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.  – Table of contents – Closing instructions

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 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 Buffalo Sabres draft picks (FLC) List of World Heritage Sites in Libya (FLC) Chinua Achebe bibliography (FLC) Source reviews needed List of accolades received by In Bruges (FLC) Kim Seon-ho filmography (FLC) Timeline of the 1996 Pacific hurricane season (FLC) edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Nominations

Timeline of the 1997 Atlantic hurricane season

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

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)

Olliefant

• 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)
• 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)
• Why is Ref 11 not marked as a report?
  • Fixed. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 07:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Linking is mostly consistent, ref 10 should link "National Hurricane Center"
  • Addressed. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 07:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

List of Olympic medalists for Liechtenstein

Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Haven't done this in a while... here's an FLC about the only nation who has won all of its Olympic medals at the Winter Olympics! Shall reply to comments as soon as possible. Arconning (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• "Since then, Liechtenstein has participated in every Olympics edition except the 1952 Winter Olympics, and the 1956 and 1980 Summer Olympics." => "Since then, Liechtenstein has participated in every Olympics edition except the 1952 Winter Olympics and the 1956 and 1980 Summer Olympics."
• "besides the 1952 Winter Olympics due to financial constraints,[2] and the 1956 Summer Olympics" => "except for the 1952 Winter Olympics due to financial constraints[2] and the 1956 Summer Olympics"
• "Wenzell earned two gold medals" - name should only have one L
• "He would win a bronze medal in the same event" => "He won a bronze medal in the same event"
• "As of 11 August 2024" - showing the date looks a bit odd and at first I thought "why has that random date been selected?" until I realised. It would be easier to just say "As of the conclusion of the 2024 Summer Olympics"
• "The delegation is also the least populated nation to be represented to have won an Olympic gold medal" => "Liechtenstein is also the least populated nation to have won an Olympic gold medal" ("to be represented" is redundant as obviously a nation that hasn't been represented can't have won any medals)
• In the first table, why do all the athlete names have a sort key of "Tan"?
• In the second table, "Boy's monobob" should be "Boys' monobob"
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Have addressed everything! The Tan thing was an error on my part. Arconning (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

List of sminthids

Nominator(s): PresN 23:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey y'all, mammal list #69 in our perpetual series and rodent list #14: Sminthidae. We continue through the Myomorpha suborder, aka "things shaped like mice", with the birch mice. There's 16 species of these little guys, jumping and climbing on things in Eurasia, and their little grippy paws are part of why they're in a different family from other mice. As always, the list reflects the scientific consensus as well as the results of prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

That mouse is too cute! 🥰 I’ll come back to review this tomorrow. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Sicista betulina 122150166.jpg CC BY 4.0
• File:Sicista concolor.jpg CC0
• File:Sicista subtilis trizona.jpg CC BY 2.0
• File:Sicista betulina 03.JPG CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Sicista betulina range map.png CC BY-SA 3.0 link dead
• File:Sicista severtzovi.jpg CC BY-SA 3.0 link dead
• File:Sicista subtilis, southern birch mouse.jpg CC BY-SA 3.0 https://www.biolib.cz/en/taxonimage/id173910/?taxonid=20714&type=1 resized photographs can be freely used on any pages for non commercial emphasis mine; unless I am mistaken, Wikipedia and Commons are not compatible with the NC tag. otherwise the image is fine

Sahib-e-Qiran, He Who is Otherwise Known as ‪EasternShah‬ 04:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@EasternShah: Fixed the dead links, and removed the subtilis image. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 12:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Support The alt-text and prose are good. The prose follows the standard set by other similar lists. It is not confusing, and understandable for non-experts. Sahib-e-Qiran, He Who is Otherwise Known as ‪EasternShah‬ 23:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• The images in the table are missing alt-texts.
• See if you have the time to create an article for Tsimlyansk birch mouse, even if it is just a stub. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824: Whoops, added the alt texts. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 12:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Support - nothing from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I made Tsimlyansk birch mouse just now. Are vulnerable and near-threatened species not mentioned alongside the endangered ones in the leading paragraphs, usually? -- Reconrabbit 15:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Reconrabbit: No, I've just been calling out the endangered/critical species in the lede. Thanks for making the article! --PresN 15:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  OK, awesome. One correction: S. kazbegica is listed by IUCN as living in forest and grassland, not just grassland. Otherwise, all of the IUCN listings have their population sizes (unknown), trends, and habitats reflected here correctly. -- Reconrabbit 16:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Reconrabbit: Weird, I have a script that pulls the IUCN data directly from them, not sure how that one get changed. Fixed. --PresN 19:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  This list has my support. -- Reconrabbit 19:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Ubuntu version history

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

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)

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

Drive-by comment

• 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)

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

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

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

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

Source review (Newslinger)

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

Soviet Figure Skating Championships

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Another figure skating national championship list since Germany was just promoted. This may be the most recent list that I have finished. Figure skating was a big deal in the Soviet Union, and their national championships were definitely covered in their media, so there was no lack of sourcing. I don't speak Russian; and unlike the Hungarian, Romanian, or Polish that I'd managed to muddle through, the Cyrillic alphabet of the Russian language had me at a total loss, so this article may have been the most challenging for me to finish. Russian Figure Skating Championships is also ready to go, but I think this one is more interesting because of the historical aspects. As always, I look forward to any constructive feedback or suggestions, and thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

ES

• Should there be references for the "no competition held"? I don't know if there are in other lists. At the same time, I don't think one could really find a reference verifying that something did not happen after so long, so it is alright

•  Done

• alt-texts make sense
• File:Marina Klimova and Sergei Ponomarenko.jpg CC BY-SA 3.0 de
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1987-1002-020, Jelena Walowa, Oleg Wassiljew (Cropped).png CC BY 3.0
• File:AlexanderFadejew.jpg CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H1219-0016-001, Ludmilla Pachomowa, Alexander Gorschkow.jpg CC BY-SA 3.0 de
• captions also good, so image review pass
• pass accessibility review as well because it meets MOS:DTAB, appropriate captioning, scoping rows and columns, etc.
• i think the for tag should be removed, i don't think people will be confusing the soviet union and russian federation anymore

•  Done

• a "see also" section containing the figure skating championships for the soviet successor states would be nice

•  Done

EasternShah (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC) @EasternShah: Thank you for taking the time to review my article! I have implemented your good suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Support on prose as well, I may come back to this nomination later. EasternShah (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• I may be wrong, but I don't think "Russia and the other twelve Soviet republics emerged as independent nations" is quite right. There were 15 republics for most of the USSR's existence. The three Baltic republics broke away early, so when the USSR finally collapsed, there were 12 left. That means it should be "Russia and the other eleven".....

• I changed it to eleven. Since it specifies December 1991 as the date of the USSR's collapse, and the Baltic states had already split, it seems most logical to go with Russia+11 and not Russia+14. Agree?

• I think in the two image captions the semi colons should be commas

•  Done

• That's all I got - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for taking the time to examine my article! Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• You've mentioned that medals were awarded in the junior category in the lead, but there are no sections for those events unlike in Swiss Figure Skating Championships.

•  Done It's ironic you should bring this up. I was working on Yugoslav Figure Skating Championships last night, and saw where the text also mentioned junior-level competition. I removed it from there last night, and removed it from here just now.

• In the Records table, use colgroup or rowgroup when a header cell spans multiple columns or rows respectively.

•  Done

• ;Note is a MOS:PSEUDOHEAD violation. You can add a separate section for notes just before references OR leave out the pseudoheader but keep that note near its use. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Done

@MPGuy2824: I have implemented your suggestions. Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Are the years correct? The ref for 1992 pairs is a newspaper/magazine where the caption under the image translates to "The national champions of 1991 were a couple from St. Petersburg, Elena BECHKE and Denis PETROV.". I checked because it seemed a bit odd to have a 1992 Soviet champion when USSR itself didn't exist after 26 December 1991 -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

MPGuy2824: A skating season runs from fall to spring. Thus, a competition held in December 1991 is considered part of the 1992 season. The same thing happened with Czechoslovakia; their national championships took place mere weeks before the country ceased to exist. 😂 Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, understood. One last point: The sentence beginning "The figure skating competitions at the 1958 Spartakiad of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) " is a bit repetitive. You can keep the first part and then say something along the lines of "This happened in 1974 and 1978 as well". -MPGuy2824 (talk)

Support on prose and accessibility. Supporting in advance since I trust you'll fix the last point. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

MPGuy2824: I have reworked that first paragraph of the History section. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Olliefant

• Can you mention in the lead that after the USSR fell several of the former Soviet states had their own championships?
• "1924–92" double digit year ranges in the infobox are allowed but discouraged by MOS:DATERANGE. I don't think space is an issue here to full years would be preferred

That's what I found, ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 19:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC) P.S. would you be willing to review my nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Black Lightning episodes/archive2

Olliefant: I have addressed both of your suggestions. Let me know how the lead looks to you now. And of course I will be happy to examine your article later today! Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Support Olliefant (she/her) 20:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

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

A new kind of list for me. I've improved the lead, removed some fluff from the table and added a description for each property on the list. I've modeled the table on the country WHS lists like Vietnam. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• "what we now call modern architecture." - not mad on this. Maybe "what is now referred to as modern architecture."
• "in which he designed buildings in Europe, Japan, India, as well as North and South America" => "in which he designed buildings in Europe, Japan and India, as well as North and South America"
• "La Roche-Jeanneret house, is a pair" - no reason for that comma
• "Villa "Le Lac" Le Corbusier, is a residential building" - same here
• "and his cousin, Pierre Jeanneret between 1923 and 1924" => "and his cousin, Pierre Jeanneret, between 1923 and 1924"
• "Maison Guiette also known as Les Peupliers, is a" => "Maison Guiette, also known as Les Peupliers, is a"
• "designed starting from 1928" => "designed from 1928 onwards"
• "It consists of three storeys" - earlier you spelt it "stories". The article seems to be written in American English based on the use of "-ize" verbs and "center", so spell it consistently however the Americans spell it
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the quick review. France has the highest number of entries in the list, but there is no "French English" (I'm sure the French would scoff at that concept). Given that there was only one instance of an -ize, standardising the whole article to British English seemed easier. I've done this and the fixed the other points that you had. Please would you do another pass on the prose looking only for any instances of American English? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98 (1/29/26)

Lead

• Is The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier, an Outstanding Contribution to the Modern Movement is official name of the site?
  • Yes. See whc.unesco.org. If it seems a bit clunky right at the beginning then I can rephrase it to "The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier (officially, full title) is a ...". -MPGuy2824 (talk)
    • That might read better. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• You might consider explaining what makes Modernist architecture unique.

  Added, but I'm open to shifting its location within the lead section. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

• You might think about shuffling up the lead a little bit. As it reads now, you start off talking about LeCorbusier, then you talk about modernism, then you go back to LeCorbusier, and then you go back to modernism. I don't have a definitive suggestion, though. You could consider consolidating the two paragraphs into one and shuffling around the order of the sentences, or keep two paragraphs, but have one focus more on the architect and the other on the architecture, even though I get that they are intertwined. I would be interested in seeing what others think of this. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Sites

• I recommend listing the locations as CITY, COUNTRY as opposed to COUNTRY (CITY). I would also then not repeat the country in the description. For example, you use "Antwerp" for one site, but "Bordeaux, France" for another. You also don't need to wikilink cities twice in the same row.

  Fixed. I've also removed the links from major capitals like Paris and Tokyo. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

• Is "masterplan" one word or two? ✓
• "The listing comprises two buildings of the Weissenhof Estate..." --> Recommend slightly rephrasing with "This listing..." ✓
• What is a "gatelodge", and is it one word or two?
  • I've seen instances of it being used as one word too, but I think "gate lodge" is less jarring. -MPGuy2824 (talk)
• "Immeuble Clarté is an apartment building in Geneva designed starting from 1928 and built in 1931–32." I had to read this a few times to figure out what you are trying to say. I have boldfaced the part that reads awkwardly. ✓
  • Recommend slightly rephrasing as "The design process..." Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• "The building has different types of apartment..." --> "apartment" should be pluralized. ✓
• "The three-storeyed structure" --> Is it "three-storeyed structure" or "three-storey structure"? Genuinely asking as I'm not sure.
  • I felt both were correct, but 2 of the 3 grammar checkers that I just tried had a problem with "storeyed". I've now used "x-storey" everywhere. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

@MPGuy2824: This is a very interesting article. Please let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Fixed all. Replied to some points inline. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: I have made a few other suggestions above. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Rearranged the lead and did the other two fixes. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

MPGuy2824: Per Modern architecture, "modernism" is not a proper noun and should only be capitalized when used at the beginning of the sentence. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• "modernism" wasn't used in the prose, so I assumed you meant "modernist". I've fixed both instances where this was relevant.
• I've also moved the full, official name of the site to a footnote per Reywas' suggestion below. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Bgsu98: forgot to ping. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Comments and image review

• should the "id" in "UNESCO id" be capitalized?
  • Fixed -MPGuy2824 (talk)
• is the Hiroshi Watanabe in the article, one of those on the disambiguation?
  • Among the ones in that disambiguation page, only the photographer seemed likely, but the photographer's official site does not list this book. -MPGuy2824 (talk)
• The location map for the world looks pretty silly, can you make it "excluding those in europe" and remove the ones for france?
  • I've excluded only the French sites from world map as not all the European sites show up in the France-centered map. -MPGuy2824 (talk)
• a link to List of World Heritage Sites in France should be worked in, in the prose or in the see also section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EasternShah (talk • contribs) 16:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I've added this in the see-also section for now, but if someone can think of an organic way to work it into the lead without interrupting the flow, I'm ok with that too. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

Replied inline. Am not pinging you since this was just a drive-by. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• I would also link World Heritage Committee
• I think you did not include a picture for the first site because it is technically multiple. in world heritage sites lists, for sites that comprise multiple sub-sites, we still have images. So, I would still include one, the one on the infobox of Villa La Roche looks good.
  • In case you decide to include that, File:Villa La Roche 2013.jpg CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:Cors04.jpg CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Cité Frugès, Pessac 08.jpg CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Antwerp Corbusier Maison Guiette 01.jpg CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Weissenhof Corbusier 03 cropped2.jpg CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:VillaSavoye.jpg CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Geneve immeuble Clarte 2011-08-02 13 55 36 PICT3664.JPG CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Immeuble molitor 00.JPG CC BY 2.5
• File:La Cité Radieuse 01.jpg CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Curutchet.jpg CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:RonchampsBruxelles.jpg CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Cabanon Le Corbusier.jpg PD
• File:Palace of Assembly Chandigarh 2006.jpg CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:Sainte Marie de La Tourette 2007.jpg CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:National museum of western art05s3200.jpg CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Maison de la culture à Firminy-Vert.jpg CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:World location map (equirectangular 180).svg CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:France relief location map.jpg multiple, okay
• Alts good MOS:ALTMAP for the two maps
• Europe, Japan and India, as well as North and South America I am pretty sure he designed in other places too. For example, List of Le Corbusier buildings, without sources, also includes algeria, iraq and morocco. If these are sourceable, these should also be mentioned in this location, although at that point I think "globally may suffice"

I signed it this time! Pass image review Sahib-e-Qiran 05:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• To take one example, the algiers one seems sourceable. I've switched the wording to "designed buildings all over the world".
• I've added the image. Please see if the alt-text can be improved.
• Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  the alt-texts are all fine Sahib-e-Qiran 17:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• The sortability of the location column doesn't work (should be keyed to sort by country first).
  • Made sense, done. -MPGuy2824 (talk)
• The interactive map in the infobox is just a single pin for Villa Le Lac, should be fixed to have all of them. Perhaps add the template that creates a map of all coordinates on the page.
  • This has been bugging me too. The infobox adds the map by default, taking the single set of coordinates that is mentioned for this page in Wikidata. I asked if it is ok to add a param to the template to hide the default map. There are already two maps for all the sites at the end of the list though, which is why once the template changes go through, I think it is better to hide the map and will replace it with Corbusier's photo. -MPGuy2824 (talk)
• The first sentence is redundant – there's no need to give both a short name and full name that duplicates the main title (and we already know the short name from the article title).
  • I've moved the full, official name to an extended foot note. -MPGuy2824 (talk)
• Why not say seven countries instead of "several" in the first sentence? ✓
• "His career spanned five decades, in which he designed buildings all over the world" would read better as "He designed buildings all over the world over a five decade-long career" or similar. Not sure that's really an important fact to include anyway, most peoples' careers last four or five decades, so I suggest rewriting. ✓
• "acquired French nationality by naturalisation" is redundant, an acquisition of nationality is by definition naturalisation ✓
• Was there any relevant news coverage about the WHS inscription in 2016? Or anything since? As an FL this should be an article about the World Heritage Site as whole, not merely a list of sites that are part of it – it lacks any further description, discussion, or reception. The UNESCO page has a lengthy description that inludes things like protection of sites and why these ones were selected for the set, so that can be a start.

Reywas92^Talk 04:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll wait for a couple of days to receive feedback on my template change proposal and will work on your last point during that time. Will ping you here when I think all your points have been taken care of. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• UNESCO criteria in the infobox should be listed as i, ii, vi rather than (i)(ii)(vi) for consistency with other articles (all/most WHS FLs, examples at Template:Infobox World Heritage Site, etc.)
• Consider adding the plainrowheaders parameter to the table. A lot of WHS FLs do this though it's just a matter of preference.

I would've left a full prose review if I noticed the nomination earlier though there's enough now and I don't see any major issues that haven't been pointed out. Good job! Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 08:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Both these suggestions match Tone's country lists (e.g. List of World Heritage Sites in Tanzania), so I've implemented them. Thanks for the comments. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

List of Black Lightning episodes

Nominator(s): Olliefant (she/her) 20:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I've had this on the bench for a bit, I feel its pretty good. This is a renomination, the first nomination was a mistake as I nominated two lists before getting two supports on one. Also to deal with the backlog, I pledge that for every review on this nomination; I will review two others (or at the very least support) with preference for older ones, if you wish for me to look at a specific list I will do so. Olliefant (she/her) 20:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• I can see that you already addressed the issues I raised at the first nom, the only other thing I noticed (which I apparently didn't pick up first time round) was this:
  • "At the end of the third season, Gupton was written out, he later claimed it was not his decision to depart the series" - comma should be a semi-colon
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: done Olliefant (she/her) 16:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Since the caption for the tables in sr-only, there is no need for italics.
• The table in the ratings section is missing its caption. You might have to request some changes to the template to fix this one.
• "For the first season, see [1]" -> "First season[1]" or "Season 1[1]"
• (please mention me on reply) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  There is no caption parameter, but I'm pretty sure the built in "Black Lightning : U.S. viewers per episode (millions)" is the caption, the module describes it as such " -- If there's a title, add it with the viewers caption, else just display the viewers caption by itself". Everything else has been done. Olliefant (she/her) 04:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824: I'm stupid Olliefant (she/her) 09:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  I meant the season tables, but it looks like you figured it out and fixed it. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

• Only 1 image: File:Salim Akil by Gage Skidmore.jpg CC-Attribution-SA 3.0
• Image review: passed.

Support on prose and accessibility too. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Cavan121012

I'll have a look at the sources. I've never done a source review before so if you disagree on something then let me know.

• I'd recommend archiving all sources (by my count 61/84 sources are archived), but I don't see it as a requirement in WP:FLCR so it won't stop me from supporting it if the other concerns are addressed.
• Ref 3 doesn't have a publication date
• Checks of sources
  • Checked all references in lead section, all good there
  • Spot-checked references in the tables (Refs 24, 29, 33, 39, 45, 50, 56, 61, 67, 75, 78, 83), all good
  • Checked all four references for ratings graph, found nothing
  • Just a note that Season 3 Episode 6 has a different rating on each source (Refs 53 and 59), 0.602 on one and 0.62 on the other. Probably a minor typo from one of the sources and I'm happy enough just thought it was worth noting
• Dates are consistent
• Linking is consistent

Non-source related comment

• I see the display title template is included twice at the top of the article

Very few issues, some excellent work. Ping me when done. Cavan121012 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cavan121012: I qued it for a run through IA bot, from what I can tell the non archived sources are ones that are archive protected and have opted out of being included on archive.org. The other issues have been addressed Olliefant (she/her) 16:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

That's alright I've had that issue before myself. For some reason the IA bot added a second display title template again but I have gone ahead and removed it myself. Happy enough to Support in that case. Cavan121012 (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

List of dipodids

Nominator(s): PresN 22:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey y'all, mammal list #68 in our perpetual series and rodent list #13: Dipodidae. This is our first list in the Myomorpha suborder, aka "things shaped like mice", which includes about 80% of all rodents and over 1800 species, far more than any non-rodent order. This is our final suborder, but we're going to be in here for 11 lists, so strap in. The dipodids are the jerboas, and have giant feet and legs for jumping around- they're kangaroo rats with big ears, basically, except for the pygmy dipodids which are fluffballs with big fat tails. There's 33 species of these guys, mostly bouncing around African and Eurasian deserts and shrublands. As always, the list reflects the scientific consensus as well as the results of prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support - nothing from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• "but no species are categorized " -> "but none of the species are categorized " avoid some repetition.

• Done

• Larvae - Does this mean other kinds of larvae in addition to insect ones? If not, then leave this out where insects are already mentioned. If this isn't clear in the source material, then leave it as it is.

• Left as-is, the source in both cases does not specify.

• I didn't see any other problems with prose or accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• @MPGuy2824: Done, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Support on prose and accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98 (1/29/26)

• You might consider wikilinking arachnids at its first use. How are arachnids different than spiders?

@PresN: That's it. I'll go ahead and support since my only comment is a suggestion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• Done; usually when sources say arachnids it's because the animal also eats scorpions, not just spiders. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

List of Billboard Hot 100 number ones of 1964

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Here's my second nomination of a Hot 100 number ones list. I decided to randomly jump forward a few years because I knew this would be an interesting year to write about. Around Thanksgiving of 1963, not many people in America had heard of the Beatles. Just over a year later, they'd had six number ones and the whole country had lost its mind over them (and to a lesser extent British pop music in general). As ever, comments will be most gratefully received and acted upon as soon as possible -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 23 January

Olliefant

• Linking is consistent
• Dates are consistent
• Spot checks found nothing

Non source review notes

• "The Animals", "The Supremes", and "The Shangri-Las"

are all linked twice in the last paragraph.

• Optional, but in the image caption I would link "their breakthrough in the United States" to "British Invasion"
• I have to ask, why do you use Template:Ref label for notes instead of Template:EFN? The page for ref label specifcally advises against using it

Ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 19:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Olliefant: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Support Olliefant (she/her) 00:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98 (1/23/26)

Lead

• I Want to Hold Your Hand is wikilinked twice in the second paragraph.
  • Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
• "Vinton and the Supremes were the only other acts with more than one number one in 1964." --> That's going to need a source.
  • It's self-evident from the table so I don't believe it needs a specific source
    • That is true.
• " The Beatles' total of 18 weeks in the top spot during 1964 was more than twice that achieved by any other act." --> There is something a little awkward about the comparative in this sentence ("twice that achieved") that I can't quite put my finger on. Let me think about this one...
  • Changed - any better? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's good; I still can't quite put my finger on what felt wrong about the original wording. For all I know, it was fine and I was just overthinking it.
• "Prior to 1964, there had only been two Hot 100 number ones by British acts." Since you bring it up, you might mention who these two acts are.
  • Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
• Doubly wikilinked are the Animals, the Supremes, and the Shangri-Las.
  • Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Table

• I know you love your rowscopes, so you'll be excited to see you need to add them to this table as well. 😉
  • Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: - thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The rowscopes look good. Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• The "Number-one artists" table is ready for sorting but you haven't made the table sortable. See if you want to.
• Support on prose and accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's any value in that table being sortable so I removed the sort keys. Not really sure why I ever put them on, TBH...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Electoral history of Kamala Harris

Nominator(s): Olliefant (she/her) 17:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Number four in my VPEH series, Harris is definitely one of the Vice Presidents of all time. Easily in the top 49, William A. Wheeler pound sand. I pledge that for every review on this nomination; I will review two others (or at the very least support) with preference for older ones, if you wish for me to look at a specific list I will do so. Olliefant (she/her) 17:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98 (1/22/26)

Lead

• "Vice-Presidential nominee Minnesota Governor Tim Walz" --> I'm not sure about the formatting here?

Gave it a tweak

2003

• I would expand the wikilink to encompass District Attorney of San Francisco. Done
• "Harris finished second to Hallinan, but did received more votes than Bill Fazio" Done
• "...while he noted that Harris exceeded the voluntary spending cap she had promised to stay under" --> this reads a little awkwardly, but I'm not sure how I would fix it?

Took a stab

• "Nonpartisan" is repeatedly wikilinked on these tables. I'm also not sure you need the Party column since there's no party. Done

2010

• The wiki article for Attorney General of California shows it as lower-case (despite the title being capitalized). Done
• Again, repeated wikilinking of "Democratic" and really no need for the column since it's the Democratic primary and all of the candidates were Democrats.
• Recommend wikilinking "pension" since that's not a very common term. Done
• I believe "Election Day" is a proper noun. Done
• "She became the first woman to serve in the role, a feat she would later repeat with her election to the vice presidency." --> I would slightly rephrase the first half of that sentence and then remove the second half, since that had nothing to do with the Attorney General election. Done

2014

• "where the top two candidates advanced to the general election for most non-presidential elections, including Attorney General" --> The conditional is not required as this is not hypothetical. Done

Primary

• "announced she would not seek a fifth term in the Senate" --> The progressive tense is not called for. Done
• "Harris announced she planned to run to replace her" --> Recommend something along the lines of "she planned to run for her Senate seat" Done
• "In the primary election, Harris, who received just over 3 million votes, and Representative Loretta Sanchez of California's 46th congressional district (1.4 million votes) advanced to the general election." --> The structure of this sentence is not quite balanced. Perhaps something like "Harris, who received just over 3 million votes, and Representative Loretta Sanchez of California's 46th congressional district, who received 1.4 million votes, advanced to the general election." Done

General election

• "The election was not particularly competitive, with Politico's Will Kane characterized the race as one of the "least-exciting races in California history" --> either "with Politico's Will Kane characterizing" or "; Politico's Will Kane characterized" Done
• "calling a poor implementation of the jungle primary system due to Sanchez and Harris holding similar positions" --> This needs rewritten. Also, what is a jungle primary system?

Done, jungle primary is just another term for open primary, I just wanted to mix up the nouns

• Election Day is a proper noun. Done
• That map caption doesn't need a period. Done

General election

• Again, Election Day Done

Nomination

• "Biden announced that both he and Harris would seek a second term" --> The progressive tense is not called for.
• "In her book, 107 Days, Harris revealed she heavily considered Buttigieg. However, she opted against him due to his sexuality." --> Personally, I would join those two sentences together with a semicolon. Done

General election

• Again, Election Day Done
• You might consider wikilinking "swing states". Done

@Olliefant: Let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments. Also, if you have a free minute and are so inclined, my FAC – Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships/archive2 – has been collecting dust for well over a month… Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Complete, I'd give your list a look but I don't feel qualified to review FACs. But I'd take a look at any lists you might have Olliefant (she/her) 03:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Support. My Swiss Figure Skating Championships is a few lists down from here. ↓ Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Olliefant: - you seem to have nominated two lists within four minutes. The rubric at the top of the page says "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." and the first one (unsurprisingly) hadn't received any comments when the second one was opened.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I forgot that was the requirement. I'll withdraw the other Olliefant (she/her) 16:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: it has now been archived Olliefant (she/her) 04:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Olliefant: - no worries. I'll take a look at this one over the weekend and will be happy to look at the other one again as and when it makes its way back here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "She was reelected" - can I confirm that it's normal to write "reelected" without a hyphen in US English? It looks really weird to me, as here in the UK we write it with a hyphen, but maybe it's standard in the US.....?
  • It's usually not hyphenated, though both are used
• "and Ohio Senator JD Vance." - earlier, "senator" was written with a lower case S
  • When used as a title its uppercase MOS:JOBTITLE
• "the two-term incumbent District Attorney of San Fransico of San Francisco" - stray extra words Done
• "she stated she would give herself a spending cap" => "she stated that she would give herself a spending cap" Done
• "400 thousand dollars of taxpayer money" - wht not just $400,000? Done
• "claimed he won the election" => "claimed he had won the election" Done
• " A total of 29 major candidates entered the primaries; the largest field of presidential candidates for any American political party since 1972" - semi-colon should be a comma Done
• "faced the Republican ticket of Trump and Ohio Senator JD Vance." - same comment as earlier
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Senator should be capitalized if it’s a title. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: per MOS:JOBTITLE Bgsu98 is correct. All other suggestions have been implemented Olliefant (she/her) 18:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2014 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): Drdpw (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

This article's first (2025) featured list nomination failed due to a lack of support, despite having most of the issues addressed. Now, with additional fine-tuning done on the article, I believe this page satisfies the requirements of a featured list. Also, granting this page FL standing would help the 2014 Atlantic hurricane season overall to become recognized as a good topic. Currently, there are six storm articles, of which four are good articles and two are featured articles. Also, the season article itself is a good article. Your reviews and discussion are invited and appreciated, thanks. Drdpw (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Delegate note: not included on WP:FLC until January 26. --PresN 14:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hurricanehink

Support now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC) The article is decent, but there's a few problems I have.

• "was the strongest hurricane to strike the U.S. mainland since Hurricane Ike in 2008 (with 110 mph (175 km/h) winds)" - can you avoid the parentheses within parentheses?

Y Parentheses removed. Drdpw (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Still a bit clunky - "Arthur, which made landfall near Cape Lookout, North Carolina on July 3, with 100 mph (155 km/h) winds, was the strongest hurricane to strike the U.S. mainland since Hurricane Ike in 2008, with 110 mph (175 km/h) winds." There are too many commas and phrases, and I don't think the Ike landfall wind speed is needed, as it just adds too much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Removed Ike landfall wind speed. Drdpw (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• "It includes information that was not released throughout the season, meaning that data from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as a storm that was not initially warned upon, has been included." - since this part didn't happen, is it needed?

Y Sentence clause removed. Drdpw (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• " Additionally, figures for maximum sustained winds and position estimates are rounded to the nearest 5 units (knots, miles, or kilometers)" - are knots included in the article? Usually they aren't.

Y Mention of knots removed. Drdpw (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• "Tropical Storm Arthur transitions into an extratropical cyclone about 25 mi (40 km) northwest of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and subsequently dissipates" - five days later. Are you not mentioning extratropical dissipation dates in the article?

Y Mention of dissipation enhanced for all systems. Drdpw (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn't the dissipation dates be their own date, since it is a timeline? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

No, these timelines do not have separate event entries for extratropical cyclone dissipations, landfalls, or strengthening/weakening.

Is there a reason that Arthur's dissipation date isn't listed under July 9th, instead of July 5th? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Because it became an extratropical cyclone on July 5. Drdpw (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, so why isn’t there an entry for July 9? The Hanna remnant low/trough shows that there’s some level of detail on the list for not just tropical cyclones. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Trimmed entries for Hanna remnant "zombie" phase, based on treatment of such systems in other TL articles. Drdpw (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's an improvement, not when we now have this phrase - "The remnants of the tropical depression regenerate into a tropical depression". I wasn't opposed to mentioning the low opening up into a trough, I'm just wondering why there isn't also an entry for Arthur's dissipation date, ditto Bertha's dissipation date, and any of the extratropical storms. The lead even says "This timeline documents tropical cyclone formations, strengthening, weakening, landfalls, extratropical transitions, and dissipations during the season." But the dissipations seems more of an afterthought if they occurred after a storm became extratropical? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

"Dissipations" in that sentence refers to tropical cyclone dissipations. I can see how mentioning the dissipation of a system after it becomes extratropical this way can seem like an afterthought. Some FL timelines do not mention them at all. Those where they are mentioned, however, do so in this fashion.

I think extratropical dissipation should also get its own entry, both here and in other timelines. I recognize other timelines might not do that, but I'm reviewing this article. I guess my question is, is there any reason not to do it other than consistency with other timelines? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I added exratropical dissipation for named systems, and made a few other adjustments. Drdpw (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• "Tropical Depression Eight" - it was never called this. Gonzalo was called a TS from the outset operationally.

Y Corrected. Drdpw (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Not yet - "Tropical Depression Eight strengthens into Tropical Storm Gonzalo". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Missed that one, thanks. Drdpw (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• " Tropical Depression Nine" - it was never called this. Do any sources call this portion of Hanna as this? Otherwise it's original research. So is "Remnant Low Nine" and " Remnant trough Nine"

Y Corrected. Drdpw (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Not yet - "Tropical Depression Nine degenerates". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Missed that one, thanks. Drdpw (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

"Tropical Depression Nine intensifies into Tropical Storm Hanna" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Drdpw (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• What's the point of the link to Lists of Atlantic hurricanes in the see also section?

This is a standard "see also" entry in Atlantic season TL articles. Drdpw (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Then I don't think this should be the standard. The link doesn't make any sense in connection with the 2014 AHS. Weather of 2014 would make more sense. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Removed the lists link.Drdpw (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully none of these are too difficult to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Drdpw (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Few more replies. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

One last note that loosely affects the article. There is a merge proposal for Dolly. If the article is merged, then the links to Dolly will have to be updated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Shall do. Drdpw (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• "This season, the first system" -> "In 2014, the first system"

Y sentence modified Drdpw (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• "Hurricane Arthur makes on": "makes landfall" I guess.

Y Fixed missing word Drdpw (talk)!

• "By convention, meteorologists use one time zone when issuing forecasts and making observations: Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), and also use the 24-hour clock (where 00:00 = midnight UTC)" This line is contradicting itself. Please rewrite.

Y Modified sentences Drdpw (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• You can look at a similar, recent FL, e.g. Timeline of the 1995 Pacific hurricane season to get ideas on what has been supported by FL reviewers before.
• "Additionally, figures for maximum sustained winds and position estimates are rounded to the nearest 5 units (miles, or kilometers)," Keep one unit for speed and one for distance in the brackets.

Y Fixed Drdpw (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Add the mdy date format template to the top of the page

Y Done Drdpw (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Run IABot on the list.

Y Analyzed Drdpw (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• "August 1 00:00 UTC (8:00 a.m. AST, July 31)" - 8pm AST

Y Fixed Drdpw (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• "September 22 06:00 UTC (2:00 p.m. AST)" - AM

Y Fixed Drdpw (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• "October 27 00:00 UTC (7:00 p.m. EDT" - 8pm

Y Fixed Drdpw (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Will check the rest tomorrow. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Dylan620

Heck yeah, a timeline nomination! I'm heading out for a morning walk soon, but will begin a review when I get home. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 12:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Source review:

• In the publisher fields, NOAA sub-agencies are handled inconsistently. Some instances are prefixed with 'NOAA' (eg. NOAA Climate Prediction Center in ref 1) while others are not (eg. National Hurricane Center in ref 4). This should be remedied so all sub-agencies are referred to in one way or the other.

Y NOAA removed from citations Drdpw (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Some publishers are wikilinked, while others are not. This should be consistent across all refs—either all linked, all unlinked, or the first use linked.

Y Publishers now linked at first mention only Drdpw (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• In ref 3, the author fields are filled out, but the purported author's name does not appear in the source.

Y Name removed Drdpw (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Ref 5 is a dead link.

Y Replaced citation Drdpw (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Ref 16 is an operational product and should be replaced with another usage of ref 15.

Y Replaced citation Drdpw (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Though not mandatory, I would encourage adding archive URLs for each ref.

Y Will do Drdpw (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

No other concerns. All sources but one are from reputable government agencies or laboratories; the sole exception, The Weather Channel, is a reliable publication (to use the word 'publication' loosely). Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 17:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated, thanks. Drdpw (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support now. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 19:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

List of British monarchs

Nominator(s): JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

This ran into some issues last time at FLC, mainly due to edit warring on the page that then ceased. However, we ran out of time and the nomination kind of fizzled into nothing. I don't think there's much to do and I'm hoping this can run fairly smoothly; we just need the momentum to get comments. This would also complete a FT of British monarchs so it would be quite the achievement! Many thanks in advance, JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

No one seems to be commenting – pinging @Dajasj, @PresN, @Bgsu98, @DrKay, @UpTheOctave! who helped last time. Any comments or just a support if you think no more is needed after the last FLC would be hugely appreciated JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 19:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Dajasj

• Why are the values of the House in bold?
  • Erm good question. MOS:BOLD says it can be used in table headers, and the house names are somewhat headers. They used to be rows but that is not accessible, but they are still headers which group the monarchs together even if they are in a column. Let me know your thoughts but if you think they shouldn't be bold I'll remove it.
• Would it be possible to use {{sfn}} in the Ref column, so the column wouldn't be so wide?
  • Done for ref and house columns
• I think the portrait should also be smaller. It's somewhat annoying that it's too wide, even for my wide screen.
  • Done
• The Acts of Union 1707 link is a bit of an easter egg if you ask me.
  • You may need to be a bit more specific as to what you want me to remove; it has already been trimmed quite a bit so I'm slightly wary of removing more.
• I think the last sentence of the first paragraph is too long, and might be suitable for splitting.
  • Done

That's it for me! Dajasj (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments

• Hmm, they are no longer headers (which would have made them bold automatically), so I see no reason. It highlights a column, while it is not necessary.

• This was already done by DrKay and I am not planning on reverting it.

• I'm not requesting the removal, but would recommend something like: "There have been 13 British monarchs since the Acts of Union 1 May 1707, which created a political union between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland". Otherwise, users don't know what "1 May 1707" refers to and where you'll end up if you click the link (MOS:EASTEREGG).

• I have reworded it to "There have been 13 British monarchs since the political union of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland, which occurred on 1 May 1707 upon the commencement of the Acts of Union."

Fix these two things, and you'll have my support :) Dajasj (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and support JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 11:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• All the portrait images seem to be using slightly different sizes. Please standardize on one size.
  • Standardised at 150px for table portraits and 75px for coats of arms
• "however the Parliament of England refused its official use or him legally becoming the King of a single unified country" -> "however the Parliament of England allowed neither its official use nor him legally becoming the King of a single unified country."
  • Reworded
• I didn't find any other problems with the prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help

Comments from Bgsu98 (1/29/26)

@JacobTheRox: My only involvement in your previous nomination dealt with the layout of the table. I'll examine the table now, and the prose later.

• It seems odd to have only sortable column (House). I would just set the entire table to unsortable.
  • Fixed
• You might consider shrinking the sizes of the portraits and coats of arms in order to help narrow the width of the table. A reader can always click on the image for a more detailed view.
  • Standardised at 150px for table portraits and 75px for coats of arms
• In the Ref. column, I would put a space after each comma. That would also help narrow the width of the table.
  • Columns have been thinned anyway due to replacing rp with sfn.

Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments

Swiss Figure Skating Championships

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I finished this list over the summer at roughly the same time I finished the Norway list that was just promoted. I enjoyed researching this list, because I speak both German and French, and while most of the sources I found were in German, many were in French. None of the sources are behind a paywall, so anyone doing a source review should be able to access them. I have personally verified all of the results, the source citations should be formatted properly, as should the tables. Please let me know if you have any feedback or suggestions, and thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: e-newspaperarchives.ch will not allow for archiving.

Comments

• Blimey, is that fourth photo safe for work LOL

• He's a race car!

• "Swiss Championships have been cancelled only one time since 1931" => "Swiss Championships have been cancelled only once since 1931"

•  Done

• That's all I got - stellar work as ever with these articles! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:: Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Source review

• Linking consistent
• Dates consistent
• Spot checks don't flag anything
• To be on the safe side I'd source Note A, but I won't hold it against you

Source review passed Support Olliefant (she/her) 04:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Note A is already sourced? Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Mmberney

As with the points above, there is very little to critique — it's a well‑constructed article, and the comments below are genuinely minor:

• Introduction — the phrase "medals are awarded … at the senior, junior, and novice levels" may benefit from clarification on age limits for the senior and junior categories, particularly for readers unfamiliar with the topic. The novice level isn't mentioned again in the article — are there no available records for it?

• The novice level is for kids. The decision was made several years ago to not bog down skating articles with details about novice-level events. This prose was left over from the original formatting before I undertook the renovation of all of these articles. I have removed mention of the novice-level, but now I'm going to have to go back and fix all of the articles in this series. 😂

• Introduction — shouldn't the Johner pair be mentioned before the Dubois pair, given that the former have standalone articles?

• They're in alphabetical order; I've never heard of wikilinked names preceding nonwikilinked names.

• Senior medalists image — swap the names of Oxana Vouillamoz and Tom Bouvart so they match their positions left and right. I'd keep Gina Zehnder and Beda Leon Sieber as they are; although his head is on the left, his legs are on the right in that pose.

• It took me a minute to figure out what you meant. The standard with paired teams is to list the woman's name first, but I went ahead switched them here because they are so clearly spaced apart with Bouvart on the left.

• Forgive my ignorance here, do the tables in these types of articles not need to be sortable?

• The template that we use for the paired teams does not allow for sorting by last name, and the user who designed the template could not figure out how build a sort capability (by the woman's last name) into it. Since we can't sort the pairs and dance tables, I went ahead and rendered the men's and women's tables as well.

• MOS:DATERANGE notes that non‑abbreviated years are generally preferred, so I would expand the dates mentioned in the Note under 'Records'. However, given the need for conciseness in the tables, I'd leave those as they are. That's all I can come up with!

• It's my understanding that abbreviated ranges are acceptable on tables, but you are correct that they would need to be printed in full in prose.

@Mmberney: Thank you for taking the time to review my article. I have incorporated some of your suggestions and addressed the others. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Support the promotion to FL status. And I've now learned a bit more about Swiss figure skating in the process. Mmberney (talk)

@Mmberney: Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Crystal Drawers

The article looks to be in good shape. I’ll be doing a prose review later tonight, but ping me if I have not added any by Friday. Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 23:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• "Competitions were held" — The previous sentence uses similar phrasing, could this instance be changed to something else?

•  Done Slightly modified.

• "The Swiss Championships have been cancelled only once since 1931: in 2021, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic" — I’d move "since 1931" to the beginning so the two years aren’t right next to each other

•  Done That's a good suggestion!

• "although not every discipline is held every year due to a lack of participants" — A bit oddly worded, consider something along the lines of "although some disciplines may be excluded when the minimum number of participants is not met."

• It has nothing to do with a minimum number of participants. "Lack of participants" means zero. As you can see from the tables, they will hold an event even with only one entrant.

@Bgsu98: Overall, not a lot of work needed, it seems to be close to FL quality

@Crystal Drawers: Thank you for taking the time to review my article. I also have Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/German Figure Skating Championships/archive1 if you are so inclined to take a look. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Support, I’ll try to get a look at your other nomination if I have a chance. Similarly, I have a FAC for Forget-Me-Now, and any comments you might be able to leave on that would be greatly appreciated Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 11:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Crystal Drawers: I will look at that for you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• There are quite a few cells coloured like "Stéphane Prince". I know you've added footnotes in all those places, but you can consider adding a symbol and a legend in which case the footnotes can be removed.
• Support on prose and accessiblity, since the above is just a suggestion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  I prefer the footnotes. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

List of Billboard Hot 100 number ones of 1959

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

After all those lists of number ones on Billboard's genre charts, I thought I would do some work on the big daddy of US charts, the Hot 100, starting with its first full year of existence. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98 (1/16/26)

Lead

• "Not until 2019 would another Christmas song top the Hot 100,[3] albeit for much of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s holiday-themed songs were excluded from the chart." --> I would use "although" instead of "albeit".
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
• "The Fleetwoods and Frankie Avalon were the only acts to have two number ones in 1959, but neither act topped the Hot 100 again." since it is not a hypothetical
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
• "The latter song won the awards for Best Country & Western Recording and Song of the Year at the same Grammy Awards ceremony (the latter presented to its writer, Jimmy Driftwood)" --> recommend somehow slightly rephrasing this as you have two uses of "latter", the latter of which should be avoided. ;)
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
• "but it would similarly prove to be the only pop number one for Horton, who died in a car accident in 1960." --> recommend also rephrasing the beginning of this to remove the "would", since it is not a hypothetical. Perhaps something like, "it was Horton's only pop number one, because he died..."
  • Done. I didn't used "because he died" as it's perfectly possible for a singer to have a number one after they died -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Chart history

• You have "re" in the first column next to "Mack the Knife" (redux). I assume it's because this is MTK's second appearance. Surely there is a better way to indicate this?
  • This is standard in these lists. I can't personally think of a better way to indicate it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
• The chart needs row scopes.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Number-one artists

• This table is missing both column scopes and row scopes.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments. Also, if you have a free minute, my FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships/archive2) has passed the one month mark. I hate the FAC process compared to FLC. Any assistance you might be able to provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: - thanks for your review. See responses above. I'll endeavour to take a look at your FAC over the weekend -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

User:ChrisTheDude: Has the left column on these tables always been shaded in with that particular color? I don't remember that on previous lists you've submitted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Either way, all issues have been resolved and the tables appear to now to formatted correctly. Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Accessiblity review

• The row-scope cells need to start with a "!". Also if they span multiple rows then the scope needs to be rowgroup. So | scope="row" bgcolor=#EDEAE0 align=center rowspan=2|8 becomes ! scope="rowgroup" style="background:#EDEAE0; text-align:center;" rowspan=2|8
• The text at the beginning of the chart history - maybe you could incorporate that as a footnote
• For the "Number-one artists" table, I would suggest eliminating the position column and making it look like the tables in 76th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards#Nominations and wins by network. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: - done. I am still hopeless with scopes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Chris, since this is the first of a (long) series, it will be used as a template for the rest; so I consider it an apt time to nitpick. The "re" cells are a bit bothersome to me: Sorting on the column doesn't work like I expect and they may not always be unique within their column.

• I think you should switch the header cell of every row to the date column like in the Adult Contemporary FLs.
• For the "re" cells in the "No." column, I'd suggest that you change the sorting value to 20.5 (in this case) so that all weeks when that song placed at #1 will sort together.
• Also, you can replace the "re" with "(20)" like I've seen in a few head of government lists (e.g. Austria). I don't have strong feelings about this suggestion though, so I'll leave it up to you. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: - done (hopefully correctly ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Yup, all good. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

• Support on accessibility and prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  Please take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of constituencies of the Kerala Legislative Assembly/archive1 when you get the chance. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Source review

• Ref 3 should be marked as being subscription only
  • Done!
• Dates are consistent
• Links are consistent
• Spot checks didn't flag anything

Nothing major, however you have reminded me Alvin and the Chipmunks exist, so I am leaning oppose. But reluctantly I'll preemptively Support Olliefant (she/her) 17:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• • Yeah, sorry about that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

2023 Men's T20 World Cup Africa regional final

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

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)

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)

source review

• 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)

Older nominations

List of international kart racing champions

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

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)

Drive-by comment

• 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)

  Did not know this one; done. MB2437 23:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• 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)

@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)

• 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)

  @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)

List of Maldivian presidential candidates

Nominator(s): Unilandofma^Talk 17:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

This is another list of mine that I nomianted to be considered for FL status. This list details every person who had submiited their candidacy as the President of the Maldives from the First Republic to the Second Republic. There are some elections which I couldn't find the number of people voted on and they're marked as "Unknown". Unilandofma^Talk 17:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

TheNuggeteer

Will do a spotcheck. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 11:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Fixed! Unilandofma^Talk 12:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer:Fixed all! Source 12 does show the candidates and their parties in the "Results" section. Political parties were introduced to the Maldives in 2005 so before that all candidates were Independent, so Didi is also an independent. Unilandofma^Talk 09:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• "Presidential elections in the Maldives have taken place in both the First and Second Republic." Kindly source this.
• "The only contender" the source does not state this.
• "second-most competitively contested" you could change this to "second-most contested"

I am really sorry I did not edit my review. I will continue reviewing:

• "as of January 2026" the source is from 2013, I believe this is original research.
• Source 12 does not show the candidates and their parties.
• Source 13 does not mention the PPM.
• "disappearing ink being used, this" not related to sources, but use a semicolon.
• "Meanwhile the" also not related to sources but use a comma after meanwhile.
• Source 17 does not mention Muizzu's political party.
• Source 3 does not mention Didi's party.
• Source 27 says Mohamed Waheed Hassan was independent.
• Both sources do not cite the running mates for the two candidates in 2018.
• Candidates 5, 6, 7, and 8's running mates in the 2023 elections are not sourced by any of the citations.

@Unilandofma: I have finished the source review. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 13:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer: I've fixed all of the references. Unilandofma^Talk 15:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I have double checked everything you fixed and all issues are resolved. I will support this nomination. Good job! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 23:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• There are four consecutive paragraphs which start with "The [year] election served as". This is very repetitive, can you find a way to vary the language a bit? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

  I changed it up a bit! Unilandofma^Talk 17:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

  They still all start with "The [year] election" - can you change the way the paragraphs are worded even more.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

  I changed up the wording even more. Unilandofma^Talk 07:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Mb2437

• MOS:THISISALIST: the opening sentence needs re-writing. MB2437 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
• Under the 1968 Constitution, the People's Majlis chooses a single presidential nominee from a list of candidates and a national referendum is held. The nominee is either approved or rejected for a five year term. Is the tense correct here i.e. chooses and is? It later discusses the 2008 constitution. MB2437 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
• The President is elected by a direct popular vote and introduced a two-term limit. The president introduced a two-term limit, or the constitution? Also MOS:JOBTITLE, "President" should not be capitalised. MB2437 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
• 6 people, 2 people, 8 people: MOS:NUMERALS. MB2437 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
• The 2013 election was the first and only presidential election to be annulled by the Supreme Court of the Maldives. Should probably clarify it is the only election to this date to be annulled—elections are still held. MB2437 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
• I would probably link the dead people comment to Electoral fraud#Dead people voting, as it sounds odd without knowledge of electoral fraud methods. MB2437 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
• Acronyms would make the lead more concise. Repetition of "Maldivian Democratic Party" and "Progressive Party of Maldives" after the first mention becomes tiresome. MB2437 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
• President Yameen called the election rigged due to disappearing ink which the Supreme Court of the Maldives rejected his claims. This needs rewriting. MB2437 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
• Mohamed Muizzu of the People's National Congress and Ibrahim Mohamed Solih of the Maldivian Democratic Party, ran against eachother. Mohamed Muizzu emerged as the winner of the election and defeated incumbent Ibrahim Mohamed Solih. A lot of repetition here, this can be trimmed. MB2437 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
• List is comprehensive. MB2437 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
• With regards to structure, the table may benefit from being sortable. MB2437 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
• All good on style and stability. MB2437 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Mb2437: Fixed all! Unilandofma^Talk 06:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

  I did some minor copyediting to reduce repetition in the lead section and introduce more appropriate paragraph lengths. MB2437 14:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• There has been many people who ran in the presidential elections in the Maldives since the first election in 1952. I would specify how many there have been. MB2437 13:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• I do have concerns about this article meeting criterion 3 given the five "Unknown" entries, which presumably are known just not immediately available. I have doubts these numbers are just lost in history. MB2437 14:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Mb2437: I've fixed it! I also do believe the vote numbers could be out there somewhere and I heavily doubt the numbers are lost. Unilandofma^Talk 16:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  Support on prose and formatting, although I still have a question mark over the missing vote counts. MB2437 21:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

ES

• "both the First and Second Republic." I think republics should be plural. If it is plural then i am not sure if it should be capitalized, leaning towards no
• "happened during the First Republic of the Maldives in 1952."→"happened in 1952, during the First Republic of the Maldives." more clear
• Otherwise, prose is understandable and good
• If you look at Gayoom and Nasir's rows then you can see that the independent is split up, I think this is unnecessary
• Standardize where you put page numbers, sometimes it is inside the caption sometimes it is next to it.
• I agree with MB2437 (who you should ping since you've resolved his requests, reviewers usually do not watch pages. so they do not see when nominators fulfill their requests without a ping) that the five unknown entries are probably known
  • you could contact a library, or archive perhaps. I don't think it is a super big issue but yeah

@Easternsahara: I've fixed it! I think the page numbers should be the same as It's only in the caption if that reference is only used once while if that reference is used more than once and if it has different page numbers then I put it next to it. I've seen other articles follow the same style although I can't necessarily remember which. I also contacted the National Library of Maldives as well as the National Archives and I'm awaiting for a reply from each of them. Unilandofma^Talk 05:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright thanks, I'll support on prose and the format of the references. User:Easternsahara 05:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• "There have been sixteen people who ran in the presidential elections in the Maldives since the first election in 1952" => "Sixteen people have run in the presidential elections in the Maldives since the first election in 1952"
• "The nominee is either approved or rejected for a five year term" - this is present tense, but surely it should be past tense like the previous sentence
• Also, "five-year term" should be hyphenated
• "The least contested election" => "The least-contested election"
• "due to the use of disappearing ink being used" => "due to the use of disappearing ink"
• Supreme Court of the Maldives is linked twice in the lead
• "Meanwhile, the most-contested election was the 2023 election" => "The most-contested election was the 2023 election"
• " where the two leading candidates" => " in which the two leading candidates"
• "Votes annulled by the Supreme Court and they later dropped out" - as this only seems to refer to one person, it should be "he" not "they"
• Also that note should not have a full stop as it is not a sentence -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Fixed all! Unilandofma^Talk 04:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Source review

This is done by Easternsahara, I split the header because it was after my initial review. Please consider reviewing any of the World Heritage Sites nominations right now, either mine or Tone's User:Easternsahara 01:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Easternsahara: Added the link to Psychology Press, added scope, and fixed the ref layout. I kept the 2008 election the same as it only requires two sources while the others were way more. Let me know if you need me to make any more additional changes! Unilandofma^Talk 07:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this is fine, but it does make the reference column empty most of the time. EasternShah (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@EasternShah: I'm open to any recommendations! Unilandofma^Talk 08:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• I think that this is a data table, so it should follow MOS:DTAB, could you add "!scope=row" on the candidates' names?
• The current ref layout is imprecise, and it suffers from WP:REFBOMB
  • To fix this, could you add the refs to the result section? ie. ref 21 only verifies the 1978 for Gayoom, so you put that there
  • For the ones with multiple candidates, you can just repeat the citation if one verifies multiple candidates
• I will randomly check 10 citations, I will WP:AGF for the citations in Divehi, as I can not read it
• Are "Maldivian Government Gazette" and "Gazette of the Maldivian Government" the same publication? If so, please use the same name for them
• link "Psychology Press" it redirects to Taylor and francis
• I will continue soon
• pass source 1, 4, 19, 26, 28
• hate to be pedantic but source 8 only verifies that 6 people different people ran, not that those people were from different political parties
• first and third use of 12 is okay, but what section am I supposed to click on for the second use? could this be specified in the reference title? there's a policy somewhere, i forget what it is called but basically you can put the title of the web page, an en dash, and then the title of the section.

You have been resolving the problems I have raised quite diligently, I will be happy to support after you resolve the references issues. Looking forward to reviewing more Maldives-related lists in the future! Sahib-e-Qiran 04:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@EasternShah I've fixed it and thanks! Unilandofma^Talk 05:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Pass source review, thanks for your quick reply. Sahib-e-Qiran 05:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• 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. When such a cell spans multiple rows then use !scope=rowgroup.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear.
• All the images in the table seem to have different sizes. Standardize them, ideally with a round figure in pixels (e.g. 100px or 125px).
• You can consider using the {{Party name with color}} template which gives the color and the short form of the name
• There are 2 spans within the table code that are set to display=none. They don't seem to be necessary, so remove them.

(please mention me on reply) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: I've fixed everything you mentioned. As for the Party name with color template, I added them to the table but since that template doesn't abbreviate Independent to IND, I've left that part as is. Unilandofma^Talk 06:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• that template doesn't abbreviate Independent to IND There was a way to do that, which I've implemented.
• You haven't standardised the image sizes, but that is not a requirement.
• Support on prose and accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Seems like I've forgot to standardise the image sizes, I've now done that. Unilandofma^Talk 03:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Timeline of the 1996 Pacific hurricane season

Nominator(s): FrizzBTalk 15:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC) Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 19:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list includes all formations of tropical cyclones as well as the strengthening, weakening, landfalls, extratropical transitions, and dissipations during the 1996 Pacific hurricane season FrizzBTalk 15:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm co-signing this, having been invited to do so by the nominator and having contributed a substantial amount to the timeline being nominated. The 1996 season was marked by a contradiction: activity was near record-low, but of the systems that did form, an unusually large portion affected land. Five of the season's nine nameable storms made landfall in Mexico, one of which, Hurricane Alma, killed 20 people. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 19:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, this was a failure of due diligence on both our parts. File:1996 Pacific hurricane season summary.jpg is missing the entire Central Pacific, and with it the tracks of both One-C and Seventeen-W. I am going to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones for assistance in rectifying this. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 22:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

TheNuggeteer

I will perform a spotcheck tomorrow. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 13:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Source 1, when I checked, does not say the season ends in November 30 for Central Pacific.
  •  DoneGiftedIceCream 15:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
• "major hurricanes was half of the" -> "major hurricanes were half the average"
  •  DoneGiftedIceCream 16:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
• Tropical Depression Twelve-E does not seem to be in the source.
  • @TheNuggeteer what do you mean?GiftedIceCream 16:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
• "which was responsible for 20 deaths" please cite this, as this is not mentioned in the timeline.
  •  DoneGiftedIceCream 16:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
• "which left behind damage amounting to around $800,000 (1996 USD)" same with this.
  •  DoneGiftedIceCream 16:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
• "Hurricane Douglas was the strongest storm of the season," same with this.
  •  DoneGiftedIceCream 16:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
• "Prior to 2015, two time zones were utilized in the Eastern Pacific basin: Pacific east of 140°W, and Hawaii−Aleutian from 140°W to the International Date Line" source says Hawaii is used for Central Pacific, not East. And also, the source does not mention the latitudes, it would be better to say Central or Eastern.
  •  DoneGiftedIceCream 15:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
• I could not access source 7 without the archive. Change it to a dead link.
  •  DoneGiftedIceCream 15:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
• depression, operationally designated" you could cut "operationally"
  •  DoneGiftedIceCream 15:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
• Source 8 says 800 miles, not 850.
  •  DoneGiftedIceCream 15:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
• "strengthens into an unnamed tropical storm" it is best to omit "unnamed"; if it were named, you would have just put the name already.
  •  DoneGiftedIceCream 15:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
• The source says Boris did not originate from a low-pressure area, but a tropical wave.
  •  DoneGiftedIceCream 15:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
• "making it the first major hurricane of the season" this is not mentioned in the source.
  •  DoneGiftedIceCream 15:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
• "making it the second and final major hurricane of the season" this is also not mentioned.
  •  DoneGiftedIceCream 15:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
• Genevieve did not form from an area of unsettled weather, but instead from a "tropical disturbance".
  •  DoneGiftedIceCream 15:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@GiftedIceCream and Dylan620: I have finished the review. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 00:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer I have done all of the changes other than the TD12E one. GiftedIceCream 15:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I have done some fixes. I will support this nomination now. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 21:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Drdpw

• A couple days ago, I made a couple edits tweaking/refining wording plus other adjustments (trimmed uneeded template fields, removed a couple track maps as an image of the system was also included), and voice support for this FL nomination. Drdpw (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• May 16 - "The unnamed tropical depression" Would the old designation of "Tropical Depression One-E" not apply again?
• July 29 - Tropical Storm Douglas strengthens into a Category 1 hurricane southwest of the Mexico–Guatemala border. Distance from that reference point is missing. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Both of these should now be taken care of, MPGuy2824. I referred to the 2020 EPAC timeline, an FL with a system that had a similar situation (Seven-E that year was retroactively upgraded to a tropical storm), and added a footnote about the upgrade. As for the second point, I added a distance based on using 14.5311°N 92.2283°W / 14.5311; -92.2283 as a breakpoint, since that's where the border meets the Pacific Ocean. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 22:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support on prose.
• A lot of the images need alt-text. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Alt texts added. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 20:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Olliefant

• Spot checks found nothing
• Linking is consistent
• Dates are mostly consistent
• Ref 2 is missing the access date
• Ref 4 is missing the access date
• Ref 7 should be marked as being in Spanish
• Ref 7 uses slash dates while everything else uses MDY
• Ref 16 has an MOS:DASH error

That's what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 23:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Olliefant Done. GiftedIceCream 01:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Done Olliefant (she/her) 03:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

List of Chaplain Corps Medal of Honor recipients

Nominator(s): ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I am nominating this as my first featured list because:

• I believe this list to meet the criteria, namely: having good prose, a complete and engaging lead, comprehensive and well-sourced coverage, and good structure and style.
• It seems that it is more appropriate to nominate it for Featured List than Good Article.

Thank you. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "As of February 2025, there have been 3,536 Medals of Honor awarded" - Feb 25 was nearly a year ago, do we have any more up to date numbers?
• "among the recipients are nine chaplains of the Army and Navy Chaplain Corps." - if these are separate, should the Navy one not also be mentioned at the start along with the Army one?
• "All five chaplains awarded the honor since the Civil War have been Catholic priests;" - this sentence seems to end with a semi-colon
• In some cases in the table, the battle is linked in both the place of action column and the notes but in others it is only linked in the former. Apply linking consistently
• The notes against Haney and Whitehead do not need full stops per MOS:CAPFRAG
• No need for the "see also" as it was already covered in the lead
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Updated to May 2025. No Medals of Honor have been awarded since then that I can tell.
  • The initial sentence is more about establishing the chaplain corps in general than the specific branch corps; I'm open to reworking it, thought.
  • I am guilty of loving semi-colons. Changed.
  • Changed.
  • Fixed.
  • Removed.
  • Thank you! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Cowboygilbert

Not a review but I have been teaching people that {{Legend table}} exists for a more eye-appealing option for using a key on articles. It's not required but it does help it being its own spot instead of it just being a template and plain text. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Review

Image Review

• All images are public domain.
• All images need alt text.

Table Review

• Please use table captions.
• Please use row scopes per MOS:HEADERS.
• Please use column scopes per MOS:HEADERS.
• Please add Chaplain assistants' religons.

Prose

• "Bugler to E company of the 14th Infantry Regiment." -> "Bugler to E Company of the 14th Infantry Regiment." Company should be capitalized.
• Why is it "Union army" but "United States Army" and "United States Navy"?

Other

• Please archive all online sources, although this is not needed just useful.
• Many sources are missing publication/source dates.
• Please ping when completed. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 02:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

  • Table captions added.
  • Row and column scopes added.
  • Chaplain assistant religion added.
  • Company capitalization changed.
  • The article title is Union army per Talk:Union army#Requested move 21 October 2024; open to changing for consistency if that's what's desired.
  • Sources archived.
  • I've gone through each source and added a date where possible. Several, such as from the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, do not list an original publication date.
  • @History6042: ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

    Image alt text added. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 05:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

    Support, all of my comments were addressed. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 17:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Source review (HurricaneZeta)

As of this revision:

• 1 -  Pass. My suggestion is to add the exact page number, which is 106, to make it easier to find within the book.
• 2 -  Pass, it's an acceptable usage of a primary source.
• 3 -  Pass
• 4 -  Pass, confirms what is stated in the article within the first sentence and is dated to the same "as of" date in the article.
• 5:
  • 5a -  Pass, as it clearly states that 9 chaplains have been awarded it and lists them. However, I'd like to see something more leaning towards or emphasizing the fact that these are the only chaplains to be awarded this, since it isn't immediately clear when I'm reading it. Feel free to ignore this though, this is really just a nitpick.
  • 5b - This doesn't actually explicitly say "Salem Church". However source 15 does, and it can be replaced here with that.
  • 5c -  Pass
  • 5d -  Pass. However, the sentence right before the ref is missing a period at the end.
  • 5e -  Pass
  • 5f -  Pass. Same thing as 5d, it's missing a period at the end.
• 6 -  Pass
• 7:
  • 7a -  Pass
  • 7b -  Pass
  • 7c - Typo, the article says April 11, 2023, (when Obama wasn't president) when the source says April 11, 2013. The source doesn't specifically mention Obama, so the phrasing could be changed a bit to remove the mention of him.
• 8 -  Pass
• 9 -  Pass
• 10 -  Pass
• 11:
  • 11a -  Pass
  • 11b -  Pass
• 12 -  Pass
• 13 -  Pass
• 14 -  Pass
• 15 -  Pass and my suggestion to replace 5b.
• 16 -  Pass, also works to replace 5b.
• 17 -  Pass
• 18 -  Pass
• 19 -  Pass
• 20 -  Pass
• 21 -  Pass
• 22 -  Pass
• 23 -  Pass
• 24 -  Pass
• 25 -  Pass
• 26 -  Pass
• 27 -  Pass

Overall, most sources are reliable and affirm what is in the sources. The notes and the prose were engaging and an image review has been done above. I'll support when the few concerns are addressed here Darth Stabro. HurricaneZeta^C 23:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@HurricaneZeta: All suggestions taken, except: ChrisTheDude recommended to me that those sentences not have periods at the end per MOS:CAPFRAG: Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments, which should not end with a period or full stop, though I could see that only applying to standalone image captions and not table image captions; please advise. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine, I'm not too familiar with MOS:CAPTION. Support gladly! HurricaneZeta^C 16:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Michael Aurel

• Military chaplaincy in the United States traces its origins back to the American Revolutionary War, being formally established on July 29, 1775, just two weeks after the formal establishment of the Continental Army. – If possible, I'd try to avoid repeating the phrase "formal/formally established/establishment".
• July 29, 1775, just two weeks after the formal establishment of the Continental Army. – I'm not sure "just" adds anything here.
• and is awarded to recognize American military servicemembers – The OED appears to give this as two separate words: "service members". Cf. also these Ngrams.
• Created during the American Civil War, the Medal of Honor is the United States Armed Forces' highest military decoration – I'd consider adding some dates to "American Civil War". It's common knowledge in the US I imagine, and in most other English-speaking countries, but might not be for readers from further abroad.
• the United States Armed Forces' highest military decoration and is awarded to recognize American military servicemembers who have distinguished themselves in combat situations by acts of valor. – I think this could be tightened just a little: how about something like "highest military decoration, awarded to service members ..."? I think "American" and "military" are already implied, and I think "recognition" is part and parcel of being an award.
• As of May 2025, there have been 3,536 Medals of Honor awarded; – It might be possible to avoid repeating "Medals of Honor" here. Perhaps "As of May 2025, it has been awarded 3,536 times"?
• This mightn't be an issue, but have any been awarded since May 2025? I only ask because 3536 is a fairly large number, and would seem to imply that a dozen or so are handed out each year.
• among the recipients are nine chaplains of the Army and Navy Chaplain Corps. – Pretty minor, but I assume all members of the Army and Navy Chaplain Corps are chaplains, and there's a lot of "chaplain"ing happening here. Perhaps something like "nine recipients are members of the ...".
• One Army chaplain assistant has also received the award. – As this sentence is fairly short, I'd try combining it with the previous one.
• Francis B. Hall of the 16th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment was the first chaplain to be awarded the Medal of Honor, – "to receive"?
• for actions at the Battle of Salem Church. – I would give some dates, and perhaps a very brief explanation. I'm assuming this was part of the American Civil War?
• Four of the chaplains served in the Union army during the American Civil War, – As this is a new paragraph, I would specify "the chaplains who received the award" (technically "the chaplains" isn't referring back to anything here).
• during the American Civil War, – Linked above
• one served in the US Navy during World War II, – Similarly to above, I don't think "US" needs specifying here.
• Four of the chaplains served in the Union army during the American Civil War, one served in the US Navy during World War II, one served in the Army in the Korean War, and the remaining three served in the Vietnam War; – Other than the first one, I think we can get away with omitting all instances of "served" here.
• three served in the Vietnam War; two for the Army, and one for the Navy. – A semicolon should be followed by a full sentence; I think a regular colon would work here. I'd also write "two in the ...", as I think that's a bit more idiomatic.
• All five chaplains awarded the honor since the Civil War have been Catholic priests. Two, Emil Kapaun and Vincent Capodanno, are in the process of canonization as saints. – As these are two closely related and fairly short sentences, I'd try combining them.
• One chaplain, Charles Liteky, returned his Medal of Honor eighteen years after being awarded it, – As above: "receiving it"? Better still: unless the period of eighteen years is particularly important, it might be ideal to say "returned his Medal of Honor, leaving it at the ...", as I don't think anyone's ever returned an award before receiving it.
• the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in an enveloped addressed to Ronald Reagan. – Typo
• Liteky is believed to be the only recipient of the award to renounce it for political reasons. – Perhaps "the only recipient to renounce the award ..."?
• The Four Chaplains' Medal, sometimes called the "Chaplain's Medal of Honor", was created – I'd say when.
• sometimes called the "Chaplain's Medal of Honor", – You'll have to excuse my Australian-English-speaking self if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the punctuation go inside the quotation marks in American English?
• was created for chaplains George L. Fox, Alexander D. Goode, John P. Washington, and Clark V. Poling, – A bit picky, but "chaplain" is used three times in this sentence. I would remove it before the four names, as I think their status as chaplains is probably implied.
• who were nominated for the Medal of Honor but ineligible as they had not made contact with the enemy. – I think "were" is probably needed before "ineligible".
• A lavender color along with the † symbol indicates that the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously – This seems to be a full sentence, so I'd add a full stop.
• Hmm. What's the order of the entries in the table? It seems to be mostly chronological by date of action, but not quite.
• What are the sources for the information in the first six columns? For example, if I want to find a source that describes Hall as Presbyterian, where would I look?
• This one's optional, but I'd consider adding links for the entries in the "Religion" column other than Catholicism, for those of us who can't remember our Presbyterianisms from our Methodisms.
• Carried wounded men to the rear under heavy enemy fire – As I don't think it's likely to have been his allies who were firing at him, I'd omit "enemy".
• Refused pay during his time of service. – I think it's fine for the first part in these entries to be a sentence fragment, but I'd probably switch to full sentences after that. (This applies below as well.) Then again, I'm not a regular at FLC, so let me know if this is standard practice in this sort of article.
• There's nothing wrong with the description of Haney, but it does feel quite short. Do you think it'd be possible to add a little more?
• American chaplains were formally not forbidden from carrying weapons until 1989. (in the note): "not formally forbidden"?
• Only became the regimental chaplain after his award. – I'd write "after receiving his award"
• Carried soldiers from the front lines to safety in the rear several times throughout the Battle of Stones River – Regarding "throughout": we list the "date of action" as the 31st of December, 1862, but the article on the battle seems to suggest it went on until the 2nd of January.
• Served aboard the USS Franklin (CV-13) when attacked by Japanese aircraft. – I'd write "when it was attacked by"
• As someone without any knowledge of ships or guns, "flooded the magazine" confused me at first. (It sounded as though we were about to say he "flooded the magazine with stories of his heroism" or something of the sort!) I'd link Magazine (artillery), and possibly include a brief explanation of what this is.
• The Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA – Comma after "USA"
• Pope Francis declared him "Venerable" in 2025. – Maybe "gave him the title ..."?
• Served with the Marine Corps. – As I don't think it's been mentioned above, you could link United States Marine Corps.
• attempting to minister to a corpsman approximately 15 yards from an enemy machine gun. – I'd include some form of conversion here.
• during the Battle of Dak To, ministering to soldiers and rescuing soldiers – I'd omit the first "soldiers"
• Awarded the Medal of Honor for rescuing 23 wounded men without protective gear during an ambush in 1967. – As I think all of the cells in this column are describing the actions that led to them receiving the award, I'd remove "Awarded the Medal of Honor for".
• Renounced his Medal of Honor in 1986 as an act of protest against American foreign policy – In the lead, we mention Reagan. Unless there's a reason not to, I'd do so here as well and perhaps give a bit of explanation of what in particular he was protesting.
• Bugler to E Company of the 14th Infantry Regiment. – What does "E" mean here? Is it the name of a particular company?
• Provided music for religious services in the unit, and became – I'd remove the comma here.
• Scaled a wall along the eastern side of Peking to lay down suppressing fire on the enemy above. – Hmm. I'm having trouble picturing this: he scaled a wall to "lay down" fire on an enemy who was above him?
• Became an official chaplain assistant in the year they were introduced. – Maybe "in the year the position was introduced"?
• On my screen, the first table is being pushed down a bit by the sidebar, which creates a gap between the "Chaplains" section heading and the table. There might not be anything you can do about that, though.
• The section heading is repeated at the top of each of the tables. I think the table captions can be hidden using "|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}".

This was a pleasant read, and most of these are fairly minor prose points. Looking forward to your responses. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Darth Stabro: Notifying you of this review in case you missed it. --PresN 14:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I did see it but the last two weeks have been extraordinarily busy for me IRL unexpectedly and I haven't been able to spend much time editing. I'll get to it soon! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

List of works by Gu Yanwu

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

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)

Comments

• "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)
• Added.-G

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

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

MPGuy2824

• 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)

  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)

List of World Heritage Sites in Jordan

Nominator(s): Tone 10:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Jordan has 7 WHS, including Petra, and 14 tentative sites. Standard style. The list for Libya is already seeing support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 10:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

ES

If you have any questions, feel free to ask away. It might seem like a lot of changes, but most are really minor (like adding a comma, "the", "a" or "and). Other changes are also pretty minor, like changing tense. Good work, as always.

• Um er-Rasas is spelled "Umm ar-Rasas" on the map, please fix the spelling
  • It also has 2 sites, can you add this to the map?
    • I am going with the Unesco source here, but I made sure that the piped link is correct. And yes, two sites, but very close together so the markers would overlap. Maybe better a single one in this resolution.
• "Umm Al-Jimāl is spelled "Umm el-Jimal" on the map, please fix it
  • Same here. Awkward, though.
• "as far as to"→"as far as"
• "of Roman Empire"→"of the of Roman Empire"
• "system that"→"system, which"
• " Al-Khazneh, or the treasury, is pictured." move this after the citation, it is not covered by that citation and it doesn't need to be, it is a fairly conservative application of WP:SKYBLUE
  • "or the treasury"→"transliterated the treasury" or something similar. "or" is used in these cases but it is confusing+weird in this one
• "monks The"→"monks. The"
• "illustrating several"→"similar to several"
  • I don't think that's what the source says.
• "landforms including"→"landforms, including"
• "different languages of the region"→"various local languages"
• "region and reached"→"region, and reached"
• "communities who"→"communities, who"
• "Merchants and craftsmen from the region settled in As-Salt" specify which region
• "creating a distinct city built with yellow limestone that had European Art Nouveau and Neo-Colonial styles combined with local traditions"→"creating a distinct city, built with yellow limestone, that incorporated European Art Nouveau and Neo-Colonial styles with local traditions"
• "site of Roman"→"site of a Roman"
• "It represents a typical settlement of the agricultural communities of the Hauran region of the period."→"It is a typical settlement of the Hauran region's agricultural communities of that period." If the sources say which period it is (ie. Byzantine, Greek, Later Roman) then you can specify what "that period" is
• "Numerous inscriptions in different languages found on site demonstrate the changing "→"Numerous inscriptions, located on the site, in different languages demonstrate changing"
• "Al Qastal is one of the oldest Umayyad settlements in the region" specifying what "the region" allows the reader to better understand the significance of this statement
• "during the Abbasid period, abandoned, and resettled"→"under Abbasid rule until being abandoned, and was later resettled" period appears 13 times in this article but rules does not appear at all. changing it here varies the prose.
  • However, the exact wording depends on what the sources says. if it means that it was both abandoned and later resettled under the Mamluks then you can rephrase it as "under Abbasid rule, until being both abandoned, and resettled". However, if it means it was abandoned after abbasid rule, then the mamluks came in to resttle it, then you can use the first rephrasing
• "bathhouse, and water reservoirs and cisterns"→"bathhouse, cisterns, and water reservoirs" there is no need to use two "and"s in this case
• "Early Islamic tombstones found and remains of mosaics found"←"Early Islamic tombstones and remains of mosaics found" you don't need to repeat "found"
• "church dating from"→"church, dating from"
• "Byzantine Greek inscription" link "Byzantine Greek" and should inscription be plural? It usually is, but not always which is why I am asking
• "1115 to strengthen the control of the land and to control the desert road."→"1115, to strengthen the control of the land and desert road." which desert road, should specify
• "by Saladin until"→"by Saladin, until"
• "periods, the"→"periods. The"
• "fortresses of the region"→fortresses in the region"
• "square plan with a side of 56 m (184 ft), with towers at the corners"→"square plan, with sides of 56 m (184 ft) and towers at the corners"
• "horses and was"→"horses as it was"
• "settlements and findings"→"settlements, and findings"
• "The remains of a Byzantine basilica are pictured." move citation before this
• "the largest and the most ambitious"→"the largest and most ambitious"
• "representing an important period of early Islamic art" should this be important period or important feature?
• "carvings were sent"→carvings were given away"
• "Wilhelm II and are"→Wilhelm II, and are"
• "of Decapolis"→"of the Decapolis" all 3 instances
• "building that has been at one point converted into a Christian basilica"→"building that was converted into a Christian basilica" the current wording implies that it later became something else later, specify what it became if that was the original meaning
• "century and the ruins were rediscovered in 1806. The UNESCO nomination documentation provides no description.[21][22]"→"century, and the ruins were rediscovered in 1806.[22] The UNESCO nomination documentation provides no description.[21]" the unesco citation should go only after the part where it says the unesco nomination doesn't provide any documentation, with the Britannica entry before the last sentence.
• "mountains and wadis and"→"mountains and wadis, and"
• "sempervirens while"→"sempervirens, while"
• "migratory and resident birds" link resident bird and migratory bird
  • They both link to the same article. Maybe this is an overkill to link.
• "endemic fist Aphaniops sirhani" what does "fist" mean in this context?
• "has essentially dried out by 1993 but then an internationally backed project managed to restore a significant portion of the wetland"→"essentially dried out by 1993, but an internationally backed project restored a significant portion of the wetland"
• "wadis and parts of"→"wadis; parts of"
• "Jordan Rift Valley and"→"Jordan Rift Valley, and"
• "species recorded "→"recorded species"
• "vulture. Mammal"→"vulture; mammal" flows better with a semicolon since they're very related
• "CE which"→"CE, which"
• "The area around Jawa is pictured." move citation before this

User:Easternsahara 01:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• • Done, many thanks! I addressed most of them, some are stylistic choices, in some cases I wrote comments. --Tone 15:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Since ES cannot comment here, I'll check if you've implemented their comments and add some of my own, while trying to avoid things that Chris has already mentioned below.
    • The first sentence of the lead is quite odd to read. I think you should just copy the sentence used in Libya.
    • "Al-Khazneh, or the treasury, is pictured." to "Al-Khazneh (the treasury) is pictured."
    • wikilink "migratory bird" once.
    • "Due to water extraction, the surface water hasd essentially"
    • (please mention me on reply) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

    Support, it is much better now User:Easternsahara 21:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Source review (HurricaneZeta)

As of this revision:

• 1 -  Pass
• 2 -  Pass
• 3:
  • 3a -  Pass
  • 3b - This source can be removed since 3c supports the entire paragraph, making this redundant.
  • 3c - The Tentative List in the source says that there are 15 on the list, not 14. This needs to be updated. Whoops, I was looking at the archive cited in the ref, the more recent capture shows 14. I suggest updating the archive to the most recent capture to avoid confusion.  Pass
  • 3d - Same as above.  Pass
• 4 -  Pass
• 5 -  Pass
• 6 -  Pass
• 7 -  Pass
• 8 -  Pass
• 9 -  Pass
• 10 -  Pass
• 11 -  Pass
• 12 -  Pass
• 13 -  Pass
• 14 -  Pass
• 15 -  Pass. Minor grammar correction, in in 1115, to strengthen the comma is not needed.
• 16 -  Pass
• 17 -  Pass
• 18 -  Pass. most ambitious is in the source, but I think it could be replaced with something more neutral here.
• 19 -  Pass
• 20 -  Pass
• 21 - Swap this around with 22, then  Pass, but is it really needed to say it provides no information?
• 22 - Swap this around with 21, then  Pass
• 23 -  Pass
• 24 -  Pass
• 25 -  Pass
• 26 -  Pass
• 27 -  Pass

Image review (HurricaneZeta)

FoP rules are pretty much irrelevant since these were created so long ago and are in the public domain.

• 1 -  Pass. Derivative work of a free file that is considered valued on Commons.
• 2 -  Pass
• 3 -  Pass. Licensed for CC BY-SA 2.0 on Flickr.
• 4 -  Pass
• 5 -  Pass
• 6 -  Pass
• 7 -  Pass
• 8 -  Pass
• 9 -  Pass
• 10 -  Pass really like this one
• 11 -  Pass
• 12 -  Pass
• 13 -  Pass
• 14 -  Pass
• 15 -  Pass
• 16 -  Pass also like this one
• 17 -  Pass
• 18 -  Pass
• 19 -  Pass nice!

Image review is all good, just the minor stuff in the source review. Support since the concerns are pretty minor, but pinging Tone. HurricaneZeta^C 02:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@HurricaneZeta: Done, thanks! Is there an easy way to update the archive without doing it manually by deleting the archived version and running the script again? But even then sometimes not up-to-date version may get archived, I think.

Tone 08:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tone I think you can just manually replace the archive-url= parameter with [1] and change the archive-date= to 17 December 2025 and access-date= to today. HurricaneZeta^C 16:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• "The remains of a water management system that enabled life in a desert setting, have been preserved as well" - no reason for a comma in the middle of that sentence
  • removed
• "The desert castle of Quseir Amra was built in the early 8th century, and had served both as a fortress" => "The desert castle of Quseir Amra was built in the early 8th century and served both as a fortress"
  • see response at bottom
• "secular scenes inspired by the Byzantine art," => "secular scenes inspired by Byzantine art,"
  • removed
• "A nearby Tell Al-Kharrar" - this reads like we are expected to know what a Tell Al-Kharrar is, but personally I have no idea. Is there an appropriate link?
  • linked, added commas
• "The city Abila was a member" => "The city of Abila was a member"
  • done
• "Gadara was one of the leading members of Decapolis" - in the previous entry it was the Decapolis
  • yes, it should be the
• "Jerash was a member of Decapolis" - same here
  • as above
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey Chris, I responded to your request (Tone asked if I could). I implemented most of them as you requested. However, I kept "desert castle" in the second sentence because that is an important quality and a reason that Jordan nominated the site. User:Easternsahara 17:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to ping User:ChrisTheDude User:Easternsahara 17:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support - TBF I never said there was an issue with "desert castle", my only comment on that one was that the tense of the verb was wrong -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Chinua Achebe bibliography

Nominator(s): Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on it and I believe it deserves to be a FL. Achebe was a proficient Nigerian writer and his works has been studied by scholars and academics. This is a also a good read for people who want to read his works. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

ES

Good work as always, so my comments are only nitpicks

• Please put dmy dates and nigerian english tags
• could there be more citations for "father of modern African literature", i agree with the statement but it seems like a big title to give someone. I would say 2 more high quality sources are okay
• I am not very experienced with writing the lead of articles but i think the second paragraph would work better as a embedded list. Not sure if this is allowed in the lead
• Either redlink "Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History" or link to Oxford Research Encyclopedias
• James Currey should be linked on mention as a publisher in the references
• link Weaver Press, Mkuki na Nyota, Ohio University Press, Wits University Press (only a redirect currently)

Pass image review, there is only 1 (the covers of the books wouldn't qualify for fair use), the alt is good, licensing is good, used appropriately. User:Easternsahara 07:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you for the compliment. I have done following the above corrections including writing the second paragraph as prose; I also don't think embedded list do work in the lede (part).SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

  Support on prose (and images, as aforementioned) good to see that content related to Achebe is being improved. User:Easternsahara 01:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

TheNuggeteer

• Why is this list format different from other featured bibliographies (like most here)? I believe it should be a table.

  It is not a must to have them as table since they are going to be short. In fact, I chose this format and it is acceptable here.

• In my opinion, instead of having an entire section for just one work, you can list it in a Miscellaneous section.

  I am afraid it will "sort of" confuse readers since it's listed singly in the lede, hence having it under a certain section, lets say "Non fiction", then the lede needs to be rewritten, and it won't follow the source (which didn't say nonfiction).

• Another suggestion, but I think, instead of listing the sources grouped up, you should place them after the specific works instead.

  That's a great suggestion but I prefer the former since it wouldn't waste anyone's time. It'sore convenient for me.SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

  The one I suggested does not waste anyone's time since you can easily check and access the source at the end of the specific book instead of grouping them. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 10:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Prose review

• "One of the major influence" -> "One of the major influences"
• "and has been used in school curricula" what are you referring to? His debut novel, or his works entirely?

• If it is his debut novel: "The novel has been used in school curricula"
• If it is his works: "His works have been used in school curricula"

• "been regarded as" -> "been regarded as the"

  done all

Source review

• "Achebe's works have been extensively studied by academics and scholars, and won him several awards. His legacy is celebrated annually during the Chinua Achebe Literary Festival." This is neither neutral nor cited, please cite this and try to make this sentence less biased.
• White 2017 is okay, but there are some issues:

• "Nigerian author Chinua Achebe (1930–2013) wrote fiction, nonfiction, short stories, essays and poems" is not said in the source
• The source does not say Things Fall Apart was published in 1958.

• Fredrick 2013 is okay.
• Parkes 2009 is okay.
• Showalter 2009 is okay.
• I sadly can't access the rest of the books, but I will accept them in good faith.

Due to many issues and some that are hard to tackle, I will oppose this for now. If you fix or reply to these issues, I might shift to support this for promotion. Regards, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 03:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer I have removed the uncited paragraphs as well as removed "published in 1958. If the sources are okay, I think I have answered all your comments then. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I have one current problem. Thank you for resolving all! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 10:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know you as a troublesome person, @TheNuggeteer. You know that's way "sort of" stressful for me now. No problem, I will do as you said. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

done. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm really sorry if you see me as troublesome. I will support this nomination now. Sorry if I was stressing you. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 23:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Kim Seon-ho filmography

Nominator(s): Preferwiki (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Second attempt of me nominating a list for FL! I check all the criteria for Feature List by incorporating feedback from previous one I submitted too. So I hope this one is qualified too.Preferwiki (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• The most obvious thing to pick up is that nothing in the lead is sourced. Some of it is covered by the refs in the tables, but things like "He began his career in theater, making his debut on stage in 2009", "After performing exclusively on stage for eight years, he auditioned for a television role", "Following this, he auditioned for a supporting part in Strongest Deliveryman (2017) but was upgraded to the second male lead", etc need sourcing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Done adding source (citations) to the lead paragraph. Thanks for the feedback @ChrisTheDude Preferwiki (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

• "pre-produced historical series" - what is meant by "pre-produced"?
• tvN only needs to be linked once in the lead
• "action noir film The Childe (2023) by Park Hoon-jung" - does that mean Park was the director? If so, say "directed by..." rather than just "by...."
• "Special appearance, episode 9–16" => "Special appearance, episodes 9–16"
• "Season 4 (Episode 1–95)" -> "Season 4 (Episodes 1–95)"
• "Music video" heading should be "Music videos" as more than one video is listed
• That's what I got on the prose and tables. I have not looked at the refs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  All Done. As for pre-produced it is a format in korean drama. It has a separate category in wikipedia Category:South Korean pre-produced television series. Also refer to this link for further explanation [2].

  Is there an appropriate article to link to......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

  That Variety link doesn't work for me, BTW, don't know if it' because of where I am in the world.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, maybe you can access this one, the archive link of the variety article [[3]]. Preferwiki (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you @ChrisTheDude Preferwiki (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude What do you think if I moved all the sources from the lead to the table instead and create multiple ref for relevant sources in the table? It feels cleaner. Those source s related to Good Manager, Strongest Deliveryman and Two Cops. Preferwiki (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

  I would not suggest that, personally -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the support @ChrisTheDude Preferwiki (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Accessibility review

• Change the !scope=row to the name of the films/TV shows, not to the year. The scope of the article is to the films/TV shows not the year.
• Add an alt to the image under § Television show
• Not accessibility related but sources 3, 8, and 9 are duplicated. Merge them together.

Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert All done. Thanks for the feedback. Preferwiki (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support for accessibility Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Since the unreleased items are all TV series, you can consider moving the key to that section. If you want to future-proof the list then atleast move the key to below the TOC. Should be possible by using the __TOC__ keyword.
• For most people there is no distinction between TV series and TV shows. You can merge those two sections.
• "Can This Love Be Translated?" cell doesn't have the right scope.
• 3-4 of the refs don't have archive links.
• No problems detected in prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824

  • Done moving all the key to unreleased series
  • Not Done merging TV Series and TV Shows, as per konsensus in Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea
  • Done add the right scope for Can This Love Be Translated
  • Done archiving all the links

  Preferwiki (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'm guessing that there is a difference between a TV series and a TV show in Korea. What is it? This might need to be mentioned in the list to avoid surprising readers. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  TV shows is what in western television is refer to as unscripted show. Also they have different term in korean called 예능 (Ye-neung), short for 예술오락 (yesul-orak) (art-entertainment). In South Korean Award show they also always in different category *they even have separate award show for this). Can't we left it as per consensus? What do you think @MPGuy2824 Preferwiki (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not insisting that you merge the two sections. All I'm saying is that you should mention something about it in the lead section. You can incorporate it into the current prose somehow. e.g. "Seon-ho has appeared in 1 film, x tv show (unscripted entertainment), y tv series (scripted entertainment), z radio, ....." If there is a wikilink to explain the difference, then all the better. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback @MPGuy2824. I have made some changes as per your suggestion. Preferwiki (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  The parts in the brackets were the main points of my suggestion, but you left those out. I've added a footnote with your explanation. If you can find a good citation for that, it would be great. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

• Support on prose and accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

2017 NHL expansion draft

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

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)

Quick comment

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

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

Comments

• "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)

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

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

Accessibility review

• 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)

@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)

Comments from Bgsu98

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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

MPGuy2824

• 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)

Source review

• 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)

List of Buffalo Sabres draft picks

Nominator(s): Kline • talk • contribs 21:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Round three of me nominating a list for FL! As you might be able to tell from my userboxes that the Buffalo Sabres are my favorite hockey team, I decided to take a stab at finishing off some of the lists for the Sabres. They have had a wide variety of picks that they have made, ranging from some all-time greats to some... questionable first round picks that busted in quick fashion. Hope you enjoy! Kline • talk • contribs 21:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• "As of 2025, the Sabres have made 521 selections in 55 entry drafts" - I would move this to later in the lead (probably the end of the second paragraph), as it makes little sense to say this and then only afterwards explain what an "entry draft" is....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Would you object to just merging the first and second paragraphs? Obviously would still move it to the end of course, but it seems a better fit that way rather than an oddly short first paragraph. Kline • talk • contribs 21:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  Sounds like a plan! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  Updated, check it out. Kline • talk • contribs 01:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• My only other comment is that maybe "The NHL entry draft is held each off-season" should be expanded to mention the specific month when it takes place, as I for one don't have the faintest idea when in the year the NHL off-season falls -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  Added. Kline • talk • contribs 00:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Source review (HurricaneZeta)

As of this revision:

• 1 -  Pass
• 2 -  Pass
• 3:
  • 3a -  Pass
  • 3b -  Pass
• 4 -  Pass. However, I recommend moving this after move up to the first overall pick. since source 5 is the one that mentions From 1995 to 2012, the winner of the draft lottery was allowed to move up a maximum of four positions in the entry draft.
• 5 -  Pass
• 6:
  • 6a -  Pass
  • 6b -  Pass
  • 6c -  Pass, took a while but spot checks check out for the table
• 7 -  Pass
• 8 -  Pass but is there a better source than NYP?
• 9 -  Pass
• 10 -  Pass
• 11 -  Pass, but by the way his article's titled Gilbert Perreault but it's spelled as "Perrault" throughout this article.
• 12 -  Pass
• 13 -  Pass
• 14 -  Pass
• The 2 general references are relevant to the article and complement the table.
• There's only one image that checks out, so pass on that as well.

Support on sourcing, but the few concerns do need to be addressed Kline. HurricaneZeta^C 21:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@HurricaneZeta Done, apparently I forgot how to spell Perreault. Kline • talk • contribs 23:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• "Tsujimoto"'s entry is a fun aside, but should be removed from the table. A mention can be added as a sentence to the lead if you want, along with why the team management was protesting at the time.
• I didn't see any other problems with the prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 I don't see a reason as to why Tsujimoto's entry should be removed. Despite being fake, the Sabres used that draft pick which is listed as one of their draft picks. Kline • talk • contribs 00:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  It isn't listed in the main ref for the table (https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/BUF/draft.html), which I assume is considered the official one. Also, his wikipedia page says he's a forward, not a center. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  Neither is Eric Weinrich, but they are both still players that they attempted to draft.. whether it's invalid or not I don't see as a point not to include in the table. I'll change the error for position. Kline • talk • contribs 00:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Olliefant

• Why is "VancouverIsAwesome.com" a reliable source?
• Both "NHL.com" and "National Hockey League" are used in the sources
• Ref 13 should be marked as subscription needed
• Why is Pominville the image? Wouldn't Perreault be a better fit?

That's what I found, ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 08:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• It's one of those sites where it's more of a hyperlocal news website, similar to ones I've used before for topics related to a single event. It's operated by Glacier Media which doesn't seem to be unreliable from what I can tell.
• Fixed.
• Fixed.
• I picked Pominville as he had the most recent image with a Sabres uniform on, but I won't object to changing to Perreault.

@Olliefant Addressed. kline / talk / contribs 18:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Support Olliefant (she/her) 19:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

List of accolades received by In Bruges

Nominator(s): Cavan121012 (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

In Bruges is a 2008 black comedy crime film written and directed by Martin McDonagh in his feature-length directorial debut. The film follows Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson), two Irish hitmen in hiding in Bruges, Belgium, awaiting orders from their mob boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes). I am nominating this for featured list because I have put in a lot of effort recently to improve the quality. I have added all missing awards and the list is comprehensive, every award/nomination is referenced and I believe it meets all of the criteria. This is my first attempt at promoting a featured list, I have based it off other recently promoted film accolades lists. Any comments or suggestions welcome, and thanks in advance. Cavan121012 (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "Universal Pictures gave it a full release in Ireland on 7 March 2008, before opening on 18 April 2008 in the United Kingdom" => "Universal Pictures gave it a full release in Ireland on 7 March 2008, before it opened on 18 April 2008 in the United Kingdom"
• "against a production budget $15 million" => "against a production budget of $15 million"
• Notes a and b are not sentences so should not have full stops
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: I have made the suggested changes. Thanks very much for your comments. Cavan121012 (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Olliefant

• "[black comedy] [crime film]" is an MOS:SOB violation
• Add citations to the EFNs
• I spotted two doubles spaces, ("at the 81st Academy Awards" in paragraph 2, "films of 2008" in paragraph 3) weirdly these are only present in editing mode, I suspect this is a Mediawiki thing. Regardless, fix them and make sure there aren't others
• The Hollywood Reporter article doesn't source either the "crime film" or "black comedy" labels
• "two Irish hitmen in hiding in Bruges" -> "two Irish hitmen hiding in Bruges" this ones optional but I think it would improve the flow

That's what I found ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 16:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Olliefant: I have made most of the changes. The citations at the end of the rows support the EFNs, though I can also put them into the EFNs themselves if you think it would be best. Thanks for your review I appreciate it. Cavan121012 (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Support Olliefant (she/her) 17:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98 (1/28/26)

• "...feature in supporting roles." --> This sounds contradictory.
• The table appears to be properly formatted.

@Cavan121012: Only the one concern with the wording. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Thanks for your comment. I changed 'feature' to 'appear'. Let me know if you still have any concerns. Cavan121012 (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Accessibility review

• File:Martin McDonagh 2012.jpg cc-by-sa-2.0 has alt-text. Image review: passed
• You don't need to use scope=rowgroup when the cell isn't spanning multiple rows. Switch to scope=row
• No other problems detected with accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824: Thanks for your review. I've made the suggested changes. Cavan121012 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Support on accessibility as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Libya

Nominator(s): Tone 08:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Libya has five WHS and three tentative sites. Standard style. I figured I will wait a bit with longer nominations still, this one is compact and should be easy to read. Tone 08:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• The alt-text for the locator image needs to be fixed.
• Alt-text needs to be added for the last image (the cave). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks! Tone 09:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Continuing...
• LPQY seems to be name of the Phoenician settlement that became Leptis Magna according to the source.
• "It was the birthplace of the Septimius Severus"
• wikilink Arab invasion in the Leptis manga description.
• "with three orders of columns" By order, I don't think you mean Classical order, since they all look the same to me. If you meant storey, then change "orders" to "levels".
• "Monuments in the city include the Greek temples of the 7th and 6th centuries BCE".
• That all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tone: I'm not sure if you had a chance to look at the comments that I added later. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Huh, I must have missed it. Great catch with the columns, it seems it is indeed three levels and not all three types. LPQ->LPQY, done, Y is indeed in the source. The rest I also fixed. Thanks! Tone 13:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support on prose and accessibility.
• P.S. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of constituencies of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly/archive1 if you get the chance. It needs a 3rd prose review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Easternsahara

Could you nominate Jordan's list next? I am trying to get a Featured topic on the Arab States. Either way, I will put you as conominator because you did the majority of the work

• File:Leptis Magna Theatre.jpg PD
• File:Archaeological Site of Sabratha-108976.jpg CC BY-SA 3.0 igo
• File:Temple of Zeus - Cyrene.jpg CC BY 2.0
• File:Tadrart Acacus 1.jpg PD
• File:Old Ghadames (5282815851).jpg CC BY 2.0
• File:Girza,Libia.jpg PD
• File:Ptolemais (5283376622).jpg CC BY 2.0

File:Haua Fteah cave (half cropped).jpg CC BY 3.0

• "Ghadames was removed from this list " could be misinterperted as it was delisted as a whs
• "instability due to "→"instability caused by" stronger, more varied
• "post and"→"post, and"
• "and later Roman"→"and, later, Roman" later is interrupting, can be confused later Romans in time (both instances)
• "the Greek temples of the 7th and 6th centuries"→"6th− and 7th–century Greek temples" concise, chronological
• link Temple of Zeus to Temple of Zeus, Cyrene, move citations to preceding sentence
• "into very distinct" remove very
• "changes of"→"changes in"
• "the way of life of the locals"→"local way of life" ('the' not included for other items in list)
• "styles that reflect"→"styles. They reflect" (big sentence flow, maybe run-on)
• "of savanna"→"of the savanna" I usually hear "the savanna", 'a' might be acceptable here
• delete "finally on"
• "depict large"→"depict the large"
• "It has been occupied since at least the late 1st millennium BCE and was serving"→"Being occupied since at least the late 1st millenium BCE, it served" for flow, was serving is less encyclopedic and strange in this context.
• "its unique architecture"→"its own unique architectural style"
• "feature are"→"feature is" subject-verb agreement
• "houses where the"→"houses. The"
• Please clarify what ground floor vs. first floor is, as these terms are used interchangeably in certain english-speaking regions.
• "by Arab"→"from Arab"
• "Listed as endangered in 2016 due to the conflict in the country at that time, wildfires and torrential rain, it was removed from the list in danger in 2025 due"→It was listed as endangered in 2016, due to the civil conflict, wildfires and torrential rain, later being removed in 2025, due
• "list in danger" link to List of World Heritage in Danger and rephrase to "list of World Heritage in Danger"
• "c. 200 CE"→"around 200 CE" circa is usually only used in infoboxes, english is preferable
• "well preserved"→"well–preserved" merriam webster
• "and numerous monuments"→"and numerous monuments remaining"
• link Roman engineering to Ancient Roman technology
• "14 m (46 ft) deep" this should be 14 metre-deep, compound adjective
• "tools of from"→"tools from"
• beginning of farming link to Neolithic Revolution
• humid periods link to African humid period

Image review pass, might be inactive sorry if my reply is late

• Thanks for the comments, I agree with all. Any chance you help me with editing the article like the previous time (busy IRL :/) I will nominate Jordan next, deal! --Tone 09:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Support on prose User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Michael Aurel

• Some of the sentences in the lead's first paragraph have quite a few parentheses. If possible, I'd recommend trying to move some of this information into the article's main text or otherwise performing some reworking here.
• consists of monuments – Perhaps link monument?
  • Monument is a very basic concept, it is expected that someone knows what that it is and we do not link obvious things
    • I think you could argue it's a term that is "particularly relevant to the context in the article", which is a caveat in WP:OL (cf. Cultural heritage, for instance), but I'll leave this one to your discretion. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Libya accepted the convention on 13 October 1978 – I would either move this sentence to before the definitions of natural and cultural heritage or I would restate the convention's full name, as "the convention" is here referring to something mentioned a few sentences back.
  • The reader must know what the convention that Libya signed entails before this sentence has any meaning to them. Also, since we're on a list about World Heritage Sites, it is very obvious that this is the World Heritage Convention.
• a further three on the tentative list – Hmm, is "the tentative list" an official title? If so, I would think it should be capitalised.
  • It is not.
    • Hmm, looking at UNESCO's page on the matter, they seem to treat it as though it's a title, or at least they consistently capitalise both words of the phrase ("Tentative Lists"). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
      • This is the standard style we use over all of these lists and it has so far been fine. --Tone 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
        • Ah I see, good to know that this is part of a series. I would still change it, though this is hardly a big deal. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
• In 2025, the List of World Heritage in Danger – This was linked in the previous sentence. I'd suggest either including the full name there or otherwise removing one of the links.
  • Done
    • Ghadames was no longer endangered, – I'd suggest "Ghadames was no longer classified as endangered" (or similar) – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
      • Improved. --Tone 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• and came under the Romans in 46 BCE. – "came under Roman control", perhaps?
  • Changed control to rule, but done
• birthplace of the Septimius Severus. – omit "the"
  • Done
• I'd include some dates for Septimius Severus.
• he rebuilt and enlarged the city and made it one of the most – Avoid the repetition of "and". Perhaps use a comma after "city" and then start from there with "transforming" or "turning" (or similar).
  • Don
• of the Roman world. – link Roman Empire
  • Done
• Sabratha got absorbed – "was" is preferable in formal writing.
  • done
• absorbed in the Roman province of Africa in 46 BCE. – "absorbed into"
  • done
• It was prospering in the 2nd and 3rd centuries – "It prospered"
  • done
• the 2nd and 3rd centuries when numerous monuments – "during which"
  • done
• including a theatre with three orders of columns – By "order", are we referring to the subject of this article?
  • Yes, linked now. --Tone 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• the Byzantines until – "Byzantines, before"
  • done
• It was a major city of the Hellenistic and, later, Roman world. – I'd try to include a bit more detail here. "world" should also be plural.
• the Jewish revolt in 116 – "of"
  • done
• It's worth noting that the last date mentioned before 116 is 631 BCE. Is there any reason to not write this as "116 CE" (and to perhaps do so across the page), to avoid ambiguity?
  • done
    • Not compulsory, but any reason to not do this across the page, since we oscillate between BCE and CE dates a handful of times? – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• with the massive 365 earthquake – "the" seems to imply we're using a proper name or that the reader should already be familiar with this event.
  • done, unpiped link to be more descriptive
• the city include 6th− and 7th–century – use hyphens
• 6th− and 7th–century Greek temples, – link Ancient Greek temple
  • done
    • The link should be around just "Greek temples". – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
      • Fixed. --Tone 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• The rock paintings and engravings in the Acacus Mountains – Worth noting that the entries up until now haven't relinked the site's name in the "Description" column.
  • Link removed, good point. --Tone 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• were created over thousands of years, from 12,000 BCE to 100 CE. – "over thousands of years" is probably redundant, given we've supplied dates which convey the same thing with more precision.
  • removed
• during and after the African humid period – Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I would give some indication of when this was.
  • Added, makes sense. --Tone 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• Being occupied since at least the late 1st millenium BCE, – "Being" can be omitted.
  • done
• The town has developed its own unique architectural style, adjusted to the harsh desert climate. – What sort of time period are we talking about here? "has" makes it sound as though we might be talking about architecture of recent times.
  • removed has
• next floor is for families, – "is living space", perhaps?
  • Agreed. --Tone 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Fixed the parallelism here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
• has the nickname "the Pearl of the Desert" from Arab sources. – Which sources? From when?
  • This is directly from the UNESCO source, that should do. --Tone 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Mm, similarly to below, I think I was expecting the source to have more detail. I suppose this is fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
• on the List of World Heritage in Danger, in 2016 – The comma can be omitted.
  • done
• Tentative list – Per above, I wonder if the full term should be capitalised? (This applies below as well.)
  • no
• In addition to sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, – "inscribed" implies physical etching of some nature; I'm not sure it's the right word here.
  • From merriam webster, "to enter on a list : enroll"
    • I see, Oxford Languages marks this as an archaic usage, though the OED apparently doesn't agree (and we'd be better off following the latter). Happy to retract this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Libya maintains three properties – "has three sites", perhaps?
  • has kinda implies that these are permanent, but they are removed if they fail, if the state party wants to withdraw them, or if they are inscribed. maintain is better here
    • One can say "I have your keys", for example, without implying that the possession is permanent. To me, the word "maintains" here implies this sort of maintenance. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
      • Has is also fine ;) --Tone 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• The remains of the settlement are well–preserved, – hyphen
  • done
• It illustrates the adaptation – "it" doesn't have a clear antecedent here.
  • Added Ghirza. --Tone 10:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• with aspects such as water management. – "aspects" of what?
  • Rewrote. --Tone 10:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• The findings in the two extensive necropolises demonstrate a dynamic interchange between the Romans and the local populations. – If possible, I'd try to be a bit more specific. What was being interchanged between the two groups?
  • Added cultural. --Tone 10:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• It was one of the five important cities that formed the Pentapolis of Cyrenaica. – I would omit "important", as otherwise it could sound as though there were other, unimportant cities that were part of the Pentapolis.
  • done
• during the Hellenistic and later Roman periods – A bit of a nitpick, but "later" could make it sound as though we're talking about "later Roman periods" as opposed to some earlier Roman periods.
  • encased in commas to prevent confusion
• Actually, to go one step further, I would be explicit about the time periods we're referencing here, as some readers won't know the dates of the Hellenistic period, for example.
  • I think this is too far for the particular list, there is a link for those who want to explore further. --Tone 10:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• periods and in the 4th century surpassed Cyrene that was damaged by earthquakes. – I'd suggest some rewriting here. In what regard did it surpass Cyrene?
  • In regional importance. But there is another word importance in the next sentence so that would be repeating. Open to suggestions, though. --Tone 10:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  Hm, seems to be another case of the source being a bit vague. I suppose this is fine. Slightly rephrased the "that" part, which didn't quite work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• The remains of the city illustrate the cohabitation of different faiths and cultures. – "document", or "reveal", perhaps? The word "illustrate" initially led me think we might be leading into a broader point.
  • I like "document". --Tone 10:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• Monuments from different time periods have been preserved, including a unique type of a mausoleum. – To what period or culture did this mausoleum belong? I'd cut the first part of the sentence (and include a little more detail), or try to rework it so it's saying something more concrete.
  • Improved. --Tone 10:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Much better. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
• the Middle Paleolithic, stone blades from the Upper Paleolithic, – Similar to some suggestions above, it might be a good idea to give the reader a more precise idea of when these periods were.
  • I'd say the links work better here not to be too lengthy. --Tone 10:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• 10,000-7000 years ago – endash
  • done
• including the African humid periods ("green Sahara") – Hmm, where is this quote coming from?
  • This is from the source. The point is that at that time Sahara was not a desert so people could cross it easier. --Tone 10:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I think I was expecting for the source to be quoting someone or something in particular, but it apparently doesn't give anything beyond what we have here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
• It also provides a record of ... which allowed people to cross what is today a desert. – It sounds a bit as though the records were what allowed people to do the crossing.
  • I think now I made it better. --Tone 10:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    • That's better. I've rephrased it ever so slightly. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: these comments have been moved to the bottom so that they can be more easily addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Natural features (consisting ... are defined as natural heritage. – I'd suggest reworking this sentence so that it begins in "Natural heritage includes ..." (or similar) for parallelism and so that the reader understands what we're listing from the outset.
  • Personally, I disagree, the good thing about parentheses is that the reader can skip over them and they list things very well.
    • The suggestion wasn't related to the use of parentheses, but the use of the passive voice. The phrasing at List of World Heritage Sites in Hungary, for example, is better in my view. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
      • I see, I have borrowed the wording from the Hungarian list.
• All five sites are listed due to their cultural significance. – Hasn't this more or less already been said (or at least implied) above?
  • No, there are three types of World Heritage Sites, natural sites, cultural sites, and mixed sites. This is explained in the first paragraph.
    • I see what's meant now. This hasn't really been explained, though: we state that World Heritage Sites are "of importance to cultural or natural heritage", and we define those two terms. I think the reader could be forgiven for interpreting the sentence as a generic statement that "The sites are culturally significant", without piecing together that "cultural significance" here refers to specific criteria for a site's inclusion on grounds of cultural heritage. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
      • I think this is pretty clear from the paragraph. Also, this is the standard style we've been using for these lists.
        • Looking again at List of World Heritage Sites in Hungary, maybe go for something like "All five are listed as cultural sites"? – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
          • , I implemented exactly that wording.
• was founded as a Phoenician settlement LPQ – What does "LPQ" mean here?
  • Unsure, pinging User:Tone
    • LPQ is the name in Phoenician, LPQ (Punic: 𐤋𐤐𐤒) (probably better to just write LPQ not to further confuse the reader why the letters are small?) --Tone 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  That makes sense. You could write "known in Punic as LPQ" in brackets, though I'd probably just remove it here, as I'm not it's crucial information for our purposes. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Removed, I agree it is WP:TOOMUCH
• After becoming the Emperor – link Roman emperor, remove "the", and remove capitalisation
  • Linked roman emperor, kept "the" per WP:FALSETITLE Sure its not a part of MOS, but it improves clarity which the MOS encourages
    • For a phrase to be a false title, it needs to come before the person's name: "convicted bomber" isn't a false title unless it's part of "convicted bomber Timothy McVeigh". On the use of "emperor" specifically, compare Roman emperor: "When a given Roman is described as becoming emperor in English, ...". – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
      • Done, sorry for misunderstanding
• It was pillaged in the 4th century, – By whom?
  • The ref that verifies it is number 8. The PDF does not specify who did it, saying "Pillaged from the 4th century and reconquered by the Byzantines"
    • Fair enough, I guess that's fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• was pillaged in ... reconquered by ... and was finally abandoned following – no "was" for parallelism
  • Done
    • One additional point: and abandoned following the Arab invasion. – I'd add a link here and some dates, as we do below. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
      • Done
        • That's good. If possible, I'd include some dates (something like "the Arab invasion of the ... century/centuries"). – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

        Source 8, page 2 says "succumbed to the second wave of Arab invasions", when this second wave was is not specified. EasternShah (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

        • • Makes sense. As long as we're sure the link is correct (it's talking about conquests around 647–709 AD), I think this is alright. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Founded as ... and then part of – This doesn't work grammatically.
  • Changed
    • This is an improvement. I'll put another beat on my drum about including dates, though, and once they're included it might be better to split the sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
      • Split
        • Hm, I think you might've split the wrong sentence? This suggestion related to the sentence "Founded as a Phoenician trading post, then becoming a part of ...". The two sentences at the beginning of the Leptis Magna entry (Leptis Magna was founded as a Phoenician settlement. It came under Roman rule in 46 BCE.) worked better combined, I think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

        Joined them back together, I agree. i am pretty sure I removed the "then part of" EasternShah (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Its fortunes turned in the 4th century with the decline in trade. – I'd excise the expression "fortunes turned", and explain where or with whom trade declined.
  • Rewrote. The trade declined in general in the region, this was the period when the Roman Empire was already crumbling. --Tone 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    • That's better. I'd try to avoid repeating "decline", though. Maybe "reduction" or "attenuation"? I'd also go for "the decline in trade in the region". – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
      • I wrote "reduction in regional trade"
• after the Arab invasions between the 7th and 11th centuries. – I'm not sure the use of two temporal indicators ("after", "between") works so well here. Maybe write "of the 7th and ..."?
  • Split sentence to make time frame clearer
    • Honestly, the link's leaving me a little confused here: Muslim conquest of the Maghreb says this happened from 647 to 709 AD. The source's wording seems to be it definitively succumbed to the second wave of Arab invasions, that of the Hilalians in the 11th century. A stab in the dark: do we mean the Hilalian invasion of Ifriqiya? – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• They reflect the changes – By "they", do you mean the phases?
  • This is how I understand it, yes. --Tone 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  Makes sense. I'd go for "These phases reflect", to make clear we aren't referring to the "motifs and artistic styles". – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

  • • Changed
      • Nice. Sorry to pile on another point here, but later in the sentence we write "the local climate, flora, fauna, and local way of life". As I think the first "local" applies to the whole phrase, can we remove the second? – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

      I agree, changed EasternShah (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• due to the civil conflict, – Which civil conflict?
  • Libyan civil war (2014–2020), as explained in the intro. Linked just in case. --Tone 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• List of World Heritage in Danger, – I'd try to rework things so we don't need to repeat the full title.
  • I changed it to "it was no longer considered by UNESCO to be endangered"
• list of tentative sites that they may consider for nomination. – The use of "they" makes it sound a bit as though Libya itself is the one considering them for nomination.
  • State parties keep a tentative list, if the tentative listings are determined by UNESCO to be suitable for nomination (including the nomination paperwork itself, not just the site) then the state party may nominate it. Usually about 10-20 sites are nominated every year but many more sites that are deemed suitable for nomination are not. UNESCO itself convenes only for 3 days, so state parties may not nominate one thing every year (technically not required, just to be equitable) and they only nominate the things that they think have the highest chance for inscription (because of the short duration of UNESCO meetings). In other words, Libya considers whether to nominate these sites to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for inscription.
    • Thanks for the explanation. This is all good, then. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• includes traces of ... stone flake tools from ... stone blades from ... the beginning of farming – The last item in this list doesn't cohere with the others.
  • Improved. --Tone 10:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  That's better. I'd try to reorient the last point so that it refers to concrete finds, to match the other items ("traces", "stone flake tools", "stone blades"). Maybe something like "evidence of the transition to farming, 10,000–7000 years ago"? – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

  • • Changed

All in all, it's a pleasant and interesting read. The only concerns are some fairly minor points of grammar and clarity. I'll let you get a handle on these prose suggestions, and then I'll do a few spot checks just to make sure everything's in order in that regard. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tone: my first ping of you didn't work, I tried addressing what I could. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 02:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, again a busy period. I will go through in the following days. Thank you for your assistance, greatly appreciated :) Tone 13:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Michael Aurel:, @Easternsahara:, I think I have addressed the rest of the comments. Sorry it took a while. Please check. Excellent in-depth review! --Tone 10:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad you found it helpful. I've struck or supplied follow-up points for all of the suggestions. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tone. I'm just checking you're aware that a few of the above points are outstanding. If you like, I could move the ones that aren't finished to the bottom, so they can be addressed more easily. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, please do, the discussion is now so long that it is hard to track what still needs to be addressed ;) Tone 21:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've moved them to the bottom. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Michael Aurel: I responded to your comments per this User talk:Tone#Another request, this request. EasternShah (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for those responses, EasternShah. We're pretty much finished here: there are just two points remaining. Let me know if you can get to those. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Source review (1/2/26)

I will do your source review since reviews of the prose seem to have been thorough. The source review template does not seem to like tables, so I do it manually.

• The lead appears to (justifiably) use boilerplate wording, the same as similar lists. I love consistency among article series like this!
• Source no. 2 – Checks out.
• Source no. 3 – Checks out.
• Source no. 7 – Checks out. I know there have been questions raised in the past about the almost exclusive use of UNESCO sources. Are there other historical references that could also be used as a source here, perhaps from the Leptis Magna wiki article? Just curious. This same question could apply to any of these, honestly.
• Source no. 11 & 12 – The historical information in the prose is supported by source no. 12.
• Source no. 15 – Checks out.
• Source no. 18 – Checks out.

The following are comments I have as I'm examining the sources.

• What does it mean, LPQ? (Archaeological Site of Leptis Magna)

User:Tone: Source review passed. My other comments are merely suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! We've discussed UNESCO vs. other sources at previous nominations and my opinion is that the list states why something was listed as WHS, for which all other sources than UNESCO would be derivative. I sometimes use other sources if key information is missing (some older tentative sites are missing the text, for example). As for LPQ, that is the name in the Punic language. Tone 08:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of first ladies of the United States

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)

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

List of tallest buildings in Detroit

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?

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)

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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

20–20–20 club

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)

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

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)

@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)

List of Iowa tornadoes

Notified: EF5, Easternsahara, ActuallyElite, WikiProject Weather

I've nominated this list because I don't believe it was properly scrutinized during the review process and simply is not up to FL levels as of right now. See Talk:List of Iowa tornadoes for more specifics, but what's on the table as I type this are a large table cited to a user-generated source (or one that can't be proved not to be UGC, anyway), a significant lack of comprehension listing of data that does exist in reliable sources and can be put together in an afternoon, arbitrary inclusion candidates, and general weird formatting throughout, especially in image placement and citations in the lede, the sort I wouldn't expect from featured content. Departure– (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

To clarify a few points:

• By "arbitrary", I mean the line in the sand being "intense tornadoes" being the only ones included and all others being completely discarded. No reason for this is given in the article itself.
  • Typically, lists that include large amounts of tornadoes draw the line at "intense tornadoes" (F3/equivalent), such as Tornadoes in Oklahoma, but again, no reason given. The only actual line I could think of a justification for would be "significant tornadoes" (F2/equivalent), as those are what expert of tornado record-keeping Thomas P. Grazulis uses in his Significant tornadoes line of books.
  • In addition, this list is missing numerous tornadoes within the "intense" range.
• Details about my UGC concern are further detailed at Talk:List of Iowa tornadoes#Tornado Paths source, but the short version is that a source cited in a table is listed as published by ArcGIS with no credits. ArcGIS is a software at the end of the day, and while it likely was produced by a reliable source (NWS or NOAA), there's no evidence beyond anecdotal comments about the scale of the source.
  • In addition, the source is almost certainly a tertiary source to be avoided in favor of a more focused source.
• There is some weird formatting right outside the lede. The lede itself also doesn't follow MOS:LEDE, with information in the opening not present in the body (though, with a citation).
• Sourcing in general has been brought up on the talk page as being far from featured-level. One was revealed to likely be a blog.
• More details than I can provide quickly here can be found on the article's talk page at the anchor Talk:List of Iowa tornadoes#What in the heck?. Departure– (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

One more note: List of Iowa tornadoes is currently scheduled to appear as Today's featured list starting October 6. Departure– (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Delist per my talk page comments. As much as I hate to delist an article as recent as this, it simply isn’t up to par. ^EF⁵ 01:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Update - I have been adding tornadoes over the past week from the Thomas P. Grazulis source, I am still working on completing the list. I changed the intense tornadoes meaning and put it as F3+ rated tornadoes. I removed both non reliable sources that were mentioned and replaced them with reliable ones. I do still have some work to do with adding tornadoes in the tables, but it is in the right direction. ActuallyElite (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait ActuallyElite is actively working to address these problems so I think we should give them a chance to work on it. I admit I was somewhat careless with the source review but it had improved much since this nomination was started. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 06:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Departure–: What is your take on the quality of this article at this point? It has been three months since this FLR was proposed, which should have been more than enough time to correct any issues. Pinging User:ActuallyElite. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Delegate note - ActuallyElite has been steadily overhauling this list, and is up to 1990 as of a couple days ago. I'm leaving this open until that's done, but I think we're good here once they get to today. --PresN 16:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I just finished with adding all the tornadoes I missed. Pinging @Bgsu98 @Departure– @EF5 @Easternsahara @PresN ActuallyElite (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The citations are still inadequate, with page numbers missing. ^EF⁵ 20:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Added page numbers to the source for each table ActuallyElite (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98 (10/10/25)

I don't care much for some of the comments I've read surrounding this list. "How in God's name...?" Save it. I was one of the reviewers on this FLC and spent a lot of time assisting User:ActuallyElite with the style and prose, because the original text was pretty rough. I believe the quality was greatly improved. I did not do a source check. Anyone is welcome to challenge the accuracy or appropriateness of sources. Maybe dialing back the histrionics and offering reasonable suggestions for improving the article would be a positive step? Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)