Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process at the same time. Nominators who have previously successfully nominated a list may have two concurrent featured list nominations only if the first active nomination has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews: actionable objections have not been resolved in a timely manner; or consensus for promotion has not been reached after significant time; or reviewers are unable to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting. Once the director or a delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions

Shortcut WP:FLCWP:FLC v t e Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list statistics Wikipedians by promoted featured list nominations Today's featured list This month's queue TFL submissions TFL statistics Featured lists that have appeared as TFL Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log

Nomination procedure Toolbox Analysis Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. It is recommended that the list have no other open discussions. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Optional: Consider reviewing other open nominations – anyone is encouraged to review regardless of FLC experience. This does not imply quid pro quo. Helping to review lists helps the Wikipedia community by cutting down the backlog as a way to help pay it forward, and can increase how quickly your own nomination is reviewed. Reviewing procedure Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page). To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. Supports are weighted more strongly if they are given alongside justifications that indicate that the list was fully reviewed; a nomination is not just a straight vote. To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. Please focus your attention on substantive issues or inconsistencies, rather than personal style preferences. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed, and nominators are encouraged to use {{reply to}} or other templates to notify reviewers when replying. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so, rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page. Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Nominations urgently needing reviews edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so: List of awards and nominations received by 1923 (FLC) List of World Heritage Sites in Benin (FLC) List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure video games (FLC) List of Coldplay live performances (FLC) Source reviews needed List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure video games (FLC) List of sigmodontines (FLC) List of deomyines (FLC) List of Billboard Hot 100 number ones of 1961 (FLC) edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the list I was planning to nominate now, but I am trying to promote all of the articles in this series to Featured status, and while the other six articles in the series have to go through the slow boat to China process known as FA, this one can go through the much more user-friendly FL process. This article was promoted to GA in February. Pinging User:Rhain who did the GA review. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions, and I look forward to your constructive feedback. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, since this was originally raised at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Qualification prior to nomination - despite being a GA, I (as a delegate) think this is pretty clearly a list, and should go to FLC, not FAC. --PresN 02:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m of the opinion that many articles can follow the GA ➡️ FL route. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it satisfies the Featured List criteria. The list documents the composition and representation of the Left Democratic Front, which is one of Kerala's two major political alliances. The list covers constituent parties, electoral data, and historical changes in membership. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 16:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC) GiftedIceCream 21:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Next up in an ongoing series of hurricane season timeline nominations: that of the 1998 Pacific hurricane season. The season was somewhat below average by raw storm count, but an unusually high proportion of those storms became strong and/or long-lasting. Most systems fortunately stayed clear of land, though Isis hit Mexico as a minimal hurricane, and the remnants of Madeline contributed to disastrous flooding in Texas.

I will endeavour to address any concerns as quickly as I can. GiftedIceCream, who chipped in quite a bit here while I was away, is invited to sign on as a co-nom. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 16:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm co-nominating this. GiftedIceCream 21:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): TNM101 (chat) 17:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My first time nominating any article for either GA or FA/FL, would gladly accept any feedback on improving the list TNM101 (chat) 17:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Image caption needs a full stop
• "He subsequently went on to make 78 appearances for the national team and was the captain from 2006 until May 2010.[2][3] Until his retirement in May 2010, he scored 48 goals and finished as the country's joint all-time top scorer with Hristo Bonev" - this would read better as "He subsequently went on to make 78 appearances for the national team and was the captain from 2006 until his retirement in May 2010.[2][3] He scored 48 goals and finished as the country's joint all-time top scorer with Hristo Bonev"
• "He scored his first goal for the Trikolyorite" - nickname should be in quote marks, not italics
• "in a 2–3 friendly loss to Chile" => "in a 3–2 friendly loss to Chile"
• "Despite appearing in 24 FIFA World Cup qualifiers for the 2002, 2006, and 2010 editions, he was not able to guide the nation to the competition proper since their last appearance in 1998." => "Despite appearing in 24 FIFA World Cup qualifiers for the 2002, 2006, and 2010 editions, he was not able to guide the nation to the competition proper, in which they had last appeared in 1998."
• "He appeared at UEFA Euro 2004, where he made 3 appearances" => "He appeared at UEFA Euro 2004, where he made three appearances"
• "This would be the only major tournament that he would play in for Bulgaria" => "This was the only major tournament that he played in for Bulgaria"
• "After retiring at 29, many believed that he lacked the motivation and drive to impel a weak squad and that his performances for the team were sometimes too "languid" or laid back" - people only thought this after he retired? Nobody thought it while he was playing?

Reworded this TNM101 (chat)

• "The list below shows each of his international goals, in order from the first to the last goal." - no need to say this, as it's obvious
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I have implemented all of your comments TNM101 (chat) 05:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead image needs alt-text. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Done TNM101 (chat) 05:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Is it Juan? (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you were truly in your Tumblr girl era in the early 2010s, then you would know that this iconic name is not actually a backing band, and is without any doubt referring to her established fans. Of course, I am clearly talking about the Welsh indie-pop singer Marina Diamandis, formerly known as Marina and the Diamonds (and sometimes by her stamped black heart-on-cheek alter ego, Electra Heart).

I am nominating her discography article for featured list because she been in the game for nearly two decades, where her music has inspired many artists, notably being Billie Eilish, Kim Petras and Slayyyter. Furthermore, Diamandis has been more outspoken with her social and political views in recent albums, while attributing her status as a gay icon to her 1970s campness and sense of humour, proven to be seen through Ancient Dreams in a Modern Land (2021). This is the same album I actually first listened to from her, which dove me into a massive rabbit hole in her previous work, coming in to fix any issues that were made by others in the past.

As of right now, I have tried my best to rewrite this whole extensive page, adding and archiving any correct sources, believing that it fits the criteria. Hopefully you join in and help an editor out with your constructive comments! Thanks. Is it Juan? (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "she independently released her first extended play, Mermaid vs Sailor, and was distributed via her official profile" - she wasn't distributed, so it should be "she independently released her first extended play, Mermaid vs Sailor, which was distributed via her official profile".
  • Done.
• "U.S. independent label Neon Gold Records would eventually release" => "U.S. independent label Neon Gold Records eventually released".
  • Done.
• "Subsequently, she would signed onto 679 Recordings" => "Subsequently, she was signed by 679 Recordings".
  • Done.
• The article is/should be written in British English and we do not use dots in "UK".
  • Should I also removed the dots for the "US"?
    • Yeah, sorry, should have mentioned both ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okie dokie! Now worries hehe, and done. Is it Juan? (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• "second studio album titled,[5] Electra Heart, " - no reason for that comma.
  • Done.
• "released in 27 April 2012." => "released on 27 April 2012."
  • Done.
• "Diamandis spent a couple months" => "Diamandis spent a couple of months".
  • Done.
• "A boxed-set, [..] were issued" => "A boxed-set, [..] was issued".
  • Done.
• "The songs were: "Froot", "Happy"," - no reason for that colon.
  • Done.
• "soon it chart at number ten" => "soon it charted at number ten"
  • Done.
• "She would then take a break on music" => "She then took a break from music".
  • Done.
• "rather than her former stage name" - you haven't actually mentioned her former stage name in the prose (it's hidden in a footnote). I think it should be much more prominently mentioned, especially as it's the name that all her most successful music was released under.
  • Done; I've removed the footnote and tried to mention her stage name, let me know if it works like that.
    • It works, but rather than "The singer first created her former stage name Marina and the Diamonds in 2005,[1] where she had gone to perform as for the next 13 years", it should be worded as "The singer first created her former stage name Marina and the Diamonds in 2005,[1] and performed under the name for the next 13 years" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alrighty, that is fixed! Is it Juan? (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• "shown through: "Man's World" and "Purge the Poison"" - no reason for that colon
  • Done.
• " It would then become her least peaked album" => " It became her lowest-peaking album".
  • Done.
• "landed on number two for the Top Dance and/or Electronic Albums component chart" => "landed at number two on the Top Dance and/or Electronic Albums component chart"
  • Done.

I haven't looked at the tables yet -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude, thank you for coming in and help out by reviewing the prose. I have addressed every brought up issue, let me know if there are additional things to be fixed. Also, I added a question and comment. Thank you! Is it Juan? (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• All the singles that didn't chart anywhere (Happy, Forget, Blue, Karma, etc) need referencing. Without this, how does the reader know they exist? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude, did you mean like they need citations? If so, I have added some and will add more, later today. Or do they need to be mentioned in the prose? Is it Juan? (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant the former. The singles which charted are sourced by the refs at the top of each column, but those don't cover singles which did not chart, so those need sourcing separately -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Added the rest of citations, hopefully that works out! Is it Juan? (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The scope for the "Peak chart positions" in most tables should be colgroup since it span many columns.
  • Are they not, or what do you mean by that?
    • Fixed one in this diff. Please check and do the rest. -MPGuy2824 (talk).
      • Ohhh, now I get it. Haha, just made the change! Done. Is it Juan? (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• The Music videos table suffers from a MOS:COLHEAD problem.
  • Done.
• I didn't notice any other accessibility issues. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @MPGuy2824, thank you for your drive-by comments, I really appreciate it. I fixed the table problem for the music video and left a comment on the first one, not sure on what you've meant haha. Is it Juan? (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Replied inline. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! Just completed the task. Is it Juan? (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Umais🗣 08:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. The list covers all Pakistani submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film through the 98th Academy Awards cycle, is supported by reliable sources including the Academy, Dawn, The Express Tribune, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter, and has been updated with a revised lead, improved prose, and cleaner references. I welcome feedback and will address any issues raised during the review. Umais🗣 08:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "animated and documentary feature films are also eligible" - "also" implies that you mentioned a different type of feature film earlier, but you didn't.
• "Pakistan's first submission was The Day Shall Dawn for the 32nd Academy Awards" - for all the ceremonies which you refer to in this way in the lead, specify the year in brackets, as I doubt many people reading the article will know when, for example, the 32nd Oscars took place
• "In July 2023, filmmaker Mohammed Ali Naqvi was appointed chairma" - presumably he is mentioned because he is from Pakistan? If so, say that
• Titles starting with "The" should sort based on the second word in the title
• Does "In Flames" not have an Urdu title?
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks for the review. I have addressed the points raised. Please let me know if anything else needs adjustment. Umais🗣 17:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FL review checklist:      Prose: 1/3 Done      Source: Pending      Accessibility: Pending      Image: Pending

The 13th in the Indian constituency series. I've improved the lead, included some history and brought the table accessibility to FL-standards. Similar, recent FL: Bihar. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is housed in the Vidhan Sabha Bhavan," - don't think the building name should be in italics
• I would also break that quite long sentence into two
• "has had 6 terms" => "has had six terms"
• "Indian National Congress, the largest opposition party" => "The Indian National Congress, the largest opposition party"
• "According to the 2011 census of India the Scheduled Castes constitute 12.8%, while the Scheduled Tribes constitute 30.6% of the population of the state" => "According to the 2011 census of India the Scheduled Castes constitute 12.8% of the population of the state, while the Scheduled Tribes constitute 30.6%."
• That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Fixed all. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 03:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list, as this has good prose, everything is sourced, and this covers all subjects and summarizes the 2025 elections. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 03:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Bolding/italics should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information; use a symbol in addition.
• Per MOS:NOTSEEALSO, the "See also" section should not include red links. You can remove the section until the article is created. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824: fixed both. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 13:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the names are italicised and the single dagger isn't used anywhere. You can remove this from the key.

• Removed

• ref 2 is in a weird place. Move it before the "where".

• Done

• COMELEC needs to be expanded on first usage.

• Done

• "citing lack of political machinery as the reason"

• Done

• "stray votes" needs wikilink or footnote

• Done

• "The administration coalition was Alyansa ..." This sentence needs a rewrite/copyedit. Does administration coalition the same as governing coalition?

• Reworded

• "Another primary coalition was DuterTen, 10 senatorial candidates allied with former President Rodrigo Duterte and incumbent Vice President Sara Duterte" See if "All? 10 senatorial candidates of the DuterTen coalition allied with former President Rodrigo Duterte and incumbent Vice President Sara Duterte" works better.

• No, they did not ally after they made the coalition. They were fielded to represent both Dutertes in the elections. Reworded

• "of former Senators Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan to join incumbent Senator Risa Hontiveros in the Senate". I'm not sure that you should talk about them joining the incumbent member since we are still talking about candidates here.

• Removed

• The coat of arms in the lead navbox needs alt-text.

• That would mean I would have to add the alt to the original template {{Politics of the Philippines}}, which would add alts to all articles using this template. Seems too extreme to me.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: responded. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 13:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to add the alt to the original template, which would add alts to all articles using this template. Seems too extreme to me. Per MOS:ALT, "Images and icons that are not purely decorative should include alternative text which describes the image's content and function". This is true for all pages, but especially for Featured ones. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: Added. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 07:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

will do.

• Add {{Use Philippine English}} to the page.
• All 12 images used on the page are currently being discussed for deletion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Senate portraits of the Philippines, 20th Congress; your thoughts on this..?

Vestrian24Bio 10:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Nerdy505 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the list is constructed well enough for people who aren't fans to understand, and with Kyle Busch's recent death, I feel this should be nominated for FL. Nerdy505 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• All the images need alt-text.
• Also, please consistently use the shorter names of the races in the list. e.g. "2016 Brickyard 400" instead of "Crown Royal presents the Combat Wounded Coalition 400 at the Brickyard". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "he made his NASCAR debut with RFK Racing (then known as Roush Racing)" => "he made his NASCAR debut with Roush Racing (now known as RFK Racing)"
• "he debuted in the O'Reilly Auto Parts Series (then the Busch Series)" => "he debuted in the Busch Series (now the O'Reilly Auto Parts Series)"
• "Busch had since moved to Joe Gibbs Racing in 2008 and to Richard Childress Racing in 2023" => "Busch subsequently moved to Joe Gibbs Racing in 2008 and to Richard Childress Racing in 2023"
• "Through the course of his racing career, Kyle Busch" - no reason to restate his entire name
• "Busch had won a combined 234 races" => "Busch won a combined 234 races"
• "In addition, he has earned the most wins" => "In addition, he earned the most wins"
• "he has won on 25" => "he won on 25"
• "has won 102 races" => "won 102 races"
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above:

• Kyle Busch was an American racing driver who competed in NASCAR from 2001 until his death in 2026.→Kyle Busch was an American racing driver who competed in the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC (NASCAR) from 2001 until his death in 2026.
• Busch earned his 52nd win in the 2019 Ultimate Tailgating 200 at Atlanta Motor Speedway.[66→Busch won his 52nd race in the 2019 Ultimate Tailgating 200 at Atlanta Motor Speedway.[66]
• Ping when done. GiftedIceCream 13:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another cue sports list for your consideration. All improvement suggestions are welcome. I can provide relevant extracts from offline sources to reviewers. Thanks in advance. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest moving the lead image to the top and making it larger using the upright parameter

• Done, but let me know if the upright scaling isn't suitable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "From 1974, the now-called B&SCC" - this reads a little oddly to me. Maybe try "renamed" rather than "now-called".......?

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any info available on why the WPBSA didn't continue the championships after 1992?

• I've added about the EASB and the first edition of that championship. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Cliff Wilson image caption is missing a full stop

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First two images I've tracked down and added a page number to their sources. Both of these are good - you could arguably use the full picture to include the runner-up Sharp, but that's personal preference. I couldn't track down a copy of the Billiard Player for the other two sadly, but due to its niche nature I believe we're allowed to use good-faith judgement calls there, and I've no reason to doubt the source and the PD justification would be accurate. So in that regards, this is a pass. Nice assortment of pictures :) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this, RandomEditsForWhenIRemember. The person cropped out of the first picture was not a competitor, but Charlie Simpson, Yorkshire champion, who presumably was there as a local snooker celebrity. Pictures in The Billiard Player very rarely had a credit, and these didn't. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see how I misread the caption on the newspaper - you're absolutely right, the other guy is indeed Simpson. No need at all to expand the picture then! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose and accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "The under-19 competition was sometimes called the Junior Championship, and the under-16 competition was sometimes called the Boys' Championship." - how about tournament and occasionally, respectively so they are not to similar to the first bit of this text
• "The BACC had established the British Junior English Billiards Championship in 1922." - BA&CC for consistency
• Both the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association and the English Association of Snooker and Billiards will need to have their acronyms in brackets after the first mention EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• "and Raymond Glendenning recorded commentary for broadcasting on BBC Radio." - recorded commentary for
• "In 1993 the WPBSA estabished" - typo; should be established
• Reference 9 title "Hall of fame" – word highlighted in bold should start with a capital letter EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 60 title "Peter the great" - should be spelled as "Great!" per the clipping
• Reference 70 title "murphy and Whitthtread take Junior titles" - same as the second query EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, EnthusiastWorld37. I've amended the article to address those points. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support – EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another in this series. In this particular year, Elvis left the US Army and was immediately at the top of the charts and a teenaged Brenda Lee began her 63-year span of number ones...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments coming. GiftedIceCream 14:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• In the issue of Billboard dated January 4 could be noted as the first issue.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• In February, Percy Faith and his Orchestra reached number one Orchestra doesn't need to be capitalized.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead should be more chronological.
  • There's no requirement for it to be totally chronological. The only bit that's arguably not chronological is the discussion of Connie Francis and Brenda Lee having two number ones, but that flows on naturally from the bit about Elvis having three. It would make no sense (IMO) to mention only Elvis' first two, then say that the ladies had two each, and then say "actually Elvis had three"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ping when done. GiftedIceCream 13:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GiftedIceCream: - see above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support GiftedIceCream 14:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• As with the previous nomination, I think it would be better (for this list and for others) to split and 19 different singles spent time at number one into a different sentence.
• I think Hot 100 could be linked for the image.
• gained his third number one of the year in December - Wasn't it in November?
• more than one number one during 1960. Francis reached number one - I think it would read better if you avoided the iteration of number one.
• You could provide a link for 2023.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: - all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. Support. Alavense (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here shall be an image review from me. Arconning (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Percy Faith, 1908-1976 (cropped).jpg - Public Domain, source link does not work
  • Image is at https://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/details/52327/4000626, which is indeed linked on the Commons page -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Connie Francis 1961.JPG - Public Domain, source link does not work
  • Replaced this image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• File:The Everly Brothers Publicity Photo, 1965.jpg - Public Domain
• File:Brenda Lee with Elvis Presley in 1957.webp - Public Domain, source link does not work
  • Replaced this image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Ray Charles classic piano pose.jpg - Public Domain, source link does not work
  • Replaced this image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• All of the images have alt-text for accessibility, all have captions, and are relevant to the article.
  • @Arconning: - see above :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Pass. Arconning (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I'm satisfied that this meets the Featured List criteria, and I don't have any improvement suggestions. Regards. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "on the Hot 100 and his final top-40 entry ..." - I think "on the Hot 100; his final top-40 entry ..." would read better
• "continued to be extremely successful" - perhaps "continued to achieve success" would be more neutral
• "finally reached number one" - why not just "reached number one"?
• Source review
  • Sources are reliable and consistently formatted
  • Spot-checked refs 2, 10, 13, 17, 21, 25, 31, 38, 42, 49, 53, 59, 63 - no issues

That's all :-) Medxvo (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Medxvo: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Happy to support the FLC and pass the source review. Medxvo (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 09:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2023 Primetime Creative Arts Emmys for featured list promotion because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how RunningTiger123 formatted the 2007, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2024 ceremonies for this edition. Birdienest81talk 09:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments coming. GiftedIceCream 14:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The 75th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards honored the best in artistic and technical achievement in American prime time television programming from June 1, 2022, until May 31, 2023, as chosen by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.[2 Clunky wording.
• You Should Leave with Tim Robinson , extra space.
• Refs 5 and 14 are duplicates.

Ping when done. GiftedIceCream 13:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here shall be an image review from me. Arconning (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Sam Richardson - Jan 2019 (46909537042) (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0, source link does not work
• File:Judith Light (22464277350).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Nick Offerman 2022 National Book Festival (52342575962) (cropped).jpg - CC0
• File:Storm reid sc 2020 2.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Jasmine Guy (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Maya Rudolph (portrait cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:Keke Palmer in 2024 (2).jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:President Barack Obama.jpg - Public domain
• File:2019 California Hall of Fame Ceremony 01 (cropped2).jpg - Public domain
• All of the images are relevant to the article, alt-text is present for every image for accessibility.

will do.

• Add {{Use American English}} to the page.
• There's a dab link (Craig Robinson) on the Jan 6 presenters table.

Vestrian24Bio 10:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I began editing this list last summer, because Romanian is a Romance language like French and Italian, so I thought it would relatively easy to parse, unlike the Polish or Hungarian, but I wasn't sure how good the media coverage would be. It turns out I was able to find all of the results dating back to the 1920s. I have personally verified the results, the tables should be properly formatted, and the sources should be properly formatted. Most of the sources are behind a paywall, but I have taken screenshots of all of them in case another editor wants to see any of them. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions, and I look forward to your constructive feedback. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here shall be an image review from me. Arconning (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Romanian Skating Federation logo.png - Fair use
• File:Zoltán Kelemen 2010 Trophée Eric Bompard.JPG - Public domain
• File:Julia Sauter 2024 Worlds Short Program 3.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Roxana Luca 2005Euro.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0, can't seem to access the source link to this one...
• All of the images are relevant, have proper captioning, and have alt-text for accessibility.
  • Hopefully the source link would be fixed. :)

User:Arconning: Sadly, there are no archived links available for Ms. Luca, so she went bye-bye... 😢 Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Quite sad that had to be done.. Arconning (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And that was the only image of her at Commons. ☹️ Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2024 and 2025, the Romanian Junior Championships were held in conjunction with the EduSport Trophy" - Since you have 2026 in the table, were things also held in conjunction this year?

• It appears that the 2026 championships were held in conjunction with the Crystal Skate of Romania Skate Fehervar.

• "Romania has not seen competition in pair skating since 1993" --> "The pair skating discipline has not been contested at the national championships since 1993"

• I actually don't care for either my original wording or your suggestion, so I came up with a third alternative. 😉

• In the tables, I'm not sure if things like dnul/dna should be included per MOS:HONORIFIC. I think if only the surname is known, then that is all you use, but I am not entirely sure on this.

• Those aren't honorifics; those are just the Romanian equivalents of Mr. and Ms.

You've done a really good job with this, so I just have a few minor nitpicks. -- ZooBlazer 16:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:ZooBlazer: Let me know what you think of my small rewording! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Support -- ZooBlazer 17:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The Romanian-language name of the Romanian Skating Federation is missing diacritics, and I believe it should also use title case: "Federația Română de Patinaj". I'd also suggest adding an interlanguage link but Romanian Skating Federation is a redirect so that wouldn't really work; if you wish, you may add an interwiki link: "Romanian: Federația Română de Patinaj".
• Consider changing the short description to "Recurring figure skating competition", which seems to be the standard in numerous other figure skating FLs

• Both  Done.

• I've removed a couple of stray spaces, but other than that, the list looks great. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 19:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing following recent additions...

• Who is Maria Coroamă exactly?

• Sentence added.

• Per MOS:GEOLINK, "Székesfehérvár, Hungary" → "Székesfehérvár, Hungary". Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 09:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:GEOLINK doesn't apply here, since only Székesfehérvár is being linked.

• All the "correct" examples listed there don't include the country in the link, so I thought that's the accepted usage. Though you are right that it does not explicitly forbid this, so I suppose it's not a big deal. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 11:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• If I had [[Székesfehérvár]], [[Hungary]], then MOS:GEOLINK would apply and Hungary would have to be delinked. But since I have [[Székesfehérvár|Székesfehérvár, Hungary]], Hungary is not actually linked. I do this for stylistic purposes, because I think the unlinked country afterward looks stupid, but recognize that the country itself does not need to be linked.

User:ZooBlazer & User:Shwabb1: There have apparently been big changes in the world of Romanian figure skating lately, of which I was not aware! The prose has been extended and rearranged to accommodate this new information. Since this happened after you did your reviews, please take another look when you have chance and let me know if you have any feedback. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shwabb1: I think I have addressed all of your comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 11:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

will do.

• Add an appropriate ENGVAR template to the page.

Vestrian24Bio 10:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you believe it's been three years since I last nominated a list of Latin pop #1's by year? A lot has happened since then. There were two major events in 2001 that happened in my life. One of them of course being 9/11. Yet despite the tragedy, I couldn't find any sources that state any song's position was influenced by that horrific event. The other event that happened in 2001...well I talk about when the I do Tropical version of it sometime later. As always, looking forward to addressing any issues brought up. Thanks! Erick (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "which was the main theme of the telenovela of the same name and spent seven non-consecutive weeks at this position" makes no sense, as you haven't mentioned any position in the caption. Just change it to "at number one"
• "In 2001, nine songs topped the chart, in 52 issues" - I don't think that second comma is needed
• ""Te Quise Olvidar" would spend six weeks on top of the chart" => ""Te Quise Olvidar" spent six weeks on top of the chart" per WP:WOULDCHUCK
• There's a random space betweens refs 9 and 10
• ""Nobody Wants to Be Lonely" ("Sólo Quiero Amarte") by Ricky Martin" - for all of these, as the Spanish version is the one listed in the article, you should put the Spanish title first and the English title in brackets
• Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks Chris! I think I got everything you mentioned! Erick (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Abrázame Muy Fuerte" spent seven weeks - Something like The song spent seven weeks to avoid the repetition.
• "Abrázame Muy Fuerte" would be his only number one song on the Latin Pop Airplay chart before his death in 2016 --> "Abrázame Muy Fuerte" was his only number one song on the Latin Pop Airplay chart before his death in 2016
• were Spanish-language version of songs - versions?
• pop song of the year with "Abrázame Muy Fuerte" which was - Add a comma before "with".
• Many of the Billboard references are behind a paywall, so I think you should add the url-access=subscription.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense Thank you for the review! Let me know if I missed anything. :) Erick (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Happy to support. Alavense (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Te Quise Olvidar" spent six weeks on top of the chart" - I'm pretty sure it spent eight weeks at number one, not six
• "in 1986,[8] Abrázame Muy Fuerte" was his only number one song" - a quotation mark is missing before the song title
• "before his death in 2016" seems unnecessary as "Abrázame Muy Fuerte" is still his only Latin Pop Airplay number one even now
• I think "Azul" by Cristian Castro should be mentioned in the lead, it spent 12 non-consecutive weeks at number one and was the year's second-longest-leading song. Seems too significant to omit from the lead.
• "was the main theme of the telenovela of the same name" - is this necessary for the image caption?
• Source review
  • Sources are reliable and consistently formatted
  • Spot-checked refs 7, 11, 17, 22, 27, 32, 39, 47, 56, 67 - no issues
  • Ref 4 says that it is the week of November 4, 2000, but I think it should be November 11, 2000
  • The date for ref 7 should be December 29, 2001, not December 2, 2001

That's all from me. Could you please take a look at my own FLC if you have the time and interest? Medxvo (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Medxvo Thanks for the review! Let me know if I missed anything! :) Erick (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support the FLC and pass the source review. Medxvo (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Back again with another Hot 100 number ones list. In this particular year we have the very first pop number one on the Motown label and a couple of songs relating (after a fashion) to running. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The singer, real name Gary Anderson, had reportedly - Maybe The singer, whose real name is Gary Anderson, had reportedly?
• The Marvelettes, and the Tokens - I think you can lose the comma.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: - both done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Happy to support. Alavense (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Between the two, the Shirelles topped the Hot 100 for the first time with "Will You Love Me Tomorrow"." --> It took me several reads to figure out what "the two" was in "between the two". Perhaps there is a clearer way to convey this?
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• "In April and May, the Marcels, Del Shannon, and Ernie K-Doe all topped the listing for their first and only time."
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe it's just me, but I have always isolated "respectively" with a comma when used at the end of a sentence. I'm not sure what the actual rule is.
  • I think either is fine -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• "...which Billboard had published prior to the creation of the consolidated listing." --> I would maybe use "list" instead.
  • "Listing" is more common in this context -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• "The song was replaced in the top spot by "Quarter to Three" by U.S. Bonds." --> This reads kind of awkwardly. Maybe replace "The song" with "Moody Blues" or just use "It".
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• "The singer, whose real name is Gary Anderson..." --> Is he still alive? If so, this is fine; if not, it should be "real name was".
  • Yes, he is still alive -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• "were all included on iterations of Rolling Stone magazine's lists of the 500 greatest songs of all time."
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• No issues with the tables.

ChrisTheDude: Please let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments! Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bgsu98: - many thanks for your review, please see responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• SUPPORT. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have the following FAC – Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Women's singles/archive1 – which is collecting dust right now if you are interested in helping out. Also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Ice dance/archive1, though it is more recent. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1961, it was compiled based on a combination of sales and airplay data sourced from surveys of retail outlets and playlists submitted by radio stations respectively,[1] and 22 different singles spent time at number one. You could split this into two sentences, as they are unrelated.
• in the 1980s, the influential singer known for his melodramatic style was among the earliest inductees to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.[8][9] You could specify the exact year.
• The first citation to ref 1 is unnecessary.
• You could add more images so the The Tokens image can be at the bottom

ChrisTheDude: Ping when done! GiftedIceCream 14:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GiftedIceCream: - all done. The Tokens image is now roughly level with the bottom of the table on my screen but it's highly likely this won't be the case for other users due to varying screen sizes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support :) GiftedIceCream 14:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Author Andy Edelstein could be added to "Gary Bonds hits a new note"
• Nothing else from me. Great work as usual. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: - done! Not sure how I missed that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson was president of the United States from 1801 to 1809. Major events from his presidency include the Louisiana Purchase, the First Barbary War, and the Burr conspiracy. This list follows the same format of my previous FL, Timeline of the John Adams presidency. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The following was originally posted as a Quick Comment: Jefferson appears to have appointed William C. C. Claiborne as governor of the Mississippi Territory twice. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading this article! I have following comments:

• Unless something noteworthy happened en route, the repetitive entries about Jefferson traveling to and from Monticello seem very unnecessary.

May 1801

• "Jefferson appoints William C. C. Claiborne as governor of the Mississippi Territory."

June 1801

• You mention Jefferson traveling to Mount Vernon to express his condolences to Martha Washington. I assume this is after the death of George Washington. That is a noteable enough event to include in the timeline on its own. I just looked, and it appears Washington died while Adams was still in office. Therefore, I would add a note to this entry about visiting Martha Washington mentioning when and under what circumstances George Washington died.
• Is there an appropriate wikilink for "collector of customs"?
• Is there an appropriate wikilink for "USS Enterprise" (that is not a spaceship 😉)?

July 1801

• Ditto for these other ships.
• A brief explanation as to what the Convention of 1800 is would be useful, even if offset with en-dashes.

August 1801

• You have the USS Enterprise wikilinked here, when it should be linked at its first mention above.

September 1801

• Jefferson's arrival in Washington does not seem to be noteworthy.

November 1801

• There has to be a wikilink for postmaster general.

January 1802

• "a commission rules that the United States owes £600,000 equivalent to $66,720,000 in 2024)" --> I think there is an open parenthesis missing.
• Same as above, I would include a brief mention as to why establishing the Library of Congress is significant (ie. it is the national library of the United States).

March 1802

• What is the Midnight Judges Act? Readers shouldn't have to navigate away from the article in order to understand the full context. Even something like "The Midnight Judges Act – an act passed in 1801 that blah, blah, blah... – is repealed. Also, how? Repealed by Congress? By the Supreme Court?

April 1802

• You shift from present to past tense in the entry for April 14.
• The image caption is written in past tense, whereas the prose mostly uses the present.
• Is there a wikilink for the USS Constellation?

May 1802

• You have "its mayor" in the wikilink, when I would just go with "mayor" (ie. leave the "its" outside the wikilink).

July 1802

• There have to be wikilinks for the U.S. Military Academy and West Point.
• Ditto for the USS Adams.

October 1802

• What is the "intendent of New Orleans"?

November 1802

• Wikilink Northwest Territory

July 1803

• "Congress will reject the amendment in October but authorize the purchase." When?

August 1803

• "Jefferson receives news that France was expressing reluctance in the Louisiana Purchase." --> What does this mean?
• The phrase is "en route".

October 1803

• Wikilink USS Philadelphia.

November 1803

• How is Spanish transferring Louisiana to France if France already sold it to the U.S.?

December 1803

• What is the Bankruptcy Act of 1800?
• "...is appointed governor of the Orleans Territory."

January 1804

• "The Senate ratifies a treaty with Spain to resolve financial disputes. The convention had was originally been signed in August 1802 and it would will not be ratified by Spain until July 1818." --> Since the base of this sentence is the present tense, the resultant verbs should be in the past and future tenses, as indicated.

February 1804

• You have USS Philadelphia wikilinked here, when it should have been wikilinked earlier at its first mention.

April 1805

• The Red River Expedition is missing a date.
• "He ends his cordial relationship with Burr in the following week when he learns Burr is challenging the legitimacy of Jefferson's election in 1801."

May 1805

• "May – Jefferson appoints Robert Williams as governor of the Mississippi Territory." --> This is also missing a date.
• "Commodore James Barron informs Hamet Karamanli that the United States will stop supplying him outside of naval support." --> What does this mean? Supplying him what?

July 1805

• "Jefferson appoints James Wilkinson as governor of the Louisiana Territory."

December 1805

• "He delivers a second message to Congress secretly to inform them he is negotiating additional territorial acquisitions with France and needs funding."
• "James Wilkinson is confirmed as governor of the Louisiana Territory."

March 1806

• "Congress authorizes a commission to plan the Cumberland Road from Cumberland, Maryland, to Weeling, Virginia (present-day West Virginia) to assist with transportation to and from the Ohio River."

April 1806

• Non-importation Act --> Importation should also be capitalized.
• "The HMS Leander fires a warning shot at American shipping vessels..." --> I don't think the "The" is needed.

August 1806

• "James Wilkinson leaves the Louisiana Territory on Jefferson's orders."

November 1806

• "The Pike Expedition reaches the mountain that will eventually be named Pikes Peak in Pike's honor." --> That part seems unnecessary.
• "Worrying that Burr is going to invade and annex Spanish territory, Jefferson issues a proclamation warning the American people not to participate."

January 1807

• "Jefferson receives a message from Wilkinson. It includes what are ostensibly incriminating writings by Burr. It is never determined whether they were genuine or fraudulent."

March 1807

• I have seen different spellings of Meriwether on this timeline.

September 1807

• What is Burr's misdemeanor charge for?

November 1807

• "Baltimore sees protests against Burr." --> What does this mean?

User:Thebiguglyalien: I have examined the entire article. My biggest suggestions are:

1. Removal of any non-consequential mentions of Jefferson's travel to and from Monticello.
2. Brief explanations (like, one sentence each) for certain pieces of legislation, treaties, or court cases that are mentioned, so that a reader does not have to navigate elsewhere to figure out the gist of what is goine on.

Please let me know once you have had a chance to examine my comments! Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bgsu98:

• • I've made all of the suggested grammar fixes, added the explanatory notes, and linked each item on its first appearance.
• I think it's good to have the timeline show when Jefferson and Congress were in Washington, since it explains when they are and aren't active. I've removed the duplication though where it gives his departure and arrival each time.
• None of the overview sources provide an exact start date for the Red River Expedition. Do you think this means it's just undue?
• I've removed "misdemeanor" so it just says treason, that's the part that actually matters.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Medxvo (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Before trilogy consists of three romantic drama films—Before Sunrise (1995), Before Sunset (2004), and Before Midnight (2013)—directed by Richard Linklater and starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. The films follow the romantic relationship of Jesse (Hawke) and Céline (Delpy) across more than eighteen years, employing dialogue-driven storytelling. The trilogy was met with critical acclaim: Before Sunrise was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry, and the screenplays for Before Sunset and Before Midnight received nominations from the Academy Awards and Writers Guild of America Awards. Before Midnight won several screenplay awards and earned Delpy a Golden Globe nomination for her performance.

I believe the list is consistent with the recently promoted accolades lists (and other lists of accolades by film series) and ready for an FLC. Any comments from all editors are very much appreciated. Medxvo (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - try as I might I couldn't find anything to pick up..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support agreed with ChrisTheDude, is very well-written and I checked out the images to see if they comply with Wikipedia's image policy and they pass as well! Great job! Erick (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 13:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, mammal list #76 in our perpetual series and rodent list #21: Deomyinae. This is our first of three lists working through the subfamilies of the giant family of Muridae, which is also the last family in Rodentia to do. The subfamily Deomyinae is a grouping of "true mice" (and rats), which ignores all the other things that looks like rats/mice around the world, and includes the spiny mice and brush-furred rats. With 55 species in Africa/Middle East/Mediterranean, it's the smallest of our last three lists. As always, the list reflects the scientific consensus as well as the results of prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 13:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - nothing from me. Great work as ever :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• No issues with the prose.

Table

• You might consider wikilinking omnivore.
• I would just use "Crete" as opposed to "Crete island in Greece".

User:PresN: I'm going to go ahead and Support now since these two items are just suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both done, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check of sources shows no problem. Source review passed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I sampled the table links.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 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. I don't see any image-license problems.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, provisional on a clean source review. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 12:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, mammal list #75 in our perpetual series and rodent list #20: Sigmodontinae. This is our fourth of four lists working through the subfamilies of the oversized family of Cricetidae, and the first of our two problem children lists in Rodentia. The subfamily Sigmodontinae is another grouping of "New World rats and mice", which ignores all the other things that looks like rats/mice that are native to this half of the planet, including other members of Cricetidae in the New World. With 385 species, it's larger than most orders of mammals, with no good subdivision to chop the list up finer. As a result, the IUCN references are to the entire genus, not individual species, as otherwise the page wouldn't fully load due to the hundreds and hundreds of references. As always, the list reflects the scientific consensus as well as the results of prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 12:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't "subfamily" (two instances) link to subfamily rather than the disambiguation page?

• Done. --PresN 11:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Will take a look at the list itself soon. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 08:27, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

• I would wikilink the first instance of sedges

• Done

• Capitalize "forest" at Atlantic Forest oryzomys

• Done

• Link "intertidal marine" to Intertidal zone

• Done

• N. mussoi is Musso's fish-eating rat according to the IUCN Red List, though here it redirects to Peruvian fish-eating rat, which the article classifies under Daptomys, not Neusticomys – so what's going on here? Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• MSW3 has it as N. mussoi, as does the IUCN, which gives the name Musso's fish-eating rat. The ASM says that it was moved to Daptomys and merged with D. peruviensis, but has since split it back out into D. mussoi based on a 2023 paper. The Wikipedia article redirects to D. peruviensis, as people don't always follow the WP:MAMMAL rule (that these lists stick with) of "whatever MSW3 says, unless the IUCN and ASM agree on a change", and also I guess no one has gone back to undo the redirect (I just did). Which, in this case, would be "leave it as N. mussoi". The common name in the list was wrong, though, so fixed.

• Makes sense, thank you for the explanation. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 14:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Shwabb1: Responded inline. --PresN 14:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 14:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• You can switch the IUCN ref of C. instans (and other monotypic taxa) to the species one. I know it would seem a bit inconsistent, but it saves a click.
• The diet for that species isn't supported by the ref. Maybe it is supported by the Nowak book.

• It's there at the IUCN cite, under "Habitat and Ecology in detail": "This rodent is poorly known. It is restricted to moist humid cloud forest and co-occurs with the larger Thomasomys hylophilus, which it resembles (Aagaard 1982). It is terrestrial, omnivorous, and nocturnal." --PresN 12:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I see it. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

• Might be worth wikilinking "mesquite".

• It's linked on the first use, Andalgalomys olrogi. --PresN 12:17, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Checked the rest of the prose now
• The images have alt-text and the tables are generated by a template that adds the accessibility features.
• Support on prose and accessibility. Do consider implementing my first point. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The "range" column is screwed up for genus Nephelomys, with extraneous graphics.
• Check all the maps and map descriptions for Oryzomys.
• That's all. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dank: Wow, not sure how that happened, fixed Nephelomys. Not sure what you mean for Oryzomys, though I expanded on O. palustris. --PresN 19:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I was confused by the multi-color maps. It's okay, I guess.

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. There are no sortable nonnumeric columns. I sampled the table links.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 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.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, provisional on clean reviews for image licenses (unless they've been done already) and sources (which I assume are fine, based on past lists). Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a personal preference, but I would remove the dagger symbol from the quotation marks and maybe boldface it instead.
• I would recommend removing the "in Ecuador" from the notation of the Galápagos Islands.

Damn, this is a long list!

• Like the other list, you might wikilink omnivore. (Colombian forest mouse is the first place I see it; I may have missed an earlier usage.)

• Done

• Is "mollusc" really the preferred spelling? I've only ever seen "mollusk".

Same, though Mollusca uses mollusc exclusively? Swapped it, though, I agree it looks odd.

• Santa Cruz Island --> Island is part of the proper name and should be capitalized.
• Fernandina Island --> Ditto.
• Santiago Island --> Ditto.

• All three done.

User:PresN: The capitalization of the islands is probably a must; the rest are just suggestions. Let me know when you are finished. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: All done, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check of sources shows no problem. Source review passed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio 10:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now that my other nom has 3 supports; here's the next one. After this I will return to the 2024 qualifiers. --Vestrian24Bio 10:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources 30 and 31 are showing as duplicates.
• "Following the Bangladesh Cricket Board's refusal to play in India, Bangladesh was replaced by Scotland, the next highest ranked T20I team." Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bgsu98:

  • Merged the sources.
  • As far as I've seen, national teams are usually treated as plural terms..

  Vestrian24Bio 11:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  In no way does "Bangladesh were replaced" sound remotely correct. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bgsu98: - please see this source, which uses the exact wording "Bangladesh were replaced", as does this one, this one, etc. Both this one and this one use "Bangladesh were" (and the latter also says "Bangladesh will not be punished for their refusal to play their 2026 T20 World Cup matches in India, due to which they were excluded from the tournament"). This one uses "England were" in a cricket context, as does this one, this one uses "India were" in a similar context, and so on. In British/Commonwealth English it is perfectly standard to treat the name of a sporting team as a plural... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "The qualification process for the 2026 tournament included two stages: direct qualification and regional qualification. 12 teams were awarded direct qualification while 87 teams took part in the regional qualification to compete for the remaining 8 spots" => "The qualification process for the 2026 tournament included two stages: 12 teams were awarded direct qualification while 87 teams took part in the regional qualification to compete for the remaining 8 spots" (this avoids that not technically wrong but discouraged "starting a sentence with a number written in digit form" thing)
• "The hosts, India and Sri Lanka,[8] along with the top seven teams from the 2024 tournament: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, England, South Africa, the United States and the West Indies; directly qualified for the 2026 tournament" => "The hosts, India and Sri Lanka,[8] along with the top seven teams from the 2024 tournament, Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, England, South Africa, the United States and the West Indies, directly qualified for the 2026 tournament"
• "Canada from Americas" => "Canada from the Americas"
• ", Nepal, Oman and the United Arab Emirates from the combined Asia-EAP final." => ", and Nepal, Oman and the United Arab Emirates from the combined Asia-EAP final."
• "Ahead of the 2026 tournament," => "Ahead of the tournament itself,"
• "Previous best performance" sorts in alphabetical order, which suggests that "super 8" is better than "runners-up"
• "Date of qualification" doesn't sort in date order
• "The sub-regional qualifiers were hosted by Tanzania Cricket Association, Cricket Kenya and Nigeria Cricket Federation" => "The sub-regional qualifiers were hosted by the Tanzania Cricket Association, Cricket Kenya, and the Nigeria Cricket Federation"
• "The top two sides of the regional final, Namibia and Zimbabwe qualified" => "The top two sides of the regional final, Namibia and Zimbabwe, qualified"
• "in the semi-final 1" => "in the first semi-final"
• "in the semi-final 2" => "in the second semi-final"
• "The sub-regional qualifier was hosted by Argentine Cricket Association" => "The sub-regional qualifier was hosted by the Argentine Cricket Association"
• "The top three sides of the sub-regional qualifier: Bahamas, Bermuda and Cayman Islands advanced" => "The top three sides of the sub-regional qualifier: Bahamas, Bermuda and Cayman Islands, advanced"
• "The winners of the regional final, Canada qualified" => "The winners of the regional final, Canada, qualified"
• "The sub-regional qualifiers were hosted by Malaysian Cricket Association and Qatar Cricket Association" => "The sub-regional qualifiers were hosted by the Malaysian Cricket Association and the Qatar Cricket Association"
• "The sub-regional qualifiers were hosted by Samoa International Cricket Association and Korea Cricket Association." => "The sub-regional qualifiers were hosted by the Samoa International Cricket Association and the Korea Cricket Association."
• "The top three sides of the regional final: Nepal, Oman and the United Arab Emirates qualified" => "The top three sides of the regional final: Nepal, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, qualified"
• "The sub-regional qualifiers were hosted by Italian Cricket Federation, German Cricket Federation and Guernsey Cricket Board" => "The sub-regional qualifiers were hosted by the Italian Cricket Federation, the German Cricket Federation and the Guernsey Cricket Board"
• "The regional final was hosted by Royal Dutch Cricket Association" => "The regional final was hosted by the Royal Dutch Cricket Association."
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: All done, except for Scotland's qualification date in the table which just won't sort right. Vestrian24Bio 11:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Image needs a caption
• "The hosts, India and Sri Lanka," -> "India and Sri Lanka, the host countries,"
• Can you expand on Bangladesh withdrawing in the lead?
• Inconsistent use of DMY, MDY and Slash dates
• Qualifier C final should list Gurnsry and Jersey as eliminated

That's what I found Olliefant (she/her) 22:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant:

• Bangladesh withdrawal is detailly explained at 2026 Men's T20 World Cup#Withdrawal of Bangladesh which is linked.

All else done. Vestrian24Bio 11:19, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be explained on this page Olliefant (she/her) 20:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant: done. Vestrian24Bio 11:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 17:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List #3 of the Ukrainian monuments of national significance series. Though Mykolaiv Oblast is not particularly exciting (mostly archaeological sites with no pictures), it does have a few places of interest, namely one of the oldest observatories in Eastern Europe and the largest ancient Greek site in the country. This list is smaller than the two I've previously nominated and largely follows the same structure, though this time I'm trying out "More images" links mimicking numerous British listed buildings FLs (will add this to other lists shortly if the feedback is positive). As always, suggestions and improvements are welcome. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 17:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay! I'm comparing this with the review I did at Monuments of national significance in Sumy Oblast, and the lead is uniform, which I like.

Bashtanka Raion

• If none of these items have a photo, then eliminate the column. You can always add the column back should a photo become available in the future.
• You rowspan the Designated date column, but not the Type column. I would pick one format for uniformity (you choose which one).

User:Shwabb1: Of these comments, the one about the photo column is the real only must. The other is just a suggestion for you to consider. Let me know when you have had a chance to look at these. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image column removed. However, I'd prefer to keep the Type column as it is. The rowspanned columns contain the items: multiple monuments may be located in the same settlement, so the Location column is rowspanned, and they may have been inscribed by the same law on the same date, so Date designated is rowspanned too. On the other hand, Date constructed, Type, and Protection number are all aspects of individual items, which is why they are not rowspanned. You've brought up the same issue at the List of Ukrainian placenames affected by derussification FLC last year if you remember. Thank you for the review. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 16:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Like I said, that one was just a suggestion. Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• When you have a minute, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Austrian Figure Skating Championships/archive1? Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Staking out a spot here; this will be useful for National monuments of Singapore. I'm going to be a bit busy these next few weeks (exams), but I may have time to review it, so ping me if I don't start by next week. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the text in footnote a have a Template:Lang for the Ukranian text? Would the Ukrainian name also need a citation?
  • I'm using Template:Langx which functions in the same manner as Template:Lang but adds the language name. Good point about the citation, now added. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 16:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a relevant link for "dissolution of relevant institutions and the active destruction of cultural—particularly religious—heritage"? I'm somewhat aware that the Soviet Union did try to suppress other cultures under Stalin's rule at some point
  • I couldn't find a link for the destruction of cultural heritage, but USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941) is relevant to the religious part, though I think the link could be too WP:EASTEREGGy. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 16:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, best not to use it. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Table

• Kurgan cemetery, Pervomaisk Raion: Date is "3rd millennium BC – 1st millennium", should be "3rd–1st millennia BC" per consistency with other millennium date ranges, right? Same with Kurgan in Voznesensk Raion.
  • "3rd–1st millennia BC" would be incorrect since these ranges are from 3rd millennium BC to 1st millennium AD. To avoid confusion, I could add AD, though to be consistent, I would also have to add it to "9th century BC – 4th century" etc. (on another note, I'm not sure whether BC/AD or BCE/CE would be a better system to use here; I know the former has religious connotations but practically both are widely and interchangeably used). Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 16:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind if you use BC/AD or BC/BCE but to err on the side of neutrality I'd go with the latter (it's used more in academia over BC/AD, from what I've gathered). Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      Changed to BCE. Should I also add CE to cases such as "3rd millennium BC – 1st millennium" and "9th century BC – 4th century"? Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 16:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      Done. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 17:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's all I managed to find! A pedantic comment: "On 8 June 2000, with the adoption... On 14 September 2009, all entries..." I'm not the biggest fan of having two concurrent sentences that start with "On [date]" since it's a bit repetitive, so would prefer smth like "On 8 June 2000, with the adoption... the State Register of Immovable Monuments was established; all entries from the Soviet-era list of artistic, historic, and archaeological monuments were transferred to the new register on 14 September 2009". I don't mind if you oppose it since the minimum number of sentences for something to be considered repetitive is three. Regarding the "more images" enquiry, I don't see why not; if a reader is curious about a certain monument, then they could click the link to see more photos of said monument (close-ups, bird's eye, etc). I'm not sure if that goes against image policy, but I hope it doesn't! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, I've replied in line. Also, removed repetition. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 16:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Icepinner (forgot to ping on reply). Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 09:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did see your response, but final exams were hectic, so apologies for the inactivity. Anyways, responded in-line, Shwabb1. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Icepinner do you have any more comments? Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 10:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, exam season was brutal but... now I'm done! Anyways, looking at the article, I see no further issues, so I will support this nomination for prose. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will drop in here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really have a sense from the article of where any of these places are. I know that Mykolaiv is in Ukraine, but I'm not sure I could have told you where in Ukraine without looking it up. Could we have some sort of map, and perhaps the coordinates for the sites to go along with their locations -- not many people will be much enlightened by being told that somewhere is in e.g. Lukianivka without also being told where that is.
  • (While waiting for reviews of my two current nominations, I've compiled a Q&A which, in hindsight, I should have linked above as it answers some of your questions. Anyway, I will also respond separately to everything here).
    Unfortunately, the register does not provide precise coordinates of the sites, and many are too obscure to find reliable sources on. Some sites have addresses, but I decided against including them as many toponyms have been renamed over the years, and it is difficult to track down every single renaming. Furthermore, it can be difficult to confirm that the addresses are all correct, and I try to point out and fix errors where possible. A separate website for the register has been under construction for some years now and includes a map of the sites, but it is incomplete and not very useful (the mapped sites do not have names); when/if that website is finished, I will add the coordinates to these lists. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 08:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• There are 41 monuments of national significance (importance) in Mykolaiv Oblast, Ukraine: what's the idea of the bracketed "importance" -- is that just to gloss/explain the word "significance"? If so, I don't think it's needed -- "significance" is a very pedestrian tier 2 bit of vocabulary, and there are plenty of more advanced words in the article not glossed.
  • I did not add that word to explain the meaning of "significance", but rather to account for an alternative translation. The word "значення" does not have a single official translation, with both "significance" and "importance" used by the government and other sources in this context, and I went with the former as it seems to be a slightly closer translation while accounting for the latter in brackets to avoid confusion. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 08:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that would be clearer if explained in an EFN -- I don't see that any readers will pick it up from what's written. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The archaeological monuments cover a wide range of time periods from the Paleolithic to the Cossack era.: when were those?
  • The time ranges would be approximate but I can add them. I suppose, that would also require additional citations? Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 08:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It would. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Being very picky, the "type" field should be filled with adjectives, not nouns: so "archaeological", not "archaeology". This matches the phrasing (correctly) used at the end of the lead.
  • Good point, now fixed. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 08:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be nice to have some sort of description of what these places/things actually are in the table: for example, are the various places called "settlement" associated with particular cultures? Why was M. M. Arkas important? What was the Zaporozhian Host? Why is a gazebo on the list?
  • Same as above, some of these are too obscure to find good sources on. A description column might seem fitting for this particular list as it is quite short, but some other regions have over a hundred sites each (while the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Kyiv city have over two hundred), which would make the lists overwhelmingly big. I think it is more fitting to leave the descriptions of the sites to the individual articles (at least on Ukrainian Wikipedia that covers many of these); for example, the Zaporozhian Host and Mykola Arkas are described in the relevant articles, which is why I've wikilinked them. I also agree that many site names are confusing, but these are the official names and I don't want to significantly modify them. Explaining why individual sites are on the list is another story, and as the vast majority of these sites have been listed since the Soviet era, it is practically impossible to track down the original reasoning as government decisions were not particularly public back then. The best I can do is give a general overview of the criteria that all these sites supposedly meet – see the third sentence of the lead and footnote b (on another note, as I understand, these criteria were introduced after Ukraine's independence, so I am sceptical that all sites really meet them). Also, many similar FLs (such as Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester) do not include descriptions. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 08:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• We should differentiate "the Soviet register" from "the Soviet-era register": the Soviet Union no longer exists, so there is no Soviet register and it doesn't make sense to talk about whether any monuments remain on it.
  • Well, that register certainly still exists and has not been formally abolished while some sites remain on it. I'm not sure what you want me to do here, but I assume you're questioning the pertinence of footnote c. I've only added it for consistency with other lists, where some monuments sometimes remain on the old register (though I only work on the regions where I can reasonably conclude that the transfers have been finished, so I also use this footnote to explain why some sites have not been transferred; see Zhytomyr Oblast or Chernivtsi Oblast for example). Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 08:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It might exist, but it's no longer Soviet, any more than (for example) Chester is a Roman city -- or for that matter Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy are Soviets. It should accordingly be called the "Soviet-era" list, or similar. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Got it. It is officially called the register of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic but the entity no longer exists, so I see your point. Now fixed. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 11:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the logic behind the default order of entries in the list?
  • Alphabetical order by location, then ascending order by protection number. I decided not to sort alphabetically by name because, as you have probably noticed, the names do not always follow a consistent style. Also, monuments with adjacent protection numbers generally correspond to the same law and the same date, making it easy to rowspan the "Date designated" and "Ref" columns. Other configurations may be achieved with the use of the sort function. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 08:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: thank you for the review; I've replied in line. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 08:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist I've addressed your remaining points. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 20:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): RobertFord II (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...more light needs to be shed on George Roy Hill's significance as a director, and so far, I feel this page covers that well enough to support a nomination. RobertFord II (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure the lead image caption needs to specify where it was published
• "acting in episodes for the early television plays of Kraft Television Theater, upon working on stage in off-Broadway roles" - don't think "upon" is the right connective there
• Also....our article on that series has the last word spelt "Theatre"
• "the TV drama episodes "My Brother's Keeper" and Keep Our Honor Bright in 1953" - why is one in quote marks and the other in italics?
• "In 1962, Hill made his directorial debut" - presumably his film directorial debut, as you already mentioned him directing TV shows.....?
• "as the fantasized concert pianist Henry Orient" - don't understand "fantasized" here - does it mean that the character is imaginary within the film.....?
• " again became one the highest-grossing films of that year in North America" - "again" doesn't work here as you haven't mentioned any previous film achieving this feat
• "Based on the 1977 novel E=mc2 Mon Amour by Patrick Cauvin." - not a sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
• "Attributed to multiple sources." - also not a sentence
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. Good finds! @ChrisTheDude RobertFord II (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My only remaining query is that the article refers to him working on "Kraft Television Theater", yet our article on the show is spelt "Kraft Television Theatre" - which is correct.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thats supposed to be "Theatre." Fixed. RobertFord II (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Year becomes !scope=col |Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |1962 becomes !scope=row |1962 (you could instead make the title cells the primary if you want). 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. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 13:38, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Based on the 1985 novel of the by Jay Cronley" - missing "same name"?
• IMDb is not a suitable source. See WP:IMDB
• Is the ChatStick Team source a reliable one?
• What makes Rino Ingenito's Medium article a reliable source?
• "Blast at Centralia No. 5", The Seven Lively Arts, 1958-01-26, retrieved 2026-01-01" and " "Deliver Me from Evil", Ponds Theater, 1954-06-17, retrieved 2026-01-04" are incorrectly cited; as mentioned above, IMDb is not a suitable source.
• Citation for ""Review/Film; Rusticicity For Chevy Chase". Archived from the original on 2020-09-26. Retrieved 2026-01-01." is incomplete.
• Date formats in references are inconsistent (e.g. "2002-12-28"; "30 December 2002"
• ISSN numbers are provided for some sources but not others. Be consistent. (IMO they are not needed.)
• Change ""TV DIRECTOR SET FOR MOVIE DEBUT" and other instances from all caps. (MOS:ALLCAPS)
• Remove CBS News from the title in "'Sting' Director George Roy Hill Dies - CBS News"; remove "New York Times" from "Period of Adjustment - Trailer - Showtimes - Cast - Movies - New York Times" etc.
• What is "resolute" in "resolute (2019-10-07). "Butch and Sundance: Celebrating an Iconic Movie". Life. Retrieved 2026-01-01." ?
• "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid | The Guardian". The Guardian. Retrieved 2026-01-01." doesn't link to a specific article - should it?

• I'll take another look after responses to these comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertFord II: This nomination is now 6 weeks old without garnering any support votes, and I see you haven't edited for a month or so. If this nomination doesn't get movement soon, it will be closed for inactivity. --PresN 12:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 14:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have postponed this nomination twice before, it's time to deal with it for good. This list has never been in better shape. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 14:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments coming in a few days. GiftedIceCream 13:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed the repeated reference issue. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the note. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, Support GiftedIceCream 13:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing is LLM-generated.
• Copyvio check looks good.
• Refs 32 and 7 are duplicates.
• I think note B is a little trivial.

Lead

• I would recommend beginning the first sentence with "The British rock band..."
• What does it mean, busk?
• "The former was preceded by multiple warm-up shows, with one of them being a headlining performance at Coachella."
• "According to Pollstar, the band earned $142.9 million from 2.6 million tickets sold in North America in the 2000s decade."
• "Coldplay were credited with ushering into in a new era..."
• "The first 223 shows have made over $1.52 billion..."

Tables

• I would recommend center-justifying the first column on the first table to match all subsequent tables. I recommend styling the tables to match.

Notes

• Notes L, M, and N are not full sentences, so they do not need periods at the end.
• Same for notes P, Q, and R.
• Same for notes AA.
• "The concerts in Sydney on 15 November 2012 was broadcast..." --> Either "The concerts... were" or "The concert... was"
• Notes AD does not need a period at the end.

User:GustavoCza: Please let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments! Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:12, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Solved. Busking is playing music in public spaces. One example is on "The Karate Kid" music video.

• I recommend wikilinking it – [[Street performance|busking]] – as that is not a common term. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

• I'll have to disagree on you on that one because the other tables only have the first column centered because they are dates.

Notes

• Solved.

GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 22:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've never reviewed a featured list/article nomination where no authors are mentioned in the references, but I haven't found any policy or guideline that says they must be.

I did a couple of random checks for setlists and none of the three were completely listed in the source:

• 23 November 2019: source dies not confirm all performed songs (e.g. Sparks)
• 25 November 2019: source does not confirm (all) performed songs.
• 21 January 2020: source does not confirm performed songs (in fact, it predates the show)

Are the other setlists confirmed by the stated sources?

• BroadwayWorld is considered generally unreliable [[[WP:BROADWAYWORLD]]
• IMDb is is considered unreliable by a majority of editors, but is used a few times. WP:IMDB
• What makes the TABENON YouTube channel a reliable source? (Coldplay - 2000-11-14 Nulle Part Ailleurs) WP:RSPYT
• What makes the Timaches Music YouTube channel a reliable source? (Coldplay (Chris) – God Put a Smile Upon Your Face + Interview (Rove Live, 2003))
• What makes the breanchu YouTube channel a reliable source? (Coldplay Live at RTL2 Studios in Paris (2005-04-13).)
• Sme question for the other unofficial YouTube refs.

• Looks from RSN like Pop Sugar, Ecomomic Times and Rolling Stone are OK soures for what they are used for here.

• What makes Oz [@ColdplayVault] a reliable source?
• What makes the Cardiff Music History / Hanes Miwsig Caerdydd's Facebook page a reliable source?
• What makes Coldplay Access [@coldplayaccess] a reliable source?

I'll have some more comments once I've seen the responses to the above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay Access, Cardiff Music History and Oz provide evidence through posters or screenshots. As for the set lists, not all references confirm them in full, but they prove the show happened. If precise breakdowns were required for every event, the list would be greatly reduced and lose meaning. Not to mention featured pages such as List of Taylor Swift live performances and List of Lady Gaga live performances would have never been promoted. Broadway World, YouTube and IMDb need to be checked though. I'll work on them when I can. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 22:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ike List of Lady Gaga live performances was promoted over ten years ago so probably isn't a good example for current expectations. List of Taylor Swift live performances has several "unknown"s in the performed songs column. I'd be interested to hear what other reviewers or the co-ordinators think about how WP:V applies to performed songs here, as I'm not looking to create unnecessary hurdles. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like a blurry territory for me. I mean, take the Live in Jordan special, it was uploaded on Coldplay's YouTube channel. Should I use the performance itself as a reference instead of citing a magazine that mentions its release? Weird stuff. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• BroadwayWorld – Solved
• IMDb – Solved
• TABENON – Solved
• Timaches Music – Solved
• breanchu – Solved
• Other unofficial YouTube refs – Solved

GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 14:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it has potential, given JoJo's history regarding gaming, and the article covers it comprehensively enough to the point where I feel confident in nominating it. :) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 14:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note: not transcluded onto WP:FLC until April 13 --PresN 11:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave comments here in the coming week. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyperlink character names in the lead where needed (Santana, Speedwagon, Iggy, Avdol, Kakoyin, Polnareff are the ones I see at a glance.)
• Many statements in the lead are uncited and not backed up in the body. Examples include: "The story is based on the first arc, and the gameplay is similar to GioGio's Bizarre Adventure" and the bulk of the fourth paragraph.
• Sources 14 and 15 are using bare links rather than proper citation formatting. These should be adjusted.
• A number of uncited statements in the table. Everything should be cited, especially genre and developers.
• What is the reliability of Geek Snack? Rest of the sources at a glance look solid.

Overall decent article, but needs a lot of citation work before I'm willing to support. @OpalYosutebito: let me know when the above are addressed or if I can clarify anything. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlinks are done. I'm working on the sources right now :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999 I just replaced the Geek Snack source with an Anime News Network one, which the Geek Snack source linked to. Hope that fixed it! :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OpalYosutebito A few minor points on citations: In the lead, several of the citations lack author names or are missing website links (Siliconera is also referred to as Silicon era in one citation). Make sure you're incorporating these links, names, dates etc when adding more sources, especially once you get to the body tables.

Also, double check your character hyperlinks in the lead. For example, Iggy is still unlinked, and the Joestars also lack them on first mention (Johnothan for example is only linked in the last paragraph, rather than in the second where he is first referenced) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999 I should be done with the sources. Please let me know if there's anything, be it from the lead or not, that needs a reference call! :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 00:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OpalYosutebito

A few uncited statements in the tables:

-All-Star Battle needs a citation for the JP title

-Ditto for Last Survivor

-Ditto for Jump Force

-Ditto for the Chinese name of Golden Anthem

Otherwise should be good. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999 I should be done now :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 17:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OpalYosutebito looks good, I have no further concerns. Happy to Support. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the "appearances" table, two columns are the wrong way round for one entry...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, @ChrisTheDude? - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 17:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait nvm I found it - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 17:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 11:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Several video games based on long-running manga and anime series JoJo's Bizarre Adventure have been released." I feel like you should mention the creator of JoJo's within that sentence. Maybe even a summary of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure for people unfamiliar with the series, but I know that it would be pretty difficult to briefly summarise Jojo's.
• "A third Capcom game based on JoJo's fifth story arc, Vento Aureo(→), titled GioGio's Bizarre Adventure" Vento Aureo is another name for Golden Wind, but I feel like it should be replaced with the latter since that's more common; people are probably gonna know Part 5 as "Golden Wind".
• The second and last paragraph in the lead should be joined together imo
• I don't see anywhere in [2] that says the official release date of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Heritage for the Future was specifically October 14, 1999, nor do I see "Updated revision of the 1998 JoJo's Bizarre Adventure video game", just "followed by a Sony PlayStation console version in 1999. It was then ported to the Sega Dreamcast console"
• I think Template:Lang should be used for the Japanese characters, see Template:Lang#Rationale
• The table in the "list of tables" section should have table captions (screen-reader only or just publicly available is up to your choice I think) per MOS:TABLECAPTIONS
• "Playstation 2" is linked twice in the table, whereas other repeated video game consoles are not; either link all of them or don't for consistency
• It seems that JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Shooters mentions "Released 4 days later for iOS", but JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Eyes of Heaven doesn't mention how the PS4 version was released later than the PS3 version? See below. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• "{{{release}}}" at the JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Official App row...
• Citation for the release date of JoJo's Pitter Patter Pop! should be moved to the colon after the header, like the other rows
• The following are problems with references. I'm clustering them in their own little section since if I recall correctly, the last time I saw the reference section, it looked up to code. Since then, I'm assuming all the problems highlighted below are the result of implementing other reviewers' comments?
  • Empty "Notes" section
  • Cite web errors in a couple of citations
  • A few bare URLs
  • Multiple links are missing archived links... they are needed for consistency
  • "週刊少年ジャンプ 1987 表示号数1" does not have a translated title; add one for consistency
  • Some citations are missing access dates

All from the first round of review. Feel free to oppose anything, ofc. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Icepinner pardon the ping, but I'm just letting you know that I started working on the sources last night. Most of it is archive work, but I'll do my damndest to add access dates, too! :) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 14:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Icepinner what source do you have that the PS4 version of EOH was released after the PS3 version? The sources I found said that they released on the same day... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 03:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apologies, I think I somehow misread the EOH article; the game was released for the PS3 and PS4 on the same day in Japan. I've struck it out. Ping me for another look at the article. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Icepinner pardon the ping, but I believe I'm done. Please feel free to add any more suggestions or remind me of anything that I missed - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 17:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am so, so sorry for the inactivity; final exams are hectic. I'll take another look at it by Friday, and if I don't, please ping me! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:02, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing:

• "...by Anchor Inc. and published by Bandai" Bandai should be linked here
• JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Heritage for the Future and JoJo's Bizarre Adventure's Japanese names are listed as "[Hepburn] ([Characters])", yet the Japanese names for the other games are listed the other way around; choose one for consistency.

Otherwise, it looks much better now! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Icepinner done :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! I will support this nomination (including prose). Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 14:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Joining in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Spelling/phrasing/grammar.
  • "series's" should be "series'"?
  • Capital W on West
  • We introduce a lot of ideas, in some areas. Sentences like " On December 1, 1998, Capcom released an arcade fighting game, which was also adapted from the third arc; the game was titled simply JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (though it was released as JoJo's Venture in the west), with an updated version titled JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Heritage for the Future released later that year." is a pretty big run on sentence.
  • At the bottom of the article, we discuss Jojo cross-over games which seem to be related to Shōnen Jump which isn't even mentioned in how it relates to Jojo. A brief description about why these games are included and any consistent relationship with the comics may be helpful.
• Sources
  • Large technical details within both the lead are unsourced, this ranges from genres (various mentioned, some unsourced. some I'm not even familiar with ("Medal Shooting Action?") , release dates (some sourced, others not, Japanese games shouldn't be that hard to find release dates for with Famitsu and other sources), developers & publishers (Cobra Team, WinkySoft, Drecom, etc. In the infobox they are separated as developers and publishers, in the info box they are all listed as developers. Which are they? Do we need to know?) in both the lead and the actual lists.
  • Other more real world information is also not sourced. Such as "as the series became popularized", ok, where? Japan? The West? Is this what led to the release or was it other factors?
• POV
  • A lot of this is written from a fan's POV and presumes we're familiar with either manga or anime series. Describing material as being from "based on the third story arc, Stardust Crusaders" is probably okay if you are familiar with the series, but I wouldn't know if this is from the manga, the anime, some larger Shonen Jump thing, etc. It should give a bit more content to what Jojo is per WP:AUDIENCE so when we mention characters and cameos.
  • I would be cautious to use terms like "Mainline" games unless they are referred to as such by some third-party source. Perhaps better just to say licensed games here to clarify that they are not, fan games or something?
• Display
  • The table is a bit confusing. Just having a single release date/year and then a series of systems does not make it clear what came out first for what system.
  • We could save a lot of problems like citing publishers/developers/genres etc. by using a different format of table. I'd suggest something similar to how List of Bleach video games is listed which gives space to clarify some details.
  • Also like the Bleach article, we may be better off without an info box and just using the logo or something else representative. A giant group of developers, publishers and genres is more confusing than helpful when they are so many games.

That's all I have at the moment, but I know of a lot what I suggested already would involve a lot of ripping it up and starting again of the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas I understand. I shouldn't be too busy this week :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 17:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas it's been a while. Do any of your concerns still remain? - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its looking a lot better! :) Great work! Still some issues. I think we could re-arrange some information in the lead to format some bits. Like, the " JoJo's Bizarre Adventure began serialization in the weekly shōnen manga anthology Weekly Shōnen Jump in 1987" might be a better as part of the intro. Perhaps after that, just a bit of info of what the general idea of what the series is about (something like "Its about [so and so characters] who do [whatever the general plot beat of JoJo is]" then perhaps say the series is split into various arcs which could lead into the discussion of what game matches what and continue from there. You could re-iterate that into Shonen Jump stuff after.

I haven't checked all the sources yes, but if you agree with me (please do not hesitate to say I may be asking for something wrong), but I do think it'll make things more clear about what we're dealing with. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas what do you think about the prose now? I added a bit of context in the lead - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 20:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• [arcade] [fighting game] is an MOS:SOB violation
• Link "beat-'em'up" in the table
• Cut both uses of "; not to be confused with the manga of the same name." since I doubt it would confuse anyone on the list of video games page and both articles have links to the relevent manga pretty much immediately
• Alot of inconsistency in links, "fighting" is sometimes linked sometimes not while "Capcom" is always linked
• "Battle royale video game" decapitalize
• Link "DLC" on first mention
• Some citations are missing dates (both publication and access)
• Cut the "Notes" heading if its empty

That's what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 15:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, Olliefant beat me to the notes and citation comments Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant done with the concerns :) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Olliefant and Andrzejbanas. --PresN 13:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 16:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Benin has three world heritage sites and five sites on the tentative list. Standard style. This is one of of the shorter ones that I have ready, still planning to nominate Mexico at some point as a long one ;) Tone 16:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "making its historical sites eligible for inclusion on the list" Why is "historical" included here? Membership allowed for inclusion of all types of sites. I think this may need to be fixed in a number of other lists.
  • Done! Must be a copy-paste thing from an older text issue. I will check the future cases if it is still there.
• The pin for Koutammakou is in Togo but should be on the Benin sites even if a transborder site.
  • Good point. UNESCO page actually gives two sets of coordinates, I now replaced the Togo ones with Benin.
• "2004, the area" should be a semicolon
  • Done.
• Porto-Novo: Even if the nomination page itself doesn't have a description, surely you can include a sentence or two of what the Royal Palace is.
  • Agreed. I still left the info on the empty nomination page to indicate that UNESCO does not specify what is the justification of universal value etc.
• "Benin maintains five properties" in the present tense does not seem accurate and it seems more like no one has properly updated the Unesco website to account for the W Reserve having actually been approved. It is maintained if it's 30 years old and lacks any supporting documentation? "Benin has nominated five properties" or the like seems better, but this is still weird to list something here that's just an outdated duplicate. How often do tentative lists get updated? Like, generally, do nominations get regularly removed if many years go by and the Committee doesn't think a site should be accepted? Do you have any info on how long sites wait for acceptance on average? Reywas92^Talk 04:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. Outdated nominations sometimes stay there until there is some sort of motivation that the country updates the list. For example, I just went through the tentative list for Algeria, they updated the entire list last year. I changed the text a bit, not ideal, but I suppose it works for the purpose of the list. Thanks for checking! --Tone 08:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer that one simply be removed as obviously outdated and no longer under consideration; I also agree with the below comments about header capitalization and dashes but otherwise Support. Reywas92^Talk 17:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Change the position of Pendjari National Park on the map to top to prevent overlap with Koutammakou (the overlap is not significant on a wide screen but very noticeable on a mobile device)
• I believe the map's alt text should indicate the position of the sites (something like "There are two sites in the northwest of the country and one in the south")
• "This in an old nomination" → "This is an old nomination"
• Refs 3 and 12 could be archived
• Except for the map issue above, alt text is present and sufficient. Table captions and legend are present, so no accessibility issues. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 16:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shwabb1 Done, thanks! As for archiving, the bot only archived some, any ideas how to fix it? Tone 07:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems that it only refused to archive ref 12, so I've manually added an archived link. Also, I've looked through the images and didn't notice any issues.

  Support on prose and pass accessibility & image reviews. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 08:45, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments from a pretty inexperienced reviewer (at least in this forum):

• Is "tentative list" capitalised? It isn't in the lead, but then is in the subhead.
  • I think I always use this as the style.
    • It's breaking MOS:SECTIONCAPS at the moment, so whether or not it's been done before, it needs to be fixed one way or the other to meet the FLC criteria. We can either decide it's a proper noun, and capitalise throughout, or decide that it isn't, and decap in the subheading. Strictly speaking, the same needs to be done in any FL that has already passed candidacy without someone noticing this. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to small caps, I will eventually check other lists.
• Per MOS:DASH, "W-Arly-Pendjari Complex" should have endashes, not hyphens.
  • In principle agree, but the wiki article is at W-Arly-Pendjari Complex, so I am avoiding possible redirects (in any case, if it is to be changed, that article should be checked first).
    • As above: this is a MoS fail, so needs to be fixed -- using a redirect is permissible under WP:FLCR, while breaking MOS:DASH is not. W-Arly-Pendjari Complex is a stub, so I'm not sure what the basis for invoking it as an authority would be (even if it were a Featured Article, Wikipedia is not a reliable source). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Article moved and links fixed. Tone 17:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• the capital of the 12 kings, consists of two components: unusual to vary figures/words here.
  • Replaced with twelve.
• Koutammakou, the Land of the Batammariba was initially listed independently: comma after Batammariba, as it's a parenthetical phrase.
• Natural features (consisting of physical and biological formations), geological and physiographical formations (including habitats of threatened species of animals and plants), and natural sites which are important from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty, are defined as natural heritage: might help to italicise natural heritage, as recommended by MOS:RETAINQUOTEVARIETY.
  • Agree in principle but I wouldn't want to change the consistent style over all WHS lists.
    • This one's a recommendation rather than an instruction under the MoS, so can be left to editorial discretion -- no problem with that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• The prose of the lead, particularly in the second paragraph, is quite choppy: we have a lot of short sentences which don't really flow into each other. See for instance Benin has three World Heritage Sites and a further five sites on the tentative list. The first site was added to the list in 1985. This was the Royal Palaces of Abomey that was immediately listed as endangered because of the damage to the property in a 1984 tornado. Following a careful restoration, the site was removed from the endangered list in 2007. The other two sites are transnational. The W National Park was originally listed independently in Niger in 1996..
  • I kind of want to be short and compact in the lead, since the main details are then in the table. So the lead is the summary of how many sites, what type, added from when to when, any shared sites, any endangered sites (and why). Yes, it may read a bit choppy at times.
    • It's not a question of overall concision: you can say the same thing in just as few words in much better prose. I'm not asking for the section to be lengthened, but for the structure and flow from idea to idea to be polished up. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • I went through but I don't have a better idea. This happens when you've read the same text over and over again. I'm open to suggestions ;)
• We twice talk about a "careful restoration". I think this might be too far towards WP:PUFFERY: do we expect restorers to be careless?
  • Good point, we can do without "careful". Regretful, sometimes restorers don't follow the UNESCO guidelines, as it happened with the Bagrati Cathedral that was eventually delisted.
• Is it worth putting coordinates with location?
  • Old lists had them but I prefer without. Stylistically it looks just a bunch of numbers, and there is a map on the top and the coordinates are in each article one click away anyway.
    • Fair enough. The map only has those on the definitive list, of course -- you might consider adding the others with different symbology. There's also MOS:NOFORCELINK to consider. However, on balance I think this is a reasonable matter for discretion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Immediately in 1985, the site was listed as endangered: not sure about the idiom here. Do we mean "at the start of 1985"?
  • Clarified better.
    • I'm not sure the prose/idiom of the new sentence is quite there, but this can be rolled into the broader point about lead prose. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • Open to suggestions...
• People are strongly connected with the natural environment: this feels a bit wooly.
  • This is kind of the essence of "Koutammakou is a continuing living landscape representing the features of a farming society working in harmony with the landscape, where nature underpins beliefs, rituals and daily life." but I am open to suggestions for a better wording :)
    • Yeah, I don't think that's quite what the quote is saying: it's more like "the landscape has a prominent role in the beliefs and rituals of the local community" -- that is, it's a justification for why the landscape itself is important. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like it! Replaced.
• No description provided in the nomination documentation: I'm a bit confused by this, and its being in italics. Have we quoted the nomination documentation elsewhere? That isn't clear. If not, why do we have this here?
  • The nomination page is empty, this sometimes happens with old tentative sites. Otherwise the "nomination documentation" here is the UNESCO website for tentative site. Other sites have the text.
    • What is the "nomination documentation"? The heading for the column is "Description". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • UNESCO has lots of documents for the nominations and the WHS. In this case, there is none available, thus "No description provided in the nomination documentation". We've used the wording several times already, I think this is as clear as it gets :)
        • I'm afraid it's really not clear to me. For one thing, if the column for nomination information in most cases is simply copy-pasting the nomination page, rather than being a summary written by Wikipedians, that should be made clear. However, looking at e.g. the W Reserve, I don't think that's true. So I'm back to being confused at why this is in italics, and what the status of the other boxes in this column might be. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• king Dakodonou of Dahomey: cap king per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
• Can we get a representative image for "Highlights of the Slave Route in Benin"?
  • I had one but it was considered not appropriate and I think deleted.
    • OK, but there must surely be others. There seems to be a long list of possible candidates, looking at the "Description" page -- at least one of them must have a decent image on Commons. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had a look but you'd be surprised how many times there are no useful images on Commons, such that are directly relevant (not to show a generic landscape or something), or free (a frequent issue with recent architectural works). Open to suggestions, though.
        • We've got this, this, this, any of these, this, etc. I've set up a category at Category:Slave Route, Benin which may help. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

        Nice! I think the Gate of no return was in the list before but got deleted on Commons, maybe those uploaded are fine for some reason. Added, this is the most illustrative image in the category. Tone 19:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

        Ah yeah -- Benin's Freedom of Panorama laws are very limited, so anything that could count as a creative work, even if it's situated in public, needs to be more than 70 years old. The lagoon and houses, or any of the historical images, would work. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

        Yup, that was the case last time, it seems. The lagoon and the roads show next to zero relevance to the nomination, so I'd avoid them. Another option seems to be monuments from Zoungbodji but these are also quite recent. Historical images are from after the time slavery was happening, like late 19th and early 20th century. I found a suitable one, the hills of Dassa, which is a geographical feature. Huh, that took some effort! :) Tone 08:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• We give the count of the sites on the tentative list in the section, but not the number of World Heritage Sites. I think we should do both.
  • I guess this is again the consistent style for the WHS lists. I'd leave it.
    • I can see the argument for consistency in matters that are purely taste -- e.g. whether to use SFN templates or ref tags -- but here we're dealing with something that's a straightforward weakness: it creates an inconsistency within the article and requires the reader to do more work than necessary. At the moment, this article is up for FLC, and the others are not, so what matters is the quality of this one. If there's a way to improve it which could also be improved in the others, that's an argument for improving all of them, though of course nobody's going to insist that you go round all 180-or-so national lists before this one gets the promotion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I really want to keep it consistent here with other lists. Maybe removing the number of tentative sites is better... But the number of WHS is directly one paragraph above the main list so this feels redundant.
  • @UndercoverClassicist: Done, thanks! Some comments above. --Tone 07:45, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks -- I've put in some replies, where necessary. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• One more thing -- we use two different colours of dot (an unfortunate red and green: see MOS:COLOUR) in the lead map, but never explain what they mean. Per MOS:COLOUR (part of MOS:ACCESSIBILITY), they should be differentiated by shape as well, or some means other than colour (many users can't visually differentiate red from green). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed green to blue, good point. And caption expanded. --Tone 18:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    It's less bad, but still a MOS:ACCESSIBILITY fail: there are (admittedly, comparatively rare) forms of colour blindness where people cannot distinguish red from blue. As we're using an SVG icon that can be anything we want, making a differentiation by shape would be trivial. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • @UndercoverClassicist: I think I've mostly addressed your comments, open to suggestions on the other ones - feel free to play with the text. --Tone 18:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "The first site was added to the list in 1985. This was the Royal Palaces of Abomey that was immediately listed as endangered because of the damage to the property in a 1984 tornado." --> This reads awkwardly because "site" is singular, while "Royal Palaces of Abomey" is plural. I recommend a slight rewrite to avoid the awkwardness. Perhaps, "The first site, the Royal Palaces of Abomey, was added to the list in 1985. It was immediately listed as endangered because of the damage to the property from a 1984 tornado."

Royal Palaces

• "Immediately after its inscription in 1985, the site was also listed as endangered because of the damage to the property in a 1984 tornado." --> Recommend slightly rewording, "Immediately following its inscription in 1985, the site was listed as endangered because of the damage to the property from a 1984 tornado."

W–Arly–Pendjari Complex

• Just a personal preference, but I would put (pictured) in italics.
• I would pluralize all of those animals.

The city of Porto Novo

old quarters and Royal Palace

• I don't believe that first sentence needs to be in italics. In fact, I don't believe that sentence is needed at all, since you do provide a description.

Agongointo-Zoungoudo Underground Town

• I would change the "The" at the very beginning to "This".

Highlights of the Slave Route in Benin

• "The sites include the caravan stops, slave warehouses, slave markets, and the sites at the coast of Ouidah, where slaves were shipped to the Americas." --> Recommend rephrasing as I did in the boldfaced text.

User:Tone: I always enjoy reading your World Heritage Sites articles. Please let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): [[|TheDoctorWho]] (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it's been a while since I've stopped by FLC. Got a little burned out churning them last year, but as always, I'm happy to be back! For my first nomination of the year I'm bring the awards list for 1923. As noted in more depth by my recently-nominated FAC for season 2 of the series, this is a series I recently became obsessed with and given the series page was lacking, decided to improve Wikipedia's coverage of. Therefore, after wrapping up work on season 2, I started drafting season 1 but paused to work on this. It's been nominated for a handful of awards, but I feel it was more notable for its Emmy "snubs" for A-list movie stars, which is discussed in the list. As always, my perfectionistic tendencies went ahead and wrote this with an FLC in mind, so I'm wasting no time getting to it. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: Here shall be an image review from me! Arconning (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• File:1923 Black Logo Cropped.jpg - Public Domain, a more direct source link should be supplied
• File:1923 Emmy Promo Ad.jpeg - Fair Use
• File:MKr24712 Helen Mirren (Golda, Berlinale 2023) cropped.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Harrison Ford - Televerse 2025 (cropped).jpg - CC BY 4.0
• File:Ben Richardson at the Drinking Buddies premiere.jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Brian Tyler.JPG - CC0
• The first and second images need alt-text for accessibility.
• All images have proper captioning and are relevant to the article.

• @Arconning: Thank you for the image review, I've added alt text and adjusted the source link. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pass Arconning (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't review many FLCs nowadays, but this caught my eye as a list of TV awards since I've worked on similar FLs. Why does this list warrant a standalone page? I've been involved in merges for similar lists such as this (admittedly there was less discussion, but there was also zero opposition). I know you address it, but 36 entries (33 if we remove OFTA) is not that long, and the lead feels stretched out to make up for it. For instance, mentioning that the cast and crew were submitted for Emmys or that the show ran FYC ads is trivial fluff; basically every Hollywood production will do that. I don't see how this meets WP:FLCR #3c ("could not reasonably be included as part of a related article"). Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, I get the concern. I'm a strong believer in MOS:TVSPLIT (granted that talks about episode lists, but I believe it could be applied to awards, season, and characters lists as well). It wasn't an awards list, but I just recently completed the merger of an episode list where season articles didn't warrant a split. That said, I don't split where I believe it wouldn't be justified.

  As I mentioned, I'm working on expanding Wikipedia's coverage of this series, shortly after I began, and as can be seen by the season 2 article, splits would have needed to occur somewhere. The season 2 article is currently at 36kb (after episode summaries), and assuming season 1 (draft I'm slowly but surely working on) is of similar length, everything merged into one article would be around 72kb. This is over the 50 to 60kb that TVSPLIT suggests splitting at. Once I finish season 1, I plan on turning the parent page into a general overview for the series.

  Obviously the finished product of the parent article probably won't quite be at 50kb, however I feel it's important to note, that the number that TVSPLIT is based on, has since been removed from WP:SPLIT. With that said, the amount of information I plan on pulling over from the two season articles, along with a small amount of information I found that applies to the series overall rather than individual seasons, I believed that the award table and Emmy information (even if in less detail) would be long enough that it would be of "a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article". Especially when you consider the fact that the remainder of that article will be in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.

  To match the planned improvements to that article and the season articles (because I didn't include the OFTA awards or as detailed Primetime Emmy information in season 2), I went ahead and performed the split now, so that writing it would be easier when the time does come to improve it. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, personally I remain unconvinced, but I'd hate for this to block/delay promotion if nobody else agrees, so consider me neutral for now. I just feel like it's so obvious the list is being padded out to better justify a split. If there's one specific change I'd like to see, I think the FYC poster image is unnecessary; if the point is to say none of the actors got Emmy nominations, there's no need for non-free content to make that point. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that if this is a concern, I can remove the fair-use image and summarize some of the Emmy stuff up. I still wouldn't remove it completely as I believe the it's at least worth mentioning, but I do still believe a separate list is justified here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s good to see you back!

Lead

• "1923 was developed as a replacement for 1883 after it was renewed by Paramount before consulting Sheridan and before network executives realized so many characters in that series had been killed-off." —> This reads unclearly. After 1883 was renewed? Did Sheridan not want it renewed? Did 1923 take 1883's place?
• "The series was originally described as a miniseries, but shifted into a limited-run format…" —> Recommend "shifted to…"
• "season two released from February 23 through April 6, 2025." —> This could be worded slightly better. Perhaps "was released between February 23 and April 6, 2025".
• "The series revolves around a generation of the Dutton family that had previously been explored in 1883 and Yellowstone from 1923–1924." —> “been explored” sounds off here. Perhaps “appeared” or “been featured”? Is it a different generation of the same family that had appeared on the other series?
• "It was written in its entirety by Sheridan" —> Recommend "It was written entirely by Sheridan"
• "1923 has been nominated for thirty-six awards" —> Is it likely to receive more nominations? If not, it should be “was nominated”.
• "Ford, Mirren, and Nieves have particularly received attention for their acting, resulting in ten nominations for the trio and two accolades for Mirren” —> "Ford, Mirren, and Nieves received particular attention…" Also, were all ten nominations each shared by the three? When you say “accolades”, are those awards or nominations? It’s unclear since this article describes both.
• "and the Montana Film Office have also been nominated" —> "were also nominated"
• "Had Ford been given the nomination" —> "Had Ford been nominated…"
• "That same year however, he did become become the second-oldest performer to be nominated in the Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series category for his role as Dr. Paul Rhodes in the Apple TV series Shrinking." —> This sentence should be removed as it has nothing to do with this article.
• "Mirren had been submitted" —> should be "Mirren was submitted"

Image caption

• "Mirren, Ford, Richardson, and Tyler have all been nominated for their work on 1923" —> recommend "…were all nominated"

Table

• Examining the table makes my point above about the vagueness of the nominations for Ford, Mirren, and Nieves even more emphatic.

User:TheDoctorWho: Let me know when you’ve had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: I believe I've addressed all your comments/suggestions. I tried to reword the portions a bit surrounding the 1883 replacement, generation of the family, and noms/wins for Ford/Mirren/Nieves. This hopefully will avoid confusion for others. To answer some of your questions in more detail than I went into in the lead:

• No Sheridan did not want 1883 renewed. He created it as a mini-series, yet Paramount renewed it anyways thinking he would make a second season. According to him, they didn't realize he killed off so many main characters in that show, because even though he submitted scripts for approval before production began, they didn't fully comprehend the deaths. They tried to talk him into creating season two around a character who killed themselves at the end of the series (by saying he didn't really die, despite it being implied), but he said he wasn't interested in retconning it and would just create another prequel instead.
• Yes, same family different-ish generation. Some of the main characters of this show are the siblings/children/grandchildren/nephews/etc, of the main characters who were in 1883 and (great-)grandparents/great-uncles/etc. of the main characters in Yellowstone.

Let me know if anything still doesn't make any sense and I can attempt to elaborate further in the actual list. Thank you for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I’m sorry, I was on an airplane when I did this review and forgot to come back to it when you replied! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will be looking at sources and prose in the next day or two. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 05:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm a little shocked that a nomination regarding a well-acclaimed TV show has been open for so long. To help it get promoted sooner rather than later, I decided to take something of a hands-on approach for this review and make some minor fixes myself. For transparency, these edits were as follows:

• Ref 5: I set as live a link which was erroneously marked as dead.
• Refs 4 and 14: I added a period at the end of Jr per MOS:JRSR; the string RosenburgJosh caught my eye, so I checked the link again, saw that the article was credited to Josh Rosenburg, and realized that the first name parameter in the citation template was absent.
• Refs 29 and 39: I was a little confused that only some refs had archive links, so I ran InternetArchiveBot to add missing archives. It only added two, but as this is not an official criterion, I am not going to mark it against the candidate.
• Ref 50: The content of the cited webpage has been replaced with an advertisement, so I set the link as dead.

Moving on to the review proper:

• I am not sure if unusually-high needs a hyphen.
• I am seeing many cases where {{cite web}} is being used in place of a more specific/appropriate template such as, for example, {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}}.
• I spotchecked refs 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 36, 39, 41, 43, 44, 48, 52, 54, 57, 59, 60, 61, and 62 (selections guided by random number generator). The vast majority of those sources verify the information that they are being used to cite in the article, but I did find one exception:
  • Ref 20: Maybe I'm missing something, but where does it say that the second [FYC program] featur[ed] crew members?
• All refs are consistently formatted, and the sources are reliable.

Thank you, TheDoctorWho, for your hard work on this article. Please ping me after you've taken a look at the above bullet points. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 20:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it contains significant unreferenced content (Wikipedia:Featured list criteria: 3b). I have noted the problems few days ago on the talk page, to no replies from anyone (the principal editors of this list are inactive). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• All of that unsourced content makes this an inappropriate FL. Delist. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately delist per nom. -- ZooBlazer 16:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Gary, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject Metal

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it was promoted back in 2008, it hasn't been maintained to standard and is currently a long way off the required quality for FLs. Many sections are completely unreferenced (there are nearly 200 nominations with a total of 29 references) and there are several non-notable awards included (awards bodies without a Wikipedia article). I think a lot of work would be required to bring this back up to FL status. Cavan121012 (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist I argree that this does not at all qualify for a featured list. (But as far as "non-notable awards" go I would argue that some of these might be notable, but just don't have Wikipedia articles. The Bandit Rock Awards for example are an award from my country that I think most likely pass GNG and could have article, if someone took the time to write it. But this is besides the point of the nomination.)★Trekker (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. This could probably be retained as a FL if someone were so inclined to take the time to go through and provide appropriate references, but the sheer amount of unsourced content makes this an inappropriate FL in its current state. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]