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: 2017 NHL expansion draft (FLC) List of works by Gu Yanwu (FLC) List of international kart racing champions (FLC) 2023 Men's T20 World Cup Africa regional final (FLC) Source reviews needed List of international kart racing champions (FLC) edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 09:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Black Panther is a 2018 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name. Produced by Kevin Feige and directed by Ryan Coogler, who co-wrote the screenplay with Joe Robert Cole, the film stars Chadwick Boseman as T'Challa / Black Panther, alongside Michael B. Jordan, Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, Martin Freeman, Daniel Kaluuya, Letitia Wright, Winston Duke, Angela Bassett, Forest Whitaker, and Andy Serkis. In Black Panther, T'Challa is crowned king of Wakanda following his father's death, but his sovereignty is challenged by Killmonger (Jordan), who plans to abandon the country's isolationist policies and begin a global revolution. This is my fourteenth film accolades list to be nominated for featured list status, and I largely based the format off of the accolades lists for The Artist, Barbie, The Big Short, CODA, Dune, Dunkirk, If Beale Street Could Talk, 1917, Oppenheimer, The Shape of Water, Slumdog Millionaire, United 93 (film), and Wicked. Birdienest81talk 09:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 02:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, mammal list #71 in our perpetual series and rodent list #16: Nesomyidae. We continue through the Myomorpha suborder, aka "things shaped like mice", with a mid-size family of African rodents. It unfortunately doesn't have a handy common name for the whole group, instead including 67 Malagasy rodents, climbing mice, African rock mice, pouched rats, and tufted-tailed rats, all of which look like... well, mice, just slightly different enough to not be lumped in with the regular mouse family. As always, the list reflects the scientific consensus as well as the results of prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - try as I might I couldn't find anything to pick up on. BTW Bastard big-footed mouse might be the best animal name ever :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I hoped that it was named because someone got bit by one back in 1898, but according to the original publication, it's named "in order to recall both its most remarkable external characteristics and the name of the traveler to whom we owe this interesting species.", so I guess someone in Madagascar was named e.g. "John Bastard". --PresN 16:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe a relative of this fella.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Delcoan (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a list of ballot measures from 1987 in Mississippi that are super interesting and cover a wide range of topics, which led me to both digitize and map the results of all 82 counties across all ten amendments (820 counties). Topics of the ballot measures include interracial marriage, requiring the state legislature to establish free public schools, and requiring political candidates to live in the district they run in. Delcoan (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): MCE89 (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of the eleven sites included in the Australian Convict Sites World Heritage Site. This is my first time at FLC and a bit of a different topic from what I usually write about, but I hope this meets the FL criteria and am very grateful to anyone who takes the time to review! MCE89 (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see more serial WHS lists coming in. I'll leave my own suggestions as well as some drawn from comparison with the recently featured The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier.

• Refs 1, 2, 5 should have "UNESCO World Heritage Centre" as the publisher (not "UNESCO"). Then, Ref 5's title should be just "Australian Convict Sites".
  • Done MCE89 (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Following the structure of the existing WHS FLs, the website for Ref 1 ("World Heritage List") is unnecessary. This reference is also missing an access date.
  • Done MCE89 (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 3 is missing the date parameter (31 July 2010).
  • Done MCE89 (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• All web refs would benefit from being archived though this isn't a requirement.
  • I've been having no luck with IA bot lately, but will have a go at getting it to archive these. Otherwise I'll add them manually when I get a chance. MCE89 (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Include core and buffer zone areas in the infobox (1,502.51 ha and 3,887.63 ha, respectively). You may use Template:Convert to also show the areas in square miles (per MOS:CONVERSIONS: Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided).
  • Done
• Rename the "List" heading to "Sites".
  • Done
• Consider adding a "UNESCO ID / Property area" column to the table similarly to The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier (the relevant info can be found here).
  • Oh good call, done!
• "1600 kilometres" → "1,600 kilometres"; here and in other cases, kilometres should also be shown in miles (MOS:CONVERSIONS).
  • I generally prefer not to group digits in four-digit numbers, which is allowed by MOS:DIGITS (Numbers with exactly four digits left of the decimal point may optionally be grouped (either 1,250 or 1250), consistently within any given article.)

• In that case, leaving the comma out is fine by me. The conversions of kilometres to miles are missing in the description of the Old Great North Road though.
  • Added those conversions

• "An administrative precinct" → "The administrative precinct"
  • Done
• Wikilink "gaols".
  • Done
• "remains of a lumberyard and quarry" → "remains of a lumberyard and a quarry"
  • Done
• "male convicts who re-offended, who were subjected to" – I'm not a fan of the two "who"s close to each other. Maybe change to "male convicts who re-offended and were subjected to" or something similar.
  • Tweaked slightly differently
• "Overcrowding and disease let to high mortality rates;" → "Overcrowding and disease led to high mortality rates:" (fix typo & replace semicolon with colon).
  • Fixed

• The semicolon → colon change is still not done.
  • Oops, could have sworn I'd changed that! Now done

• Remove wikilink at "quarries" (not linked elsewhere and not an uncommon term IMO).
  • Done
• "including a barracks, hospital, and dry dock" → "including barracks, a hospital, and a dry dock"
  • Done
• "nineteenth century" & "twentieth century" should probably be changed to "19th century" & "20th century" in accordance with using numerals rather than words elsewhere.
  • Done
• "1000 prisoners" → "1,000 prisoners"
  • Per above
• Since the Tasmanian sites are shown on a separate map and their locations aren't clear on the first map, they can be removed from the first one, with the caption extended with "(Tasmanian sites excluded)" and the alt text amended accordingly.
  • Good call, done
• "with one site located to the north of Tasmania" (alt text of the Tasmanian sites map) should instead say "with one site located in northern Tasmania".
  • Fixed
• I believe "Two-story" (alt text of Old Government House) should be "Two-storey" in Australian English.
  • Fixed
• Except for the minor issues listed above, alt text seems fine. The table caption and row/col scopes are present, so no accessibility issues. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 10:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks so much for the review @Shwabb1! Replied to your comments above. MCE89 (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good. There are still a few small issues left (replied above), and also I'd like to suggest making the location column sortable; once these are resolved, I'll support. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 12:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Both done, and changed the column to be sortable as suggested. MCE89 (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Support on prose and accessibility. I also have a nomination open at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Monuments of national significance in Zhytomyr Oblast/archive1 if you don't mind taking a look. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 13:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! Happy to review your nomination, feel free to give me a ping if I haven't gotten to it in the next few days. MCE89 (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): RedShellMomentum 21:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of all of Justin Timberlake's live performances (excluding the tours and performances by Timberlake within NSYNC). Of course, if any improvements are needed, let me know, as I would like to make this my first featured list! RedShellMomentum 21:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issues in this article for now, as all of them are cited properly. I'll check the sources soon after. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Camilasdandelions: Everything has been done. RedShellMomentum 18:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RedShellMomentum Additional comments below. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 04:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Camilasdandelions: Done, please check. RedShellMomentum 22:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, now I support the nomination. Good luck! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem forget |alt= in [[File:Justin Timberlake 2014 February 2.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Justin Timberlake performing on his [[The 20/20 Experience World Tour|20/20 Experience World Tour]] in 2014]]
• Please add table captions to all tables. I won't matter whether you use {{sro}} on them after adding them.
• In Concert tours, where are the citiations for Justified and Stripped Tour?

• Ref 1: WP:PRNEWSWIRE
  • Unfortunately, it's the only ref available making that claim.
• Ref 7: WP:ALLMOVIE
  • That's for 2024 to now. Older ones are fine to use.
• Ref 17: Billboard should be italicized.
  • Done.
    • I was supposed to mean that it should be italicized in "Billboard boxscore:".
• Ref 18: Omit |author=
  • Done.
• Ref 20: CBS Music
  • Done.
• Ref 42, 44: Use |publisher=
  • Gives an error when it's used.
• Ref 43: Use TV.com than tv.com
  • Done.
• Ref 49, 52: Just |publisher=Grammy Awards
  • Done.

• {{Commons category}} Why this is in Notes section?
  • Moved.

• "His 2003 debut The Justified World Tour began at intimate gigs at clubs and theaters " - I would say began with, personally
  • Done.
• "Later that year he recorded a song "I'm Lovin' It", used by McDonald's " => "Later that year he recorded the song "I'm Lovin' It", used by McDonald's "
  • Done.
• "For the release of his sophomore record" - what is a "sophomore record"? I've never heard that term before. Is there an appropriate link?
  • It means the second studio album. It's actually used pretty commonly.
    • I've been a music fan for 40+ years and I have literally never heard it before. Maybe it's a very U.S.-specific term? Could we change it to something more universally understood (e.g. just saying "his second album")....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I did "second album", removing all mentions of "studio" since all of his albums are studio albums. RedShellMomentum 19:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "co-headlining with rapper, frequent collaborator Jay-Z." - this doesn't make sense grammatically. I suggest "co-headlining with his frequent collaborator the rapper Jay-Z."
  • Reworded it another way.
• "and it ended with an encore, lasting for a total of 160 minutes" - this makes it sound like the encore lasted for 160 minute. I suggest "and it ended with an encore, the whole show lasting for a total of 160 minutes"
  • Done.
• "a co-headlining concert tour by Justin Timberlake and American rapper Jay-Z" - no need to randomly relink JT here (or use his full name)
  • Done.
• "received acclaim from critics,[21] became the second highest-grossing tour of 2014" => "received acclaim from critics,[21] and became the second highest-grossing tour of 2014"
  • Done.
• "will premiere at the 2016 Toronto International Film Festival" - 2016 was ten years ago, so future tense is not appropriate
  • Done.
• "The Man of the Woods Tour received positive reviews" - why the sudden italics?
  • Removed.
• " And concluded that "The Forget Tomorrow Tour puts Justin Timberlake back in the star chamber for sure." - this isn't a grammatically valid sentence
  • I merged it with the other sentence of what they said.
• In the lead you highlight two Superbowl shows as being among his televised performances and then don't list them anywhere in the article
  • I'll make sure to get it in there.
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: I implemented the Super Bowl performances in the "concerts" section. RedShellMomentum 03:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Vancouver Sun" -> "the Vancouver Sun" as "the" isn't part of the name
• I think the "Event" column should come before the "Date" column
• Can you list the state next to the city under "Award show performances"
• Under "Award show performances", "Ref" -> "Ref(s)" as some have multiple citations
• Could the lead image could be replaced with something less dark and more clear?

Thats what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 16:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant: Done. RedShellMomentum 19:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of various monsters from the British science-fiction television series Doctor Who. This one took a while to put together, and I'm very happy with how its turned out. I've gone through everything I can before nomination, so I'm happy to receive any comments regarding how to improve this article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to this list! I'll be reviewing based on this revision. I know that this has been a major project of yours for a while, so feel free to push back on anything. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 00:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• A few books/websites are missing identifiers (like ISSN).
• There are a lot of p/pp errors within the SFNs. User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck helps to find them.
• Most book sources are cited using SFNs, yet a few of them are cited as footnotes with the CS1 book template. Probably convert the CS1 book citations to SFN format
• Some websites are missing archived links, like Lewis 2025
• There are a few Harvcite errors, User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors is helpful for identifying such errors
• Some book sources are missing page numbers
• For the Doctor Who YouTube citations: They are most likely okay since it comes from the TV show itself, so satisfies WP:RSPYT. With that said, there are a few inconsistencies, including:
  • No publisher name for "Behind the Scenes of The Well's Shocking Twist | Doctor Who". YouTube is linked, despite being the third YouTube citation (either link YouTube for all citations or move it to the first instance). The citation also has the media parameter as "Behind the scenes featurette", though none of the other sources have that
  • "The Giggle: Behind the Scenes" has the media type parameter, but the rest of the YouTube sources don't
• WP:BUSTLE says "there is consensus that the reliability of Bustle is unclear and that its reliability should be decided on an instance-by-instance basis". Do you think it's a reliable source and an acceptable one to cite in the context of this list?
• The use of Huffpost here is acceptable in accordance to WP:HUFFPOST as the article was written by "The Huffington Post UK" and it's a non-political topic.
• A few errors in the bibliography section, including:
  • Harvcite errors
  • Missing date for Harmes and Orthia
• For reference, here's the Earwig check for this list

Well, that's all I got based on citation formatting/source reliability. It seems like it would take a long time to fix the citation formatting based on these comments, so I'm leaning towards an oppose (and I really don't want to since I know that this is a very big project). Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 00:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Icepinner Most of this shouldn't take me too long to go through, as a lot of it is just minor formatting fixes. I've addressed most of these but on a few points:

-Could you clarify which sources are missing identifiers? I did a leaf through and couldn't spot which ones you're referring to.

-Which books are missing page numbers? Same as above.

-What exactly is a p/pp error? I have never heard of it before.

Otherwise I fixed the harvcite errors, formatted the Youtube citations, swapped the Bustle source for some stronger citations, and am currently going through and patching up the archived links. I believe the above three quibbles are the only bits left that need to be addressed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your points:

-"Could you clarify which sources are missing identifiers? I did a leaf through and couldn't spot which ones you're referring to" Nicol 2020, Shuttleworth 2013, Hearn 2014, Morgan-Russel 2019, etc. The Lingzhi script can indicate which sources are missing identifiers (some sources may not have identifiers though)

-"Which books are missing page numbers? Same as above" Rudden 2018, Richards 2015, Russel 2016, etc. The Lingzhi script also helps to identify which sources are missing page numbers.

-"P" is used to indicate that a source cites a single page, whilst "pp" is for citing multiple pages within a source. For example, "Chapman 2006, p. 99-101" should be "Chapman 2006, pp. 99-101" since you're citing 2 pages. Also, apologies if this is pedantic, but per MOS:RANGE, an endash should be used for page ranges instead of a hyphen.

The citation formatting is looking a lot better now! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 02:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Icepinner forgive me, but how do I change p to pp? I have admittedly never had to do that before so I'm not sure where the toggle for that in VE is.

For page numbers: Many of the books cited are primary sources and not citing any particular page numbers, basically they're just citing the whole book. For the identifiers I've added them to the ones you've listed, though I couldn't find one for Shuttleworth. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the p to pp on VE, click on the footnote and select the "pages" parameter instead of "page". Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun adjusting the pp parameter, though had to stop due to irl things happening. I will hopefully be finished with the adjustments sometime tomorrow. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 07:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Icepinner I believe I got the page number issue fixed. Let me know if I missed any, and what else needs to be addressed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Some book sources used more than once are cited using the full template in the footnote instead of SFNs, but I don't think the "consistent format" criterion extends to citation styles (I doubt that anyone would care about it at this point... I'm also aware of your experiences with SFNs as well). This is one helluva project. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead should not start "This is a list" per MOS:THISISALIST
• There's nearly 90 uses of "would" which are almost certainly all (or nearly all) inappropriate per WP:WOULDCHUCK. For example, there's no reason to say "the show would run until 1989" rather than just "the show ran until 1989" or "The first season of actor Tom Baker's era as the Fourth Doctor would see the return of many old antagonists" rather than "The first season of actor Tom Baker's era as the Fourth Doctor saw the return of many old antagonists"
• As Doctor Who is a British show, the article should be written in British English per WP:TIES. A cursory search indicated that there's quite a few words spelt with the American "-ize" rather than the British "-ise", also "program" rather than "programme", etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude I believe I have addressed all three. The uses of would have been dropped down to around 15 or so, and only in cases where no other option was available and its usage is justified. Let me know if there's any I missed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "educational show" link to Educational entertainment
• "The Chase (Doctor Who)" should be piped under "Dalek"
• Can you add an image to the lead?
• Why is the split 1969/1970?
• Can you describe the inclusion criteria?
• "on display at various Doctor Who events" I wouldn't consider two "various"
• Whats the point of the main article/see also links if the articles in question are then linked in the prose?
• "These robots were later used by the Racnoss in the episode "The Runaway Bride" (2006) and appeared in "The Pandorica Opens" (2010)" in what capacity?
• "Following the show's cancellation in 1989 and an aborted revival attempt, via a television film, in 1996," -> "Following the show's cancellation in 1989 and the unsuccessful television film" or something similar because otherwise it reads fairly awkward ", via a television film, in 1996," in particular
• Under "Graske", "The Sarah Jane Adventures" are linked twice
• "divide of Eartj" tpyo

Might do more later but thats what I found this time Olliefant (she/her) 16:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-The inclusion criteria is defined on the talk page at Talk:List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, with multiple discussions being included further down describing where these came from.

-The split was done this way because of how many monsters were introduced in the 60s. This was initially intended to be split by decade, but given how few were introduced in the 80s, 2010s, and 2020s, I elected to merge them to the wider 70s and 2000s sections, where they work out fine enough size wise, to avoid subheading bloat. The 60s and 70s introduced so many that neither can be contained with the other without being unwieldy.

-Main article and see also are for easy linking to important subjects relating to the topic and to show that further information pertaining to it is held there. If need be I can remove the secondary hyperlinks, I admittedly wasn't sure if they needed to be kept or not.

-Your suggestion for the wording on the film loses the bit on the aborted revival, which feels important to note since otherwise it's unclear why the TV movie is being brought up for non-fans. I'm not against rewording but I'm not sure removing that is the best call.

All other suggestions have been implemented. Let me know your thoughts on the above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My only remaining issue is the double comma in ",via a television film, in 1996," Olliefant (she/her) 18:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant is this good? Also, just to double check, do you want me to remove the hyperlinks where the "See also" headings are present? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah everything looks fine, the links is up to you Olliefant (she/her) 21:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll keep them in since some of them are helpful on the chance someone is briefly skimming through, though I am definitely not opposed to removing them if need be. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): TBJ (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this as a featured list because I want to continue to meet the quality needed to make articles like these featured in the Minor League Baseball space. This is the third step in making a WP:FT within a few years. Help is always appreciated . TBJ (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I tend to read responses very late due to work/school. Please be mindful!! TBJ (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• With six entries, does this meet the FLC criteria......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Following what occurred with the Nashville Sounds' no-hitters FLC, if this can't qualify FL, does the PR still qualify for WP:FT ? @ChrisTheDude TBJ (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: Per the FL criteria – "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items." – this article does not meet the requirements for FLC. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The chronological list presents one of the worst military defeats in Ming history. I would highly appreciate any suggestions to improve it. Thank you for your time. Min968 (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here'll be some comments from me. Arconning (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arconning Done. Min968 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arconning Are you still following this topic? Min968 (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support and passing image review. Arconning (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink first mention of the measurement "li"
  • Done.
• "According to some accounts,", could this be more specific?
  • Wang Chen, according to some accounts, was killed by his own officers. The emperor was captured and on 3 September was sent to Esen's main camp near Hsüan-fu. Twitchett & Grimm 1988, p. 325
• "on the night of 2–3 September,", guessing this means that accounts either reported 2 or 3 September?
  • Done.

• File:英宗睿皇帝.jpg - Public Domain
  • Alt-text: "Emperor Yingzong wears a yellow robe and a black cap." to "Emperor Yingzong wearing a yellow robe and a black cap."
    • Done.
  • Caption: "Emperor Yingzong of Ming was captured by the Mongols during the Battle of Tumu", add a period at the end.
    • Done.
• File:Tumu Crisis.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• All of the images used within the article are relevant.

• Lead image could be made larger
• "This defeat had a significant impact on the military and also caused political instability in the Ming dynasty for years to come. It is considered one of the worst military defeats in Ming history and marked a significant shift in power along China's northern frontier between the Ming court and the Mongol tribes." - this doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the body, so it will need referencing
• Wang Zhen should be linked in the body as well as the lead
• " A group of officials, led by the Minister of Personnel, submitted a memorial" - I don't think you mean "memorial" there. Maybe "memorandum".....?
• "However, after a warning from a trusted eunuch commander—who had escaped the Battle of Yanghe Pass on 3 August by hiding in tall grass—that proceeding" - as the "hiding in the grass" bit has already been established, I think this can be changed to "However, after a warning from the eunuch commander who had escaped the Battle of Yanghe Pass on 3 August by hiding in tall grass that proceeding"
• "A new rear guard of 40,000 (or 30,000 or 50,000) cavalry" - if all these estimates are equally valid, I would avoid making one more prominent than the others and I would instead say "A new rear guard of either 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 cavalry"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Done. Min968 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Olliefant (she/her) 08:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to abandon my dream of having a dedicated "Electoral history" section on the FL page (and I can't be bothered to write about Mike Pence), so I'll do this. This is part of a bigger project involving HIMYM articles Olliefant (she/her) 08:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "How I Met Your Mother is an American sitcom which ran for nine seasons on CBS" - I know you mention the dates of the individual seasons later on but I feel like it wouldn't hurt to give the overall timespan here Done
• "until the season eight finale, "Something New", where she is portrayed by Cristin Milioti" => "until the season eight finale, "Something New", in which she is portrayed by Cristin Milioti" Done
• "with the season one finale releasing on May 15, 2006" - I don't think "releasing" is right here. Something like "being broadcast" would work Done
• "Season two released from September 18, through May 14, 200" - again, I think "released" is not right. "Was broadcast" would work Done
• "Season seven ran from September 19 through May 14, 2012" - September 19, 2011, presumably, unless it somehow aired backwards through time
  • 2011 was established as the year in the prior sentence, all of the ranges are written like that.
    • Good point
• That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: done most, responded to one Olliefant (she/her) 15:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following comments are made off of this version of the list:

• The list needs a short description
• The image needs alt text
• The image should not used a fixed px size
• CBS links to CBS Sports
• The fact that the series ran for nine seasons is in the first sentence of both the first and second paragraphs
• "During the eighth season, Segal stated that he planned to depart the series when his contract expired at the end of the season. As a result, the fate of the series was unknown." it appears, at least according to the character list, that Segal did not leave in season 9. While this is good information to have here, a sentence on why he ultimately stayed (or at least stating that he did, if the why isn't known) would be good
• "On May 19, a fifth season, which was mandated by a syndication deal signed with Lifetime,[8] was ordered;[9] it ran from September 21, through May 24, 2010. In January 2010, the series was given an early renewal.[10]" not a full source check, but Lifetime isn't mentioned in any of the three sources attached to that sentence
• 2012–2013 television season should likely like to 2012–13 United States network television schedule rather than 2012 in American television, as the latter only covers one year
• The second paragraph of the lead as a whole feels very WP:PROSELINEy, likely because you have several announcement/renewal date on top of the other dates. With nine seasons, it feels a bit excessive to list every premiere and finale date. While this works in episodes lists with shorter seasons (ex: List of Torchwood episodes, List of Line of Duty episodes), I've started trimming it in longer lists (ex: List of Station 19 episodes, List of Private Practice episodes, List of My Name Is Earl episodes), both of which had fewer seasons than this. If deciding to cut it though, the lead may benefit from other information as to not be too short (see the aforementioned articles for reference ideas)
• I feel a brief mention of the existence of How I Met Your Father (and maybe the failed How I Met Your Dad at the end of the lead may be useful
• Any reason why Season 8 episodes 11 and 12 are using <hr /> to separate the episodes rather than individual parameters similar to the other two two-part episodes?
• Season 9 is missing a table caption
• I feel the ratings graphs may be both more visually pleasing and useful to readers if they were were split evenly (seasons 1–3, 4–6, and 7–9) rather than leaving 9 out there on an island all by itself
• May be worth appending |20em to the end of the notelist template to kill some of that whitespace
• Citation 2 is missing an author
• The official website is 404, but looks like there's plenty of archives to pick from

Think that's it from me. TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 05:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this list because it has good prose, an engaging lead, lists all starred restaurants and describes related and important stuff on the lead, it is easy to navigate and accessible, and it is stable. I don't know what else to say here. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 05:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Philippines" should be linked on first mention

• Done

• "The Michelin Guides were founded by" I don't think "founded" is the right word to use here

• Changed to created

• "Manila and its other cities in the area" -> "Manila and other cities in the area" or something similar

• Done

• I feel that its somewhat difficualt to figure out what "Mega Manila" is from context

• Changed to Metro Manila and Cavite

• ".[5][1][6][7]" do all four citations support the entire preceding paragraph? Or can they be spread out to avoid the mess of four citations?

• Spread the best I could

• Link "Southeast Asia"

• Done

• "Michelin Guide" appears both with and without italics

• Italicized all instances

• "(DoT)" -> "(DOT)", sources and the relevent wiki article capitalize the O

• Done

• Ref 5 has an MOS:ALLCAPS issue

• Fixed

That's what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 08:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant: Replied to all. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 08:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Olliefant (she/her) 09:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead image could be made larger

• I'm regularly careful around fixed pixels in images, but done.

• Fixed pixel sizes should not be used, so I changed it to use the upright parameter -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "The inaugural edition of the Michelin Guide in the Philippines was launched in October 2025 at the Manila Marriott Hotel for the year 2026, which covers Manila and other cities in the area, and Cebu City,[5][1][6] officially becoming the fifth country in Southeast Asia to have a Michelin Guide" - this sentence doesn't work grammatically, as the current structure/wording indicates that the guide itself became the fifth country in Southeast Asia to have a Michelin Guide. I suggest re-writing it as "The inaugural edition of the Michelin Guide in the Philippines was launched in October 2025 at the Manila Marriott Hotel for the year 2026, covering Manila and other cities in the area, and Cebu City.[5][1][6] The Philippines became the fifth country in Southeast Asia to have a Michelin Guide"

• Done

• "one having two stars while the rest having one" => "one having two stars and the rest having one"

• Done

• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: replied to everything. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 09:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• It says Location (province) in the table, but the table puts cities in brackets, not provinces like the heading indicates. But the first one is province, and no city. This needs to be cleared up. Mattximus (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed it myself, short list, easy to do! Mattximus (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference 5 should get an archive link though, since it's so important to this list. Mattximus (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mattximus: done. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 22:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 01:21, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, mammal list #70 in our perpetual series and rodent list #15: Spalacidae. We continue through the Myomorpha suborder, aka "things shaped like mice", with another of the small families, the mole-rats. There's 23 species of these little guys, digging burrows underground with big teeth and tiny eyes, which (like the guy in the lede image) are sometimes so covered in fur as the be invisible. As always, the list reflects the scientific consensus as well as the results of prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:21, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• My only comment is that linking seems to be inconsistent. "Shrubland" and "grassland" are each linked only once, but "rhizomes" is linked multiple times. Also, if you intend to link any given item once only, make sure it's on the first usage, as "tubers" seems to only be linked on something like the third usage -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Fixed! --PresN 17:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• You could consider wikilinking bamboo.
• No other issues with the prose or tables.
• I'll go ahead and support right now. I'll try to come back a little later to do the source review unless someone else gets to it first. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• All images have appropriate licenses.
• Alt text is present and sufficient.
• Prose seems fine as well, so support and pass image & accessibility reviews. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 19:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 22:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the process of transferring monuments from the Soviet-era register to the modern one is getting close to completion, I've decided to start working on the lists of cultural heritage sites of national significance in Ukraine by region (and planning to make this into a series if everything goes well). Starting off with the relatively obscure Zhytomyr Oblast with 58 listed monuments. I've used similar FLs (British listed buildings and New Zealand historic places) as reference and believe this list meets the necessary standards, though the wording in the lead can probably be improved. Any suggestions are welcome, especially since I'll structure the other lists according to this one's format. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 22:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I always appreciate seeing articles of Ukrainian interest!

• Lead

• "All listed monuments fall into at least one of the following categories: archaeology, history, monumental art, architecture, urban planning, garden and park art, landscape, and science and/or technology."

• "Science and technology" is one category, and MOS:ANDOR discourages "and/or" anyway. I can rearrange the categories if you think that would help with clarity.

• Sorry... then go with "...urban planning, garden and park art, landscape, or science and technology." Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 22:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "The first attempts to establish registers of protected buildings were undertaken in 1917–1918" --> I'm not exactly sure what the policy is with regards to date ranges, but I would phrase as "between 1917 and 1918".

• Done

• Table

• Because of the different phrasings in each cell, the sort function in the Date constructed column doesn't really accomplish anything.

• I'm using sort templates for dates shown in centuries (similarly to the recently featured Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester). It's a bit awkward but the only workaround to get a more or less chronological order.

• @Shwabb1: Please let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments; I've responded in line. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 21:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the wake of Operation Metro Surge, in which 3,000 federal agents flooded Minneapolis–St. Paul and killed (i'm told BLP bars me from using a more apt word) two American citizens while trying to arrest as many people who looked like immigrants as possible, Minnesotans and Americans at large made their voices heard in any number of ways. One of those ways was through music. Minnesotan artists were by-and-large the first, but eventually everyone from Bruce Springsteen to NOFX was adding their voice to the choir – sometimes more literally, in Jesse Welles's case. Now that Metro Surge is winding down, the list is pretty stable, so I thought I'd bring it here for review. Thanks in advance :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't look like this can pass, so, withdrawn :) thanks for the feedback, all! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC) it seems like people are still leaving comments, so as long as I'm getting good feedback on the article I'll keep this going? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @FLC director and delegates: FYI. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC) Withdrawal request withdrawn. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not only are virtually all of these songs not notable themselves, but most of the singers are not notable. Most are sourced to [1], revealing most are just self-released on social media, often just filmed in their living rooms. The source doesn't add much substance to any of them either – just because the song exists or was in a listicle like this doesn't mean they have coverage that justifies presence on Wikipedia. So I could potentially imagine this being reorganized and expanded with substantive prose to become a GA with better discussion about songs individually or as a group, but this really should not be a list without stronger standards for inclusion, and it fails FL criterion 3a. Reywas92^Talk 18:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure where this comes from in policy? WP:LSC makes allowances more than once for non-notable entries and doesn't say anything about a minimum coverage requirement. Limiting the list to notable entries would shrink it to four (maybe one or two more), failing FLCR 3c. What's in the article right now is the sum total of coverage I could find on ICE protest songs as a group; there's more coverage out there on the songs as individual entries, but if I were to use that to try to make this into a GA, it would essentially be a frankenarticle of four different independently notable songs, with maybe a couple more that are almost notable. I think that's a lot less useful to readers than individually developing the articles on the notable songs and keeping this as a WP:CSC#2. I could remove the entries that aren't by notable artists? That would prevent it from being the Norwegian band index described in LSC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The list does not necessarily have to be only notable songs, but I do not think a substantial portion of it should be songs that are (a) by non-notable artists, (b) self-recorded simply to social media or (c) have no further substance published about them – the listicle has nothing useful about nearly any of them. But even then, the notable topic is ICE protest songs as a concept that should be written about in an article rather than simply listed. Featured lists should be comprehensive with a well-defined scope, which isn't possible here; we very rarely have dynamic lists here. And beyond that, FLs should be in tabular format with context for each item, not merely a bullet list stating their names. So I think you could absolutely have a GA that talks about songs that aren't individually notable when you describe their context, but listing them, even in a table, doesn't really work. — Reywas92^Talk 01:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you elaborate on your vision for a GA here? Because like I said, I'm not aware of any outstanding reliable sourcing on ICE protest songs as a concept, and there are very few semi-notable songs that could get talked about in this article but wouldn't qualify for a standalone. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Like expansion of the background section that covers themes and concepts of the songs and their conext. You've written lots of good articles. But if there aren't that many sources on the topic as a whole, and those that do just point out that there are protest songs, I'm not sure where else it can go. I mean Protest songs in the United States is quite long so it's not unreasonable for it to have subarticles, but the first paragraph of the background section is simply a summary of what ICE did in Minneapolis, and other content like "Protest songs that are sung live at protests, however, help with morale and helps draw a contrast between the crowd and the comparatively aggressive agents" read rather generically, and it's not clear which songs are being sung at public protests vs. online. But again, of the list's 48 songs, a whopping 29 are sourced to a mediocre listicle that mostly just embeds videos from Instagram. — Reywas92^Talk 04:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose per Rey Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 20:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Can it be clarified that Metro Surge initially targeted Minneapolis specially and then expanded to Minnesota?
• I don't think the lead image fits, maybe something from C:Category:United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Minneapolis in 2026 would be more suitable?
• The link Trump administration is to a set index page
• Link "Bruce Springsteen" under "Background"
• Jesse Welles's full name is used twice in "Background" the second should just be "Welles"
• Link "LP" under list
• What is the criteria for redlinks vs non links?
• Ref 16 isn't piped properly

That's what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 08:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Olliefant! I'm withdrawing this, but for what it's worth:

• I didn't see that in any of the RSes I found, but if you do find one, let me know on my talk and I'd be happy to put it in?
• Put in File:Protest against ICE in Minneapolis - STOP - Deport ICE.jpg
• Fixed :)
• Done :)
• I know that's an option under MOS, but when I mention the same name in pretty different context (or at least, when there's no narrative throughline), I'm not counting on readers to remember the name and like to reiterate it in full.
• I don't think the lists should have more than one bluelink,* so I'm not sure that'd be a great idea, but I get where you're coming from :)
• Just the ones that looked notable on further searching, wasn't worth redlinking them all.
• Not sure what you mean?

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the piped link, it may have been shuffled around numbers wise but Revolver (magazine) should be Revolver Olliefant (she/her) 14:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ah, yeah! thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image is absolutely tiny and should be made larger using the upright parameter
• "during the second Trump administration" - the link redirects to Second presidency of Donald Trump and I think it would be more appropriate to write that in full
• I think the blue sea of "see also"s at the top of the background section would work better as a dedicated "see also" section at the bottom. Some of them only seem tangentially linked to the specific topic of the article
• " – particularly ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) were sent " - needs a "closing" dash to match the "opening" one
• Link Minnesota in body as well as lead
• "and though Pretti had a gun, he never" => "and, though Pretti had a gun, he never"
• "The same day Pretti was killed, Bruce Springsteen says he wrote "Streets of Minneapolis", which criticizes Trump as a "king" using a "private army"" => "Bruce Springsteen says he wrote "Streets of Minneapolis" the same day Pretti was killed; the song criticizes Trump as a "king" using a "private army""
• "Protest songs that are sung live at protests, however, help with morale and helps" => "Protest songs that are sung live at protests, however, help with morale and help"
• "Then, he had people submit their own additions to the song, instruments and vocals, to release" => "He then had people submit their own additions to the song, in the form of instruments and vocals, to release"
• Notes c and d are not sentences so should not have full stops
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, @ChrisTheDude! Done most all of these :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Tag me when all are done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Believe they're all done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Watagwaan (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it includes every notable award the band has won or received, follows the prose and criteria of other featured awards lists for artists, and I have done extensive research, archiving formatting to the best of my human ability. Thank you for your consideration! Watagwaan (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Add Template:Use MDY dates and fix the DMY date in ref 9

Fixed!

• [lead vocalist] [Karen O] is an MOS:SOB violation

Fixed!

• [keyboardist] [Nick Zinner] this too

Fixed!

• [drummer] [Brian Chase] bingo

Fixed!

• Tables are missing captions per MOS:DTAB

It might be because it was generated from the "awards table" template. (FWIW, I took reference from FLs like Metallica's award list and the White Stripes's awards list. So, I changed it all to one big table and fixed the issues pointed out below while doing so.)

• Tables are missing row and column scopes per DTAB

Same as above!

• The citations should be apart of the table instead of having the boilerplate "x won y amont"

Same as above!

• Add an EFN explaining if year means the year of release or the year the ceremony was held

Same as above!

• Tables should be sortable

Same as above!

• "five albums" what kind of album? I'm assuming studio but this should be clarified

Fixed!

• Alot of the tables only have one or two listings and could easily be merged into a big table

Same as above!

That's what I found ping me when done. Also FWIW the general consensus for awards and nom tables is against individual tables and instead having on big one. Olliefant (she/her) 05:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review @Olliefant! I do want to note that I didn't merge the individual tables purely because I think it's more convenient to edit when they're individual. If it's a stopper for FL review, though, I'm not against changing it. Watagwaan (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Olliefant (she/her) 07:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• " a key work of the 2000s rock movements" - should that be movement (singular)? If it was a key part of multiple movements, can you be more specific as to what those are...?

Fixed!

• On my PC screen there's a huge whitespace between the lead and the TOC. Any way to avoid this?

I put a clear template under the lead so that the table wouldn't get smushed/downsized.

• Any recipient/nominee that starts with quote marks should sort based on the first actual word. Currently all the ones with quote marks sort together at the top, before the ones without

I honestly don't know how to fix it, but to be fair, other featured awards articles like Lorde's seem to do the same thing.

That simply means that one is wrong and needs correcting. All you need to do is use a sort template, so instead of typing, for example, "[[Gold Lion]]", type {{sort|Gold Lion|"[[Gold Lion]]"}}. That will make it sort under G -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Hope this was good @ChrisTheDude Watagwaan (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you so much for your comments! I really appreciate it @ChrisTheDude! Watagwaan (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! One other thing I didn't pick up on earlier (apologies) - the linking in the recipients/nominees column is a bit random. "Gold Lion" and "Zero" are linked once each, despite appearing multiple times, but other things aren't linked at all. I think everything should be linked every time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize! Good point, thank you! Fixed @ChrisTheDude! Watagwaan (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the fourth Hot 100 number ones list. The British Invasion continued this year, and unusually one British act had two US number ones, neither of which was even released as a single in their own home country. Weird! As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and acted upon as soon as humanly possible :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here will be an image review from me! Arconning (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• File:1966 The Supremes.JPG - Public Domain, source link is dead; either must be replaced with an archived link, image is replaced entirely, or removed.
• File:Aankomst van de Rolling Stones op Schiphol, Bestanddeelnr 916-7420.jpg - CC0
• File:The-Temptations (1964 publicity photo by Kriegsmann).jpg - Public Domain, can't seem to find the image within the source link
• File:Hermans Hermits 1965.jpg - Public Domain
• Almost all of the alt-text for the images is present with the exception of the first image, this should be fixed for accessibility.
• All images are relevant to the article and have proper captioning.
  • @Arconning: - I swapped the two problematic images for other ones -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Pass Arconning (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Capitol Records, the label which held the rights to their singles in the United States, initially declined to release them, however, deeming them unsuitable for the U.S. market." --> There's nothing wrong with this sentence, but boy, does Capitol Records sure look stupid in retrospect! 😂
• I have no issues with the prose, the formatting of the tables, or the photo captions. Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Criteria 3c is an issue here. Does this violate the content-forking guideline? It certainly duplicates material from List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles from 1958 to 1969 or vice versa. Those decade lists as is should go to eliminate the redundancy. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: - I didn't even realise that list existed. Nobody mentioned it at any of my previous nominations....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Figure Skating Championships was just promoted today, so here is another. This one is quick and easy, as Slovenia has only existed as a separate country since the breakup of Yugoslavia. As always, the tables are properly formatted, the results have been personally verified, and the sources should be properly formatted. I look forward to your constructive feedback, and thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, Arconning, Shwabb1: I also have these items up for Featured consideration if you are willing to help me out: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Team event/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates#Grand Prix of Figure Skating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Early championships were organized by Slovenia's four skating clubs" - if only "early" championships were organised by these clubs, who organises them now and when did it change?
• Stanko Bloudek links to the article on a guy who died in 1959. Presumably the club is named after him, but is the link not a bit EGG.....?
• That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Okay, I did some research and it looks like the Slovene Skating Union was founded in 1991 as a federation of the four skating clubs, some those two entities – the Slovene Skating Union and the four skating clubs – are the same thing. I have rewritten the first paragraph to incorporate this new information, but I'm not sure how it reads. Can you take a look and let me know what you think? Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here will be an image review from me! Arconning (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Slovene Skating Union logo.png - Fair use
• File:2008 TEB Men Urbas01.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0, source link is dead so it must be replaced with an archived one.
• File:Teodora Postic at 2009 Nebelhorn Trophy.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0, source link is dead so it must be replaced with an archived one.
• File:2008 TEB Men Urbas02.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0, source link is dead so it must be replaced with an archived one.
• File:Grm - 2016 Euro - 2.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0, source link is dead so it must be replaced with an archived one.
• All images are relevant to the article with proper alt-texts for accessibility and captioning.
  • Just these comments and I think we'd be good to go!

• @Arconning: Thank you for letting me know; I have added archive links for all four photos. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pass Arconning (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have only a few minor concerns. Great work as usual.

• Slovene uses sentence case for titles (Slovene: Prvenstvo Slovenije v umetnostnem drsanju)
• Not sure if Labod Bled should be translated ("Swan Bled"). Do any of the sources do that?
• Ref 1 is missing the language parameter.

Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 22:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shwabb1: I have addressed all of these. As to the name of organization (Zveza Drsalnih Športov Slovenije), this website shows the name in capital case at the top, but sentence case at the bottom. Which would you recommend? Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The website only uses the title case at the top of that page and in the copyright notice (probably a stylistic choice) but sentence case elsewhere. Searching the phrase brings up numerous instances of sentence case and seemingly none using title case. So, Zveza drsalnih športov Slovenije should be correct.

Support. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 07:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Olliefant (she/her) 15:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For my next Vice President I'm going with Jon Hamm, he's had an extensive body of work and I plan to make this part of a Featured Topic. Olliefant (she/her) 15:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hamm was a Vice President? Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "as a contest on the dating show" - contestant, surely?
• "His first appearance was in 1996 as a contest on the dating show The Big Date, his first acting role was in 1997 as an extra on Ally McBeal." - you either need to change the comma to a semi-colon or make the second part a separate sentence
• "his breakthrough role role" - spot the stray word ;-)
• "in the 2007 AMC drama series Mad Men." - I am not hugely familiar with Mad Men but I don't believe it took place solely in 2007
• "he told The Hollywood Reporter, "it very conscious decision" - I am guessing he didn't really word it like that
• "citing Saturday Night Live and 30 Rock as examples,[4] he received three Emmy nominations for the latter" - comma to semi colon or new sentence
• "2000 Clint Eastwood film Space Cowboys where he played" => "2000 Clint Eastwood film Space Cowboys, in which he played"
• "various voice roles including, SpongeBob SquarePants" - no need for that comma
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: done all Olliefant (she/her) 15:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• You need an en-dash (–) between 2007 and 2015. Done
• "...winning his final nomination in 2015." --> That sounds kind of awkward; perhaps something along the lines of "finally winning in 2015"? Done
• "In 2024, he told The Hollywood Reporter, "it was a very conscious decision to lean into the comedic stuff" --> I'm not positive about this, but shouldn't the "it" be capitalized, assuming it was the beginning word in Hamm's statement?
  • It wasn't, the full quote is "That’s why, for me, it was a..."
• The tables all appear to be properly formatted!

@Olliefant: Let me know when you've had a chance to examine my (very few) comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: done all Olliefant (she/her) 20:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my third nomination in this series. This was a weird year in terms of the top spot of the Hot 100. Out of 20 number ones (discounting the one that rolled over from the year before), 18 were by acts that had never reached number one before, and out of those 18 acts, 17 never reached the top spot again in their careers. Bizarre...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't see any issues in the prose.
• There was one accessibility issue that I fixed.
• Support on prose and accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here'll be an image review from me! Arconning (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• File:The Fireballs 1959.JPG - Public Domain, source link is dead so an archive link must be supplied or the image needs to be replaced.
  • Replaced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Kyu sakamoto.png - Public Domain
• File:Stevie Wonder 1967 (1).jpg - CC0
• File:The Chiffons.jpg - Public Domain
• File:Lesley Gore.jpg - Public Domain
• All images are relevant to the article, have alt-text for accessibility for users who use screen readers, and have proper captioning.
  • Just the one comment and I think we'd be good to go.
    • Sakamoto's song was the first song by an Asian singer to reach number 1 so that information could be included within the article.
      • @Arconning: added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Pass Arconning (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 8 has an error
• Links are consistent
• Dates are consistent
• Spot checks found nothing

Support Nothing major, just one fixable citation error. Olliefant (she/her) 15:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant ref 6, if so that is now fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You know I can't step away without reviewing your article first. I'll come back to this later today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only sentence that caught my attention: ""Sugar Shack" was also the final number one on Billboard's Hot R&B Singles chart before that listing was discontinued for what would prove to be a period of just over one year." --> I strongly dislike the use of "would" to describe otherwise normal events in the past tense (versus the past conditional). Recommend rewording with something along the lines of "for what ended up just being a period of one year" or something along that line. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: - made a change, see what you think..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland was just promoted, so here is the next national championship article for consideration. This was a big deal for me, because I had to scour a variety of sources, plus order a used book from France (from the former inventory of the Nancy city library), just to complete these tables. None of the sources are behind paywalls, but most of them are in French. The results have been verified, the tables should be formatted properly, as should the sources. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions, and I look forward to your constructive feedback. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:MPGuy2824: I also have these items up for Featured consideration if you are willing to help me out: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Team event/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates#Grand Prix of Figure Skating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here'll be an image review from me. Arconning (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• File:French Federation of Ice Sports logo.svg - Fair use
• File:Evgeniia Lopareva & Geoffrey Brissaud 2024 Worlds Free Dance 2.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Kevin Aymoz 2025 Skate America Short Program 06.jpg - CC BY 4.0
• File:2019 Internationaux de France Saturday ladies FS group 1 Lea SERNA 8D9A9151.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Vanessa James and Morgan Ciprès at 2016 Trophée de France.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0, source link does not work, please use an archived version.
• File:Andrée and Pierre Brunet 1933b.jpg - Public Domain
• Some images used in the article are missing alt-text needed for accessibility for readers who use screen reader software.
• All images are relevant to the article and have proper captioning.

@Arconning: I'm embarrassed at having forgotten the alt-text; I am usually good about those. It's been fixed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pass Arconning (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• A footnote for 1942 would be nice. WW2 was still going on then.
• All the junior titles seem to start in 2011. Maybe add a line about this.
• Support on prose (in advance since these are suggestions). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what footnote I could add. Why and how France still held their national championships in Paris while under Nazi occupation is not explained. As for the junior-level results, 2011 is just the furthest back I've been able to track results, but that was not the debut of the junior competitions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The only thing I can think to say is that if the junior events did not start in 2011, as your comment above seems to suggest, then I would suggest adding a note/comment/something to say that the junior events started at an unknown earlier date but that results have not been traced prior to 2011. Or something like that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Added. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): -- EN-Jungwon 10:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re-nominating after addressing comments from the previous nomination. Thank you for your time. -- EN-Jungwon 10:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here'll be an image review from me! Arconning (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• File:00108 (여자)아이들 (G)I-DLE Gaon Awards (tweaked) (2).jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:아이브 - 뮤직뱅크 출근길 직캠 IVE MusicBank Fancam 220624.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:"예쁨가득" 보아, 멀리서도 빛나는 물광 피부 BOA 보아 (디패짤) 02.png - CC BY 3.0
• File:Taeyeon for Elle Taiwan on 06042023 (1).png - CC BY 3.0
• File:Hyoyeon at Wendy's Youngstreet in August 2022 01.png - CC BY 3.0
• File:슬기 (SEULGI) Marie Claire Pop Quiz (derived).jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Wendy at Incheon Airport on September 9, 2019.jpg - CC BY 4.0, please provide an archived version of the source link.
• File:카리나(KARINA) SBS Radio (derived).jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Winter at SBS Radio on 21.10.13.jpg - CC BY 3.0, a YouTube CC BY 3.0 template for clarification would help.
• File:220701 Nayeon(나연) of Twice MusicBank Fancam.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:220804 뉴진스(NewJeans), 비주얼 파티.jpg - CC BY 3.0
  • All images have alt-text for accessibility, all are relevant to the article, and have proper captions.
    • Just one comment to address!

@Arconning, I have added an archive link to the file on Commons and also added the relevant YouTube CC BY template to the other image. Thank you for the review! -- EN-Jungwon 16:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Arconning pinging. -- EN-Jungwon 15:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Pass Arconning (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several uses of "number one single" or "number one song". When used as an adjective (as it is here) "number-one" has a hyphen
• Triple Crown sometimes has capital letters and sometimes doesn't
• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude, thanks for the review! Both comments have been addressed. -- EN-Jungwon 04:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You've slightly misunderstood my first point. When used as an adjective, "number-one" has a hyphen, e.g. "Blackpink had the number-one song". When it is used as a noun, as in "Blackpink reached number one", it doesn't. I fixed that for you and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Drdpw (talk), Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 01:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 Atlantic hurricane season was hyperactive and cataclysmic. It started with a bang with Beryl, the earliest Category 4 or 5 Atlantic hurricane on record, which tore through the Caribbean and into the United States. Things went unusually quiet during the peak of the season, but that changed dramatically with the now-infamous Helene in late September and the exceptionally powerful Milton in early October. Both storms caused extensive destruction in the southeastern United States, with Helene additionally causing biblical flooding in the central Appalachian Mountains. The frenetic pace of activity during the season's final two months, coupled with the intensity of several of those storms, pushed 2024 to become an above-average season overall.

Drdpw and I are pleased to present to the community for consideration, the timeline of arguably one of the most significant hurricane seasons on record. HikingHurricane and Mltg404, having also been substantial contributors to this list, are invited to join us as co-nominators. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 01:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• [Tampico, Tamaulipas] is an MOS:SOB violation
• "Mexican [city of Veracruz]" -> "Mexican city of [Veracruz]"
• "central [Arkansas]" -> "[Central Arkansas]"

That's all I found, nothing to major just technical problems. (my FLC nom is missing is a source review if you would be so inclined) Olliefant (she/her) 16:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Y Corrections have been made. Drdpw (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The full name of and link to the National Hurricane Center is hidden in a footnote, so it's not clear what NHC stands for if the the footnotes are ignored. It's also not clear immediately who "officially" defines the start and end dates of the season without looking at the references. Therefore, adding "according to the National Hurricane Center (NHC)" somewhere in the first paragraph would be useful. With this addition, the wikilink in the first footnote can be removed.
• Add a wikilink to Grenada for "Grenadian".
• Remove the comma in "(miles, or kilometers)".
• Adding Template:Use American English and Template:Use mdy dates at the top would be useful to ensure a consistent style in future edits, though this isn't a requirement.

Will review the list itself soon. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 22:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason why the absorptions of Tropical Depression Beryl and Subtropical Storm Debby into weather fronts are in the July 9 and August 9 sections even though the events happened "two days later" (July 11 and August 11, respectively)?
• Replace all instances of "Cabo Verde islands" with "Cape Verde Islands" (common name and consistency with Cape Verde).

That's all from me. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 16:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Y Modifications have been made. Drdpw (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; still missing the "Cabo Verde islands" → "Cape Verde Islands" changes though. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 22:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Y All now read "Cape Verde" Drdpw (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 07:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• I'm going to be honest: I don't like the first paragraph. The first sentence is very awkward. This sentence – "The season officially began on June 1, and officially ended on November 30. These dates, adopted by convention, historically describe the period in each year when most subtropical or tropical cyclogenesis occurs in the Atlantic Ocean." – could be merged. Perhaps "The season officially began on June 1 and ended on November 30. This is historically the period during which most subtropical or tropical cyclogenesis occurs over the Atlantic Ocean." or something similar? The last sentence is good.
• The second paragraph is good and succinctly summarizes the storm season.

Timeline

• "A tropical depression forms from a tropical wave about 65 mi (100 km) northeast of Veracruz, Veracruz." The redundant Veracruzes look weird.
• "...about 305 mi (490 km) southeast of Punta Palenque Lighthouse, Dominican Republic" --> as Punta Palenque Lighthouse is not a city, I would rephrase as "Punta Palenque Lighthouse, in the Dominican Republic."
• "The extratropical low formerly Beryl" --> This reads very awkwardly.
• "The extratropical low formerly Debby" --> Ditto.
• Under September 24, you don't need to wikilink Cuba.
• Under September 26, you don't need to wikilink Tampa, Florida (it has already been previously wikilinked).
• Under September 27, you should probably wikilink Leeward Islands.

@Dylan620: A timeline is very good with only the few issues I listed above. The first paragraph needs some work. Please let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): VirreFriberg (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a list representing the number-ones of the first official national top-ten record chart in Sweden. VirreFriberg (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Sveriges Radio's first single chart" => "Sveriges Radio's first singles chart"
• "was immensively popular with Sweden's youth" - I think you mean "immensely". "Immensively" is not a real word
• "where only one the jury" => "where only one jury"
• "most commercially successful artist" => "most successful act"
• "had the most number-ones " => "had the most number ones "
• "the Swedish act with the most number-ones" => "the Swedish act with the most number ones"
• "spent the longest time in the top-ten" => "spent the longest time in the top ten"
• Neither of the entries in the key should have a full stop, as they are not sentences
• Pat Boone image caption needs a full stop
• The key shows daggers for both items. Firstly, the symbols should be different, as having the same symbol for both does not help people who can't see the colours. And secondly, you have to actually use the symbols in the tables along with the colours.
• "merseybeat British invasion" is a SEAOFBLUE. Although, as "British invasion" very specifically refers to British acts "invading" the United States, I don't feel it is appropriate to use here anyway.
• "were listed as joint number-ones" => "were listed as joint number ones"
• "The voting that was to take place on 24 December 1966 was cancelled as it was Christmas Day" - 24 December is not Christmas Day. Maybe just say "as it was a holiday"
• "The Who had their only number one-song" => "The Who had their only number-one song"
• "The Bee Gees had their first number one single" => "The Bee Gees had their first number-one single"
• "Elvis Presley had his last number one-single" => "Elvis Presley had his last number-one single"
• Chris Andrews caption needs a full stop
• "George Harrison had his only number one song" => "George Harrison had his only number-one song"
• Lalla Hanson caption needs a full stop
• "The New Seekers had two number one songs" => "The New Seekers had two number-one songs"
• Michael Jackson caption needs a full stop
• "Björn Skifs managed two number-ones" => "Björn Skifs managed two number ones"
• "Harpo had a number one song " => "Harpo had a number-one song "
• That was a really interesting read. Nice to see a list of number ones here from a country other than the United States -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, @ChrisTheDude! Revised the article based on your points. Seperated the key with daggers (†) and double-daggers (‡) and added them to their respective places in the article! VirreFriberg (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:30, 15 February 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. ! Date becomes !scope=col | Date.
• 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. | 14 October becomes !scope=row | 14 October (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Images are missing alt-text.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear.
• I would suggest that you use the {{Legend}} template instead of the table that you have right now.
• (please mention me on reply) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @MPGuy2824! I revised the article based on your suggestions, with a handful of inquires of my own.

  • Changed the tables based on these notes to the best of my abilities. However, I'm not very CSS-savvy so I might require assistance.
  • Added alt captions to the images for accessability purposes.
  • The key (legend) that is used on the article is done so to facilitate the usage of two symbols; (†) and double dagger (‡). Unsure of how they would be incorporated into {{Legend}} as the instructions provides no instructions.

  VirreFriberg (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've replaced the key table with legend templates.
  • However, I'm not very CSS-savvy This is mostly wikitable code. Don't worry, it isn't too tough.
  • You've missed adding the scope=col for the first col of the tables.
  • In the alt-texts there is no need of wikilinking things.
  • Also, I'm not a fan of "re" on its own. You can ape what Chris has done in List of Billboard Hot 100 number ones of 1959. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi again, @MPGuy2824. Thank you for adding the legend key to the article!

    • Added the missing !scope=col
    • Removed the Wiki links from the alt-image captions
    • Added the suggestion for the "re"'s.

    Thanks! VirreFriberg (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 08:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain has three WHS and six tentative sites. Standard style. This is a shorter list, I'll try to be more active when replying to comments. Tone 08:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. Barbar Temple: "The archaeological site comprises three temples, built one atop another between third and second millennium BCE." --> Should there be a "the" before "third"?
2. Hawar Islands Reserve: "...and is home to a population of dugong." --> Shouldn't "dugong" be plural?

@Tone: Only a very few comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both, thanks! Tone 17:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Really glad to see you're still doing these WHS lists, Tone – image review forthcoming. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 17:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As promised:

• File:Bahrain Fort 3.jpg: source and licensing check out. This is marked on Flickr as all rights reserved, but a look at the licensing history shows that the uploader changed the copyright status after the photo was uploaded to Commons, so the old CC BY 2.0 applies.
• File:Muharraq Bayt Siyadi 1.jpg: uploader's own work, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, but is missing alt text.
• File:A'ali Burial Mounds.jpg: source and licensing check out, though I did replace the URL with an archived link on Commons.
• File:Middle Dilmun Mass Grave A212.JPG: uploader's own work, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
• File:Barbar Temple.jpg: source and licensing check out.
• File:Sur burial mounds.jpg: source and licensing check out, though I did replace the URL with an archived link on Commons.
• File:Manama skyline.jpg: the notice about Bahrain lacking freedom of panorama gave me pause at first, but after consulting Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama and given the Bahrain World Trade Center's distance in the background, I'm going to give this a pass on licensing. The source also checks out, though the date taken on Flickr is quite some ways off lol.
• File:Awali Bahrain overview 1959.png: okay, this one I'm not quite sure about. I'll AGF on the dead link source, but this is missing a US-specific public domain tag on Commons, and I can't find one here that would work.

Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 00:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I added the missing text, do you think I should do something about the oil settlement image or does it work? Tone 15:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tone: Apologies for the late reply, some rather disruptive and unexpected things happened IRL recently. I would err on the side of caution and remove the oil settlement image. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 22:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I agree, better to remove. Thanks! Tone 09:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy to support. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 10:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "known from the Sumerian sources" => "known from Sumerian sources"
• "Located at the strategic location in the Persian Gulf" => "Located at a strategic location in the Persian Gulf"
• "share architectural features with the Sumerian temples" => "share architectural features with Sumerian temples"
• There seems to be a mix of UK and US spellings, as I can see both "centralised" and "modernization". Pick one and use it consistently -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, thanks! Tone 09:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• 5, 6, 7, 11, 14 pass
• for source 12, sea cows include dugongs, but not all sea cows are dugongs. Please change this; otherwise, source 12 is good.
• Capital, Northern, Southern→Capital, Northern, and Southern Regions
• parts of the seashore→parts of the seashore of Muharraq Island
• It is the earliest example of an oil settlement in the Persian Gulf, with European-style urban planning that included public buildings, homes for an international and multicultural community of oil specialists and their families, as well as local population, and leisure spaces. this is a massive sentence, please split it into 2-3
• Some of the introduced concepts included→Some of the introduced concepts include

Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! "Capital, Northern, and Southern" are corresponding governorates, not regions, I wouldn't change that. Tone 10:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

pass source review Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 19:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Use straight apostrophes (') rather than curly ones (’) for "Qal'at" in the lead and site description per MOS:CURLY.
• For the description of Khor Hamad Town Tumuli Moundfield, "... a circular wall which is now not visible anymore" sounds redundant (now + anymore); consider removing "anymore".
• The publisher for the third reference should be UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 14:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shwabb1: I did the first and last as you stated, but for the second I removed now since it flows better than way imo. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 20:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 20:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 12:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 1997 Atlantic hurricane season produced Hurricane Danny, the wettest tropical cyclone in Alabama's history. The season began at a breakneck pace, clocking six tropical or subtropical cyclones—including the then-earliest fifth storm on record—in just the first two months, when things usually are only slowly heating up. Then it came to an abrupt halt, with no systems for the entirety of August, one of the basin's peak months. September, the climatologically busiest month of the season, only spawned one system—though a powerful one. A pair of weak storms in October capped off a very strange, quiet year for Atlantic hurricane activity.

I did the bulk of the work on this timeline last winter, and have been giving it another couple run-throughs to ensure its readiness for the bronze star. A previous iteration of this timeline was deleted in 2011. I recall the timeline as it stood then, and it bears almost no resemblance to the version being nominated today. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 12:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Spot checks found nothing
• Dates are consistent
• Some sources say "Miami, Florida" while Ref 3 just says "Miami"
• Ref 3 also links Miami when no other locations are linked
• Why is Ref 3 broken up like that?
  • Ref 3 is generated from a template. I have just tweaked it to address the two points above this one. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 07:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Why does Ref 4 include the county but no others do
  • There are two places called Ferguson Township in Pennsylvania, hence the mention of the county for disambiguation purposes. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 07:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is Ref 11 not marked as a report?
  • Fixed. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 07:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Linking is mostly consistent, ref 10 should link "National Hurricane Center"
  • Addressed. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 07:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 23:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Olliefant. I think I've gotten everything. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 07:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Olliefant (she/her) 08:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Timeline:Fabian's TCR says Fabian formed on October 4, not October 5.

  I'm not sure what you're seeing, because the timeline matches the TCR: 18:00 UTC (2:00 p.m. AST) at 24.2°N 64.5°W – A tropical depression forms... Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 19:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant the timeline below "Timeline of events" and above "June". GiftedIceCream 20:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  D'oh! Thank you for pointing that out; taken care of. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 21:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• 06:00 UTC (2:00 a.m. EDT) at 31.2°N 76.3°W" remove the link to UTC.

  It is common practice to link time zones on first use in timelines. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 19:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Image 2:The caption says "Track map of the unnumbered subtropical storm." Replace "unnumbered" with "unnamed".

  I get that "unnamed" is more common than "unnumbered", but the NHC's Preliminary Report explicitly calls this an "unnumbered" storm, and this is consistent with the main season article. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 19:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you find an image of Grace instead of the parent cyclone?

  Unfortunately, that's the best image I could find on Commons. There is File:Tropical Storm Grace (1997).JPG, but it is very low resolution, and I do not think it would suffice for featured content. I thought about replacing it with a track map, but this would disrupt the presently even balance between satellite images and track maps (right now there are five each). Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 19:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "There were no tropical cyclones in November." Unsourced

  I have fixed this by adding a citation to the MWR seasonal summary. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 19:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The rest of the images pass.
• All of the coordinates are right.

Everything else is good, ping when done.GiftedIceCream 15:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, GiftedIceCream; replies inline. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 19:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support GiftedIceCream 23:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment, there are probably 2 too many images. I suggest removing a few, probably the track maps. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the late response, HH. I've removed the track maps of Erika and Danny, since I feel that both of those tracks are covered in sufficient detail (breakpoints, in-between events, etc.) in the timeline itself. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 14:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Aaron Liu (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I like computing and I'm thinking of focusing more on content work, hopefully, this year, though I mostly worked on this article in late 2024 to trim all the releases' entries' fat after reading a discussion on bloat in version history lists. I'm mostly nominating this because I want to improve my content work. (I did try peer review, but I'm here now because the peer review didn't receive any interest after half a month of asking around. Hopefully that's fine.)

Also, I'd appreciate feedback on whether the summaries of Linux kernel updates should be removed since it's not really Ubuntu's development work. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow forgot the transclusion step; fixed. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I really think that the lead should include at least a cursory explanation of what Ubuntu actually is. I read the whole lead and am none the wiser..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this really a list? Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say it's as much a list as Territorial evolution of Canada is. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Shoot, yeah. Will do. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  1} Aaron Liu (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron Liu, thank you for working on this article. The free and open-source software topic area has many sources that are highly regarded by the FOSS community, yet either don't meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements or are group blogs of borderline reliability. However, since Ubuntu is a high-profile subject, I think it should be possible to find strong or acceptable sources for all of the information in this article, which may require using non-English reliable sources for some specific claims. From a scan of the cited sources, I believe the following needs to be carefully evaluated and possibly replaced:

1. Ubuntu Wiki: The HelpOnEditing page states: "To edit the Ubuntu Wiki, join the Ubuntu Wiki Editors team on Launchpad." The Launchpad page states that the team is composed of "1529 active members" and "27 proposed members", which gives me the impression that this wiki should be considered user-generated content.

   What you quoted seems outdated—all the pages say "Immutable Page" on top (as opposed to the editable Community Help Wiki that says "log in to edit"... that confusingly also claims you can edit the Ubuntu Wiki?) and there's regular post on Ubuntu's Discourse mentioning the lack of ability to edit ([2] [3]). I would look for Ubuntu docs to clear this up but they don't even mention the Ubuntu Wiki, only the Community Help Wiki as the canonical user-maintained doc source.

   Another thread claims the Ubuntu Wiki is being replaced with https://documentation.ubuntu.com/project/ so I'll see if I can replace the Ubuntu Wiki with that. Early official release notes still seem to be hosted on the Ubuntu Wiki though; it's what https://documentation.ubuntu.com/project/release-team/list-of-releases/ links to for the release notes. So if we want to prune the Ubuntu wiki from this article, things only cited to the official release notes will either have to be trimmed for due weight as you mentioned or cited to the ISO image. A lot of the Linux kernel versions are only mentioned in the release notes. I'm not opposed to removing them but somehow feel animous about actually doing so since they've been in the article for so long. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2. WebTrickz: Self-published blog by Mayur Agarwal, who does not appear to be a subject-matter expert as defined in WP:SPS

   Replaced Aaron Liu (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3. MoPedia: Self-published blog by Mohammed (no last name provided), who does not appear to be a subject-matter expert as defined in WP:SPS

   Replaced Aaron Liu (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

4. Phoronix: Self-published blog by Michael Larabel, whom I personally consider a subject-matter expert, but who does not meet the requirements defined in WP:SPS; see the WP:RSN discussions from December 2019 and September 2024 that I participated in, as well as your May 2024 comment

   Replaced (Note that I replaced the article about the server installer with a blog entry from Dustin Kirkland, a Canonical Engineer at the time so should be WP:AboutSelf) Aaron Liu (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

5. OMG Ubuntu: Self-published blog by Joey Sneddon, who I believe is knowledgeable about the topic area but does not appear to meet the requirements defined in WP:SPS
6. Tech Source (junauza.com): Self-published blog by Jun Auza which currently claims to be a group blog, but published a 2019 post implying sole authorship and does not include bylines in articles
7. Web Upd8: Self-published blog by Andrew (Alin Andrei), who does not appear to be a subject-matter expert as defined in WP:SPS
8. Desktop Linux Reviews: Self-published blog by Jim Lynch, who might be considered a subject-matter expert per WP:SPS because he has written reviews for other technology news publications, but for a featured list, I would cite a review that is not self-published
9. DistroWatch Weekly: Newsletter from DistroWatch that has unclear level of editorial oversight and is likely to be self-published

   DistroWatch has UseByOthers from VOA and First Monday. (I've excluded the plethora of mentions that only talk about the database listing of distros and not the website as a news site.) The writer for the articles cited, Jesse Smith, edited a Springer book. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10. Hectic Geek: Self-published blog by Gayan (no last name provided), who does not appear to be a subject-matter expert as defined in WP:SPS
11. Dedoimedo: Self-published blog by Igor Ljubuncic, who might be considered a subject-matter expert per WP:SPS because he has authored a couple of reputably published technical books, but for a featured list, I would cite a review that is not self-published
12. It's FOSS: Self-published blog by Abhishek Prakash, who I believe is knowledgeable about the topic area but does not appear to meet the requirements defined in WP:SPS

    The about page mentions being an official media partner at several prominent FOSS conferences such as The Linux Foundation's Open Source Summit India 2025. It's unclear if this just means they paid it money though; they also list being a Southern California Linux Expo media partner but SCALE lists them as a media sponsor. (It also links a MakeUseOf article praising it, but that is MakeUseOf.) Not sure how good that is.

    It's at least a group blog IMO. The front page currently lists at least 5 different authors and Prakash is far from the most prolific writer. He also boasts a Master's degree, and the website's articles seem to offer timely corrections. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

13. FOSS Bytes: Self-published group blog with questionable Editorial Policy ("please contact us at [Insert Contact Email]")
14. ZDNet: This particular article is dated April 2022, which is when ZDNet (RSP entry) had been owned by LLM-authored content publisher Red Ventures (RSP entry). I don't think this article is problematic, but for a featured list, I would cite a review from a different source.
15. 9to5Linux: Self-published blog by Marcus Nestor, who I believe is knowledgeable about the topic area but does not appear to meet the requirements defined in WP:SPS

On a more general level, the article relies heavily on primary sources to the extent that it might not satisfy WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." For basic information such as release dates, it should be fairly straightforward to find reliable secondary sources that cover Ubuntu releases. Technical details might be harder to independently source, but when there are no independent sources covering an aspect of an Ubuntu release, I would reconsider whether it constitutes due weight. Also, I just noticed Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force/List of reliable sources exists, but it has not been edited since it was created in 2022; this list is probably worth maintaining.

Thanks again for spending a great deal of time improving this article and keeping it up to date. I only check the WP:FOSS article alerts infrequently, so I wasn't aware of the peer review, but I would not have left it unanswered if I had noticed it. — Newslinger talk 14:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your extensive review! I'll be going through these points by replying to them above.
As you point out, indeed I should've looked out for this myself... When replacing sources I found that the article has a lot more sourcing issues and I probably need to deeply spot check.

I think it's alright that we primary-source the EOL dates. The release dates actually don't seem to be mentioned in most secondary sources: they say things like "out now" and "late April". Aaron Liu (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio 09:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now that my other nom has two support votes; here's my next nom returning to the 2024 Men's T20 World Cup topic; there's more where this comes from... Vestrian24Bio 09:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility notes, no action needed:

• When you're using a table to organize things not as a row-column data table but just as a layout thing to save space, like in Squads, according to WP:LTAB you should add |role="none" to the table (so, {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left; margin:auto" role="none") so that screen-reader software won't treat it as a data table. (Done for you)
• I got lost for a bit in the module code, but when you're using Sports table, as you do at {{2023 Men's T20 World Cup Africa Qualifier Regional Final}}, you have to set the "title" attribute to add a caption (now done for you)
• The way {{Single-innings cricket match}} uses subtables for positioning is extremely suspect, but I've adjusted it to be an LTAB as well rather than rewrite the whole thing.

--PresN 14:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helps! Vestrian24Bio 12:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• prose is clear and concise
• link bye to Bye (sports)
• verifiable sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18
• 4 can include author name
• sources 11, 12 and 13 won't load
• Mohammed Issa not found in 15, otherwise it is good
• 19, 21 are dead
• 20 doesn't verify "first match", presumably this was covered in 19? 20's author is missing

Sahib-e-Qiran, He Who is Otherwise Known as ‪EasternShah‬ 21:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EasternShah:

• Refs 11, 12 and 13 seems to be working now.
• Added archives for 19 &21.

All else done. Vestrian24Bio 12:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

issa is a player in this tournament right? can you find a ref to include him I think that this may be fine Sahib-e-Qiran, He Who is Otherwise Known as ‪EasternShah‬ 13:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EasternShah: done now. Vestrian24Bio 13:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review pass Sahib-e-Qiran, He Who is Otherwise Known as ‪EasternShah‬ 16:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The tables are missing row and column scopes (see MOS:DTAB
• The table under "Teams and qualification" doesn't sort the dates correctly
• Under "Squads" the abbreviations are not explained
• "ESPNcricinfo" is italicized under "Points table" but not "Squads"
• "ESPNcricinfo" appears in small text under "Points table" but not "Squads", also it's placement compared to the table is inconsistent
• Most of the "ESPNcricinfo" sources have MOS:DASH violations
• Under "Fixtures", why are both team names bolded? usually only the winning team is in bold
• Why are external links used in "Fixtures" and not citations?

That's what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 11:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant:

• The abbreviations in the squads table are linked to respective pages.
• Teams in the fixtures are bolded by default in the {{Single-innings cricket match}} template.
• Scorecards are generally given as external links across cricket articles and other sports as well.

All else done. Vestrian24Bio 13:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Olliefant (she/her) 06:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): MB2437 03:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list as it documents over 700 champions in international kart racing since 2007. The lead section clearly outlines the scope and its limitations, with clear and concise explanations of each concept covered. MB2437 03:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Please change the opening from "The following is a list of international kart racing champions" per MOS:THISISALIST -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Did not know this one; done. MB2437 23:57, 11 January 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. | 1987 becomes !scope=row | 1987 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Color/bolding should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information; use a symbol in addition.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear.

(please mention me on reply) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824, I did not know about {{sronly}}, thank you for pointing this out. All headers and scopes added. The only instances of bold text that do not have symbols are in § By driver, to avoid clashes with other symbols in use. Can remove this entirely if necessary. MB2437 11:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• In the first key table there is a section about tyres that should be removed since none of those are used in the rest of the page.
• By my point about color, I also meant tables like "Senior direct-drive classes" and others which are no-nos from the accessibility lens (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Color). This includes both the main (red-blue spectrum) as well as the gold-bronze spectrum.
  • The first multi-column cell "CIK-FIA senior direct-drive class timeline in kart racing" also needs to be converted to the caption of the table.
• You can eliminate the right-side year column if a table only has a few columns. Even where you are keeping this column, the cells should not be the header cells of that row. (Remove the "!" and the scope from those cells)
• You should seriously give thought to splitting this list. Maybe by the four classes (senior, junior, gearbox and other). Choose whichever class is the highest first and nominate that for FL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824: good spot on the key—fixed. Also fixed the table captions. With regards to those 'tables', they serve as infographics rather than data tables; I will have a look at improving them, although I am unsure on how to retain the information while simultaneously keeping it within an accessible height and width. Removed the ! from the year column of the short tables. The list itself is already split from 1964–2006 and other (non-FIA) international categories. MB2437 03:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open for well past the time when it would normally be closed for lack of activity, and has not received substantial review yet. @Mb2437: I strongly recommend trying to find people to review this nomination, both by reviewing other nominations and mentioning your review, and by reaching out to editors interested in the topic on wikiprojects or discord or elsewhere. If this nomination does not receive attention soon, it will be closed for inactivity. --PresN 01:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My first FLC in a while! Gu Yanwu was a scholar during the last days of the Ming dynasty. Upset at the very violent Qing conquest, he wandered around China for most of his life, compiling and commentating on historical works. He had a very negative perspective on essentially all Chinese philosophy since the time of the Confucian classics, but ended up laying the groundwork for future generations of scholars, leading to the concept of Hanxue - Han studies.

The list here draws from Ian Johnston's listing of his bibliography, which itself is based off lists by Jean-François Vergnaud and Jan Hagman. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Gu Yanwu (Chinese: 顧炎武, art name Tinglin) was a Chinese scholar active during the transition from the Ming to Qing dynasty" => "Gu Yanwu (Chinese: 顧炎武, art name Tinglin) was a Chinese scholar active during the transition from the Ming dynasty to the Qing dynasty"
  • Done.-G
• Also, can you give some indication of when that was, as presently there's nothing in the lead to indicate whether he lived 200 or 2000 years ago
  • Done.-G
• "published them for the first time in the collect Tinglin yishu" => "published them for the first time in the collection Tinglin yishu"
  • Done.-G
• "a unit roughly equivalent to chapters" => "a unit roughly equivalent to a chapter"
• Descriptions which consist only of one sentence fragment (e.g. "A collection of Gu's essays and writings, including his political treatises written after the fall of Ming.") should not have a full stop
• Done.-G
• "the Confucian classics" - appropriate link? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Added.-G

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much! Added. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:02, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• wikilink "epigraphic"
• You can consider making the table sortable for the first 3 columns only.
• Support on prose and accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Please take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of constituencies of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly/archive1 if you have the time and inclination. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead

1. What are gazetteers?

• List

1. I would recommend retitling this section Works by Gu Yanwu. You can always hide the table caption so as to avoid the redundancy.
2. I would recommend left-justifying the first column so as to match all of the other columns.
3. You might consider wikilinking calligraphy, Daoism, Buddhism, Shandong.

@Generalissima: A very interesting article! Please let me know once you have had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another stellar article! I don't see any issues on the sourcing - everything is from reliable academic source, cited and formatted properly, and the references I could access have good source-prose continuity without plagiarizing, so I say review passed. Some minor comments:

• per MOS:HANZI the characters for Gu Yanwu's name don't need to be included because his article is linked. However, I do notice that sometimes his surname is appended on his art name, so I don't have much of an opinion on what makes more sense of readers for Gu's name. Maybe the characters for Tinglin should also be added, since it plays a bigger role in this list rather than his main article?
• The second time Pan Lei is mentioned, shouldn't it just be by his surname Pan instead of his full name?
• For the translation of 亭林遺書, shouldn't his name just be Tinglin and not Gu Tinglin?

Thanks for responding in advance. MSG17 (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: There are at least two sets of feedback here. 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: This nomination has been open longer than is typical, and has some comments that are a couple weeks old. Do you intend to address them? --PresN 02:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm so sorry. I completely forgot about this. Yes, I will address them in the next day or two. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): The Kip ^(contribs) 07:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was originally targeting GA for this, but realized thanks to the nom for 2021 NHL expansion draft that FL would be a more appropriate target. I've spent the last few days overhauling the article, significantly improving the refs. I've also turned the long list of concession trades into a table, and prose-ified the "Post-draft" section. I've also made various updates to bring it in line with the 2021 article, currently under FL consideration as well. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the outstanding comments, life's come at me lately and I haven't had time to get around to fully addressing things - promise I will soon, and am still interested in getting this to FL. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the table, italics cannot be the only means of conveying information per MOS:ACCESS. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done and sorted. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "After Las Vegas' expansion bid was approved in June 2016, one year beforehand, " - last three words are redundant
• "Vegas selected 30 players from each of the league's franchises" - if they had selected 30 players from each of the franchises, that would have been a total of 900 players. They actually selected one player from each of the franchises
• "The Vegas bid was the first "Big Four" major professional sports league to place a franchise in Las Vegas" => "The Vegas bid would make the NHL the first of the "Big Four" major professional sports league to place a franchise in Las Vegas"
• "but the NHL previously had" => "although the NHL had previously had"
• "was named Las Vegas' first-ever general manager " => "was named Las Vegas' first general manager "
• "Five days after formally entering the league on March 1, 2017,[10] the Golden Knights signed Canadian center Reid Duke to a three-year, entry-level contract on March 6" - if it was five days after March 1 then obviously it was March 6, no need to state both
• "making him the franchise's first-ever player." => "making him the franchise's first player."
• "The initial proposal of the rules for the draft were decided upon" => "The initial proposal of the rules for the draft was decided upon" (the subject of the sentence is "proposal", which is singular
• "or, one goaltender and eight skaters regardless of position" => "or one goaltender and eight skaters regardless of position"
• "Because the NHL wanted to ensure the competitive viability of any new teams" => "Because the NHL wanted to ensure the competitive viability of the new team"
• "would lose one top-four defencemen" => "would lose one top-four defenceman"
• "and had to still be contracted for the 2017–18 season." => "and were still be contracted for the 2017–18 season."
• "or became a restricted free agent in 2017" => "or have become a restricted free agent in 2017"
• "RFA or UFA, one per team" - what do these initialisms mean?
• "as third lowest finishing team" = "as the third-lowest finishing team"
• " they were subject to same draft lottery rules" => " they were subject to the same draft lottery rules"
• "The NHL's deputy commissioner, Bill Daly, said that teams that do not follow the expansion draft rules" => "The NHL's deputy commissioner, Bill Daly, said that teams that did not follow the expansion draft rules"
• Draft results table should sort based on surname, not forename
• "Center Jonathan Marchessault would go on to win the Conn Smythe Trophy with Vegas in 2023" - complete sentence so needs a full stop
• ....and the same for all the other photo captions in that section and the next one
• "until was his contract was traded" - there's a stray extra "was" in there
• "First-overall-pick Calvin Pickard" - no reason for those hyphens
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Sorry for the delay - all taken care of. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Section links aren't allowed in section headers per MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS
• Why does 2017 NHL expansion draft#Trades not have any columns? To the average reader (like myself), this makes no sense.
• In the same section, colors need a key or need to be removed if they do not convey information.
• Scopes are needed in the Draft results section for both the columns and rows. Put the row scopes on the players name, not the number.
• For the keys, if you want that is (I won't hold it against you), you could create a key table that some articles use.
• Image accessibility is good.

Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowboygilbert My bad, somehow got tripped up and thought your comments were the user below. Everything on the list has been taken care of. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a situation with the table under Trades. You cannot use <br> to simulate another row within the same cell. For example, you have Buffalo Sabres concession and 6th-round pick in 2017 (#161 overall) within the same cell with a pseudo line dividing them. That whole table is very difficult to follow. Perhaps you should have three columns ("Other team", Concession, and Vegas selection) plus the column for References. This is just a rough mock-up:

"Other team"	Concession	Vegas selection	Ref.
Buffalo Sabres	6th-round pick in 2017 (#161 overall)	William Carrier	[Insert reference here]

Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 The table format is pulled from the trade tables we use at transaction pages (ex. 2025–26 NHL transactions#Trades) - I disagree that there's an issue with the colors (there to visually differentiate each row) or <hr> lines. Never heard of there being problems with using <br> in tables, either. I can add column headers, however, and I'll take care of the rest of the concerns as well. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Kip: I apologize; that was from an earlier draft of my comment. I was having trouble following this table, and the pseudo lines in each cell made it appear as if the information on the top of one cell corresponded to the information in the top half of the adjacent cell. There is nothing wrong with using <br> as long as it's not used to simulate artificial rows across cells. I still maintain that the current layout is poor and I still encourage you to reformat it. For example, there is no reason to have "Vegas selection" repeated over and over. As for the use of gray, that wasn't my comment, and as long as it is not conveying information, which it's not, it shouldn't be a problem. I don't think it's necessary, but that is purely a personal opinion and not grounded in any policy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 I've opted to reformat based on the table you suggested. Please take a look and let me know if it's up to par. Borrowed the row scopes from another of my FLs at List of Vegas Golden Knights draft picks so they still look normal rather than like headers. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Kip: That is such a good improvement! However, you will still need rowscopes. You can use the code ! scope="row" style="text-align:left;font-weight:normal" so the text doesn't appear in bold if that's what you want. Stylistically, it's up to you. All of the tables will need rowscopes; it looks like some of them already do. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 I believe it was just the concessions one lacking it, which I've taken care of - the protection lists seem to already have it. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would replace the # on the one table with something like {{Abbr|No.|Number}}. If I have a chance tomorrow, I will do a full review of your article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The standard is to not have any citations in the lead. Anything stated in the lead should theoretically be restated elsewhere in the article. So you have two citations (sources no. 1 and 2) that should be brought down into the main body of the text, and if that information is not there, it should be added. I wouldn't copy word-for-word; I would slightly rephrase it.

Background

• "The Vegas bid would make the NHL the first "Big Four" major professional sports league to place a franchise in Las Vegas, though the league previously had a limited presence in the city with annual pre-season games, beginning with an outdoor game in 1991 and the Frozen Fury series held each year since 1997." Is this sourced anywhere?
• What is currently source no. 5 requires a subscription or an account; it should reflect that in the citation.
• "the Golden Knights signed Canadian center Reid Duke to a three-year, entry-level contract, making him the franchise's first player." This needs a source.

Rules

• You have some instances of numbers larger than 10 being spelled out and others where they are rendered as numbers. Whichever style you choose, they should be consistent.

Tables

• The tables look great now and appear to be properly structured per MOS:ACCESS.

Post-draft

• "Not all players selected by the Golden Knights in the Expansion Draft remained with the team."

User:The Kip: I swear, I've reviewed a similar article to this in the past. Did you submit another hockey draft article through FLC recently? Anyway, please let me know if you have any questions about my comments or suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 Sorry for the delay:

• Moved the info to two different sections, along with the citations.
• Frozen Fury and the 1991 outdoor game are sort of self-sourced to their respective articles (1991 one wasn't previously linked, I added it), but I've added a cite for them being the first major pro team in Vegas.
• Opted to go for numbers for anything over ten.

Everything else has been taken care of. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The table in the Trades section is missing its caption.
• The logo in the infobox is missing alt-text.
• "third-line forward" - explain, or wikilink.
• "departing in free agency" - explain, or wikilink.
• I didn't see any other problems with prose or accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824 Point by point on this:

  • I'm not sure what you mean by a table caption, unless you mean title, in which case I'm not sure if one is necessary. I've added one anyways, though.
  • Done.
  • I've wikilinked Line (ice hockey).
  • Free agency is already wikilinked/explained in the "Rules" section.

  The Kip ^(contribs) 20:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Spot checks found nothing
• Source linking is inconsistent
• Sources use slashdates, DMY, and MDY are used interchangeably, they should all be using one format
• Some citations call it "Sportsnet.ca" and some call it "Sportsnet", please standardize this
• Some citations call it "nhl.com" and some call it "NHL.com" please make all the latter as its an acronym
• The publisher and website parameters are used interchangeably. Please standardize this to prevent the inconsistent italics
• Ref 3 cut "Puck Daddy" and list "Yahoo! Sports" as the website
• Ref 9 is not dead and should be marked as such
• Refs 15-16, 29, 31-36 are missing the website
• Ref 16 is missing the author
• Ref 18 is listing the authors incorrectly
• Refs 18, 22 should be marked as "subscription required"
• Refs 27, 41 lists the publisher when no others do
• Ref 30 "[NEWS]" -> "[News]" per MOS:ALLCAPS
• Ref 44 is dead
• Refs 54, 56, 58 should be marked as "via NHL.com"
• Why is "Pro Hockey Rumors" a reliable source?
• Why is "SinBin.vegas" a reliable source?

That's what I found, ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 08:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant Point by point-ish:

• I've converted all to MDY as per American English.
• Standardized/mostly fixed the website links. My general rule of thumb is to use "work" for newspapers/publications (ex. Las Vegas Review-Journal) and "website"/"publisher" for everything else.
• Re: "via," I've opted to instead use publisher with teams.
• Pro Hockey Rumors is generally considered reliable by WP:NHL as a companion site of MLB Trade Rumors, which is considered reliable in the wider baseball world. It was also difficult to find other sources succinctly stating that Bischoff was in Vegas' organization that entire time, though it's self-evident by the fact he continuously played for Vegas' minor league affiliates and repeatedly re-signed with either Vegas or said affiliate.
• SinBin.Vegas is considered the Golden Knights' main beat blog, similar to Russian Machine Never Breaks, and a generally reliable source for news about the team.

The Kip ^(contribs) 07:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most things have been covered already, but a couple of smaller things:

• Add alt text for the infobox image
• Multiple references need archives

Good job overall with the article. -- ZooBlazer 03:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer Alt text was added with MPGuy's review above, and I used IABot to archive most of the sources. Did the remaining handful manually. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Support -- ZooBlazer 08:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: There's outstanding comments going back a month now; do you intend to continue with this nomination? --PresN 01:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN Yes, life’s caught up with me a bit and I’ve not had the time to address those concerns. I intend to do so in the next few days. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to do this on Saturday. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or more likely tomorrow. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Marbe166, Matthewedwards, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Presidents of the United States

Fails WP:FLCR#3 and WP:MINREF. Multiple statements with citation needed templates. cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 16:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the whole introduction is a mess. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no work done in one month Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 16:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually one edit was done this month. Catfurball (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I said work, something substantial that I feel has not occurred since this has been brought to FLRC, as opposed to edits. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 00:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has not aged well and has many critical issues, primarily citations.

• Major citation needed, some are indicated with tags, but many statements lack citations. For example much of the history section is unreferenced, many notes.
• Some fluffy words were added: "Downtown Detroit has been undergoing revitalization in the 21st century...bringing with it many significant restoration projects and new high-rises." - uncited (current citation doesn't talk about skyscraper restoration as far as I can tell) but also not backed up by the table itself (only 1 building is under construction).
• Subheading called "proposed" but includes no proposed buildings
• Outdated wording "this is a list of..."
• Notes that should be in notes but instead are in the heading (the year column represents...)
• Could use more linking (standard height measurements, pinnacle height)
• Heavily reliant on SkyscraperPage as a source, but it's considered inappropriate. from this previous discussion
• I did a spot check for the statement "Fully renovated in 2012 as a mixed-use, primarily residential building". But the links did not contain this information. Also this isn't a complete sentence. Another spot check failed for the David Broderick Tower: the text says lower 4 floors are offices and the citation says "office space on floors 5 and 6".
• One note on estimated height isn't in the notes section, and is unexplained. Why would a building made in 2024 not have a known height?
• No images have alt-texts, which is a mandatory accessibility issue.
• Notes B-E do not have citations.
• "several buildings in Detroit", why not list exact number with a citation?
• Many buildings have a note area that is just blank, but why? For example Guardian Building is blank but could include something like "It was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1989". If a building is notable and has it's own page surely there is a brief summary we can give of this building.
• The history section doesn't make sense. The graph shows stagnation in growth from 1930-1960, but in the subheading lead it says nothing about this. It then says the latter 20th century deindustrialization and suburbanization affected the growth of Detroit's skyline, but the graph shows the number of high-rises booming in this period.

I tried to make some of these changes, but have nearly entered a edit war so I bring this here to get other's opinions. Mattximus (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone is willing to make some pretty major changes, I will have to vote for Delist. Mattximus (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that a lot of these "tallest buildings" lists that were promoted years ago have the same problems. Perhaps we should examine them all en masse? Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This one in particular was nominated in 2007 (!!), and yes many of the issues I highlighted apply to the others, but they are also significantly different than they were when nominated. Would it be advantageous to examine them all, or could we save some of them if we do them one at a time? Mattximus (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98 and @Mattximus, en masse FLRC nominations would overload FLRC, the nominators, and the wikiprojects in question. Please nominate them one at a time. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, this one will take quite a bit of work to save, and work has begun. 02:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree that the SkyscraperPage citations could be removed as all of these buildings have a CTBUH citation instead; when it was promoted in 2007 citing Emporis and SkyscraperPage was the norm and no one had an issue with that somehow. Some other citations can be improved or added, just tag cn on those if there is an unsupported statement.

Alt texts can be added, and citations could be improved. I will work on that.

Re: "several buildings in Detroit ... " I wrote that phrase after you insisted on rephrasing the text before the table to include the number, then added a 'citation needed' tag to it. The thing about lists of tallest buildings is that there is *no* single or consistent reliable source reporting buildings above a certain height - absolutely none.

Are you certain none? Municipal planning documents? Zoning documents? Tax or property records? City building permit databases? Have you tried [data.detroitmi.gov] Mattximus (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CTBUH will have buildings missing, SkyscraperPage will have buildings missing, and these two are the only databases for this sort of information. The list includes building verified to exist whose heights are verifiable, which is why it can be confidently said to have the number of entries in the table, that being 39. I think people are unaware of just how spotty building height data is when organizations like the CTBUH don't even seem to care as much.

In addition, there is no guideline that says the text can not say "this table includes" or "this list ranks ...", which is indeed how it was phrased when this list was promoted in 2007. You suggest that the only alternative is to write the exact number of entries instead, which (having checked many other featured lists) is not something they do at all, and is untenable for reasons I cited above.

• This wording is very out of date, and no new featured lists have this wording, suggest updating it so it's a description of the table contents, not the table itself. Mattximus (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed subheading is simply to show that there are no proposed buildings.

This doesn't make sense unfortunately, we can't have a heading that says proposed buildings then include no proposed buildings (this is independent of the fact we shouldn't even be including proposed buildings on a list of tallest buildings). Mattximus (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with removing the pinnacle height table entirely.

• Yes this is a bit redundant, good idea. Mattximus (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do take some offense to saying it hasn't "aged well", considering this list was in much poorer shape that a year ago, before I made any edits to it. The average reader interested in Detroit's skyline will find the current list very useful. LivinAWestLife (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus You supported promoting List of tallest buildings in Spokane a few years ago, which directly states "Spokane has 24 high rises that stand at least 145 feet (44 m) tall based on standard height measurement ..." without a source stating that there are 24. This is fine since every entry does have a citation for the height, such that I know it is reasonably comprehensive. So I doubt this is an issue. In comparison, the Detroit article is more detailed and informative.

• I'm open to discussion here, but how do we know the list is comprehensive? How do we know we aren't missing a building? Mattximus (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only valid critique is the inclusion of proposed, non-approved buildings alluding to WP:CRYSTAL, which I am fine with removing. LivinAWestLife (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding "Why would a building made in 2024 not have a known height", there are many, many, MANY new skyscrapers and high-rises whose heights are unknown because the developer doesn't bother to release them. It's way more likely that an older building has a known height because an organization like CTBUH has bothered to measure it. This is unfortuately true as I have come to known over years of dealing with this stuff. LivinAWestLife (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus If you prefer, I can reformat the table heading to clarify "year of completion" or any other long headers as a footnote. LivinAWestLife (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the note feature already used in the table, or add year of completion in the table, whatever you think looks good. Just shouldn't be in the heading for the table, which is a summary of the contents of the table, not the table itself (which is why it shouldn't start with "this is a table of"). Mattximus (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Bloom6132, WikiProject Baseball

Per recent changes to WP:FLCR #3c, FLs are required to have at least 8 entries. This list has 7 entries (duplicate entries in a second 20–20–20–20 table shouldn't count twice) and doesn't seem likely to expand soon. This is not a judgment against the page's quality – perhaps this should be resubmitted at GAN. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I am fine with 7 entries, as the 8 is rather arbitrary cutoff, I do have an issue with the 20–20–20-20 table, seemingly out of nowhere, and not explaining what the extra 20 means. Mattximus (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: The extra 20 is for stolen bases, and explained at Furthermore, four players amassed 20 or more stolen bases during their 20–20–20 season. These players are collectively referred to as the 20–20–20–20 club.[4] —Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This should be explained in the article as well though. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 16:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is the explanation already in the article. —Bagumba (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]