Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log
Featured list tools: |
This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, with the most recent at the top. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log.
Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2025. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2025.
Full current month log
- 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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC) [2].
- Nominator(s): Medxvo (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Little Women is a 2019 coming-of-age period drama film written and directed by Greta Gerwig, and is the seventh film adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's 1868 novel. It was met with commercial success and critical acclaim, garnering nine Critics' Choice nominations, six Oscar nominations, five BAFTA nominations, and two Golden Globe nominations.
I've revamped the list to ensure that it has a consistent format with the recently promoted accolades lists and added several notable accolades that were missing. I believe it is now complete and ready for an FLC. Medxvo (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments
- All the notes from d onwards are not sentences so should not have full stops
- That's literally all I've got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot ChrisTheDude, I believe I've fixed your concern! Medxvo (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Drive-by comment from Dxneo
- On ref33, is the red link necessary when you have linked an alt language page?
- I believe I've fixed that. Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- I like how you listed the actual dates instead of years, nice one!
- The note states that the runner-ups are considered winners, any reason why they are in blue instead of green?
- It's better to avoid confusion with actual wins and number-one placements, so the
{{runner-up}}template is used. Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's better to avoid confusion with actual wins and number-one placements, so the
- I think "In 2020, At the 92nd Academy Awards…" instead of "At the 92nd Academy Awards…" would make a lot of sense, thoughts?
- I think it wouldn't be consistent with the other award shows (BAFTAs, Golden Globes, Critics' Choice), where we didn't mention the year of the ceremony. If I include the year for the Academy Awards, I would also have to include it for the others (also 2020), which would be a bit repetitive... What do you think? Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Why is the prose not in chronological order? I mean, the 92nd Academy Awards was in 2020, but "The American Film Institute selected Little Women as one of the top-ten films of 2019. Time deemed it one of the 100 best movies of the 2010s".
- It's just so we can mention the award ceremonies first and then the placements of organizations and publications. I think it makes sense this way but let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
That's all I can spot in the meantime. dxneo (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you Dxneo, I appreciate the comments! I mainly based the format off of the Oppenheimer and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse accolades lists (recently promoted lists), if you're interested to know where some stylistic choices came from. Medxvo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments and image review from TheDoctorWho
- Comments
- Needs a short description per WP:SDLIST
- Hope I did this correctly, couldn't find similar accolades shortdescs to use as examples. Medxvo (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- coming-of-age period drama film is a MOS:BLUESEA issue
- The main genre of the film and the novel is coming-of-age, so I've removed period drama. Medxvo (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- No link to this article exists in {{Little Women}}, the template should either be removed or a link added per WP:BIDI
- Removed. Medxvo (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Image review
- The first image in the Infobox was uploaded to commons directly under a CC-By license
- The other two images were originally uploaded to Flickr, where they were (at one time) there under a CC-By license
- All images have captions and alt text
Image review passes just my few initial comments above that need addressing. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you TheDoctorWho for the comments! All should be done, please let me know if anything needs further adjustments. Medxvo (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- "is a 2019 coming-of-age and period drama film written" would also work if you wanted to include both. Either way, everything looks good. Nice work, support!
TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- "is a 2019 coming-of-age and period drama film written" would also work if you wanted to include both. Either way, everything looks good. Nice work, support!
Source review by Bgsu98
Before I start the source review, a quick comment about the table. I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the dark blue shading. The other colors signify a specific quality that is also reflected in the text (ie. lime green = won, pink = nominated, etc.), but that dark blue cells have several different contents. I would simply remove that color altogether.
- The dark blue color is generated from the draw template, which is mainly used for 2+ placements (i.e. multiple winners); the runner-up template is used for 2nd placements and so on. Most of the recently promoted accolades lists follow this format to differentiate between wins, 2nd placements, and +2 placements. I just wanted to be consistent, but please let me know what you think. Medxvo (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's unnecessary, because the dark blue doesn't really communicate anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Yes, I see what you mean, though I'm not sure how to improve this part... I think this might be more of a template problem. The draw template is mainly used here because there are multiple winners. Some of the recently promoted accolades lists include Green Book, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Jojo Rabbit, etc, and they all seem to follow this format... Medxvo (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I would replace {{sort|7|{{draw|7th Place}}}} with {{sort|7|7th Place}}. That should eliminate the blue, but still allow for sorting. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is even a MOS:ACCESS issue, because the blue doesn't communicate anything here. I just don't know what purpose it serves. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: I've replaced it with the CFinalist template (with a yellow color), what do you think? I've tried removing the colors but it just didn't look nice to me at all due to the existence of the other three colors... Medxvo (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- You just replaced one color with a different color. The fact is that any color is not going to match the contents of the cells, which are all different. I’m going to ping PresN; if he says the color is fine and not a violation, then you can reset it to whatever you want and we’ll move forward. The rest of the article is great. 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! For reference, I noticed that the exact placements can be added/changed using the CFinalist template; it doesn't seem like they are limited to just a third or fourth place, I think. I'm not sure if that applies to the Draw template as well, but it seems like it. Thanks for pinging PresN! Medxvo (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- So, right now it looks like it's green=won, lightblue=runner-up, yellow=any other numbered placement, and lightred=nominated? That's fine. The deal with accessibility is just that you can't convey information only through color, but what's there right now is fine as either yellow or darker blue, since the cell text explains what (non-first or second) place the film got and both colors have good contrast with the text. --PresN 00:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! For reference, I noticed that the exact placements can be added/changed using the CFinalist template; it doesn't seem like they are limited to just a third or fourth place, I think. I'm not sure if that applies to the Draw template as well, but it seems like it. Thanks for pinging PresN!
- You just replaced one color with a different color. The fact is that any color is not going to match the contents of the cells, which are all different. I’m going to ping PresN; if he says the color is fine and not a violation, then you can reset it to whatever you want and we’ll move forward. The rest of the article is great. 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: I've replaced it with the CFinalist template (with a yellow color), what do you think? I've tried removing the colors but it just didn't look nice to me at all due to the existence of the other three colors... Medxvo (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Yes, I see what you mean, though I'm not sure how to improve this part... I think this might be more of a template problem. The draw template is mainly used here because there are multiple winners. Some of the recently promoted accolades lists include Green Book, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Jojo Rabbit, etc, and they all seem to follow this format... Medxvo (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's unnecessary, because the dark blue doesn't really communicate anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Source Review:
- All sources appear to be archived.
- Publications appear to have appropriate wikilinks.
- Sources appear to be properly formatted with a consistent date format.
- I spot-checked the following sources chosen at random:
- No. 8 – This source is used to verify the release date, but this is not mentioned in the source.
- Quoting the source ("following its release on Wednesday"), which was December 25. Medxvo (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, that makes sense. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- No. 13 – Checks out.
- No. 22 – This Rotten Tomatoes citation matches the 95% approval rating stated in the article, but I don't see where it has an average rating of 8.5/10. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place?
- No, you're correct. Rotten Tomatoes removed average ratings from their website last week or so. It is accessible through the archive link, but I removed it now. Medxvo (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- No. 34 – Checks out.
- No. 49 – Checks out.
- No. 60 – Checks out.
- No. 81 – Checks out.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the review, Bgsu98. I left some replies above. Medxvo (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Since the issue with the colored cells is settled – feel free to go with either the blue or the yellow as you see fit – I am happy to support this nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:43, 2 May 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC) [4].
- Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
It's been a while since I've been at FLC, but after finishing the article on Barbara Park I decided to fill out the bibliography as well. The Junie B. Jones books were childhood favorites of mine, so it's been fun to revisit them. I've annotated each entry with a brief description of the book and wrote a lead that summarizes the sequence of the publications. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Drive-by (QoH)
FYI I've moved the page to Barbara Park bibliography, for consistency with the rest of Category:Bibliographies by writer. charlotte 👸♥ 01:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- Would it break anything if we renamed this page and updated the name at WP:FLC? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- Since no one answered you, no, and it didn't :P Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Comments
- "Barbara Park, an American author, has written many children's books" - as she is deceased, this should be "Barbara Park, an American author, wrote many children's books"
- "This was followed by The Kid in the Red Jacket" - as the previous sentence covered two books, the subject should be plural
- "Junie B. starts her first day of kindergarten" - suggest linking kindergarten, as this is not a term commonly used outside the United States and readers in other countries may not know what it means
- "Junie B. is not allowed to take her dog to Pet Day at school" - Pet Day was not written with caps earlier....?
- That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude all changes made. Thanks! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
History6042
- All sources need archive links and dates.
- Are archive links required by the featured list criteria? My understanding was that they are often considered unnecessary and in-the-way if there isn't a specific reason to include them.
- All sources should have source date.
- All sources with available dates already have the dates listed. For those that do not, there is an access date in its stead.
- I think all instances of Judie B. Jones where they are just Judie B. should be Jones because people (I am not sure about fictional characters) are normally referred to by last name or full name, almost never first name.
- MOS:SURNAME says to use common names for fictional characters.
- Could any images be added?
- None of the author's works are in the public domain, and her article uses a non-free image.
- Should a link to Judie B. Jones be added in the article body and the lede, not just the lede.
- I've added {{Main}} with a link.
- "Junie B. My Valentime" has a typo.
- As shown by the source, that is the correct spelling of the title.
- Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- History6042, I've replied to your points above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, the only thing I would respond to that is that I would perfer archive links but if they are not needed then I am happy to support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- History6042, I've replied to your points above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
IntentionallyDense
- Source review
- Citations are consistently formatted
- Sources are appropriately reliable for the topic
- The book citations are all verified
- Spot checked some of the other refs and they all checked out
Pass for the source review! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Hey man im josh
- Your references all use YYYY-MM-DD format, which really isn't standard. You should pick MDY or DMY and add the relevant template. This will also help for consistency if any references are changed in the future.
- Do you typically not just not add wikilinks? I only ask because of ref 8, the New York Times, which I would normally ask for a link for (but I understand not everyone links, which is consistently applied in this case, so no need to do this necessarily)
- Ref 8 – Add the url-access parameter, as it's behind a paywall for me
- Ref 10 – Is there a reason you're using just 2013 instead of the listed original publish date of 16 January 2013?
That's all I've got, good stuff Alien! Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh Thanks! I've made all of the suggested changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.