Knowledge (XXG)

< Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates‎ | Featured log

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original list and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments an excellent list, I suspect it's had no comments for a month because there's little to criticise about it! You abbreviate at bat to AB on the second instance of its use. I modelled the sentence off List of Major League Baseball batting champions. But unlike that list, this one does not subsequently mention at bats. Should I just remove the abbreviation? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Just abbreviate it the first time and use it the second time. Or remove it altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC) " to date" could we make that "as of the end of the 2017 MLB season" or something that is definitive? Changed to "as of 2016" (since the 2017 season hasn't started yet). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Yes, sorry, I meant 2016. I find it difficult remembering what day it is sometimes, let alone what year it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC) " fourteen have been elected and two were elected on the first ballot" do you mean two were inaugural members? I meant that they were elected on their first appearance on the ballot. Although Cobb was also an inaugural member, Williams was elected later on. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC) "play in 10 seasons" "in at least..." Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC) "The year the player's .400 season occurred" never keen on "occurred", usually too passive. Why not just "The year of the player's .400 season". Changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Is it worth noting (for people like me) that MLB didn't actually exist for the first 30-odd years of this list, hence why the season redirects to "1876 in baseball"? I'm not sure – I feel it might convolute things further. It's true that MLB was established in its current iteration in 1901. But MLB retroactively recognised the UA and AA as major leagues (alongside the NL). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC) I think it's worth a note, pretty much exactly what you've said here. It would certainly help us non-baseball experts get to grips with the fact this is about MLB players yet some of them didn't play in something called the MLB at the time they set their records. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Done. Added a note after the first mention of MLB. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC) "One of these players (Williams) played for only one major league team." is that referenced? His BaseballReference.com bio (ref 39 linked to his entry in the table) shows that he played all his 19 major league seasons with the Red Sox. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC) That's it in a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man – thanks for your feedback and the kind words. I hope I've addressed your comments satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Couple of replies above, hope they make sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks, The Rambling Man. They completely make sense. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bagumba

I quickly went through the prose, which has the boilerplate text (e.g. HOF inductees, handedness, etc) that other baseball FLs possess. I'd like to see more a bit more text that uniquely puts .400 into context:

• Add that .300 is considered a fairly good season already.
  • Added at the end of the 2nd sentence (supported by 2 refs). —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• To appreciate The Washington Post's comment about it being "unattainable", mention modern day players that came closest: Brett (.390), Gwynn (.394).
  • Done. Hope the wording of the additional sentence is okay and non-weasely. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if/when I'll be able to do a complete review, but do want to at least see these addressed. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• In the opening paragraph should state unconditionally that .400 is considered a rare feat. Attributing the quote by SABR makes it sound like .400 is not generally revered. Per WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice. "—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixed, but still left the exact wording in quotations (if that's alright). —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Quotations should always be attributed in text, not merely with a citation. That being said, I don't see why this specific quote is needed. It's probably more common place to say that it is currently considered unlikely to be reachable.—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm not inclined to use the word "considered" – it's a weasel word in this situation. Not to mention that this article was AFD'd three times in just over a year because of that word in its title. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Feel free to suggest an alternative. Note WP:WEASEL says "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." How do you otherwise propose avoiding use of the specific quote from: "The achievement of a .400 batting average in a season is recognized as 'the standard of hitting excellence'"?—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
          • This issue is still unresolved. Similar point on "a writer for The Washington Post called the mark 'both mystical and unattainable'". The opinion is not limited to the Washington Post, and a paraphrase is sufficient as opposed to a verbatim quote.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
            • The Washington Post quote has been resolved below with the comment from Giants2008. I also agree that with him that it should be attributed, since those are not common words used together by other sources to generically describe the .400 'club'. And those words are, in my opinion, the most fitting words to describe the club – can't think of any paraphrase that captures the same essence. I know I can't satisfy everyone, and have no inclination to act as a middle man between two editors who have differing views on wording or use of direct quotes from sources. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
            • As for "the standard of hitting excellence" quote, I again can't think of any other phrase that more appropriately captures the feat achieved by this group of players. I'm not trying to water down the achievement by quoting only one source. But I do think SABR is a source universally respected across the baseball world that it is capable of speaking not just for itself, but for the overwhelming baseball community —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I also added a sentence (2nd last one in para. 2) about Shoeless Joe Jackson's .408 mark being a rookie record – hope that checks out as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Bagumba – I've addressed all the comments you've made so far. Is there anything else that needs to be improved? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I did a Google search on "bat .400", and seems there should be more discussion on .400 being common before Williams, and why it is now considered out of reach.

• Impact of relief pitchers.
  • The use of relief pitchers doesn't specifically affect batting .400. They also affect consecutive hit streaks, the reduction in 200 hit seasons today, and the overall decline in offence. The more appropriate place for this info is the general batting average article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Mentioning relief pitchers here doesn't imply their impact is limited to .400 hitters. At any rate, there should be some explanation given in an FL as to reasons why the feat hasn't been duplicated in 70+ years.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
      • You win on this point – added a short note in the first sentence of the last paragraph. But I won't bog this list down with the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia". —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• 5 players combined to hit .400 seven times in 20 years before Williams.
  • Unresolved.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Part of the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia" quote above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• 3 players hit .400 in 1922
  • Unresolved.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Part of the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia" quote above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Aside from Brett, only Williams and Carew have batted .388 in a full season since
  • Trivia – why the artificial delineation of .388? Could've used a rounded whole number like .390 or .375 … —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The NY Times also mentioned Carew. Multiple experts in reliable sources mention Carew; it's not for us to do OR and create our own threshold of a round number.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm not in favour of creating my own threshold. But there is a longstanding norm for baseball FLs to only include players who have successfully attained the milestone, not the 'almost made it' players. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Bob Hazle hit .403 in 1957. His 134 at-bats were most by .400 hitter since Williams.
  • Irrelevant, in my opinion, since he couldn't even qualify for the batting title. If they were instead discussing the most plate appearances, then that would be a different story. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I interpreted it that the feat is so difficult that only a player with 1/3 or fewer of the reqd plate appearances has hit .400.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Like the other baseball stats/stat club FLs, the lead and the tables should only focus on those who joined/are in the club and not mention those who 'almost made it' (also applies to the .388 comment). Notwithstanding the fact that Hazle wasn't even close – again, trivia. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• current drought of .350 hitters longest since 1962–66
  • 1968 year of the pitcher, steroid era, specialised RP era – historical trends which are already covered in the MLB GA. If readers want to find out more, they can simply click on the link in this list, which is not the place for me to regurgitate this info (which no other baseball FL does). And once again, .350 is 'almost made it'. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Bagumba – I've responded to all the latest comments above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Bloom6132: I've marked the old comments that are still outstanding, and left a comment or two above.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Bagumba: – Responded to the latest comments. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Biggest stylistic concern is unnecessary use of quotes and inline attribution on uncontested opinions reagrding hitting .400. Per WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice." As stated at MOS:QUOTE, "It is generally recommended that content be written in Knowledge (XXG) editors' own words ... Consider minimizing the use of quotations by paraphrasing, as quotations should not replace free text (including one that the editor writes)." As far as content, it does not meet FL expectation to educate a non-baseball fan on the history and later significance of hitting .400. It is not "trivia" to use facts from multiple reliable sources to explain that .400 was a semi-regular occurrence until Williams, and it has rarely been approached since. Do not confuse this with a Knowledge (XXG) writer cherry-picking random facts from a stats site. Williams, who in 1941 was the last person to achieve .400, himself stated, “If I had known hitting .400 was going to be such a big deal, I would have done it again.”.—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – The one thing that stuck out at me in a negative way was saying that the Washington Post itself was responsible for the "both mystical and unattainable" quote. Since there is an author provided in the piece, this should be worded "The Washington Post's Barry Svrluga" or similar. Other that that, this is a nice-looking list, and I didn't spot anything else to complain about. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Giants2008 – I've changed it to "a writer for The Washington Post called the mark …". Is that alright, or would it be better to identify the writer in question by name? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Giants2008 – I think I've addressed your comment satisfactorily. Any follow-up vote? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Sorry for the delay, but I've been so busy that I've barely been able to edit here lately. As I said, that was my only concern with an otherwise solid list. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it'd look better if at bat was just written out rather than (AB) on the one extra mention. That's the only nitpick I saw, and am willing to support once fixed. Wizardman 16:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Wizardman 17:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This is great work. The only thing I noticed was that in the second paragraph (fourth sentence), you have a fragment after a semicolon ("all of whom attained a batting average over .400 during the 1894 season."). I would either change the semicolon to a comma or replace "whom" with "them".) EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. Changed to a comma. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A solid and compact list; I was expecting longer from the oldest nomination on the page. Promoted. --PresN 19:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): — Rhododendrites \\ 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...

It's a critically acclaimed film with real world impact -- and some of that impact has been directly connected to award nominations/critical success. I started the list a few years ago and, after coming across a couple other "List of accolades..." FLs recently, I felt up to the work. Granted, it wound up being a bit more time than I anticipated, going back to find other nominations, adding data, navigating a whole lot of 4-year-old broken festival/awards sites, but I think it's in good condition now. After reworking and expanding the lead, I feel fairly confident that it's FL material. I haven't been through this process before, though, so I look forward to your feedback. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I would rephrase the follow sentence (The film's primary subjects were petty criminals at the time, but promoted to be leaders of a powerful death squad during the purge) to (The film's primary subjects were petty criminals at the time, who were promoted to be leaders of a powerful death squad during the purge) as the "but" sentence construction is a little odd in this context at least to me.
• I am a little confused by the phrase "film justifications". Maybe specify whose justifications are being filmed?
• In the final sentence of the lead's second paragraph, I think something should be added before the final quote to fully explain how the film is different than a "historical account".

@Rhododendrites: Everything looks good; once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for your comments.

• I'm not sure I understand the first point. The "...at the time, who..." doesn't sit quite right with me. The but is to contrast the roles of petty criminal and a quasi-official position of power on a death squad. Sort of like "They were nobodies at the time, but came to have a lot of power." What about rearranging as "The film's primary subjects had been petty criminals, but during the purge they came to lead a powerful death squad."?

• That make sense to me. For some reason in my initial reading, I did not quite understand what you were referencing so I apologize for that. I think your rearrangement is stronger and I would recommending using that instead if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Good point. Changed to "Oppenheimer set out to film the ways people justified the killings, and was struck..."

• Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Reworded from "According to Oppenheimer, the film is not a historical account of the killings themselves, but rather 'about a regime...'" to "The film has historical context, but primarily concerns the role of the killings in people's lives today. According to Oppenheimer, it is 'about a regime...'". Is this along the lines of what you mean? — Rhododendrites \\ 01:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• That makes more sense to me. I was a little bit confused on the original wording on how this was separate from a historical account (as I have never seen or even heard of this film as terrible as that probably sounds). Thank you for the rewording/revision. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Support: Great work with this list! I can tell you put a lot of time and energy into this and it was a very compelling read (which is very difficult to do for a list of all things). I can definitely support this, and good luck with the rest of the review. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? I apologize for being so bold to ask for your input so feel free to say no if you do not have the time or energy. Good luck with this and your future projects. Aoba47 (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

*The lead is far too long and detailed. This is a subarticle. It is an interesting read but much of the information is better placed in the main film article. These type of lists tend to follow a pattern of 1st para= what the film is about, people involved in the making of the film. 2nd para= where it premiered, release schedule, box office, reception by critics. 3rd para=performance at the major awards e.g. Oscars, Golden Globes, BAFTAs followed by its performance at more minor awards such as Guild Awards, Critics Associations, Critics' Choice or Independent Spirit Awards. The table requires rowscopes and colscopes for accessibility Online Film and Television Awards has no date for the ceremony The recipients needs to sort by last name. The Act of Killing should also sort by Act. Reference publishers needs work. Only newspapers or magazines or online versions of these should be italicised. Not all the references have adequate information. They should bare minimum have url, title, publisher, accessdate, date (if present), author (if present). The publisher should also be linked at first mention. Cowlibob (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Thanks for your feedback. Scopes  Done Sortnames  Done Before I go back through all of the citations, could you clarify what you mean by "reference publishers"? The publisher parameter? I almost never use it unless "work" doesn't speak for itself. Is this a mistake? I do add all of the fields you list where possible (but with work instead of publisher). Use work for things like the film newspaper "The Hollywood Reporter" who are published by an organisation (Prometheus Global Media), and publisher for things like "Chicago Film Critics Association" as they are the publisher. Cowlibob (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)  Done? Tweaked a bunch of refs here. — Rhododendrites \\ 05:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC) I could not find a reliable source for the Online Film and Television Awards date, unfortunately. I may take another look tomorrow, but I do remember checking for secondary as well as archived primary sources without luck. Frankly thought about removing it but for the existence of a stand-alone article... I've nominated the article for AFD as I don't think it is a notable awarding body. I see that your PROD was deleted by another user who said they'd improve it but then didn't add any further references. I went ahead and removed it from the list. It will likely be deleted, and the date was bugging me, too. :) — Rhododendrites \\ 05:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Regarding the lead, I won't disagree that it could be tightened, but "far too long and detailed" is surprising to me. My sense, reading it back now, is that starting off the "what it's about" paragraph with historical background gets us off on the wrong foot in terms of "too long and detailed". :) I have trimmed a little bit of the lead detail, combined a couple of the paragraphs, and added premiere and box office information. The main article definitely needs work (I hope to come back to it soonish), and that may also lend to an assessment of excess detail here, but to the extent that's a factor (if at all), I would argue that's a problem with the main article rather than this. I would think that what information is relevant for the lead would require some flexibility between types of films. Box office figures for a Hollywood film may contribute to a film's sense of success and therefore could be said to be relevant to a list of accolades. But I don't think that e.g. box office numbers are important to the subject's notability, omitted from almost all sources on the subject aside from those which publish such data routinely. The numbers are fine for a documentary, but not impressive and seemingly irrelevant to its accolades. On the other hand, this film has been significant in the way it has had an affect on the world outside of cinema -- as in, that's among the things it's most notable for, and the reason for many of the accolades. For that reason, if we're tightening the lead, I would prefer to omit details like box office and premiere location that don't connect to the accolades in favor of including a fuller summary of why it's received the attention it has. I don't know if I'm communicating that well, so my apologies if this comes off as defensive/difficult. I'm new to the process, so may not be familiar with some typical factors that are otherwise taken for granted. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC) You're clearly very passionate about this important film but I only comment to improve articles so don't take it as an "attack" on your work that is not my purpose. The lead does look better. I agree the parent article requires a significant amount of work and much of this would be useful to include in the main article as well. I think "current" is not needed the social significance sentence."As the institutions and people responsible...", this implies they are still in power, are the perpetrators still in government, I thought Suharto was overthrown in the 1990s? The review aggregator sentence could be reworded "Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator surveyed 137 reviews and judged 96% to be positive". No need to include the consensus. The Metacritic one could also be reworded. The sentence which begins "Most...." could be reworded to "The Act of Killing garnered awards and nominations primarily in the Best Documentary category and for Oppenheimer's direction."Cowlibob (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Just to be clear, I don't feel attacked and appreciate lending your experience with FLs to this. I just want to challenge if I disagree or learn more if I don't understand. :) I removed "current", though it may be good to add, in some way, that the scope isn't the social significance in general but the social significance in the present (i.e. not c?ncerned with what happened between 1966 and when the film was shot). I also changed the "As the institutions..." line to say "As many of the institutions.." to be a bit safer without getting into details (I'd have a bit more research/sourcing to do to clarify the timeline sufficiently otherwise, and it would further elongate the lead). I went ahead and reworded the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic lines (the latter along the lines of the former), though I do have to say I prefer to see the %/score first (not that I feel strongly about it). Also reworded the "Most awards..." line. Wasn't sure if you intended to end the sentence after "for Oppenheimer's direction", leaving off mention of the other awards, Sorensen, etc., so left those in for now. Thanks again. — Rhododendrites \\ 05:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay, I have been very busy at work. The lead looks better. I would suggest removing the last sentence, as it is about a different film. The last two sentences on the first paragraph would be better placed in the main article. The prior sentences give enough info on the content of the film. What's the reference for the "As many of the institutions and people responsible remained in power" sentence? I'll go through and fix the reference formats myself. Ref 26 (Biograf) is dead. accessdates should be present for all references except archived ones. Cowlibob (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC) I've gone through the list. I found certain references that need to be replaced by more reliable sources: Uproxx, Alt Film Guide, Awards Circuit, Ekstra Bladet, and About.com Cowlibob (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the follow-up feedback, and for your efforts fixing some things on the page. I'm still unclear about use of certain reference parameters in particular examples, but I also don't have any objection to any of your changes so I'll stow that and perhaps ask on your talk page down the road. :) Removed the last sentence about The Look of Silence. Regarding the last two sentences of the first paragraph: The film has historical context, but primarily concerns the role of the killings in people's lives today. According to Oppenheimer, it is "about a regime in which genocide has, paradoxically, been effaced and celebrated – in order to keep the survivors terrified, the public brainwashed, and the perpetrators able to live with themselves." I think these are also tied to the preceding sentence: Oppenheimer set out to film the ways people justified the killings, and was struck by the extent to which they not only rationalized but boasted about their participation. When he was taken by surprise by their boasting, the basic idea of the film shifted from being about justifications of the past to how it affects people in the present. (i.e. the first and second of the three sentences kind of go together and then the quote describes the new focus). I've had a go at rewording and condensing these sentences a bit to make their purpose a bit clearer (and tighten it up). It's possible the final quote ("According to Oppenheimer...") could go, though I do think the language he uses conveys the shock/impact of the film in a way that wouldn't be appropriate outside of quotes. :) That said, I'm open to removing it as I can appreciate that my own interest in the film may drive me to think more description is necessary than is actually the case. :) Added one existing ref and added a new ref to the "still in power" sentence. Sorry, I'm not seeing which ref you mean. Ref 26 (and the few around it, including the ref for Biografilm, if that's what you mean) are all working for me. Perhaps it was a temporary issue? Will come back later to add accessdates and improve problematic refs. Thanks. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Ok. Sorry about the delay. I believe all of the refs have accessdates other than a book and those with archivedates. Also addressed the problematic references. Removed a couple that were unnecessary to begin with, replaced a couple others. The one that remains is Awards Circuit. I seem to be having trouble finding a replacement for the New York Film Critics Circle. Would it be better to just remove that line from the table? — Rhododendrites \\ 02:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Oops, forgot one Uproxx ref. Also having trouble replacing it (this one, Houston Film Critics Society]). It was originally from HitFix, which is now part of Uproxx. My impression is that HitFix isn't so bad for this sort of basic information (the one mention on WP:RSN is an affirmation, though it was a long time ago, with little participation). I see a couple smaller sites that pulled from it, a few awards round-ups that list only winners, and a woefully inadequate official site (via archive)... — Rhododendrites \\ 12:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC) @Rhododendrites: I think the New York Film Critics Circle can be removed, only a runner up mention. Officially NYFCC does not release runner ups, they only emerge based on leaks from participants so I can see why finding a reliable source will be difficult. HitFix I think is counted as a reliable source. I've certainly used it before in my FLCs.Cowlibob (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC) @Cowlibob: Ok I went ahead and removed NYFCC. Am I missing anything from the above? — Rhododendrites \\ 02:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Good list on an important film. Cowlibob (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments " 500,000-2,000,000" en-dash. "$0.5 million" specify and link to US$. "for an Oscar," Academy Award. "well known" hyphenate. Otherwise very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man:  Done Thanks. — Rhododendrites \\ 03:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Thanks. Sorry to ask a FLC noob question, but is there a certain timeframe or number of reviewers we're looking for here? To be clear, I know that there's no fixed length other than >=10 days; I'm mainly asking if there's an informal number you look for to decide whether consensus has emerged. Thanks. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'd normally look for at least three supports. As for ten days, I can't remember the last time a nomination was ready in less than two weeks! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks. Not in any sort of rush, of course. — Rhododendrites \\ 22:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Source review – I don't recall seeing you here before, Rhododendrites. If this is your first time nominating a list here, welcome to FLC! I took a look at the sources, and they all appear to be well-formatted and reliable enough. Spot-checks of references 19, 41, and 59 revealed no issues. The only problem came from running the page through the link-checker tool; reference 27 (Biografilm Festival) is showing up as a dead link. This will need to be repaired or replaced; perhaps the Internet Archive made a copy of it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: Indeed my first time at FLC. Thanks. :) Oddly, that Biografilm came up above as a broken link, too, but when I click it (now, as then) it's perfectly accessible. Maybe it's a bot error? Regardless, for good measure I've archived it and added a link. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• The bot sometimes delivers false positives, so it's important to check manually like you did. Since that was the only outstanding issue and it appears that a consensus has been reached, I'll go ahead and promote the list now. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Kailash29792, —Vensatry _(talk) 17:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

While the ROW sees Dhanush merely as a Kolaveri boy, he's more than just a singer in the Tamil Film Industry. I've modeled this list based on the existing ones and believe it meets the criteria. Look forward to comments and suggestions —Vensatry _(talk) 17:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Include an ALT description for the image.

Done —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "debutant director"? It makes me think of debutante, but I do not think you mean that so I am not sure what this word "debutant" means.

Debutant is masculine, while debutante is feminine. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I still find that to be an extremely odd word choice as I have never ran across that word at all before, but I guess it is fine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Be careful about using the following phrase and its variations too much (commercially successful) as it can make this appear too much like a list rather than a cohesive narrative. I would add some variation and be mindful of this.

Fixed, hopefully. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• You use the following transition (The same year) twice in close proximity in the third paragraph of the lead so I would change one of them for variety.

Rephrased —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• While it is interesting, is the information about "Why This Kolaveri Di" necessary for a list about his film career? It would seem more appropriate for the article about him or a list directly about his music, but is it appropriate for this list?

You make a good point, but the song was an integral part of the film in which he starred. So I don't think it's out of place. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If you feel that it is important, then it is fine by me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vensatry:@Kailash29792: Great work with the list. Overall, everything looks to be in shape. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Vensatry:@Kailash29792: Support: Everything looks good to me. Good luck with this list. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments " Sullan (2004)" year need not be in italics. "The former was a financial success, and the latter brought him critical acclaim." needs (probably) two references. Same for "which was critically acclaimed and moderately successful at the box-office.". Last para of lead needs a few more refs too, lots of box office claims etc. Some of the names of the films don't precisely match the Knowledge (XXG) articles, is that a result of transliteration from Tamil? Nothing else, it's a good list already. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man, Dhanush's directorial debut Pa Paandi (in which he cameos as a younger version of the title character) has released today. Is it worth mentioning in the lead? If yes, once I add it, please review it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC) No harm in not covering it in a sentence at the end of the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the comments. As for the last point, yes, the discrepancies are because of transliterations and "common name". —Vensatry (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Skr15081997

• "All films are in Tamil, unless otherwise noted", this might be mentioned in a note in the "Notes" column header (like Note(s)).

• Done —Vensatry _(talk) 14:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• He has a separate page for awards and noms. I don't think there's any need to mention them in the "Notes" column.

• It was decided to list down major awards in these lists. —Vensatry _(talk) 14:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Character and director names should be sorted by the last name.

• Most South Indians do not have last names. Also, on what basis should Velraj, Vetrimaaran, Hari, Suraj, et al, sort? —Vensatry _(talk) 14:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• The redlinks can be removed.

• They are absolutely fine (and necessary) here. —Vensatry _(talk) 14:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• The Telegraph (Calcutta) should be The Telegraph

• There are many newspapers with the given name. We shouldn't expect our readers to follow the link always. —Vensatry _(talk) 14:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• The image is probably a bit small, you can increase its size.

• The current size looks fine, IMO. —Vensatry _(talk) 14:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• mob film is more American than a word of Indian English. --Skr15081997 (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  @Skr15081997: Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _(talk) 14:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support: based on the above arguments and recent edits.--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Vedant

Will take a look soon. NumerounovedantTalk 18:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Looks mostly ready, just some comments:

• The first paragraph barely talks about any of his roles in the films. In contrast, the subsequent paragraphs focus more on his roles. Just for the sake of balance you might want to talk about some of his early roles as well.

• Almost all (AOKK being an exception) films of the era belong to the masala template; to be very honest, there isn't anything significant about the characters. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• "The following year" - The use of the phrase on the first two occasions might not be the most desirable as the release years for the preceding entries and never directly mentioned in the sentences. It's just what I feel, opinions might vary on this.

• I think the first instance is fine. Changed the second one. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• "which was critically acclaimed as well a box-office success" - as well as?

• Done —Vensatry _(talk) 11:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Maari and Thanga Magan are missing release years.

• Done —Vensatry _(talk) 11:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Dhanush had two releases in 2016—Prabhu Solomon's Thodari, a critical and commercial failure, and the political thriller Kodi, where he played dual roles." - This reads rather awkwardly, can be rephrased.

• Fixed —Vensatry _(talk) 11:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That's about it. Good job guys. NumerounovedantTalk 19:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Numerounovedant: Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Support. NumerounovedantTalk 19:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 17:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Another Tour de France teams and cyclists list following my FLs of 2012 (FLC) and 2013 (FLC). The bulk of the work done on the tables was done by Cs-wolves and Ytfc23, I've just identified it as a possible FLC, tidied it up and then add the lead. BaldBoris 17:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments " by a total of 22 teams" never keen on fluffing, why not just "by 22 teams"? 18 teams obliged to participate, 5 invited, but only 22 in total, who didn't show, and why? "The riders arrived to the arena" normally arrive "at", not "to" somewhere. Third lead para is a little clunky, lots of short sentences without much flow. I'm not sure what to do about this as it's not my forte. BaldBoris 00:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC) "Of the total average ages" odd phrase, perhaps just plainly "X team had the highest average age while Y team ...."? Are the jersey icons accessible? I'm not too sure, but I've changed it from {{cjersey|yellow|General classification|Yellow jersey}} () to my usual ] (). BaldBoris 00:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC) I thought I counted 34 nationalities in the table vs 33 claimed in the lead? That's it for me, pretty good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC) I've sorted out the above with this edit (edit summary should say per FLC I know) Thanks for taking a look at this. BaldBoris 00:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment – In the second photo caption, is the first "stage" in "before the stage of the fourth stage" intentional, or was that meant to be "start"? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Typo, thanks. BaldBoris 00:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Support – That was the only issue I found in an excellent piece of work. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@BaldBoris: Thank you for being so reasonable, methodical and showing of logic behind addressing my concerns. You hereby have my Support for Featured List status. When you have a little time, I would love it if you could return the favor at Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/archive1, (which is almost as old as this one! :P). DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

We're in a bit of a spot here. Nergaal has "retired" but his comments and your responses appear to have bloated the nomination to the point where no-one dare touch it. Would yo be prepared to request further review from other nominators or the cycling project to expedite this? As far as I'm concerned, it's good to go, but we need to see more consensus than just Giants and DarthBotto. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I did wonder happened there. I o think his comment is better discussed with people at Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Cycling. I'll start it now and also request reviews. Four months old now... Is that a record? BaldBoris 16:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It could be...! I would also collapse the various tables etc here in this nom into a "resolved" or "archived" tab to improve readability of the overall state of the nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support okay, that leaves PresN from the FLC team uninvolved! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Close, the marathon List of parrots FLC lasted 4 months and 14 days, just beating this one's 4 months. Flipped through the sources and didn't see any issues, so, finally, closing as promoted! --PresN 18:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): MCMLXXXIX 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because IMO, it's suitable to be one. I have made major tweaks to it so that could be the case. If you notice something wrong, please bring it to my attention. Thanks. MCMLXXXIX 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• References 26, 29, 12, 24, 18, 25, 17, 30, 19, 20, 22, 15, 5, 23, 21, 14, 42, 43, 13, 46, 60, 62, and 64 are dead and either need to be archived or replaced with new links.
• The image at the top needs an ALT description.
• Is this sentence really necessary (Viz had stated the English dub would be released sometime in the near future.) as the release date for the English dub is stated in the next sentence?
• You use the phrase “made and broadcast” twice in close proximity; I would suggest having some more variety for this.

@1989: Great job with this list. I will support this after my comments are addressed. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Done MCMLXXXIX 04:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Everything looks good to me. Good luck with this list. If possible, could you look at my FAC? Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: Quick question, did you just give the source review? MCMLXXXIX 14:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• @1989: Unfortunately, I do not think that I am experienced enough to do a source review. I also think it would be better to get a new perspective and have a separate user not already involved in the review do it instead. I can say that the Bibliography needs to be revised to remove the error message pertaining to the "|duplicate_archiveurl=" and the "|duplicate_archivedate=". Also, make sure not to SHOUT in your reference titles (putting reference names in ALL CAPS) as done in References 1, 2, 5, and 6. I apologize for not being more help on this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Done That duplicate thing, I don't know what happened there. I noticed bot edits were made after my changes for some reason. Thanks for your feedback. MCMLXXXIX 15:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Anytime! The same thing has happened to me several times in the past so I completely understand. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2

Some parts appear to be referenced like "Episodes 1 through 53 were broadcast in 4:3 standard definition fullscreen, while episodes 54 onward were aired in 16:9 widescreen." and some tables that mention the DVDs like the ones from UK. I'm pretty sure "amazon.co.uk" could be used.Tintor2 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Done MCMLXXXIX 20:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support.Tintor2 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• By the way, one comment. The list lacks a small premise that could be used in the lead like "It follows the ninja teenager Naruto Uzumaki and his allies in their fights against the criminal organization Akatsuki who wish to obtain nine creatures known as the "Tailed Beasts ".Tintor2 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Done MCMLXXXIX 01:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review by ProtoDrake

• Maybe not necessary, but an FA requires all links to be archived, so I think it would be wise to archive them. It will take some time, so it's not urgent to this review.
• All the XtraVision links are registering as dead on Checklinks.
• The Amazon links all redirect. They need updating.
• Refs 3, 9, 10 and 13 lack publishers. Several other links also lack links for publisher/work that have articles on Knowledge (XXG).

That's what I can find and see immediately. I'll do a more thorough look through at a later date once the major issues are dealt with. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• @ProtoDrake: Done I plan to archive everything soon. MCMLXXXIX 11:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

After looking through and rechecking with Checklinks, I think that (provided the archiving does happen eventually) I'll Pass this on the source review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by AffeL

Support. Everything looks good, I can't seem to find any problems with this article other than to archive all the sources. - AffeL (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• @AffeL: Thanks! I also have an FAC request open. Could you review it when you get a chance? MCMLXXXIX 13:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Support I've come a bit late, but I don't see any problems with this so it should be good to go. JAGUAR  14:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: is there a reason why the sources for the English air dates end on November 5, 2011? Eddie891 (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Eddie891: That was the last episode that aired on Disney XD. MCMLXXXIX 12:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• OK then, Support Eddie891 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support: The list looks good. I used to watch Naruto a lot, but lost track of it along the way during the initial stages of Naruto Shippuden.  — Ssven2 08:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment loads of quick supports, I'll do a review in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• @The Rambling Man: ? -- MCMLXXXIX 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, sorry, I'll get to it this weekend. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose with comments: "Naruto: Shippuden is an anime..." please don't start with a redirect. "adapted from Part II for Masashi Kishimoto's manga series" you mean from part II of... "It is set after two and a half years" seriously? after after? "against the criminal organization Akatsuki who wish to obtain nine creatures known as the Tailed Beasts" why? who cares? "In 2008, Viz Media and Crunchyroll began providing eight English subtitled Naruto: Shippuden episodes on the official Naruto website every week until it caught up to the Japanese anime." really odd. This article needs a proper copyedit from native English speakers and anime experts (combined). I could go on, but this is a list of lists, and such cases, the prose element has to be excellent for me to even consider a support. I am really concerned with the swiftness of support votes, that's something we'll need to look into. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I fixed your issues, and re-did the lead. About the list of lists, an editor has been restoring revisions to an earlier point by seasons and that caused my changes to be removed. MCMLXXXIX 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Did I resolve your issues? -- MCMLXXXIX 13:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: ? 1989 18:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): MCMLXXXIX 13:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This list is about the second part of Part II of the manga Naruto. I ask the coordinator if I could have this up, and they approved after it has been two weeks since my first nomination. I hope this can get it's support. MCMLXXXIX 13:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

All references are archived. However, the first citation needs a link to Masashi Kishimoto and a "trans_title" for non-Japanese speakers.Tintor2 (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Done MCMLXXXIX 14:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Then article passes it.Tintor2 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I would suggesting an image to lead as done in the FL for List of Naruto chapters (Part II, volumes 28–48). Maybe the cover of volume 49 would be suitable? This is more up to your personal preference so feel free to tell me if you prefer not to have an image at the top.

• @1989: Everything else looks great. I will support it once my comment is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Done MCMLXXXIX 15:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Wonderful job with this list! If possible, could you also provide some feedback for my FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Eddie891 (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Looks great, can't find anything major wrong with it that sticks out. Could you if you have time have a look at my FAC? - AffeL (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment lots of rapid supports, I'll do a review of this in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• @The Rambling Man: ? -- MCMLXXXIX 17:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  Indeed, this weekend hopefully. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments "The cover of the forty-nineth volume of the Naruto manga, also the first tankōbon of the second half of the Part II storyline, was released in the United States by Viz Media on October 5, 2010." well, it should be 49th, or forty-ninth, and I assume it wasn't just the cover that was released, need to re-phrase to avoid the ambiguity. Intro sentence is dull as dishwater, tell me what the series is all about before getting into the technicalities of the divisions in chapters and parts etc. "The story.." sentence is too long, split. "sealed within him...." by "him" who do you mean? The last person you mention is Uchicha, I presume you don't mean that? "series began serialization" somewhat tautological. Try rephrasing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC) "February 15, 2007 on" comma after year please. Naruto Shippuden or Naruto: Shippuden ? "The English serialization" English-language? "Part II, beginning with chapter 245" and the table starts with 454, so it's worth adding in the lead somewhere how many chapters form a volume, or at least have a note that says that as this list deals with volumes 49 to 72, that's chapters 454 to 700. Ref 6 has VIZ not Viz (like all other refs). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I resolved your issues. MCMLXXXIX 16:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Not really, I checked the first "resolved" issue, to find the caption now reads "The cover of the forty-nineth volume of the Naruto manga, also the first tankōbon of the second half of the Part II storyline." which still has a typo and is now a fragment so no longer needs a full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: My apologies. That problem wasn't fully addressed. I fixed it now. MCMLXXXIX 17:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Vijay is one of Tamil cinema's most iconic and successful actors with a large fanbase (who vandalise the majority of his articles). Constructive comments are most welcome.  — Ssven2 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comments from Editor2050
• 1. I have mentioned this before but is it necessary to include something as trivial as "playback singing" in his actual filmography? Could this not be put on a separate table (or even separate Vijay discography article?) Credits like Velai and Thulli Thirintha Kaalam probably involved ten minute commitments for the actor. It certainly fails to give a clear and concise picture of what readers/viewers hope to truly find out - "which films Vijay has starred in".
• 2. Is there any supposed order that the names for dual roles are supposed to be written in? Are they meant to be alphabetical or order of on-screen appearance? eg. see "Kathiresan, Jeevanandham" and "Kathiresan, Jeevanandham"? etc
• 3. Wasn't Sukran an (extended) guest appearance? It was never publicised as a Vijay starrer.
• 4. For Sivakasi - his real name "Muthappa" is listed without brackets, but in Nanban - his real name "Kosaksi Pasapugazh" is listed in brackets.

Editor 2050 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved all your comments, Editor 2050. BTW, there isn't any order for dual roles. I've listed them in alphabetical order of names.  — Ssven2 05:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Awesome work. Editor 2050 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Editor 2050: So, support or neutral?  — Ssven2 15:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Sources look good too. Editor 2050 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Editor 2050. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Editor 2050: Can you do a source review in that case? Officially of course.  — Ssven2 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• The lead image should an ALT description. I would also imagine that the caption should be more descriptive and include where the image was taken for the complete context.
• I would clarify the last line of the lead's first paragraph. By "unsuccessful", do you mean commercially or critically or both?
• What is "a lean period"? I would revise this/change the wording to make this clearer.
• I would change "Uncredited role as child artist" in the table to "Uncredited role as a child artist".

Great work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. As someone has never seen even one Indian film, it was an interesting read. Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved all your comments, Aoba47.  — Ssven2 17:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Great work with the list and good luck with getting it promoted. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 17:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@PresN, Giants2008, and The Rambling Man: Pinging you for source review.  — Ssven2 09:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Just add it to the yellow box at the top of WP:FLC; someone will get to it soon (it doesn't have to be a director/delegate). --PresN 14:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

Regretful oppose

• "Vijay is an Indian actor who works mainly in Tamil language films." - Given he hasn't acted in other languages, do we really need to use mainly here?

Done. Removed mainly.  — Ssven2 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• "he made his debut as a lead actor in Tamil cinema with" - As it's pretty obvious that he was only acting in Tamil films to that point.

Done. Removed.  — Ssven2 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• "where he was paired opposite Sangita Madhavan Nair." - Two things. He wasn't paired opposite her (they had a dream duet though). Next, I don't see a reason why the actress' name should be noted here? She wasn't a leading actress even at the peak of her career. It seems his pairing up with other actresses are randomly chosen. He made a hit pair with Simran, but a relatively lesser known actress is preferred to her.

Done. Removed her name.  — Ssven2 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The film's success established him as an up-and-coming actor in Tamil cinema" - This isn't backed up by either of the references.

Done. Removed the sentence.  — Ssven2 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• "His subsequent films, Fazil's Kadhalukku Mariyadhai (1997) and Vasanth's Nerrukku Ner (1997) were successful" - The latter was released first.

Done. Placed the latter before.  — Ssven2 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Vijay's portrayal of a singer who becomes responsible for the loss of his lover's eyesight in Thulladha Manamum Thullum" - He did not portray a singer but played a cable operator who "aspires" to become a singer. Furthermore, the "earned him the image of a romantic hero." bit isn't verified by the sources.

Done. Tweaked the sentence and found another source to support the romantic hero bit.  — Ssven2 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Vijay began the new millennium with a series of films in the romance genre such as Kushi and Priyamanavale, both of which were released in 2000 and were critical and commercial successes" - Millennium or 2000 - either one should suffice. Next, this sentence implies that Kushi and Priyamanavalae are romance genres.

Done. Removed the 2000 bit. I don't know what yo mean by "Next, this sentence implies that Kushi and Priyamanavalae are romance genres" though, Vensatry.  — Ssven2 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like Kushi and Priyamanavalae are sub genres of 'romance genres' (and not films). A punctuation can easily solve this issue. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Done.  — Ssven2 14:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• "He continued to achieve commercial success with..." - Did he?

Yeah. Both were successful and both the Sreedhar Pillai sources back them. Sivakasi was termed a super hit while Pokkiri was a blockbuster.  — Ssven2 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The latter garnered him his first Filmfare Award nomination for Best Actor." - First? I'm sure the source doesn't mention it.

Done. Removed first.  — Ssven2 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Wasn't Vettaikaran commercially successful?

2007-10 was undeniably the worst period of Vijay's filmi career (all five movies in this period: ATM, Kuruvi, Villu, Vettaikaaran and Sura bombed with critics, though Vettaikaaran must have been profitable due to the hype forced by Sun Pictures, unlike the other four). But it wasn't successful enough to break the flop streak I believe. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The Times of India source (Reference no. 21) Says Vijay's films from 2007-2010 were failures. But Sify says it is a hit.  — Ssven2 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Resolved.  — Ssven2 07:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Why isn't Nanban mentioned in the lead? I'm sure it would rank among the top ten films of his career.

I'd mention it if he earned a major nomination for his performance. He did win the Ananda Vikatan award for Best Actor and Vijay Award for Entertainer of the Year for Nanban, but are they as significant as Filmfare, which (unfortunately) nominated the film in only two categories? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It probably did not get much significance just because it is a remake (almost frame-by-frame) of 3 Idiots. Thalapathy was brilliant in it though.  — Ssven2 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If Filmfare wins/nominations are going to be the 'yardstick', the lead would nearly be empty. Going by the same 'awards'/critical acclaim logic, how can one include Puli, Bhadri and the likes? —Vensatry _(talk) 09:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Written a few bits about Nanban.  — Ssven2 15:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• "star-studded" is journalese

Done. Written "multi-starrer" instead.  — Ssven2 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Do we really have sources for the "becoming Vijay's highest grossing film to that point" bit?

Done. Removed the sentence with the reference.  — Ssven2 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The latter featured him along with Mohanlal; both films were successful." - I must say the usage of semicolon is incorrect.

Done. Tweaked this part.  — Ssven2 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Vijay featured as a tribal ... -> He featured as a tribal ...

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'd suggest you to remove the translations of reference titles as they are misleading and not really helpful. "Do you know why 'Ghilli' Vijay is being given 'Parrot'?" was an eye-roll moment for me!

I have changed the Ghilli reference title.  — Ssven2 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

As I said earlier, it's better to remove them as hardly serve a purpose. Besides, they are optional and can very well be explained at the talk page (if reviewers insist upon translating them). I'm not sure whether the outsiders would be able to get 'Kili'? (when some natives are unable to differentiate between the bird and the given term). Perhaps, better translate the articles rather than just their titles on the talk page. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Removed the trans_title fields.  — Ssven2 14:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• • The lead needs to be more engaging. More than just list down his films, it should provide an authoritative overview of his career by explaining the kind of roles he's played in some (important) films. I've not checked the sources yet, but based on a few spotchecks in the lead this needs a thorough source review. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments

• Are you sure that his characters (as uncredited child artist) had no names?

Didn't he play the childhood character of Vijaykanth in some movies? Not a big deal if you're unable to confirm it though. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Refs. #1 and #3 don't mention the character names. You need to find sources for films supported by these refs. Sendhoorapandi, Deva, Rajavin Parvaiyile to name a few.
• Character name for Poove Unakkaga isn't mentioned in the source.
• For Kaalamellam Kaathiruppen, neither his role nor the director is mentioned in the ref.

This one is still unaddressed. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Found a reference for it.  — Ssven2 07:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think the TOI ref. (that supports Nerukku Ner and Once More) needs replacement. Vijay's part in NN isn't covered in the source. Ditto with 'roles' as far as both films are concerned.
• Character name is missing in the ref. for Kadhalukku Mariyathai.
• The ref. for Ninaithen Vandhai does not even talk about the film.

Remove the 'parrot' ref. as it does not even talk about the film. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• The Hindu ref. (for Priyamudan) doesn't cover role, year and director.
• Year and role missing in Thulladha Manamum Thullum.

... I'm stopping here for now. I'm sure there are a few more (especially the ones centering around 2000). Be sure to check the remaining ones as well. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vensatry: Resolved your source review comments.  — Ssven2 14:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a look tomorrow. —Vensatry _(talk) 15:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Revisit

• Sura in the lead is linked to Surah

Done. Redirected to the film.  — Ssven2 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• For Rajavin Parvaiyile, you could replace the Cinema Junction Tamil link with this one as it seems a verified publisher.

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• The Dinamalar link (for Nenjinile) talks about all of his films that released during that time except Nenjinile.

Removed link.  — Ssven2 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Role still missing for Minsara Kanna, Shahjahan, Pokkiri and ATM. Saravanan (for Villu) and Pulivendhan (for Puli) aren't verified in the sources.

Done. Rectified for all.  — Ssven2 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Emdashes shouldn't be spaced per WP:MOSDASH

@Vensatry: Can you point me out at least one instance where? I really can't spot it. Is it the references or sentences?  — Ssven2 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

In the references. Not just one but ten instances. —Vensatry _(talk) 16:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vensatry: I have removed the spacings between the emdashes.  — Ssven2 16:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Accessdates are not needed for archived references.

Removed accessdates.  — Ssven2 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Kumar, S. R. Ashok should be listed as S. R, Ashok Kumar (Kumar is not his last name)

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• For some reason, the archived Hindu link - for Velayutham - doesn't work (the original link works though).

Done. Rearchived.  — Ssven2 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Don't we have a English source for Vijay 61?

Done. Replaced with English source.  — Ssven2 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

—Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Krish

• Support: After reading the list, I feel it meets all the criteria required for an FL.Krish | Talk 07:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Krish!. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 07:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment I'll be reviewing this in the next few days. Please hold on any closure decisions before then. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cowlibob

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Why was Poove Unakkaga his breakthrough role? Because his films before that were flops. He did not have a major hit nor was he that well known until Poove Unakkaga.  — Ssven2 09:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) What made Vasanth's Nerrukku Ner (1997) successful? Was his role acclaimed or was it commercially successful? Done. Both ways.  — Ssven2 09:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Cable operator sentence needs to be reworded as it makes it sound that he became known as a romantic hero for causing the loss of eyesight of his heroine in the film. Can you help me provide an alternative word for it? He works as a Cable TV operator.  — Ssven2 09:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) "All of his films released for the next year-and-a-half did not do well" sounds colloquially. Could this be reworded, I presume these films did not perform well in the box office or his role in the films was criticised. Done. Rephrased.  — Ssven2 09:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Was Thirumalai a reinvention for Vijay akin to McConaughey's? Not really. He became a more bigger star a la Rajinikanth-type after it. Until then, he was mostly the Hugh Grant kind of guy.  — Ssven2 09:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Was his Kaththi role more of a thief and an activist? Done. Changed to activist.  — Ssven2 09:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Why is the role(s) column in the table so large, lots of empty space? Huh? Maybe because his character's name in Nanban is big.  — Ssven2 09:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) alt text needed for main image Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 09:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) I seem to recall archive.is being blacklisted in the past, I don't know if it still is. Would it be possible to provide alternative archived links? @Cowlibob: Archive.is is not blocked anymore, otherwise I wouldn't be using it. Webcite is not functioning properly. TOI and some of the old references from The Hindu (pre-2005) aren't properly archived in web.archive.org aka wayback.  — Ssven2 09:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Cowlibob (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

*Image caption is a fragment, needs no full stop. Chandrasekhar mentioned three times in two sentences, needs rework to avoid repetition. "were critically" needs a comma before. "earned him the image of" do you mean he gained a reputation? "under performed" -> "underperformed" ₹500 needs a link to the currency. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Your comments have been resolved, The Rambling Man.  — Ssven2 11:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 08:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Suriya is currently one of Tamil cinema's most versatile and successful actors with a large fanbase (who vandalise the majority of his articles). Constructive comments are most welcome.  — Ssven2 08:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• The addition of the fact that he appeared with Vijayakanth in the second sentence of the lead's first paragraph is a little odd to me. What makes this stand out from his other co-stars in the other two films being listed? Why is this important for a reader to know? As someone who has no idea who either of these two people are, the importance of this mention is not made clear to me. If you feel that it is absolutely necessary to keep this fact in the list, then I would move it outside the parenthesis for the year and find a way to fit it into the sentence more seamlessly.
• The phrase "Bala's second collaboration" is a little off as it literally means the director's collaboration with something that is not entirely made clear. Instead, I would say something along the lines of "Suriya's second collaboration with Bala" or "Bala's second collaboration with Suriya".
• I am not sure about the (in which he played twins) construction. If you want to include this information, then I would recommend putting this information a little more seamlessly into the sentence.
• The "In this" transition in the lead's final sentence is a little awkward. I would remove it and rephrase the beginning phrase "one of the year's highest-grossing Tamil films" as that can be a stronger beginning phrase/transition.

@Ssven2: Great job with this list! Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have hopefully resolved all your comments.  — Ssven2 15:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Support: Great work with this list! I can definitely support this nomination. Good luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 16:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

• I think "Ref." looks more formal than "Ref(s)". What do you think?

That's because in case more than one reference is added to support the content in the table I have written it as "Ref(s)" instead of "Ref".  — Ssven2 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• All the refs in the table can be centered (type |style="text-align:center;"| before each ref).

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Could it be mentioned somewhere that Rakta Charitra was a two-part film? I have not heard of a single-edited version (the Tamil dub Ratha Sarithiram covers mainly the second part).

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Mention Guru being a Hindi film dubbed into Tamil (like how Vensatry handled English Vinglish in Thala's filmography).

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the lead, you describe Suriya as playing only one role in 7aum Arivu - Damo. You could vaguely mention he also played Aravind (perhaps you could write "...and his fictional descendant".)

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• You could add info about Suriya's voiceover in the Tamil version of The Ghazi Attack.

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• The "Film" row must be all in dark grey, like it is in Tamannaah filmography.

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see that Aoba47 agrees with my comments. Otherwise it's very much FLC worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Your comments seem appropriate, and I agree with them. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I have resolved your comments.  — Ssven2 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: I promise you this support of mine is not a display of COI, but because this list indeed does look worthy of FL. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I just glad you did support it. Thank you.  — Ssven2 07:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• I suggest you should trim the last sentence from the lead.
• Is it important to mention that he dubbed for Guru? Since it was a hindi film and dubbed versions aren't of much significance.
• Is the video in ref 49 and 64 from a RS?
• "In 2005, Suriya starred in three Tamil films:" Is it necessary to mention 'tamil films', since he primarily works in them?

Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Resolved and . As for , he is credited with the dubbing for Junior B. In case of , refs 49 and 64 are the only ones available. I have even shown the time where he appears. Cinema Junction is a well-known YouTube channel, just doesn't have a Wiki Article. The MSK video is official BTW.  — Ssven2 15:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not satisfied with #2. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Usually dubbing is done by less prominent actors. A currently leading actor dubbing for a dubbed version is significant as far as Tamil cinema is concerned. It did create some buzz during its release as seen from 1.  — Ssven2 16:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Seconding Editor 2050, I think its better to remove his dubbing credit. It can be mentioned if its a billingual film not otherwise. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: I have resolved Editor 2050's comments. I have created a separate list of his other crew positions a la Kamal Haasan filmography and Vikram filmography. Do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 08:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 14:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Editor 2050

• Sorry, just wanted to say that I'm also against the inclusion of his dubbing credit - it's like telling someone that Arvind Swamy played Simba in Lion King or Silambarasan played Jamal Malik in Slumdog Millionaire - maybe it should be left in the text or have a totally different "other credits" section/table like how it is on Vikram's filmography.
• Again - "distributor" - I am sure Suriya has distributed several of his film's before - he usually takes the Telugu rights home too. Again, potentially remove it or put it in an another table.
• In fact, could the table purely just be for acting roles? I am sure that is what most visitors to his article hope to see. The remainder could be inserted in a separate table?
• Also Pasanga 2 was a guest appearance/extended cameo, I guess.
• Manmadhan Ambu could say "Special appearance in the song Oyyale (?)" - Does he appear for anything else, I cannot remember?
• The age old question - are Rakta Charitra and Rakht Charitra two different films? Is this the best way to list it?
• Should we get rid of the award credits and put them in an article elsewhere?

Editor 2050 (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Editor 2050: Rakta Charitra is a two-part film with the same name. I have created a separate list of his films as actor and his other credits. Do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 17:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, Support. Editor 2050 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Editor 2050. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 20:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ssven2 - it could potentially be made clear that he dubbed for the Tamil version of Guru and The Ghazi Attack, rather than the originals. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Editor 2050: Read the footnotes and , my friend. I have stated it clearly there. Besides, the information would look bloated on the list.  — Ssven2 07:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

*"His career prospects improved " I don't think this is necessary considering the following sentence describes it as as success. I've just seen Tamil cinema linked, I would advocate you expand the first sentence to say "Tamil language films" and link it overtly. Link Filmfare Awards in "his first Filmfare Best Actor award", or even the actual award list page. " year's highest-grossing Tamil films of the year" either "year's" or "of the year", but not both. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Your comments have been resolved, The Rambling Man.  — Ssven2 11:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cowlibob

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

*Why was his cinematic debut successful? Was it commercially successful and or his performance praised? Ref 12, 13, 14 need ndashes. Ref 6 says that Nandha received critical acclaim not that he specifically received praise. Although you could mention that he won the Tamil Nadu state award for Nandha which is in ref 7. Need a ref for Suriya being praised for both Kaakha Kaakha and Pithamagan. Ref 10 gives me a 403 error "You are banned from this site". Not clear which ref supports that his performance in 24 was praised. Ref 28 mentions it being one of the highest grossing of the year and ref 27 seems to be about the film getting minutes cut from its runtime prior to release. Cowlibob (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Your comments have been resolved, Cowlibob.  — Ssven2 08:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala 10:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This was never planned. It started off as a small pet project kind-of work intended as a constructive birthday present to User:Ssven2 and remains to be one. But, after finding it potential enough, i am nominating the filmography of this actress for FL status. All constructive comments welcome. Pavanjandhyala 10:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

• She appears only in Telugu, Hindi and Tamil films, so I think "predominantly" is not required. I also suggest you sort the languages in the first sentence in this same order, based on how many films she has acted in each language.

Removed the word.

• Although Tamilians don't typically use surnames, I think Shruti uses "Haasan" as such, since it is not a patronymic (just like Rangan is not Baradwaj's surname, but he still uses it as such). But please consult someone before making the change.

Forgot this; i referred to her as Haasan in Srimanthudu too!

• In Hey Ram, she plays Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's daughter. But I am not sure if the character is Maniben Patel, or if she was named at all since I haven't seen the film. Do please ask someone on what value to fill in the "Role" column.

Not really sure that she has had a notable appearance in the film. The source mentions her as Vallabhbhai Patel's daughter, though.

• Perhaps you could wikilink South Indian cinema since non-Indians may not be aware that Tamil and Telugu cinema are a part of it.

Done.

• This ref is missing the publisher/work field.

Good catch. Fixed.

• I think this ref can be expanded to comply with Template:cite AV media.

Couldn't do that due to poor internet facilities. Updated it properly now.

• Please see that the refs in the table show her characters' names.

Crosschecked them. Except for Hey Ram, at the moment, all set.

• Sabaash Naidu is titled Shabhash Kundu in Hindi, so you may have to split the cell (see Oopiri/Thozha in Tamannaah filmography). Also, do please see if the trilingual is still set for release in 2017 since I've been hearing rumours about it's delay.

Thanks for the info; i was unaware of that. Well, the sources say 2017 and we can wait.

• You could put {{TBA}} in the cells for those roles that... I guess I don't have to say this.

Got it. Done.

Overall, I'd say this is damn impressive of you to expand the article in just a few days and already make it FLC worthy. Once my comments are addressed, this FLC will have my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: All addressed. Look forward for your response and further additional comments, if any. Pavanjandhyala 13:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my comments. Before I can give this my support, I must ask are you okay with the fact that Ssven has centered all her character names? Because I'm not. But if that is not prohibited in FLs, I'm not gonna oppose it. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Removed them. Pavanjandhyala 03:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason for centering all the names was that in her future films, where her roles are not yet known hence "TBA"", they were all centered, which seemed a bit off, but that's just me. So I figured why not center the roles for her previous films? Hence I centered them. I apologise if I had done anything that I shouldn't have.  — Ssven2 09:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

No apology is required. :) But do remember that the TBA is a template-text and we cannot base the remaining contents on its structure because the TBA shall not last long. Pavanjandhyala 10:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: Impressive work Pavan. Hope this passes FL within this month. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I too hope so. Pavanjandhyala 15:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I do not believe that the character names in the table should be centered. It looks odd as it is the part of the table that is centered, and I have not seen a table for a FL for an actor's filmography set up in this way before. It should be an easy fix.

Removed them.

• I would suggest altering the second sentence of the lead's first paragraph to make it flow better with the rest of the paragraph. I have never heard of this person or seen her films before so right now, the sentence appears like a random fact thrown into the beginning of the paragraph without any context of its importance or relevance. It seems from the chart that this is her first film credit, but I would make the context clearer for an uninformed reader like myself.

I hope that the new additions would serve the purpose.

• In the sentence about the film Luck, please specify who she played as a part of the dual role. The sentence appears incomplete by just saying she played a dual role and ending the sentence there.

As per the source, she played a woman who wants to avenge her twin sister's death. I've mentioned the same.

• The word "fetched" seems a little too informal and I would suggest revising it with a stronger word.

Opted for earned here. Hope that should be fine.

• Something about the phrasing "failed at the box office" also seems a little too informal to me. I would say instead "were commercially unsuccessful" or something along those lines.

Rephrased as suggested.

• I am not a fan of the construction "managed to x" and I would suggest removing it completely in the two instance you use and just say "achieved" and "gain" to be more direct and less editorial.

Rephrased as suggested.

• The lead seems to be completely focused on the commercial success of the films and the actor's awards and nominations. You only mention the actual performance through the brief reference to a "dual role" in the first paragraph. Would it be possible to include more information about some of the characters she played?

I made it for Premam. For the rest, i didn't find any proper description of those roles (some of those are too harebrained).

• @Pavanjandhyala: Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for the participation. Looking forward for further constructive comments, if any. Pavanjandhyala 03:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support: I support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Pavanjandhyala 16:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support I couldn't find any issues with the sources, and seeing that comments have already been left here I wouldn't have anything else to add. JAGUAR  14:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jaguar. Pavanjandhyala 15:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. :) Pavanjandhyala 05:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Good enough to be an FL. Congrats on your good work, Pavan.Krish | Talk 14:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Krish. Pavanjandhyala 14:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

I am not too familiar with this project but all citations have consistent dates and archives. I think one reference needs a link (riff) but everything else is reliable. I will give it a support. By,I would appreciate if you could give me a hand with the prose review in my FAC, D.Gray-man.Tintor2 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Checked all the references now. Thank you so much for the review. And, i am sorry; i can't help you as i am really weak at prose. Pavanjandhyala 16:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment another very popular and heavily supported list, within a week of nomination. I'll review this in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I am waiting. Pavanjandhyala 14:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Unless she collaborated frequently with her parent/s, we don't need her parents' names here. "Born to the prominent Haasan family" can stay though.

• She did collaborate with her father in her early stages of career more as a musician (singer, music composer). One of her ongoing projects is directed by that man too.

• Beginning with the third sentence, I read four consecutive sentences which start with "she made her".
• "full-fledged" is informal.
• "She also made her South Indian cinema debut with" so many debuts. "She also appeared in her first South Indian film(s)" might also work.

• Fixed all the three. Hope those lines look better now.

• "Haasan received her breakthrough" I don't know but receive does not feel sound. Perhaps "Haasan had her breakthrough playing..." (you might want to describe her role in the film).

• What can i say about her role in particular? Too vague that shall be. Moreover the sources too would not support that.

• "She went on to be a part of few successful Telugu films" since they were successful, you need to elaborate; describing her (types of) roles would also do.

• I might sound too judgemental here, but to be honest, those characters are not well-written/fully developed.

• " Gabbar Is Back and Welcome Back in Hindi, Srimanthudu in Telugu, Puli and Vedalam in Tamil" an "and" needs to be added after Telugu.

• Done

Been a while since I was at FLC. – FrB.TG (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: All addressed. Looking forward for constructive comments if any. Pavanjandhyala 14:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Leaning Oppose

I feel that the prose is severely lacking, and the have some concerns regarding the flow of the lead. However, its nithing that cannot be fixed. Here are some early observations :

• "Born to the prominent Haasan family, she is the daughter of actor Kamal Haasan and Sarika Thakur." - born "to" a family? I believe "into" is the word that you're looking for?
• "daughter of actor Kamal Haasan and Sarika Thakur" - isn't Shilpa Thankur an actor too?
• "made her cinematic debut at the age of six as a singer with the 1992 Tamil film" - somehow this reads rather awkwardly to me, did she play a singer in the film? if so maybe add a little more (you may want to mention that is was a minor role) as currently it's not very clear as to what her role ware.
• "Her South Indian cinema debut happened with Anaganaga O Dheerudu in Telugu and 7aum Arivu in Tamil;" - "happened" might not be the best suited here, also, isn't Hey Ram her "Tamil debut".

The article reads in a very disconnected way up until now and it doesn't seem to get better :

• "Haasan received her breakthrough with Harish Shankar's Telugu film Gabbar Singh (2012)." - That sounds like an overstatement; there's no mention as to why this was her breakthrough, also, the lead up until here suggests that her previous roles seem to have earned her repute already, both critically and commercially. Not to say the phrasing is awkward, "receive a breakthrough"?
• "of few successful Telugu films" - "a few"?
• "Filmfare Award for Best Actress – Telugu award for her performance in Race Gurram" - repetition of the word Award in close proximity.

The second paragraph is better structured, but, still has some issues, most notably the lengthy yet ambiguous entry on Premam, they are a lot of words for an "average grosser". The comments are not exhaustive, will go through it again. You also might need to work on the flow of sentences, in its current state the leads seems to be doing too much in differentiating Tamil, Telugu and Hindi films, and isn't looking good. NumerounovedantTalk 16:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Thanks for taking out time to review this candidate. Tried doing what i could, given my limited ability to frame proper sentences. Also, if you believe that Premam was undue, go ahead and remove it. Looking forward to further constructive comments, if any. :) ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes, feel free to revert/work around them. I still believe that the lead is not the most comprehensive, it can use some expansion/polishing (her roles and the reception of her performances are largely missing). However, it covers her major roles and doesn't seem to have any more glaring flaws, it's a Weak Support. Also, cross check the refs, some of them are not working in my server. Good luck with nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 09:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll check them in the night. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 10:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Editor 2050

• Support - looks wholly accurate to me content-wise. I cannot find a reliable source, but this is very much true at the moment . Also this was out today - maybe can have some use . Editor 2050 (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Editor 2050: Thank you so much. As for the links, i have no proper idea of how to use them. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments "music composer" no need for "music". " Haasan started her career " reiterate Shruti Haasan here, the last Haasan you mentioned was Kamal Haasan... I'm afraid I have no idea what a "playback singer" is. "with the 1992 Tamil film" should that be "in the 1992 Tamil film"? "film of the same name" should be the piped link, not just "same name". "Nikkhil Advani " has two k's in his first name. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: All of your comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 09:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) and The Rambling Man (talk)

There are a variety of different Monopoly board sets, but the London one is second only to the Atlantic City original, and every place is independently notable. Yes, even the miniscule Vine Street has seen bizarre tales of erotic asphyxiation and libel charges against Oscar Wilde - what more do you want? It's been played all around Britain and the Commonwealth as far away as Australia and New Zealand, and tourists still come to London to find where the locations on the board really are. For about the past 18 months, I've been going round all of our articles on the real-life London places on the Monopoly board and improving them to good article status. Most of them have now passed a GA review, so to give the final push to a good topic status, we need a suitable list article linking them all together. And that's where this comes in. Ritchie333 16:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

*Quick comment There needs to be more clarification that the Monopoly board lists "Marlborough Street", but the real place is "Great Marlborough Street". The list is sort of there, but I think it just needs to be spelt out a little more. Harrias 16:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Do you mean in the lead, or in the list entry itself? Ritchie333 16:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC) The list entry. Perhaps something like "Great Marlborough Street (listed as "Marlborough Street" on playing board)" in the name column. I don't know, I'm probably being overpicky, but it threw me at first when looking down the list. Harrias 16:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Okay, I've tweaked that; is that what you mean? I did read that Victor Watson later admitted he made a mistake in transcription, but I can only source it to a blog. Ritchie333 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Also, the images need alt text. Harrias 16:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Fixed Ritchie333 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Oh, and the lead and the list disagree with each other: the lead says "Whitechapel Road is the cheapest (as opposed to Old Kent Road) and Mayfair the most expensive; in 2016 the average house price on each was £590,000 and £3,150,000 respectively." But the table lists Old Kent Road as £590,000 and Whitechapel Road as £813,000. Harrias 16:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Just checked the source. The lead is correct, the list is wrong, so I've fixed that. Ritchie333 16:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Soz, got distracted. My mistake. Thanks for noticing it and thanks for fixing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Ref #7 needs author details; seems to be Matt Brown, under the 'M@' moniker. Harrias 14:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC) I'll AGF that's correct Ritchie333 15:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Ref #11 also needs author details. Done Ritchie333 15:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Be consistent about whether you include an accessdate for newspaper sources: refs #8, #9, #10, #27 include them, but #12 doesn't. As they are online, without page numbers, I'd suggest using them throughout, so add one to #12. Harrias 14:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Fixed Ritchie333 14:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Ref #27 needs author details. Fixed Ritchie333 15:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC) The second paragraph doesn't seem to work very well.. The board locations are discussed at the end of the first paragraph, then the success of the board is the first sentence of the second paragraph. The next sentence changes the topic, but then the third sentence goes back to talking about the board. Possibly the second sentence needs moving, and the first one reworking to let the third sentence fit in better? Harrias 14:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC) The basic structure of the lead (in my head at least) is : 1st paragraph - what the list is about and who made it, 2nd paragraph - why it's notable 3rd - any peripherally related stuff. I think the disconnect here is probably that I assume Waddingtons wouldn't have bothered with real-life Monopoly contests if the board wasn't popular, on the grounds that not enough people would have turned up. The Rambling Man, any thoughts on this one? Ritchie333 14:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC) @Harrias: I've dropped a bit more context into the second sentence to make it clear how things flow together - how does that grab you? Ritchie333 15:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC) That's great, thanks. Harrias 20:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support, more than happy to support this great list. (If someone wants to find the code, and cap my comments, feel free. I can't find it right now, and have other things to do!!) Harrias 20:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Excellent stuff. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support This list is fascinating, and really well-written and researched. Great work for all the editors involved! --haha169 (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support: This is probably one of the most interesting, comprehensive and well put-together FLCs I've encountered during my last decade on Knowledge (XXG). I had no idea about the vast majority of the facts before I visited the article. If you could take a little time to add to my FLC at Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/archive1, it would be greatly appreciated-- we're just about passed, as well! :) DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments Looks very good, overall. The lead image needs alt text. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Tim Moore is probably not really famous enough to name him without explaining who he is – I'd suggest "the travel writer Tim Moore" or similar. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC) You don't use the abbreviation for London and North Eastern Railway again, so there's probably no need to include it. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Leeds is wikilinked twice in the prose. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Could the table be sortable? I wanted to list the properties by their 2016 the average house price, just to see how the board might be different today, and was kind of disappointed that I wasn't able to. That would require the 2016 prices to be in a separate column. Which is possible. Are you adamant? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC) I'm not personally adamant, but I think it would be nice. Ritchie333 13:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC) "Princpal" -> "Principal" Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Thanks. I've left the "page move" and the "sortability" issues outstanding, for Ritchie and you to respond. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Well shoot. I don't understand why it doesn't sort at all let alone wrong right now... anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Not a clue. I have sent an APB to Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (technical)#List of London Monopoly locations table not sorting Ritchie333 14:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Fixed it. The Dark Blue colour group had a rowspan of 3, not 2, so it would span outside the list, which obviously makes the sort script throw a wobbly. Ritchie333 15:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Again, my fault. Poor coding, I'll presently sack myself, or desysop myself or something. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC) A Thousand Doors thanks for your comments. Besides the "colour wars" going on, I think we've addressed all your other points, would you be good enough to check we've covered them to your satisfaction please? Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC) How set are you on that title? Because they're not called "Places" or "Locations" in the game, they're "Properties", aren't they? I'd propose moving the article to "List of London Monopoly properties" and similarly changing the level 2 header to "Properties". Yep, that's been needling me a little bit since we started on this path... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Ritchie333 left this for you... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: @A Thousand Doors: I've ummed and ahhed over this, but I can't come up with a convincing counter-argument beyond Park Lane, Euston Road and Pentonville Road are technically strips of tarmac with white and double yellow (or red?) lines on them, better known for traffic jams, congestion and red lights than buildings. That's not really enough in my view, so TRM - can you make the change as I fear if I did it I would bugger something up (it involves changing the title of this review, for one thing). Ritchie333 13:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Oh, so you went with "locations" rather than "properties"? This isn't exactly a dealbreaker for me, although I would note that Tim Moore uses "properties" more than twice as often as he uses "locations". If one looks at the sources that Ritchie provided below, this one uses "property cards" rather than "location cards", and this one calls them "properties" as well. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC) I refer the honourable gentlemen to User:Maunus, point 2 - fundamentally we have to stick a line in the sand and say "right, let's go with this". The salient point for me is, can everybody find the information and does it make sense in context? Ritchie333 09:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC) huh?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Apologies, I just wanted to link to something you'd written rather than actually ping you - I was basically endorsing your point that "Article titles are largely irrelevant because of redirects: Moving an article rarely constitutes an actual improvement of the encyclopedia." which I think is relevant in this case. Ritchie333 09:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Ah, ok. Indeed, it seems relevant. Thanks for reading my rules of thumb.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC) I wouldn't agree that article titles are "irrelevant" – WP:TITLE is Knowledge (XXG) policy, and one of the FL criteria. But, as I've said, the current title isn't one that I would oppose over. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Well it's relevant up to a degree (it wouldn't make sense to call the article "List of London Monopoly parsnips", for example), but when people can't agree on the specifics, and there's no clear and obvious choice out of several reasonable ones, then at some point you've just got to pick one before you start exhibiting Parkinson's Bicycle Shed Effect. Ritchie333 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Is the Pall Mall/Whitehall/N. Avenue set really "purple"? When you expand the London Monopoly board layout they look more pink to me. Which colour do the sources use to refer to the set? "DeepPink" is used by the board, so let's switch to "pink". WP:SKYISBLUE. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Is it? Tim Moore's book calls it "The Purples" . Here is another source calling it purple and here is another and here is another (also used here to cite the pub crawl). Ritchie333 13:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC) When I say "used by the board" I mean the board graphic. We should at least have consistency... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Would it make sense to change the RGB value to match the board graphic but still call it "purple"? I'm just a little uncomfortable calling it "pink" when three reliable sources don't! (I realise I am technically edit-warring over the colour of templates, for which I apologise....) Ritchie333 14:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC) To me, the Pall Mall group have always seemed to be magenta rather than pink (and probably is a pure magenta, given the ease of producing that shade in CMYK printing). It might interest you to know that I own a pre-war set, with several differences from more modern sets (and not just the use of "L.N.E.R." instead of "BRITISH RAILWAYS"). Most of the property group colours are the same, but a noticeable difference is in the Old Kent Road group, which are not brown but a deep purple-violet. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC) I wonder (to meet FLC criteria 3a) we should drop that information in as a footnote somewhere. There is a website here which, although not what we traditionally consider a reliable source, is acceptable in my view as I don't think anyone seriously thinks the pictures on the website (which is what we are verifying against) are not genuine. Ritchie333 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC) I think this is all getting somewhat silly. If it continues, I suggest we drop the naming of the colours altogether, because pink/magenta/purple and brown/deep purple-violet can be argued subjectively forever. This is an endless and fruitless argument. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC) It's not subjective. The modern board clearly uses brown, nobody disagrees with that. The pre-war board in my possession (and the associated title deed cards) have the same colours that are used in Ritchie333 (talk · contribs)'s link (here they are in close-up) - a colour that is approximately in the vicinity of #6f2467 or #761e68 . You can call it violet or purple, but it's nothing like brown. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Do you have a reliable source for that? Or are you exercising original research to determine the name of the colour? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC) A reliable source for that photograph? For the fact that brown and violet are different? Or for the board that I've got right in front of me? Perhaps you'd like to see it for yourself. Can you get to London this coming Sunday? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC) (ec) I think you've misunderstood. My proposal is basically a rough compromise of everything that's been said, which is : the RGB is basically dark pink like the modern boards and like the board template we use elsewhere, for consistency if nothing else. The colour name is "purple" because reliable sources use it. Then we pop a footnote to the browns along the lines of "by the way, original boards didn't have the browns as browns", they were something else. Everyone's a winner, and this time next year we could be millionaires, Rodney. Ritchie333 19:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC) We're talking about a reliable source for this list. We can't add "Redrose64's board" as an RS, I think you already know that. Please try to helpfully come to a solution here, rather than add such strange ideas. I have a pre-war Monopoly set too, the point is we're arguing the toss over the nuances of a colour, none of which appears to be reliably sourced. Perhaps we should remove colours altogether if this is such a problem. After all, that would really benefit our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC) You are the one claiming that I can't tell the difference between brown and deep purple-violet. Try putting the Old Kent Road/Whitechapel squares of your pre-war board against the same squares of a modern board. They're not even close: this is not a "nuance" but completely different colours. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC) "You are the one claiming that I can't tell the difference between brown and deep purple-violet. " that's completely untrue, a bare-faced lie. Please don't make things up. And actually, as you're an admin, please exercise extra special caution when lying about my edits. As an admin you also ought to understand our requirement for WP:RS, and your opinions on colours, rightly or wrongly, do not count as reliable sources. If you have an alternative, workable solution, please do let me know. But in any case, please do not lie about my edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Can you please calm down and take a breath? I have been trying to find a reliable source for just that for the last 20 minutes, looking in Moore's book and also in other books online. I proposed the http://monopoly.cdbpdx.com/GB_PAF_1/ as a potential link to a source, because theoretically anyone can purchase a Monopoly board from that vintage if they have the money (which per WP:SOURCEACCESS is okay) and verify that what is on the website (and, one presumes, what is on Redrose's board) is factually accurate. However, this should only be a footnote, for the average Monopoly player, Old Kent Road is the colour of poo. I don't think I can put it any simpler than that. Ritchie333 19:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC) I'm calm, I don't appreciate admins lying about my edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Special:Diff/773831361 "brown/deep purple-violet can be argued subjectively". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC) That diff is not equivalent to "You are the one claiming that I can't tell the difference between brown and deep purple-violet. " so stop lying please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC) I have updated the article with a footnote against "Brown" that mentions it was purple on the original boards. I personally think this is a nice little tidbit to tuck away in a footnote. Ritchie333 20:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: I think everything's you've raised has been addressed one way or another, is there anything else? Ritchie333 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Support. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the most thorough compilation of storms affecting the Arabian Peninsula. The region has been affected more and more in the past decade, with the three strongest storms on record in the adjacent Arabian Sea (Gonu, Phet, and Chapala) causing significant effects to the region. Add in a Yemeni civil war, the massive amounts of oil in the region, and a typically desert region getting lots of rainfall from storms, and you get some interesting effects. I believe the article is now ready for the rigors of the FLC process. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 19:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a few comments: A cyclone developed over the Arabian Sea near the Gulf of Oman on December 27. Moving westward, the storm lashed Bahrain with winds of 110 mph (180 km/h). - Swap mph and km/h for consistency. "Offshore, strong waves destroyed several boats, including one dhow that had 141 people aboard." - Do we know what happened to them? "Slightly higher rainfall – 482.3 mm (18.99 in) – was reported at a station 40 kilometres (25 mi) northeast of Salalah." - Since the rest of the units are abbreviated, do the same for kilometers. "A storm moved ashore near Masirah with a widespread area of gale force winds southeast of the center." - Wikilink gale. "The storm caused $25 million in damage and nine fatalities" - USD or what? (fix later instances of this as well) "The effects of the flooding disrupted the livelihoods of about 700,000 resident" - Resident → residents. Images need alt text. Reference 20 redirects to the website's home page. Reference 91 gives me an error after a few minutes. This is a well-sourced and comprehensive list that I'll be glad to support once the minor comments above are addressed! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 07:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Thank you @TropicalAnalystwx13: I believe I addressed all of the issues, except for the last two. For ref 20, I converted it to regular cite news without the web address. I can't find a working URL, but I will attempt to find one. Ref #91 (now 92) works fine for me, I'm not sure what is up with that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Nice, but now reference 11 needs replacing as it expired yesterday. Good timing, huh? :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Fixed @TropicalAnalystwx13:. Sorry for taking so long for one little ref :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - Nice work! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 19:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Support with the disclaimer that I've done some minor copyediting. I believe the article is a great resource that easily meets the FL criteria. My only suggestion would be to include a time period for the following: In 2014, an archaeology team discovered evidence that a major flood affected Ras Al Hadd in eastern Oman, possibly the result of a tsunami or a severe storm. – Juliancolton |  22:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose until maps are provided. You guys have tons of maps showing paths, and I am sure you can create one for this list too. Nergaal (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• OK. I contacted @Cyclonebiskit: about it. He said he would be able to, but it just might be a few days. 03:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Is this proceeding? It's been 10 days now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, keeps slipping my mind. Just need to compile a few more tracks then I'll be able to produce the map. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cyclonebiskit where are we with this? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: just waiting on a few more track files to be converted into a format I can use with the map generator. Thought it would be a simple copy/paste job but turns out all of the pre-2007 systems needed to be re-transcribed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Any timescale? I know there's no deadline but this has been ongoing for a month now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just waiting on Hurricanehink to send me the revised track files then we're good to go. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• @The Rambling Man: having some technical issues with the tracks... Need to go through them one-by-one and see what's bugging out the program. Getting closer though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cyclonebiskit ok, thanks for the update. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, status? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, status? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: The program is having a lot of issues with these tracks for some reason. I'm getting busier and busier and not sure I'll have the time to sit down and redo all the tracks again within a reasonable amount of time. Any way this can be overlooked with the agreement that it will be eventually added into the article? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Since the original opposer has apparently "retired", I guess that's ok. I'll take a last look shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• I hadn't realised that DarthBotto had supported contingent on the tracks being included as well. It looks like we're stuck here, although three supporters haven't mentioned the need for tracks, one opposes based on their absence, and one support is contingent on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

←@The Rambling Man: For whatever it's worth, I'm happy to reaffirm my support despite the requested map having not been added. In my experience working with regional tropical cyclone lists, the cumulative track maps are mostly for aesthetics with limited illustrative value. They can show you the prevailing storm track, but that's easy enough to explain via text. In most cases the map will be missing the storms that occurred prior to the start of the official tracking period, and for this region in particular, even the storms with documented tracks don't always have available intensity data, so many of the tracks will simply be gray instead of color-coded for strength. Add to this the fact that there's no way to identify individual storms in the mass of dots and lines, and then the map really doesn't have a lot to tell you. It's a nice thing to have to make the article look nice and professional, but I've never considered it strictly necessary, and I know it's not a universal feature of similar lists. Just my thoughts... – Juliancolton |  22:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I combined some duplicate refs with reflinks. Looks good to me. We're looking for additional reviewers on Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach/archive1. Hmlarson (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support, pending the inclusion of the map with the storm tracks: This article is ideally written, its references are intact, it is substantive and comprehensive, and it provides definitions for readers who are not initiated to the finer details of meteorology. I typically have more criticism to offer, but this article seems to be so well together that Nergaal's input speaks for me. Have your technical difficulty with the new map ironed out and you can call this my support vote. In the meantime, I would appreciate your input at Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/archive1. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I've decided to bump my support vote from contingent to good faith, with the assurance that the storm track will be included at the earliest convenience. The Rambling Man, you can count this as a support vote. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this page, which I have poured countless hours into, is ready, as it meets and exceeds the Featured list criteria. It is of professional writing standard, it has an engaging and current lead, it is comprehensive, it has an easy-to-navigate structure, it has a consistent style and it is stable, despite the fact that there is an upcoming sequel that will feature a whole new host of characters to be added near the bottom of the page. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Shouldn't we wait until the new film is released? The page will change substantially in a few months. Mattximus (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would reason that this page is in the same position as List of The Last of Us characters, in that it is stable and ready for Featured List status now, though it will have a short period of retrofitting in a few months, when the new installment hits. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I share the same concern as Mattximus about the upcoming release of a new film with a whole new cast of characters to be added to this list. I understand why you brought up List of The Last of Us characters, but that list was promoted in July 20, 2015 and the sequel was officially announced in 2016 (there were rumors about the sequel as far back as 2014, but it was officially confirmed after the list became a featured article). This is why I think these two cases are very different from one another, and I share the same concern listed above. However, I can also understand your point of view as it should not be that difficult to add the new characters to the list, but I am concerned that the amount of traffic that will mostly likely come to the page after the film's release may interfere with this somewhat. Hope this makes sense, and great job on the list as I can tell a lot of time and effort has been put into it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Firstly, I appreciate your compliments towards the quality of the page, as it truly has been a complete 180 from being nominated for deletion after being of poor quality year after year. No matter what happens with this nomination, your words are recognized and I know this page will be a Featured List this year, sooner or later. That being said, I maintain my perspective that the article will remain stable, given that the organizational structuring of the list. We'll see, however; if it's not passed this time, it will be after May. Thank you, again. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Thank you for your response, and I can definitely see this becoming a featured list sometime this year as it is very strong. I am still relatively new to Knowledge (XXG) (and even newer to editing lists) so if other users determine that the upcoming film does not affect the stability of this list (as I would trust their word far more than mine), then please let me know and I would gladly provide a review. The Alien franchise is one of my favorite so it would fun to look this through when the time comes. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Mattximus, Aoba47, there's no reason to delay reviewing the list in its current state. If it's complete and comprehensive right now, that's fine. Most lists will need to be updated, some annually, some substantially, some trivially. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man:@DarthBotto: Thank you for your message. I just wanted some confirmation either way as I am still relatively new to Knowledge (XXG), and even newer to working on lists. I apologize for any delay on my behalf. I will provide my review of the list by the end of today. I look forward to looking through this in detail. Aoba47 (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• I apologize for the delay. I will get to this as soon as I can. Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Aoba47, The Rambling Man, thank you for your concern and clarification. I have appreciated the mutual respect in this review and with that note, no worries, Aoba47, as I look forward to reading your input. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• @DarthBotto: Support: You have done an exceptional job with the list, especially given that its AfD was relatively recent. It was a very interesting and thorough list that made me want to go and watch some of the Alien movies, which is a success in my book. If possible, could you look at my FLC for Private Practice (season 1). I understand if you do not have the time or interest to do this as it is a busy time of the year. Good luck getting this promoted and I apologize for my earlier confusion.

@Aoba47: Absolutely, I would love to. Just let me wrap up a few things, like my Virgin America GAN and I can hop on over to give some input. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Thank you! Good luck with your GAN and with this nomination. I look forward to your feedback and to working with you further in the future if our paths cross on here again (I primarily focus on fictional characters/television/music). Have a great rest of your night. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Activity with this nomination has slowed down somewhat. Do you reckon there is a way to prompt more feedback and reviews to help secure the Featured List status? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I would advocate reviewing other nominations and politley noting this one is still looking for input! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Impressive work on this page. But source 57. The Gametap source does not work for some reason, that page is not working. Everthing else is great. - AffeL (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I archived that source for you. So it works now. - AffeL (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Amazing catch, and thank you on all counts, AffeL! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 09:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

BaldBoris, Hurricanehink, Doc James, would you like to review this article, as a return of favor for my reviews of your nominations? I would really appreciate it! :) DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The details of the people for 2017 is much less. Only a sentence for a few of them. Wondering if this could be expanded to balance this with the others? Or is it that since it hasn't been release no more can really be said? The article is amazingly comprehensive.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: Thank you for the feedback! At the moment, the Alien: Covenant section contains all the available information about the principal characters, with the blanks being the ones whose details have not yet been revealed. With how much I've been admittedly hovering over this article, I guarantee to expand every principal to have the standard two paragraphs that contain summaries, development and reception! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support This is an amazingly complete list. Support for FL. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I've only looked at the MOS (including the table) and citation style. I've tidied up the source cites for the books, nothing contro I hope.
  • It is normal to put the sources below per WP:CITESHORT (the four FAs on today's front page all have them below).
    • Done. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I heard the Daily Mail banned earlier this year, so I would suggest replacing those. I can't actually find where it says it's banned but WP:PUS says "it should be used with caution".
    • Done. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Title cases should be consistant per WP:CS1, so no CAPS.
    • Done. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont
  • The long TOC makes the page long and leaves a large empty area, with some sections only having one line. It may be better to use {{Horizontal TOC}}.
    • I changed it to a Horizontal TOC. It's a big change- an adjustment, at that- but hopefully for the better! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• That's it from me. A very comprehensive "list", by that I mean it's more of an article, but it's an exception. BaldBoris 03:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @BaldBoris: With that, I think all your recommendations have been fulfilled! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's another film accolades list. This one is for Nightcrawler a thriller film that stars Jake Gyllenhaal as a psychopath who records violent events late at night in Los Angeles. Fun stuff!

For anyone afraid of the list being too short, I asked Cowlibob, a major contributor to FLs on film accolades, if the list met notability requirements, and it was allowed. This is the first film accolades list I've worked on, so hopefully this goes well. Anyway, have at it. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support: After reading through the list several times, I did not find any errors. The prose in the lead is good, all of the references seem to be in order, and the images are all appropriate. Good luck with this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Everything seems good. Great job. - AffeL (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I've made a few moves to take into account unnecessary disambiguation. I'll review the content in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments I don't think you can claim "6th place" (etc) as a "win", this probably needs a footnote. The St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association appears to be called "St. Louis Film Critics Association", has it recently changed? That's it, it's a good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Famous Hobo two weeks for these comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man Sorry about that, real life got in the way. I took care of both of those comments. I simply changed any instance of forth or sixth place from a win to a nomination. If it didn't come in first, it didn't win. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support this one's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: The Online Film & Television Awards article was recently deleted, as it failed notability standards. Therefore, the 10 award nominations in this table were removed, bringing the total awards and nominations to 76. I still think this table is long enough to warrant its own list article. Also @Giants2008: I believe a consensus has been reached. Famous Hobo (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Passed, no concerns, though you should consider archiving your sources to avoid linkrot breaking them. Closing as promoted. --PresN 17:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC) .

---

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock is considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Here is a comprehensive rundown of all of his work in film and television. As always look forward to all the constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I have made some minors edits (addition of some commas) with these edits. Feel free to revert them if you disagree with them.
• Reference 12 is dead and either needs to be archived or replaced with a different source.
• The image in the "Television" subsection needs an ALT description. I am also not certain if that image is entirely necessary. The placement of the image has some interference with the gallery (it is cutting through the section) and it doesn't add much to the list as the image at the topic gives the reader an understanding of what Hitchcock looks like and this second image is a little repetitive.
• Is the "Gallery" section really necessary? I haven't seen a section like that for other filmographies and I would suggest removing it according to WP:IG as I find it a little shoehorned into the list.

@Cowlibob: Great work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Please ping me when you are finished with my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Support: Since the nominator has appeared to have addressed all of my comments, I will support this nomination. Great work with this! Good luck with this list. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

• "In 1935 Hitchcock directed spy thriller The 39 Steps" — Shouldn't it be "In 1935 Hitchcock directed the spy thriller The 39 Steps"?
• You can mention a little bit about how he went around the production code in Notorious (Grant's kissing scene with Bergman).
• "The show made him a household name" — Wasn't he famous before that?

@Cowlibob: That's about it from me. Good work on the filmography of my most favourite director.  — Ssven2 07:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Thanks for having a look. I think I've fixed the above. He's one of my favourites as well, you could probably make a pretty strong top five Hollywood films of all time just from ones he's directed.Cowlibob (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: I support this nomination. Good luck with your FLC. As for top five Hitchcock films, here it is: Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, Notorious and Strangers on a Train. You can even include Rebecca, Dial M for Murder, The Lady Vanishes, North by Northwest and Suspicion too.  — Ssven2 07:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

• Is Hitchcock's birth and death date really necessary here? I don't know, just asking.
• Dubbed the "Master of Suspense" - by whom? Or you could write something like Popularly known as the "Master of Suspense".
• I believe genres don't have to be linked unless they are uncommon terms.
• He collaborated with Grace Kelly on three films - we typically don't begin paragraphs with pronouns.
• In 1960 he directed Psycho the biggest commercial success of his career - there has to be a comma after Psycho.
• In the table I don't think we have to mention if a film was a remake of another. This applies to The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956).
• "Murder!" redirects to "Murder! (1930 film)". Was it deliberately linked like that in case the article were to be moved to not include (1930 film) in its title?
• In the ref column, the refs must be arranged vertically, not horizontally. They make the table look cleaner that way.
• After running Checklinks, I saw that all links were working, while two are classified as "Uncategorized redirects". You may archive references to avoid WP:LINKROT. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Thanks for the review. I have sorted the above comments I think. I mention birth and death dates for articles on deceased people as I think it's standard practice for such article. It probably helps to tell the time period they worked in. eg. Laurence Olivier on stage and screen, John Gielgud, roles and awards, and Gene Kelly filmography. Cowlibob (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess I need not say anymore; this has my Support, and I hope it passes FLC. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a comment. Comments from Jimknut Introduction Only the years of Hitch's birth and death are needed. Save the months and days for the main article on him. The word "thriller" appears 11 times. Isn't this a little bit of "overkill"? Filmography It could be noted that The Blackguard's German title, Die Prinzessin und der Geiger translates into English as "The Princess and the Violinist". It could be noted that The Pleasure Garden's German title, Irrgarten der Leidenschaft translates into English as "Maze of Passion". The numerous statements of "uncredited cameo appearance" are extremely monotonous. They are also unnecessary as Hitchcock's cameo appearances are already documented on another page. How about adding some more interesting notes? Examples: Rebecca won the Academy Award for Best Picture, Hitch was nominated for Best director, Spellbound has a brief color sequence, Dial M For Murder is in 3-D, and (if applicable) what films were filmed in color and widescreen (named the process, such as Technicolor, CinemaScope, etc.)? Television section As Hitchcock's television work was all in the United States, the column marked "Channel" should be changed to "Network". The second listed show, The Alfred Hitchcock Hour, redirects to List of The Alfred Hitchcock Hour episodes. The series Startime is incorrectly listed as Ford Startime. It could be noted that the episode of Startime that Hitch directed, " "Incident at a Corner", was his only work for TV that was in color. Jimknut (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC) @Jimknut: Thanks for the comments. I have reduced the number of instances of thriller. Added English translations for the two German co-productions you mentioned. Removed cameo appearances from notes. Added the mention of Dial M being shot in 3D. I have mentioned interesting films in the lead such as Rebecca winning Best Picture, his first sound film Blackmail, his first colour film Rope. Added that "Incident at a Corner" was his only colour production on television. Cowlibob (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Support - Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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