Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log
Featured list tools: |
This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, with the most recent at the top. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log.
Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2024. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2024.
Full current month log
- 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, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of Jacksonville Jaguars first-round draft picks
- Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is nomination #12 in this series and will be, provided everything goes well, THE LAST IN THE 32-TEAM SERIES! WOO! This is the shortest list of the bunch because the Jaguars are one of the newest teams to enter the league, doing so in 1995. This lists' format is based on my previous successful nominations/other lists in the set. As always, I will do my best to respond quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
- Good job on the series. I'll take the source review. I don't see any unreliable sources and everything is archived. Ref numbers from this rev. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 1 Good
; Written by Mark Long - Ref 2 Good
- Ref 3 Good
- Ref 4 Good
- Ref 5 Good
- Ref 6 Good
- Ref 7 Good
- Ref 8 Good
- Ref 9 Good
- Ref 10 Good
- Ref 11 Good
- Ref 12 Good
- Ref 13 Good
- Ref 14 Good
- Ref 15 Good
- Ref 17 Good
- Ref 17 Good
- Ref 18 Good
- Ref 19 Good
- Ref 20 Good
- Ref 21 Good
- Ref 22 Good
- Ref 23 Good
- Ref 24 Good
- Ref 25 Good
- Ref 26 Good
- Ref 27 Good
- Ref 28 Good
- Ref 29 Good
I decided to check all of them given how few there are. Let me know when you make the fix. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking a look @OlifanofmrTennant! I've reviewed ref 1, including turning off my ad blocker just in case, and I'm not seeing an author of Mark Long. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking over it now I confused two AP news sources. That's my bad. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, it happens. I'm just happy and grateful to have received a review, especially a source review, so quickly! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking over it now I confused two AP news sources. That's my bad. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Dylan620
- All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
- All images have suitable alt text.
- All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
- Sourcing for each image checks out; ditto for the captions.
- The captions themselves are well-written and present pertinent information on the players pictured.
Support on images – congratulations on finishing an impressive series! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review and the congratulations! Of course, much of that congratulations goes to the individuals who helped to promote the 20 other lists before I started chipping in, but I'll post a recap about it once this one gets promoted :) Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Since that time, he's been selected" - write "he has" in full
- Is there a link for "edge rusher"? I've not encountered this term before and it isn't mentioned in the position key.
- That's all I got. Great work as ever :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey @ChrisTheDude, thanks so much for the review and for catching what you did! I've addressed both your comments. For a long winded explanation though... In American football, "edge rusher" is a catchall term that typically refers to a defensive player who rushes the quarterback from the edge of the offensive line, pretty much always outside linebackers and defensive ends. NFL teams typically use 4-3 (4 defensive linemen, 3 linebackers) or 3-4 (3 defensive linemen and 4 linebackers) as their "base" defense, though this base can change depending on the plays. An edge rusher, such as prominent players TJ Watt and Von Miller, will sometimes be designated as a linebacker or a defensive end depending on the scheme and you may notice the role being the same as an outside observer. The Josh Allen in this article was once located at Josh Allen (defensive end) but was moved to Josh Allen (linebacker). Their role didn't really change, but their official designation did. Given that they are listed as a linebacker now and were drafted as a defensive end, using this term makes the most sense in this context. Josh Allen is actually a great example of this. If you look at his PFR, you'll see he was listed as a DE (defensive end) his first two years and then as an OLB (outside linebacker) his last three years. PFR also designates his position as edge. The position label is being more used often in recent years, even becoming a dedicated slot on the 2023 All-Pro Team. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14
- Support. Didn't find anything that require further improvement from my read. Congrats on completing this series. Great work! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review and the congrats, much appreciated @Pseud 14! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Gonzo_fan2007
- Support even nitpicking, I can't find any recommended edits. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]
List of crocidurines
Back with animal list #38, we reach our problem list (and first list) of the problem family in the order Eulipotyphla: shrews part 1! You see, at about 475 species, Eulipotyphla is too big for a list—that's normal. At 408 species, Soricidae (shrews) is also too big (as in templates stop rendering too big)—that's a first for our series, but fortunately it has three subfamilies, so we can break it up like that. And here in our first subfamily list, for Crocidurinae, we have 235 species (which is pushing it on length), and we start right off the bat with... a single genus of 191 species. For reference, that's almost 10% of the species I've covered in this 38-list series, in a single genus. And it's a genus of almost identical tiny shrews; Walker's Mammals of the World doesn't even break them into species, and just lumps pretty much the entire genus into "they're all about the same size and eat the same things. You tell them apart by their back feet and tails." In any case, they're all here, if with fewer pictures than I'd like, and it follows all the conventions we've built up over the last dozens of FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Pseud 14
- Nothing to nitpick, but perhaps technical-ish terms of ecosystems/communities such as savannas, shrublands, and grasslands can be linked for unfamiliar readers.
- That's all I was able to find. An informative and well-structured lists as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - epic work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
- C. floweri is missing its habitat which seems to be arable land.
- Wikilink "supratidal" and "intertidal".
- That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – Source reliability and formattting both look okay throughout the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review – Among the sampling of images I checked, there didn't seem to be any issues with licensing etc., and the ones I looked at have alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]
Municipalities of Nayarit
Let's keep it going. Here is one more list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 45 (!!) lists in North America. Inspired by real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standards, I'm helping to achieve this for lists of municipalities. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews Mattximus (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Santiago Ixcuintla is third largest municipality by population." => "Santiago Ixcuintla is the third largest municipality by population."
- That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
- There has to be a more urban-looking image for Compostela.
- Since municipalities are the second-level administrative divisions in Mexico, it would be nice to get a map of Nayarit divided into its municipalities.
-MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Compostela image: The other municipality images in the list are urban. I think using the lead image of Compostela, Nayarit, instead of what is there now, would be better.
- Done
- Map of municipalities: Nice job. If you still have the svg file, then upload that as well, to commons. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I saved it as png unfortunately, however I realize an error, in that I didn't use the Spanish spelling (missing accents) on a few words. I suppose it's ok for English wikipedia, but I don't think I have time to redo it. Mattximus (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dank
- Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
- Additional disclaimer: my Spanish is very poor.
- "West Mexico": The capital "W" means that there's a well-known area called "West Mexico" ... if so, please link "West Mexico" to a Wikipedia page that tells us what it is. If not, then use "western" instead of "West".
- "all the public services for their constituents": I'd shorten it to "all public services" (without "constituents"), unless I'm missing something.
- Checking the FLC criteria:
- 1. Nothing else is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and 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 sources appear to be reliable (but note my disclaimer), and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
- 4. It is navigable.
- 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine except for the last one; see below.
- 6. It is stable.
- I'll go ahead and support, but I recommend either removing the last image or doing some research on the validity of the license, since a banned sockpuppet uploaded it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm agreed with the reviewer above about looking for other images for Compostela. Your choice, but I agree with him that the lead image of Compostela, Nayarit, looks like it would work. And ping me sometime about whether there's a "West Mexico" or not. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, switched picture, no problem. Should I write Pacific Mexico? I'm completely open to other wording! Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, I stay away from discussions over what to call a geographic area ... but this is a different issue, it's about the capitalization. A proper noun means: "This is a thing. Maybe there's some disagreement over exactly what it is, but it's a definite thing, and this is what I think the name is". So, is West Mexico a thing? Is Pacific Mexico a thing? If so, then there's probably a paragraph somewhere on Wikipedia that tells you what that term means. If not, then it's best to avoid the proper noun. "western Mexico" means just "somewhere on the western side of Mexico". - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, switched picture, no problem. Should I write Pacific Mexico? I'm completely open to other wording! Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm agreed with the reviewer above about looking for other images for Compostela. Your choice, but I agree with him that the lead image of Compostela, Nayarit, looks like it would work. And ping me sometime about whether there's a "West Mexico" or not. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Right that makes sense. I did some poking around and there is a region in spanish called "Western Mexico" which contains this state. I used that term now, with proper capitalization. Thanks for the tip! Mattximus (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but the phrase doesn't seem to exist (as an actual thing) on the English Wikipedia or in English-language dictionaries (that I can find), so I lowercased it. Everything looks good now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – Reference reliability looks okay and the new link-checker tool indicates no problems.
One formatting issues, albeit minor: ref 1 has a hyphen that should be converted into an en dash per the MoS.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 19:44, 8 June 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, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [4].[reply]
List of accolades received by Joker (2019 film)
This is my third accolades-related FLC. I have brought the article in line with similar FLs, added missing awards, removed some non-notable ones and improved sourcing. Joker was initially somewhat controversial, but it has also received significantly more awards than the films in my other nominations.
Note: My Hacksaw Ridge nomination has received three supports, so I am adding a second one. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
- The result column sorts weirdly with won > runner-up > nom > 23rd > 20th > 13th.
- That's all I got for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It sorts alphabetically. Is it supposed to sort as win, runner-up, numerical places, nom and viceversa? Sgubaldo (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jumping in to say that IMO it should sort by placement, for want of a better term, so Won, then runner-up, then "numbered" places from 3rd downwards, then un-numbered "nominated"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
I'll do this source review, numbers taken from this revision [5] Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 7, 10, 32, 41 are live, though seems to be listed as dead.
- Ref 41 is listed as ANSA and not spelt out as opposed to British Society of Cinematographers.
Only problems I see now. I'll have the spoties done soon. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All have been returned back to life.
- Fully spelt out.
- Sgubaldo (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 5 Good
- Ref 10 Good
- Ref 16 Good
- Ref 19 Good
- Ref 22 Good
- Ref 28 Good
- Ref 30 Good
- Ref 35 Good
- Ref 48 Good
- Ref 57 Good
- Ref 68 Good
- Ref 70 Good
- Ref 74 Good
- Ref 97 Good
- Ref 101 Good
- Ref 105 Good
Spell out RTBF in ref 24.
What's the relability of AwardsWatch? That's all I got. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Spelt out RTBF.
- AwardsWatch is a website on the film industry and awards; it's similar to Awards Daily. It seems reliable for film awards and it's been used in FLs already. My reasoning for using it was because I wanted secondary source for all the accolades, but sometimes none of the bigger websites covered a specific one while AwardsWatch did. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as this is a nearly perfect list. Chompy Ace 21:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 19:44, 8 June 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, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]
Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present)
Every draft selection by the Green Bay Packers since the modern draft began in 1970. As always, happy to address any concerns or comments. Thank you for taking the time to review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14
- (the Canadian Football League [CFL] was also included in this supplemental draft). -- I think the flow of the prose should be fine if you remove the parenthetical, and then enclose "(CFL)".
- Since the "position" and "college" columns are sortable, items should be linked every time, as there's no way of knowing which repeated item will come first.
- I can't find an MOS on this (please let me know if I am missing it), but in any case I would look to WP:IAR as these are all very short tables with not a lot of overlap in positions/colleges. I think in one draft the Packers haven't drafted more than 3 players from one college and maybe 5 of the same position. Meaning any sort would generally still provide the link in a typical view. If this was one big table, I would agree. The article is pretty big as is, and the addition of all the linking would only make it bigger. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonzo fan2007: I’ve always referred to comments from the coords on this. If you revisit discussions from the FLC talk page archive, FLC coords including PresN and formerly TRM have always indicated in their reviews/responses that in sortable tables, WP:OVERLINK is an exception and WP:REPEATLINK applies, regardless of the size of the table. [7] [8]. Hopefully that provides clarification. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pseud 14 and ChrisTheDude:, I don't mind implementing it, but I feel like the benefits don't outweigh the costs (primarily in page size). @Giants2008 and PresN:, do you have any thoughts on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to revisit once coords have weighed in. I just figured that it's an accessibility MOS that I've seen highlighted by coords, which is why I raised it. (not in any way being stubborn on this) Pseud 14 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Giants2008 and PresN: can you weigh in on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard for sortable tables is to link every instance, as the "first" link depends on what you click. That said, you don't need to re-link in subsequent tables if you don't want. --PresN 01:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- @PresN, Pseud 14, and ChrisTheDude: I have direct anchored links to each unique draft year table from Green Bay Packers draft history, meaning someone may click a link to take them directly to a specific draft class. Thus, I think it makes sense for each table to still link the first instance of each position and each university. That said, I guess I am asking for a deviation from a community norm so that every instance of a position or college doesn't have to be linked because: each table is relatively short, there are usually not a lot of instances of a specific position (so it's not hard to find the link), but most importantly, linking every position will add 1000s of bytes of data to an already enormous page. Linking positions like wide receiver and quarterback aren't that bad, just adding the brackets, but linking positions with disambiguators, like Guard (gridiron football) and Tackle (gridiron football position) are brutal. This gets real bad in the early years when basically everyone was a lineman. As an example, Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969)#1943 draft, the Packers drafted 30 players at 9 unique positions and 22 unique schools. Meaning just in this table, I would have to provide 21 additional position links and 8 additional college links. Doing that just to this draft table adds almost 1000 bytes to the article size. 35 separate draft tables, let's say 1943 was a worst case, but even assuming an extra 750 bytes per table, we are looking at an extra 26k bytes! The problem isn't as bad for this current article because the draft is only 7 rounds now, but this one has more draft tables and will grow longer each year. Assuming 500 bytes per table and 56 drafts, we are looking at an extra 28k bytes. So just linking positions/universities will grow the article size by about 15%. I just don't see enough benefit to justify that. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to accept not linking every instance if there's links in all the tables; as you said, the tables are short so it's not a big deal. --PresN 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks PresN. @Pseud 14 and ChrisTheDude: does this satisfy your concerns? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to accept not linking every instance if there's links in all the tables; as you said, the tables are short so it's not a big deal. --PresN 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- @PresN, Pseud 14, and ChrisTheDude: I have direct anchored links to each unique draft year table from Green Bay Packers draft history, meaning someone may click a link to take them directly to a specific draft class. Thus, I think it makes sense for each table to still link the first instance of each position and each university. That said, I guess I am asking for a deviation from a community norm so that every instance of a position or college doesn't have to be linked because: each table is relatively short, there are usually not a lot of instances of a specific position (so it's not hard to find the link), but most importantly, linking every position will add 1000s of bytes of data to an already enormous page. Linking positions like wide receiver and quarterback aren't that bad, just adding the brackets, but linking positions with disambiguators, like Guard (gridiron football) and Tackle (gridiron football position) are brutal. This gets real bad in the early years when basically everyone was a lineman. As an example, Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969)#1943 draft, the Packers drafted 30 players at 9 unique positions and 22 unique schools. Meaning just in this table, I would have to provide 21 additional position links and 8 additional college links. Doing that just to this draft table adds almost 1000 bytes to the article size. 35 separate draft tables, let's say 1943 was a worst case, but even assuming an extra 750 bytes per table, we are looking at an extra 26k bytes! The problem isn't as bad for this current article because the draft is only 7 rounds now, but this one has more draft tables and will grow longer each year. Assuming 500 bytes per table and 56 drafts, we are looking at an extra 28k bytes. So just linking positions/universities will grow the article size by about 15%. I just don't see enough benefit to justify that. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard for sortable tables is to link every instance, as the "first" link depends on what you click. That said, you don't need to re-link in subsequent tables if you don't want. --PresN 01:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Giants2008 and PresN: can you weigh in on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to revisit once coords have weighed in. I just figured that it's an accessibility MOS that I've seen highlighted by coords, which is why I raised it. (not in any way being stubborn on this) Pseud 14 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pseud 14 and ChrisTheDude:, I don't mind implementing it, but I feel like the benefits don't outweigh the costs (primarily in page size). @Giants2008 and PresN:, do you have any thoughts on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonzo fan2007: I’ve always referred to comments from the coords on this. If you revisit discussions from the FLC talk page archive, FLC coords including PresN and formerly TRM have always indicated in their reviews/responses that in sortable tables, WP:OVERLINK is an exception and WP:REPEATLINK applies, regardless of the size of the table. [7] [8]. Hopefully that provides clarification. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Pseud 14. Replies above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find an MOS on this (please let me know if I am missing it), but in any case I would look to WP:IAR as these are all very short tables with not a lot of overlap in positions/colleges. I think in one draft the Packers haven't drafted more than 3 players from one college and maybe 5 of the same position. Meaning any sort would generally still provide the link in a typical view. If this was one big table, I would agree. The article is pretty big as is, and the addition of all the linking would only make it bigger. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "With the 2nd pick" => "With the second pick"
- "became the Packers first modern draft selection" => "became the Packers' first modern draft selection"
- "Since 1970, two Packers players have been drafted and then inducted" => "Since 1970, two players drafted by the Packers have been inducted"
- "The Packers have taken part in every modern NFL draft since" - add "1970" (and potentially lose the word "modern")
- "Mike McCoy was the Packers first-round selection in the 1970 draft." => "Mike McCoy was the Packers' first-round selection in the 1970 draft."
- "Keith Wortman was the Packers 10th round selection in the 1972 draft." => "Keith Wortman was the Packers' 10th round selection in the 1972 draft."
- "Larry McCarren, seen here in 2007, was the Packers 12th round draft pick in the 1973 draft." => "Larry McCarren, seen here in 2007, was the Packers' 12th round draft pick in the 1973 draft."
- "Eric Torkelson was the Packers 11th round selection in the 1974 draft" => "Eric Torkelson was the Packers' 11th round selection in the 1974 draft" (also full stop is missing)
- "Carlos Brown, shown here in 2003, was the Packers 12th round selection in the 1975 draft." => "Carlos Brown, shown here in 2003, was the Packers' 12th round selection in the 1975 draft."
- "Aundra Thompson was the Packers 5th round selection in the 1976 draft.2 => "Aundra Thompson was the Packers' 5th round selection in the 1976 draft."
- "James Lofton, the Packers first-round selection in the 1978 draft," => "James Lofton, the Packers' first-round selection in the 1978 draft,"
- In fact, just check all image captions for that same issue as it happens in almost every one.....
- I'll wait and see what the co-ords say about repeat linking but my understanding was also that it should be applied -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review ChrisTheDude! I believe I have addressed everything. I kept "modern" to provide differentiation between this and Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969) (the use of "modern", like "modern era" or "modern draft" is used a lot in sources). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Ref 2/6 – If the intention is to link the first occurence of NFL.com, the link should be moved from ref 6 to ref 2. For what it's worth though, you have avoided linking in this situation in the past, from what I can tell.
- Ref 9 – Add that the source is via Google News
- Refs 4/5 – In your referencing style, I thought websites are not normally linked unless they're news agencies. If so, wouldn't we want to link to the title of the article page instead of having the website as the URL wikilinked?
- "first-round" is used 11 times in the article but "1st" is not used at all. Some images use "5th round" or "2nd round" (for example). This should probably be consistent.
- I'm not a big college football guy, so excuse my question if it's a silly one, but do teams actually abbreviate to "St." instead of "State"? This may be appropriate, maybe it just looks weird to me...?
- Could link picks #2 in 1970 and 1989 to List of second overall NFL draft picks
- Could also link "second pick" in the third paragraph of the lead to the same place.
- Consider adding the
{{Use mdy dates|April 2024}}
template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been - Should this be List of Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) instead? I suggest making this as a redirect if not.
- Not relevant for this review, but should Green Bay Packers draft picks redirect to a dab instead? It redirects to Green Bay Packers draft history, but a dab could include that page, the picks from 1936–1969 list, this list, and the first-round pick list.
- My hope was that
{{Green Bay Packers draft history sidebar}}
would cover this. Because of the naming of Green Bay Packers draft history, I chose to stay consistent and drop the "List of" (notwithstanding the historically established "List of first-round picks"). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My hope was that
That's all I've got, good stuff on the list Gonzo! Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh: all addressed or responded to. Thanks for he review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the part about "St." vs "State" is mostly a feels thing for me, so I of course wouldn't oppose on those grounds, but I thought I'd mention it.
Before I make the change, hyphen on all of them or no hyphen?
– I believe we use hyphens when talking about picks, as in first-round pick but if we said selected in the first round, we would leave the unhyphenated. I can't explain the reasoning of it all to be perfectly honest, but this is the norm that I've learned and followed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Got all the hyphens Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually just noticed something else @Gonzo fan2007. There are a number of image captions that stat something to the effect of "X person was the Packers' x-round selection in the x-year draft", but list multiple players being drafted by the Packers in that round.
- 1970 (multiple firsts)
- 1978 (multiple firsts)
- 1983 (multiple tenths)
- 1985 (multiple sevenths)
- 1995 (multiple thirds)
- 1998 (multiple sixths)
- 1999 (multiple sevenths)
- 2000 (multiple sevenths)
- 2002 (multiple fifths)
- 2007 (multiple sixths)
- 2008 (multiple seconds)
- 2009 (multiple firsts)
- 2012 (multiple fourths)
- 2013 (multiple fourths)
- 2016 (mutliple fourths)
- 2021 (multiple fifths)
- 2022 (multiple firsts)
- 2023 (multiple seconds)
- 2024 (multiple thirds)
- Seems like these should be tweaked so it's not implied they're the only picks from the Packers' in that round. Possibly by replacing with x overall pick, or one of the Packers' fifth-round selections (as an example). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got them all Hey man im josh. Thanks or catching that! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No other issues I'm seeing then. Suppport! Great stuff, despite it being for the cheeseheads. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got them all Hey man im josh. Thanks or catching that! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually just noticed something else @Gonzo fan2007. There are a number of image captions that stat something to the effect of "X person was the Packers' x-round selection in the x-year draft", but list multiple players being drafted by the Packers in that round.
- Got all the hyphens Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the part about "St." vs "State" is mostly a feels thing for me, so I of course wouldn't oppose on those grounds, but I thought I'd mention it.
- @Hey man im josh, ChrisTheDude, and Pseud 14:, just wanted to note I am currently working on Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969) and will bring to FLC after this one; I will be (or already have) be implementing all of these comments there. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonzo fan2007: Minor thing, but in working on a list of my own based on your list I noticed that ref 13 is missing the section and page number, which are section D., page 5. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh fixed on Green Bay Packers draft history. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Woops, got my wires crossed and for some reason mistook what I was looking at as this page. Sorry about that! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh fixed on Green Bay Packers draft history. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonzo fan2007: Minor thing, but in working on a list of my own based on your list I noticed that ref 13 is missing the section and page number, which are section D., page 5. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - 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 20:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Promoted. --PresN 18:33, 3 June 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, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [9].[reply]
Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969)
Every draft selection by the Green Bay Packers from 1936 to 1969 (companion to Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present)). As always, happy to address any concerns or comments. Thank you for taking the time to review (note, I strove to implement comments made at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present)/archive1 in this article). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
- Explain the first instance of AAFC.
- "may not be representative of a player’s college position or current position." - I hope none of them are "current" players.
- This was a note held over from Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present). I have augmented it a bit to be more reflective of this list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a good reason to limit the width of the tables to 50% of the screen? They would take up less space if the width was increased (or removed).
- This came about when I made the decision to forego one large sortable table for a table for each draft. Without any width established, the tables varied significantly in total width and column, making for a graphically displeasing result. The purpose is primarily to standardize the column width to convey the feel of one cohesive table while still providing separate tables. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the pick column is the same for each year, except for a few rows (e.g. 1968 and 1969). If explanations are available for them, then add them as notes.
- The Pick # changes for a number of reasons, including trades and specific rules for each draft. Explaining each one of these, especially when applied to Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present), would be seriously excessive. We would be talking hundreds of notes. As an example, just in 2024 the Packers had multiple compensatory picks, and completed 3 trades involving 10 picks. This also changed the Pick # for them, and would likely require at least 4 separate notes, maybe more. I am open to adding some type of note explaining why the Pick # changes, but I feel like any more stumbles into sports almanac territory. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- An explanatory line or two in the 1950 AAFC section would be nice.
-MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks MPGuy2824 for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentences about the 1950 AAFC draft might not make too much sense in the lead. You can move it to the top of the relevant section.
- Respectfully MPGuy2824, I disagree. In this type of list, as a reader, I am not expecting just one section to have some explanatory text (especially one buried halfway down the page). My expectation, as is for most lists, is that the lead is going to summarize what the table is all about (in this case, for ease of navigation, I broke the table up into 35 smaller tables). Note that even if someone took a direct link to that section (i.e. Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969)#1950 AAFC dispersal draft) the hatnote would provide a quick reference to get a larger understanding of what the dispersal draft is. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment
- I am seeing "Cite error: The named reference "Position" was defined multiple times with different content" at the bottom...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude, it got fixed by another editor. I noticed that and fixed all but one instance, which is why the error was still present. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—
- Support - all looks good! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14
- Looks consistent with the 1970 draft picks list. Nothing that requires further improvement. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 20 sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Ref 9 and 27 are the same, you should name ref 9 and re-use it
...while most of the remaining players from the other five AAFC teams were placed in the dispersal draft for selection by existing NFL teams.
– I think this phrasing can be improved. Perhaps something to the effect of, the players from the defunct teams became automatically eligible for selection by existing NFL team in the dispersal draft.- Not sure if we want to complicate things a bit, but do we want to discuss anything regarding rights of players on those 5 teams who were previously drafted by NFL teams? Probably not I imagine, but I thought I'd ask.
- The acronym NFC is defined but never re-used, can be removed
- Consider adding the
{{Use American English}}
template to the top of the article under the short description - Under the 1944 draft section, there's a draft entry for Alex Agase who seems to match one of the images. However, the wikilink in the image links to Andre Agase (back at it again!) instead
- Under the 1962 draft section, the image has a typo. It wikilinks Buck Buchanon instead of Buck Buchanan
- The sections for 1967, 1968, and 1969 should have the "main article" pointed to "YYYY NFL/AFL draft" instead of "NFL draft".
- Given that the 1950 AAFC dispersal draft took place before the 1950 NFL draft, the dispersal draft should come before the regular draft in the order
Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Hey man im josh, I have responded to or fixed everything you notes. Appreciate the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good stuff Gonzo! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed, promoted. --PresN 18:32, 3 June 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [10].[reply]
Snooker world rankings 1985/1986
- Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another in the series of snooker world rankings lists. Steve Davis held a large lead over anyone else. Unlike the previous two years, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association did not change its mind about how to compile the list after it was published. As per usual, copies of relevant source extracts can be provided to reviewers, and all improvement suggestions are welcome. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I don't know if there's a hard and fast rule on this, but to me the lead image looks a bit odd in the middle of the lead rather than its usual position of right at the top
- Moved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dashes within dashes looks a bit weird in the second paragraph. Maybe change the one before "which were" to a comma
- Amended in a different way, but happy with your suggestion here instead.
- "In the 1983/84 snooker season" vs "with effect from the 1984–85 season" vs "for the 1985/1986 rankings".....? Three different formats?
- Now hopefully all like 1985/1986. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "The tournaments that counted towards the 1985/1986 were those" - think the word "rankings" is missing
- Added "rankings" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "No points were awarded to a player who did not win any matches in a given tournament. (For example, a top 16 player seeded into the last 32 of the world championship would not win any merit points if they lost their first match.)" => "No points were awarded to a player who did not win any matches in a given tournament (for example, a top 16 player seeded into the last 32 of the world championship would not win any merit points if they lost their first match)."
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This needs amending in the "points tariff" section too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Now done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14
- Initially the rankings were based on performances -- comma after initially
- The UK Championship and Dulux British Open were added for to the ranking list with effect from the -- unless it is a BEng styling - for conciseness The UK Championship and Dulux British Open were added to the ranking list
- In additional to standard ranking points awarded as per the table below -- In addition to standard ranking points
- That's all from me. Great works as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, {{u|Pseud 14}. Hopefully now sorted, but let me know if nayhting else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The ping didn't go through. Just a couple points missed, but made the edits so it's easier. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Passed
- Images have alt text
- Images are appropriately licensed
- Images have succinct captions and are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
- Alex Higgins' total needs to be corrected.
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't quite understand the sentence "Merit points were only used to determine placings between players that had an equal opportunity to earn them." An explanation might help me justify the relative rankings of Meo, Thorne and Charleton (10-12). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, MPGuy2824. I've added a little to that sentence. Although sources don't specify it, I believe that Meo being ranked above Thorne is because at the 1983 World Snooker Championship, Thorne could not earn merit points because he was seeded directly into the last-32, so Meo's merit point from that tournament is disregarded for the purpose of their relative rankings. Regards, 10:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thorne could not earn merit points because he was seeded directly into the last-32, so Meo's merit point from that tournament is disregarded for the purpose of their relative rankings
This would exacerbate the problem. But, I'd guess that there were similar things in other tournaments which worked in reverse. I assume that you are getting the ranking from one of the books in addition to snooker.org. Should be fine, if so.- In any case, I support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, MPGuy2824. I've added a little to that sentence. Although sources don't specify it, I believe that Meo being ranked above Thorne is because at the 1983 World Snooker Championship, Thorne could not earn merit points because he was seeded directly into the last-32, so Meo's merit point from that tournament is disregarded for the purpose of their relative rankings. Regards, 10:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding
!scope=row
to each primary cell, e.g.|1|| ...
becomes!scope=row | 1
, on its own line. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use!scope=rowgroup
instead. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 13:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I should know that by now. Now added. thanks, PresN. Regads, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – The books, newspaper articles and website pages used all appear sufficiently reliable and well-formatted. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [11].[reply]
List of Cincinnati Bengals first-round draft picks
- Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is nomination #11 for me in this series and will hopefully be #31 in the series to be promoted. This is the second to last nomination in the series, so we're almost done! This nomination's format matches that of other AFL team lists I've helped to promote, such as the Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source & image review from Dylan620
I'm going to tackle a source review this time around – a (very) cursory glance is already promising, with extensive usage of at least two reliable sources that have been cited extensively in previous lists. Should be finished tomorrow or the day after. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review
on hold, details below:- The refs to the Chicago Tribune, AP News, and United Press International (and probably USA Today as well) should use
{{cite news}}
instead of{{cite web}}
. - Spot-checked refs 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 30 (ref numbers as they appear in this revision):
- Ref 4 is hosted on the website for USA Today, but the Cincinatti Enquirer is named under the byline... should the source be credited to the Cincinatti Enquirer, with a
via
parameter added to mention USA Today? - Footnote A, cited to ref 24, states that the last pick in the first draft was No. 26 overall, but the source states No. 27.
- Ref 26 makes no mention of Charles Alexander; I would recommend additionally citing ref 24 in footnote F, since that one does mention Alexander.
- Adding
{{rp|page(s)=n}}
after each citation to ref 24 wouldn't hurt, just so the reader knows which page(s) specifically to look for the information that the source is being used to verify.
- Ref 4 is hosted on the website for USA Today, but the Cincinatti Enquirer is named under the byline... should the source be credited to the Cincinatti Enquirer, with a
- Source formatting is consistent across the board.
- All sources are reliable enough for the information they are being used to verify.
- The refs to the Chicago Tribune, AP News, and United Press International (and probably USA Today as well) should use
- After finishing the above source review, I decided to do an image review as well. Image review passes, details below:
- All images that are present contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
- All images have suitable alt text.
- Sourcing for each image checks out, as do the sources for the captions.
- The captions themselves are well-written.
- All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
- Excellent work once again, Josh! I have no concerns with the images, and only a few quibbles with the sources; once those are resolved (or adequately explained), I look forward to supporting. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple minor things I forgot to mention:
- "as a result of the 1970 AFL–NFL merger.[4][5][3]" – the refs should be listed in ascending order here.
- "Only one of the team's first-round picks ... have been elected" – have → has
- Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The refs to the Chicago Tribune, AP News, and United Press International (and probably USA Today as well) should use cite news instead of cite web .
– Done.Ref 4 is hosted on the website for USA Today, but the Cincinatti Enquirer is named under the byline... should the source be credited to the Cincinatti Enquirer, with a via parameter added to mention USA Today?
– I actually hadn't noticed that and skipped the middle man by replacing the ref with the version from the Enquirer.Footnote A, cited to ref 24, states that the last pick in the first draft was No. 26 overall, but the source states No. 27.
– That's a definite mistake on my part. The mistake stems from the wording of "second and last pick in the round". Normally there'd be 26 picks in the round (1 per team) and I didn't factor in that this added a pick to the end of the round. Fixed.Ref 26 makes no mention of Charles Alexander; I would recommend additionally citing ref 24 in footnote F, since that one does mention Alexander.
– Normally it'd be fine not to mention Alexander, as the notes are mostly about how the pick was acquired / why the team's position in the draft changed. I use the reference at the top of the column to verify the player who was picked, their position, college, etc. So, while it's not explicitly cited in that note, it is verifiable based on the column reference. With that said, I noticed that my source I used didn't explicitly state the pick number, which is something I'm always trying to verify. As such, I did add another source to verify the info (from the Pro Football Hall of Fame).Adding after each citation to ref 24 wouldn't hurt, just so the reader knows which page(s) specifically to look for the information that the source is being used to verify.
– Personally I think the small page range (226–232) and the numbered subheadings for drafts in the source should be straight forward enough to make the information easy to find."as a result of the 1970 AFL–NFL merger.[4][5][3]" – the refs should be listed in ascending order here.
– Is that an actual thing noted down anywhere? I personally prefer to use the references in the order that they would be verifying information for the sentence. For instance, if the lowest numbered ref (let's say 3), verified the end of the sentence, I would want to use it as the last reference despite the order. That may just be a stylistic preference of mine, but I'm now really curious if that's an MOS thing we should adhere to?"Only one of the team's first-round picks ... have been elected" – have → has
– Done.
- I believe/hope I've addressed all of your concerns, pending a reply to a couple. Thanks so much for providing a source and image review and the helpful feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you are correct about the ref ordering—I had seen it brought up as an issue in another FLC, which led me to point it out when noticing it in subsequent reviews I've conducted, but upon double-checking WP:CITEORDER, I read that both approaches are acceptable and it's all down to stylistic preference. All other fixes and explanations look/sound good to me. All that needs to be done now is for archived URLs to be added for the updated ref 4 and the newly added ref 27, but that is minor and easily fixable—the source review passes and I am pleased to support this FLC. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple minor things I forgot to mention:
Comments
- Support promotion. No issues with the text or table accessibility. A couple of refs are missing archive links, but that's not a deal breaker. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review @MPGuy2824! I manually saved the two pages missing archive links to the Internet Archive. They should be available to IABot in about an hour and I'll be sure to re-run the bot to make sure that's addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Gonzo_fan2007
- There would be a few recommendations (spelling out the positions, shorter See also section, etc) but we have discussed these and I respect your consistent approach.
- Recommend adding File:Ja'Marr Chase.jpg as a recent and well-known draft pick.
Support, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call, I've gone ahead and added that image. Thanks for the review and suggestion @Gonzo fan2007! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [12].[reply]
List of accolades received by The Boy and the Heron
- Nominator(s): TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Boy and the Heron (2023) is the latest — and potentially last — animated feature film from Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli. It collected a total of 27 wins among its 64 notable award nominations; among them were wins at the 96th Academy Awards and 77th British Academy Film Awards, which had seldom, if ever, recognized Japanese animations in the past. I hope you'll enjoy the read, and I look forward to hearing your comments! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am a first-time nominator at FLC, so feel free to leave me detailed feedback or conduct in-depth spot checks as necessary. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DBC
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Sgubaldo
- Infobox
- In the infobox, please count each win as having a prior nomination as well (e.g. for Academy Awards, it's currently counted as 1 win and 0 nominations, so change that to 1 win and 1 nomination).
- Done. —TS
- I'm not sure if it's a standard but, in all other FLs I've seen, runner-up and 3rd places are also counted as wins.
- I'm not very inclined to do this, especially since several sources clearly delineate the winners and runners-up in separate sections. —TS
- In the infobox, please count each win as having a prior nomination as well (e.g. for Academy Awards, it's currently counted as 1 win and 0 nominations, so change that to 1 win and 1 nomination).
- Table
- Checking the IMDb link,, it's missing a seemingly notable award from the Turkish Film Critics Association (not a dealbreaker if you can't find any sources).
- That's exactly the issue I encountered, which is why this wasn't included. It's worth noting that an article for this yearly event has not been created since 2011, leading me to believe it may no longer be a notable awards ceremony. —TS
- I feel the article would look a lot nicer if the awards in the table were listed in alphabetical order already without needing to sort by clicking on the column.
- Done. Chronological order made it easier to collaborate with other editors while the film was still receiving awards, but I must admit to also preferring alphabetical order. —TS
- Checking the IMDb link,, it's missing a seemingly notable award from the Turkish Film Critics Association (not a dealbreaker if you can't find any sources).
- Lead
- [...] second hand-drawn production to do so after Miyazaki's 2001 film Spirited Away. ==> This may need a comma after 'so'.
- This seems gramatically correct as is; not done for now. Feel free to correct me if I'm missing something. —TS
- The film was released on July 14, 2023, by Toho. ==> The film was released theatrically in Japan on July 14, 2023, by Toho.
- Done. —TS
- After that sentence, I'd add a bit about its release internationally. Perhaps roughly along the lines of "The film had its international premiere at the 2023 Toronto International Film Festival on September 7, and had its theatrical release in the United States on December 8.", but you can write that however you want.
- Done. —TS
- [...] second hand-drawn production to do so after Miyazaki's 2001 film Spirited Away. ==> This may need a comma after 'so'.
- References
- The Box Office Mojo reference had BOM as the publisher, but BOM should be the website, and IMDb should be the publisher; also, if you want you can use Template:Cite Box Office Mojo.
- Done. —TS
- Add Fandango Media as publisher for the Rotten Tomatoes reference.
- Done. —TS
- The Box Office Mojo reference had BOM as the publisher, but BOM should be the website, and IMDb should be the publisher; also, if you want you can use Template:Cite Box Office Mojo.
Most of these are pretty minor, well done on your first FLC nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the feedback, Sgubaldo! All comments addressed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Three More
- In Note e, I don't think you need "(all 2023)" considering it's the Top Ten Films of the Year.
- Done. —TS
- Ref. 31 is missing an author (Kelly Ng)
- Done. —TS
- At the 77th British Academy Film Awards, Miyazaki and Suzuki received Best Animated Film, marking the first time a Japanese-language film had received the award ==> At the 77th British Academy Film Awards, Miyazaki and Suzuki won Best Animated Film, marking the first time a Japanese-language film received the award; just to avoid repetition of received in the same sentence
- Done. —TS
- Two Nitpicks
- Wikilink Florida Film Critics Circle in Ref. 28 (and change from website to publisher in both Ref. 28 and Ref. 29 to make consistent with all the other critics circle/society/association references)
- Thanks for calling these out; I made a few passes to get all of the citations standardized before nominating, but evidently couldn't catch everything! Done. —TS
- Ref. 2, Ref. 40 and Ref. 43 have Anime News Network as a publisher while Ref. 6 has it as a website; make them consistent.
- Done. —TS
- A comment on the infobox
- One of the reasons I included the point about runners-up and 3rd places being counted as wins is because Template:infobox awards list automatically includes the note:
"Certain award groups do not simply award one winner. They recognize several different recipients, have runners-up, and have third place. Since this is a specific recognition and is different from losing an award, runner-up mentions are considered wins in this award tally. For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination.".
- I appreciate that this is not necessarily the best way to do it (and maybe something to bring up on the template page) but, for the purposes of this FLC, I'd like them to be included as wins. I'm not going to die on this hill though so, after the five comments above are resolved, I'll support.
- Ah, I'd forgotten about the note baked into the infobox. This seems like a fairly problematic consequence of the template being inflexible, but now may not be an appropriate moment to propose changes to it for one article. Done for now. —TS
- Sgubaldo (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sgubaldo: Responses above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've got nothing other than what was sorted above. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks as always, ChrisTheDude! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as this is a nearly perfect list. Chompy Ace 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Greatly appreciated, ChompyAce! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
I'll do the source review. Numbers from this revision [13].
- Refs 9 and 10 have contradicting numbers.
- Refs 11-13, 28, 31, 44 are good.
- Ref 15 Good
- Ref 23 Good
- Ref 28 Good
- Ref 33 Good
- Ref 36 Good
- Ref 40 Good
- Ref 44 Good
- Ref 48 Good
- Ref 55 Good
- Ref 56 Good.
Everything is archived so just clarify the box office thing and it should be good.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to see you, Oli, and thanks for the review! I've removed the Box Office Mojo reference for now as it seems to be out of date — presumably not displaying the film's recent earnings in China. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good job Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting for the record that I've replaced the source yet again, this time with one from Deadline Hollywood, as The Numbers seems to have fallen slightly out of date as well. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review – The lead image has an appropriate free license, caption and alt text. No issues here from what I can see. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate it, Giants2008! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 22 sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Would writing "Third place" instead of "3rd place" be more appropriate for the December 11, 2023, IndieWire Critics Poll result?
- Sure, why not? The relevant guideline is neutral on this specific situation, but there seems to be a general preference for ordinals being spelled out. —TS
- Is there a reason you're using linebreaks to put references on new lines? I don't believe this is a best practice and, while I don't believe this is your intention, it sort of looks as though you're trying to separate the references into their own cells.
- The references are in the correct cells to verify the information in their rows as far as I'm aware. I'm using
<br>
tags to prevent the column from being unnecessarily widened when multiple footnotes are being used, emulating the style I've seen used on many other lists. If you know a better way to do that, do let me know and I'll apply it. —TS
- The references are in the correct cells to verify the information in their rows as far as I'm aware. I'm using
- Refs column should
abbr
instead, since some columns have multiple references- Done. —TS
- Ref 25 – Change Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association to Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association
- Done. —TS
- Ref 27 – Add date of December 21, 2024
- Done. —TS
- Ref 45 – No publish date listed at the source. Archive date should also probably be updated, given that relevant information has since been added to the live page.
- Done. —TS
- Ref 52 – Not seeing a date at the target that matches up with the December 17, 2023, date listed. Perhaps this was mistakenly added based on a portion of the source stating nominations were announced that day?
- That might have been the case; removed. —TS
I too did a source review, just because you did one for me and I figured it'd be good to help you by being extra thorough with your first (of many I hope) FLC. Very good stuff for your first go of it. Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate the comments, Josh! Responses are above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.