The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 00:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC) [1]. reply
The state of NFL lists on Wikipedia is very poor compared to fellow major American sports leagues such as the NBA, NHL and especially the MLB. This is the first list in a project of mine to raise the standard of NFL lists. The style and format of the list is modeled after the NFL featured lists List of National Football League rushing champions and List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders. I look forward to any input and suggestions that you may have! -- Newtothisedit ( talk) 23:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply
These apply to the 2 big tables mostly, not the key table
|+ caption_textas 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.
!scope=colto each header cell, e.g.
! Year
becomes !scope=col | Year
. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroupinstead.
!scope=rowto each primary cell, e.g.
| {{NFL year|1932}}
becomes !scope=row | {{NFL year|1932}}
. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroupinstead.
That's all from me. I also have a list that could with a review here if you've got the time :) NapHit ( talk) 13:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 19:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Harper J. Cole ( talk) 23:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Checked all the sources, look fine, no concerns with them although I can't check the source from a book . MasterMatt12 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply
This nomination has been up for a really long time, so this is a review and a source review and a close. I didn't find any issues worth holding up the close for but instead just tweaked some source formatting myself, and the source review passes, so promoting. -- Pres N 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 00:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC) [2]. reply
Many of Wikipedia's science-y articles are a bit overwhelming to people who lack the necessary background. This is what attracted me to WP:FLC many years ago ... I saw a lot of lists that served very nicely as readable introductions to a subject. My hope is that this list series will eventually succeed in some of the same ways. Btw, I tried several times to write about leaves and flowers, but these tend to vary a lot within any large family. They deserve a list, but not this list. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Initial minor gripes:
The page is absorbing and beautifully, exactly written. Ceoil ( talk) 05:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
One more thing, Ceoil (no rush of course) ... this is actually about an edit you made over at List of lilioid families, but it might be relevant here, too. I'm aware that, more and more over the last couple of decades, people are uncomfortable with too many "ands" ... but IMO pulling them can create no-win situations, sometimes. In "The southern United States, tropical and subtropical Asia, and Australasia", you took out the last "and" ... if you still want that, then I'll take another look at this list (the lamiids I mean) and see if I can make some edits that work for you. But maintaining consistency is going to be hard. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Ceoil, I removed "is", "comes" etc. per your suggestion. I don't think I can go with parentheses the whole way down, so I went with commas instead. See what you think. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply
(the anthers)Maybe insert "referring to"
and trees, thatComma not needed
That's all! Nice work. ~ HAL 333 21:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
I can't do an image review for my own nomination, but since I didn't select any of these images, it probably does make sense for me to verify that I've checked everything, so ... that's what this is. Fortunately, licensing tends to be fairly trivial for plant images on Commons. This version of the list was just after I transferred the images selected by Johnboddie (not to be confused with User:Johnbod!) Those images are still in his sandbox now. The Graphics Lab cropped a few of these images, and I cropped a few more using the CropTool on Commons. Commons didn't have some of the images we needed, and Eewilson stepped in and transferred a few images from iNaturalist: the ones for Carlemanniaceae, Tetrachondra and Thomandersia. Apart from these:
Note that Aza24 did a thorough source review over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lilioid families/archive1. These sources are largely the same, and I've implemented those suggestions here. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply
I've looked through the sources here and found no issues in formatting, reliability or verifiability. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Probably just general comments here. Leaving these five then will continue later.
There are five lamiid orders with more than one family...seems to imply that there are only five lamiid orders. Probably a good idea to add that there are eight orders, and five have more than one family.
Species in this family contain the pest-control poison strychnine.All species in the family?
The roots provided a red dye.Past tense?
Jean-Paul Bignon (1662–1743), a statesman and royal librarian... makes me want to know where he's from simply because I want to know where to what country he was important (name implies France); maybe just add "French" in there (hopefully your sources say that), i.e. "a French statesman and royal librarian"; I'm not thinking that for everyone, just him so far.
Research is ongoingneeds an
{{
As of}}
.
Continuing...
Hydrolea spinosa is an invasive species.An invasive species where?
Vines, shrubs and trees, all with stem tendrils for climbing.Even the shrubs and trees? Also, this may not be a big deal, but I don't see the tendrils on the close-up image for this family.
Lentibularia, an earlier synonym for the genus, is probably from Greek for "lentil-shaped bladders".The "probably" is concerning. Do the sources say "probably" (or a synonym of)?
Pinguicula is used to curdle milk in northern Europe, and also occasionally to kill pests in greenhouses.I don't think you need the "also" here
Stems often have four flat sides.and the latter has this phrase:
...with quadrangular stems.. Do they both mean the same thing? If so, should they be worded the same?
Olea, from a Latin plant nameShould you say what plant or be more specific? I am left wanting.
Plantago, from a Latin plant nameSame question as Olea.
Foxglove is also a source of digitalin, a heart stimulant.I think that should be "digitalis".
Evergreens, including vines, shrubs and trees with pale bark.Don't need the ending period; it is not a full sentence.
Verbena, from Latin for plants used in some religious ceremoniesSimilar question as with Olea and Plantago; is there a way to be more specific without taking up too much space? What plants? What ceremonies? I don't know. Just thoughts.
That's all I see for this general review. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 22:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Promoting. -- Pres N 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 00:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC) [3]. reply
Catullus was a hugely influential Roman poet whose Carmina are largely known to modern times because of a single manuscript from c. 1300. The first printed book of Catullus's poetry was published in 1472. Thousands of publications about him and his poetry and its legacy have appeared since then, and dozens of works have attempted to bring some sort of order to the sea of scholarship by listing, cataloging, indexing, and summarizing the books and papers about him. This article is an annotated list of these bibliographies which have been identified as being bibliographies of Catullus in third-party sources.
I realize Wikipedia does not have many " metabibliographies"; initially I was planning to do just a Bibliography of works on Catullus but as I was compiling sources to consider using for that, I realized that many sources specifically classified and discussed bibliographies of Catullus as a category of works unto itself. A full bibliography of works on Catullus I think is a monumental task, hence the number of works attempting to do this. I would like to see more topical bibliographies on Wikipedia in general; per WP:BIB these do belong on Wikipedia provided the category of bibliographies on that topic is notable, but I couldn't find too many examples to model this article off of (though see Bibliography of works on Madonna). I am nominating this for featured list because I think this is a great example of what topic bibliographies ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Topical bibliographies) and indeed other metabibliographies could look like on Wikipedia. I've done a ton of research for this, and have followed a strict inclusion criterion where every entry on the list is referenced as belonging in this category by a third-party source, and all annotations are sourced to third-party sources as well.
That said, this is my first attempt at a featured list and I haven't found really any FLs which I could use as a model. I've asked WT:BIB for advice but it's unfortunately less active these days. I realize I might have to tweak a few things, but am happy to make this article the best it can be with your feedback and advice.
Thanks! Umimmak ( talk) 02:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Placeholder. Ping me if I haven't updated by Sunday 18th December. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply
As always, these are suggestions, not demands.
As there are several issues currently, I am leaning oppose (see below). I look forward to your responses.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
19:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
Even though items in a list of works are not strictly speaking citations, our various citation templates are often a good way to format a list item. The templates provide a consistent format, and their documentation is a handy way to check that all relevant information is provided.) The templates make sure that a reader can get all the important information about a source in a consistently formatted manner.
|ref=none
in every case, but I can go though and remove all the anchors even when there's no issue.no. 60is used to cite the section headings for Nat 1963–1964.
You don't need to separate reviews in the same reference, it causes the syntax to become a bit confused.WP:CITEBUNDLE is standard on Wikipedia, no? Or is this about something else? I'm not sure I understand this point.
non-German bibliographiesI couldn't find any reference to any; I really did aim to be as thorough as possible, erring on the side of including more rather than less so long as they met the inclusion criterion. There are earlier sections on Catullus within broader bibliographies on Greek and Roman literature (see, e.g., Marouzeau 1927 in my works cited), but I've included all the ones which got mentioned specifically within discussions of bibliographies of Catullus.
known for writing 113 poems on personal topics, but I'm not sure if all 113 poems could be classified as being "on personal topics" as this sentence implies? That's not a claim the reference makes in any event,
"this is a list of ..."I'll remove this.
stand on its own as a concise version of the article, so if people only read the lead they'd still come away knowing the main bibliographic works.
trends or bibliographic evolution, I'm not sure if there's anything to say on trends or evolution; I don't want to force a narrative where none exists or go into WP:SYNTH territory. The history of Catullan scholarship as a whole has gone through multiple trends and phases which are well-documented and discussed, but bibliographies stay fairly constant? The only thing sources have discussed as it comes to bibliographies is the rise in electronic ones so I can work on adding a bit on that. The body also doesn't really discuss trends, and
Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.I'll work on drafting another version though.
The third paragraph could be simplified greatly.I'll workshop this. I guess I just wanted separately mention standalone bibliographies about topics other than Catullus, bibliographies within books on Catullus, and tertiary sources like encyclopedia articles, but I can see if I can repeat myself less.
Can we please try to follow the indentation guidelines at WP:TALKREPLY? Otherwise things just get confusing, and formatting a reply to a # list is rather incomprehensible.
It good to see a list on the Classics. Here's what I got:
That's all. ~ HAL 333 00:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
where helpful. I honestly don't think a table would make this more readable; to me a table would just be for the sake of using a table, whereas a simple list doesn't force all items to be treated the same way (books, chapters, journal articles, websites, etc., all have different metadata) or to squish things like annotations into a single cell. Plus this many columns would make it so it would be too wide for many readers' screens (especially with the images for 5b). It does make use of section headings and is easy to navigate in the most useful sense, namely chronological order. I'm happy to try to play around with this, but I think I'd like more guidance as to what readers would actually want. (If I were to make this sortable, then I'd get rid of section headings, and to me that would make this far more unnavigable, for instance. And what would people realistically need to sort this by?) I hope you don't mind my mild pushing back on this; this would be such a massive change to the article I'd want to make sure it's actually an improvement.
Gaius Valerius Catullus ( c. 84 – c. 54 BCE) was a Latin poet and a leading figure of the Neoterics. Catullus and his poetry, comprising 113 poems,[1] have been the subjects of many books and papers ...
This option can be useful in long bibliographies/reference lists and in particular when individual entries in the list are long, i.e. they wrap over more than one line in the browser display window. Applying a hanging indent to the list makes it much easier to distinguish the keywords (i.e. normally the authors' names) in the bibliography and makes them stand out from preceding and succeeding lines of text. Hanging indents in bibliographies also form part of several widely used citation style implementations, such as APA, MLA, and Chicago.
a compiler of Oxford Bibliographies Online's bibliography of Catullusinstead and taking out the whole "first" bit in the lead. If I'm going to talk about l'APh in the lead there are a few additional papers I'd perhaps need to incorporate but they might take some time on my end to read, mostly being in French, but I've provided at least the basic information in the lead. I'm also glad you agree it would be unreasonable to convert this into a table though. Umimmak ( talk) 19:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Source review passed; I'm a little surprised that no one has an issue that none of the non-English titles are translated, but if that's the consensus here then I'll let it go. Promoting. -- Pres N 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 00:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC) [4]. reply
This is a list of accolades received by English singer Zayn Malik, who was previously a member of the boy band One Direction. This is my second nomination, and after expanding the list, I believe that it now meets the criteria. Any feedback is appreciated! Harushiga ( talk) 04:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Ping me once you address these. FrB.TG ( talk) 21:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC) reply
This nomination has been up for a really long time, so this is a review and a source review and a close. I didn't find any issues worth holding up the close for, and the source review passes, so promoting. -- Pres N 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 12:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [5]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because it's a well sourced and extensive list of his work. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Done, if you have any other input I'm always appreciative of your opinion. Thanks Snug! LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [6]. reply
Sri Lanka has eight World Heritage Sites and three sites on the tentative list. The format is standard for the WHS articles. The list for Laos is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 09:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC) reply
That's it from me. I also have a list that could with a review here if you've got the time :)
That's all. And I hate to turn this into a quid pro quo, but can you check out my featured list nom if you have the chance. Thanks, ~ HAL 333 23:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Promoting. -- Pres N 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [8]. reply
A list of every quarterback to start at least one game for the Los Angeles Chargers. I've added details on the reasons why the Chargers have changed their quarterbacks over the years, plus citations. Hopefully up to FL standard. Harper J. Cole ( talk) 22:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC) reply
|+ caption_textas 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.
!scope=colto each header cell, e.g.
! style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Los Angeles Chargers|border=2}};"|Season || style...
becomes !scope=col style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Los Angeles Chargers|border=2}};"|Season (linebreak)!scope=col style...
.That's all from me. I also have a list that could with a review here if you've got the time :) NapHit ( talk) 13:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
That's all I've got, I always liked Rivers when I was growing up and Herbert is incredible to watch, so I'm glad to see this list is so well sourced and informative.-- Newtothisedit ( talk) 01:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [9]. reply
As always, I'll wait and see what people want to talk about before I come back and discuss that in this intro. I hope you enjoy the list. - Dank ( push to talk) 05:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Dank: Quick comments, I'll do more thorough ones later:
We do not attempt to provide a full overview of the fossil history of each family, as this is a different discipline and not relevant to the general reader interested in living plants
(usually a genus for which the family is named)so are any of these etymons not the type genus? feel this should be clarified if any have non-obvious type genera
A large part, if not all, of the work should be directly about the subject of the article-- neither of these are directly applicable, just a few entries might be indirectly relevant to etymologies.
The lilioid monocots are a subgroup but not a clade, but as a reader I'm wondering why does this even exist as a group, what use does it have, etc. I know most of this information should be in the main article for the grade, so you don't need to go into too much detail, but I found it interesting that Christenhusz and colleagues never mention the term "lilioid monoclot", so a bit of discussion justifying this as a useful category might be useful? I'm not a botanist, so just these are my questions as a reader.
I don't have a lot of experience with FLCs or WP:PLANTS for that matter, these are just my immediate thoughts when I see the article. I'll do a closer read later. Umimmak ( talk) 07:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I really appreciate the speedy review, and it was helpful, too. Anything else I can help with? - Dank ( push to talk) 02:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC) reply
borrowing sentences from that other article. I'm still confused how Christenhusz and colleagues' book is the source given they don't use the word
lilioidonce though? That's a fine source for which families are in those four orders, but they don't say that those four orders make up the grade "lilioid monocot", if that makes sense? And yeah just broad response to your other comments I think it makes sense to hear more from WP:PLANTS too. Umimmak ( talk) 19:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC) reply
neither of these are directly applicable, just a few entries might be indirectly relevant to etymologies.
Like I said, hopefully more experienced editors provide thoughts as well. Umimmak ( talk) 05:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't think authorities for families should be included if they're going to appear as "Amaryllidaceae J.St.-Hil. (onion family)". Authorities are relevant to etymology as they actually coined the name of the family. But that gets complicated in the early history of modern taxonomy; entities that we now call families were sometimes called orders, and the -aceae ending for families wasn't a standard; J.St.-Hil.'s spelling was Amaryllideæ; I have no idea who first used the spelling Amaryllidaceae. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Umimmak: 1. The "Further reading" section is now gone. 2. I've added a note saying: "The vernacular name is the first thing that appears in each family section in the source, and the order that each family belongs to appears at the top of each page." I hope that deals with your objection about the lack of cites in the first column and the orders column. 3. I'm not sure if your comment about checking with the WP:PLANTS wikiproject is more like "It's always good to check with the wikiproject" or "OMG this stuff is crap, check with the wikiproject". I've had feedback and even supports from people who are respected by the wikiproject, and I'll keep asking, but I don't want to put anyone on the spot. If this is a burning concern, let me know, and I'll email PresN (an FLC delegate) with more detailed information. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I want more feedback on how the plants wikiproject wants to tackle this before I proceed.so I was just saying that yeah that makes sense to not just listen to me, who again does not have much experience with FLCs for with plant articles on Wikipedia. Honestly the more this is going on the more I'm realizing I'm fully not qualified to give the best possible FLC advice. I said I might have more comments coming, but I'd like to just hear from others on FLC just to make sure I'm not leading you too far astray. But if this is about etymology now, perhaps the talk page should have either {{ Etymology section}} or {{ WikiProject Linguistics|etymology=yes}} (although again I personally thought this was a stronger article before the focus shifted to etymology, especially given List of plant family names with etymologies, but again I'm just one editor who doesn't have much FLC experience.) Umimmak ( talk) 17:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Amaryllis was the name of a mythical Greek shepherdessThe Amaryllis says the name is taken from a Greek shepherdess in Virgil's Eclogues. I haven't read the Eclogues (an unread copy is staring at me from my bookshelf as I type this), and I'm not sure if Virgil invented Amaryllis. If he did, she's not really mythological. I'm not sure. I would check and clarify this.
That's all. Nice work. ~ HAL 333 21:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I can't do an image review for my own nomination, but since the only table images I selected were for Asphodelus, it probably does make sense for me to verify that I've checked everything, so ... that's what this is. Also see the same section in the FLC for the lamiids. This version of the list was soon after I transferred the images selected by Johnboddie in his sandbox. Licensing:
Promoting. -- Pres N 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [10]. reply
With 1958 having now picked up multiple supports, here's 1959. In this particular year, James Brown, one of the greatest African-American artists of all time, gained his first chart-topper. I'd imagine if you had asked at the time how he felt, he would have replied "I feel good, I knew that I would!" :-) -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply
{{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
)-- EN- Jungwon 12:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC) reply
That's all - very clean and well done. It's a shame that I couldn't help with the tail end of those country lists, but I'm glad to see you're still at it. Also, have a Merry Christmas! ~ HAL 333 20:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Although not his most successful song, "Personality" would become Price's signature song and lead to the nickname "Mr. Personality"- not supported by the live link, which is to Price's album discography. (Archive link is not working at the moment.)
who would go on to become one of the most successful and influential artists in the history of black American music and to be regarded as one of the all-time greats across all genres.- no issues.
Pass for image review. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 22:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Adding a Support. Looks good to me. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 11:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Promoting. -- Pres N 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 00:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC) [11]. reply
One last list in my brief return to my series of games by 90s/early 2000s developers ( 3D Realms/ id/ Raven/ Epic/ Firaxis/ Blizzard/ Relic/ Bullfrog/ Lionhead), here we have the gameography of Volition. Founded in 1993 as Parallax Software, they hit it out of the park on their first try with Descent, and went on to make a number of good shooter and RPG games – as well as the greatest space combat game ever made, 1999's FreeSpace 2. That's an objective, unbiased fact there. In any case, Volition went on to release the wacky GTA-like Saint's Row in 2006, which did well enough that with a few deviations that's been their main series ever since.
In the background they split the company in half in 1996, with this half renamed Volition and the other being Outrage Entertainment; got bought by THQ in 2000; got picked up out of THQ's bankruptcy by Koch Media in 2012 without half of its IP and merged with publisher Deep Silver (so it's technically the company "Deep Silver Volition", real creative there); and then Embracer Group bought every company and IP I mentioned here, welcome to 2020s capitalism. Despite all these corporate goings-on, Volition itself has for 30 years been sitting in an office building in bustling downtown Champaign, Illinois (population: 88,000), doing their own thing. This list follows the pattern of all the prior lists I've done on games-by-developers, so I hope you enjoy it, and thanks for reviewing. -- Pres N 00:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply
— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 19:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Support – RunningTiger123 ( talk) 19:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 00:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC) [1]. reply
The state of NFL lists on Wikipedia is very poor compared to fellow major American sports leagues such as the NBA, NHL and especially the MLB. This is the first list in a project of mine to raise the standard of NFL lists. The style and format of the list is modeled after the NFL featured lists List of National Football League rushing champions and List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders. I look forward to any input and suggestions that you may have! -- Newtothisedit ( talk) 23:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply
These apply to the 2 big tables mostly, not the key table
|+ caption_textas 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.
!scope=colto each header cell, e.g.
! Year
becomes !scope=col | Year
. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroupinstead.
!scope=rowto each primary cell, e.g.
| {{NFL year|1932}}
becomes !scope=row | {{NFL year|1932}}
. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroupinstead.
That's all from me. I also have a list that could with a review here if you've got the time :) NapHit ( talk) 13:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 19:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Harper J. Cole ( talk) 23:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Checked all the sources, look fine, no concerns with them although I can't check the source from a book . MasterMatt12 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply
This nomination has been up for a really long time, so this is a review and a source review and a close. I didn't find any issues worth holding up the close for but instead just tweaked some source formatting myself, and the source review passes, so promoting. -- Pres N 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 00:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC) [2]. reply
Many of Wikipedia's science-y articles are a bit overwhelming to people who lack the necessary background. This is what attracted me to WP:FLC many years ago ... I saw a lot of lists that served very nicely as readable introductions to a subject. My hope is that this list series will eventually succeed in some of the same ways. Btw, I tried several times to write about leaves and flowers, but these tend to vary a lot within any large family. They deserve a list, but not this list. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Initial minor gripes:
The page is absorbing and beautifully, exactly written. Ceoil ( talk) 05:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
One more thing, Ceoil (no rush of course) ... this is actually about an edit you made over at List of lilioid families, but it might be relevant here, too. I'm aware that, more and more over the last couple of decades, people are uncomfortable with too many "ands" ... but IMO pulling them can create no-win situations, sometimes. In "The southern United States, tropical and subtropical Asia, and Australasia", you took out the last "and" ... if you still want that, then I'll take another look at this list (the lamiids I mean) and see if I can make some edits that work for you. But maintaining consistency is going to be hard. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Ceoil, I removed "is", "comes" etc. per your suggestion. I don't think I can go with parentheses the whole way down, so I went with commas instead. See what you think. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply
(the anthers)Maybe insert "referring to"
and trees, thatComma not needed
That's all! Nice work. ~ HAL 333 21:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
I can't do an image review for my own nomination, but since I didn't select any of these images, it probably does make sense for me to verify that I've checked everything, so ... that's what this is. Fortunately, licensing tends to be fairly trivial for plant images on Commons. This version of the list was just after I transferred the images selected by Johnboddie (not to be confused with User:Johnbod!) Those images are still in his sandbox now. The Graphics Lab cropped a few of these images, and I cropped a few more using the CropTool on Commons. Commons didn't have some of the images we needed, and Eewilson stepped in and transferred a few images from iNaturalist: the ones for Carlemanniaceae, Tetrachondra and Thomandersia. Apart from these:
Note that Aza24 did a thorough source review over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lilioid families/archive1. These sources are largely the same, and I've implemented those suggestions here. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply
I've looked through the sources here and found no issues in formatting, reliability or verifiability. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Probably just general comments here. Leaving these five then will continue later.
There are five lamiid orders with more than one family...seems to imply that there are only five lamiid orders. Probably a good idea to add that there are eight orders, and five have more than one family.
Species in this family contain the pest-control poison strychnine.All species in the family?
The roots provided a red dye.Past tense?
Jean-Paul Bignon (1662–1743), a statesman and royal librarian... makes me want to know where he's from simply because I want to know where to what country he was important (name implies France); maybe just add "French" in there (hopefully your sources say that), i.e. "a French statesman and royal librarian"; I'm not thinking that for everyone, just him so far.
Research is ongoingneeds an
{{
As of}}
.
Continuing...
Hydrolea spinosa is an invasive species.An invasive species where?
Vines, shrubs and trees, all with stem tendrils for climbing.Even the shrubs and trees? Also, this may not be a big deal, but I don't see the tendrils on the close-up image for this family.
Lentibularia, an earlier synonym for the genus, is probably from Greek for "lentil-shaped bladders".The "probably" is concerning. Do the sources say "probably" (or a synonym of)?
Pinguicula is used to curdle milk in northern Europe, and also occasionally to kill pests in greenhouses.I don't think you need the "also" here
Stems often have four flat sides.and the latter has this phrase:
...with quadrangular stems.. Do they both mean the same thing? If so, should they be worded the same?
Olea, from a Latin plant nameShould you say what plant or be more specific? I am left wanting.
Plantago, from a Latin plant nameSame question as Olea.
Foxglove is also a source of digitalin, a heart stimulant.I think that should be "digitalis".
Evergreens, including vines, shrubs and trees with pale bark.Don't need the ending period; it is not a full sentence.
Verbena, from Latin for plants used in some religious ceremoniesSimilar question as with Olea and Plantago; is there a way to be more specific without taking up too much space? What plants? What ceremonies? I don't know. Just thoughts.
That's all I see for this general review. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 22:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Promoting. -- Pres N 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 00:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC) [3]. reply
Catullus was a hugely influential Roman poet whose Carmina are largely known to modern times because of a single manuscript from c. 1300. The first printed book of Catullus's poetry was published in 1472. Thousands of publications about him and his poetry and its legacy have appeared since then, and dozens of works have attempted to bring some sort of order to the sea of scholarship by listing, cataloging, indexing, and summarizing the books and papers about him. This article is an annotated list of these bibliographies which have been identified as being bibliographies of Catullus in third-party sources.
I realize Wikipedia does not have many " metabibliographies"; initially I was planning to do just a Bibliography of works on Catullus but as I was compiling sources to consider using for that, I realized that many sources specifically classified and discussed bibliographies of Catullus as a category of works unto itself. A full bibliography of works on Catullus I think is a monumental task, hence the number of works attempting to do this. I would like to see more topical bibliographies on Wikipedia in general; per WP:BIB these do belong on Wikipedia provided the category of bibliographies on that topic is notable, but I couldn't find too many examples to model this article off of (though see Bibliography of works on Madonna). I am nominating this for featured list because I think this is a great example of what topic bibliographies ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Topical bibliographies) and indeed other metabibliographies could look like on Wikipedia. I've done a ton of research for this, and have followed a strict inclusion criterion where every entry on the list is referenced as belonging in this category by a third-party source, and all annotations are sourced to third-party sources as well.
That said, this is my first attempt at a featured list and I haven't found really any FLs which I could use as a model. I've asked WT:BIB for advice but it's unfortunately less active these days. I realize I might have to tweak a few things, but am happy to make this article the best it can be with your feedback and advice.
Thanks! Umimmak ( talk) 02:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Placeholder. Ping me if I haven't updated by Sunday 18th December. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply
As always, these are suggestions, not demands.
As there are several issues currently, I am leaning oppose (see below). I look forward to your responses.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
19:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
Even though items in a list of works are not strictly speaking citations, our various citation templates are often a good way to format a list item. The templates provide a consistent format, and their documentation is a handy way to check that all relevant information is provided.) The templates make sure that a reader can get all the important information about a source in a consistently formatted manner.
|ref=none
in every case, but I can go though and remove all the anchors even when there's no issue.no. 60is used to cite the section headings for Nat 1963–1964.
You don't need to separate reviews in the same reference, it causes the syntax to become a bit confused.WP:CITEBUNDLE is standard on Wikipedia, no? Or is this about something else? I'm not sure I understand this point.
non-German bibliographiesI couldn't find any reference to any; I really did aim to be as thorough as possible, erring on the side of including more rather than less so long as they met the inclusion criterion. There are earlier sections on Catullus within broader bibliographies on Greek and Roman literature (see, e.g., Marouzeau 1927 in my works cited), but I've included all the ones which got mentioned specifically within discussions of bibliographies of Catullus.
known for writing 113 poems on personal topics, but I'm not sure if all 113 poems could be classified as being "on personal topics" as this sentence implies? That's not a claim the reference makes in any event,
"this is a list of ..."I'll remove this.
stand on its own as a concise version of the article, so if people only read the lead they'd still come away knowing the main bibliographic works.
trends or bibliographic evolution, I'm not sure if there's anything to say on trends or evolution; I don't want to force a narrative where none exists or go into WP:SYNTH territory. The history of Catullan scholarship as a whole has gone through multiple trends and phases which are well-documented and discussed, but bibliographies stay fairly constant? The only thing sources have discussed as it comes to bibliographies is the rise in electronic ones so I can work on adding a bit on that. The body also doesn't really discuss trends, and
Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.I'll work on drafting another version though.
The third paragraph could be simplified greatly.I'll workshop this. I guess I just wanted separately mention standalone bibliographies about topics other than Catullus, bibliographies within books on Catullus, and tertiary sources like encyclopedia articles, but I can see if I can repeat myself less.
Can we please try to follow the indentation guidelines at WP:TALKREPLY? Otherwise things just get confusing, and formatting a reply to a # list is rather incomprehensible.
It good to see a list on the Classics. Here's what I got:
That's all. ~ HAL 333 00:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
where helpful. I honestly don't think a table would make this more readable; to me a table would just be for the sake of using a table, whereas a simple list doesn't force all items to be treated the same way (books, chapters, journal articles, websites, etc., all have different metadata) or to squish things like annotations into a single cell. Plus this many columns would make it so it would be too wide for many readers' screens (especially with the images for 5b). It does make use of section headings and is easy to navigate in the most useful sense, namely chronological order. I'm happy to try to play around with this, but I think I'd like more guidance as to what readers would actually want. (If I were to make this sortable, then I'd get rid of section headings, and to me that would make this far more unnavigable, for instance. And what would people realistically need to sort this by?) I hope you don't mind my mild pushing back on this; this would be such a massive change to the article I'd want to make sure it's actually an improvement.
Gaius Valerius Catullus ( c. 84 – c. 54 BCE) was a Latin poet and a leading figure of the Neoterics. Catullus and his poetry, comprising 113 poems,[1] have been the subjects of many books and papers ...
This option can be useful in long bibliographies/reference lists and in particular when individual entries in the list are long, i.e. they wrap over more than one line in the browser display window. Applying a hanging indent to the list makes it much easier to distinguish the keywords (i.e. normally the authors' names) in the bibliography and makes them stand out from preceding and succeeding lines of text. Hanging indents in bibliographies also form part of several widely used citation style implementations, such as APA, MLA, and Chicago.
a compiler of Oxford Bibliographies Online's bibliography of Catullusinstead and taking out the whole "first" bit in the lead. If I'm going to talk about l'APh in the lead there are a few additional papers I'd perhaps need to incorporate but they might take some time on my end to read, mostly being in French, but I've provided at least the basic information in the lead. I'm also glad you agree it would be unreasonable to convert this into a table though. Umimmak ( talk) 19:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Source review passed; I'm a little surprised that no one has an issue that none of the non-English titles are translated, but if that's the consensus here then I'll let it go. Promoting. -- Pres N 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 00:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC) [4]. reply
This is a list of accolades received by English singer Zayn Malik, who was previously a member of the boy band One Direction. This is my second nomination, and after expanding the list, I believe that it now meets the criteria. Any feedback is appreciated! Harushiga ( talk) 04:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Ping me once you address these. FrB.TG ( talk) 21:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC) reply
This nomination has been up for a really long time, so this is a review and a source review and a close. I didn't find any issues worth holding up the close for, and the source review passes, so promoting. -- Pres N 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 12:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [5]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because it's a well sourced and extensive list of his work. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Done, if you have any other input I'm always appreciative of your opinion. Thanks Snug! LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [6]. reply
Sri Lanka has eight World Heritage Sites and three sites on the tentative list. The format is standard for the WHS articles. The list for Laos is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 09:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC) reply
That's it from me. I also have a list that could with a review here if you've got the time :)
That's all. And I hate to turn this into a quid pro quo, but can you check out my featured list nom if you have the chance. Thanks, ~ HAL 333 23:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Promoting. -- Pres N 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [8]. reply
A list of every quarterback to start at least one game for the Los Angeles Chargers. I've added details on the reasons why the Chargers have changed their quarterbacks over the years, plus citations. Hopefully up to FL standard. Harper J. Cole ( talk) 22:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC) reply
|+ caption_textas 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.
!scope=colto each header cell, e.g.
! style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Los Angeles Chargers|border=2}};"|Season || style...
becomes !scope=col style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Los Angeles Chargers|border=2}};"|Season (linebreak)!scope=col style...
.That's all from me. I also have a list that could with a review here if you've got the time :) NapHit ( talk) 13:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply
That's all I've got, I always liked Rivers when I was growing up and Herbert is incredible to watch, so I'm glad to see this list is so well sourced and informative.-- Newtothisedit ( talk) 01:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [9]. reply
As always, I'll wait and see what people want to talk about before I come back and discuss that in this intro. I hope you enjoy the list. - Dank ( push to talk) 05:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Dank: Quick comments, I'll do more thorough ones later:
We do not attempt to provide a full overview of the fossil history of each family, as this is a different discipline and not relevant to the general reader interested in living plants
(usually a genus for which the family is named)so are any of these etymons not the type genus? feel this should be clarified if any have non-obvious type genera
A large part, if not all, of the work should be directly about the subject of the article-- neither of these are directly applicable, just a few entries might be indirectly relevant to etymologies.
The lilioid monocots are a subgroup but not a clade, but as a reader I'm wondering why does this even exist as a group, what use does it have, etc. I know most of this information should be in the main article for the grade, so you don't need to go into too much detail, but I found it interesting that Christenhusz and colleagues never mention the term "lilioid monoclot", so a bit of discussion justifying this as a useful category might be useful? I'm not a botanist, so just these are my questions as a reader.
I don't have a lot of experience with FLCs or WP:PLANTS for that matter, these are just my immediate thoughts when I see the article. I'll do a closer read later. Umimmak ( talk) 07:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I really appreciate the speedy review, and it was helpful, too. Anything else I can help with? - Dank ( push to talk) 02:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC) reply
borrowing sentences from that other article. I'm still confused how Christenhusz and colleagues' book is the source given they don't use the word
lilioidonce though? That's a fine source for which families are in those four orders, but they don't say that those four orders make up the grade "lilioid monocot", if that makes sense? And yeah just broad response to your other comments I think it makes sense to hear more from WP:PLANTS too. Umimmak ( talk) 19:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC) reply
neither of these are directly applicable, just a few entries might be indirectly relevant to etymologies.
Like I said, hopefully more experienced editors provide thoughts as well. Umimmak ( talk) 05:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't think authorities for families should be included if they're going to appear as "Amaryllidaceae J.St.-Hil. (onion family)". Authorities are relevant to etymology as they actually coined the name of the family. But that gets complicated in the early history of modern taxonomy; entities that we now call families were sometimes called orders, and the -aceae ending for families wasn't a standard; J.St.-Hil.'s spelling was Amaryllideæ; I have no idea who first used the spelling Amaryllidaceae. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Umimmak: 1. The "Further reading" section is now gone. 2. I've added a note saying: "The vernacular name is the first thing that appears in each family section in the source, and the order that each family belongs to appears at the top of each page." I hope that deals with your objection about the lack of cites in the first column and the orders column. 3. I'm not sure if your comment about checking with the WP:PLANTS wikiproject is more like "It's always good to check with the wikiproject" or "OMG this stuff is crap, check with the wikiproject". I've had feedback and even supports from people who are respected by the wikiproject, and I'll keep asking, but I don't want to put anyone on the spot. If this is a burning concern, let me know, and I'll email PresN (an FLC delegate) with more detailed information. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I want more feedback on how the plants wikiproject wants to tackle this before I proceed.so I was just saying that yeah that makes sense to not just listen to me, who again does not have much experience with FLCs for with plant articles on Wikipedia. Honestly the more this is going on the more I'm realizing I'm fully not qualified to give the best possible FLC advice. I said I might have more comments coming, but I'd like to just hear from others on FLC just to make sure I'm not leading you too far astray. But if this is about etymology now, perhaps the talk page should have either {{ Etymology section}} or {{ WikiProject Linguistics|etymology=yes}} (although again I personally thought this was a stronger article before the focus shifted to etymology, especially given List of plant family names with etymologies, but again I'm just one editor who doesn't have much FLC experience.) Umimmak ( talk) 17:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Amaryllis was the name of a mythical Greek shepherdessThe Amaryllis says the name is taken from a Greek shepherdess in Virgil's Eclogues. I haven't read the Eclogues (an unread copy is staring at me from my bookshelf as I type this), and I'm not sure if Virgil invented Amaryllis. If he did, she's not really mythological. I'm not sure. I would check and clarify this.
That's all. Nice work. ~ HAL 333 21:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC) reply
I can't do an image review for my own nomination, but since the only table images I selected were for Asphodelus, it probably does make sense for me to verify that I've checked everything, so ... that's what this is. Also see the same section in the FLC for the lamiids. This version of the list was soon after I transferred the images selected by Johnboddie in his sandbox. Licensing:
Promoting. -- Pres N 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [10]. reply
With 1958 having now picked up multiple supports, here's 1959. In this particular year, James Brown, one of the greatest African-American artists of all time, gained his first chart-topper. I'd imagine if you had asked at the time how he felt, he would have replied "I feel good, I knew that I would!" :-) -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC) reply
{{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
)-- EN- Jungwon 12:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC) reply
That's all - very clean and well done. It's a shame that I couldn't help with the tail end of those country lists, but I'm glad to see you're still at it. Also, have a Merry Christmas! ~ HAL 333 20:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Although not his most successful song, "Personality" would become Price's signature song and lead to the nickname "Mr. Personality"- not supported by the live link, which is to Price's album discography. (Archive link is not working at the moment.)
who would go on to become one of the most successful and influential artists in the history of black American music and to be regarded as one of the all-time greats across all genres.- no issues.
Pass for image review. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 22:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Adding a Support. Looks good to me. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 11:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Promoting. -- Pres N 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 00:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC) [11]. reply
One last list in my brief return to my series of games by 90s/early 2000s developers ( 3D Realms/ id/ Raven/ Epic/ Firaxis/ Blizzard/ Relic/ Bullfrog/ Lionhead), here we have the gameography of Volition. Founded in 1993 as Parallax Software, they hit it out of the park on their first try with Descent, and went on to make a number of good shooter and RPG games – as well as the greatest space combat game ever made, 1999's FreeSpace 2. That's an objective, unbiased fact there. In any case, Volition went on to release the wacky GTA-like Saint's Row in 2006, which did well enough that with a few deviations that's been their main series ever since.
In the background they split the company in half in 1996, with this half renamed Volition and the other being Outrage Entertainment; got bought by THQ in 2000; got picked up out of THQ's bankruptcy by Koch Media in 2012 without half of its IP and merged with publisher Deep Silver (so it's technically the company "Deep Silver Volition", real creative there); and then Embracer Group bought every company and IP I mentioned here, welcome to 2020s capitalism. Despite all these corporate goings-on, Volition itself has for 30 years been sitting in an office building in bustling downtown Champaign, Illinois (population: 88,000), doing their own thing. This list follows the pattern of all the prior lists I've done on games-by-developers, so I hope you enjoy it, and thanks for reviewing. -- Pres N 00:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply
— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 19:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Support – RunningTiger123 ( talk) 19:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply