Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2024

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Line of Duty episodes

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Second and final stop at FLC for a good topic I'm working towards. Still waiting on quite a few GA reviews before I can get there (plus two articles I still need to do some expansion on), so I thought I'd get this FLC going in the meantime. This is the episodes page for a popular UK television series. It has set quite a few records in terms of viewership so there were enough sources to write a pretty engaging lead so I spent a few hours tonight expanding it. I look forward and thank you all in advance for any reviews! :) TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "directed towards BBC Two[3] which" - I would recommend a comma after Two
• "in over ten years[12] leading" - also a comma after years
• "The series has been nominated for several awards[29] also gaining" - comma after awards
• "Additionally, Craig Parkinson,[45] Jessica Raine,[46] Jason Watkins,[47] and Anna Maxwell Martin[48] also star" - I don't think you need to say both "additionally" and "also". Is there a way to reword this?
• "special mini-episode written by the Dawson Brothers" - our article says the group is called Dawson Bros.
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  You strike again as my first reviewer!

  I fixed the first four comments.

  For the fifth: I considered listing them as Bros. based on our article, but the source I cited the credit to lists them as the Brothers (specifically "The virtual pantomime has been written by the Dawson Brothers, the comedy writers behind this year’s hilarious Line Of Duty Sport Relief Special [...]") The mini-episode didn't actually have any credits, which is what we list ours from most of the time. That said, I don't have any objection whatsoever to changing it if you still think it should be changed, I just wanted to mention my thought process first?

  Thanks again, TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Series overview table: The "Originally aired" cell should have scope as colgroup, not col.
• 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. All the tables are missing captions.
• * 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. A few of the header cells in the "Viewing figures" table are missing scopes.
• That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  • I've added captions to the series overview and episode tables.
  • As for all the scopes, if I'm not mistaken, this would be a far larger issue that I need to raise at the template talk pages? It's not something I can fix at this page specifically. Template:Series overview for example is used on over 8,000 pages, at least 55 of these are featured lists. Some of which, just passed FLC this year. I'd be willing to raise the issue on the template talk pages given that I'm not a template editor (and because it uses LUA, so I wouldn't be able to fix it myself if I were), and I'm not sure how soon it can be addressed, but I just wanted to mention that it is not something that is directly within the scope of my control on this list.

  TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Note: I've posted messages on Template talk:Television ratings graph and Template talk:Series overview. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824: Just curious if you add any further comments on this, or were even potentially willing to support it given that it's expanded outside the scope of this article and the discussion on the template's talk page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've fixed the issue in the {{Television ratings graph}} template, and have made an edit request for the {{Series overview}} template since it is protected. I think we can wait a few days for this to happen. In any case, this FLC still needs a source review before it will be considered for promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  The edit request for the {{Series overview}} template was processed. I can now support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Dantheanimator

• For all the Series tables, I think a ref should be included in the Directed by and Original air date column headers
• The Line of Duty image next to the lead has no caption/borders/anything. Not sure if this standard but thought I'd comment on it just in case
• Consider adding a See also section with links to similar lists/articles (maybe List of police television dramas?)

Just a quick pass for now, probably will put any additional suggestions later today if I'm feeling up for it... Dan the Animator 21:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Series three surpassed viewership of the first series" -> "Series three surpassed [the] viewership of the first series" (add "the")
• "Around this time, a restructuring of BBC television networks occurred causing BBC One and BBC Two to now be controlled by the same person." is "this time" referring to around the commissioning of the new series in April? (would help to specify for clarity imo) who's the "same person" who gained control of both BBCs? (would be helpful to name them, especially if they have a wikipage); also would recommend rewording the sentence in general to something like "Around the time of the commissioning of the new series, a restructuring of BBC television networks occurred, causing ownership over BBC One and BBC Two to become consolidated under [businessman/insert profession name] [insert person's name]."
• "The decision was made to promote" -> for better flow imo: "Following these changes, the decision was made to promote"
• The article for Sport Relief has it italicized but here its left in normal text. Would recommend italicizing it in all instances if that's how it should be
• "The series has been nominated for several awards, also gaining a cult following and becoming the subject of critical acclaim" -> one way it can be reworded: "The series has since been the subject of critical acclaim, receiving nominations for several awards and gaining a large cult following"
• "as AC-12 officers Steve Arnott and Kate Fleming" -> "as AC-12 officers Steve Arnott and Kate Fleming[, respectively]"
• "be in a large conspiracy" -> "be [involved] in a large conspiracy"
• Optional: For the Line of Duty : UK viewers per episode (millions) table near the bottom, add a note/footnote/something briefly indicating what "–" means (I think its fine as-is tbh but I thought it was kinda helpful having a note about it in another FL I looked over recently)
• For ref #73, I'm getting a: Cite error: The named reference Sport Relief Dates was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• If it's possible, I recommend trying to consolidate refs #31-34 (next to "subject of critical acclaim") into one reference similar to how ref #55 is a "multi ref" reference; check out Mission: Impossible – Fallout for lots of good examples of how this is done using the note template (see the notes section in that article)

That's everything I got! Awesome work TheDoctorWho (talk)!! :) Dan the Animator 07:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added a reference for the air date columns. I also added a border for the image in the article. The directors are credited within the episodes via on-screen credits, so I believe that this would semi-fall under the same guidelines as MOS:PLOTSOURCE (in that the information is sourced to the work itself). I can probably still put together for sources for it if it's absolutely necessary to gain your support. I do also question how well that link would serve readers in a see also section. In the parent article possibly, but from the list of episode page it doesn't quite feel as necessary. Similar to the last point though, I'd also compromise and add it if necessary for a support !vote. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and don't worry about it! I think the changes help but its perfectly fine not having the ref for the credits column! For see also, its completely optional so up to you if you want to add it! I like to suggest it though since most articles usually have other articles that aren't linked in the body but would be interesting for readers (also feel free to choose any relevant articles... definitely doesn't have to be List of police television dramas which I found through a quick browse in the categories). Please ping if I can help with anything and great work Gallifreyan! ;) Dan the Animator 07:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dantheanimator: I've addressed everything you left in your full review, bar the optional one. The "–" denotes that an episode with that number doesn't exist within the series (some series have more episodes than others). I started to add a note attempting to explain that, but it seemed to get confusing quickly when I say that episodes don't "exist" when they were never planned to be created in the first place. Thank you so much for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well that was quick! Might as well reply now before I head to sleep... I support this being promoted and strongly believe its ready for FL! Thanks again Doctor for your great work (both on wiki and across the realm of timey wimey stuff :) Dan the Animator 08:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Johnson solids

Nominator(s): Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This is my first time nominating FL, and I hope this meets all the criteria of FL. One reason I am nominating this for the featured list is because it is a complete list of Johnson solids, along with the surface area and volume, as well as the symmetry. As for the background for someone who does not comprehend mathematics, especially in geometry, the Johnson solids were in the list proposed by Norman Johnson, and he conjectured that there were no other solids, after which was proved by Victor Zalgaller. I think I can give three examples for the exhibition:

• 
  Square pyramid
• 
  Triaugmented triangular prism
• 
  snub disphenoid

There are actually 92 of them, but I would not exhibit them a lot here. I hope this could be the next FL of WP:WPM, and it could be the first FL of sister WikiProject, WP:3TOPE. Anyone, including someone interested in it, can review this. Many thanks for the comments and suggestions. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Remsense

Claiming a spot here, since I think it's a great article and I still want to properly go through it like I promised. Remsense诉 07:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Sgubaldo

• Prose
  • "It is also includes the number of vertices, edges, and faces, symmetry, surface area...." ==> "It also includes the number of vertices, edges, and faces, symmetry, surface area..."

    Removed an ungrammatical word. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • "attaching prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation, respectively." ==> "attaching a prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation respectively."

    I thought a comma would be supposed to be, but oh well, removed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Sourcing – This is not a source review, just some things I spotted
  • For "Daniele Barbaro’s Perspective of 1568", the author's first name is 'Cosimo' not 'Cosino'.

    Renamed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Cromwell's Polyhedra book is missing an ISBN, which you can find here.

    Added. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Zalgaller's source is missing an ISBN and the publisher looks wrong. I found this page on Springer

    Nice. Added. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • For "Group Theory in Solid State Physics and Photonics: Problem Solving with Mathematica" and "2D and 3D Image Analysis by Moments", the publisher is called 'John Wiley & Sons', not 'John & Sons Wiley'.

    My mistake. Renamed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Wikilink Canadian Journal of Mathematics.

    Wikilinked. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • I've been told you can either wikilink publishers or leave them unlinked as long as you're consistent. You've wikilinked Cambridge University Press but none of the others; it would be good if you could either delink Cambridge University Press or wikilink John Wiley & Sons, Springer, Academic Press, American Mathematical Society and Dover Publications.

    Wikilinked all, just in case. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Some of the authors have their full first name and some only have their initial; I believe this can be done in one way or the other but it has to be consistent.

    @Sgubaldo. Sorry, I do not understand here. Are you saying the author's initial name should be either abbreviated or fully named in all of the sources? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

    Yes. For example, have all of them either lik "Cromwell, Peter R." or like "Diudea, M. V." Sgubaldo (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

    Well, to think about the efficient way, it would be best to abbreviate at all, rather than finding out their first full names. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo. I think I have complete all of the suggestions above. Let me know if there are any remaining missing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice one, I'll have a full read-through later. In the meantime, I've added some urls/other missing author links myself. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through and made some copyedits. Feel free to revert an edit you're not happy with it.

Here are some more commments:

• The passage

  These solids may be used to construct another polyhedron with the same properties, a process known as augmentation; attaching a prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation respectively. Some others are constructed by diminishment, the removal of those from the component of polyhedra, or by snubification, a construction by cutting loose the edges, lifting the faces and rotate in certain angle, after which adding the equilateral triangles between them.

is a bit confusing to read because I'm not sure what 'those' is referring to. I'm reading it as you attach the prism/antiprism to any of the first six Johnson solids, but it's not very clear.

• Is defining area and volume necessary? I'm specifically taking about the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width, and the surface area is the overall area of all faces of polyhedra that is measured by summing all of them. A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." I understand you have to consider WP:TECHNICAL but perhaps you could just include how the volume and surface area are calculated for a polyhedron and remove the definitions themselves.
• Is the sentence "one case that preserves the symmetry by one full rotation and one reflection horizontal plane is $C_{1h}$ of order 2, or simply denoted as $C_{s}$" also necessary? You already explain the $C_{nh}$ group and this is just one example

Sgubaldo (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Re "defining area and volume necessary": This is on purpose to make readers (for non-mathematicians, students, or anyone who is interested in it) recap the meaning of area and volume. If it does not exist, readers may search them on the previous wikilinked. I am aware that one problem here is our articles is somewhat technical, making readers even much more confused. Take an example of Surface area, stating that "a measure of the total area that the surface of the object occupies". This is not only to help readers to understand the definition, but rather to give the meaning of the object specifically. Here, I wrote the surface area of a polyhedron specifically as the total area of all polygona faces. So to put it plain, this is intended to summarize them specifically about the polyhedron's characteristics. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

My concern was more whether the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width" and "A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." were necessary, but if you think they are per WP:TECHNICAL, then I'm fine with their inclusion. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr Anyways, final comment on this part: "The volume of a polyhedron is determined by involving its base and height (as in pyramids and prisms), slicing it off into pieces after which summing them up...." – I'm slightly unsure as to what 'involving its base and height' means here. Could you clarify? Sgubaldo (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It is just like saying that volume of a prism and pyramid is the product of height and its base, with an exception that pyramid is one-third of it. The inside bracket is meant to show the merely examples. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr, could you rewrite the sentence a little to clarify that? I think it's still hard to understand in its current state. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say that volume of a polyhedron can be calculated in different way. Take examples as in the prism and the pyramid. The volume of a prism is the product of base and height $bh$. The volume of a pyramid is one-third of the product of base and height ${\textstyle {\frac {1}{3}}bh}$. From all of these examples, their calculation only involves the base $b$ and height $h$. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr. Thank you, I understand now; these will be my final comments then, after which I can support.

• What do you think about tweaking the relevant part of the sentence mentioned above to something like: "The volume of a polyhedron may be ascertained in different ways: either by decomposing it into smaller pieces, such as pyramids and prisms, calculating the volume of each component, and then computing their sum, or......"
• When you say "meaning their construction does not involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids", is that intending that it doesn't involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids at the same time or that it involves neither of the two. If it's the former, then it's fine. If it's the latter, I think it should be changed to "meaning their construction does not involve neither Archimedean nor Platonic solids"

Sgubaldo (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Re "tweaking": What? This means something different. My interpretation is that you pointed the polyhedrons such as pyramids and prisms can be defined their volume by decomposing it into smaller pieces.

What I meant about those facts is that every polyhedron's volume is different to finding them. One example that I already explained is involving the produvt of base and height. However, not all the volume of polyhedrons can be done in that way. We can see an example of Triaugmented triangular prism in which constructed from a triangular prism by attaching three equilateral square pyramids onto its square faces. To find its volume, we need to slice it off into a triangular prism and three equilateral square pyramids again. Finding their volume, and then add up the volume again, and the volume of a triaugmanted triangular prism is total of those. But this method is not working for sphenomegacorona, and the alternative way is by using root of polynomial, as described in OEIS. That is what I meant also in the previous copyedit. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Re "elementar": The definition by not involving Platonic and Archimedean solids was copyedited from the previous meaning in several articles of Johnson solids. However, Cromwell and Johnson gives different meaning, so I'm going to copyedited the rest of them. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo Update. This was already discussed after I changing the definition; you can see my talk page. Feel free to ask. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel really silly, I was misreading the sentence about finding the volume and couldn't see there were three different methods. The changes to the definition look good. There were a couple of minor prose issues I had, but to not enter a WP:FIXLOOP, I tried making the changes myself. Please do check and revert if you disagree with anything.

Support promotion, I hope this becomes one of the few mathematics-related FLs. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Re "$C_{1h}=C_{s}$": Not expert in symmetry here. As far as I'm concerned, the symmetry $C_{1h}$ is explicitly stated in the source [3], consisting of identity and mirror plane, and this can be denoted as $C_{s}$. Is there something wrong? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either. What I was trying to say was that you explain the symmetry group $C_{nh}$ with the sentence "The symmetry group $C_{nh}$ of order $2n$ preserves the symmetry by rotation around the axis of symmetry and reflection on horizontal plane", but then also go into specific detail about $C_{1h}=C_{s}$, which seems to be a specific case of $C_{nh}$. My concern was whether this was necessary, since no other examples of a symmetry group are explored in the article. Is it because it needs to be shown that $C_{1h}$ is denoted as $C_{s}$? Sgubaldo. It is a mirror symmetry, merely. (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Our articles says it is involution group symmetry, as it is shown in List of spherical symmetry groups,. The notation is in Schoenflies notation. If it's possible, let me ask this in WP:WPM to gain more precise meaning ensurely. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Re "these solids". It means that the first six Johnson solids can be used to construct more new Johnson solids by attaching the uniform polyhedrons (as it is included in the article), and those constructions are already mentioned above, with some exceptions that snubification does not need them basically. Some of the Johnson solids cannot be constructed without them. I think I will fix this one, but I have to be careful my writing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I've made some minor edits here too and I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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. ! Solid name becomes !scope=col | Solid name. 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. | 1 becomes !scope=row | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Implemented them all. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Reminder

This is already 20 days, almost three weeks, and there are no responses from the reviewer. Pinging @Sgubaldo, @Remsense, and @PresN. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't ping you with my last reply, but I supported above. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I will have remarks by the end of tomorrow, apologies. Remsense诉 14:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Just pinging to see if you're still planning to follow up with a review. Ideally, a source review would be very much appreciated if you're at all familiar with the subject matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Sending a ping again to @Remsense. Please at least just let us know if you're no longer interested in doing a review. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll withdraw, as I don't think I'm presently qualified for this. Deep apologies. Remsense诉 15:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense. That's fine. I merely waited for someone reviewed the article; otherwise, the nomination would start over again because of inactivity by reviewers. @Hey man im josh. Do you mind if you can review the article? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't an area I'd be comfortable reviewing. One thing not to clear me, at a passing glance, is what verifies what's actually in the table? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh. Sorry, I can't comperehend your words. Can you clarify? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind @Dedhert.Jr. I was asking what verifies the formulas in the last column, but I missed that there was a reference in the column header. Though, if you were referring to the first part of the comment, I'm not comfortable enough with the subject matter to review it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Well, I'm now worried that this nomination will expire. I am tired of repeating nominations in the same situation. I already saw this when I looked up the FAC. Should I ping members on related topics WikiProject, or are there alternative ways? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to share your nomination at a relevant WikiProject, but we're pretty patient with nominations. There are currently 8 people nominations that are older than yours and I promoted one yesterday that was over two months old. For a source review, I think someone from a relevant WikiProject would be excellent. Perhaps a message asking if anybody is a subject matter expert and could provide a source review at the nomination? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh That's a good idea. Thank you. But how long does the nomination will be expired? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no hard established hard deadline. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay then. I have invited the members, but I doubt that some of them will ignore it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Dantheanimator

• "The points, lines, and polygons of a polyhedron are referred to as its vertices, edges, and faces[,] respectively" <- add in comma (shown in brackets)
• "they do not share the same plane, and do not "lie flat"." <- I think the comma here can be removed
• "the faces are regular and they are vertex-transitivity" <- from my non-expert understanding/reading of this sentence, I'm guessing it probably should be reworded as "the faces are regular and the vertices have vertex-transitivity"
• "they are the Platonic solids and Archimedean solids, as well as prisms and antiprisms" <- the way I read it, it sounds like these are examples/types of uniform polyhedra right? If that is the case, I think a better way to word this sentence would be "A uniform polyhedron is a polyhedron in which the faces are regular and have vertex-transitivity; examples include Platonic and Archimedean solids as well as prisms and antiprisms."
• Since the nationality of Zalgaller is mentioned, for consistency, "after mathematician Norman Johnson (1930–2017)" should be reworded as "after American mathematician Norman Johnson (1930–2017)"
• "create two small convex polyhedrons" <- shouldn't it be "create two small convex polyhedra" since its plural?
• "The Johnson solids satisfying this criteria are the first six—equilateral square pyramid, pentagonal pyramid, triangular cupola, square cupola, pentagonal cupola, and pentagonal rotunda—as well as the tridiminished icosahedron, parabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, tridiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, snub disphenoid, snub square antiprism, sphenocorona, sphenomegacorona, hebesphenomegacorona, disphenocingulum, bilunabirotunda, and triangular hebesphenorotunda." <- this should probably be divided up into at least a few sentences (e.g. keep it as "The Johnson solids satisfying this criteria are the first six—equilateral square pyramid, pentagonal pyramid, triangular cupola, square cupola, pentagonal cupola, and pentagonal rotunda" and then have the next sentence saying something like "The criteria is also satisfied by eleven other Johnson solids, specifically the tridiminished icosahedron, parabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, tridiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, snub disphenoid, snub square antiprism, sphenocorona, sphenomegacorona, hebesphenomegacorona, disphenocingulum, bilunabirotunda, and triangular hebesphenorotunda." (would be great to divide this second sentence more but I'm not sure what the best way to do that would be (maybe group them up by their Johnson numbers (e.g. "satisfied by eleven other Johnson solids, with [insert name] and [insert name] in the Johnson number range 60 to 70, [insert name], [insert name], and [insert name] in the Johnson number range 70 to 80, ..." (I didn't actually check the numbers for how many elementary polyhedra there are in each Johnson number range so don't copy my sample verbatim)

• also, just a note, the reason I think some additional, probably not too helpful, text should be added to the above sentence is due to MOS:SEAOFBLUE

• "in various processes" <- this might be completely wrong but would "through various mathematical procedures" be a better way to phrase this?
• "Augmentation involves attaching them onto one or more faces of polyhedra" <- for clarity, recommend replacing "them" with "the Johnson solids"
• "prism or antiprism respectively" -> "prism or antiprism[,] respectively" (add in comma)
• "may be composed in a group, alongside the number of elements, known as the order" <- not sure if this is necessary/beneficial but would it be a good idea to rewrite this as: "may be composed in a group, alongside the group's number of elements, known as the order"
• "In two-dimensional space, these transformations include rotating around the center of a polygon and reflecting an object around the perpendicular bisector of a polygon." <- also not sure if this is needed but might help to clarify whether the rotation and reflection are based on same polygon or they can be different polygons
• "known as the axis of symmetry, and reflection relative to perpendicular planes passing through the bisector of a base" -> "known as the axis of symmetry, and the reflection relative to perpendicular planes passing through the bisector of a base" (add "the")
• Consider adding a See also section with links to similar lists/articles (maybe Table of polyhedron dihedral angles?)

Well that's everything I have! The table looks perfect and the article is just overall really well done! Thanks for bringing this to FL Dedhert.Jr and excited to see this get promoted! :) Dan the Animator 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dantheanimator I have accomplished most of your comments, but not of them.

• Re "in various process": to be honest, what I meant that is those Johnson solids can be constructed by literally attaching them. I think there is no guidance procedure of how to construct by attaching mathematically unless it describes the construction with Cartesian coordinates.
• Re "in two-dimensional space": it was intended to describe the cyclic group and dihedral group in two-dimensional space, to understand the analogy symmetry in three-dimensional space.
• Re "See also": I don't mind that, but I'm aware that the table has already had many problems if I looked at it. Will think about it later.

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Dedhert.Jr! Everything looks great now though for the See also, don't worry about choosing that article! I just spotted it from a cursory glance of Category:Polyhedra and thought it look/sounded similar to Johnson solids. Feel free to chose any article/list you know of with an English wiki article that isn't already linked in the article that you think would be helpful for readers interested in Johnson solids. If it helps, here's the link to the guidelines with tips for making see also sections. Many thanks again for your work on this list! Dan the Animator 06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, almost forgot... I now fully support promoting this nom and think once its source review is completed, it should be ready for FL! Dan the Animator 06:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Your welcome. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

support

• support: Most of the problem have been solved, we shouldn't delay for a long time.--金色黎明 (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [4].

---

List of cities in Donetsk Oblast

Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Did an overhaul of the article a few days ago and I think it's ready for the review process. The Ukrainian language wiki version of the list already has selected list status (which is their equivalent of FL) so don't see why this can't be promoted too. Expect there'll be a few things that can be added and some minor improvements but I'm confident based on the state of the article that I'll be able to get this promoted. Also hoping to use this article as a general framework for additional "list of cities in oblast" articles after the review. Cheers, Dan the Animator 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thought I'd put my thoughts about this in case it helps future reviewers. While the article as-is I think covers the subject well, I've been considering adding in a column for the establishment years of the cities (which both the Ukrainian and Russian wiki articles have). That said, the main List of cities in Ukraine just sticks with admin. subdivision and population and I also don't want to overload the table with too much info so not sure if this would be a good addition. Also was thinking of adding into the lead a few sentences about which are the oldest cities, that many were created as part of industrialization and are tied to the mining industry, and maybe also some comments about the current status of some of the cities (e.g. the fact that Bakhmut, Mariupol, Avdiivka, etc. have been mostly destroyed during the full-scale invasion) but not sure if it makes sense here since these already fall in the Donetsk Oblast article's scope. Feel free to let me know y'all's thoughts on these and hopefully they help with ideas but happy to make whatever improvements I can to the article! Cheers, Dan the Animator 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• No article should start with "this is a list". Take a look at some other FLCs and come up with a more engaging opening sentence.

Before nominating, I tried searching to see if there's other similar list of cities articles that're FL and found this: List of United States cities by population. Not the exam same type of article but it also starts off with "this is a list." If it helps though, I could take out that sentence and reword the next sentence to say: There are currently 52 populated places in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine, that have been officially granted city status...by the Verkhovna Rada, the country's parliament.

That list was promoted over 15 years ago and standards have changed massively since then. Your alternative suggestion sounds good for an opening -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it based on the above. Thanks again ChrisTheDude! :) Dan the Animator 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• "As of 1 January 2022, the largest city in the oblast is" => "As of 1 January 2022, the largest city in the oblast was" (2022 was two years ago)

Fixed

• Other verbs in that sentence should also be in past tense

Also fixed

• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisTheDude! :) Dan the Animator 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Drive by comments

• Just like the first comment above saying no article should start with "this is a list", no article should have a reference to the list outside of the list itself. The sentence "The below list shows the English name, Ukrainian name, raion, 2001 census recorded population, 2022 population estimate, and population percent change for each city." does not seem to serve a purpose.

Fixed

• "currently" not needed in first sentence.

Fixed

• What do the numbers in the first column mean? Why is this column there?

Fixed? when overhauling this article, I tried to base it on conceptually similar articles, primarily List of cities in Ukraine and others like List of cities in Australia by population and List of cities in Kansas. From my understanding and the way I've always used it, the column is a type of number ranking which allows readers to sort tables and have number rankings for each row, which can be quiet useful for finding out things like what's the 10th largest city in 2001/2022, how many cities saw 10%+ pop. change, etc. In case it helps, I added one of the template's title options "#" on the top of the column with some extra table code. That said, I saw other list articles such as List of cities in Canada and List of cities in the United Kingdom don't use it so I don't mind taking it out. The template also allows for the title "No." but I think "#" works just the same. Let me know what you think about it though.

• It's not common to have a link to a portal in the see also, would suggest removing both portals from the see also section.

Removed

• Image alts could be more descriptive (for accessibility reasons)

Fixed? Tried to make them more informative but let me know if I should reword/shorten/expand them.

• as could image captions (for example, "the largest city in Donetsk")

same as above

• table completely unsourced, need refs for population columns in header.

Fixed 2022 column; for the 2001 census results, I'm currently searching for a Ukrainian gov. website to add to that column though haven't had luck with finding a gov. source that lists all of them. I'll make sure to send a follow-up update when I find it!

• No need for external links subheading, just external links is fine

Fixed

Normally estimates would not be encyclopedic, but given the extenuating circumstances and lack of any recent census, I suppose this makes sense until the next census? Other than these points above, the article looks quite good! Many of them are vital before being promoted.

Mattximus (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, the Next Ukrainian census doesn't seem like it's happening anytime soon and with the current war, I don't think the statistics would be as useful anyways since they've been changing a lot frequently. Let me know if there's anything else I can do and many thanks Mattximus for all the comments!!! :D Dan the Animator 05:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Looks good, just two outstanding issues. First, it is critical to have a citation for the 2001 census populations, it cannot pass without this. Second, I do like your change to alphabetize the list (that makes it easier to update when the next census actually comes out), but I think the table should not include the number column as it doesn't serve the purpose beyond a count. Since it is a list of cities, the cities column should be the same colour as the headings. Mattximus (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Still working on the 2001 census citation but for the number column, I removed it. About the cities column shading, I haven't seen any table in a "List of cities" article that has it like that. I've looked through at least a dozen varied similar articles (also highly recommend checking out this to see how other articles do it) and they all use the same general shading (the only column that gets fully shaded in any of the tables I've seen is the number column (which I removed from this article per above) and not the cities column. Also don't think it would conceptually make sense to have that shading since both the English and Ukrainian name columns are both "cities columns" imo (and they both are exactly the same in functionality/formatting). Let me know though if I'm missing something and thanks again with the comments! :) Dan the Animator 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is a requirement for the nomination, I just checked all featured lists of cities have it. I clicked on one at random: Cantons of Costa Rica which was one I put up for promotion. I know this is a requirement because I was asked to do it many times. Mattximus (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Mattximus can you post a link to other, more recent past FLs of cities (as many as you know of)? I don't think the article for Cantons of Costa Rica is a good comparison to this article since the Ukrainian equivalent of that article would be List of hromadas of Ukraine (or Raions of Ukraine depending how you look at it). Would help to see maybe some of the other FLs tho, especially if they're more recent (I noticed your FLN for Costa Rica is from 2016 but was wondering if they'd changed it since then). Thanks!!! Dan the Animator 17:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes this has been a policy for at least 8 years (it's in the MOS somewhere), common format for all featured lists in general. You can check out User:Mattximus and click on any of the 45 featured lists of cities/municipalities (the ones with a star beside them), there is also a more comprehensive list when you click on featured lists and scroll to find the cities lists. I clicked randomly to a whole bunch, and can't find any that didn't fit this standard, so I think it is a necessary change. Mattximus (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose just for now based on missing citation for the entire 2001 census column (the link failed verification as it has similar but not identical numbers as the table here). And the format for the table seems to be incorrect. Specifically ,city name should be same colour as headings, and tables needs captions (|+ <caption_text>, or |+ <caption_text> if that text would duplicate a nearby section header). Table captions allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables, without having to read all prior text to provide context.). Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Completely fixed the table/formatting issues. For the citation, would either of these sources (source A, source B) be acceptable? It's alright if not but given the complete 2001 census data increasingly seems like its not available online (and thus would probably be a book citation) and the Ukrainian language wiki page (which has recognized article status) uses the former source (the mashke.org one) in their version of the list, I wanted to ask. Many thanks again with everything and let me know if there's any other issues I can fix (and if the formatting for the table is alright now). Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Table is completely fixed, good work, but the one last citation problem remains. Is there anyone who can help find where these numbers come from? The links you provided give different numbers, and don't seem to come from any official document. But surely this document exists. Maybe another user has an idea? 19:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, Ymblanter, Mupper-san, Shwabb1, Yulia Romero, and Микола Василечко: pinging in case y'all have any advice about this (wasn't sure who to ping so sorry in advance for the bother!!!) Dan the Animator 00:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not particularly well-versed in the discussion, so do forgive if this isn't what is being talked about, but given the fact that mashke.org has an unclear source and (at least according to Firefox for me) has an unsafe connection, I would personally use the numbers included alongside the currently-used sources, as they're official documentation. As citypopulation.de cites mashke.org, I also wouldn't include it.

Perhaps, it would be possible to e-mail Mr. Bespyatov (the owner of mashke.org, judging by the copyright at the bottom) and ask him for a source? Although I'm not quite sure.

Mupper-san (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mupper-san! :) I agree with the concerns for the two sources though the only official Ukrainian government source I could find lists the 2001 census results for only 28 of the 50+ cities in the oblast. Also, although my guess is he got the numbers from the physical records in Kyiv, I think contacting Mr. Bespyatov is a great idea! I'll send him an email in a moment and reply here if he follows up. Dan the Animator 04:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It's on the 2001 census website. Go to Publications, download the file kl_2001.rar under "Кількість та територіальне розміщення населення України" (The number and territorial distribution of the population of Ukraine). Open the file 5.xls, you'll see the breakdown of population by raion/city/urban-type settlement. The data for Donetsk Oblast starts on row 552. Be aware that the names are before the decommunization laws (e.g., Artemivsk instead of Bakhmut). Shwabb1 (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Shwabb1!!!!! :D It worked perfectly and I accessed all the stats (only one of the numbers was off on the article thankfully tho). @Mattximus: I think that about finishes everything? Take a look and let me know if there's anything else to do. Dan the Animator 17:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Overall looks good, I only see two small mistakes: Krasnoarmiysk should be Krasnoarmiisk using official romanization (per WP:UAPLACE), and in the first citation "urban-type settlements" are mistranslated as "towns". Shwabb1 (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good now I will strike the oppose. I think there should be a heading "notes" just like references below and the note can go there instead of floating kind of below the table. I think the format of the reference needs a bit of work (I believe you need filetype for something like a rar?), but nothing here to oppose over. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mattximus and Shwabb1!!!! :) I think I fixed basically all the above suggestions! For the new reference's formatting tho, I wasn't sure exactly how much needed changing but I added the |format= parameter in with a link to RAR which hopefully helps (feel free to let me know if there's anything else I can do tho). Dan the Animator 01:31, 11 June 2024 (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. ! [[City|City name]] becomes !scope=col | [[City|City name]]. 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. |[[Amvrosiivka]] becomes !scope=row |[[Amvrosiivka]], on its own line. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  @PresN: Done! The table should be completely fixed now. Let me know if there's any other formatting/other issues that I can fix. Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Mattximus and PresN: after going through the article meticulously (with sourcing, formatting, and everything in between), completely addressing all the comments here and applying the feedback from my other related FLN for cities in Luhansk Oblast to this article as well, and considering that this list was nominated a month ago and hasn't received any new comments since June 11, I think it should be finally ready to pass. If there are any remaining issues with this article, please let me know but otherwise, I think its time to take this article out of the queue and promote it! Also pinging FL director for their insight @Giants2008:. Apologies all for the bother and many thanks for all the support! :) Dan the Animator 00:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Per the box at the top of WP:FLC: "The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, 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." This nomination currently has only a single support, which is not typically considered a consensus to promote. Unlike FAC, we don't typically archive nominations that don't get a lot of attention but instead let them stay a little longer, so don't worry, but please do be patient. --PresN 03:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks PresN for the reply! I was hoping when I pinged that you and Mattximus would give supports to this nom, which would bring the support count up to 3 which I think is the minimum needed for consensus? That said, I'm not too much in a rush; rather, since I have to take a semi-Wikibreak not long from now (in July) where I'll be able to edit but not too much, I was hoping to get this list as thoroughly checked and improved as possible so that when I nominate the remaining lists for this series, I won't have to make any major edits on those articles (they're all relatively similar too so whatever change I make one list likely would have to be made on the others, which is easier to do before those articles are created). I understand you all are busy so no worries about promoting but it would help a lot to know if I should expect to make additional changes. Cheers, Dan the Animator 23:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm still getting an error on the citation for the 2001 census, is it just me? One more small change:

Fixed? I think I accessed it using the link about a week ago but you're right! Don't know why both the archived and normal link stopped working. I switched it with the permanent, webpage link and added instructions on the ref of how to access the numbers. Let me know if its good now.

• The image captions seem to be incorrect, the are not the largest or smallest cities, as no land area was given. They are the most populous, least populous, have the second largest population, wording like that is more correct.

Fixed

• That's it!

Mattximus (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mattximus! :) Let me know if that fixes everything! Dan the Animator 16:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Things look great, but I still can't access the source for the 2001 statistics. I do believe this article needs a source review so whoever does that will give the go ahead and I'll agree with them since I'm not an expert on sourcing. Mattximus (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Mattximus:! :) I saw that the Luhansk list is already in queue for a source review but not this one so not sure if there'll be a source review soon. About the source tho, how does it look on your end? Is it the link to the ukr gov stats website that doesn't work (it's an unsecure site so might help to check browser settings) or is it the RAR file download link that doesn't work (the instructions on the wikiref are supposed to help with this)? Dan the Animator 00:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images are relevant to the article
• All images are usage tagged properly (AGF on own works)
• All images have alt text except for the map in the infobox. Suggestion: the alt text has citation numbers (ie. [22]) for some images, those probably do not need to be in the alt text
• All images have relevant captions

Thanks for your work @Dan the Animator! Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment by FL nominator

• @Mattximus, Steelkamp, Dajasj, and Chipmunkdavis: Many sorries for the bother but considering y'all's contribution to the other, very similar FLN for List of cities in Luhansk Oblast which got promoted a few days ago, and my completion of applying all the suggestions from that nom to this article, I thought I'd ping y'all in case any of y'all are interested taking (or retaking) a look at this list now and hopefully providing comments so the nom can advance. @PresN: thanks for doing the source review on the Luhansk list!!! :) Thought I'd ping here in case you're interested in doing this one too; also, they share about 70% of the same exact refs (plus a lot of shared content too) so most of the source review for this article you already technically did with the Luhansk review which I thought might make this one a lot easier/quicker to get through. Sorry again for any bothers and looking forward to any additional feedback and to getting this nom completed! Dan the Animator 03:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from CMD

As the nominator noted above, I made comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities in Luhansk Oblast/archive1 which appear to have already been actioned here.

• Prose/lead.

  "...occupied all cities located..." might be clearer with a number, "...occupied all X cities located..."

  A number may also be helpful at "Additional cities were...", which may provide a route to reword/remove the "...while an additional two cities (Lyman and Sviatohirsk) have been recovered..." wording, as I am not sure "addition" is clear in meaning. Having numbers for both invasions and the counteroffensive means that there is no need for an "As of X date...", which might quickly appear dated.

  The final sentence is a tad confusing. Firstly, "occupation of the three reformed raions" is an odd pipe, all of the raions were reformed (removing "the" may solve this problem). Secondly, "including the cities of Bunhe, Chystiakove, Kalmiuske, and Khrestivka" is unclear, I assume those four are former cities of regional significance, but the preceding clause already states "reformed raions" so I would assume they are included by default. Lastly, "the three raions[b] and four cities' new names have only de jure status" seems to imply that the cities under Russian control outside of the 2015 occupation zone de facto use the new names, which would surprise me. It also reads oddly that the raion names are specifically pointed out, this list isn't about the raions and noting names specifically as de jure suggests that the raion otherwise operates de facto, which would also surprise me.

• Comprehensiveness: Comprehensive.
• Structure: Is one table, sortable.
• Style: Not necessarily my strong point, but the decorative images are all licenced as is the locator map. There is a "Jump to table of cities" for mobile access. Alt text is present on all images bar the infobox, which does not seem to have the feature encoded.
• Stability: Stable.

As with the previous review this is a novel interwiki usage, but I don't see how it affects the FLCR. I do think this article (and similar ones) would be served well by dropping the locator infobox and replacing it with a map of the Oblast showing the various city locations, but that is also not a FLCR requirement. In summary, questions for FLCR1/2 and no questions for the other FLCR. CMD (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @CMD: for the review! I think all the suggestions should be addressed. I applied some of the rewording and moved some of the other confusing content into efn notes. Also, thanks for the suggestion with the map! Added it and I think it turned out perfect! (props to Tone for their exceptional work on the UNESCO FL maps which helped a ton with creating this map)! :) I'll also apply these edits to the other lists if you think they're alright CMD but let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve these lists! Thanks again! Dan the Animator 04:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The suggestions were addressed, the efn notes help and nice work finding relevant sources. Hopefully more secondary sources emerge on the topic, it is an area not currently well covered on en.wiki. I had a look and could not find a source linking the 2020 raions with the 2015 era occupation (the current primary source used does not support "by 2015"). However, I did find this source, which mentions the DPR and LPR continuing to use the old names (page 10), and has a list of renamed places and whether they are occupied (pages 84-89). It uses the old raions, but it has relevant dates and names that can supplement the existing sources for "by 2015" and those in the efn notes. CMD (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks CMD! I added in your source into the names efn together with some additional sources. I added a complementary source for the primary ref I think you're talking about (the "About the boundaries and list of raions...temporarily occupied" ref): journalist's David Gormezano France 24 piece characterizes the main Donbas war phase as "April 2014 – February 2015" and also says in that section "On February 12, 2015, the so-called Minsk II agreements formalised the de facto partition of Ukrainian territory...In the years that followed, and until the full-scale Russian attack on February 24, 2022, small-scale attacks and artillery fire hardly ever ceased, without the line of contact between the forces really moving." which should be enough imo to back up the 2015 year (most of the cities were actually occupied in 2014 but due to Debaltseve, I think the wording "by 2015" is more accurate. To sum up, the "About the boundaries" ref verifies which cities were occupied during the Donbas war while the France 24 piece backs up the claim that the occupations of cities during the Donbas war happened between April 2014 and February 2015.

About the use of the 2020 raions when talking about the 2014-2015 occupation: its mostly done out of concision than any actual connection between the two (technically, the new raions' boundaries were decided with consideration of what territories were occupied by DPR/LPR forces at the time so the area could be easier to govern (at least as far as I know) but aside from that, there isn't any actual meaningful connection between the new raions and what areas are occupied). Using the new raions saves on words and makes it easier to understand since there's no caveat to which cities in the raions are occupied and which aren't (for the older raions, since many of the cities are also municipalities, there'd be a need to either list all 21 cities occupied or separately list all the occupied city municipalities and raions, both of which would be unduly and more confusing imo). Let me know if it'd help to find a source mentioning/discussing this rationale for the boundaries for the new raions.

Let me know if there's anything I'm missing or anything else that can be improved and whether this list is ready for promotion! Thanks, Dan the Animator 23:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an issue using the new raions, just wish there was more research on the matter. More sources would help of course, surely someone somewhere has looked up how the de facto raions function in reality and what provisions are in place for the raions that don't exist in reality yet? But, for the purposes of this article the sources are now enough that the list is ready for promotion. CMD (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah got it. I definitely agree more research should be done regarding Ukrainian administrative laws and reforms. About the de facto/de jure raions, as far as I understand it, the de facto raions function as they've always had in the pre-2022 occupied territories while for newly occupied territories, my guess would be it mostly affects the number of Russia-appointed representatives certain administrative entities get, what sort of government websites/digital representation the Russian government gives those entities, how the areas subordinated to those entities are referred to in Russian law, and, at least on paper, how much money/funding goes to each district (although I think its fair to say a lot of that money gets siphoned off by those Russia-appointed representatives or by Russia itself). Probably also a few other miscellaneous things but those are the main "practical effects" of the de facto raions. For de jure raions, its mostly just having websites in some cases (I remember reading a law regarding Crimea's new raions which mandated creating representation of the raions, which would likely include websites), and how the territories subordinated to new raions are referred to in laws (both in Ukraine and by others).

I think one of the reasons why there hasn't really been any research into the "prospective" raions is because they didn't actually exist, either de jure or de facto, until relatively recently (the "occupied terr. admin. reform date" efn note elaborates on this caveat a bit more). And with the ongoing invasion and considerable budget strain of the Ukrainian government, I doubt they've been able to do anything meaningful in the way of these raions imo. Not sure if my reply really answers your question or helps too much but hope its interesting. Thanks again for the review and great suggestions (and the source)! :) Dan the Animator 02:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC) [5].

---

List of municipalities in Albacete

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)

We are trying to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made some excellent changes to this article and together we would like to create a template that can be used on the other Spanish provinces, eventually bringing them up to featured list status. This one may require some significant peer editing as it is the first one for Spain, but it will pay off as it can be replicated in the other Spanish provinces. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• There seems to be a mish-mash of US and UK English used, given that I can see both "The organisation of the municipalities" and "Municipalities are categorized". As the subject matter relates to a non-English speaking country it probably doesn't matter which type of English is used, but whichever one it is should be consistent throughout.

• Found this one instance and fixed, but are there others? Should be consistent now.

• "A further concejal is added for every additional 100,000 inhabitants, although the figure can never be an odd one" - does this not contradict the previous sentence, which sets out the different levels of concejales based on population and every figure is an odd one?

• I assume it means you can never add an odd number as that would make the total even? I will try to reword.

That was my fault. I meant actually the contrary, that the final figure can never be an even one because that would allow for draws when voting any matter. But I don't think it's correct now either. I'll try to explain. We have 25 at 100,000. At 200,000, we add one and we should have 26, but, given that it's an even number, we get an additional one (27) to solve the issue. When the population reaches 300,000, a further concejal is added, so we get 27 again. I think the current wording would mean that we get 27 at 200,000 and 29 at 300,000, which is not the case. Can we maybe twitch it, Mattximus? Alavense (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I trust you guys to figure this out between you :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes my wording is incorrect. I reworded it. Does this new wording make sense? Mattximus (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what I meant, Mattximus. Now it's fine. We are happy now, ChrisTheDude. Thanks. Alavense (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks! Both concerns addressed! Mattximus (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images relevant to the article; consider replacing the gallery with images to the side of the table? If so, just adding the four most populous municipalities might be a little too bland. Maybe have images of other municipalities that are interesting in other ways featured as images. Although - this comment is mostly just from personal taste.

I'm not sure about this one. I think being the most populated municipalities in the province also makes them the most relevant and the ones that should be highlighted with the images.

Placing images on the side does cause some accessibility issues on small screens like phones I believe. Mattximus (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Captions relevant to the images (maybe for the second, black-and-white map, "Map of municipalities in the province of Albacete"?

Done.

• All images have alt text except for the second, black-and-white map, captioned "Municipalities in the province of Albacete"

Done.

• All images under appropriate license. AGF on self-published works.

Thanks for your good work @Mattximus & @Alavense! Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Staraction. I've made the changes you suggested, except for the first one, because I'm not sure about that. Kind regards. Alavense (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine! Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Municipalities enjoy a large degree of autonomy in their local affairs." "in their local affairs" is to vague, Maybe "in local administration".

• Agreed, made change.

• "elected by universal suffrage on a list system". You need to give details of the list system used.

• I will let Alavense respond to this one, I'm only party sure it means the registration list alluded to early in the article where everyone registers to a municipality. Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've expanded the information about that, Dudley Miles. I hope it's now easier to understand. Alavense (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• "junta de gobierno local". A translation would be helpful.

• did a translation but not sure if 100% correct, will defer to Alavense's Spanish.

• I'm happy with that - Alavense.

• It would make the article more attractive to have more photos.

• Added two more, any more required?

I suggest putting a selection of images on the right of the table. It is a narrow table compared with many, so should cause less problems on phones provided a fixed width such as px is not used. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see how this can be an improvement, Dudley Miles. How many images should we add? Amongst the most recently promoted lists, I see some with fewer (or even no) images than this one. Anyway, we already had a map highlighting the province inside Spain, another map with every single municipality located and a selection of images for the most populous municipalities in a tidy row. Now, we have more images, but it's still an arbitrary selection. However, they are not in a tidy row anymore. Besides, I think it's less comfortable for those readers using the mobile app, because they have to scroll to find a table (which is, after all, the most important thing in the list) which has sunk further down. Alavense (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• All three items in 'Works cited' have error messages.

• I tried these and they all work for me, but maybe Alavense knows?

• The error messages go to Category:CS1 maint: date and year. There is a script which displays the errors, but I cannot remember which one. You should be able to get advice at User talk:Trappist the monk. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• I won't be able to use a computer until at least tomorrow, but I tried to fix it. Is it okay now? - Alavense.

• OK. The error messages have gone now. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• The 'External links' links heading for commons looks odd and is better deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Removed. Mattximus (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I disagree on images, but that is a matter of personal preference. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and no problems were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC) [6].

---

List of Green Bay Packers team records

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

A high-level overview of Green Bay Packers team records. Note, per WP:NOTSTATS, I tried to stick to the most notable and commonly reported records, and avoided to the best of my ability to dive too much into sports almanac or statbook territory. As always, happy to address any concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Drive by comments, I'll be back for a full review later on:

• A number of these year ranges use 4 digits for the second part of the range while others only use 2 digits.
• Under the team achievements section, most of the items in that should be changes to title case (I'll call it out more specifically in the full review depending on what changes are made before I get to it)
• "Single season" vs "single-season" – You used "single season", but most refs tend to use "single-season". I believe "single-season" is correct.
• Rushing touchdowns in a single game, needs an "&" when listing the people

As mentioned, I'll be back for a thorough review. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hey man im josh, I addressed all of them except the title case, which I will wait for your full review. Note that if a date range covers a transition from 1999 to 2000, the years should be expanded to 4 digits. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 6 – Should be Green Bay Packers 2023 instead
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• A lot of refs – Shouldn't these be "Green Bay Packers (2023)" instead of "Green Bay Packers 2023"? This isn't a ref format I'm super comfortable or confident in, but, given the source listed above as "Green Bay Packers (2023)", I thought it best if they matched
  • No, per the {{Sfn}} template, this is how it is supposed to be. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• I don't particularly LOVE FootballDB.com as a source, but I recognize that PFR is lacking in some of the stats they provide for free. Has footballDB.com ever been evaluated for reliability at any of the relevant boards? I would appreciate a recognized reliable source outside of PFR for statistics.

I replaced that FootballDB sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Team achievements table:

• Downcase "Titles" to "titles" in all of these headers
• Downcase "Wild Card Berths" to "Wild card berths"
• Downcase "Playoff Appearances" to "Playoff apperances"
• Downcase "NFL Title Game Appearances" to "NFL Title Game appearances"
• Downcase "Super Bowl Appearances" to "Super Bowl appearances"
• Downcase "All-time Record" to "All-time record"

Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Single-game records -> Kicking -> Field goals made – Wikilink Ryan Longwell and Mason Crosby

Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• A number of these "seasons leading the league in xyz" under the notable records section could be wikilinked to the annual lists in Category:Lists of National Football League annual leaders, particularly for the instances where it's an NFL record.

Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Are you calling out ties for NFL records? I see ties / most recent person to accomplish a feat listed for non-records. I'm looking at most safeties in a season specifically, where there's apparently been 19 other players who have also accomplished 2 safeties in a single season. Another example would be longest reception (99 yards).

I am not doing that. Do you think it is necessary? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Other notable records -> Offense -> Most seasons leading league in lowest interception percentage – Should call out minimum number of attempts to qualify.

The source doesn't provide this. My assumption is that each season had to qualify, but that would likely be OR. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Other notable records -> Offense -> Most seasons leading league in receiving yards – Stray "pg 292" in text which looks like it was meant to be in the ref

Deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note i, for sacks becoming an official stat in 1982 – Can you tweak this note to state whether this is counting that or not? I know we have stats available for 1960–1981, and though these are unofficial, we both know the NFL and teams often count them as if they were. Could be a useful clarifying point, though, it looks like it doesn't make a difference to who holds the record.
  • Clarified. The Packers restrict these totals to post-1982, so I will here too. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Career records -> Special teams -> Yards per punt (net) – What's the threshold to qualify? I'll note that PFR uses a threshold of 250 punts for career punting stats, which would mean it probably should be Tim Masthay for this as well

Added threshold and fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Single-season records -> Offense -> QB rating – No qualifying threshold stated.
  • Added threshold. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Use "&" instead of a comma to separate the two players, as it looks like that's what you're trying to do throughout.

• Single-game records -> Offense -> Passing -> Attempts
• Single-game records -> Offense -> Passing -> Yards
• Single-game records -> Special teams -> Punting -> Punts

Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Other notable records -> Offense -> Most consecutive seasons leading league in total touchdowns – Close the brackets

Brackets closed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe that's all I've got, good stuff Gonzo! Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review Hey man im josh. I have addressed everything except two items, where I provided responses. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it's necessary to call out when something noted as an NFL record is a tie. I think it might be nice to have it as T-NFL record in the bracket to make it clear, but I won't be a stickler for it. Source review passed, support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images have alt text
• All images are appropriately licensed (WP:AGF on self-published works)
• All images are relevant to the article
• Captions:
  • "Blake Martinez set the Packers' record for most tackles in 2019 with 203." -> "Blake Martinez set the Packers' record for most tackles in a single game in 2019 with 203."
  • "Billy Howton had 257 receiving yards in a 1956 game, the Packers' record for a single-game."

@Gonzo fan2007 I think that's it from me! Thanks for the nomination, as someone who doesn't follow American football very closely it was an interesting read. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review Staraction! I fixed both captions, although Martinez's record was for a single season, not a single game :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 13:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Since entering the NFL, the team has won 13 championships (the most in NFL history), including nine NFL Championships prior to 1966 and four Super Bowls, which is inclusive of two additional NFL Championships won during the AFL–NFL merger. - As per MOS:NUMNOTES, "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
• 40 years later - Figures at the beginning of a sentence should be avoided.
• "phenomena" is the plural of "phenomenon", so a relatively recent phenomena doesn't make sense.
• In the first table, it should say "Ref." as there's only one. Please include the "." and maybe you can use {{abbr}}.
• over a two season period - "a two-season period".
• I see a lack of consistency when it comes to the saxon genitive: Donald Driver holds the Packers record but Davante Adams set the Packers' single-season receiving records. There are several instances of this.
• In the notes, Minimum one attempt per game to qualify but Minimum 1 kick return per game to qualify.

That's all I saw, Gonzo fan2007. Nice work. Alavense (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Alavense! I implemented the first five bullets and the last one. Regarding the saxon genitive, does there need to be consistency? I often try not to be repetitive, so there is some purposeful change to sentence structure and diction. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. Support. Alavense (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

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