Knowledge (XXG)

:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2015 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

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 SchroCat 13:13, 23 February 2015 .

Nominator(s): — Rod 10:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Following the promotion of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset and List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane and nomination of List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset this is the next in the series (the fourth of seven), using the same format. As with the others it includes scheduled monuments from the Neolithic to more recent times, including photographs where available. — Rod 10:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments
  • Not sure we really need to link common geographical terms like Great Britain.
  • And then, it might be helpful to link tumuli since that's not a common term.
  • "but they were finally destroyed" it sounds odd to my ear to hear about people being destroyed, normally I'd reserve that term for objects...
  • "Sites from the Middle Ages include several motte-and-bailey castles, such as Locking Castle and church crosses" probably my misunderstanding, but are you saying a "church cross" is a "motte-and-bailey castle"?
  • Added a comma as the church crosses are also from the Middle Ages- does that help
  • Not a biggie, but you pipelink "glassworks" to "Nailsea glassworks " which subsequently redirects to Nailsea Glassworks, could we at least avoid the redirect?
  • Done
  • You probably could link the industrial revolution.
  • Banwell Camp row, Type column: capitalise the h of hillfort for consistency.
  • Confusion over whether things are Bell or Bowl barrows, e.g. compare Type and Description for "Bowl barrow 230 m NNE of Quarry Farm" and the two subsequent entries.
  • Also appears to be some inconsistency between capitalisation of Bell in the descriptions.
  • "is a well preserved ..." would a hyphen not be normally used here?
  • "Chantry Chapel" any reason the c of chapel is capitalised? Also, in the Type col you link the whole phrase, in the description you exclude chapel from the link.
  • "A 3 metres (9.8 ft) high stone" should just be metre. If you're using the {{convert}} template, you can achieve this by adding a |adj=on parameter. Apply to other similar instances.
  • Capitalise coal mine in the Type col for consistency.
  • Be consistent with the hyphenation of "motte-and-bailey".
  • And the capitalisation of Motte... (e.g. "A Motte and bailey castle was..." follows an entry which says "was a motte and bailey on "
  • Not sure you need to link archaeology...
  • "An oval hillfort approximately" you previously linked the Type when describing it, not here...
  • You link univallate but not multivallate, any reason?
  • You have some hectares converting to acres, some acres converting to hectares, I'm normally expect the conversions to be one way and consistent.
  • I think it depends on the age of the English Heritage data sheets - they have changed over time, but tried to make them all convert the same way (the only one I found was Stokeleigh Camp).— Rod 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "The crosshead was destroyed during the time of the English Civil Wars." that's some time span you're linking....
  • Does St Lawrence have a full stop after it's St or not?
  • I've put it back in as our article has one (see line above) but I thought MOS:ABBR was against it - on rereading it it depends on official useage. MOS may have changed.— Rod 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent linking in the refs, e.g. English Heritage is sometimes linked, the BBC is not, National Trust never...
  • Also seeing BBC and British Broadcasting Corporation...
  • Standardised on BBC
  • Roman Britain or Roman-Britain.org?

That's it for a reasonably quick run through. Hope it helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It is amazing how you can read the article hundreds of times and miss these sorts of things - it needs a new set of eyes.— Rod 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
You're always welcome. I've added a quick couple of responses above before I make dinner for the exhausted missus and the cats. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Too many 'severals' in the lead.
  • Several 'severals' removed or replaced.
  • " Worlebury Camp which was probably built by either the Goidel or Brython people. The Belgae people subsequently overthrew the initial inhabitants and occupied the camp for a time, but they were finally defeated at the hands of the Romans." The comments and sources are far too dated to be reliable. There are more up to date sources in the wiki article on the camp and at pastscape.
  • I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. How old would you say are inherently too "outdated" to be reliable. Just because a report is from 2007 or a website last updated 2010 doesn't to my mind make them unreliable. Are you saying new information has emerged since then, changing our understanding of the site?— Rod 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Your citations are dated 1919 and 1921 and the details sound to me like unreliable guesswork. E.g. Goidel or Brython people means Q (Irish) or P (British) Gaelic speakers, which does not make sense in this context, and it is unlikely that modern archaeologists would think that we could know that Belgae displaced earlier inhabitants.
  • It has just clicked with me that you are looking at the references used in the lead (3 & 4) I was looking at the references used to support the entry for Worlebury Camp (92-95). Give me a few hours to check which source says what and I will revise the lead.— Rod 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Aveline's Hole. The human bone fragments it contained, from about 21 different individuals". Barry Cunliffe says more than 50 individuals. Also you say Palaeolithic, but it is Mesolithic. I can amend if you wish.
  • "The box and ball at the top of the shaft was added in 1877." Shouldn't this be "were added" or are the box and ball one thing?
  • I leave this to you.
  • "Deserted medieval farmstead, Banwell|Deserted medieval farmstead 420 m south of Gout House Farm" Repetition.
  • "The hillfort was refortified around 400" I would add CE (or AD).
  • "occupation extended into the sub-Roman period, from which much imported pottery has been recovered." No change needed, but there were imports from the eastern Mediterranean including Byzantium at this time, and it would be interesting if this is true at Cadbury.
  • "It is known to have been occupied between 1290 and 1332." I would prefer is recorded in 1290 and 1332, as in EH. Known as occupied between implies a very short occupation, which may be wrong.
  • "Coins and pottery from 250 to 360". I think it is always better to say CE or AD with early dates like that.
  • "Motte-and-bailey castle 650 m NNW of Sandpoint Farm". You date this 11C, which is likely, but I cannot see it in the source.
  • I have changed it to Middle Ages and added a ref (Gatehouse). The source previously used says "monuments of the early post-Conquest period" and "built and occupied from the 11th to the 13th centuries" bit these are general comments rather than specific to this site.— Rod 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "which was occupied from the middle of the 1st century until at least the fifth century, demonstrated by the coins of Theodosius, Magnus Maximus and Arcadius". This is not quite right. EH says abandoned c.380 and then some buildings re-occupied (presumably by squatters) c. 400.
  • This is a difficult one. Pastcape says it was a defended villa estate, the list entry that the view that it was a villa is out of date. As Pastscape is dated 2007 and the list entry cites a 2014 source I think it might be best to ignore Pastscape. I suggest something like "This was an Iron Age settlement Romanised in the late first century. It grew to become a commercial agricultural centre which was abandoned by about 200 AD. Around 300 AD a defensive wall was constructed up to 5 metres thick enclosing an area of about 7 hectares. Remains include both a mosaic pavement and evidence of industrial activities, and coins shows that the site was occupied throughout the Roman period. The site may have been finally abandoned during an outbreak of bubonic plague in the middle of the sixth century." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have now gone with your suggestion - I'm just slightly nervous about whether "Romanised" should be capitalised or not.— Rod 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I wondered about that. Still in my experience some expert will come along and sort it out! (In general in my opionion on Knowledge (XXG) there is far too much lower casing of expressions which ought to be capitalised, but life is too short to argue about issues like that.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "in 1968 the priory and adjoining land of Middle Hope was purchased by the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty" It seems a bit over the top to give the full name of the NT, especially as it only owned the site for a year.
  • Thanks I can move the Somerset articles (leaving a redirect from the capitalised titles) unless there is a more elegant (? bot) way of doing this? If I move this North Somerset one while an FLC is in progress will this break templates or similar?— Rod 19:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Nice article, impressive work. I have one or two small points--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • In the lead, Neolithic should be linked. There's also a problem here as in the table Aveline's Hole is listed as Mesolithic . . .
  • Why do we need to know where Banwell Camp is in the Name column since there's a link and the information is in the description anyway? Same for Cadbury Camp etc. If this is the normal way of doing it, why are others not done this way (i.e. Aveline's Hole)?
  • Since there is no consistency in the "Name" column (i.e. Aveline's Hole is a proper name, "Duck decoy, 250 m south of Black Rock Villas" is just a description), why is this been chosen as the primary method of sorting these monuments? Why not location or "Completed" (which by the way should be "Date Completed")?
Thanks for your comments. I have revised and slightly reordered the lead to give mesolithic for Aveline's Hole and then neolithic tumuli etc. I believe all the others are listed in the name column using the terminology included on the English Heritage data sheets (as they recommend to the Secretary of State that sites should be scheduled it seems reasonable to give that title) - I don't know why Aveline's Hole was not described in the same way but I have changed it now. The column names are generated by Template:EH listed building header which is used on hundreds of lists (including on the local ones on Scheduled monuments in Somerset) so I can't just change it on this list & a change to the column titles may need to be discussed on the template talk page.— Rod 21:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Good answers. If those are the "official" names (as in the ones on the EH datasheets) then that is a perfectly reasonable explanation - it might be worth noting it in the article, perhaps as an inline notation or in italics at the top of the list, because if you don't know that it does look a bit odd. And I certainly wouldn't recommend messing around with templates. I think I'm happy to support, although do think about explaining in the article why the names are the way they are.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added a sentence (to this article and the other Somerset lists) saying "The monuments are listed below using the titles given in the English Heritage data sheets.".— Rod 08:37, 20 February 2015 (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 SchroCat 13:15, 23 February 2015 .

Nominator(s): Gloss 03:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Back here with another New York Islanders list. With the seasons, head coaches, award winners, and players lists out of the way, it was time for another. The statistics have all been double checked, and information is all sourced, and I believe it's all well and good according to our FL criteria! Concerns and comments of any kind are welcomed. Gloss 03:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Reckless182 (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Reckless182
  • I would like to remove the flags as per MOS:SPORTFLAGS. I don't see any reason for repeating the same flags over and over.
  • I'm fairly sure that punctuation should be added in the image captions since you use a comma mid-sentence.
Resolved comments from Harrias
Very good list, I can find very few holes at all, and I'm grasping at straws for these (I'm going to look stupid if someone else comes along with a huge list of things!)
  • "..which took place in the NHL only from 1986–1994 for players in American colleges." I think the word "only" is redundant in this sentence, and to me it reads better without it.
  • "..including their first season participating in the draft (1972) where they selected.." Rather than "where", I think "when" would be more appropriate.
  • I would favour one of the more prominent players as the lead image, maybe Potvin?
  • You list "Ref(s)" in the key, but as far as I can see, don't use it in the article?
  • Should the Islanders themselves be listed as the publisher for refs 12 & 13?
  • No, I don't believe so. The Islanders' website is "islanders.nhl.com" - which shows that its a website from the NHL and the information all comes from them rather than the team. At least that's what I've seen in other articles and make sense to me. Gloss 23:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

All that said, I'm tempted to oppose the list based on the 7–4 drubbing my Flyers received yesterday... Harrias 23:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, nice work! (I'm hoping for a better result tonight against the Pens, but the season is a bust anyway. Still, it doesn't even start until 00:30 over here, it better be good.) Harrias 23:41, 20 January 2015 (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 SchroCat 13:14, 23 February 2015 .

Nominator(s): Bencherlite 17:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

A companion piece to Savilian Professor of Geometry, another list of Oxford University academics, which I took through FLC in 2010. I rewrote this in 2012, but never got round to nominating it - I think I just forgot. Anyway, I've rediscovered it, repaired a couple of deadlinks and I think it's good to go. No doubt you will tell me what I've missed, but I hope you enjoy reading about what Christopher Wren did when he wasn't rebuilding St Paul's Cathedral! Bencherlite 17:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments
  • You link Warden and Provost in the main body but not in the lead, seems anomolous to me.
  • "as the first professor, and Bainbridge took " why not "as the first professor who took..."
  • Joseph Silk is (a) overlinked in the lead and (b) over-named in the lead - surname only after first mention.
  • " "the wretched state of mathematical studies in England"," don't we nomally attribute these sorts of quotes?
  • "of reforms of the university" just a question really, were they reforms "of" or "to" the university?
  • You link the Observer and the Observatory to the same page, I would "hash link" the former to the section which describes the position of Observer.
  • University Parks is pipelinked to Oxford University Parks which redirects back to University Parks. Unnecessary.
  • Minor, but instead of "not carry on his" why not "not continue his"?
  • "and John Flamsteed (Astronomer Royal) " I'd ditch the parentheses, and add "the" here, it's a reasonable inclusion to the sentence.
  • Link all colleges in "College as professor" column as it's a sortable table.
    • The only ones that are unlinked in that column are linked immediately to their left - I don't repeat the link in the same row
  • The Queen's College vs Queen's College, be consistent.
  • Blackwell is missing a University of Cambridge.
  • It appears that you may be using MIT without explaining it....
  • "Ecole Normale Supérieure " is one accent down on the deal.

That's it for a quick once-over. Hope it helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it does. All done save where noted. Bencherlite 08:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Just one comment from me: in Bradley there is a "discoveration of nutation". Would discovery be better? Superb otherwise! – SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Excellent list, informative and interesting. No comments from me, although one thing I was wondering - was the stipulation that the professor stargaze every night repealed in the 19th century reforms? I imagine the records up to that point probably include a lot of clouds. --Jackyd101 (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Answering your question caused me to hunt down the original statutes (fortunately I found a 19th-century translation of the Latin!) and add some more detail. The short answer is that, yes, the 19th-century reforms removed the original specifications, which were very detailed and prescriptive, although the requirement to stargaze was in fact at "fitting times and seasons" rather than every night as my original source said, so the professors had a complete excuse for going to bed whenever they wanted! Bencherlite 13:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If they were anything like the lecturers I knew at university, quite a few of those observations would have been somewhat bleary-eyed. Glad I could help. Really is a nice article - I always enjoy your professor lists. --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2015 (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 SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2015 .

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2005 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written.--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment for now: It says winners are "highlighted in boldface" whereas I can not see the winners (but categories) being highlighted in "boldface" as claimed in the list. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 15:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Done: I fixed the problem. It is supposed to be in double dagger for WP:Accessibility issues.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine on first glance. Will review it thoroughly by tomorrow. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 17:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems like I have been beaten. Anyways it looks good. I support. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 10:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Krimuk90
  • The "best film editing" category heading appears twice in the awards table.
  • The caption under Blanchett's image needs fixing.
  • " Best Actor winner Jamie Foxx became the only the second actor ". Redundant use of the second "the".
  • I am a bit confused by what this means: "In other instances, the actor or actress would perform the announcement of nominees and presentation in the audience"
  • "When the nominations has been announced on January 25,..". Grammatical error.
  • "Television critic Frazier Moore commented Rock's performance as a "needed pick-me-up, presiding over the broadcast with saucy finesse." Confusing. Please rephrase. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Done: I fixed everything mentioned above with a few notes:
  • Changed duplicate Best Film Editing to Best Visual Effects
  • Fixed the caption under Blanchett's box. I misspelled the alt= as lat=.
  • Delted the duplicate "the" in the Foxx fact.
  • Fixed the phrase to read "In other instances, the actor or actress presented the award in the audience." I was trying to describe this as noted in these videos provided by the official AMPAS youtube account:
  • Fixed the phrase to read "When the nominations WERE announced."
  • Fixed phrase to read: Television critic Frazier Moore commented THAT Rock's performance WAS a "needed pick-me-up, presiding over the broadcast with saucy finesse."
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Support: Looks good now. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
*Need refs to show that the presenters presented their specific award and that the performers performed those songs listed. Cowlibob (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Done: Added news sources/websites that have minute-by-minute coverage on who presented and or performed what.
  • All of the presenters and the awards given or performances introduced are in the NZ Herald or Washington Post link
  • Performances and the songs sung are covered in the Film Music Society link. Also mention of Bening's introduction of the In Memoriam segment is here.
  • Emmy Rossum's introduction of Beyonce is in the Extra TV Link
  • Randy Thomas reference is in a book as indicated by the ref.
  • Bill Conti reference is on ref 37 under fourth paragraph Ceremony info.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Good job as usual. Nice work on adding in the new more accessible table, hope you or others can do so for all the Academy Awards lists. Cowlibob (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2015 (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 SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2015 .

Nominator(s): FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the filmography gives a good summary of the actress, who is known for her melodramatic yet intensive performances. The filmography has been thoroughly researched by me. As usual, looking forward to a lot of constructive comments. FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

It is a really good list. I have spotted some small changes which can be made to make the list look even better.

  • "and essayed the role of a tomboy in Karan Johar's highly successful romantic comedy Kuch Kuch Hota Hai opposite Shah Rukh Khan." — Just 1 or, at the most, 2 references would suffice.
  • "Kajol starred in ₹1.17 billion (US$14 million)-grossing film Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham... (2001), an ensemble melodrama." — the entire part about KKKG can be rephrased as "Kajol starred in the 2001 ensemble melodrama, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham..., where she essayed the role of a Punjabi girl. The film grossed ₹ 1.17 billion, therefore becoming the highest-grossing film of all time in the overseas market."
  • "a highly successful romantic thriller set on the backdrop of terrorism." — Rephrase it as "The film, a romantic thriller which was based on terrorism, was a commercial success."
  • "Also that year, she appeared in the 3D animation Toonpur Ka Super Hero." — Can you source the sentence?
  • There should be a mention about Minsara Kanavu in the lead as it is her only Tamil film to date.

@FrB.TG: Thank you for addressing my comments quite quickly. This article has my Support. — Ssven2 15:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me)
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
  • Images need alt text
  • "She, however, was noted for her role and went on to sign the 1993 ...." The source from The Hindu only mentions that her appearance was spotted by somebody and not the role as you claim here.
  • Too many "roles" in the lead. I can count at least four in the opening para alone.
  • "This was followed with a role" -> This was followed by a role
  • "1995 saw Kajol in four films" reads too plain. Consider rephrasing the part like "The following year" or at least "The year 1995".
  • "She had a brief role in the thriller Karan Arjun and played Simran, " The comma is misplaced here. For a moment it looks like she played Simran in Karan Arjun.
  • You could add a note mentioning the no. of theatres that are still showing DDLJ. Also the claim needs more than one source.
  • "She also appeared in the box-office flops Hulchul and Gundaraj" and the succeeding sentence, both don't read well at all. I guess "Box-office bomb" is not encyclopaedic. Also year of release should be there.
  • "In 1997, Kajol appeared in the Tamil film Minsara Kanavu." - This seems out of place. Looks like this is her only non-Bollywood film till date.
  • "she played the leading lady of the romantic film Ishq" -> she played the leading lady in the romantic film Ishq.
  • she had double-role in - article missing. The whole sentence (especially the succeeding clause) desperately needs to be rephrased.
  • "Tomboy" isn't a role. It's a characteristic
  • "highly successful" borders on WP:PEACOCK
  • "The following year, she played the mistress ...." I'd suggest you to add the year here since you have a big gap between the last mention of year and this one.
  • "thus becoming the highest-grossing film of all time in overseas market" - is it the highest-grossing Indian film or just in Bollywod alone? Also needs "as of ..."
  • Not needed as it is described in the note.
  • On second thoughts, I don't think it's even necessary to mention box-office figure in a filmography and as for the date issue, I have added "to that point".
  • There should be an indication of the order in which the films are listed in the table
  • It's pretty visible through the years and all featured filmographies use the same.
  • Done.
  • Why is that you've not included a "Director" column in the table?
  • I do not feel the need for this one as the article is about her films, which year they released, what role she played. It's not that important and Leonardo DiCaprio also does not use the one, but if you insist so, I can add it.
  • Added.
  • Role-> Role(s)
  • It was only a special appearance in Duplicate.
  • Naina Saigal (Sonia)-> Naina Saigal, Sonia Saigal
  • What about Vighnaharta Shree Siddhivinayak. Is it a feature film and was it released?
  • Per source, it was.
  • I have removed the film from the table as I don't find the film notable.
  • Makkhi is only the dubbed version of Eega. Doesn't count as an acting credit. Also you've mentioned her role as a 'cameo' but the "role" column says she provided only the voice-over.
  • I have removed the film from the table as it was only a dubbed film in which she lent her voice.
  • Roles for special appearances should be '–' instead of "Unknown"
  • Ref #6 is from Indian Express and not TOI
  • Ref #10 and #21 need author
    • While the last para looks good to me, the first two need a serious copy-edit. For now, it looks like presenting a list of bulleted-points in a passage form. Also I don't see a need to add four images of her, all taken during the same time. —Vensatry (ping) 20:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Vensatry: Thanks for pointing out the issues. Almost all of the above have been resolved. I have kept one image present in the table section as it is in the "Did you know" template, and have removed the other two. Do you have more things to say here --FrankBoy (Buzz) 23:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The last two lines seem out of place in an otherwise engaging lede. I'd suggest you to add a bit about her winning the trophy for the fifth time right after MNIK and have the Nutan thing probably as a FN. —Vensatry (ping) 17:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: I think it is a well written list based on prose. Barring anything previously mentioned above and making improvements, it's fine.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Krimuk90
  • A mention must be made of the extensive work that she has done with Shah Rukh Khan and Karan Johar.
  • Wikilink NRI.
  • Mention that she played dual roles in Dushman.
  • Replace "long sabbatical" with the number of years she was absent from the screen.
  • The sudden listing of her Filmfare Awards, in between her roles in 2010, is jarring. Please mention it at the end of the paragraph.
  • In the filmography table, use footnotes to state that she played dual roles in Hamesha, Dushman, and Kuch Khatti Kuch Meethi. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Support: Looks good now, after a further round of copy/edits. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:09, 7 February 2015 (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 SchroCat 08:17, 16 February 2015 .

Nominator(s): Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the filmography gives a good summary of Abhishek Bachchan's extensive career in the Hindi film industry. I expect constructive comments from the reviewers. This is my 1st FLC so please don't be too harsh to me. All helpful comments on improvement are welcome Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment - The filmography's lead is really long. If you compare this to featured filmographies, such as Shah Rukh Khan, Hrithik Roshan, Leonardo DiCaprio, they are way shorter. I think you can reduce it by removing nominations as this is a filmography, not an award page and restrict the awards to the most notable ones, such as Filmfare and National Award. It says "with Kapoor as Naaz". Really? I mean is it that necessary to talk about Kareena's character in the film as if this is the article about the film. Remove some films from the lead and include notable ones. Mention his hits with some flops (notable ones), but not all. Also, there are some strong claims that need reliable sources, such as it says "Guru received extremely positive reviews". By providing two reviews of certain critics do not prove that it received "extremely" positive reviews. Plus, remove some critics' reviews and box-office performance.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, FrB.TG. I will fix the issues by tomorrow. Jim Carter 17:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: I have shortened the article. It is now 2828 characters (485 words). Comparing to Shah Rukh Khan filmography, Khan is 3672 characters (597 words). I'm also doing some copyediting. Please tell me what you think now? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
There are many issues in the refs. and the lead. I suggest to review other filmographies, to withdraw this and open a peer review.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 14:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Comment: @Jim Carter: The publishers of the references should be linked only at first instance not with each, such as Bollywood Hungama has been linked so many times. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I think this has come up before. Overlinking doesn't apply to references and it can indeed be useful to have them all linked as we don't which reference is going to be clicked first. Cowlibob (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Comparing this to featured filmographies, I think it would look better if overlinking is avoided. It closely follows similar lists of other actors. Anyways I am not insisting on it. Except this one, it looks fine. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jim Carter: Both linking at first instance and linking all publishers at all occurrences have been used in previous filmography FLs so it's up to you, which you would prefer. Cowlibob (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not considering this an issue. It was just a personal preference. One more thing! It will be good if a reviewer reviews the image on Commons. Or it should be directly asked from a reviewer to have it confirmed. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 16:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It was quite in a poor shape when this FLC was created but thanks to Cowlibob who helped Jim improving the list. All of the issues that I raised have been resolved barring overlinking in references; however, that's not an issue and and that is something that varies from user to user. That anyways does not stop me to Support. Good job Jim Carter! --FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to sugar coat it, this list requires some serious work.

Lead

  • Remove the critic review for Refugee as sole critic reviews are POV. However you can mention that he was nominated for the Filmfare Award for Best Debut for this role (with a ref). - (Fixed: I haven't added about Filmfare nomination as I couldn't find any good source)
  • We can't use words like "moderate breakthrough" without a source backing it up. Also the poorly received bit needs sources with examples of poorly received films during that period. (Fixed: I have remove "moderate breakthrough". I have added a film with a source)
  • "fully fledged", I think you're trying to say that this film is what finally made him famous but you need a ref for that and need to rephrase it. (Fixed)
  • I would probably not use any reviews in the lead. Just mention awards he won or was nominated for, if you want to elaborate on the recognition he got for those roles. - (Fixed: Removed all the reviews)
  • I personally don't like to mention successes of films in terms of box-office in filmographies unless they are record breakers but if you want to use "commercial success", you have to have refs backing it up like Box Office India refs. Don't use terms like "hit", you can use commercial success. - (Fixed: I have mentioned three films in terms of box-office- Dhoom, Dhoom 2 and Dhoom 3. They all are record breakers of their release year. They are backed up by sources like Box Office India and Rediff. I have removed the word "Hit")
  • In the lead you only need to mention certain films not the majority of them. I don't know this actor well but from a quick look at his filmography, I would mention Refugee, a few of the films that you said were poorly received in 2001-03, Kuch Naa Kaho, LOC Kargil, Run, Yuva, Dhoom, Phir Milenge, Bunty aur Babli, Sarkar, Dus, Bluffmaster!, Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, Umrao Jaan, Dhoom 2, Guru, Sarkar Raj, Drona, Dostana, Delhi-6, Paa, Raavan, Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Sey, Bol Bachchan, Dhoom 3, and Happy New Year. I've probably missed a few. - (Fixed: I have mentioned one film that was poorly received in 2001-03. I have kept only those films in the lead which you mentioned. I haven't removed Zameen (although you haven't mentioned) because it a important one.)

Table

  • Remove the credited as column, nearly all his roles have been acting roles so no need for this column. Any films he produced, you can add producer in the notes section - (Fixed)
  • Remove note a, you've mentioned it in the lead so no need to repeat it in the table. - (Fixed)
  • Remove note b and simply add Bengali film to the notes section of the films
  • As the director column sortable all entries should be wikilinked.

Ref

  • Do a thorough check of the refs to make sure that they are RS. Ones that jump out at me are: dnnworld, glamsham, naachgaana, tellychakkar, bollyspice. Basically if there isn't a independent article on wiki about it, it's probably not a RS. Also that the refs back up the info in the table e.g. year of release, his appearance in the film, his role in the film, that he produced it, director, any appearances in songs. - (Fixed: I hope, I have fixed the issues. Note: I have not removed tellychakkar as it doesn't appear unreliable to me.)
  • They should also use the correct format for refs. For newspapers/ magazine sources they should be cited like this (examples): <ref>{{cite news|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/i-hate-producing-films-abhishek-bachchan/|title=I hate producing films: Abhishek Bachchan|work=The Indian Express|publisher=Indian Express Group|date=18 October 2014|accessdate=24 January 2015}}</ref>

For others: <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnbc.com/id/39981442/Bollywood_s_Top_Earning_Celebrities?slide=5/|title=Bollywood's Top-Earning Celebrities|publisher=CNBC|date=|accessdate=25 January 2015}}</ref> - (Fixed)

  • Only use enough refs required to back up the info. I see there are five refs for Bol Bachchan which is probably too much. - (Fixed)

Cowlibob (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: I have fixed the issues you noted. Please take a look. The only thing I was unable to fix is I can't wikilink all entries in the director column as many of the directors don't have their articles and as the Featured list criteria says, "minimal proportion of items are redlinked.". Thank you. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jim Carter - Public: Please note that it's not appropriate to "cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors".--FrankBoy (Buzz) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@FrB.TG:  Fixed Please review again. Jim Carter 09:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jim Carter: I've decided to go at this nomination from a different angle. I'm recused from supporting it because of the work I've done now but have ensured that the table and lead look good so that hopefully this FLC is more palatable for others. Hope it helps Cowlibob (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Resolved comments from -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*"However, he followed this with appearances in a string of films which performed poorly at the box office".. would mean that Refugee was a success, which is not the case.
  • "His supporting role in the romantic comedy Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon (2003), for which he was nominated for the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor, marked a turnaround for his career" is not what the source says. Also, having some knowledge about his career, this statement is untrue. Yuva was the film that proved a breakthrough for him.
  • Why is the first occurrence of the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor not wikilinked?
  • The usage of "xxx-directed" is overused in the lead. Please tweak.
  • "In 2013, he starred in the action thriller Dhoom 3, opposite Aamir Khan, the film became the highest grossing Bollywood film of all time"." A semi-colon after Khan would make the sentence a little bit better.
  • In the television appearances section, please do not include appearances for film promotions. The appearances are too many, so unless all of them are included, it makes no sense to cherry-pick some.
  • The fact that Dhoom3's record was broken by PK is quite redundant here, because Bachchan had nothing to do with the latter.

From what I can see, the prose needs quite a bit of work. There is a significant lack of flow between your sentences; they seem like a listing of one film after another with little additional value. I don't want to discourage you, but a peer-review would probably be beneficial before an FLC nom. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: I've redone this list as per your comments. Timeline was sketchy for me as this actor is unfamiliar to me. Basically I want to get across: Refugee + series of flops --> Yuva (first critical acclaim), Dhoom (first hit), Then a series of acclaimed supporting roles (three consecutive Supporting Actor Awards)-->Dhoom 2, Guru -->Paa-->more flops-->Bol Bachchan (next hit), Dhoom 3, Happy New Year. Cowlibob (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
That sums it up perfectly, though in his final three hits he had supporting roles to other male superstars. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@Krimuk90: Clarified the last sentence now to reflect that he was supporting. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "However the film was a box office failure, which he followed with appearances in a string of films which performed poorly at the box office such as Bas Itna Sa Khwaab Hai (2001), and Shararat (2002)" ==> "However, the film was a box office failure, as were a series of his subsequent films, including Bas Itna...."
  • "turnaround" is used twice in the lead. Maybe something else?
  • "appeared in the Karan Johar-.."
  • "in the action thriller sequel..."
  • "The following year, Bachchan appeared in the biographical film Guru (2007), his performance was positively received." Not a grammatically correct sentence. Please tweak.
  • Too many consecutive uses of the phrase "the following year"
  • A mention about his sole Bengali film will be beneficial in the lead.
  • " Bachchan then suffered a brief setback in his career after he appeared in another series of films which poorly performed at the box-office". He didn't suffer a setback after the films flopped. He suffered a setback because one film after another flopped.
  • In general, there is hardly any mention of the roles he played in the films. For example, he played a police officer in the Dhoom series, a goon in Yuva, a businessman based on Dhirubhai Ambani in Guru, are all critical information.
  • This is a personal preference, but a film-related image is always better in an actor's filmography page. There are quite a number of options from Commons.
  • Check the format of Ref. No 12.
  • Ref Nos. 40, 50 and 91, for India Today, needs fixing.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, Cowlibob, have you taken over the nomination from Jim Carter? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Jim Carter sorted some and I've sorted some of the other points above. Could you please point out what's wrong with ref 12? Also with India Today as I thought IndiaToday.in was it's online arm. Could you point out some good quality pics ones of him from recent times on Commons? My googlefu failed me. I'm not taking over just ensuring it's in good standing as I've put some effort into it, I'm certainly not taking it to its conclusion as I'm shortly going to be leaving Knowledge (XXG) for a while. Cowlibob (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Ref. 12 is now Ref. 14, and there is a formatting error, it currently shows as: "Pressurising Farah to make 'Happy New Year' sequel: Abhishek Bachchan". The Indian Express (Indian Express Groupdate=16 November 2014). Retrieved 4 February 2015.
  • India Today refers to the magazine, so it should be formatted using the cite news template. The publisher for the magazine, the various sister news channels, and the website are of course owned the India Today Group.
  • Among other options, this image, can probably be used after cropping to focus on his face. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I see a mention has been made of his role in the 2002 film Desh. I see that he only had a cameo in it (though that information is missing in the filmography table). A mention, thus, must be made of Antarmahal in the lead in which he had a full-fledged role. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Krimuk90: Corrected the above points. India Today Group now known as Living Media. Website seems to be in lower case. I think the picture can stay, it's relatively up to date for his appearance which is the main goal for the lead pic. Cowlibob (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Support: I've made a further round of copy/edits, and it looks good to me now. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2
  • I would recommend all of the films where he makes camoes and special appearances to be placed under a separate sublist (Thereby making it two lists under the "Film" section — One, where he plays prominent roles, the other where he makes special appearances (both in the films and song sequences).
@Jim Carter: Previous FLs have kept everything in one table such as SRK, Hrithik, Aamir and clarified the cameo/specials in the notes but I don't think it would be less of an FL if it was split out into a separate table. Again up to you as nominator, if you'd like to action this recommendation. Cowlibob (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@Cowlibob, FrB.TG, and Ssven2: I'm not sure why this changes are needed. Wikilink in citations are not considered overlinking and I don't see any reason why the list should be split. So, I ask Frb.TG and Ssven to reconsider. Jim Carter 15:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@Cowlibob, FrB.TG, and Jim Carter: It was only a suggestion. — Ssven2 04:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The latter was the highest grossing Bollywood film of the year." can be rephrased as "The latter was the highest grossing Bollywood film of 2006." as the year sounds quite anonymous. — Ssven2 04:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ssven2 and FrB.TG: I have replaced the image with another one. I have also rephrased it. Jim Carter 05:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Instead of "2006", I would suggest to replace it with "to that point" as the film was not just the highest-grosser of the year but of all time (at the time of its release). And yes replace the source too that should support the claim. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 08:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: Good point there. — Ssven2 11:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@FrB.TG and Ssven2: I couldn't find a reliable source that describe Dhoom 2 was the highest grossing film ever at the time of the film's release. Can you find a reliable source? Jim Carter 07:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jim Carter: You can use this as a source as it clearly shows it was the highest grossing film of all time (at the time of its release). — Ssven2 15:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ssven2 and FrB.TG: Fixed. Thanks Ssven for the source. Jim Carter 10:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Support — Ssven2 10:53, 12 February 2015 (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 SchroCat 08:16, 16 February 2015 .

Nominator(s): PresN 21:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's another scifi/fantasy award list, FLC #31/? in the series, and #5/10 for the World Fantasy Awards. Following up the last FLC for Collections, here's the World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology. It's been given since 1988 for the best anthology of works by multiple authors, ever since it was split off of the Collection award for overwhelming the category. The list looks... well, pretty much identical to the other WFA lists and the other sff awards lists I've done, just with different information in the table. Comments from previous FLCs have been incorporated. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The list looks fine, but the topic seems a bit obscure/niche. Hopefully these comments would improve such issues. Nergaal (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I've heard of both Nebula and Hugo awards, but never of WFA. Are they really on par with the other two as the intro seems to suggest? If yes, have any of these current winners received a nod from the other two?
  • wikilink anthology since it is not a very common term
  • is it possible to have a list of actual authors? I feel like publishers and authors are like producers and directors for movies, where the directors do most of the work
  • there are many redlinks. you think redirecting them to the main editors would be appropriate?
  • what do the winners get other than bragging rights?
  • who is the organizer of WFC? or in other words, who is behind the reputation of these awards?
  • in this particular case it might make sense to list the 5 judges also
  • not sure why you don't use rowspan=2 for novel and publisher entries with double editors, and =x for the year column

Nergaal (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Responding in order:
  • WFA is the top of the "fantasy-only" awards, of which there are few; it's been described as the third major spec-fic award after the Hugo/Nebula, though I've also seen people call the Locus awards the third. It's certainly #3 at best, though, Hugo/Nebula are much bigger now. In the 80s especially it was basically on par with the Hugo/Nebula, but they've gotten even bigger over time and have outsripped the WFAs. If you think this list is niche, do note that I have an FL on the John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel, which isn't even the biggest spec-fic award named after Campbell. As far as overlapping winners goes, neither the Hugo nor Nebula have an anthology award, but checking novels- A Stranger in Olondria won this years WFA for novel, and got a nomination for the Nebula; The Ocean at the End of the Lane got a nomination for both, as did The Golem and the Jinni. The Hugo hasn't had an overlap since A Dance with Dragons (nom for WFA/Hugo) and Among Others (nom for WFA, won Hugo/Nebula) in 2012, since it's heavily weighted towards sci-fi.
change "along with" to "along with the sci-fi awards". I got mislead into thinking fantasy=scifi by the current wording. I don't care if the awards are niche, but if they are, then a more introductory intro would help the reader get into the topic. You could mention some of the overlaps if you think they are notable.
Clarified that the other two big awards are scifi and fantasy. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Linked
  • Mmm, I'd rather not- the award is given to the editor who puts the collection together and chooses the pieces, not the authors inside, and I was modelling this after Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine which also is given to the editor and not the authors. Some of these anthologies can have up to 20 authors or so, if it's all short stories, so this list would get incredibly long if I listed them all out.
  • Now that I've thought about it some more, I'm really against this. Academy Award for Best Picture (the list or in real life) doesn't list all the actors who were in the films- because the award isn't given to the actors. This award is not given to the authors of the works inside the anthology, it's given to the editor who created the anthology. The works themselves are eligible for awards for best short story, etc., just like actors have their own awards separate for the one for best film.
The difference there is that those movies have their own articles. For the winning redlinks, I propose you add a footnote with the authors, or alternatively, add a link to amazon with its ISBN or something.
I'm really against treating redlinks separately from bluelinks in the article. Rather than argue, I'm just stubbing out articles for the winners- 9 done, 5 to go as of this writing. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Past consensus from reviewers for these lists is to link the winning work, even if no article exists, under the assumption that a work that wins a notable award is worthy of an article, and therefore a redlink (though I was missing a couple). These works do get articles created for them over time, as my watchlist informs me. I'd rather unlink them then make redirects to the editor, though.
See above
  • A small statue; added with a ref. I'll backfill this to the other WFA FLs. I've used this ref for it's pull quote of the WFAs being a "prestigious fantasy prize" as well.
  • The WFC is it's own entity, just like the World Science Fiction Society (Hugo awards) is its own entity. While many members of the board are themselves fantasy authors, I don't think that's a requirement. The list states that "The panel of judges is typically made up of fantasy authors".
The confusion I have is that conferences usually have organizers, or somebody to oversee things. For example E3 has ESA.
The World Fantasy Conference is run by the World Fantasy Board, which only exists only as a name for the organizing committee of the conference- it's not even a registered company. There is no separate entity that runs the WFC- the WFC runs itself. The ESA, on the other hand, does a lot of things as well as putting on a conference- most speculative fiction book cons are independent, self-perpetuating entities. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The judges change every year, just like they do for the Nebula awards. Do you mean just list who the current judges are?
Nvm
  • I was under the impression that rowspans weren't WP:ACCESS-compatible, but it looks like they are, it's colspans in the middle of a table you have to watch out for. I'll play with this and report back, since it's not trivial and I want to see what it looks like.
Much better, but put the year column as "!!", with grey background. No need to have them as blue
Done. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Nergaal: responded to your other points. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
--PresN 20:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments
As one list in a series of World Fantasy Awards FLs, there is the benefit of being consistent. This list follows the same style, format, layout, references, etc. as the others. However, I have a couple of questions/suggestions:
  • An image in the infobox would help with the visual appeal. I see that the Lovecraft statuette may be replaced, but how about a photograph of a winner or a convention? Or a poster or ad for an event? Something should qualify as fair use.
  • Who describes the award as prestigious? Perhaps reword as "fantasy journalists" or "critics" describe... or even the writer if notable.
  • "7" should be spelled out (MOS:SPELL09)
  • "Bust" doesn't seem to need linking.
  • The table could be wider to almost fill up the page.
  • The same blue shade is used in the year column as the winner row. It looks awkward. The use of rowspan is an improvement, but unshaded would be better.
  • The winners are shaded in blue and have an asterisk. The different color should be enough.
  • For FLs, I would minimize the use of redlinks to those with articles in progress. To the general reader, they may appear as mistakes or incomplete.
  • World Fantasy Convention is linked in the infobox. An additional "See also" link is unneeded.
  • "xo Orpheus..." is in the reference, but some may see it as a typo.
The lead is well written and the links and references check out. Good job. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
In order:
  • I'll look around for a good image to use
  • Expanded to say "book critics" and called out The Guardian specifically
  • Spelled out
  • unlinked
  • Widened
  • Changed to non-blue
  • As per WP:ACCESS, color alone can never be used to differentiate winners and such- people with no/poor vision are unable to see it, as screenreader software won't mention it
  • As I stated above, consensus for notable award lists is to redlink winners as worthy of an article; I'm going through and creating stubs for them though, so it's not an issue either way
  • Removed
  • I know, but it is what it is
@Ojorojo: Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:28, 5 February 2015 (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 SchroCat 12:51, 6 February 2015 .

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Julia Roberts is one of the most successful film actresses. Known for her lead role in romantic comedies such as Pretty Woman, My Best Friend's Wedding, and Notting Hill. She is an actress who helped to break the glass ceiling in Hollywood by commanding pay cheques normally reserved for actors. Roberts also won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her role in Erin Brockovich. As usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
* Don't you think that the lead is a bit long?
  • ALT texts needed for the images.
  • "Roberts next role was opposite Richard Gere" => "Roberts' next..."
  • When you say "the following year", you do not need to mention the year she starred in: "the following year ... Mystic Pizza (1988)"
  • "The following year ... America's Sweethearts (2001)".
  • "Two years later, Roberts starred in the black comedy drama August: Osage County (2013)".
  • "Two years later, she ... The Ant Bully, and Charlotte's Web (both in 2006)".
  • (The last sentence of second para) "Her performance earned her a nomination..." => "For the film, she earned a nomination..." because "For her performance" is quite repetitive.
  • "The following year ... and the television film Baja Oklahoma (both in 1988)".
  • Is it that important to mention her cameos? Yeah I do confess that a mention of Law & Order is worth it. But, the other two? I suggest removing them. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 14:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: I think I've sorted some of the above. I've cut the lead down a bit more. It's hard as she's had such an extensive career. I've cut the cameo in Murphy Brown but the Friends one I remember had a lot of press attention so should be included. I leave the dates so that it's very clear and doesn't require the reader to go back a sentence to figure out when. Cowlibob (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You have to be consistent with the commas after "the following year". Either put in all or none.
  • "The film grossed over $463 million.." Did you mean ]?
  • "Roberts starred in the 1993 film adaptation of the John Grisham novel of the same name The Pelican Brief." => "Roberts starred in the 1993 film The Pelican Breif, an adaption of the John Girsham novel of the same name".
  • Link the novel in the sentence.
  • The sentence "reprised her role in Ocean's Eleven in its sequel Ocean's Twelve" does not look sound.
  • Link Erin Brockovich in the starting sentence of second para.
  • The two last sentences of second para can be merged.
  • In the "Notes" in the table it says "Filmed in 1986 but released in 1989". You don't need to mention the release year since it's already there in the "Year" row OR if it was a delayed film, so you can reword into "Delayed until X (year)".--FrankBoy (Buzz) 14:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Added commas to following year. Reworded Pelican Brief sentence + added link. Reworded Erin Brockovich sentence. I don't think there's need to link to US dollar as it's an American film so it's gross will naturally be of that currency. Cowlibob (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: Done. Cowlibob (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Cowlibob (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for the support. I've cut down the lead some more. Cowlibob (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Krimuk90
  • I think the length of the lead is being increased by the mention of the Golden Globe categories. So I suggest instead of expanding the category, we simply say Golden Globe Award for Best Actress (Drama) or Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress, because the first two paragraphs only deals with her film roles.
  • "Roberts appeared in the black comedy drama August: Osage County, for which was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress". "She" missing before "was nominated".
  • I find three instances of "two years later". Can we tweak the prose to reduce that?
  • " The film grossed over $463 million at the worldwide box-office, and sold the highest amount of tickets for a romantic comedy in the United States as of 2014". I think this is a bit too detailed. We can mention either the gross or the latter fact, though it's okay if you feel otherwise. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Krimuk90: Thanks for the review. I've cut some more from the lead and tweaked the prose. Cowlibob (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Krimuk90: Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments from SNUGGUMS

Here's my nitpicks.....

  • "the film sold the highest amount of tickets for a romantic comedy in the United States"..... include a figure
  • "Roberts won the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress (Musical or Comedy)"..... for Pretty Woman, I assume? Reword this to make it more explicit
  • "During the late 90s" → "During the late 1990s" per MOS:DATE
  • "She has, as of 2014, executive produced"..... something doesn't seem grammatically correct to say someone "executive produced" something

Very nice work overall. Shouldn't take long to fix up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for the review. I think I've sorted the above points. Cowlibob (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You have, I now support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Skr15081997: Good catch. Added. Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Nice work on one of Hollywood's most celebrated actresses. Just one minor thing — In the "Television" section, you don't have to wikilink the television channels everytime. Example for HBO, the wikilink at Baja Oklahoma is enough. Same goes for all channels. Just wikilink each channel once. — Ssven2 13:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ssven2: Thanks for the support! The channels are all wikilinked because the column is sortable. Cowlibob (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: Oh, I see. — Ssven2 14:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Excellent work!
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2015 (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 SchroCat 12:51, 6 February 2015 .

Nominator(s): Harrias 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This list broadly follows the format laid out in List of Cricket World Cup centuries. I have omitted a number of the statistics columns as in many of these matches full statistics were not available, so it would be make a poor comparison. As always, all thoughts welcome! Harrias 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments - Being the uncultured American I am ;), this list is mostly Greek to me. However, I'll see if I can be of any help.

  • As far as I can tell, the term "century" is neither defined nor linked to anywhere in the article.
    • Oops! Added both a link and a definition on the first usage.
  • Are "WSC Australia" and "WSC West Indies" in rows 1 and 6 meant to have "XI" at the end. If not, are they teams that were not mentioned in the lead?
    • Just an idiot mistake. Sorted.
  • In several places on the table and one place in the last paragraph of the lead, the later (larger numbered) reference comes before the one with the smallest number. I don't think there is anything wrong with this, but my personal preference is to never have this happen, since it looks a little less professional. Just my 2¢.
    • Should all be in order now.
  • Just as a note, all references appear to be proper and reliable. No dead links.

I'm really not a good judge of prose, so I'll leave that to others. This appears to be a well-composed list. Once those few points above are corrected, I'll be ready to support. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 20:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, I think I've addressed all of your points. Harrias 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Support. Now that my points have been addressed, I can't find anything wrong with this. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 00:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Overall it's a good list, but I am not sure that every reader understands what "Ref" is. I suggest to use {{Abbreviations}} to clarify it and the refs. are not in proper order. Consider using proper order, such as should be and so on.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As per above, I've fixed the ordering of the references I think, and added {{Abbr}} for clarification. Thanks! Harrias 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Support — Good one.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 08:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
;Comments from —Vensatry (ping)

A good list overall, with some minor issues.

  • I know the whole para is covered by ref #1. But for a moment looks like it's weakly sourced.
  • Do you think it would be worth adding some redundant references? I can see what you mean, but ESPNcricinfo is a pretty strong source.
  • On the other hand, WP:REPCITE supports that there isn't need to repeat citations within multiple sentences. If you don't believe the ESPNcricinfo sources sufficiently covers the facts presented in the paragraph, let me know what facts you think should be additionally cited. Harrias 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You could add a note stating that "International Cricket Conference" later came to be known as the "International Cricket Council"
  • Added.
  • Why is 'I' captialized in "International one-day matches"? BTW, were all the WSC one day tournaments called the "International Cup" or just a particular edition alone?
  • I just like capital letters! Removed. And no, they weren't, just a couple of the tournaments.
  • What makes HowSTAT! a reliable source?
  • I pondered this for a while. But it is offering pure statistics, rather than opinion, which makes its reliability slightly less important. WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I cross-referenced a number of the statistics with ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive, and they all check out, so I am happy with the fact-checking and accuracy. There could still be an argument against it, but realistically, such an argument could also be made against CricketArchive. Further, all of the information I reference to HowSTAT is for convenience: they are the only online site to have all the data collected together. ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive do have the same information, but I would need multiple references for each fact, this seemed a better way of doing it for verifiability. But this is only my opinion!
  • Although I agree that it's less questionable from a statistical perspective, I don't think it's very accurate. The chronological ordering of the centurions is improper from what I have observed. As for CricketArchive, the wiki article is poorly sourced. But then, I don't see a problem with it because many leading Indian newspapers like The Hindu and The Indian Express have used that as a reference. —Vensatry (ping) 18:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If you are referring specifically to the WSC list, there is technically no inaccuracy: if you sort by date, it does precisely that. However, within each match, it sorts by score. But I guess that isn't really the point... Harrias 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Link "CricketArchive" in refs.
  • Done.
  • A secondary sort is needed for the score column based on date.
  • I think I've sorted that.
  • Don't think 'hit' and 'struck' are encyclopaedic.

—Vensatry (ping) 13:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • No, I guess not, sorted.

Thanks for your review, I think I had got all your points! Harrias 14:59, 22 January 2015 (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 SchroCat 12:51, 6 February 2015 .

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

After successfully taking Vidya Balan's biography and awards page to featured status, I am nominating a fully-sourced and well-written listing of Vidya's film, television and music video appearances. As usual, look forward to lots of constructive comments. KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments:
  • No DAB links; no dead links
Fixed.
I'm not sure how to go about this, other than wait for a reviewer to confirm the license.
Seattle The image has now been reviewed at commons. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Slashes should be avoided in the "Role" section per MOS:SLASH
Changed.
  • References in the "Films" section should be ordered (the references in the Parineeta row, for instance, should be instead of the current construction)
Done.
  • following which she made several unsuccessful attempts at a film career. what made the attempts unsuccessful? Can you be specific?
Explained.
  • a top-grossing comedy film in what context? top-grossing worldwide, among Hindi films?
Tweaked.
  • to little success personal, financial, what context?
Tweaked to say commercial failure.
Merged.
Seattle Thank you for the comments. :) I have addressed the issues. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. Another editor has fixed this. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
FrB.TG
  • Krimuk, please reduce the number of awards mentioned in the filmography as she has won so many awards. She has won Best Actress (Filmfare) awards thrice. You could add the awards just in one line instead of mentioning them in each sentence.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 11:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important to know which films she won the Filmfare Awards for.
Indeed it is but you could add something like "she won the Filmfare Awards for Best Actress for Paa, The Dirty Picture, and Kahaani" instead of mentioning them in each sentence of the films. This is just to avoid repetition as most of the sentences start with something like "for her performance in XYZ, she won an award of ABC".--FrankBoy (Buzz) 16:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, changed. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I've split the long sentence. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments FrB.TG! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to see the featured star on the top of the list. I support for this one and thanks a ton for yours on mine.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
*Alt text needed for main image
Added.
  • reword suggestion for third sentence "However these attempts failed for a number of reasons including being replaced by other actresses."
Actually, she was replaced by other actresses in all those films, so I think this is okay.
  • Could mention the Bengali film award for her debut role and the Filmfare award for best debut for Parineeta
Added the filmfare award.
  • Hindi wikilink
Wikilinked.
  • Reword of Lage raho sentence. "The following year, she played a radio jockey opposite Sanjay Dutt in Rajkumar Hirani's Lage Raho Munnabhai, a highly successful comedy sequel."
I am trying to make the text a little less monotonous, that's why a different sentence structure. I can change it if it is too jarring of course.
  • In term of the highly successful bit, I try to avoid making such comments as success. Since you didn't specify commercial or critically, I'm going to presume both. The box office source says 120 crore but we don't know on what production/marketing budget. There is also the issue of how much an actor contributes to the success of a film. One review is not enough to support the critical acclaim.
I have added a different source for it's commercial success, which includes a "verdict" column.
I would remove the The Hindu ref for this film as it doesn't add much apart from saying she is starring in the film.
  • "Vidya starred in five films in 2007; playing a variety of roles."
Done.
  • I think criticisms about "styling" of an actress are more suitable for a celeb mag than an encyclopaedia.
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you, but her poor styling in the film almost cost Vidya her career. Even in her biography, I have given importance to the criticism.
  • three films were commercially successful - only the gross is given and not the budget so unclear if that ref supports it.
Included a source with a "verdict" column.
  • Before I do a check through the refs later, can you make sure that each ref supports the film appearance, name of role, director, year, any awards, any cameo appearances in songs (including the name of the song)
  • A comment from non-nominator. @Cowlibob: Since year, role, director etc. (present in this or any filmography) do not contain any additional analysis and can be easily verified, I don't think that a ref. has to contain each information i.e. year of release, role, direction etc. and not every ref. contains each information. A mention that the subject was involved in the film is enough, I think.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 18:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it normally is, but in this list the refs I provided do include all the information.
It's about being verifiable. Simply citing that a person starred in a film, doesn't confirm everything. Roles they played etc. should be verifiable on the article.
Well explained. Agree with you, Cow.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 13:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • For music videos her role in the video.
Vidya was unnamed in all the videos, so I didn't see the need to include a column saying "unnamed" for all of them.
They don't need names. According to the refs, she played a "Bengali bride" in Euphoria's video, "Bengali girl" in Pankaj's video, and maybe a google search could find the others.

Cowlibob (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Added.
Cowlibob Thank you for the comments! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • could mention that the music videos were directed by Pradeep Sarkar who would go on to direct her in Parineeta as it probably played a part in her getting that role.
Yup, added.
  • center the refs looks nicer.
Done.
  • Ref 6 only confirms the Parineeta win so is not needed for the Filmfare awards for Kahaani etc. I can't see the confirmation of the award for Paa but the others are present. Repeat this ref in the table next to Paa when you find it.
Added new ref.
  • Need ref for role in Guru as current on just says she appears in it.
Added new ref.
  • This ref says: her role in Salaam was "Tehzeeb Hussain" ].
Thanks for the ref. Added.
  • Sajid Khan should go to Sajid Khan (director)
Done.
  • Ishqiyya needs ref for nomination for the Filmfare Actress Award. Critics is cited.
Added new ref.
  • According to the 2nd ref for Euphoria the name of the song is "Kabhi aana tu meri gali" but if Saavn is more reliable then fair enough.
People generally tend to call it "Kabhi aana tu meri gali", but in the album cover the song is titled "Aana meri gully".

Cowlibob (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Cowlibob These have been addressed as well. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Krimuk90: What was the name of character in Parineeta? Ref 5, Ref 7 and the variety ref in the table say it's Lolita.
It's a Bengali name, though it is pronounced "Lolita", it's always written as "Lalita". The reviewers probably wrote the way it was pronounced in the film.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This one is just personal preference, usually I go for the most up to date good quality image of the person and it's now 2015 so it's strange to have a pic from 2011. Cowlibob (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not too long back, is it? Just 4 years, and she looks the same now. I personally like this picture. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the thorough review Cowlibob. Much appreciated. :) And yes, I will be taking her to FT next. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Ooh wow! In fact I was gonna suggest you the same, Krimuk! Anyway all the best for your filmography and featured topic :) --FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Prashant. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:48, 31 January 2015 (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 SchroCat 12:51, 6 February 2015 .

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC), Hwy43 (talk)

We are endeavouring to bring the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status and eventually topic. We are close. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. We have also taken suggestions from the previous nominations into account.

This nomination was attempted before but opposed due to low interest and having only 8 municipalities. Yukon has, however, only 8 municipalities. There was a brief discussion with featured list delegates here that encouraged us to try again. Any and all input appreciated to help us get to featured topic! Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nergaal: the navbox Template:Subdivisions of Yukon has been added to the article, within which the parent article, List of communities in Yukon, is linked. Hwy43 (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
PS: I wanted to give you some tips how to make List of communities in Yukon a FL instead, but I am sure that you would rather try to prove me wrong than give the communities list some TLC. Nergaal (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It has nothing to do with you, but your request is both impossible and does not make sense. First, it was determined through discussion that it was not a fork, please see here. If you want to debate that please take it up at WikiProject Canadian communities. Second, I have had a discussion with the mods regarding the number of entries and received their encouragement to nominate again (please see above). Third, we are on a quest to make a featured list of all municipalities in Canada by province and territory, we are almost done, and your request goes against the scope of {{Canada topic|List of municipalities in}}. Also, please read previous nomination for details, but I will summarize the problem with your suggestion here:
    • There is no definition for what makes a community, whereas municipalities are official incorporated settlements of which there are exactly 8. What you propose is to add First Nation Reserves, bed and breakfasts, ghost towns, and mining camps among others. How do you decide what to include and what not to include? This must be answered for your suggestion to be taken seriously. If you do find a non-arbitrary list from which to draw upon, keep in mind there are no reliable statistics for those that are not municipalities. So the list you propose would have Whitehorse with 23,276 people and 416.54 square km and a bed and breakfast (Silver City) which has a single building of unknown population or area, that if it closed tomorrow would have to be removed from the list. This does not make any sense. You are arguing against a defined criteria, with an ill-defined criteria. Thanks for your efforts anyway. Mattximus (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I have been paying a close look at wp:FT for very many years, and I've seen many topics. Having a "Municipalities of Canada" topic where one article is piped to a wider article such as communities instead of municipalities is 100% fine. At wp:FTC you will not have problems because of this issue. Secondly, a communities FL would include the municipalities list as is now AND as much of the other communities that have an actual reference for. There hare plenty of FLs that are technically never 100% complete, but do have a sensible level of completeness. For whatever is beyond the scope of municipalities, there does NOT need to be a similar level of detail. For example:
unincorporated and First Nations: Name, Status, Population, location coordinates
ghost towns and abandoned communities: location coordinates and year of abandonment would suffice. Further information would be nice but not actually required.
Other and Small Yukon places: have a sentence for each with a citation. If exact location is not available, a name and a reference will suffice IMO.

Nergaal (talk)

Thanks for your reply. If we were to go your direction we would still need some kind of source that tells us what makes a community. Above you suggest four types: municipalities, first nation reserves, ghost/abandoned communities, and unincorporated places. What else? It's like you are making a list of cars, and you suggest throw in a few trucks, and a few airplanes. However, given you are passionate about this, can you province some kind of reference that provides a exact scope for your suggestion? I can then try to dig around, otherwise it's just arbitrary and random.
On a side note, it just seems odd that you are happy to trade in a 100% complete list referenced list, for one with a scope that is impossible to complete and challenging to cite (how do we know we found all unincorporated places? Does that bed and breakfast count)? I am interested in providing a high quality list of municipalities in Canada, and am not interested in researching ghost towns or bed and breakfasts as I see them as very different things. It's hard for me to understand why you insist on combining such very different things into one list. The length as is has been determined by two admins to be acceptable. Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: thank you for your support! Hwy43 (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Support. I supported the previous nomination and I see no reason to change my mind. Just one niggle.

  • "Yukon's eight municipalities cover only 0.2% of the territory's land mass but is home to 80.2% of its population.". Shouldn't this be "are home" to agree in number with municipalities? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Good catch! Thanks for your continued support! Mattximus (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: likewise, thank you for your continued support! Hwy43 (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Support - I supported the nomination for the Nunavut list, and this one... is basically identical. I'm convinced by the arguements that a municipality list is a distinct thing separate from the amorphous "community" list, and that even with only 8 towns/cities this list should stay separate. One tiny point- should the canada template at the bottom (of this and the other similar lists) not be "Canada topic|Lists of municipalities in", since that's where the article is? (if you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology FLC up above). --PresN 00:05, 6 February 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 23:15, 3 February 2015 .

Nominator(s): FrankBoy (Buzz) 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Here it is, a filmography about an Indian actress, Preity Zinta. With unusual roles in several blockbuster hits, Zinta has proved herself one of the finest actresses, but sadly she is not seen these days in the male-dominated industry (Bollywood). The filmography is well sourced and researched. All types of helpful comments are welcomed.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from AB01 11:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
*The picture would look better bigger. "upright=1" should be good
  • "She followed this with a role of a teenage" --> Should be "with the role"
  • CBI officer should be linked to Central Bureau of Investigation
  • Instead of "Kundan Shah-directed drama Kya Kehna", how about replace "drama" with "sleeper hit"? I think it's notable that it went on to do so well despite a poor opening. You can use ref #4 for this.
  • I don't know if Koimoi is reliable.
  • Hooker is informal. Try prostitute
  • "Dil Chahta Hai is cited in the media as a defining"
  • For better flow, I would reword to "featured in the National Award-winning dramedy Dil Chahta Hai, which has been cited in the media as a defining film..." and then talk about Chori Chori.
  • "and the 2006 ensemble drama Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna—top-grossing productions outside India" --> how about "...Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, both of which performed phenomenally well outside India"
  • "unhappy wife" --> what about "unhappily married career woman"?
  • "She founded her production house PZNZ Media in the same year, under which she produced and starred in the..."
  • ref #2 and #32 are the same
  • Instead of ref #33, use ref #26 (more reliable)
  • I've never seen youtube movies as a source in FLs b4. You could use this source instead of refs #34 and #35. I've seen Amazon also being used on FLs, so this and this would be ok too. I'd recommend using all 3 sources
  • Idk if ref #59 is usable. Try this source
Ok, fair enough. One more comment: I just checked other FL's...you need to have an inline citation in the lead when you say she won the Filmfare for Best Debut/Actress. Use ref #28 for both AB01 11:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, AB01.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 11:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I think it looks good now! Support AB01 11:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Krimuk90
  • "National Award-winning dramedy Dil Chahta Hai". "National Award winning" is WP:UNDUE
  • "The film is believed to be the most expensive Bollywood film of its time". "Believed to be" is not encyclopedic. It either is one of the most expensive films or not. I would suggest saying "it was the most expensive Bollywood film to that point".
  • Instead of saying she achieved "commercial" success, just say she achieved success.
  • "performed phenomenally well outside India". Phenomenally is undue again. Just performed well should suffice.
  • I get a little offended by a phrase like "working woman". No one says "he played a working man" in a film. Please mention her profession.
  • Bhaiyaji Superhit did not release in 2014. Since the status of it is unknown, say TBA in the year column.
  • In her television appearance, the channel in which the show originally aired is enough. So for "Up Close & Personal with PZ" just mention UTV Stars. Also, having a "role" column in this section will be good. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Support: Good job! I have made some additional copy-edits for a better flow, but this is a job very well done.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to do a ref check tomorrow. Standard rules, ensure that the refs support the table: appearance in film, awards, role, director etc. Also check the lead for the same. Critical acclaim should be supported by refs which offer a summary of critics views on a film not just one or two as that could be a POV issue.

Cowlibob (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead refs

  • Ref 1 doesn't confirm that Dil Se was her debut film. Also doesn't support the "romantic interest bit" (I would probably remove this being conscious of gender bias, we would never put in an article on a male actor he only played a romantic interest for the actress.)
  • Added a ref. and reworded the latter.
  • I would probably separate out the roles ref into different refs as the info is found in different parts of the gallery.
  • That sounds good but this one is not in bad shape either and several filmographies use the same format.
  • Refs don't support the critical acclaim for Kya Kehna, maybe you could reword this to say her performance got her first nomination at Filmfare (with ref of course)
  • I have removed the sentence and I do not think I should add about her nomination as we do not talk about nominations in this page, only awards.
  • Not sure I'd use the term "financially successful" especially as the box office india source says Har Dil only did average business.
  • Done.
  • We can do better than ref 10 for DCH being a defining film.
  • Done.
  • Odd phrasing "achieved success"
  • Reworded.
  • I don't think I'd mention that Lakshya received positive reviews but was a poor performer at box office (seems more like something for the film article).
  • Reworded. A reliable source added which supports the claim.
  • Daily Mail is not a RS.
  • Daily Mail is one of the biggest-selling daily newspaper of UK. Per this source.
Selling a lot does not equal reliability. The Daily Mail has a reputation of poor journalistic practices. It's in fact used as an example of a mainstream media source which is unreliable. ] Cowlibob (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I have removed that source and it anyway makes no difference as the sentence is already verified by RS.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 19:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Television section looks good.

Cowlibob (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Table check

  • Ref 31 only supports name as "Preity" not "Preeti Singh"
  • Since no ref. cites the full name of her role in the film, I have edited her role as "Preity".
  • AGF on 32 supporting her role and her starring in the Telugu films. Shouldn't really use Amazon as a ref. as it's last resort if nothing else is available.
  • Removed.
  • Ref 36 doesn't support name of role or that it was a guest appearance.
  • Replaced.
  • Ref 37 doesn't support full name but this book one does: ]
  • Thanks for the source.
  • Ref 13 doesn't support "Sonia Kapoor" just the Sonia bit, and also doesn't support that Honey Irani directed it.
  • Added.
  • Ref 51 doesn't support full name of "Romila Dutta"
  • Replaced.
  • Ref 53 doesn't support full name of "Zaara Haayat Khan"
  • Replaced.
  • Ref 60 doesn't support full name of "Rhea Saran"
  • Replaced.
  • Ref 62 doesn't support full name of "Piya Goyal"
  • Replaced.
  • Ref 63 doesn't support name of "Alvira Khan"
  • Replaced.
  • Ref 71 doesn't support name of character
  • Replaced.
  • Need better source for Har Pal being delayed. If someone looked at just the BH source they'd assume it released in 2010.

Cowlibob (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Two minor things.

  • You could mention that she played the villain in Armaan as she very rarely does those roles.
  • I've added updated source for Har Pal. According to it, the project has been shelved with no plans for release so unsure if we keep it in her filmography.
  • @Cowlibob: Thank you for thorough review. I have added the villain part and you are right actually I wanted to remove it too, but it had to be complete. Since you've suggested, I have removed the film from the table. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 12:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Cowlibob (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @FrB.TG: Finally, this is just personal preference but I think this list would look better with a picture of her smiling which she is famous for. Options: ], and ], and any others you could find.
  • Thank you :) You are right. She is really famous for her dimples in fact she is sometimes referred as "dimple queen". Today is her birthday and I have added the dimpled picture. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 15:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Good job! Cowlibob (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Skr15081997
  • Done.
  • Acessdates are not needed in book citations, also it would be good if locations are added to them.
  • Removed; the locations are not written anywhere and that they are unknown.
  • Linked.
  • It would be better if the Koimoi source is replaced.
  • I think that Koimoi source is reliable, but I have removed that anyway and I have not replaced that as the source did not support anything and the BO India source is enough.

--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments :) --FrankBoy (Buzz) 18:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The order should be by release date. I guess you could use this source for filming confirmation as of 2014. ]. Or maybe these two: ], ]. Cowlibob (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cowlibob! I have updated the ref. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 15:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Support — Good job on the list. Looks nice! — Ssven2 15:20, 3 February 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 23:15, 3 February 2015 .

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1995 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. I have a little more time on my hands to work on this. Birdienest81 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support This looks good. The only thing I found was that in the ratings and reception section it says "6% decrease" in viewing figures when it's actually 7% increase from the previous year if I did my maths correctly. That's easy to fix though. Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed: Changed figure. Oh, and I will look over your nomination, but it most likely a support as well. Thank you.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Resolved comments from FrankBoy (Buzz) 22:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments
  • "commonly referred as Oscars". It should be "the Oscars".
  • "in 23 categories honoring films released in 1994." Same as above, add "the" before "films".
  • "Forrest Gump won six awards including..." Add a comma (,) after "awards".
  • "XXX (category) winner became first, second or whatever" is repetitive.
  • Since it is not a fashion article, avoid talking about subjects' clothes, look etc in ALT. Per WP:ALT#Importance of context.
  • It should be "the" Oscars everywhere.
  • It looks like that the ref. is supporting "indicated with a double dagger" as well. "Winners are listed first and indicated with a double dagger (‡)." → "Winners are listed first and indicated with a double dagger (‡)."

--FrankBoy (Buzz) 16:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed: I have fixed everything above except the XXX winner. I'm not very sure how to fix that since taking those words would diminish the significance of each fact.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Support — FrankBoy (Buzz) 22:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Sorry for the delay!

  • The intro is too much on the "light" side. It doesn't even mention Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption. Even the text below don't mention these two cult classics. No critics were surprised that they did not win anything? Nergaal (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pulp Fiction won Best Original Screenplay as indicated in the table. This list primarily focuses on the winners/nominees and the production of how the ceremony. I understand that many critics were upset that Pulp Fiction or The Shawshank Redemption were not named Best Picture, but for the sake for neutrality purposes and avoiding accusations of bias, we agreed to stick to what has actually won. We've had issues about who was snub in several instances, but there have been many opinions as to what has been snubbed or not. We decided to stick to what actually has happened. The only opinions mentioned are the critical reviews of the telecast since it pertains to the ceremony.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I get your point. You are saying that what has happened is "many critics were upset" but that is not covered in the article. Nergaal (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In Oscar ceremony articles, we won't give attention to what was snubbed for the reason of objectivity. It's kinda like when people thought Fruitvale Station got snubbed for the 86th Oscars. Even though there were critics who thought it was snubbed, reviewers for WP:FLC deemed it too subjective.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The list is about the ceremony. If a film is perceived to be "snubbed" (which occurs every year by the way), that can be expressed in the articles devoted to the films themselves. By mentioning the winners/nominees, we are just reporting what happened, not picking a side. Cowlibob (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑