Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2015

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 01:10, 29 June 2015 [1].

Deepika Padukone filmography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After successfully taking Padukone's biography to featured status, I am nominating a fully-sourced and well-written listing of her film and music video appearances. As usual, look forward to lots of constructive comments. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
Added.
  • Her only music video appearance (that too before acting) needs to be mentioned.
Added.
Corrected.
I think it's okay, because her main purpose in the film was as the love interest.
It sounds so sexist as we never say that a hero played the love interest of an actress. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A majority of Bollywood films are sexist, sadly. I would have described her by her profession or such, like I did with Piku, but in Bachna Ae Haseeno her role was meant as the love interest and little else. If the purpose of a male actor is simply as the love interest of the actress, then I would put it as such. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Padukone's first film release of 2009, the kung fu" - We are aware that we're talking about films until now.
She might have had a music video release as well, couldn't she?
  • The sentence mentioned above is really long. Consider splitting it.
Split.
  • Ref. 7 has a publishing date.
Added.
  • When you say that the film Cocktail marked a turning point in her career, you do not need to further say that "critics praised her performance".
It could have been a turnaround simply because it earned a ton of money. This wasn't the case.
  • "Among these were two of the highest-grossing Bollywood films — the romantic comedy Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani and the action-comedy Chennai Express — and the tragic romance Goliyon Ki Raasleela Ram-Leela, for which she won the Filmfare Award for Best Actress." - Whoa, so long!
Is this even a valid concern: "Whoa so long!"? Tell me one FLC criteria that says sentences cannot be long! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the criteria. It will be a little bit tiring to read such a long sentence, therefore I think it needs to be divided into parts. It can be rephrased with s/th like "Among these were ... Ram-Leela. For the last of these, she won a Filmfare..."
Split.
Done.
  • I don't see a need to add three images of her, all taken during the same time.
Not a valid concern.
All of her looks spotted in the list are all same. I don't think there is a need to crowd the list with overuse of images.
Removed the 2013 image, kept the 2010 image. It definitely does not crowd the list.
  • Why two sources for Billu? Ref. 26 should suffice.
Removed.
  • Source 35 says that the song's name is "Dum Maro Dum Mit Jaye Gham", not "Mit Jaye Gham".
Changed.
  • Ref 41. does not cite the name of the director of YJHD.
Added.
  • The spelling of her character (in Chennai Express) in the source is "Meenalochani" while you spell it as "Meenalochini"
Changed.
  • Her character in the film has also a nickname.
So?
What do you mean by "So"? It needs to be added.
  • Are you sure that the language of Finding Fanny was entirely English?
Yes, the source says that as well. The Hindi version was a separate dubbed one.
Changed.
I didn't mean that you change her name to "Piku". You can use this source and add her full name back. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 15:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Thanks for the ref. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of your comments warrant an oppose. It's highly unethical to oppose a nomination without providing a reason to. None of your comments are major concerns. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! Wanted to write "Comments". Mistaken. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 15:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments were definitely helpful, but I was very disappointed that you previously opposed the list without a valid rationale. Over the years, I have seen how common bad-faith opposes and comments are among a large number of Indian editors on Wikipedia, but it still saddens me when it happens. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mistakes happen! -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I would like to add it, if a certain editor wouldn't start yelling, "ohh you "hypocrat"... only deepika padukone is praised. priyanaka is bestestest!!!" --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case I have to say that your edits are quite dependable on the user you're talking about. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 22:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is not comprehensive because Padukone's other music video appearance is not listed here. Plus, My Choice is not a film but, an online video.—Prashant 13:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can SchroCat, Crisco 1492, Dr. Blofeld or any administrator deal with this bad-faith oppose? This editor did the very same thing on Padukone's biography FLC here. He was then warned to not do this again, but here we go! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SchroCat I think Prashant should be banned from commenting on Krimuk's noms, you've probably seen their dispute on my talk page in recent weeks. When it becomes personal and one childishly opposes a nom then it's disruptive to the process.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not just from my noms; he needs to understand that he can't do this to any editor just because he doesn't like a particular actress. He can't time and again be let off with a minor warning. This is a recurring distraction. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god! This list is truly incomplete and its not bad-faith. She had appeared in another musc video Phir Mile Sur Mera Tumhara. That's why I opposed. I was going to remove that oppose once it was done.—Prashant 14:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Priyanka Chopra was in it as well. I don't see it mentioned in "your" list. If that isn't bad-faith, what is? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because I just saw the video as someone posted on Twitter. I did not meant to take you down. I'm sorry. I thought you will solve this in a cool manner.—Prashant 14:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aww. How convenient. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just trying to see how would you react to this. I was going to change that oppose to comment anyway. But, you took it in another way. I am not that bad Krimuk. I know how much you work hard on wikipedia.—Prashant 14:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added the video. Also, the My Choice video is mentioned as a short film in the source provided, so that's that. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've both opposed and given a strong support on the same day. That's even worse. "I was just trying to see how would you react to this." . So you're using the FL process to get at editors. There you go, if that's not justification for a full ban from all featured articles/list candidates I don't know what is. You've been told many times to not act like this at FAC/FLC. You're not mature enough to control yourself here. Crisco 1492 might wish to comment here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a list is not comprehensive then, I have full right to oppose. It is much what Vensatry did at Dixit flc. He opposed it simply because the tv appearances were missing. The same case was her as this article was not comprehensive. The above summary says "I am nominating a fully-sourced and well-written listing of her film and music video appearances." So, its obvious it was not a true claim. After tyhis my concerns were resolved (thanks to me as I named the video too because of your outburst). I have/had no problem with any list as long as it is what the editor says.—Prashant 16:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have a right to oppose and strike it out and later support, but "Yes, I was just trying to see how would you react to this" is a blatant admission of abuse of the process.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check before accusing me of something which I dont intend to. That was a reply to Krimuk's comment. I said about the information about that video. My above comment "Because I just saw the video as someone posted on Twitter. I did not meant to take you down. I'm sorry. I thought you will solve this in a cool manner." and his reply "Aww. How convenient".—Prashant 16:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Prashant, you are being an idiot here. My mild oppose at the Madhuri nomination was mainly because of the prose quality (in lede). Nowhere have I commented about the lack of comprehensiveness. In fact, I was trying to indirectly help the nominator as someone was opposing the candidate solely based on the absence of a TV show and a relatively-unknown regional film (citing the 3a criterion). I must say that your comments really don't make any sense and are hardly helpful in any of the nominations here. Initially, you came up with a nonsensical oppose and after a bit of quarrel with Krimuk and Blofeld you switched to a strong support. Making statements like "Yes, I was just trying to see how would you react to this" clearly shows you are using this process to have a go against editors, as Blofeld says. Further, "I am not that bad Krimuk" is nothing but a self-admittance of how much a bad-faith editor you are. It's high time you realize that you need to grow up because this is the nth time that your conduct has been questioned. I won't be too surprised if you get a topic ban in the near future. —Vensatry (ping) 18:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; the table seems relatively short, compared to other filmography lists; why can't this be merged to Deepika Padukone? Seattle (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the minimal count for these type of lists, but 25+ seems pretty much acceptable. —Vensatry (ping) 21:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the size of the parent article is quite large. This does warrant a separate page for her filmography, which will only increase with time. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With my delegate's hat on: I don't see a 3b violation here, both because the main article on the actress is already really big, and because there is no fixed minimum for lists. A 25-film filmography is no less valid than a 50+ film filmography, at least according to the criteria. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Doctor. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall good work. Some suggestions.
  • For her performance, she won the Filmfare Award for Best Debut and also received....
  • For Love Aaj Kal specify it was a commercial success or some term akin to it to make it clear.
I think overusing the word "success" may not be such a good idea, that's why I provided the gross instead of repeating the term several times in the lead.
  • Padukone had five film releases in 2010.
  • Repeated use of the year xxxx to begin sentences, rephrase it. I don't know much about this actress but am presuming that Cocktail was her first acclaimed role which led to a string of box office hits the following year so something along those lines would suffice.
  • As she won a filmfare actress award for her role in Ram-Leela specify what role she played in the film.
  • Finding Fanny and portrayed... I'm never sure with these but I think a Oxford comma is needed there.
  • This one is personal preference. For the image next to the table, maybe pick one associated with Ram Leela or one of her more well known film roles. Cowlibob (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob Thanks for the comments. :) I've left the image beside the table as is, so that there is some time gap between the two pictures in the list. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
Comments from —Vensatry (ping) – Looks good
  • Not sure "box office hit" is encyclopaedic
  • "Among these were two of the highest-grossing Bollywood films" – all-time or just 2013?
  • You could add a line about Kochadaiyaan, not because it was her first non-Bollywood film in long time. The motion capture technology was something new in India and the film was definitely among her high-profile releases. Also, in the table it's worth mentioning what kind of film it was.
  • Date of ref #11 is 11 July and not May. Likewise, for ref #13 it's 13 July 2012 (updated date of course)
  • Refs. #16, #23 and #39 need author

—Vensatry (ping) 16:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vensatry All done. Thanks for the comments. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 01:10, 29 June 2015 [2].

List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 08:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've applied comments from the previously archived nomination and carried out further edits. I've done all that was asked previously by editors. The lead and table follows the same style and layout as previous nominations of mine, all of which passed, so I feel as though this list, even more so now than before, meets FLC criteria.  — Calvin999 08:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Participation Guide
Support
FrB.TG, Markhoris, Prashant!, Azealia911
Comments/No vote yet
Seattle
Oppose
None
Second editor
None
Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Image caption, (pictured) is not needed (barring in Nicki's and Katy's as their captions have several names) as it is pretty obvious that it's them pictured. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with minor comment. For "Put Your Hearts up" would it be worth substituting "Single release only" with {{N/A|Non-album sinlge}} like standard discograpy pages? Understandably, this isn't a discography page, but it seems neater to me, and doesn't cause any issues when column is sorted. Purely optional though, support either way. Azealia911 talk 20:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I've changed it so its the template.  — Calvin999 20:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Artists should sort by last name, not first; Big Sean, for instance, should sort below Ariana Grande
  • Ariana Grande's name should be linked throughout the "Artist" section of the table
    • No it doesn't, because of WP:OVERLINK. None of my previous nominations have ever linked every instance of the primary artist.  — Calvin999
  • Go through the table to ensure all non-linked songs don't have articles
  • in 2011 when she contributed to the soundtrack "contributed" is too vague; what did she actually do?
  • Grande later revealed that she did not like how it why wouldn't she like if it was aimed at children? No context in article
  • Can you link "extended play"?
  • 1990s R&B influenced → 1990s-R&B-influenced
  • The phrase "more mature" never appears in the citation to which it's referenced...
  • determined Grande as an artist who performs dance, pop and soul music awkward use of "determined"
  • "Break Free" is an EDM expand the abbreviation on first use

Oppose per my unresolved comments. Seattle (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seattle, the singer's names are all sorting by surname and always have since the previous nomination (check the templates in the table for yourself), and I won't WP:OVERLINK Grande's name because you're not supposed to (so you're going against guidelines), so I don't see how your oppose is justifiable?  — Calvin999 09:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1). You haven't addressed three of my original comments. (2). You've introduced new errors with the comments you have addressed, such as the inappropriate caps on electronic dance music and the abbreviation of extended play to EP. (3). OVERLINK specifies: "Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, at the openings of new sections, in the cells of tables, and in image captions" (emphasis mine); I don't see how readers wouldn't benefit from links to Grande's article throughout the table. Seattle (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seattle I don't see how linking Ariana Grande 41 times is beneficial? It is linked in the lead, all of the songs obviously feature Grande with links to her bio, same with the albums, there are templates at the bottom of the article with links to her bio. I've removed the caps from EDM, and removed the abbr. of EP. You haven't addressed that all of the names do sort by surname.  — Calvin999 08:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate comment- two points: I was the one who told Calvin999 in the last nomination that "Big Sean", as a stage name rather than a real name, should sort by "B", not "S"- "Big" isn't a first name. The only instance of those names I find questionable is whether Iggy Azalea should sort by A or I; currently it's I. Second: while the usual standard is to link every instance of something in a sortable table, since various different rows can come up first depending on how you sort the table/if new additions are made to the table, I think that it's a reasonable exception to say that Grande is linked in the lead, and the list is about her, so you can skip linking her at all in the table. Not because there's 41 of them, but just because it's not a likely link for readers to want to click, as opposed to an artist that the list isn't about. --PresN 02:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iggy Azalea is irrelevant here. It's Ariana Grande featuring Iggy Azalea, so the template says Grande, Ariana featuring Iggy Azalea.  — Calvin999 07:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Iggy Azalea sorts after "featuring Elizabeth Gillies" and before "featuring Mac Miller"; if it sorted by "A" instead of "I", it would sort as the first "featuring" song. Seattle (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, because 'I' is after 'E' in the alphabet, and before 'M', so that makes complete sense for Iggy to sort after Elizabeth and after Mac. Not sure how you are working it to not make sense.  — Calvin999 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • PresN's exception to the linking rule seems reasonable for the list. My unaddressed comments, copied from above:
  • No, you told me that linking Grande's name 41 times in a table wasn't beneficial; PresN's rational was because this list represents a subpage of Grande, "[n]ot because there's 41 [table links]". That's different. What's the difference between "featuring", "with", and "and" in the table? Seattle (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I also said "It is linked in the lead, all of the songs obviously feature Grande with links to her bio, same with the albums, there are templates at the bottom of the article with links to her bio." So I was also saying that this is a subpage and that there are multiple links to her bio.  — Calvin999 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grande later revealed that she did not like how it why wouldn't she like if it was aimed at children? No context in article
    • It's a song which was supposed to be the lead single from her debut album, but it was scrapped as a lead single in favour of giving Grande more freedom, which I say.  — Calvin999 07:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given an overview of her musical career, that is what the lead is supposed to be doing and what I was asked in the previous nomination to pay more attention to. I'm saying what happened in between her being on the Victorious soundtracks and her debut album, and why she was given more control for her debut.  — Calvin999 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "blue" in the "TBA" cell mean? Seattle (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'To be announced', meaning that the title of the album hasn't been announced but the album is slated for release... It's a pre-coded template, so I can't help that who created template made it blue, not that it really matters. There's no issue with singles being purple (which I was asked to do last time).  — Calvin999 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Additional comments from Azealia911

Sorry to add more to the shitpile of comments on this thread, some of which seem incredibly unnecessary I might add. But there's a couple of things I've noticed that have been added that may need addressing.

  • "Snow in California" seems to be the only song from Christmas Kisses to not be indicated as a single, yet it was one.1
  • New version of "All My Love" needs source.
    • I'd remove the new version of "All My Love" considering Grande provides nothing new to the song. It's just an alternate version of the original song. Consider adding Peace Is the Mission to the album column as a compromise though.
  • {{TBA}} could be expanded to {{TBA|To be announced}} for "Adore" considering space permits, and to avoid users (even seemingly experienced editors like the one above) from getting confused.
  • I'd fill in {{N/A}} for "Pink Champagne" like you did with "Put Your Hearts Up" Maybe to {{N/A|None}} or {{N/A|Non-album song}} considering it's not a single. I'd also remove the YouTube ref, the BMI link seems solid enough on its own.
  • "Popular Song" (Remix) Since when is it a remix?
  • All the references seem to be booklet notes, are there no other references accessible to those without Grande's CD's/music that could be added instead? I understand that that may be a tough one especially concerning writing credits, so it's optional I guess.
  • "Intro" could link to Intro (music)
  • Would it be worth adding promotional singles to the key?
  • What about the cut version of "Don't Be Gone Too Long" with Chris Brown?

Temporarily striking support, changing to no vote while comments are addressed. I don't imagine it'll take long for you to fix all though. Azealia911 talk 16:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know the video has, maybe that's entirely different, if so, leave it. There was a dagger added to Snow In California, needs purple-ing. re-Supporting. Azealia911 talk 17:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.  — Calvin999 11:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for three and a half weeks now. 4 supports, 0 opposes, all comments have been addressed, so can something be done please?!  — Calvin999 11:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:10, 29 June 2015 [3].

Denzel Washington on screen and stage

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denzel Washington is an actor best known for playing a doctor in the television series St. Elsewhere, and his film collaborations with Spike Lee, and Tony Scott. He has won the most competitive acting Oscars of any African American winning for Glory (1989), and Training Day (2001). Washington has also built a strong stage career which culminated in him winning a Tony Award for Fences (2010). This list covers his entire acting career and as always I look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • In 1982, Washington made his first appearance as Dr. Philip Chandler sentence implies he play Chandler again.
  • The role proved to be the breakthrough in his career. what does this mean, exactly? Can you provide a direct quote here?
  • playing Trip, former slave-turned-soldier can you add an "a" after "Trip,"?
  • The lead gets a bit repetitive after a while, especially the final paragraph; can you cut out some unimportant detail?
  • for playing wrongly convicted boxer Rubin Carter wrongly convicted → wrongly-convicted
  • "Year" column in the "Television" section should be "Year(s)"; same with "Role"
  • MOS:SLASH recommends against use of slash; can you replace with "and"?
@Seattle: Thanks for the review. I think I've sorted most of this. I've wikilinked breakthrough to make it clear basically St. Elsewhere is what launched his acting career and where he first got recognition. Tried to cut down the detail, he's had a near forty year career so it's hard to remove roles as he's noted for many films. For the multiple roles in television I've added breaks to separate them. Hope that's ok. Cowlibob (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
  • "Two years later" spotted five times. Can one/some of these be replaced with something else to avoid repetition.
  • "In 1993, he starred in the Kenneth Branagh's adaptation" - I don't know why is "the" there.
  • "In 1999, Washington won the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama,[10] and his second Silver Bear for Best Actor[9] for playing wrongly-convicted boxer Rubin Carter in the biographical film The Hurricane.[11]" - Can you shift the ref. 9 to the very end of the sentence?
  • The table has much space to add directors' names, no? I think this info. can be added.
  • Can you remove the width size from the third table (section "Stage") and let it adjust automatically as the empty space in "Year(s)" and "Ref." look so weird. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Thanks for the review. I think I've sorted these. I prefer to highlight the important collaborations in the lead rather than have a separate column. Cowlibob (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any harm to have a separate column for the directors, and the table has the space. I am just asking it for the ease of readers in case they want to know the names of the directors rather than going to those pages and looking at the names. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 15:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Added director column. Cowlibob (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Littlecarmen
  • By virtue of his win, he became the first African American actor to win two competitive Oscars, and the first since Sidney Poitier in 1964 to win the leading actor Oscar.[15][16] Oscar(s) -> Academy Award(s)
  • For his portrayal of an alcoholic airline pilot in Flight (2012),[21] he garnered a nomination for the Best Actor Oscar.[22] Don't use Oscar.
  • He seems to have played two roles in one of the Happily Ever After: Fairy Tales for Every Child episodes he was in, but he isn't clear, which. Maybe put those two roles in the same line or use rowspan to and separate the two episodes.
  • Only link publications and publishers the first time you use them in references. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Littlecarmen: Since the editor is unavailable at the moment, I have addressed your first three comments. As for the last one, there are absolutely no problems with repeating the links in references, and like I said before it can indeed be useful as we don't know which one is going to be clicked first. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 18:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Littlecarmen: Thanks FrB.TG for taking care of these when I was gone. In relation to overlinking it doesn't apply to references and could be useful as we don't which ref would be viewed by the reader first. I believe SchroCat said it was ok in a previous nomination. Cowlibob (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are areas of a page which are exempt from OVERLINKING, one of which is the reference section. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 Crisco 1492 07:04, 26 June 2015 [4].

List of India cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lugnuts, —Vensatry (ping) 20:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Credits to User:Lugnuts for creating the basic article. I expanded the lead and tidied the table up a bit. Happy to have him as a co-nom. With just eight players, the list might look short, but this is a never-ending list. We've had a discussion regarding this in the past. Look forward to your comments —Vensatry (ping) 20:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't this list be more complete if it was called List of cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut and just include all 100 or so members, rather than divide it into countries with only 8 people? Mattximus (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please go through the discussion in the link which I have quoted above. Besides, we already have two such FLs – Pakistan and South Africa —Vensatry (ping) 18:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I won't oppose due to the discussion you linked, but I really think that an article containing all countries would be much more useful, as you could compare countries at a glance, with sortable columns. It would be a fantastic wikipedia page instead of several rather obscure tiny lists. I would vote to merge these independent lists into a single large one. Mattximus (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At which point they'd become to large to manage, and split back out to their component parts. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
144 or so is not too many. I really think much is lost by splitting them up like this. You can't compare countries, sort by date, etc... Mattximus (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias, The Rambling Man, Crisco 1492, Giants2008, and ChrisTheDude: Can you weigh in your opinion here? —Vensatry (ping) 14:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, oh yes, just seen that. Thanks! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
;Comments from Harrias talk
  • No problem with the length of the list, eight entries is fine.
  • Is the name sorting right, for them all to sort by first name? I'm sure you'd know better than me, but it seems odd to me that in the prose you refer to Mohammad Nissar as "Nissar", but he sorts by the "M".
    • I have no problem over sorting the table by last name. But we have this problem with South Indian names – In Ravichandran Ashwin, Ashwin is the actual name of the person while Ravichandran is patronymic. In case of Mohammad Nissar, Nissar is a surname. Generally speaking, we are advised to use last names, however, WP:PATRONYMIC suggests the person should be referred to by their given name (it doesn't have an Indian perspective though). —Vensatry (ping) 12:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add in publisher and location details where relevant (particularly I'd say, #1, #2 and #3.
  • Refs 5 to 14 use "ESPNcricinfo" but 15 to 22 are "Cricinfo". Make these consistently "ESPNcricinfo" as the website parameter and add "ESPN" as a publisher.
  • Ref 10 needs author details and date.
  • Ref 13 needs endashes rather than hyphens.

Overall, a nice list. Also worth noting that as Lugnuts is listed as a co-nominator, that support should probably be struck. Harrias talk 09:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thanks for your comments —Vensatry (ping) 12:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work. I'll leave it up to you on the sorting, you're the better judge of which would be more appropriate. Well done. Harrias talk 13:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Minor quibble with the title, some of those listed took more than five wickets...
  • "As of February 2015" it's now June, is this still correct?
  • "The eight such occasions " not keen on this phrasing, still thinking how best to rephrase though...!
  • "The first Indian to achieve this feat" if it was me, I'd say "The first Indian to take a five-wicket haul..."
  • "In the event, Nissar became the first Indian to take a five-wicket haul in Test cricket." I think this is sort of obvious considering it was India's inaugural Test match, but I'd merge it with the previous sentence, so ", becoming the first Indian ..."
  • " a Leg spinner" no need to capitalise Leg.
  • "As of May 2015, he is the only Indian cricketer to take ten or more wickets in a Test match on debut." it's June, and can we reference this?
  • No need to relink "fast bowler" in the last para of the lead.
  • Be consistent with the application of full stops in the key.
  • Checking the source, Ashwin took 6 for 47 I believe.
  • I don't know but it may be worth clarifying that although this is about debut fifers, the debut includes both innings of the Test match, e.g. Ashwin didn't take a fifer on his debut bowl, it was his second innings...

That's all I have from a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The five-wicket hauls were taken in seven different venues" => "The five-wicket hauls were taken at seven different venues"
  • Also need a comma after venues
  • The various references to "on debut" should be "on his debut", "on debut" is not natural English. For that matter, I'm a bit unsure about the current wording of the article's title
  • "Nissar, along with Ali and Shami are the only fast bowlers" => "Nissar, Ali and Shami are the only fast bowlers"
  • Not sure what the purpose of note A is, as it basically just re-states the sentence in the lead which it is placed against
  • "Ashwin's five wicket haul came in his second innings" - I don't understand this note, does it mean the fifer came in the West Indies' second innings (of batting)? If so, just say "Ashwin's five wicket haul came in the West Indies' second innings"; we don't refer to a bowler's second innings...........

Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments "... during India's inaugural Test series—a one-off Test series" The prose is a bit, what shall I say, "strained" here. Can't we just say "in India's inaugural Test" or "India's first Test" ? Tintin 13:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin 13:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintin1107: Thanks very much for the comments. As always, they are very helpful :) —Vensatry (ping) 15:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "by the critics..." is there a better word you could use other than critics? Just sounds wrong to me. If not then remove "the" as it is not needed
  • "The eight such occasions..."
  • "with five of them being inside India; two were taken at the..." -> five in India, two of which were taken at the
  • The table does not meet WP:ACCESS, you need to add row and col scopes

NapHit (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support good work. NapHit (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Crisco 1492 07:04, 26 June 2015 [8].

Mac DeMarco discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I nominated it six months ago but the nomination didn't get enough comments/supports and was closed. I would be thankful for any comments and opinions! Thank you very much, Littlecarmen (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I'm sorry you had to wait a month for your first comment here, but here we go:

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I've addressed all of your comments. Littlecarmen (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Resolved comments from Harrias
Comments
  • I can't help but think that these tables would benefit from being restructured to make them sortable. The "Album details" column looks as though it should be split into three different columns, "Release date", "Label" and "Formats", rather than providing these as bullet points in a cell, which to be honest, defeats the purpose of putting them in a table in the first place.
  • The lists of singles and music videos can be made sortable pretty simply in their current layout. Harrias talk 20:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never seen that done on discographies on Wikipedia. I've made the music video table sortable so people can sort the videos by director but it doesn't make sense to me to make the others sortable as well. Littlecarmen (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never seen it done on discographies on Wikipedia either, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Being able to sort by name, by date, by chart position seems to me as though it would make the tables more useful. (With these tables being so short, I appreciate it isn't going to be as useful in this as in others, but I would still judge it an improvement.) Harrias talk 06:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've made the tables sortable now, I just kept peak chart positions and formats unsortable since only one of his three studio albums has charted so it doesn't make sense to sort by chart position right now and formats are listed so sorting doesn't really help the reader see which formats an album was released in. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I think that's an improvement. I added a template to sort the directors correctly by surname, but otherwise all good. Only further question I have is whether it is worth mentioning the upcoming mini-LP Another One in the lead at all? Harrias talk 15:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice work! Harrias talk 19:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Littlecarmen (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG

For this to pass, you need to invite one more editor. Also, I would like you to look at my nomination. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 22:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it now! Thank you for your comments :) Littlecarmen (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 19:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Azealia 911
  • General comments
  • Lead comments
  • Body comments
    • The lead mentions how the album 2 charted at number 26 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart, but it's not displayed in the charts table.
    • I'd remove all mentions of "(as Makeout Videotape)" and replace them with a symbol, explained in a footnote at the bottom of the page.
    • In regards to the album tables, I really detest the current layout entirely in the body, sorry to say. I'm not sure if it's policy to follow a certain stylistic layout, and if it isn't then feel free to keep it as is, but I'd really suggest changing the format to something similar to that of the majority of other featured discographies, like Lady Gaga discography or Lily Allen discography (With one column for Album details, listing release date, label and format). I don't see the point in having three separate columns for album details when they can all be shoved into one small box.)
      • Just seen after writing this that another user suggested changing it, it looked perfect before. Harrias, why did you suggest such a radical, messy layout change that virtually no other discog article uses? Let alone a featured-grade one?

Like I said, if there's no definitive policy that states all discographies should have concurrent layouts, then I guess it's up to you, or delegates as you suggest. But I see no pros to the new format change, especially if information is released giving means for a "Sales" column to be added in the studio albums table, squishing everything even smaller still. The sortable options also make no sense to me, dates are already sorted in regular tables from earliest to latest release, I see no reason why people would want to sort labels, especially in this case as there's two of the same label and one N/A, I can maybe just see reason for title sort option, but even so, there's three albums, it's not like we're dealing with tons of information. But hey, even though there may not be a policy, I think some common sense needs to be applied to our thinking, and having a concurrent layout theme from discog to dicgoc, in order as to not confuse readers, seems more than logical. Azealia911 talk 15:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested the change because I felt it would be an improvement, and in my opinion, it is. While I grant that the appearance may be slightly compromised, the ability to sort adds increased functionality. Yes, this is a relatively short list, and therefore the benefits might be relatively small. The question of why to do this on a "featured-grade one" seems odd: the point of the "Featured" process is to refine articles, lists and images, and to improve them. Otherwise this page would be nothing more than a list of people saying "Support" or "Oppose". Maybe requesting such a change was radical, maybe it was beyond the purview of a single FLC and should be a wider discog MOS discussion. But at the end of the day, I made a suggestion that I thought would improve the list. Harrias talk 16:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the formatting of the discography back now. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I respectfully disagree per my comments above. I feel the confusion and unnecessary messiness (for lack of a better word) that it adds, outweighs the slight benefit it brings to the page. I'd probably agree with you had the discography been long and hard to navigate otherwise, but I don't feel it's necessary in tables of 3-5 albums per listing. Littlecarmen I'll leave it up to you or delegates to decide which, and Harrias, I'll be more than happy to partake in a discussion on the MOS of discographies with you. Azealia911 talk 16:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though they have independent articles, all three albums need refs to back up their release dates.
    • I'd remove all sortable options from the tables, they're rarely used in discography articles.
    • I see no issue in using rowspans for singles, maybe music videos as they cross into filmography teritory, but certainly seems ok to use them for singles.

May have some more comments later, that was a brief scan of the article, so some things may not need fixing, feel free to tell me something's already done/sourced/correct. Azealia911 talk 20:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you comments! Littlecarmen (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, thankyou for addressing the majority so quickly, I appreciate it! Azealia911 talk 15:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all! Littlecarmen (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One tiny final comment, there's various refs for "digital download" in album details boxes. It's pretty much a given that projects released in the 2010's are released for digital distribution. If anything, I'd source the far less common cassette release, but that's purely optional.
    • All formats are sourced! The formats are usually mentioned in the references used for the release dates and I only added a separate sources for formats that aren't mentioned in the source for the release date. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per all my comments being addressed, great work. Azealia911 talk 16:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Littlecarmen (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2015 [9].

P. G. Wodehouse bibliography

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.G. Wodehouse was a prolific author whose career stretched from his 1902 novel The Pothunters, through over ninety books to his unfinished 1977 novel Sunset at Blandings. In-between he brought, and still brings, joy to millions through the stories of Bertie Wooster and his valet, Jeeves; the immaculate and loquacious Psmith; Lord Emsworth and the Blandings Castle set; the disaster-prone opportunist Ukridge, the Oldest Member, with stories about golf; and Mr Mulliner, with stories about many things from film studios to the Church of England.

This page has been reworked recently to bring it up to scratch and all comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments a quick run-through since you asked so nicely...!
  • "to which he remained devoted all his life he was" I think it would read marginally better if there was a comma after "life".
  • "and his early novels were mostly school stories" this reads oddly to me, kind of tagged on.
  • "novel and story writing" I would have thought these should be hyphenated, i.e. novel- and story-writing career...
  • I'm going to hate myself but wouldn't "who became familiar to the public" be better as "with whom the public became familiar"?
  • Two links to A Gentlemen of Leisure could be confusing, perhaps you could clarify that one links to a film?
  • "and then for RKO Pictures" worked for?
  • "During the Second World War Wodehouse was captured by the Germans" how did that happen?
  • "In chronological order" -> Initially in chronological...
  • (All London) is probably best incorporated into the hatnote as "All publishers based in London".
  • (New York unless otherwise stated) - I couldn't see any "otherwise stated"s...
  • Be consistent with the full stops in the notes.
  • Plays, initial sort order, the 1911 should come before the August 1911 otherwise you can never sort back to the initial order.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers RM, many thanks for the above, which I've followed scrupulously, bar the first point. I'll look into that and see if there is a reason for it. Now sorted! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
Comments – because while I probably could just support this straight off, TRM gets agitated about such things! *nudge nudge wink wink* Being honest, most of the issues I found on first read through, TRM has already identified, so what I can see is very very minor.
  • Might it be worth adding (MGM) after Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. I know you link it, and never refer to them by the abbreviation, but there are plenty of people around who will know them better as MGM than Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
  • Given that the "UK title" is the "row scope" column for the Novels list, could it be made slightly wider? At the moment the width seems to diminish its importance.
  • I'll have a look in the morning on a range of screen sizes. I tend to leave the columns to break where they are because there are so many variations in screen size. – SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now looked - and I've widened the first column so that none of the titles break onto a second line. The formatting is ignored on some readers (tablets, phones and narrower screens), but there isn't much we can do about that! - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the non-linked films and plays non-notable? Otherwise there is nothing wrong with red links. I notice they are red linked in the nav box at the bottom.
  • Im not sure they are! (Although that's because I don't know enough about them. I'll copy the red links from the na box so they match, which seems a sensible option. – SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the references, I found it slightly confusing that you use "pp. 30–37" (rather than "pp. 30–7") but "pp. 331–33" (rather than "pp. 331–333") And similar later.
  • It shoud never have a single digit as the second number (unless the page is 1-9), but shoud otherwise have either two or three. I go for double dit its in ranges. – SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can ref #17 have a full stop at the end, to remain consistent with all the other references?

Harrias talk 20:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support With that done, I'm happy to support a top-class list, nice work! Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World/archive1 if you get a chance? Harrias talk 16:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks in great shape!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Declaration of interest: I have contributed a handful of words to the page, but I think that so minimal an involvement leaves me free to support in good conscience. This page is just what such a Wikipedia offering should be. Meets the criteria and, what's more, will for years be one of those WP pages that are the default recourse for anyone seeking the information. If ever a Wikipedia editor hit the bullseye and entitled himself to a cigar or coconut according to choice, that editor is SchroCat. – Tim riley talk 22:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Article title spaced at "P. G. Wodehouse" but infobox spaced as "P.G. Wodehouse"
  • in an arrangement that "helped transform the American musical" of the time. how so?
  • Vanity Fair should be italicized in the Louder and Funnier row
  • I count 15 scripts instead of 14
  • I count 42 plays instead of 37

All done, bar the Americal musical comment, for which I,need my sources to clarify: I'll do so shortly as I'm away from my books at the moment. Thanks very much for your comments – very much appreciated. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a quality list. Seattle (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "stories about many things from film studios to the Church of England.[1]" "things" does not sound right to me. How about "subjects".
  • " his script A Gentleman of Leisure " To be a bit pedantic, this links to the novel, which states that he collaborated with another writer to turn it into a play.
  • The Man Upstairs is not school stories.
  • "No major productions, but produced in the by touring companies" Something gone wrong!
  • No publication details of plays? The ones I have looked at are available on Worldcat.
  • According to David Jasen in his preface to Four Plays, Come on Jeeves toured the English provinces in the summer on 1954 but never made it to London.

Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2015 [10].

Madhuri Dixit filmography

[edit]
Nominator(s): FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Participation Guide
Support (5)
Dr. Blofeld, Pavanjandhyala, Prashant!, Calvin999, Vensatry
Comments/No vote yet (1)
Seattle
Oppose (0)
None
Second editor (1)
Krimuk90 (copyedit)

My tenth nomination, which is on the filmography of Madhuri Dixit, an Indian actress. Madhuri Dixit is one of the most popular bolywood actress. Do I need to say more who she is? Okay, she is the one known for her acting and dancing skills. She is the recipient of four Filmfare Award for Best Actress and a Best Supporting Actress award from the same award show. I look forward to constructive criticism, and I feel that the filmography fulfills all criteria and has the potential to be promoted. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, I can see that the list isn't comprehensive enough. In the early 2000s, Dixit hosted a television show called Kahin Na Kahin Koi Hai, but there is no mention of that. There is also no mention of her appearance in the Gujarati film Satyavadi Raja Harishchandra. So I have to oppose it for failing to meet criteria 3(a). --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: While the first one has been added there with a source, the latter hasn't been added. I searched for it to find a reliable source to add, however, nada. I don't think it was notable enough. If it were, a source would have been certainly found, no? You may start your review if you want. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think much research has gone into creating this list. Here is a ref for the Gujarati film. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added, thanks. --FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If I'm right, the source only confirms the existence of the film. We need explicit sources to prove that Madhuri was a part of the film. Some sources mention the name of the film as Satwadi Raja Harishchandra. Also, it looks like a Gujarati/Rajasthani film. I know neither of these languages. —Vensatry (ping) 10:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: If I'm not wrong, the source clearly says "Gujarati cinema too in films like Raja Harish Chandra with Madhuri Dixit", which indicates her presence in the film. Besides it is a Gujrati film, dubbed in Rajasthani. --Frank CHITCHAT 10:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What if I say the source is a WP:MIRROR? —Vensatry (ping) 11:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that it was Dixit's only Gujrati appearance, I doubt the notability of this film, as no proper and reliable source exists for it and secondly it has no article in Wikipedia - a place to create notable articles. What say ye? -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure about the film's notability. I understand there won't be much coverage for a 1980s Gujarati film in the internet. But your reason for not including the film citing lack of notability isn't really convincing because lack of a WP article cannot be correlated with assessing the notability of a film. Trust me, there are loads of notable Indian films which don't have an article over here. If I were to take Devika Rani's filmography to FL status, I cannot ignore those red-linked films just because they don't have their own articles. —Vensatry (ping) 11:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on that, yet this film did not prove to be notable at least not for Madhuri Dixit as it was just a "special appearance". A big Bollywood film star of her era making a special appearance in a Gujrati film, but still no source. Non-notable film. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright. I have given the lead a major copy-edit as well. Good luck! This doesn't affect the nomination, but I'm sure you can find a much nicer image of the gorgeous woman than the current blurry picture. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copy-edit Krimuk90, which makes it look much better than it was. BTW I have uploaded the image of same setting with a nicer quality, but if you feel there is better image than the current one, please go ahead and change it. --FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that you retained the film. But we cannot have the ref. as it's a mirror site. The other ref. is incomplete. —Vensatry (ping) 14:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No ref. is available for it, and I have removed it. It does not affect the comprehensiveness of it as it was a non-notable Gujarati film appearnce. I don't think that absence of one film appearnce should stop a list from becoming FL. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 15:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one who insisted you to include the film. So why didn't you saying anything when Krimuk opposed the candidate solely for excluding this film and the TV show? Reread the discussion below. —Vensatry (ping) 17:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the time when Krimuk opposed it, there was a ref. and I wasn't aware of it being a mirror, that's why I didn't say anything. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But then, you continued to have the film in the table until today. I pointed out it was a mirror long ago. —Vensatry (ping) 17:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While resolving other queries, I just forgot about this, and I was in the search of another source these days, however, I couldn't find any. My apology! -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. I was concerned because initially you included the film when Krimuk had opposed and now when I say the ref. is a mirror, you say the film is a non-notable one and excluding it will not stop this from becoming an FL. —Vensatry (ping) 18:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when Krimuk opposed, at that time, too I objected, "I searched for it to find a reliable source to add, however, nada. I don't think it was notable enough", but when he provided a source, I added that. Anyways enough of it.
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
Weak oppose
  • Ref. #1, needs a page no.
  • Sanjay Dutt and Shah Rukh Khan are linked twice in the lede
  • "Dixit then played roles in commercial failure" - borders tautology
  • "Her breakthrough role came two years later with the lead role in" - first role is redundant
  • The above sentence is a little too long. Consider splitting it
  • "one of the highest grossing film" -> one of the highest grossing films
  • "her role of a violent revenge-seeking woman was well received." - This is not verified by either of the sources.
    • I missed this – "She won a second Best Actress award ... woman who rebels against her manipulative mother-in-law in the drama Beta" This isn't verified by the source either. Page #573 of the book talks about Saroj Khan. —Vensatry (ping) 18:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoops, my bad! It's pg 394 that says "In Beta, Madhuri Dixit takes on a scheming mother-in-law, Aruna Irani, to ensure justice for..." The "Best Actress" part has also been cited with a reliable source. @Vensatry: Please let me know if I have resolved your concerns. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 18:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she played a woman escaping from her abusive marriage" - Same as above
  • "However, her 1997 release of the romantic film Dil To Pagal Hai was a major success" -> However, the 1997 romantic film Dil To Pagal Hai was a major success.
  • "Her two film releases in 2002 were ... " - We are aware that we're talking about films until now.
  • "In the latter film, she portrayed a prostitute in love with an alcoholic" - I'm not sure about the usage of the word prostitute here. Courtesan would be more appropriate.
  • A mention of Gaja Gamini could well be made in the lede owing to the importance given to her character.
  • The link to Bombay Talkies in the table points to the studio
  • "The role of a con woman in Abhishek Chaubey's black comedy film Dedh Ishqiya (2014) marked her comeback after five years, which earned critical acclaim" - It's quite obvious to anyone that the gap was seven years.
    • Whoops! Mixed up with Aaja Nachle. Corrected!
  • "For her role in Dedh Ishqiya, Dixit received her 14th nomination of the Filmfare Award for Best Actress" - This should precede the previous sentence.
  • Swati was directed by Kranthi Kumar, not L. V. Prasad.
  • Be consistent with T. Rama Rao and Tatineni Rama Rao. Likewise, for K. Bapaiah and K.Bapayya.
  • "She served as the judge from fourth season til seventh season." - typo
  • Refs #26, #32, #52 are missing publishers
  • Link Zee News in its first occurrence
  • Why is India TV italicised in the ref.

The table looks fine, but the lede needs a fair amount of work before this gets promoted. —Vensatry (ping) 13:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the amazing review. All of the concerns have been taken care of. --FrankBoy CHITCHAT 15:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support The lede is a tad bloated, and it should feature some notable TV performances, but it is a well researched list other than this, I was looking at it earlier. Perhaps you could add some of her TV performances too to ensure it is fully comprehensive?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dr. Blofeld: Thank you for the kind review. I think that Dixit, being a film actress does not have so much of contributions in the television industry, but the two shows she judged/hosted are present there. Besides she has had appearances in TV shows, which is common among film actors, and I don't think that is a good idea. --FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Krimuk left the impression that it wasn't comprehensive that's all. I agree that a lot of those sorts of TV appearances aren't worth mentioning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When nominated, a notable TV show that she had hosted was not mentioned at all. That's why I didn't consider the list comprehensive. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose came in mainly because this list was short of one TV show, seriously? —Vensatry (ping) 15:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His oppose was also based on the exclusion of that Gujarati film. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about being short of one TV show, Vensatry, it's about not being well-researched. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But then, I don't see much of an improvement in this list in terms of comprehensiveness. —Vensatry (ping) 10:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vensatry, the oppose was based merely on those two missing things, which are now present. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments Sorry for being late. Well, i feel there are a few issues to be rectified or an explanation being required.

  • Why mentioning 'Ek Do Teen' in particular? I believe her other songs 'Choli Ke Peeche', 'Dhak Dhak Karne' and 'Maar Dala' were equally popular. So, i suggest the nominator to remove it.
    • We all know that Tezaab was a breakthrough film for her, which I think is also mentioned in the previous sentence. The song was a major highlight in the film and was highly instrumental in the film's success. Dare I say, it served as a launchpad for her career. I agree that the other songs you've mentioned are also popular but we cannot include every cult song of hers here. —Vensatry (ping) 10:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per Vensatry's comment.
  • "play the romantic interest to male protagonists" — i don't think so that she used to play the romantic interests of antagonists in particular. Isn't the statement She continued to play the female lead in the successful action-dramas Ram Lakhan (1989), Tridev (1989), and Kishen Kanhaiya (1990) enough?
    • Done.
  • Perhaps Gaja Gamini be called and art house film rather than using the term experimental. If using art house is wrong, forgive me. But experimental is a bit out-of-the-blue.
    • Art house is a bit informal. I think experimental is correct as I have seen most of the high quality articles use this term.
  • In 2013, she performed an item number in the Ayan Mukerji-directed romantic comedy Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani. — adding the song name along with a reliable source is appreciable.
    • The song wasn't quite notable, but since it was her only appearance in 2013, I gave it a mention.
Since you gave a mention, at least cite it please. It is important. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Surely makes sense. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, i assume that she was "praised" by critics mostly. For example, in the statement The widely praised role of a con woman in Abhishek Chaubey's black comedy film Dedh Ishqiya (2014) marked her first acting role in seven years i think "widely praised" can be replaced with "critically acclaimed".
    • The "widely praised" is same as "critically acclaimed" and such. Since "critical acclaim" has been used twice in the list, I have used the term "praised" to avoid monotonous prose.
  • Any info about the critical reception and BO Verdict of Gulaab Gang?
    • We need not mention critical and/or box-office performance for each and every film. This film's performance (barring Juhi Chawla's) was not notable anyway.
  • Are the four seasons of Jhalak Dikhla Jaa, in which she served as a talent judge, consecutive?
    • That is explained in the form of a FN.

Anyways, the table is looking fine and comprehensive. The validity of the image used is also perfect though a recent image can be more appropriate. However it is the nominator's call. Ping me after you rectify these issues and/or after you complete giving explanations if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. Pinging @Pavanjandhyala: per his own statement. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Good job overall, could be better. Being a non-native English speaker, i am unable to find further issues. But i am sure someone else may do. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dixit received a Filmfare for completing 25 years (I dont know if this should be mentioned or maybe). What are your thoughts since its her filmography and she got that recognition for her long list of films.
  • Better suits the parent article and the awards page.
  • Why mentioning of her item number (YJHD) in the lead is important to her filmography? I think it should be removed.
  • Was her only appearance of 2013 (that too after six years).
Still I think this should be removed. So please remove it.
Several reasons justify the presence of the song: it was her first item-number in her career, the only appearance she had in 2013, and the same thing is also present in Aishwarya Rai Bachchan filmography (from Bunty Aur Babli). -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her role in Lajja was not a starring role but a supporting. Correct this.
  • Corrected.
  • "She also appeared in Yaraana—a remake of the psychological thriller Sleeping with the Enemy". Why this is important in her filmography. It fits better either in the film's article or her biography.
  • Removed
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Slashes in the "Role(s)" section should be removed per MOS:SLASH
  • Television "year" section should have ndash in 2012–14
  • She continued to play the female lead in the successful critically or commercially?
  • Dixit featured alongside Jackie Shroff and Sanjay Dutt no need to repeat Dutt's given name again
  • Both of Dixit's releases in 1996—Rajkumar and Prem Granth—were unsuccessful. critically? financially?
  • However, Yash Chopra's 1997 romantic film Dil To Pagal Hai was a major success for whom?
  • The widely praised role → The widely-praised role
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 20:09, 14 June 2015 [11].

List of accolades received by The Dirty Picture

[edit]
Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dirty Picture is a 2011 Indian film that broke stereotypes related to the portrayal of women's sexuality in Indian cinema. The film's star, Vidya Balan, was particularly awarded for a role that most Indian actresses would run away from. This article provides a fully-sourced listing of the many awards and nominations this film received. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from FrB.TG
  • No need to repeat Vidya's name in bracket each time in prose.
Removed.
  • And the same for Khan.
Removed.
  • You may add an FN for Apsara being known as Star Guild Awards now.
Added.
  • Don't really know what's this exactly called, but use !scope="row" in the table.
Added.
  • Are you sure that the BIG Star Entertainment Awards ceremony was held on 18 December.
Yup, from what I see online. The show was aired on TV on 31 December, but the ceremony was held on 18 December.
  • I don't think that the date for the Filmfare Awards is correct.
Corrected.
Added archived url. The same page mentions the nominations as well.
Thanks for the comments, FrB.TG. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Skr15081997 (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*released worldwide on 2 December 2011, and earned ₹1.14 billion (US$18 million) worldwide 2 "worldwide"s in the same sentence
  • The Dirty Picture should be sorted under D.

Can you review this?--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skr15081997 Both done. :) Yup, I'll look into your nom as well. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Skr15081997 (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Commons states that "the {{Personality rights}} template may be used to warn re-users of Commons’ content that local laws may impose additional requirements on reuse, over and above those enforced here". I don't think this is mandatory.
Yup, of course, and the image is already appropriately licensed. But I haven't heard any reviewer mention the personality rights template before. Are you sure it's a mandatory requirement? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seattle, I just wanted to understand the rationale behind including it. Not a problem, I've added it now. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • produced by Shobha Kapoor and Ekta Kapoor why not just "produced by Shobha and Ekta Kapoor"?
Changed.
  • the film narrates the rise and fall story story isn't needed here
Removed.
  • The film stars Vidya Balan as Silk, who's this?
Tweaked.
  • Made on a budget of of → between
Changed.
  • The Dirty Picture released on 2 December 2011 where?
Tweaked.
My mistake; I should have been more clear. In which country was the film released on 2 December 2011? India? Worldwide? Seattle (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked, again.
  • with particular praise for Vidya's performance, the dialogues, and the costume design by Niharika Khan. what "particular praise"? Can you provide citations for each?
The "praise" here refers to the accolades the films received. The sentence says that "the film garnered awards and nominations in several categories, with particular praise .." From the listing, it can be deciphered that the film was mostly awarded in those three categories.
  • Vidya's performance ... Best Actress awards for Vidya Vidya → Balan per WP:SURNAME
This is something that has been discussed here. I don't belong to that part of India, so I am unsure of the naming convention, but as per the note on the top of her biography page, the name Balan is apparently a patronym and not a family name, and therefore she should be referred to by her given name.
Corrected.
Thanks for the comments Seattle. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Excellent work.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose question mark over the inclusion of minor awards...
  • Image caption needs a full stop.
  • "the film narrates ... The film " repetitive prose.
  • Our article on Vishal–Shekhar appears to separate the names using an en-dash.
  • "Best Dialougue" is that a deliberate typo?
  • Why are we including minor awards which are so un-notable that they don't even have a Wikipedia page, e.g. Dadasaheb Phalke Academy Awards? ETC Bollywood Business Awards?

The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man I've addressed your comments. The reason I included those awards is because they have been covered by prominent, reliable sources. I guess that's the pre-requisitve for inclusion here. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then presumably they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, so they should be linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they are, but no one has created them as yet. I guess I will, given some time. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they are notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion, they should be linked whether the articles exist or not. See WP:REDLINK for details. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 20:09, 14 June 2015 [12].

National Film Award for Best Supporting Actor

[edit]
Nominator(s): FrankBoy CHITCHAT 13:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Participation Guide
Support (4)
Krimuk90, Vensatry, Skr15081997, Birdienest81
Comments/No vote yet (1)
The Rambling Man
Oppose
None

The National Film Award for Best Supporting Actor was nominated for the FLC; however, the list failed because of not having enough comments and supports. I am looking forward to comments on how to improve it. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 13:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
;Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
  • ""A national panel annually appointed by the government selects the actor ... " Who appoints the panel, the government itself or through DFF?
  • The following sentence is unsourced
  • "The Directorate of Film Festivals instituted the "Best Supporting Actor" category in 1984" We are not sure when the winners were declared, but I'm sure it wouldn't be 1984.
  • "The first recipient was Victor Banerjee, who was honoured at the 32nd National Film Awards (1984)" Same as above
  • "As of the 2013 awards, three actors—Nana Patekar, Pankaj Kapur, and Atul Kulkarni—have each been honoured twice" As of the 2013 awards, three actors—Nana Patekar, Pankaj Kapur, and Atul Kulkarni—have been honoured twice
  • Link 54th National Film Awards in the lead
  • "At the 42nd National Film Awards, Ashish Vidyarthi and Nagesh tied for their" Something is missing here
  • You have mentioned years in brackets, alongside films. What does it indicate, the year of theatrical release or the year in which it was sent to the DFF?
  • The last five lines of the lead are unsourced. I know that they are verifiable in the table, but we need some sources for the prose part.
  • In LRM, did Dilip Prabhavalkar actually play Mahatma Gandhi?
  • Infobox needs to be updated.
  • Barring Atul Kulkarni, why is that we have the pictures of Arjun Rampal and Saurabh Shukla in the article? Although it has got nothing to do with the criteria, I'd like to know on what basis you've chosen this.
  • Link Koimoi in refs.
  • Is ref #33 a press release?
  • In these type of lists, it's enough if we just mention the names of the people in alt text per WP:ALT.

—Vensatry (ping) 11:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Vensatry: I am done with resolving your queries. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Krimuk90
  • You mention that the DFF has been set up by an Indian ministry, yet you in the very sentence you refer to the organisation as " the Indian government's DFF ". Redundant.
  • In the first paragraph you mention that the award is presented by the DFF, yet you repeat the information at the beginning of in the second paragraph :"The Directorate of Film Festivals instituted the "Best Supporting Actor" category"
  • "The award ceremony is held in New Delhi, India, where the award is presented by the President of India" ==> "The award is presented by the President of India at a ceremony held in New Delhi"
  • Prose is quite repetitive in the third paragraph. I spot four sentences beginning with "XXX won..."
  • In note d, do you mean unnamed or unknown?
  • Why is the location information only present in ref no. 2? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the location information for the two refs to maintain consistency. Other than that, this has my support. Well done. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Thank you for the support. --FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. --FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Although I would suggest to remove the red link for Nanba Nanba until you create the article.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No such plans, therefore removed. And, tks. (: -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 18:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are absolutely no problems with red links in FLs. —Vensatry (ping) 18:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Where is the "official name" of the award referenced?
    • @The Rambling Man: Each award is officially known as by its prize, which is Rajat Kamal for this one. All of them are cited in all of the references under the "Ref." column.
      • Sorry for being obtuse, I looked at the first ref and last ref and couldn't see this "official name". Incidentally, the first ref (and possibly others) in the table should be tagged with the language in which they are written as they are non-English... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @The Rambling Man: Please check the second win. That's available there. As for the language, they are not particularly written in Hindi, but also with some inclusion of English (not all, there are some which are written/published entirely in Hindi). I haven't tagged them, yet I have added an FN. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "annually appointed" switch round "appointed annually"
  • Why is "Cinema" capitalised in the infobox?
  • You have Paroma yet our article refers to it as Parama.
  • "Tamil-Hindi" or "Tamil / Hindi", be consistent.

Otherwise a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments TRM. I have resolved all except the first one. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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 SchroCat 15:40, 4 June 2015 [13].

Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor

[edit]
Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk), Cowlibob (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating Oscars for Best Supporting Actor for featured list because I have worked on the list for several weeks to comply with Featured list standards. I strongly believe that this list has a potential to become a featured list. I followed closely to how the Academy Award for Best Actor and Best Actress lists and the Daytime Emmy Award acting lists were formatted. Birdienest81 (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Littlecarmen
  • "The 9th Academy Awards ceremony was held in 1937 with Walter Brennan receiving the award for his role in Come and Get It." You need to mention that this was the first year the award was presented.
  • "Initially winners" Add a comma after "initially".
  • There's a huge clear space after the "Multiple wins and nominations". Remove one or two pictures to fix this.
  • ref #6: Link the LA Times and Tribune Publishing.
  • The Academy Awards Database is dead. I don't know if this may only be temporary, though.
  • Don't link articles multiple times within one table. Littlecarmen (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed: I addressed all the problems.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't fix the last one. Walter Brennan is linked a total of six times throughout the article, even though one link would be enough. Same with a lot of other actors. Littlecarmen (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not very sure about this. I removed one link from the Brennan caption, but I left the ones in the introductory paragraph and the tables. There was a similar issue at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Daytime_Emmy_Award_for_Outstanding_Lead_Actor_in_a_Drama_Series/archive1 regarding WP:Overlinking in the tables. Normally multiple linked tables are suited only for sortable tables, however I can't enable sorting because it would create more problems with nominees being paired with the wrong films and such. Another issue is consistency. I have two other lists that have been promoted as featured list (Lead Actor and Lead Actress) and there was no comment about overlinkage. If I unlink the multiple nominees here, it would make the table look aesthetically unappealing and it would confuse readers as to why some names are linked and some not. For example, in the Best Actress list Katharine Hepburn was nominated 12 times over 48 years. Unlinking the 11 other instances would force readers especially on mobile devices to scroll up and down to find her link in the article. If I unlike the multiple nominees here, people might question me as to why am I have multiple links in Best Actor and Actress but not in Supporting Actor (to the possible point of delisting) So why now?
--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would've raised the same issue with the other lists if I had been there to review them. The issue of having to scroll up to find the article link applies to all articles but really isn't an issue in my opinion. I don't think removing links makes the tables aesthetically unappealing at all. I think it would be okay to leave one link per actor in the table since WP:Overlinking allows that, but six links are just too much. Littlecarmen (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Littlecarmen: It's not really about aesthetics. You can link more than once if it is useful to the reader which is specified in WP:OVERLINKING. This is the case here. For a multiple winner/nominee, the reader would be forced to look up the first win/nomination in the table to go to the relevant article on the actor. Cowlibob (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I've been trying to say to Littlecarmen. It would be super inconvenient for a reader to search for the first win/nomination in the table in order to find the link if I only linked the first time. For an example in this case, a reader would have to find Robert Duvall's link in 1979 (as opposed to simply clicking on his name in 1998 or 2014). That might frustrate some viewers especially people reading this list on mobile devices or those who do not know when his first nomination is off the top of their head and would get crosseyed searching through 395 nominees. I know the Walter Brennan nominations are close together, but actors like Duvall have nominations that are spread out over several years which would be inconvenient for several readers (his nominations are between 19 and 16 years in this table which is long enough for mobile readers). And we could not just unlink Brennan's name alone because that would not be consistent.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The issue of having to scroll up to find the article link applies to all articles but really isn't an issue in my opinion." I already addressed this. Do you also want to link articles over and over and over again in other articles? I don't think having to scroll up a little is inconvenient at all, I think you're underestimating readers' patience. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not seem inconvenient to some people, but there are people who do view this article on cell phones or small devices. We have to be considerate about everyone who will read this list. Besides, this is not an article, it's more a list with a really long table. I read WP:Overlinking and it does say "if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables".
--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted that part as meaning that articles that have already been linked in the lead can also be linked once more in an infobox, table, image caption, footnote, hatnote, and at the first occurrence after the lead, which concurs with my advice to link actors (also ones that have already been linked in the lead) once more in the table, but not more than that. I don't see how this not being an article changes things. There's actually a lot more text to scroll through in most articles and people also read those on small devices. I also find it quite condescending of you to ask other users to explain the rules to me just because I disagree with you on something. They're not very complicated and I understand them quite well. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat, Crisco 1492, and PresN: Before this gets personal, let's just get the delegates to decide. The issue is whether it is ok to link actor's names multiple times in the table if they have won or been nominated multiple times. Paging..Cowlibob (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous consensus has been to allow it in sortable tables. This one's not sortable, so... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series, and Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance are all featured lists that are overlinked and unsortable. I tried doing sortable to the table, but it completely messes up the table like this: (http://postimg.org/image/tli5irot5/). --Birdienest81 (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yeah, rowspans don't reform. Doesn't mean they don't sort- just means that as soon as you sort by something, the table converts to a non-rowspanned column, just like you'd have if you didn't use rowspans at all. Anyway- I fixed the table on this list so that it sorts; if you decide that you don't want it to be sortable please just remove the "sortable" class from the table itself, don't revert the change. The table as it was was broken- you had the year column with a 6-row span, then inserted an invisible row to the 5 rows that were actually there. When I made it sortable it kept injecting a new row for every year, and the first year was just a huge mess. You also had it trying to make the table yellow with dark gray headers, then overriding that. Also, as per sorting- your actor column is sorting by first name, not last name, so you'll want to use {{sortname}} to fix that, and your film column is sort by a, an, and the, so you'll need to use {{sort}} to fix those. See the first row of the table at Hugo Award for Best Novel for an example. --PresN 03:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a great idea, but I'm in the midst of studying for finals. Either someone else has to do it, or wait until May 22. Also it would be nice if the same modifications be made for the other Oscar acting awards lists.--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To respond to one of the points above, in cases where items in a list appear more than once, we suspend the normal guidelines that recommend against overlinking. If an actor has more than one nomination in a career, I see no issue with links for each nom. In fact, WP:OVERLINK itself allows for repeat links in tables. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Littlecarmen: What are your thoughts now? Have added sorting to film, actor and role column. As it is now a sortable table, there should be no issue about linking names multiple times as Crisco and Giants2008 agree. Thanks, PresN for adding the initial sortability to the table. Cowlibob (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't make sense to me to interpret "a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead" as saying that a link can be repeated over and over again within an infobox, table, image caption, footnote or hatnote. I guess it's a little ambiguous about tables, since other people have interpreted it differently, but it makes no sense to repeat a link within an infobox, image caption, footnote or hatnote, does it? So I still don't agree that WP:Overlinking technically allows overlinking in tables, even if they're sortable (it would actually make more sense to me to allow it in non-sortable tables since you would automatically see the first link if you sorted it by actor), but if the delegates agree that it's okay, I'm fine with it. I feel like much too big of a deal was made of this anyway. Littlecarmen (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Littlecarmen: Sorry, if I was being a little insistent about the overlink, but at least we decided to ultimately leave it up to the delegates to decide (as is the case when things get heated up). This overlink debate has been going on for years, and TECHNICALLY the rules do allow bypassing of WP:Overlink in special cases with permission from the delegates as Giants2008 pointed out (the Academy Award ceremonies are overlinked in the tables and unsortable because of special permission during the 82nd Academy Awards's FLC review in 2010. That being said, could you kindly wrap these comments in a bar so that they don't create a long mess for other commenters? I can help you if you want.--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Looks good. But can I ask why you guys didn't include an age superlative section? I think it's good to maintain consistency with the Best Actor and Best Actress lists. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot about that. That's not a big problem to add. I'm having finals on Tuesday, my Mom's birthday on Wednesday, and my own birthday on Thursday! However, adding an age superlative section is easier than fixing tables. It may take awhile, but I'll promise to get into it ASAP. Other you can gently ask Cowlibob if he wants to do it. Thanks for reminding me, Krimuk90! Cheers.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: Added in section. Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy birthday.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well done again.--Jagarin 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support with a minor concern:

  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks mostly good, though don't use links more than once within tables; it doesn't really provide any benefit. It would also help to have more diversity within the references. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, I've already taken up the issue about duplicate links with FLC delegates Crisco 1492 and PresN who said they will allow it if the list is made sortable (which I did). Furthermore, head FLC director Giants2008 even went to say that whether a table is sortable or not, there are special cases where normal overlink are bypassed so that repeat nominations can be linked for convenience purposes. If this can't have repeat links, then the other Oscar acting lists should be revoked FL status since there would be no consistency. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but I went through the process of asking the delegates and I do not want to be making a big deal out of this. As for the references, they are consistent with all the other Oscar acting awards lists I've done and similar to the ones from the Daytime Emmy Awards.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, support Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your consideration.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 SchroCat 15:40, 4 June 2015 [14].

List of accolades received by Kaminey

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Prashant 14:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the FL-criteria. It provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2009 caper thriller Kaminey, one of the best films in Indian cinema and best film of the previous decade.—Prashant 14:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's one of the best films in Indian cinema heaven help Indian cinema..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still remember that Doctor! Especially this : "I've sure there's a lot of young working class males in India in which the classic action film would appeal to without song and dance numbers. I saw Kaminey a few weeks back and I thought the song and dance numbers ruined what would have otherwise been a good film. You can't produce a serious, gritty crime film and have them break out into that!" at Andha Naal's GAR. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Best film of the previous decade, Seriously? —Vensatry (ping) 13:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

[edit]

Ahem, Okay. Here are a few issues i listed below which i expect the nominator to either rectify them or give an explanation regarding the same here if required.

  • "The film is set in the Mumbai underworld, telling the story of twins Charlie and Guddu Sharma and their rivalry" — it can be rephrased as Set in the Mumbai underworld, the film focuses on the lives of and rivalry between twins Charlie and Guddu Sharma
  • "Kaminey was released on 14 August 2009 to universal critical acclaim and box-office success, the film grossed over ₹710 million (US$11 million) from its ₹350 million (US$5.6 million) budget" — it can be rephrased as Made on a budget of ₹350 million (US$4.2 million), Kaminey released on 14 August 2009 to universal critical acclaim and was a commercial success, grossing over ₹710 million (US$8.5 million).
  • "Rated as the "Best film of the year" by multiple commentators, the film is now considered a cult classic." — two issues. Who are these "commentators""? Critics or celebrities or both? And it would be better to replace "the film is now considered a cult classic" with the film achieved cult status.
  • Manisha Rege is the author of reference number 19. Why isn't she mentioned?
  • Apasara Awards is wikilinked for the second time in reference number 25.
Done.—Prashant 06:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now, it has my Support. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

[edit]
  • say caper thriller film, not in italics.
  • I'd prefer, "Set against the backdrop of the Mumbai underworld". And is the link the desired one?
  • "The director co-wrote" - mention his surname.

More coming soon... Kailash29792 (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Prashant 15:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I asked was, "Mumbai underworld" redirects to The Indian Mafia, which is a single Indian crime organisation rather than the entire crime industry in the country. Is that still what you mean to link to?

"Removed.—Prashant 19:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC) My other comments are:[reply]

  • Is the translation of Kaminey deliberately omitted in the lead section?
Yes, that is already in the main article.—Prashant 19:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any source that states the film got universal acclaim?
  • "Bhardwaj also composed the musical score" - do you mean soundtrack? Cos "score" means only background music.
After this, there are only minor issues left, all relating to prose, which I'll take care of. Once my comments have been addressed, this article has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—Prashant 19:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Hope this article passes FLC. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Looks in good shape, I made some copyedits. I wish the nominator had not prompted me to review this again just 3 days after notifying me though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A separate list for a film with just 10 awards (that too most of the ceremonies being minor ones), for an accolades list seriously? If we talk about major awards, the film has just one award from Filmfare and NFA. Sreekar Prasad's Special Jury award wasn't exclusively for this film. Also, I see no mention about the prestigious Shantaram Awards, where the film received four nominations. I feel the list lacks comprehensiveness. That said, I'm not against the promotion of this list, as this seems to be a problem with a majority of the Indian film lists. —Vensatry (ping) 09:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a footnote for Sreekar Prasad's Jury Award. As far as Shantaram Awards is concerned, not a single source is present for that.—Prashant 15:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to improve your googlefu, here's what I got by searching for Kaminey Shantaram. [[15]]. Source for four nominations. Cowlibob (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the source. I have added the V Shantaram Awards.—Prashant 20:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 12:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*The image's caption - "for their performance" → "for their respective performances".
  • WP:ALT needed for the image.
  • "Bhardwaj co-wrote the film's screenplay..." - IMO, the "after he bought the script for US$4,000 from a Kenyan writer" sentence in the line does not need to be here as it has got nothing to do with an accolades list.
  • You have mentioned about the critical acclaim of the movie in second paragraph. While there is a ref (a review of a critic), I see that there is no source actually indicating that the movie received "critical acclaim".
  • "It received a leading nineteen 19 nominations" - as numbers higher than 9 are usually in numerical figures.
  • All of the "recipient(s) and nominee(s)", including the repeated names, need to be linked as the table is sortable.
  • The names under "recipient(s) and nominee(s)" need to be sorted by their last names; see this if you need guidance. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 18:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Prashant 14:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last one is not done in a proper way. Please have a look at this. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—Prashant 12:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG:This list has the similar number of award wins (16) and it is a featured list. Does it help?—Prashant 12:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case I support the nomination. However, Prashant!, there is still a problem with the list, which requires a fix, which I'ma do myself instead of suggesting it here. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 15:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any problem with sorting? I cannot figure that out. Would you like to explain?—Prashant 12:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try sorting the columns in both ascending and descending order.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it alright now?—Prashant 06:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No.--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sorting is similar to other Bollywood FLs, Would you like to be specific? Any suggestions?—Prashant 12:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some fixes to the sorting. Skr, do you have a say? -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to sort the columns in both ascending and descending order. I have tried this with List of accolades received by The Dirty Picture. On that page when I click on the column headers, the list gets sorted. When I click again it is sorted accordingly, but here the columns get stuck on "sort ascending".--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just checked and the problem does exist. I tried to fix it. But, was unable to do so. Do you have any knowledge about solving it?—Prashant 11:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think some name or strings entered in the list has caused this trouble.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How to find and fix it? Its tiring. Checked it yet again but, still the same.—Prashant 13:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Finally fixed the problem. Phew, now the table can be sorted easily. —Prashant 13:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Plot summary is way too vague. "Way of living"? Also maybe include that the film takes place over 24 hours.
  • We can't say that a film was rated the best of the year by several publications by citing a couple of people who rated it as the best. It becomes a POV issue. A source needs to be provided that covers lots of publications and gives a summary saying something like it was rated best of the year or topped these lists.
  • I also don't need see where the film's "cult status" is mentioned in the cited references. Cult film is a specific term, and I don't see how Kaminey fits.
  • The National Film Award Special Mention for Prasad wasn't only for Kaminey but also two Malayali films so it's not right to say the film won the award in the lead. You should specify that it was Prasad who won it.
  • Link Prasad for the win of the Screen Award for Best Editing. Also link Chandan for Stardust award.
  • Subhash Sahoo is spelt differently in the table for different awards. Meghana's name is also spelt differently for different awards.
  • We have an articles on Shajith Koyeri, and P. M. Satheesh so link them. Cowlibob (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have corrected everything you have mentioned, except second bit about "Best film of the year". I cannot find a single source because Indian media does not aggregate reviews or covers best film of the year with care. Since, the reputed critics published their respective list, so I had cited.—Prashant 18:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is unsourced so we can't say it. Cowlibob (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed that claim.—Prashant 09:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 SchroCat 15:40, 4 June 2015 [16].

List of accolades received by The Last of Us

[edit]
Nominator(s): -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 01:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all aspects of the FL criteria, comprehensively covering the many year-end accolades received by The Last of Us. The content is similar in nature to other accolades articles (some of which are featured lists), proving to me that this list is good to go all the way -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 01:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 01:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: nomination was not transcluded to WP:FLC, now done. --PresN 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Giraffes" scene and "Joel's loss" shouldn't sort where they do; they should sort under "G" and "J" respectively
  • Names in the "Recipient(s) and Nominee(s)" section should sort by surname and not first name; use Template:Sortname
  • Why don't you use "! scope="col"" tags for the column headers? See MOS:DTAB for more information
  • It was released on June 14, 2013 for the PlayStation 3 everywhere?
  • What makes "DualShockers" a reliable reference? Did they factcheck "Gotypicks"?
  • The list that constitutes the second paragraph seems excessive and makes the text almost unreadable. Can you cut back on this at all?
  • Why don't you discuss The Last of Us: Left Behind in the lead?
  • Ndashes needed in references in place of hypnehs; ex. ref 31 ("Good Game Stories - Award - Best Game") and ref 89 ("Digital Spy's best games of 2013: 5-1"). Check throughout for these. Seattle (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Seattle! I've gone ahead and fixed up most of your concerns, though I have couple of queries:
  • Did you mean that you'd like me to clarify that the game had a worldwide release on the same day?
  • I agree that the list in the second paragraph is quite excessive, but it's very difficult to cut down. Do you have any suggestions?
Let me know. Thanks again! -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 09:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardcore Gamer. and the Spike VGX 2013 period in inappropriate place.
  • and Best Action-Adventure Game on PlayStation 3[61] and overall. can you clarify what "overall" is?
  • The game's graphical and artistic design also won awards from Destructoid... ... It also won... repetitive prose

Yes, if I understand correctly, some games are not released in unison across all regions, and I wanted you to clarify that that date was its worldwide release date, or if that date represented a specific region's release date. For "Game of the Year" awards in the lead, I would just cut the list down to four or five awards, state "among others", or something similar, at the sentence's end, and include references to another three or four awards. Seattle (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Seattle. I've gone and fixed these issues. I cut the amount of Game of the Year awards down from 23 to eight, and I believe it looks a lot more readable now. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 21:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seattle, is the current fair use rationale not suitable? -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 20:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think use of a fair-use file here meets point eight of Wikipedia's non-free content policy, which states that "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If readers go to the awards page for The Last of Us, I don't think a logo of the game's developer meets the "[significant] increase [in] readers' understanding of the article topic" criterion established in the policy. If the logo is removed, I'm not sure what the reader loses. Seattle (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, and I do agree. How do you feel about adding an image of Neil Druckmann or Bruce Straley instead? They both received awards for the game. Let me know. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 03:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, as long as the photo used has a personality rights template and isn't fair-use. Seattle (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How's that, Seattle? -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 21:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco comments
  • The lead should be reworked (in fact, I was ready to oppose over it). Lists written horizontally are just not engaging, especially when they all follow the same sentence structure: Subject - Synonym of win - Award title - Award-giving body. See List of accolades received by Frozen (2013 film) and List of accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film) for better examples you can learn from... work can include pruning minor awards, collating multiple awards from the same body, etc. After all, the lead is to introduce the list, not give it in its entirety.
  • the most awarded game in history - This could be ambiguous; "received as an award" or "had awards given to". I'd rephrase — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, Crisco 1492. I went ahead and reworked the lead, as per your suggestions. Let me know what you think. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me | current FLC) 08:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Your feedback was really useful, and I'll be sure to use it in the future (if I ever work on another article like this again). Also, thanks for the heads-up about my signature; I've just removed the link. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 10:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 SchroCat 15:40, 4 June 2015 [17].

List of United States ODI cricketers

[edit]
Nominator(s): Blackhole78 talk | contrib 22:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets featured list criteria. I based the format of this article on List of Bermuda Twenty20 International cricketers which was just recently promoted. Blackhole78 talk | contrib 22:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Image is missing alt text for accessibility.
Done.
  • T20I should be Twenty20 International.
Done.
  • took place used twice in a sentence. rephrase.
Done.
  • USA is now playing in.... should have as of a certain date even if it's unlikely that US will return.
Done
  • although bowling analysis is the wiki name, I think bowling figures is the more well known term so maybe pipe it.
Done
  • No need for sorting in ODI table as there is only one entry.
Done
  • I know these lists often source Cricinfo only as it's the most comprehensive and reliable but is it possible to add refs from different reliable sources for some diversity?
I could alternate and use CricketArchive for every second player, but IMO I think that would look odd.
  • As it's about the American team, ref dates and any other dates in the list should be m/d/y per their dating convention.
Done
  • Ref 1 is not opening for me, could you check the link is working?
Done

Cowlibob (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, sorry about the late response. Real life work got in the way.

Support Good work. Hope this nom gets more attention. Cowlibob (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Littlecarmen
  • "A One Day International (ODI) is an international cricket match [...] and is played under the rules of ODI cricket." Isn't it obvious that a sport is played under its rules? Also, remove the duplicate ODI article link. If there is an article about the rules of ODI, link that.
  • "The U.S. played a total of two matches during this tournament and lost them all," -> "lost both"
  • Both Mark and Howard Johnson link to disambiguation pages in the lead.
  • "Staple has claimed more wickets in ODI matches than any other American, having taken two and holds the best bowling figures," Add a comma after "having taken two".
  • Remove the second link to the New Zealand cricket team in the second paragraph.
  • Move the "See also" section above the references.
  • Why do you link ESPNcricinfo 27 times in the references? Leave the first link and remove the rest. Littlecarmen (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe your concerns have been addressed. I have to thank Cowlibob for doing most of these for me. :) Blackhole78 talk

Support Nice work! I also nominated a list recently. It would be great if you could take a look at it and leave some comments here :) Littlecarmen (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Crisco
    • Too many "2004"s in the lead.
    • Thirteen players have represented U.S. in ODI matches, of whom nine have played both games. - I'd nix either the "have" in "have played" or change the "both" to two. If you're saying both, that implies there will be no further games, whereas "have played" suggests that there will / may be further games. Personally, I'd go with "Thirteen players have represented U.S. in ODI matches, of whom nine have played two games." since the rest of the paragraph is in the pluperfect.
  • I'd probably have both sentences about Lambert be close together. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification. Chris Woodrich=Crisco 1492. Cowlibob (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Photo is a bit small; can you increase its size?
    • Done.
  • and is playing in the World Cricket League Division Four where does this rank in relation to ODI?
    • I have added an explanatory note which states that "Only the top six associate nations have ODI status. The top six associate nations play in World Cricket League Division One and get there by qualifying through the ICC World Cup Qualifier."
  • Thirteen players have represented U.S. need a "the" preceding the abbreviation
    • Done
  • Clayton Lambert has scored more runs than any other American I don't think that's technically true; Jehan Mubarak, born in Washington DC, scored 704 runs in ODI matches. Can you rework this?
    • Done
  • Can you link "run" somewhere?
    • Done
  • he also has the highest individual score (39) can you add "for the country" to the end of this?
    • Done
  • For what do "100", "50", and "Eco" stand in the table?
    • Added to the key
  • You link "ESPNcricinfo" in reference 2 but not anywhere else? Seattle (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it was previously suggested by Cowlibob that it be only linked once in the references section.
It was actually Littlecarmen not me. Cowlibob (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that! :) Blackhole78 talk
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
  • The "where the United States played its most recent ODI." bit isn't really needed in alt. WP:ALT suggests not use the same details in both caption and alt text.
  • "A One Day International (ODI) is an international cricket match" no need to repeat "international"
  • It could be worth mentioning in the lede that the US has played just two ODIs till now
  • You could add a list of "representative teams" as a FN.
  • I don't think the usage of the word "American" applies correct here. Use the team's name, not nationality.
  • "Ave – Average runs per wicket" -> Ave – Average runs conceded per wicket
  • The tied and NR columns are not necessary in the captains table, so is FN #3
  • The 100s and 50s columns aren't really needed in the table, given that you've already mentioned that Clayton Lambert has the highest individual score for the country (39) in the lede.
  • In the batting avg. column, Nasir Javed should be at the top (in descending order) as technically this is the best amongst all.
  • The Econ. column doesn't isn't sorting properly.
  • Remove the "See also" section since both the links are already covered in the lede.

—Vensatry (ping) 09:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your concerns have been death with. Thank you for your comments. Blackhole78 talk
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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2015 [18].

List of scheduled monuments in Mendip

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Rod talk 13:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is final (of seven) and largest list of Scheduled monuments in Somerset. It follows the same format as the others except that vcite is used instead of cit as the number of templates was too great for the software to cope with. It covers sites from the Palaeolithic to World War II with images where available and supporting references. As ever comments would be gratefully received.— Rod talk 13:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Keith D

Quick comments before I go on holiday.
  • There are a mixture of references to the PastScape website, some of the references mentioning English Heritage rather than Historic England, also some do not mention PastScape in the reference.
  • The code has a mixture of PastScape & Pastscape, the ones with the two caps do not appear to display. I think that the two cap version is what is generally used.
  • On a similar theme the lead has two instances of English Heritage should these now be Historic England?
  • Ref 223 is missing an accessdate.
Keith D (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I thought I had caught the change in publisher from EH to Historic England but obviously not - hopefully fixed now. I have also revised the capitalisation. Some references were to National Monuments Record rather than PastScape - hopefully fixed these as well. Accessdate added for ref 223. Have a good holiday.— Rod talk 07:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks had a good holiday - but catching up is a pain! Looks like you have addressed the issued I raised above. Had a look through and spotted some reference inconsistencies, especially the unusual use of square brackets. Some entries have square brackets round the accessdate and others do not. Also some references have the publisher first while others have the publisher later in the entry. Keith D (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The use of vcite rather than cite is explained below. A few still used cite which gave the inconsistencies - hopefully these are now resolved as all use vcite, but if there are more can you point them out?— Rod talk 20:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try 182 where the publisher "Somerset County Council" appears later in the entry compared to 194. Also 193 uses "Somerset Government" rather than "Somerset County Council". Keith D (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hope I've now got those you pointed out and spotted a few other inconsistencies highlighted by the use of vcite.— Rod talk 07:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Noswall Some drive-by comments on the Lead:

  • Not sure what relevance of the pronunciation of Frome has to this article.
  • I think you need a comma after The Abbot's Fish House
  • Thanks for dealing with the above. I also notice that the references are formatted unusually... I don't think it will get in the way of this nomination, but I've never seen square brackets used like that, and the format is noticeably different from the other lists in the series. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • The reason for the differently formatted references (which still have the usual info) is because of the number pf template transcluded onto the article. If I use "cite web", "cite journal" etc on all entries the reference list at the bottom doesn't work. The only way I have found around this on a couple of other lists is to use "vcite web" etc.— Rod talk 18:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, fair enough. It's more a matter of style, and like I said, as long as its internally consistent, it's fine. Good luck with this one, hopefully we'll see a full set soon! Cheers, —.
Comments from Harrias talk
  • I've had a bit of a look through this pre-FLC, so I'm reasonably happy with it. One nit-picking point: for Ponter's Ball linear earthwork, the completed column has "Possibly 3rd century BC or post Roman", while the Notes has "probably 3rd century B.C., while others date it to the post-Roman". Try to be consistent in the formatting of BC/B.C. and "post Roman"/"post-Roman". (I said it was really nit-picky!)
  • Picky is good - when you are so close to an article it is difficult to spot things like this - hopefully now fixed (I also did some AD -> A.D. for consistency.— Rod talk 18:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, Bishop's Palace ruined portions, walls and well house has "c. 1280", while Rode Bridge has "c. 1777".

Support, another brilliant list, well done. Harrias talk 13:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very resourceful list. Would like to see red links eaten up and more photographs eventually though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – A worthy conclusion to a remarkable series. Bravo! Tim riley talk 15:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The administrative centre of the district is Shepton Mallet but the largest town (three times larger than Shepton Mallet) is Frome. by size or population? Can you reference this exactly?
  • also figure prominently in the list what does this mean? This seems like a PUFF phrase
  • The most recent site on the list is a World War II bombing decoy complex and anti-aircraft obstructions on Black Down the highest point of the Mendip Hills. can you add a comma after "Black Down"? Do you have a year for this?
  • The monuments are listed below using the titles given in the Historic England data sheets. Can you add this as "Note 1" for the "Name" column?
  • Notes have caused a problem in previous lists following this format as Notes 1,2 & 3 are autogenerated by the table header Template:EH listed building header row and numbering of separate notes is inconsistent and can lead to duplication of "Note 1" - therefore I have been previously asked to add this sentence to explain why specific phrases are included as the name.— Rod talk 08:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names in the "Name" column shouldn't be in bold.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Featured_log/June_2015&oldid=669121317"