more ads and shouldnt be listed, thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlifanofmrTennant (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- The WGA website lists The 5 A's of Greendale, Abed's Community College Chronicles, Abed's Master Key, Señor Chang's Spanish Video Assignment, and Dean Pelton: Office Hours as webisodes (link). Some of the names differ, but they mostly match with the webisodes here. I think Study Break, Road to the Emmys, Save Greendale, and the "Other" table could be removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I said I'd circle back so here's a full review:
- "American sitcom" → "American television sitcom"
Done
- If the lead sentence includes the start date, it should also include the end date (otherwise comes off as awkward or implies it's still airing)
- Done
- Can't use a source from 2013 as a citation that Harmon was showrunner through 2015
- Done
- Last two sentences of lead paragraph ("The series follows ... television clichés and tropes.") needs citations
- Done
- "Ken Jeong, Chevy Chase," → "Ken Jeong, and Chevy Chase,"
- Done
- "incident" is misspelled
- Done
- Spell out "five" in "season 5" for consistency
- Done
- "followed Nicole-Brown" → "followed by Brown"
- Done
- "However it was given a reduced episode count down from 20+ to 13, this trend continued for the remainder of the show." – too much synthesis here, just say it was picked up for 13 episodes in the previous sentence
- Done
- Add comma after "The day after the season four finale"
- Done
- Replace comma after "it had renewed the series for a fifth season" with a semicolon to avoid a comma splice
- Done
- No need to say the year twice for seasons 4, 5, and 6 – for instance, "the season ran from January 2 to April 17, 2014" is less repetitive
- Done
- "A month later in May" – redundant
- Done
- Since the list takes the time to list every renewal, I would include some other key context, either in the lead or in the body:
- Done
- Season 1 was originally a smaller order of episodes (maybe 13?); it was increased to 22 in the fall and to 25 sometime in the winter/spring
- Done I found nothing about originally being 13 everything said that it was originally 22 episodes and later extended to 25
- Season 3 saw the show put on hiatus over the winter
- Done
- Season 4 was originally scheduled to air in fall 2012 before moving to spring 2013
- Done
- The main Community article probably includes information about this; otherwise, a Google search should provide information about these events.
- Start to each section should say "ended on" instead of just "ended"
- Done
- "consisted of" → "consists of" (seasons still exist)
- Done
- Follow WP:ITHAT for "Main article" links
- Done
- Footnote a: Several changes here as well
- Done
- No comma after "original broadcast"
- Done
- Remove "and chronological" – gets confusing (are we talking about the internal timeline or the real-world broadcast timeline?) and is covered by "production order"
- Done
- "all home media releases" → "home media releases" (streaming arguably falls into this category and Netflix and Hulu use the broadcast order, so no need to emphasize "all")
- Done
- Include the same footnote next to episode 11
- Done
- "The webisodes parody events that happen ... believe Abed can see the future." – citation needed
- Done
- Remove "the main show" (redundant)
- Done
- "The webisodes also appear" → "The webisodes also appeared" (website is now dead)
- Done
- Remove "(plus a trailer)" (unsourced and not too important)
- Done
- Links to sister projects are incorrect
- Done
— RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@RunningTiger123: What does "Links to sister projects are incorrect" mean? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- The bottom of the page include Template:Sister project links, and the links are to the generic term "community" instead of "Community (TV series)". RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- @RunningTiger123: Thank you and I have now adressed all of the problems. Hopefully I didnt cause anymore, if all goes right this is my first FL, cant wait to see the signpost joke it gets paired with, Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- I made a few more copyedits where I either missed something earlier or wasn't clear about the change – feel free to ask if you have questions. I also found a reference for the original season 1 episode count being 13 and added it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- @RunningTiger123: Thank you and I have now adressed all of the problems. Hopefully I didnt cause anymore, if all goes right this is my first FL, cant wait to see the signpost joke it gets paired with, Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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. For the {{Episode table}} template, you just add a |caption parameter. The caption is set to be screen-reader only by default; to make it visual add |show_caption=y.
- Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- @PresN: I'm confused as to what you mean I've read the MOS:DTAB and I doesnt see how to apply it to the episode table. I was looking at the tutorial page and it seems to be box lists and not the episode table. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Since episode lists generate the table with a template, to add the caption you need to add a parameter to the template. Wherever you're using {{Episode table}}, add a "caption" parameter there, like
{{Episode table|caption=Season one episodes}}. --PresN 16:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)- I went to all of the episode articles and added the parameter Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Since episode lists generate the table with a template, to add the caption you need to add a parameter to the template. Wherever you're using {{Episode table}}, add a "caption" parameter there, like
Comments by Bilorv
[edit]Thanks for your work so far! I hope we can get this one promoted.
- Community: The Movie reads like an official title, but so far as I know the movie has not been named. Instead the section could be titled "Upcoming movie", "Untitled movie" or simply "Movie".
- Done I labeled it "Untitled movie".
- Community is quite remarkable in its history of renewals and cancellations. There's some good information on this in the body but I'd add (with these sources as a starting point: [32][33][34]):
- In the lead and the body for season 3: the season 3 mid-season hiatus led to a "Save Community" fan campaign, with use of the slogan "six seasons and a movie" (from "Paradigms of Human Memory"). This was later reused by fans whenever the show's future was uncertain.
- Done
- In the body for season 5: NBC cancelled the series and then Yahoo! picked it up (this is mentioned/sourced in the lead).
- Done
- Done
- I think there's more ups and downs to the movie but this section is going to change anyway based on future movie news and I think it's passable as it stands.
- Refs #102 and #141 don't take me to the right place (can you archive and then check it's worked?). No other issues in the refs I checked (#1, #11, #19, #23, #24, #30, #51, #73, #76, #118, #136, as of Special:Permalink/).
- Done Adjusted the links might be a problem with the archive links though I removed them and will run the page through the bot when I finish the other changes. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
This isn't part of the featured list criteria, but you could also consider a consistent reference style (e.g. are website names like TV by the Numbers/Entertainment Weekly linked or unlinked?). This would also mean reformatting the season 1–6 articles to a consistent style, at least for the tables transcluded here. — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: I have covered what you have addressed , any other concerns? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- There's some issues with the new text: the source doesn't verify that "six seasons and a movie" was used after the season 3/4 finales (and it wasn't used after season 6: "and a movie" was). You can't use a comma to separate two sentences ("this phrase went on ..." and "the series was ..." – see comma splice); "Notably appearing" doesn't start a standalone sentence; "Yahoo! Screen" needs to be followed by a period; "Untitled movie" shouldn't be in italics (it's not the name of the movie). — Bilorv (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think I have adressed those issues, somebody changed Untitled Movie back claiming sources called it that. I went looking they all say The Community Movie, except this one. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, with this I'm now happy to support promotion to featured list status. — Bilorv (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think I have adressed those issues, somebody changed Untitled Movie back claiming sources called it that. I went looking they all say The Community Movie, except this one. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- There's some issues with the new text: the source doesn't verify that "six seasons and a movie" was used after the season 3/4 finales (and it wasn't used after season 6: "and a movie" was). You can't use a comma to separate two sentences ("this phrase went on ..." and "the series was ..." – see comma splice); "Notably appearing" doesn't start a standalone sentence; "Yahoo! Screen" needs to be followed by a period; "Untitled movie" shouldn't be in italics (it's not the name of the movie). — Bilorv (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment
Why are there no ratings listed for season 6? Hey man im josh (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: I'm not the nominator, but season 6 aired on a streaming service (Yahoo! Screen) so there are no ratings. — Bilorv (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: Gotcha, thanks. Then perhaps it would make sense to mention this below the ratings table, or add a row for season 6 and mention this with a reference in the table @OlifanofmrTennant? Hey man im josh (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: While I was originally going to add a efn to adress your problem . I looked for other locations where this is the case and the only one I found was The Flash (season 8) which just has text. So I have added a string of text. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: Gotcha, thanks. Then perhaps it would make sense to mention this below the ratings table, or add a row for season 6 and mention this with a reference in the table @OlifanofmrTennant? Hey man im josh (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- MPGuy2824
- Season 3: "demanding the Community be returned" to "demanding that Community be returned".
Done
- Season 4: "Fridays at 8:30 pm" - which time zone?
Done
- "They later released a video of the cast of Community in character addressing the delay of the" to "They later released a video of the cast of Community, in character, addressing the delay of the"
Done
- "On October 30, NBC announced the new release date, returning to its original time slot of Thursdays at 8:00 pm.": "returning it to ..." OR "returning the show to ..."
Done
- Season 6: "first and only season". "first" is redundant since it was the only season to air on Y!Screen.
Done
- "Shortly after Yahoo! Screen was discontinued due to large financial losses" to "Shortly after Yahoo! Screen was itself discontinued due to large financial losses".
Done
- The Community College Chronicles (2009): "The webisodes also appeared on the Greendale Community College's website part of the A/V department's page." to "The webisodes also appeared as part of the A/V department's page on the Greendale Community College's website."
Done
- Ratings: Maybe you could hide the graphs until the problem with them are fixed by WMF and graph are viewable once more.
- That's all I could find. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: I feel as if I have adressed your concerns. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: I feel as if I have adressed your concerns. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
[edit]Image review: pass
Source review: Version reviewed
- Ref 42, 43, & 50: What makes Ratings Ryan a high-quality source? Can a better source be used for the Neilson ratings?
Done
- Ref 101, 147 & 148: Per MOS:ALLCAPS, titles should not be in all caps even if the source used all caps, unless there is a special circumstance
Done
- Source review not completed.
Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:27, 1 March 2024 (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.
