Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2021

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): eviolite (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprehensive with sources for each individual entry in addition to general sources, explains the relationship between these two types of numbers, and is illustrated with pictures. Also, this would be just the third current FL of WP:WPM. I combined portions of List of perfect numbers (now histmerged into this article) and Mersenne prime to create this list (in addition to my own work). Please note that this is my first nomination for any type of good/featured content, so it is likely I may have missed one or two things, but I believe it meets all the criteria and may only need minor copyedits. eviolite (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a really strong first FL nomination (and a really interesting one!). Just a few comments:

• The lead seems to mix {{math}} and <math> – since the fonts are slightly different, try to pick one or the other.
  • According to WP:MATH: Therefore, the common practice of most members of WikiProject mathematics is the following: Use of {{mvar}} and {{math}} for isolated variables and very simple inline formulas; Use of LaTeX for displayed formulas and more complicated inline formulas. But I do understand that it looks a bit weird.. I've changed the singular use of <math> to the {{math}} template. This equation is more complex than the other ones, so it's still a bit awkward, but is it better?
• Lead uses lots of parentheses; try to remove some where possible
  • Done
• <sup> or {{sup}} should work in citation titles; try using that instead of "^"
  • Done
• Use "−" (minus sign) instead of "-" (hyphen) in equations
  • Done by PrimeHunter
• Rename "General references (for all entries)" section heading as "General references" and adjust footnote (a) accordingly
  • Done

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have addressed these issues. eviolite (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: new sig to ping eviolite (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks great! RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions to allow screen reader software to 'jump' straight to them without reading out all of the text above them each time; add as the first line in the table `|+ caption_text`, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header you can make it only visible to screen reader software like `|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}`
• The column header cells need to be marked with `scope=col`, e.g. `! class="unsortable" | Rank` becomes `! class="unsortable" scope=col | Rank`, etc.
• The "primary" cell in each row needs to be marked with `scope=row` (e.g. `| align="right" | 1` becomes `!scope=row align="right" | 1`); this combined with the colscopes allows screen reader software to accurately read out the table as a data table. --PresN 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @PresN: I believe I have addressed these issues. eviolite (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Both the images used are licenced as "own work" under suitable licences, and have appropriate ALT text. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Version reviewed — 1

Formatting

• Change "Ref" column from ! class="unsortable" scope=col | Ref to ! class="unsortable" scope=col | {{abbr|Ref.|References}} (adding abbreviation).
  • Done
• All the citations under the "Ref" column need to be center aligned, using align=center. I have done one as an example. Repeat the same in all the reference cells.
  • Done
• Be consistent with linking the author or not. Either link all, or none. If you choose to link, please
  • Ref#8 – Link Wagstaff, Samuel S.
  • Ref#9 – Link Pomerance, Carl
  • Ref#26 – Link Riesel, Hans
  • Ref#28 – Link Gillies, Donald B.
  • Ref#29 – Link Tuckerman, Bryant
  • Ref#30 – Link Noll, Curt
    • All done, also did some other ones.
• Be consistent with including publication location with books/journals. Few have (like Ref#13 - "Washington", Ref#14 - New York), while others don't. I'll suggest to remove all.
  • Done, I think -- not sure about aliases of that parameter, so might have missed one
• Ref#6 – Needs a page number, or a page range.
  • That book has no page numbers on Google Books, added chapter= instead
• Ref#15 – "O'Connor, John J," – there seems to be an erroneous comma after 'J'
  • Done by Citation bot, added a period for consistency
• Ref#16 – 'Calendarium ecclesiasticum - BSB Clm 14908' – Needs an endash (–) instead of a normal dash (-)
  • Done
• Ref#31 – Add URL access level as "limited"
  • Done
• Ref#37 Change "Los Angeles Times" from "Publication" to "Name of publication"
  • Done by Citation bot
• If all the sources mentioned in the §General references section apply to all the entries, why not merge them, and add them as a common source on the top of column (As done here). Do let me know if you want any help here.
  • I've done this but please note that some of the sources miss out on a few entries due to age, I assume that's not really a problem though
    • We do have individual sources for all entries. Definitely not a problem. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

• No issues. We do have few very old sources (1603), but majority of the sources are recent ones.
  • that's a primary source -- the general refs (and any other source in the ref column) serve as secondary sources

Verifiability

• Ref#32 – Can we have any identifier? Link? ProQuest ID?
• Ref#39, 41 – Same as above
  • For all three: Added links. For Proquest: marked url-access as subscription. I'm not quite sure but it seems the Gale ones are accessible even when not logged in?

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: I believe these issues are resolved now (though see my notes on each one). Thanks, eviolite (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good. Pass for source review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from the above source review, I definitely support this list for promotion as a featured list. It is really interesting to see a math list at FLC. I am not an expert, but was quite familiar with the topic, and found this list easy enough to understand. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• Some of the refs are centre-aligned but others are not..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Kavyansh.Singh did that one as an example, I've since centered all of them
• Support - I got nothing else :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2021 (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) 21:23, 31 October 2021 (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) 00:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): PresN 15:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My life has been pretty busy the last few months, which greatly delayed the next list in my mammal series—not to mention the size of the list. But finally, following up on my 10-list series of Carnivora (carnivorans/felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids/herpestids/pinnipeds) comes a third list in Artiodactyla (cervids/suines): the 144 species of Bovidae, covering antelope, cows, gazelle, goats, and sheep. Basically just a ton of non-deer/pig/horse hooved animals in one giant family. This follows the pattern set by the previous 12 lists (and reviewer comments therein), so hopefully it's good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Gazella erlangeri.jpg – The source link doesn't has the image. The correct source link appears to be this, which states that the image is copyrighted (All rights reserved). The source states "The resized photographs can be freely used on any pages for non commercial, scientific and educational purposes, if you let me know about it first" The image doesn't seem to be licenced under CC 4.0.
• Rest all around image are mostly "Own work" uploaded by Wikipedia user, from Flickr, or appropriately licenced. Images have ALT text. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the erlangeri image, as it appears to not be free use. --PresN 18:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "have a population sizes of over one million" => "have population sizes of over one million"
• Under springbok, shrubs is spelt incorrectly
• Under Arabian oryx, and is spelt incorrectly
• Under scimitar oryx, "as well fruits and vegetables" => "as well as fruits and vegetables"
• The note should probably have a full stop
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: All done! Thanks for reviewing. --PresN 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "Bovids range in size from the 38 cm (15 in) long (plus 5 cm (2 in) tail) royal antelope to the 3.3 m (10.8 ft) long (plus 0.7 m (2.3 ft) tail) gaur, which can reach 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) in weight.": The third sentence of text on a page shouldn't be this hard to parse. Move some words around, please.

• Took out the tails, it's just too much even besides the double-parenthesis

• I don't remember what we decided in one of my lists about, for instance, "Dorcatragus megalotis.jpg ... |image-alt=" ... will the screen-readers read that correctly?

• Alts shouldn't be missing, now added to the blank ones

• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates in the first column are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dank: Fixed, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I've had a look over this and the only thing I could raise is that endnote a doesn't seem to be cited; the information doesn't seem to be present in the IUCN source for B. bison, although perhaps I'm missing it elsewhere. Either way both the 500,000 farmed figure and the claim they're "almost universally" hybrids feel like claims which should be referenced, but that's all I have. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapple X: Thanks, cite added. --PresN 21:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. This source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 30 October 2021 (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) 21:17, 31 October 2021 (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) 00:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Koi... Mil Gaya is one of the earliest science fiction films from India, with its star Hrithik Roshan receiving appreciation from the audience, critics, and award groups. The film is also popular in other countries, especially in my country Indonesia. I nominated this list because I believe it is comprehensive enough. --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Photo caption needs a full stop

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "the film revolves on Rohit" => "the film focusses on Rohit"

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "who comes in contact" => "who comes into contact"

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "with the computer of his late father" => "by using the computer of his late father"

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "In addition to write the film's story" => "In addition to writing the film's story"

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Rakesh Roshan also done its screenplay" => "Rakesh Roshan also created its screenplay"

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Produced on a budget between" => "Produced on a budget of between"

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In the table, "Idhar Chala Mein" should disregard the quote marks and sort under I.

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It still sorts at the top.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I got on a first pass.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The table needs a caption, e.g. at the top of the table code add "|+ <table_caption_text>" or, if that caption would duplicate a nearby header, you can make it only for screen reader software like "|+ {{sronly|<table_caption_text>}}". Captions allow screen reader software to jump to tables by name. --PresN 14:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• No need for the year in the infobox caption

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources 2 and 3 seem to be about the cast and crew, so how do they support the claim that it received "positive reviews"?

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Eight Rotten Tomatoes reviews is too few to be meaningful (see Wikipedia:Review aggregators#Limitations)

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• it also got → it also received

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The date 20–22 May 2004 doesn't sort correctly (ranges of dates aren't automatically recognized as dates)

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hrithik Roshan, Rakesh Roshan, Rajesh Roshan, and Johnny Lever are not sorted correctly

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First names also need to be considered – so "Hrithik" should sort before "Rajesh", which in turn should sort before "Rakesh"

• Source 23 is from Getty Images, which I highly doubt is relevant to this article

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not stack references vertically as they are currently listed in the table. When the table is sorted in any way, it splits merged cells, so the references makes each cell unnecessarily tall and limit how much can be shown. Instead, I would place the sources for each award next to each other horizontally, or if that would make the cell too wide, place them into a single ref tag as a list.

@RunningTiger123: Like this? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could a {{refn}} be employed instead of bundling refs together? — DaxServer (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. The reviewer agrees with the current form, and I also agree with it too. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments above. Also, one more note: fixed image sizes are discouraged per MOS:IMGSIZE, so change the infobox image to use relative scaling. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – Pass

• The only image File:Hrithik at Rado launch.jpg – is licenced under CC Attr 3.0, and reviewed in an OTRS ticket. Pass for image licencing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Version reviewed: [4]

Formatting

• For the refs with more than one citation (7 and 8 for example), I recommend putting <hr/> in between them to differentiate them better

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Associated Press is the author, not the publisher

Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

• Fine overall

Verifiability

• Looks good.
• No real issues, so pass for source review. Though I still recommend considering my first point. Aza24 (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• There was an edit to the image size in August, prompted by a (correct) point made by an FLC reviewer, that had the effect of squeezing the table and creating a lot of white space. I think I've fixed it, but let me know if you don't like how it looks now.
• I checked sorting on all sortable columns; it's not a problem for me that the various Roshans are out of order ... sorting on last name only is fine by me ... but I'm bringing it up because some reviewers care about these things.
• I added "lk=on" to create a link to Indian rupee, but I haven't been keeping up on copyediting issues like I used to ... revert if that's not right.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 26 October 2021 (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) 21:06, 31 October 2021 (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, 1 November 2021 (UTC) [5].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karishma Kapoor is one of the most famous and widely known actress of Hindi Cinema. Recently, have added refs, re-wrote lead and tried to add all necessary things required to be a FL. All comments welcome. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions ("|+ <caption_text>" above the column header lines, or "|+ {{sronly|<caption_text>}}" if that text would duplicate a nearby section header). Table captions allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables, without having to read all prior text to provide context. --PresN 15:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Added @PresN: Check now please--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 05:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 19:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

====Comments from HAL==== I would place the scope on the film title rather than the year.  Added--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Many of her roles are not correctly sorted by surname.  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Just got interrupted... I'll get to the lead soon. ~ HAL333 22:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] appearing in the commercially successful films --> "appearing in these commercially successful films"  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] playing smaller parts of the love-interests in male-dominated films --> "playing smaller love-interest roles in male-dominated films" Comma needed after "The film earned her praise from critics"  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] several of the years --> "several of the year's" I have re-written entire sentence The above sentence also does not make sense. Hero No.1 is from 1997. she portrayed the real life actress Zubeida Begum --> "she portrayed actress Zubeida Begum"  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Change "Though" to "However" --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "thriller Bodyguard, which ranks among the highest-grossing Bollywood films of all time." needs a source.  Done Meanwhile changed the sentence. Let me know if it's framed correctly.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Does Note a have a source?  Added--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] That's all for now. ~ HAL333 16:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hi @HAL333:, please have a look at the list and let me know if there are issues to resolve.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 05:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hello @HAL333:, Can you please close the suggestions that I fixed already?. It will help me to identify the unsolved one very easily.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 19:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Terribly sorry for the delay. ~ HAL333 19:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Kapoor had her first commercial success in a leading role in romantic action drama Anari (1993). Anari was a commercial success and was one of the highest grossing films of 1993" => "Kapoor had her first commercial success in a leading role in romantic action drama Anari (1993), which was a commercial success and was one of the highest grossing films of 1993"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, what's the source for that last bit?
  •  Added--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "From 1992–1996; she featured in" - no reason for that semi-colon to be there
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "The success of the these films" => "The success of these films"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "in the Yash Raj's produced musical romance" => "in the Yash Raj-produced musical romance"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Subsequently, she played leading roles in several blockbuster films, including the comedies Hero No.1 (1997)" - you already mentioned that film. The chronological order has gone a bit weird here.........
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "acclaimed performance of a disillusioned sister of Hrithik Roshan's character in the terror drama Fiza (2000), won" - no reason for the comma before "won"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "took sabbatical from films" => "took a sabbatical from films"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "during the time" => "during this time"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Within the first day of its release, it went on to become" => "Within the first day of its release, it became"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "the film and her performance received mixed reviews" - that bit should be a separate sentence
  • Check now--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "she again took sabbatical from films" => "she again took a sabbatical from films"
  •  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

;Source review Version reviewed – this – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Formatting Ref#3 – Add March 1, 2020 as date  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 05:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Be consistent with linking Website/News/Institute/etc. in citations. Few, like British Board of Film Classification (Ref#33), Firstpost (Ref#43) are linked, rest are not.  Fixed I prefere linking--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Still some Websites like "The Times of India", "The Indian Express" and "The Free Press Journal" are un-linked. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]  Fixed My apologies. @Kavyansh.Singh: Please have a look now.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Be consistent with 'Rediff' or 'Rediff.com'  Fixed 'Rediff.com'--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Also change "Times of India" to "The Times of India", and remove "The Times Group" as the agency. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref#83 is just a link. Format it as a citation  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Please check Ref#89. It reads 'DelhiJuly 4, India Today Web Desk New; July 4, 2019UPDATED; Ist, 2019 11:33'  Fixed Replaced with new one. No idea who had added it.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Reliability Seems fine to me. No major issues. Verifiability Few links are dead, like British Film Institute (Ref#20), NDTV (Ref#50), etc. I'll suggest to archive all the citations. You can use this tool (Check the box saying 'Add archives to all non-dead references')  Fixed Archivied--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Afterwards, try running the Citation bot – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hi @Kavyansh.Singh: please check now.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] @25 Cents FC – just a few more things needs to be addressed. Rest, most seems fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @25 Cents FC – I fixed a few more things, and everything seems fine now. Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks mate, appreciate.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 15:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The only image File:KarismaKapoor05.jpg – is licensed under CC attr 3.0, and is confirmed in an OTRS ticket. Pass for image licencing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh Can you please close the suggestions that I fixed already?. It will help me to identify the unsolved one very easily.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 19:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*"work in Hindi films" why obfuscate Bollywood? More readers will be familiar with Bollywood than "Hindi films". Bollywood films have English-language films as well like Delhi Belly, Finding Fanny etc. She has not acted any such films hence Hindi films.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "success in a ... a moderate success" success ... success.... Not getting.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "of 1993.[3] From 1992–1996" repetitive year usage. From 1992–1996 -> surely "between"?  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "Despite appearing in these commercially..." this sentence appears to be unreferenced and honestly doesn't really make sense to me.  Fixed I was not in favour of this sentence either. Since it was added by someone, I did not care to remove.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "Kapoor's career prospects improved" according to whom? I have used this based on Box office collection and awards and nomination received by Kapoor, for mentioned films.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 05:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "of ₹763.4 million" link rupee. And translate to something that the majority of our readers can understand, e.g. US$ or £ or Euro.  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "drama Raja Hindustani. With worldwide earnings of ₹763.4 million, Raja Hindustani emerged" no need to repeat the name of the movie.  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Our article at Dil To Pagal Hai has no h in Toh.  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "Later in 2002, she" last year mentioned was 2001?  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "sabbatical from films" from the film industry.  Fixed "records upon its release. Within the first day of its release" repetitive.  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 05:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "opening day grosser as well as the biggest grosser ever for a single day" likewise.  DoneMy fault, I wrote the whole sentence.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 05:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "She made her comeback to films" her acting comeback  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] " Dangerous Ishq" appears to be Ishhq.  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "(2012)–in which" no need for en-dash, just space is fine.  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "belonging to four different centuries" do you mean living in four different centuries?  Fixed My apologies, Kapoor's character in the film is related to past lives not centuries.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "proved to be a commercial failure earning Kapoor appreciation" perhaps "... failure yet earned Kapoor..."  Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "she again took a sabbatical from films" from the film industry. Or maybe "from acting"? Actually films, because in 2020 she appeared in a web series.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Although, the list mentions a 2018 appearance...  Done Special appearances as herself, Kapoor didn't act in those movies --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Tables are sortable so everything that's linked should be linked every time.  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] The web series isn't mentioned in the lead.  Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] That's my first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to resolv concerned raised by editors. Please let me know if everyone's issues addresed. Delay in promotion not letting me nominate other list. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 17:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2021 (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) 21:11, 31 October 2021 (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, 25 October 2021 (UTC) [6].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here it is folks, it's taken four years and I now present the final list of yearly number-one country songs (until this year ends and I have to try and promote 2021). This will complete a set of 77 articles covering the number-one country songs of every year from 1944 to 2020. The final one covers the year in which Billboard first published the chart currently known as Hot Country Songs. As ever, any and all feedback will be addressed as quickly as humanly possible. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Final List! All images seem fine, published between 1926 and 1977 without a copyright notice. Pass for image review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, just a few points. Version reviewed — 1
• Link James C. McKinley Jr.
• Billboard is not linked from Ref#43 to Ref#53
• Rest reliability and verifiability is fine. Great!

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: - done. I wasn't aware up to now that McKinley was notable enough to have an article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk)

As good as we've come to expect, so just a few things...

• "first issue of 1958 " in the past, did we look at what the incumbent number one was heading into the year, i.e. in the remnant days of the previous issue (i.e. up to 5 January in this case), as strictly they were number one in 1958 too...
• "although he would remain popular in the 1960s he would not" passive, perhaps "although he remained popular ... he did not..."
• "by Marty Robbins. The separate" overlinked.
• Great Balls of Fire (not Of).
• "Ballad of a Teenage..." (not Of A)
• Not a single number one from a female artist....?
• Ref 2 I can't access without a sub.

That's it. Good work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - all done apart from "Not a single number one from a female artist....?" That's clearly the case (as was probably the case in many other years in the horrendously male-dominated country field) and I could add a sentence saying "All of 1958's country number ones were by male vocalists", but I don't have a specific ref for that factoid, and someone would probably claim it was OR without one, even though you can clearly see that all of the artists listed are/were men. What do you reckon.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no worries, it was more a personal observation which I've clearly missed before! All good for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - I just did a quick check and there hadn't been a number one featuring a female lead vocalist since 1954 (and even that one was a duet with a male singer) and there wouldn't be another one till 1961!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables are missing captions. --PresN 01:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: - now added (thanks, Dank!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I added the table captions PresN is requesting.
• I found and fixed one double redirect in the table, but I didn't check all the links.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine now. I checked sorting on all sortable columns.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any (actual) problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It's been a while since I've been here but I'm shocked you've kept this up over the years. The best thing I can say is congrats. I'll definitely make sure to support the FT when you nominate that. I'm more than happy to support the final list. Great job to you. – zmbro _(talk) 15:57, 14 October 2021 (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) 21:08, 24 October 2021 (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) 00:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) [7].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC) and Coyatoc (talk)[reply]

Here is one more! I'm happy to keep working on the project of bringing all list of municipalities in Mexico to a high standard (10, nearly 11, states already have their municipality lists featured using this standardized format, along with dozens of other list of municipalities in North America). We have updated the information to reflect the most recent census and tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations. The page should be pretty standardized but there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The sub-column headers (km2, sq mi) need colscopes like the other column headers (e.g. scope=col). Colscopes, along with the rowscopes that are already there, allow screen reader software to accurately read out what column/row a bit of cell text is in, so you need them on all parts of a multi-part column header.  Done
• Tables need captions (|+ <caption_text>, or |+ {{sronly|<caption_text>}} if that text would duplicate a nearby section header). Table captions allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables, without having to read all prior text to provide context.  Done --PresN 20:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In the last FLC I commented that it's weird to single out slaughterhouse regulation. Reading the constitution in source 4 ([8] 115.II), it says municipalities are responsible for Drinking water, drainage, sewerage, treatment and disposal of its wastewater; Public lighting; Cleaning, collection, transfer, treatment and final disposal of waste; Markets and supply centers; cemeteries; trails (can't tell best translation of rastro); Streets, parks and gardens and their equipment; Public security; and others. So even if the no-longer-accessible source 6 mentioned it among types of "Markets and supply centers" regulated, perhaps, I don't really think that should be called out in any of these articles, unless maybe another source gives the significance of this.  Done

• No you are right, I've just eliminated it here and in the previous nomination, sorry I missed this! Mattximus (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Also removed from all other Mexican state articles. Mattximus (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Otherwise this seems nicely standardized. Reywas92^Talk 16:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Soledad, second largest municipality by population in San Luis Potosí." - not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop  Done

• Nice catch! Should have seen this myself.

• "Axtla was renamed as Villa Alfredo M. Terrazas from 1932 to 1981" - so was it named Axtla before 1932, renamed for 49 years, then renamed back? Same with note K  Done

  Agree, I think "renamed" is just inappropriate, so removed. Should be clear now.

  "Axtla was as Villa Alfredo M. Terrazas from 1932 to 1981." - think there's a word missing there.....  Done-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review! Mattximus (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments below. Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Version reviewed: [9]

Formatting

• Recommend linking INEGI  Done
• Be consistent with whether you include the location for INEGI (e.g. Mexico: INEGI vs INEGI alone)  Done
• Ref 6 needs a publisher; if the publisher is International Business Publications, I would just repeat it like in ref 5, otherwise it just appears to be missing  Done
• Run the dash tool [10]  Done

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• Seems fine Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*"the nineteenth most populated state" and "15th largest by land area spanning" both link to the same article.  Done And be consistent, either 19th/15th or nineteenth/fifteenth... Done "4,013 residents" %?  Not done This is the only one not done, as the number would not be informative to report (~0.0%), as it's not remarkable, as the other one is. "61,138.0 square kilometres (23,605.5 sq mi)." I don't see that figure in the source. "4,322.60 km2" probably a bit too accurate, the nearest tenth of a sq km would suffice.  Done "Charcas" is piped to a redirect.  Done Table needs checking for consistent conversions, e.g. I see "4.9/km2 (12.6/sq mi)" and "4.9/km2 (12.8/sq mi)".  Done (nice catch, it was a transcription error) Zaragoza is piped to a redirect.  Done So is Tierra Nueva.  Done Refs 1, 2 and 7 need en-dash, not hyphen.  Done That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks everyone! I think I have addressed every comment. Mattximus (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the 2020 Mexican Census, it is the nineteenth most populated state with 2,822,255 inhabitants and the 15th largest by land area—Two points here; one is that we're mixing words (nineteenth) with numbers (15th). Either is fine but pick one and use it consistently, either nineteenth and fifteenth or 19th and 15th. Second, it would be useful to have context for these rankings, as it stands it takes clicking through several links to see that this is out of a list of 31 states. Could we either mention that here ("the nineteenth most populated of Mexico's 31 states, with 2,822,255 inhabitants") or earlier (San Luis Potosí is one of the 31 states of Mexico, located in North Central Mexico and divided into 58 municipalities")?  Done
• The largest municipality by population is San Luis Potosí I would lose the pipe here and retain "City" in the name, as it avoids ambiguity given that the state is linked using the same text.  Done
• The construction "largest by population" sees a lot of repetition, could we rephrase some of these for variety? "Most populous" would be an option.  Done
• The section discussing the powers and governance of municipalities doesn't make it clear (to me at least) if this is how municipalities across the country function of it there's some differences state to state. Does this second paragraph in the lead apply to all states?

I believe this is true for every state in Mexico at a minimum. There are bound to be local exceptions however.

• That's all I've got for now, good work. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, these recommendations are excellent, I've made all of them and responded to your question. Mattximus (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me. I'm happy to support this one at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 18:57, 23 October 2021 (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.

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, 24 October 2021 (UTC) [11].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it covers the pinnacle of the snooker world rankings. Eleven people have held the number one position in the world since 1976. I welcome any comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead seems bit short. It wouldn't be too long if you merge a summarized version of the "History" section in the lead.
  • Hmm, I'm not sure I want to merge the two sections. Two paragraphs seems suitable for a lede of a list with prose in the body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll be interested to know what others think... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The references in the "Number one players" table need to be centered.
  • Aligned Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a caption to every table, possible using the {{sronly}} template.
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Check the title for Ref#4. It should probably just be "2005–6 Main Tour Two Year Rankings". Also, it lacks URL access date.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Few work organisations like The Independent, The Belfast Telegraph, The Canberra Times, etc. are linked, while rest are not. Be consistent with linking or not.
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Add "Shamoon Hafez" in Ref#22 as the name
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any ISBN number or publishing information for Ref#9 available?
  • Fraid not. It is released more as a magazine, but is a SPS. However, Chris Downer is a snooker historian, so could be considered reliable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are a few minor concerns from me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done Kavyansh.Singh. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski – Thanks for addressing most of my concerns. I support this nomination for promotion as a Featured list. Would appreciate your comments on this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MWright96

• The two images could do with being upright per MOS:UPRIGHT
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Eleven players have held the number-one rank;" - avoid starting a sentence with a number per MOS:NUMNOTES
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "only seven players held the number-one position." - don't think number one is hyphenated
  • Agreed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "whilst Selby has done so since it changed to a rolling format." - from which years has Selby held the record since the inception of the rolling format
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "For the 2010–11 snooker season, the world rankings were changed to be updated after each tournament carrying ranking points." - will need to be verified by a reliable source mentioning all this information
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Many seasons are not wikilinked in the history section
  • TBC.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Alex Higgins would have been ranked number one in 1982–83," - in the 1982–83 snooker season,
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• In the prose just below the List of players section, the seasons don't necessarily need to be linked based on the third point I have made during the review
  • Strictly speaking, it's in a table, so doesn't apply. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "but had ranking points deducted as a result of disciplinary action." - what caused disclinpary action to be taken against Alex Higgins?
  • Erm, he punched a guy. Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "for each period since rankings began in 1976/77." - in the 1976/77 season.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The term seeds can be wikilinked to Seed (sports) on its only mention in the prose
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The reference in the first row of the "Number one players" doesn't mention at all the dates Ray Reardon was snooker's world number one
  • added confirmation ref. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Avoid having floating references by either adding explaining text above the two tables, adding table headers and put the references at the end of them or put the references in the appropriate sections of tables
  • I've placed them next to the headers from previous review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• You don't need to have |John Higgins in the sort name templates for John Higgins in the "Annual format (1975–2010)", "Rolling format (2010–present)", "Per season" and "Per frequency"
  • Removed - was a holdover from an old dab. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The tables in the sub-headings "Annual format (1975–2010)", "Rolling format (2010–present)", "Per season" and "Per frequency" need to include scope="col"s for each of their columns to comply with MOS:DTAB
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The "Annual format (1975–2010)", "Rolling format (2010–present)" tables need to be fully referenced for verification purposes
  • Cited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The title of Reference 1 "Rankings FAQ | WPBSA | Snooker" - does not need the text highlighted in bold
  • removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Be consistent with the WPBSA sources; for example References 1 and 3 have the work as "WPBSA" while the rest has "World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association" as the publisher
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Same with References 11 and 13 which have the publisher as "Global Snooker" while References 11 and 13 has the publisher "Global Snooker Centre"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 4 title: "2005-6 Main Tour Two Year Rankings Updated 01/05/06 after 888.com World Championship" - the hypen should be replaced by an en dash (–) per MOS:DASH
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• References 14, 16, 20 and 22 are missing their respective publication dates
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is all what I found during my read through of this list MWright96 (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay on this one MWright96 - all done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Nothing further from yours truly MWright96 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• History: This list shouldn't incoporate too much that should be in the main rankings article, but consider mentioning that for a while it was only the World Championship that carried ranking points. (Until the 1982 International Open, I believe).
• History: consider mentioning that (from 2014/15?) points were based on prize money. IMO that's quite a significant change.
• Periods: Feels to me like "Even though the rankings officially started in 1976, an Order of Merit was published in 1975 to determine the seedings for events. It used the same criteria that was used to determine the first set of official rankings the following year" should be incorporated into the History section rather than being introduced here.
• Periods: "criteria that was" - "criteria that were" (because criteria is a plural); or the following.
• Periods: "It used the same criteria that was used to determine the first set of official rankings the following year" feels a bit backwards, how about something like "The first set of official rankings the following year used the same criteria."?
• Ref ordering for Reardon ([11][4])
• Images: Consider and "as of" or different caption for the Selby pic, to avoid it becoming outdated when he loses the number one spot.
• External links: Isn't "Pro Snooker Blog" a website non grata (even tho' the author went on to work for the WPBSA)?
• "Rolling format (2010–present)" - reference is archived from August but says a calculation is "as of 11 September 2021"
• Consider adding https://wst.tv/rankings/ as an external link.
  • Hi BennyOnTheLoose, sorry it took me so long to get to this, I have completed this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*I could be wrong on this (PresN might know better?) but I'm sure that the cell colour alone to denote the once-a-year updates is enough for a screenreader; consider adding something like a dagger or asterisk to allow it to be seen by more than just colour alone. I'd also move the key to before rather than after the table but that's not particularly important. WP:COLOR - you can't use just color to denote information, because vision-impaired/colorblind readers can't see it. Add a † or * to those cells as well/instead. Also, keys usually go above the table, not below. --PresN 13:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] I've actually culled it, as I have no idea what this is about. We update the table when someone changes being world number one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] I don't mean the updates to the article; there was previously a colour-shading to indicate the number-one ranking for years when that ranking was only updated once per year and not on a rolling basis; if you want to keep that demarcation present then just denote it with an additional asterisk or dagger too. Losing it leaves the table accessible too so either/or, really. I've edited and self-reverted a version which would keep the distinction and still be accessible, if you want to retain that then just restore it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I think the prose covers that it was updated once a year. I don't think we benefit from going over that. If there is a need, we can add a dagger or something. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] The second external link is just a bare url, maybe format it a little like the one before it? Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] The sport of professional snooker first adopted a ranking system for the 1975–76 snooker season. I'd drop the second "snooker" here, it avoid repetition and it would be clear what the 1975-76 season refers to. The "snooker" in the other season ranges might similarly be trimmed. Agreed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] This was altered from the 2014-15 snooker season. Hyphen here should be a dash Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] Selby has also finished the season seven times ranked in first place. This reads awkwardly, "the season" seems like one singular when it isn't. Suggest Selby has also seven seasons ranked in first place Agreed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] I'm sure how to feel about the mixed usage of slashes and dashes for season ranges. I can see the reason behind it in usages like 1976/1977–1982/1983 as dashes alone would be a mess, but even in standalone usage we have both dashes and slashes used in different places. Standardising everything to a slash would be one fix but I'm happy to hear this out and see what you think. The issues we have is that the articles for the seasons are at 1976–77 snooker season, whilst our articles on the rankings are at Snooker world rankings 1976/1977. I prefer this to be X–Y, which I believe to be correct, but as you say it's awkward at 1990/1991–1997/1998. Happy to change this, but probably something that has had issues with earlier comments on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] In that case I would suggest using a dash in all instances where a single season is mentioned, and a slash only when we're mentioning a span of several. As is we have for example ince rankings began in the 1976/77 season and and again in 2006/2007 which I would change to dashes. It would still leave a mix but at least each usage is consistent in its circumstance. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] Works for me, I'll go through them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] I don't know if this is actionable and looking at the citation templates being used I can't see why it's happening but there's an unusual mix of how archive URLs are displaying in the reflist, where templates which are coded the same way will alternately display the original link first and the archive link first (as "[archive link], archived from [the original]" or "[link], [achived] from the original"). If there was a reason for the split then I would suggest standardising it but I can't see where this is coming from and if it's not solvable then it's not a concern worth worrying about. This is due to the

• All resolved; happy to support. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: is there anything more I need to do on this nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:58, 23 October 2021 (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.

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, 24 October 2021 (UTC) [12].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL-criteria. The article has been edited to contain the same qualities as other Fls, including the recently promoted M. Night Shyamalan filmography, which I co-nominated. Pinging @BRVAFL as a major contributor. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*What are "narrative films"?  Done Added link. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Is there a link for "short film"?  Done Added link. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Why are three short films "in quotes" and the others in italics?  Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Four para lead is too long. Probably two is all that's needed.  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "massive acclaim from critics" no need for "massive".  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] "The film, which received..." too many run-ons in this sentence.  Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref columns don't need to be sortable.  Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Tables ideally should have captions, even if they're screen-reader only.  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Television table has one item so it needn't be sortable.  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Where are the other rotten tomatoes ratings, e.g. Sea Fog?  Done Added. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Where are the "Frequent collaborators" referenced?  Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Check ref titles for spaced hyphens, should be spaced en-dashes.  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] That's my first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: Your comments have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The only image (File:Okja Japan Premiere- Bong Joon-ho (37867629864).jpg) is from Flickr, and is properly licenced. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Motel Cactus, where he also served as an assistant director" => "Motel Cactus, for which he also served as an assistant director"

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "encouraged to write a play, which resulted in the creation and release of Parasite in 2019" => "encouraged to write a play, which resulted in the creation and release of the film Parasite in 2019" (to make it 100% clear that Parasite is not in fact a play)

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely no idea if the Korean title column sorts correctly, so I will AGF that it does.....
• Music video table should probably have the Korean title in its column to match the films table

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Performance credits table could be sortable

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Your comments have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The headers of tables need to have colscopes, e.g. `! rowspan=2 | Year` should be `! scope=col rowspan=2 | Year`. This along with rowscopes helps screen reader software accurately read out the cells of the table. You have it on a couple of them, but it needs to be on all, including the English/Original headers. --PresN 14:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Version reviewed — 1

Formatting

• Ref#16 – the name "A.O. Scott" needs to be formatted as last name and first name.
• Ref#29 – "New Brunswick, New Jersey" is the only location added for any reference, so you might wan to remove it for consistency. And format the ISBN number "9781978818903" using this tool.
• Ref#33 and Ref#34 – add archive links and archive date just for consistency, since all other citations have.

Reliability

• Seems fine.

Verifiability

• Did a few spot-checks (Ref#13, 17, 26). Everything looks good. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh All  Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina – Thanks! Everything looks good. Pass for source review. Would appreciate your comments at this FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this nomination for promotion but have one comment: who began his career in the late 1990s, creating the 1994 [...] — is 1994 considered late in the 90s, especially considering it's part of the first half...? Pamzeis (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• October comments – @Giants2008, PresN, and The Rambling Man: Can this nomination be passed now? There are five supporting votes for this list to be an FL. I have the same question about the Nicolas Cage filmography nomination, which has four 'support' votes. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination will be passed when a coordinator is able to take a look at it an evaluate it; for the record, it does not have 5 supporting votes, it has 2- ChrisTheDude and Pamzeis. The others were an image review, a source review, and comments without a concluding comment. --PresN 17:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall a great list. I have one minor comment: shouldn't the rowheaders be plain? Ippantekina (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina:  Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though the issue remains with the "Critical reception" section, that is not enough to keep me from supporting this list for FL. Please do resolve the issue later on. Ippantekina (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 18:58, 23 October 2021 (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.

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, 24 October 2021 (UTC) [13].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the timeline articles are of the utmost important to WP:SPFLT -- and the universe at large! :) Neopeius (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments on the lead The lead does not read like a stand-alone introduction to (or summary of) the article. It reads more like a paragraph within a longer chapter eg "The year 1951 saw the Soviet Union definitively advancing beyond the V-2" - no context as to what the V-2 was. This reads like the V-2 has already been introduced/explained, but of course it hasn't because this is the first sentence. Each article (and its lead) should essentially stand alone and not require the reader to have read other articles to understand the context. "While the United States did not field any new boosters during the year" - again, no context supplied. Had they fielded new boosters the previous year? Every year since 1940-something? With no context supplied, this sentence is essentially meaningless. For that matter, what even is a booster? "both the U.S.A.F. and the U.S. Army" - need linking or expanding (especially USAF - what do these initials even mean?) "Meanwhile, the Navy fired" - which Navy? Pretty much every country in the world has a Navy..... Image caption is not a complete sentence, so shouldn't have a full stop Will look at the rest later......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the suggestions, @ChrisTheDude: -- I shall amend to make things more clear and stand-alone! --Neopeius (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] @ChrisTheDude: Alright. I've reorganized and improved the lead as well as given the rest a much-needed proofread. It should be smoother sailing now. Thank you for your attention! --Neopeius (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Looks great! I'll give it a full review later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spaceflight before 1951 FLC

I haven't reviewed this list fully, but from my review of Spaceflight before 1951 for its FLC, there are several major issues that carry over to this list: namely, the table formatting and the use of Encyclopedia Astronautica. I've put a more thorough explanation there (link). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Answered at Spaceflight before 1951 :) Someone's going to have to tell me what to do with the table since it's a problem endemic to ALL of the timeline articles. And Wade should be just good enough. --Neopeius (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Now that Before 1951 is in shape, I went through 1951 and made the same improvements (citation name order, flag fix, table fix, pie chart fix). Let me know if there's anything left to do. :)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Now that the before 1951 list is sorted out, please copy over the structural changes from there- e.g. one table per section, instead of sections inside of the one table.
• Note the change I made at that list to add |caption={{sronly|<caption_text>}} into the table header template call- captions are needed in tables to allow screen reader software to jump to named tables; the {{sronly}} template makes it so that the text doesn't show up for visual browsers if it duplicates a nearby header.
• Note also the change I made at that list to the "by country" and "by rocket" tables at the bottom- there I added captions, colscopes, and rowscopes (which combined let screen reader software parse tables correctly/more easily), and that should be copied here. --PresN 21:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Can you do January so I have an example? I can then do all the other months, not just on this page but others in the series. :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: Done. --PresN 22:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I think I made the table fixes correctly, to the launch lists and the summary at the bottom. :) --Neopeius (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One issue, which I fixed. --PresN 15:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Per MOS:FLAG, "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details". None of the flags are ever accompanied by a country name, and (on my screen at least) what I eventually figured was the Soviet flag just looks like a red rectangle, not recognisable as a flag

I'd appreciate some guidance on this. It was a non-issue in Spaceflight before 1951 because all three countries with flags were named in the infobox under "firsts" -- I can't see an elegant place to put country names (unless you're fine with me just squeezing them into the first table appearance)

Could you stick a key at the top? Like this?

Key

 Nazi Germany

 USA

 Soviet Union

That would work, I would have thought..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not bad! Where specifically would you put it? --Neopeius (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just under the "launches" heading, I reckon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Neopeius (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Image caption is not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop

fixed.

• "11 total were launched during the year" - I have always been told not to start a sentence with a number written in digit form

fixed with a semicolon.

• "Launched 7 August" - as a speaker of UK English I would say "Launched on 7 August", but I believe this usage might be OK in US English, can you confirm?

It's goed Ingelsk to me...

• "six R-1s specifically designed equipped" => "six R-1s specifically designed and equipped"

Fixed.

• "had been eclipsed since World War 2" => "had been eclipsed since World War II"

Fixed

• Pipe SCORE (satellite) to hide the disambiguator

Fixed

• "a process that was completed November 1953" - regardless of my comment above, this surely needs to be "a process that was completed in November 1953".......?

Not really, for the same reason. That's pretty standard usage here, in news, newspapers, etc.

• Write Launch service provider in full in the column header

I am hestitant to change the table headers used for the complete series of article. I wonder if it was originally abbreviated for space concerns (this would make it the longest label)

• Ionospheric, Solar, Aeronomy - don't think words other than the first need capital letters

You Are Probably Right.

• "Apogee: 100 kilometres (62 mi) Dogs Dezik and Zhegan were carried in space and were recovered" - there seems to a need for a comma or full stop after the bracket

Or a semi-colon for consistency!

• Legend for the pie chart says USA 24 but the table says 25

PresN's fault. :) Fixed.

• Refs 2, 6, 8, 16, 17 list no work/publisher

Fixed.

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Balon Greyjoy

• "The U.S. Navy fired its powerful Viking sounding" I would replace "fired" with "launched" or "flew" as that seems like a more spaceflight-esque term (I understand it's ambiguous, as weaponized rockets and spaceflight rockets are similar, and sometimes the same). Also, I would remove "powerful" as that seems to already be established by its world-record flight, and "powerful" is a relative term based upon the era of spaceflight.

fixed

• I think the subsection "American" should be "United States" or "USA" to be in line with the rest of the article.
• I would similarly change "Soviet" to "Soviet Union"

fixed

• "By 1950, the ballistic war-head carrying missile," I think this should be clear that this is development of the ballistic missile

fixed

More comments later, but the list looks in good shape! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: Sorry I missed your comments! --Neopeius (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Support Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty impressive and I will be using it as a framework for my revamp of 1968 in spaceflight. Thanks for all the hard work.--Akrasia25 (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems odd to link Soviet Union when you don't link United States.

When I've linked both, I've been told that the U.S. is common knowledge whereas the USSR, no longer being extant, should be linked.

• "the World Air Sports Federation" does anyone refer to the FAI that way? Or is this contemporaneous?

The source refers to it as "the World Air Sports Federation", and the same language appears in the FLC, Spaceflight before 1951

• "As well, development" reads awkwardly. Do you need "As well,"? Could you not just say "Development also..."?

Fixed.

• "the U.S. Air Force the U.S. Army initiated" missing a word.

fixed

• "The Army, Air Force, and the..." you linked these in the lead, so you can/should relink them in the main body of the article.

fixed

• "sounding rockets" likewise.

fixed

• What is aeronomy?

Wikilinked

• "11 total were" a total of 11 were

fixed.

• "effects. [3]" no space before refs.

fixed.

• "U.S. Navy built" -> "U.S. Navy-built"

fixed.

• "The first generation of U.S. Navy built Viking sounding" uses the word Viking three times in one sentence...

I think it's justified in that sentence, especially since one is a mission name.

• "domestically built" hyphenate.

hypens not used after adjectives.

• "in November 1950. In January 1951" repetitive.

Disagree.

• "November 1951, [8]" no space before ref.

Fixed.

• "ICBM" explain that before using the initialism.

Fixed.

• "Wehrner von Braun" it's Wehrner.

You mean "Wernher" :) Fixed.

• "propellants, JATOs, and" what are JATOs? Suggest a footnote.

It's wikilinked. Does it really need further explanation?

• "Redstone missile" put missile in the pipe so it's not confused with the location of Redstone.

Good idea.

• "the NRL team" rugby league team??

Fixed.

• "the Aerobee rocket, joined" overlinked,

Fixed.

• Link cosmic ray.

Fixed.

• "the Russian-designed" shouldn't that be Soviet-designed?

Fixed.

• " 1953)[5]:69–70" full stop missing.

Fixed.

• "3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi) range" should use adj=on

I'm not familiar with that one. Could you format the entire string for my reference? Thank you.

That takes me to Launches. Plenty of work to do here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! All changes made or addressed. @The Rambling Man: --Neopeius (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, @The Rambling Man:!

• "LSP" shouldn't be using initialisms before they are explained, even if they are linked.

This is fundamental to the template. I am hesitant to make changes that will affect all of the other timeline articles. I also don't actually know how to do it.

• Where things like "flight number" don't exist, don't just use a blank cell, put a centred en-dash or something in there, or even {{n/a}}.

Current convention appears to be blank cells. That usage was FL-approved for Spaceflight before 1951

• Tables should use captions per MOS:ACCESS.

I would be grateful for suggested implementations.

• Ref 11 and 12 should use unspaced en-dash, not spaced hyphen.

Titles taken directly from the articles. Literal cut and pastes.

• Ref 15 should use en-dash in year range.

Again..

• "1950s in transport" why?

This seems to be an artifact that predates my involvement. The Spaceflight before 1951 is also a member of the category, but none of the other timeline articles. I have deleted the category for both (but added the Category:Timeline_of_spaceflight_working_group_articles to 1951).

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! --Neopeius (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:, @Balon Greyjoy:, @Gog the Mild:, @Hawkeye7:, @ChrisTheDude:, @PresN: What do you think? --Neopeius (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grapple X

• As above, captions for the tables would be preferred. Given that you have a heading for each month, I would suggest removing those as heading levels and inserting them as table captions instead, they'll display a little smaller and centred as a result but should give a screen reader an anchor for each one, you can then use the {{anchor}} template to continue the horizontal TOC's functionality.

I am reluctant to change the style that was hashed out for Spaceflight before 1951 article, which got its style during the FLC process (it is currently the only Timeline FLC and serves as a model).

I hadn't actually looked at the page code for this and it seems this is a moot point; buried in the templating for the tables is a caption field detectable by screen-readers and not displayed visibly, so this is actually not a problem. Just make sure if you're continuing a series of these that fields like |caption={{sronly|January launches}} are retained in future, that achieves what I was asking for here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup -- I am going through the articles one by one and fixing them. I've done through 1954. Ibemichael is cleaning up the launch lists nicely.

• I know they're copied from the sources but we're still okay to switch the hyphens in ref titles for dashes and this should be done, we don't need to mimic another venue's formatting verbatim.

Is there guidance for switching punctuation? Do we just like the way emdashes look on WP?

It's mostly about internal consistency; we would also, for example, change a block-capital article title to title casing. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks.

• The draft plan for the ambitious 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi) range R-3—compare this to the lead's 100-kilometre (62 mi) boundary of space, this former usage shouldn't show in plural (ie it should be "3,000 kilometre (1,900 mi) range"). If you add |adj=on to the convert template it should display correctly. Check for consistent use of this throughout; when a distance is being used as an adjective you want to make sure the unit isn't in the plural.

Ah, that's what the |adj=on notation does. :) Now can you tell me how to force American spelling on it? :)

Sure, if you add |sp=us to the template it'll spell it the wrong way for you. :) 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did there. It's just a matter of article consistency. :) Is there a way to force American spelling throughout the article? There are a lot of kms...

• Not sure why the lead links the Soviet Union and not the United States, I know one is extant and the other isn't but this looks inconsistent at first blush. If you want to skip linking the US, you could delink the USSR too as both are linked to elsewhere anyway. Either way works.

This gets brought up in every article I do. If I link United States, it's unlinked as pedantic. If I leave it unlinked, I'm told it needs to be linked. :) The weight seems heavier on the unlinking, so that's the policy I've followed, and that's how it is in the FLC Spaceflight before 1951, which I'm using as my guide.

Hmm. Not a big issue but having two similar terms side by side and treated differently does feel a little odd. I'll defer to previous usage on this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• that brief (~15 minutes) exposure—this feels very informal, I would use a tilde for "approximately" in shorthand but I'm not familiar with it being used in formal settings, can we spell this out with a word instead (roughly, approximately, etc)?

Fixed, thank you.

• Introduction of acronyms seems inconsistent but I'm not familiar with aeronautical conventions here; we have for example free rockets, solid propellants, JATOs, and related items with JATO explained only as a pipe link, but also the United States Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) team where the acronym is spelt out at first use. I believe the latter is preferable but let me know if this is common usage in the field.

Clarified.

• A very minor quibble but when it comes to image use, we have two tall images displaying essentially on top of each other, and in some displays the second one runs into the following heading, there is then just plain text for a while before the tables begin. Is there a relevant image that might fit in the "Spacecraft development" heading which we could use instead of the R-1 diagram? This is entirely an optional aside though.

I see your point. Is it any better on the left? I couldn't find great illustrations for this article -- the R-1 diagram seemed the most appropriate and reflective of the era.

It's a fine image, it's just a little awkward to place--the problem with rockets, I suppose, is that they're so thin and long that they demand a certain image ratio. I think it looks better at present; there's some mild sandwiching but I don't think it's a tremendous problem (and wouldn't be an issue on mobile devices). 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• versions of which ultimately launched America's first artificial satellite, in 1958, and America's first astronaut, in 1961. This appears to be uncited, but also I don't see the value in egg links for these either; suggest naming Shepard and Explorer-1 in text, and appending a citation to this.

Fixed.

• All I have for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapple X: Thanks for your attention! I am out of position this weekend, but I will address your issues next week when I am back in town. :)

@Grapple X: Sorry for the pushback on some of the items. Your points are all well taken, but many address issues that have been wrangled and resolved in previous articles. --Neopeius (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy enough at this point to support; not collapsing the above just yet as there are a few points given in reply but I'm happy with the article at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapple X: Addressed all issues -- one question re: global Yankification of spelling... --Neopeius (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a matter of adding that extra field to every use of the convert template, but a find-and-replace for "{{convert|" to "{{convert|sp=us|" should do it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapple X: Ugh. I think I'll just leave it even though the top of the page says "AMERICAN ENGLISH!" :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed for you now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:58, 23 October 2021 (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.

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