Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2015
Contents
- 1 Meryl Streep on screen and stage
- 2 Cricket Writers' Club Young Cricketer of the Year
- 3 List of awards and nominations received by Jorge Drexler
- 4 James Franco filmography
- 5 List of unusual dismissals in international cricket
- 6 List of songs recorded by Ricky Martin
- 7 List of accolades received by Haider (film)
- 8 Amy Adams filmography
- 9 PCA Player of the Year
- 10 Academy Award for Best Actress
- 11 Gene Roddenberry filmography
- 12 List of awards and nominations received by Lorde
- 13 Gerard Butler filmography
- 14 List of Sesame Street Muppets
- 15 List of accolades received by Queen (film)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:10, 31 May 2015 [1].
- Nominator(s): Krimuk90 (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk)
Meryl Streep needs no introduction, so I won't be giving one. :) This is a listing of all her notable stage and screen appearances, and is my first work beyond Indian films. Dr. Blofeld and I look forward to constructive criticism. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments Enjoyable read. These are my edits; please revert if you don't agree with them.
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Two final points: "Ethel Rosenberg" could be wikilinked, and "The Woman" needs to sort under W rather than T. Otherwise, great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Both done. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Pretty nice work: Doctor and Krimuk. I think that centering the references in the table make them look better. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 13:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Excellent work and very informative list.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, FrankBoy and Birdienest. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Skr15081997
- Alan J. Pakula should be sorted under P.
- Also the refs could be centred.
- For book sources, maintain consistency in dates. Some only have a year. Also they should be listed in alphabetical order of the author's last name.
--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Skr15081997 Done. The full date is provided for the book sources, where available. If not, only the year is mentioned. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My comments have been resolved. Excellent list and the images are like gems to it. Deserves to be FL.--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Skr. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:10, 31 May 2015 [2].
- Nominator(s): Harrias talk 12:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is modelled from PCA Player of the Year, which looks like it will be an FL soon. The most noticeable difference is that this list includes international appearances of the award winners in the list. This is a statistic often mentioned alongside this prize, and reflects amongst others, the presentation given in Wisden, so I think the inclusion of the appearances is justified, though it does mean I will have to put more work in to keep the list up to date! As I mentioned, I have an FLC open at the moment, but it has received significant support and has no outstanding concerns. As always, all critique will be welcomed. Harrias talk 12:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
@Seattle: Thanks for your comments. Some stupid misses from me, and some interesting MOS points that I'd seen alluded to without ever finding the actual guideline, thanks! Harrias talk 10:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comments from ChrisTheDude
- In the key, to the left of the yellow box, I can see some small text that says "see tfm" - is that meant to be there?
- It's because the template is nominated for a merge at the moment. Don't think there is anything I can do about it until that's done, one way or the other. Harrias talk 16:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The rows for current players look a little odd with all the cells yellow except for the player's name. I realise this is something to do with row scopes, but is it possible to use the colour in any other way, such that we don't wind up with one odd non-coloured cell on an otherwise all coloured row? Just a thought
- @ChrisTheDude: Based on Seattle's note above as well, I've tweaked this, how do you find it now? Harrias talk 09:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In the key, to the left of the yellow box, I can see some small text that says "see tfm" - is that meant to be there?
- Other than that it all looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Miyagawa
- Before I give the full run-down, what is the bracketed information in the international appearances columns (this is just my lack of cricket knowledge I'm afraid)? I ask, because right now the sorting on those columns are making anything with a bracket sort lower than those without - so for instance when sorting by Tests, Ian Bell is above Geoff Boycott. Depending on what those brackets signify, this may need need to have some sort templates inserted to make it appear the other way around. Miyagawa (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird, for me the sort gives no preference to either, so whichever was listed first before is listed first after. To be honest, it makes little difference; as noted in the key, that denotes the number of times the player captained England - so the 4 times Boycott did so is contained within his 108 appearances. So they both made 108 appearances, with neither necessarily deserving to be forced to sort higher in my opinion. Harrias talk 18:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. Just from personal preference I would sort them so that where there are equal numbers, the bracketed ones appear higher. There should only be a couple of instances of that (easiest way to do it is to use the sort template have add a .1 to the ones with brackets so that they get sorted as 141.1 instead of 141, for example). Otherwise it just looks odd from a presentation standpoint. Miyagawa (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Miyagawa: How's that? Harrias talk 10:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's better. The only other comment I would have leads out of this - it might be a good idea to explain what the brackets are in the key. Miyagawa (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Miyagawa: The key already states Number in parentheses indicates number of international appearances as captain. Harrias talk 13:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, missed that! In that case, I Support promotion. Miyagawa (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Miyagawa: The key already states Number in parentheses indicates number of international appearances as captain. Harrias talk 13:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's better. The only other comment I would have leads out of this - it might be a good idea to explain what the brackets are in the key. Miyagawa (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Miyagawa: How's that? Harrias talk 10:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. Just from personal preference I would sort them so that where there are equal numbers, the bracketed ones appear higher. There should only be a couple of instances of that (easiest way to do it is to use the sort template have add a .1 to the ones with brackets so that they get sorted as 141.1 instead of 141, for example). Otherwise it just looks odd from a presentation standpoint. Miyagawa (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird, for me the sort gives no preference to either, so whichever was listed first before is listed first after. To be honest, it makes little difference; as noted in the key, that denotes the number of times the player captained England - so the 4 times Boycott did so is contained within his 108 appearances. So they both made 108 appearances, with neither necessarily deserving to be forced to sort higher in my opinion. Harrias talk 18:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) |
|---|
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
—Vensatry (ping) 08:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Looks good to me —Vensatry (ping) 07:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Otherwise good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support high quality list, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks good to me now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 13:50, 20 May 2015 [3].
- Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it was modeled after several "award and nominations" lists. The subject is Jorge Drexler, an Uruguayan singer-songwriter, who received the Academy Award among other accolades. I will be watching your comments closely. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my addressed comments on the talk page. Erick (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment I think you should remove indiscriminate award (e.g. Shock Awards). Well-sourced list nonetheless. HĐ (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What if I create the article for the Shock Awards?.Javier Espinoza (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the point of removing the Shock Awards to begin with when the purpose of the list is list every award and nomination the artist received. Erick (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from Littlecarmen
That's it for now. Littlecarmen (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Really good work! I also nominated a list recently. It would be great if you could take a look at it and leave some comments here :) Littlecarmen (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Great Job! — DivaKnockouts 23:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nicely done, can't find anything to pick at. Best, jona(talk) 13:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now- is an Uruguayan singer-songwriter who has received awards and nominations for his contributions to the music industry. - First, it's "a Uruguayan" (it's pronounced with a hard U, according to the Uruguay article). Second, who is he, exactly? You say "his contributions" but don't actually say what they are in the opening sentence.
- I expanded the lead to include, please let me know if that is enough. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you don't mention what they are in the opening sentence. It works a bit better now that you include the first album, however.
- I expanded the lead to include, please let me know if that is enough. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He received the first Academy Award awarded to Uruguay for the song "Al Otro Lado del Río", written for the film The Motorcycle Diaries (2005). The track earned the Academy Award for Best Original Song, and received Latin Grammy and World Soundtrack Awards nominations. - I suspect that this could be rewritten to avoid repeating "Academy Award", and to combine the two sentences.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- for the latter album, he won the award for Best Singer-Songwriter Album at the Latin Grammy Awards - when? To do this, I'd include the release years of the four albums mentioned in parentheses.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The song "Universos Paralelos", performed with Chilean performer Ana Tijoux, earned the singer a second Latin Grammy for Record of the Year. - Again, unclear when this was — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good now. Striking my oppose. I'll promote within a week, if nobody else has done so by then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:05, 17 May 2015 [4].
- Nominator(s): FrankBoy CHITCHAT 18:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL standards. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 18:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment Titles in the tables need to be sorted like you've sorted The Company so that the "the" is ignored and the sort only takes into account the word after. Roles need to be sorted by the character's last name. Dates on refs also need to be month/day/year as he's American so check all are like that. Cowlibob (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions. @Cowlibob: Done.
I'll get to them ASAP.-- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Great list! Simon (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
|
|---|
|
- Support looks good now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Excellent list.
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 06:31, 13 May 2015 [7].
- Nominator(s): —Vensatry (ping) 13:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite an interesting list, IMO. Look forward to your comments and suggestions —Vensatry (ping) 13:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Harrias |
|---|
;Comments from Harrias talk
|
| In which we decided this isn't a 3b violation |
|---|
* I quite like this list, but I'm concerned that it might be a 3b violation, duplicating the lists already present at Obstructing the field and Handled the ball, and information from Retired out. Harrias talk 13:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Supportnice work. Harrias talk 07:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]- I have struck my support (hopefully temporarily) due to the issue raised by the IP editor below. I can't see any justification not to include unusual dismissals in women's international cricket in this list. Harrias talk 17:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why isn't there a column for actual reason of dismissal. Nergaal (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your point here. You want me to have a "Key" for the items listed in the table? —Vensatry (ping) 11:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, it is covered in the mode column. Nergaal (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead counts hit wicket among the "much rarer" dismissals, but it isn't considered "unusual", and the bowler does get credit. It's also much more common than the unusual dismissals. —Raven42 (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "These are regarded as "unusual" ways of dismissals in cricket" - by whom? Is there a reliable source that says that these methods of dismissal are widely considered/referred to as "unusual"?
- "the bowler is denied of any credit" - should just be "denied any credit"
- Second sentence of second paragraph doesn't start with a capital letter
- "six different players were dismissed for "handled the ball"" => "six different players were dismissed for handling the ball"
- "the most common way of an "unusual" dismissal" => "the most common form of "unusual" dismissal"
- "the first player to be dismissed in both the ways" - "the first player to be dismissed in both ways"
- "In international women's cricket, the only instance of a usual dismissal" - should say unusual
- Also, as mentioned above, the lead indicates that there are five "unusual" forms of dismissal, but hit wicket is not included in the list. Either players who were out hit wicket should be included, or else it shouldn't be considered an "unusual" form of dismissal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Raven42: @ChrisTheDude: Good catch! I do agree that hit wicket is a rare dismissal, but unlike others here the bowler is credited with a wicket. I think this fairly distinguishes it from other "unusual modes". Also, their frequency is quite high when compared to other "unusual forms". There have been 154 and 62 occasions in Test and ODIs respectively. —Vensatry (ping) 11:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the issue is that the lead explicitly states that there are five "unusual" dismissals but then only four are used in the article. The lead needs a statement as to why only four of the five are used (and to be honest I think it would need to be something more concrete than just "hit wicket hasn't been included because there have been a lot of them". Does that make sense........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed hit wicket from the lead. According to Wisden Dictionary of Cricket and The Extraordinary Book of SA Cricket, hit wicket is not counted among the unusual dismissals. —Vensatry (ping) 10:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I remove retired out from the list? —Vensatry (ping) 10:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Raven42: @ChrisTheDude: Good catch! I do agree that hit wicket is a rare dismissal, but unlike others here the bowler is credited with a wicket. I think this fairly distinguishes it from other "unusual modes". Also, their frequency is quite high when compared to other "unusual forms". There have been 154 and 62 occasions in Test and ODIs respectively. —Vensatry (ping) 11:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias, ChrisTheDude, and Raven42: Any update yet? —Vensatry (ping) 13:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks OK to me now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Editor removed all references to women's international cricket from an article supposedly about "international cricket", obviously has problems. THis is why women are driven away from Wikipedia, don't marginalise women's sport. 58.7.156.156 (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I very well know that women play cricket at all levels – Tests, ODIs and T20Is. Technically speaking, I see a point to include women's cricket stats, after all this list talks about international cricket. But please tell me do we include women's cricket in all articles/lists associated with international cricket. For instance, why is Tendulkar regarded as the first player on the planet to score an ODI double-century when Belinda Clark did that many years ago. Also why is Sri Lanka credited with scoring the highest team total (443) in ODIs when the New Zealand women's cricket team made 455 way back in 1997? If your answer is good enough to convince me, I'll more than happy to include women's cricket stats here. Above all, you should stop campaigning against me. —Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think in many cases there is sufficient information on women's cricket that we can have separate articles. However, in this case, with just one unusual dismissal in women's international cricket, it does not warrant its own article, and therefore should be included in this one. Harrias talk 07:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Harrias. There's no need for us to have two separate lists for unusual dismissals since there is only 1 record from women's international cricket. Also, the fact that other articles and lists don't include women's cricket isn't a convincing reason. If the scope given by the title and lead of the article don't exclude women's cricket, there's no reason it should be excluded. If that means that other articles need to be fixed (either by clarifying scope or adding women's cricket), then so be it. Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Added —Vensatry (ping) 11:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kaldari and Harrias: Any update yet? —Vensatry (ping) 07:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Your new edits look good to me. I can't find any other issues with the list. Kaldari (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kaldari and Harrias: Any update yet? —Vensatry (ping) 07:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Added —Vensatry (ping) 11:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Harrias. There's no need for us to have two separate lists for unusual dismissals since there is only 1 record from women's international cricket. Also, the fact that other articles and lists don't include women's cricket isn't a convincing reason. If the scope given by the title and lead of the article don't exclude women's cricket, there's no reason it should be excluded. If that means that other articles need to be fixed (either by clarifying scope or adding women's cricket), then so be it. Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think in many cases there is sufficient information on women's cricket that we can have separate articles. However, in this case, with just one unusual dismissal in women's international cricket, it does not warrant its own article, and therefore should be included in this one. Harrias talk 07:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I very well know that women play cricket at all levels – Tests, ODIs and T20Is. Technically speaking, I see a point to include women's cricket stats, after all this list talks about international cricket. But please tell me do we include women's cricket in all articles/lists associated with international cricket. For instance, why is Tendulkar regarded as the first player on the planet to score an ODI double-century when Belinda Clark did that many years ago. Also why is Sri Lanka credited with scoring the highest team total (443) in ODIs when the New Zealand women's cricket team made 455 way back in 1997? If your answer is good enough to convince me, I'll more than happy to include women's cricket stats here. Above all, you should stop campaigning against me. —Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Just a heads up that this is currently an orphaned article/list. --Lightlowemon (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The kid has now been adopted by four of its relatives. —Vensatry (ping) 12:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport - Looks pretty good to me, although it should probably be consistent about whether the refs are in a separate column or not. Kaldari (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]- @Kaldari: Done —Vensatry (ping) 18:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Harrias, is the current version of the list acceptable to you? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, yup, looks good to me now. Harrias talk 06:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 01:18, 13 May 2015 [13].
- Nominator(s): — Tom(T2ME) 13:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I worked on it for five months and I really think that it satisfies the featured list criteria. The lead is long, however, here unlike on other lists on Wikipedia that I saw so far we have an artist with a career of 30 years and 150+ recorded songs. I tried to summarize his songs in five paragraphs. The table is well organized with every song marked in color to represent in what language it was recorded. Although I didn't agree (and I still don't), I opened the artists just to have the bronze star because I think this man deserves it. — Tom(T2ME) 13:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Lady Lotus
edit- This sentence "After five years part of the band, he left it in 1989; shortly afterwards, he started persuading solo career" - it just reads funny to me. Shouldn't it be "After being with the band for five years, he left it in 1989; shortly there afterwards, he started pursuing a solo career" or something along those lines?
- I'm not loving the photo of Daddy Yankee, only because all the other pictures are clear and have a good resolution and show the artists face well and then his looks out of place and looks blurry and has a small resolution.
That's all I could find that I'd change, I support past that :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow thank you Lady Lotus. I copy-edited the sentence per your suggestion and replaced the Yankee picture with the only other one of his available on Wikipedia. I hope it's better. Cheers! — Tom(T2ME) 13:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better! Good job :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding accessibility, just using colours to delineate between language versions contravenes ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that contravene accessibility please tell me? It only helps the list to be honest, especially when we have an artist that records in various languages and not only in English or Spanish or etc. Plus, the colors are nice and not like ones which are used to indicate that the song was a single release, as in this case. — Tom(T2ME) 12:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at WP:COLOR. The list you linked gets it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That list is certainly not right. But okay, clearly I have to make a consensus per this rule. What do you suggest? How should I distinguish the language of the songs? Symbols maybe? — Tom(T2ME) 12:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The list you linked certainly gets ACCESS right. That's the point I'm making. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- o.O Nevermind with that list. What do you want me to do with my list? Lorde sings only in English, Martin sings in 4 languages, I certainly want to stress that in the table, what is the point you're making, you sound vague... — Tom(T2ME) 12:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to familiarise yourself with WP:COLOR. It's really straightforward, the Lorde list is done correctly, using colour and another method of denoting (e.g. symbols), per COLOR. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- o.O Nevermind with that list. What do you want me to do with my list? Lorde sings only in English, Martin sings in 4 languages, I certainly want to stress that in the table, what is the point you're making, you sound vague... — Tom(T2ME) 12:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The list you linked certainly gets ACCESS right. That's the point I'm making. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That list is certainly not right. But okay, clearly I have to make a consensus per this rule. What do you suggest? How should I distinguish the language of the songs? Symbols maybe? — Tom(T2ME) 12:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at WP:COLOR. The list you linked gets it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from User:Calvin999 |
|---|
Resolved comments by Aaron
Comments from Aaron
|
Support — Calvin999 09:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Erick
edit- I really do not like the usage of arrows for the Spanish or Portuguese-language records. How about an asterisk (*) for the Spanish recordings and maybe this (^) for the Portuguese recordings? Erick (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- About the below link, the full name of the composer is Julio Reyes Copello. Fix this, and I'll give you my support. Erick (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment
Caption for the Christina Aguilera image reads: "... was remixed with an additional vocals from Christina Aguilera." HĐ (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Magiciandude, HĐ; Erick I replaced the {{up-arrow}} with an {{asterisk}} and the {{down-arrow}} with a {{section-sign}}, I hope it's better now. HD, I c/e the caption. Thanks for the input! — Tom(T2ME) 09:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now. This list looks awesome! HĐ (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco
editOppose for now.The lead is much, much, much too long. Martin has had a very lengthy career, which makes writing a short introduction a challenge, but we have to try and be more succinct. Right now this list has 5480 characters of prose in the lead, which is 2500 characters more than any of our current FLs for songs recorded. Here's a hint: we don't need to name all of his albums in the lead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Crisco 1492 -Sighs- I knew someone would come with this request, even though he has a career of thirty long years. Okay, so I trimmed the lead down and I don't know how much characters it has now, but I hope is better. — Tom(T2ME) 07:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the difficulty... Chrisye had a career of forty years, and 200 songs in his list (21 albums).... I'll give this a copyedit, see if I can trim some more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, a couple suggestions: rather than increase verbiage by saying Xth studio album or Yth English album, I'd rework it so that it flows well without including the order of the albums. See if you can't highlight trends, rather than individual songs. "La Vida Loca" obviously has to be mentioned individually (and I'm sure there are a couple which are inseparable from his oeuvre), but I get the impression that there are several trends (in genre or language) that you could mention in lieu of naming individual songs or giving a detailed chronological retelling of his career; the latter thing is handled better in the article on the artist. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Crisco 1492 With all due respect about mentioning the order of the albums, his discography is complex and can make people easily confuse with it. He transitioned with albums from different languages and I think that should be stressed. Tbh, if we talk about WW trends, apart of "Livin' la Vida Loca", Ricky Martin (1999), "She Bangs" and Sound Loaded I can't find anything other to stress, that's the reason that third paragraph is the biggest. And at the end of the day it's not same as you would write in the biography, here I mention the songs which were part of the release and who wrote them. In a biography, u would usually also add the commercial and critical performance, awards and impact so it makes it kinda different. Also I don't see the lead being any different from other list of songs by artist X/Y/Z. — Tom(T2ME) 08:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's not the same as writing a biography; hence why I said "a detailed chronological retelling of his career ... is handled better in the article on the artist." The problem is that this list's lead is still a thousand characters longer than anything else previously promoted, and without an MOS that actually talks about lead length for lists (WP:LEADLENGTH is only for standard articles), that's all we have to refer to. Several of the songs articles are for singers with one, two, or three albums; someone with Martin's lengthy career needs a different approach. If you insist on using this approach, it's feasible that you can knock it back another 400 or 500 characters. Just removing the songs which don't have articles will save another 200, and less name-dropping of languages (not saying you shouldn't state the languages at all, but ten mentions of "Spanish" and six of English" is a bit much) will save more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Crisco 1492 With all due respect about mentioning the order of the albums, his discography is complex and can make people easily confuse with it. He transitioned with albums from different languages and I think that should be stressed. Tbh, if we talk about WW trends, apart of "Livin' la Vida Loca", Ricky Martin (1999), "She Bangs" and Sound Loaded I can't find anything other to stress, that's the reason that third paragraph is the biggest. And at the end of the day it's not same as you would write in the biography, here I mention the songs which were part of the release and who wrote them. In a biography, u would usually also add the commercial and critical performance, awards and impact so it makes it kinda different. Also I don't see the lead being any different from other list of songs by artist X/Y/Z. — Tom(T2ME) 08:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've disambiguated Julio Reyes to Julio Reyes (singer); Julio Reyes leads to an article on a baseball player. You may want to check other links to see if there are any further such issues — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the disambiguation. I cut the language word and I don't know what more should I cut. How many characters are there so far? — Tom(T2ME) 17:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stricken my oppose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 06:32, 11 May 2015 [14].
- Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2014 Indian crime-drama film Haider, starring Shahid Kapoor and Tabu. My other open FLC has no outstanding concerns. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ssven2
edit- "Bhardwaj and Basharat Peer wrote the film" — maybe "Bhardwaj co-wrote the film with Basharat Peer". By the way, did they write the film's script or dialogues or both? if any of them, please mention it in the sentence.
- Tweaked.
- "Haider won a leading five awards" — "Haider won five awards" should suffice.
- I think it's important to know that it won the most awards at the ceremony, hence the "leading".
@Krimuk90: That's all from me. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comments Ssven. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Thank you for addressing them. The list looks great. Keep up the good work! — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Doctor. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job. But, was it necessary to use "was" at "Haider was released on 2 October 2014, and grossed....."? Please do clarify. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. :) It's perfectly fine to say "was released", yes, because we are talking about it in the past tense. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Excellent list once again.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great list. --Carioca (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 06:32, 11 May 2015 [15].
- Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amy Adams is an actress known for films as Junebug (2005), Enchanted (2007), Doubt (2008), The Master (2012), American Hustle (2013), and Big Eyes (2014). She has been nominated five times for an Academy Award and received two Golden Globes. As always I look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
* "However, the film did not provide the breakthrough for her career as Spielberg had hoped." — Did Spielberg really hope this would be her breakthrough? Do you have a source for this information?
|
Support – Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Lady Lotus
editI just was looking at this list, not realizing it was a FLC and wondered why it wasn't an FL already. I would however take out the "Network" column in the telvision section, I don't find it necessary and it's not uniform with the film table as it doesn't have the production company or anything. Past that, I support. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lady Lotus: Done. Thanks for the review. Cowlibob (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I think the notes column should briefly mention the notable awards/noms for the roles. Nergaal (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nergaal: The consensus at WikiProject film is to not include awards in the tables for filmographies if there is a separate article devoted to awards which Amy Adams has but I've mentioned the key ones in the lead anyway like Oscar/ Golden Globes. Cowlibob (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
|
|---|
|
Another great filmography list from Cowlibob! My only nitpicks are these:
Otherwise, good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, now meets FL criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Good list
- Support. It is well-sourced and meets FL criteria. --Carioca (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I love her and her work. Initially, I had planned to take her filmography to FL, but @Cowlibob: already started writing. Anyway, this list has my Support. Great job Cowlibob. By the way, she is also known for The Fighter. No?—Prashant 14:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:07, 5 May 2015 [16].
- Nominator(s): Harrias talk 14:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A list that I first worked on a few years ago that I have now brought up to scratch for FL. It is loosely based off a few other featured lists for awards. As always, all critique will be welcomed. I currently have a nomination open, FLC, but this has no outstanding concerns, and has garnered significant support. Harrias talk 14:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - can't see any issues, although I don't think the template at the bottom is needed on this particular page given that it just duplicates the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Oh man, even cricket award names are complicated.
- "the 2014 winner, Adam Lyth exemplified this claiming, "It’s a very..."" - awkward. Easiest fix is "exemplified this by claiming that "it's a very..."" - note the lowercase i, and the curly apostrophe being turned into a regular one
- "but just Sir Richard Hadlee" - but only Sir Richard Hadlee
- "that season, while in 2005, Flintoff won the award in the same year" - "while" implies a simultaneous relationship in time that doesn't exist here, no comma after 2005, and "the award" is ambiguous grammatically, though it's a safe assumption to be referring to the PCA award. Change to "that season, and in 2005 Flintoff won the PCA award in the same year"
- Winners of the Cricket Writers' Club County Championship Player of the Year are called out in the table, but not the lead- bit odd, since it's the only such award you don't call out in the lead.
- Please add the publisher (ESPN) to the espncricinfo reference.
- Consider archiving your online references with a service such as archive.org or webcitation.org so that changes/removal of content from your referenced sites don't affect the article. It may seem unlikely, but it's entirely possible for a site like espncricinfo to change their article format, drop old articles, and leave you with nothing but a deadlink- it happens more often than you'd think.
- --PresN 18:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: All done I think. Harrias talk 08:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as my first as an FLC delegate instead of a normal reviewer. --PresN 18:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: All done I think. Harrias talk 08:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support based on prose, and the table set-up. Overall I can't see any issues. Miyagawa (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:07, 5 May 2015 [17].
- Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list becauseI have worked on the list for several weeks to comply with Featured list standards. I strongly believe that this list has a potential to become a featured list. I followed closely to how the Academy Award for Best Actor list and Daytime Emmy Award acting lists were formatted. Birdienest81 (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As expected a great list. A few minor points:
- Julianne Moore is referred to as "his" in the lead.
- In the caption for Helen Hunt's win, the year is missing for As Good as It Gets
- Monster's Ball needs to be italicized in the caption
- In the multiple wins and nominations section, it incorrectly says "Best Actor awards".
- Meryl Streep is missing from the most nominations received table. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: I fixed everything you listed above. Thanks for spotting those errors.
Support: All good. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well everyone is aware that Katharine Hepburn has received the most awards with four wins. But,the lead says she has received three. Please correct the mistake.—Prashant 13:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Prashant!: Please apologise to Birdie. This is not how you review other lists "very silly mistake, don't you think?". Point out what's wrong and be nice about it. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Birdie for my previous words. My intension was not to hurt.—Prashant 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Prashant!: Please apologise to Birdie. This is not how you review other lists "very silly mistake, don't you think?". Point out what's wrong and be nice about it. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A well-written and informative list.—Prashant 06:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much.
Comments by Cowlibob
editStill need to have a thorough look at the lead.
- I think we should aim to use photos of the actresses of the age when they won their respective awards especially for the older ones. Also some screen legends are missing. Here are some image suggestions:
![[18]](https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Bette_Davis_Jezebel_still.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Ginger_Rogers_-_still.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kelly,_Grace_%28Rear_Window%29.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sophia_Loren_-_1959.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Jane_Fonda_-_publicity.JPG){kind=link}
![[23]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sally_Field_1971.JPG){kind=link}
Cowlibob (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Added or replaced images using pictures listed above complete with captions and alt text.
- Support: Another fine list. Keep it up.--Jagarin 02:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Great list, it is well-sourced and well-written. --Carioca (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, again!
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by SchroCat 09:43, 5 May 2015 [25].
- Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a recent content split from Gene Roddenberry, which I've been working up over the past few weeks. As the article was approaching 100kb, it seemed the logical thing to do (no Vulcan pun intended!). I have not included the awards recieved by Roddenberry in this list, as I'm anticipating locating them in the main article (surprisingly he didn't recieve many). This is my first time creating a filmography, so I've based it off of previous FLs. The most unusual point about the layout is the inclusion of "executive consultant" in the movies table - but I figured it was better to include it there than have it added as a note for all six films. Miyagawa (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why "9 episodes" etc, but "Five seasons" etc in the Television table? Harrias talk 14:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The ones with the seasons were the ones where Roddenberry was series creator - while the ones with the episode numbers were the only episodes of that production he was involved with. Miyagawa (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't explain my point at all; why use figures for one set of numbers and words for the other? Harrias talk 18:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotcha - I've fixed it per the style guide, so words for numbers one through nine, and then actual numbers for 10+. Miyagawa (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with that change, and those made below, I'm happy that this list meets the FL criteria. Good work. (Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/PCA Player of the Year/archive1?) Harrias talk 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative support—based on my user name, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I am a Star Trek fan. I did make some changes to correct and simplify the citations: using {{harvp}} for the shortened footnotes, correcting the capitalization of Mr. DeCandido's last name and un-curling the single quotes per the MOS. I also merged two sets of duplicate footnotes together
There are some minor quibbles left to be fixed, like spelling out the number in "five seasons", but using the numeral in "9 episodes". Most style guides would only use a numeral for numbers 10 and higher, and they would spell out nine and lower, although some also move the line to encompass the teens. I'm sure that will be cleared up to satisfy Harrias in short order.
I can see is that the heading above the table on the films is "Filmography" while the other heading is "Television". I would think that since both media make up part of the filmography, that the former one should be "Films" or "Motion pictures" to pair with "Television".
Lastly, I don't know why you didn't just put the note about "Unification" into the Notes column of the TV table rather than using a footnote.
All in all, it's good work and I think that it should be promoted in due course. Imzadi 1979 → 21:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for those fixed - I've corrected the numbers as mentioned above. I've also changed the films and television sections to subsections under a general filmography section. As for the Unification bit, I just thought the text would be a bit long in the notes section and so thought it'd work better as a footnote. Plus it didn't directly to Roddenberry's work on the series but I thought was worth mentioning. Miyagawa (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
He had a much more diverse filmography than I expected.
Cowlibob (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Sorry for the delay. I added a bit of clarification about the LAPD second job thing. I'm sure your bio ref would cover that. Good job! Cowlibob (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I'll double check it tonight to make sure it's the right page. Its in there somewhere, but I'm not 100% certain it's the same cite. I'll confirm here once I've checked it. Miyagawa (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I can confirm that I've sorted out that citation now. Miyagawa (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by SchroCat 09:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC) [26].[reply]
- Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think that this list is appropriate for a Featured List. I will appreciate any comments that help improve this list. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
|
|---|
|
My input:
I'll look through again later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support looks good now Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from — ₳aron
- The entire first paragraph has no bearing on this list at all. The lead should be focusing on the nominations and awards, not her career beginnings (that is what her biography is for), her record deals, album sales or singles released (respective album and single articles will cover this). If this first paragraph stays, or if info that belongs in her bio, or album/song article stays, it will most likely result in an oppose from me, purely because it has relevance to this list. Because she hasn't released very much to be nominated for, I would probably focus one paragraph on nominations for songs, and then another paragraph for her album and anything else, such as her as a singer. Also, the J-14 Teen Icon Awards table says pending, but it says 2014, so presumably the award ceremony has happened already? Also, ref 22 for example, the publisher would be Billboard, no? The info box with the collapsible table shows that awards are not in alphabetical order (Golden Globes is placed before BRITs). 10:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have trimmed the lead a bit. Ref #22 is Billboard Music Awards (it has its own website) to be more precise. The 2014 J-Icon Awards have not been announced yet (at least that's what I have researched). HĐ (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think giving a partial summary of what is her discography is completely superfluous and not what this list is about. The lead should be focusing purely on nominations and awards. — ₳aron 11:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Calvin999: How does it look now? HĐ (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from — All About That Bass
| Resolved comments from All About That Bass |
|---|
*I think you can remove the incomplete list banner as the list looks complete, and I think an FL doesn't need such a banner.
|
- Support - Looks great and ready to go. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 11:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Can't see any viable reason to not have it featured, great article. Azealia911 talk 13:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by SchroCat 09:43, 5 May 2015 [27].
- Nominator(s): LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it's a good representation of his film and television career thus far with everything referenced appropriately. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Krimuk90
Good list, as we've come to expect from you Lady Lotus. Here are my comments:
- Thanks so much :)
- The second paragraph begins with "in the 2000s", but some of his roles from the early 2000s are already mentioned in the first paragraph. Perhaps, "in the 2000s, Butler also co-starred" might help.
- Done.
- "He then was cast as the role of Erik, The Phantom" ==> "cast as Erik, The Phantom" or "cast in the role of Erik, The Phantom"
- Done.
- "Joel Schumacher's 2004 film adaptation of the musical The Phantom of the Opera " There is a mismatch with the wikilinks here. Technically, the "film adaptation" should pipe to the article of the film, and the later should wikilink to the said musical.
- Done.
- "The role was his first box office success". A role can't really be a box office success, can it? A film can.
- Done.
- Not sure if "surf film" is an apt description for Chasing Mavericks. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- Thanks for the review! LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks good. Well done! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Nice list on one of my favourite hollywood actors. Continue your good work! — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent list, great work. --Carioca (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Overall, the prose in the lead strikes me as repetitive. "In (year)" and "He was" start perhaps 70% of the sentences. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I worked on it a bit, trying to change up the sentences to not sound so repetitive. If you can, have another look and let me know what you think? Thanks :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A bit better, but still an issue. Six sentences starting "He", and almost all of the rest starting with "In [year]" or another time clarifier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaked again. Replaced several "he"'s with "Butler"'s then tried to switch up the beginning sentences to not start with a year. Thoughts? LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind if I give it a go? I'd likely nix the stage part, per TRM's comments. A filmography, by definition, doesn't include theatre. Of course, if I have a go at this, I won't be able to close the nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no of course, I'd love your input on it. Yea, I wasn't sure about the stage part either, other editors suggested it and other editors wanted to nix it. Since it's just two productions, I don't see the harm in just removing them. Have at it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given it a shot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it :) Maybe we could get SchroCat to close? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given it a shot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no of course, I'd love your input on it. Yea, I wasn't sure about the stage part either, other editors suggested it and other editors wanted to nix it. Since it's just two productions, I don't see the harm in just removing them. Have at it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind if I give it a go? I'd likely nix the stage part, per TRM's comments. A filmography, by definition, doesn't include theatre. Of course, if I have a go at this, I won't be able to close the nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaked again. Replaced several "he"'s with "Butler"'s then tried to switch up the beginning sentences to not start with a year. Thoughts? LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A bit better, but still an issue. Six sentences starting "He", and almost all of the rest starting with "In [year]" or another time clarifier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I worked on it a bit, trying to change up the sentences to not sound so repetitive. If you can, have another look and let me know what you think? Thanks :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if TRM's done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've watchlisted for TRM to close off his comments and will be happy to step in once he's done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 13:26, 4 May 2015 [28].
- Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because this is a well-sourced, as-comprehensive-as-possible list. Note to reviewers: this list is strictly sourced. Everything is supported by reliable sources; if no RS were found for any aspect of any character, it wasn't included. OR was also excluded. The result is that not every Muppet character that's appeared on Sesame Street is listed here. (Not that it would be possible, anyway.) Regarding images: Sesame Workshop is notoriously protective of its images, and rightly so, so very few images (just one, of Jim Henson) have been included. As the nominator and main editor of this list, I've made the executive decision to not include the few character images that are available, and leave them for individual character bio articles, if they exist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Comments from Aaron |
|---|
| Comments from Aaron
Quite a lot of the "Actor/Muppet performer" names haven't got a source, and quite a lot are blank. Is there a reason for this? It just looks like it isn't completed yet. Also, I don't see the need to have empty section for V, W and Y when there is nothing to fill them. — ₳aron 18:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Also, a lot of the tables are different widths. I appreciate some have photos next to them which makes them not as wide, but I would force all tables to be the same width. I think that the article as a whole generally looks like it still needs work and looks a bit messy if I'm being completely honest. These are structure and formatting issues that I have highlighted, I haven't actually looked at the lead or references yet. I don't think this list best represents what it means to be an FL at this moment, and I think it needs more work. I'm afraid I'll be opposing because I think that this nomination is a premature. — ₳aron 09:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering a single table like on List of Adolf Hitler's personal staff would be better? That way it would be easier to sort names etc and would generally look a lot cleaner and simpler. At the moment, it's just a load of tables. It wouldn't be that hard to make it one table, either. — ₳aron 19:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support — ₳aron 09:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from SNUGGUMS
Oppose per Calvin999's comments, and "Actor/Muppet performer" is probably better titled "puppeteer". Frank Oz and Kevin Clash are probably worth adding if including images of puppeteers. I suggest withdrawal as this looks like an incomplete list and thus a premature nomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address both of the above, since they bring up the same issues.
- Not all the performers are puppeteers; for example, Roosevelt Franklin was voiced by one actor (Matt Robinson) and puppeteered by another. The same is also true about Roosevelt Franklin's Mother (next entry), who was voiced by Loretta Long. We could change the heading to "Performer".
- The entries in the "Actor/Muppet performer" column are supported by sources in other parts of the table; for example, Alistair Cookie was performed by Frank Oz, which is supported by ref17. I did it this way to prevent WP:OVERCITE. If you like, I could include citations after each entry. The empty spaces exist because there was no reliable sources that name the performer. Now, understand that sources like Muppet Wiki (which isn't a reliable source because as great as it is, its content is user-generated) include the performers, but even an extensive search failed to illuminate a reliable source that supported it.
- It wouldn't be overciting, because they aren't cited in the first place. All information should be visibly sourced. — ₳aron 09:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I maintain that this list is as comprehensive and complete as the sources allow, which is the reason for the dynamic list template at the top. It's impossible to include every Muppet character that has appeared on Sesame Street, but I maintain that the current version of this list is accurate and well-supported.
- I've removed the empty tables as per Aaron's suggestion. I'm also willing to include images of puppeteers (not just Oz and Clash), and will do so next. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Calvin999: and @SNUGGUMS: I believe that I've addressed all your comments now. The refs and table are now formatted in the way you requested. Please let me know if they're acceptable, and if there's anything else you want me to address. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables are all different widths. If it was me, I'd force all the widths to be the same, using which ever table has the widest for each column as the rule of thumb. It just makes it look more uniformed. — ₳aron 22:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All the image captions are just "*name* in *year*"..... not very informative. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Calvin999:, the code in the tables is identical. It looks different with the tables with images because the images force the tables' shorter width. I can see two possible solutions. I can place the images either at the beginning or the end of the tables, which I tried and you directed me to put them on the right side. Or I could force the widths in all the tables to look the same, even in the imageless tables. I support leaving them as is; forcing the widths would leave too much white space. @SNUGGUMS: I have done as you asked regarding the image captions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, though I'd remove the years and add a pic of Kevin Clash. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I respectfully disagree. The years need to remain because we need to know when the pics were taken, which is a common practice with captions. And sorry, but I can't add an image of Clash, because there aren't any free ones available. If there is and I'm misinterpreting it as non-free, please point it out to me. And why Clash? I mean, yes, he's an important puppeteer in the history of Sesame Street, but he isn't even a current one. I wish I could find a free image of Jerry Nelson, or Richard Hunt, or Fran Brill. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Others are also fine to add, but yes- I recommend adding Clash because of his prominence as Elmo. You can use File:Kevin Clash Elmo 2010 (cropped).jpg. As for years in captions, why not use years puppeteers portrayed the puppets instead of years photos were taken? See List of The Simpsons cast members for an example. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, gotcha. Changes done as per your suggestions, @Calvin999: and @SNUGGUMS:. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's getting there. Here are my concerns regarding references:
- "Sesame Street.org" shouldn't be italicized, and remove the ".org". No need to have this and "Sesame Workshop" within the same ref.
- "The New York Times Magazine" → The New York Times
- Remove "Magazine" from "Spin Magazine"
- Not sure if "How Stuff Works" or "Parenthood.com" are food sources to use
- Well done with the captions, BTW :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's getting there. Here are my concerns regarding references:
- Okay, gotcha. Changes done as per your suggestions, @Calvin999: and @SNUGGUMS:. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Others are also fine to add, but yes- I recommend adding Clash because of his prominence as Elmo. You can use File:Kevin Clash Elmo 2010 (cropped).jpg. As for years in captions, why not use years puppeteers portrayed the puppets instead of years photos were taken? See List of The Simpsons cast members for an example. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I respectfully disagree. The years need to remain because we need to know when the pics were taken, which is a common practice with captions. And sorry, but I can't add an image of Clash, because there aren't any free ones available. If there is and I'm misinterpreting it as non-free, please point it out to me. And why Clash? I mean, yes, he's an important puppeteer in the history of Sesame Street, but he isn't even a current one. I wish I could find a free image of Jerry Nelson, or Richard Hunt, or Fran Brill. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
@SNUGGUMS: done all you suggest. Thanks for the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed one instance of "Sesame Street.org"; FN43 still has italics where it shouldn't. CBS News and CBC News should not have italics either. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I understand that it is impossible to account for every muppet and puppeteer on the series since the people at Sesame Street are lousy record keepers of production of the show. Also, they hardly release stuff beyond their main characters to the public. However, it's well organized and cited list. Keep up the good work!
- Birdienest: I support your "Support", but your comments are incorrect. Sesame Workshop has an extensive archives, and probably any unnamed Muppet used for one segment in the 1970s has a credit. It's simply that we don't have access to these records. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- True-dat! The Workshop is notoriously protective of their copyrights, and that includes records like that. That's the challenge we've faced with this kind of list. It's a combination of their protectiveness and the press' lack of interest in recording cast and crew lists of The Show. We can only include entries that are well-sourced; see below. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A few observations:
- This is stated on the list talk page: Talk:List_of_Sesame_Street_Muppets#Possible_criteria_for_inclusion. Perhaps what we need to do is put the list in a template at the top of the talk page. The answer to your question, though, is that we've only included characters that can be sourced. The characters you mention in your first list are one-offs, that's true, but they have reliable sources to back them up. The other characters are in Muppet Wiki, also true, but Muppet Wiki isn't a reliable source, so we can't use them. Muppet Wiki is a great website, and its character lists are more comprehensive, but that's because it isn't hampered by things like our policy about RS. I also don't think that we should exclude characters just because they appeared just once. I don't think that we should only include characters after so many appearances, since it would be arbitrary anyway.
- Slimey: "other than Buster, the smartest character on Sesame Street": is this Gikow's assertion?
- Yes. I added "according to Gikow" to clarify.
- "I Love My Hair" girl is Segi: http://www.sesamestreet.org/parents/theshow/episodes/proud-to-be-me
- The problem with the SW's episode summary is that it doesn't connect Segi with the song. But I think it's enough, so I changed the entry as per your request.
- Richard Hunt's profile in The Works lists him as Placido.
- What page? I looked at my copy, and Hunt's profile on p. 58 doesn't mention Placido.
- Why the date range for Bennett Snerf? He was a one-off (and two puppets at that). http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Bennett_Snerf
- Another challenge with this list is an over-zealous editor who can't seem to understand the RS concept, so I'll blame it on him. ;) At any rate, I removed it. Again, we shouldn't use Muppet Wiki as a source, and the only source for him is the episode from the Old School DVD. I can remove the entry if you want.
- Fairly strong, but there's cleanup to be done. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zanimum: Thanks. Eagerly awaiting your response. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative Support on the grounds that this is a valuable, comprehensive, (surprisingly) well-cited and basically well-ordered list attached to an important television franchise.
- My major concern is the Description field, as there's apparently been no consistent criteria applied as to which details are important, leading to the whole reading as less than a formally encyclopedic list. :)
- Some Muppets have physical descriptions given, others don't; some have dates of appearance given (which I'd suggest is an essential part of what the reader would be looking for in a list of this type), most don't; some have their raison d'etre included (again, fairly important info re: a series so notoriously finicky about educational purpose), some don't; some include a short description of their plotline, others don't, etc etc. I do realise some of this is inevitable, also largely a function of the info available in the sources, but still feel like there's room for more rigorous standardisation.
- You're right; the descriptions given do, for the most part, follow the sources. As stated above, when there are no reliable sources that specify dates, they're not listed. I agree that the dates are something that readers would want to know, but it's obvious that the Sesame Workshop disagrees and obviously doesn't think they're important, because they're not even listed on Sesame Street.org. The characters' educational purpose isn't always discussed in the sources, either. Davis is a major source for that info, but not always, and when he discusses it, I summarized it. With the limitations at hand, the kind of standarization you're asking for is impossible. I suppose a solution would be to remove the description field, but that would violate the comprehensive policy of FLs, so I wouldn't support it. I'll say it again: as the main editor of this list, I tried my best to follow the sources. I believe that there's enough to warrant its promotion to FLC, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, given your track record of thoroughness re: sourcing I'll consider that largely answered then, and acceptable on the assumption it will be an ongoing point for improvement. I'd suggest a line could be inserted in the header indicating that the info for each entry is on a where-available basis, but that's optional.
- My one remaining question is re: physical description. I do get what you're saying below re: not needing a lot of details, esp. in collective list format; the distinctive appearance of many of these characters is already iconic within international pop-culture.
- That said, I'd like an explanation of the reasoning behind why, for instance, the Count is in fact afforded a very detailed visual--right down to the shape of his tongue!--while Ernie and Big Bird have only very sketchy ones, as do several other, sometimes very minor characters (ie. Granny Bird). Meanwhile, the likes of Bert, Cookie Monster and Grover (not to mention Lefty the salesman and the wholly mysterious 'Deena') aren't identified visually at all, even by basic type. Is this also a function of sourcing? If so, wouldn't photos suffice as referencing in most cases? Shoebox2 talk 03:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of it is due to sources; for example, Granny Bird's description is taken from Sesame Street.org. Notice that I didn't include everything, although I included her grey tuft because it makes her different than Big Bird. The source for Lefty just mentioned that Oz performed him, nothing more, and Deena's source had more info about her, although nothing about her appearance. As mentioned above, we haven't used images of characters because of the Workshop's protection of their images, and because I think that they better belong in their individual character articles, if they're available. When the source I used emphasized the character's appearance, as it did with the Count, I used it in the description. I agree that one of the more distinctive things about the Count is his appearance, while for characters like Bert and Ernie, it's not. That being said, I suppose I could see if other sources mention more about the more famous characters' appearance, if you would like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like, please. :) Descriptions are so basic to a list like this that major discrepancies therein just come off as odd. It should be possible to at least ID all the characters by basic type, ie. human(oid?) or monster. Re: the Count specifically... well, yes, his appearance is very distinctive and that should be mentioned, but in that much detail, right down to his tongue? 'Classic movie vampire' would about cover it, I think. (I'd also argue that Ernie & Bert's appearance is enough a part of their dynamic to be equally important, but if it's not in the sources won't insist. Wouldn't mind their dynamic generally being played up a bit more, regardless). Shoebox2 talk 15:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of it is due to sources; for example, Granny Bird's description is taken from Sesame Street.org. Notice that I didn't include everything, although I included her grey tuft because it makes her different than Big Bird. The source for Lefty just mentioned that Oz performed him, nothing more, and Deena's source had more info about her, although nothing about her appearance. As mentioned above, we haven't used images of characters because of the Workshop's protection of their images, and because I think that they better belong in their individual character articles, if they're available. When the source I used emphasized the character's appearance, as it did with the Count, I used it in the description. I agree that one of the more distinctive things about the Count is his appearance, while for characters like Bert and Ernie, it's not. That being said, I suppose I could see if other sources mention more about the more famous characters' appearance, if you would like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right; the descriptions given do, for the most part, follow the sources. As stated above, when there are no reliable sources that specify dates, they're not listed. I agree that the dates are something that readers would want to know, but it's obvious that the Sesame Workshop disagrees and obviously doesn't think they're important, because they're not even listed on Sesame Street.org. The characters' educational purpose isn't always discussed in the sources, either. Davis is a major source for that info, but not always, and when he discusses it, I summarized it. With the limitations at hand, the kind of standarization you're asking for is impossible. I suppose a solution would be to remove the description field, but that would violate the comprehensive policy of FLs, so I wouldn't support it. I'll say it again: as the main editor of this list, I tried my best to follow the sources. I believe that there's enough to warrant its promotion to FLC, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding to the problem, the writing style/quality varies noticeably. Tenses are mixed, capitalisation is occasionally odd (Roosevelt Franklin described as a 'Reddish-Magenta Anything Muppet' for instance, which also serves as a nice example of over-emphasised minor detail; meanwhile the comparatively huge fact that Rosita was originally designed as a fruit bat, hence her winglike arms, goes unreported--and Grover, of all Muppets, is dismissed in a single broad quote). There's a lot of rather glibly subjective quoting where objective fact might work better (as per this vague description [and mangled syntax] in the Guy Smiley entry: '...with a "wide, grinning mouth and his desire to explore the lives of others without revealing his own"'). I'm afraid it will need a thorough copyedit before I can comfortably support it as the best Wiki has to offer.
- I've gone through it the entries again for the kind of thing you're describing. I've had to do this at least twice since this review began because this list has suffered at the hands of another editor who insists on emphasizing minor details like if a character was an Anything Muppet or its color, despite repeated requests to cease and desist. I suppose I should report his behavior, but I keep hoping for different outcomes. I suppose I will if this list is promoted.
- Yeah, enthusiastic-but-awkward kid's show article editors... been there, suffered through that, both here and as a primary editor of the Sesame Street page on TVTropes. :) I'm willing to leave the situation in your capable hands for the future. Looking through the list now (and having done some further tweaking myself) things are much better, albeit I'm still not quite sure what's going on re: tenses--is the past tense intended to indicate Muppets who've been definitively retired? Shoebox2 talk 03:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Went through and fixed the tenses where appropriate. I tended toward using present tense. Thanks for your tweaking. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, glad to help. :) OK, will consider that fixed then.Shoebox2 talk 15:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Went through and fixed the tenses where appropriate. I tended toward using present tense. Thanks for your tweaking. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, enthusiastic-but-awkward kid's show article editors... been there, suffered through that, both here and as a primary editor of the Sesame Street page on TVTropes. :) I'm willing to leave the situation in your capable hands for the future. Looking through the list now (and having done some further tweaking myself) things are much better, albeit I'm still not quite sure what's going on re: tenses--is the past tense intended to indicate Muppets who've been definitively retired? Shoebox2 talk 03:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through it the entries again for the kind of thing you're describing. I've had to do this at least twice since this review began because this list has suffered at the hands of another editor who insists on emphasizing minor details like if a character was an Anything Muppet or its color, despite repeated requests to cease and desist. I suppose I should report his behavior, but I keep hoping for different outcomes. I suppose I will if this list is promoted.
- To tell you the truth, I didn't include Rosita's description as a fruit bat because I thought it was a little weird, plus her current version has no indication of it. I thought it was too minor to include, again, because it has little to do with her character for most of her history. Some of the more well-known Muppets don't have an extensive description because I didn't think that they needed it. That being said, I rewrote Grover's description and removed the Guy Smiley quote. Remember, these are just summaries; I think that a lot of the descriptions you're asking for better belongs in individual character articles, which has huge potential for improvements and all the awards that come along with them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, I basically agree with this, so long as it's applied in a logical and even-handed manner. Although--while it's not a hill I'm prepared to die on--without the context, Rosita's full name already comes across as a little weird. How about just tacking "...a reference to her initial conception as a fruit bat" onto the end there? Also, while we're at it, a bit of explanation re: how Elizabeth is 'different from the typical little girl character'? And surely poor Lefty, as unique and memorable as he was, can be provided with more than the equivalent of a blank space? (There's also this little non-sequitur on the end of Segi's entry: "She later appeared on other episodes of the show." Why is that important?) Shoebox2 talk 03:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I put the fruit bat reference back in. It's not really explained in Gikow, but I added more about how Elizabeth's portrayer felt about her. Lefty might be memorable to you, but none of the sources thinks he warrants more than just a mention, sorry. And I removed that phrase; more catering to aforementioned editor. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Alas, poor Lefty, I knew him... More seriously, I seem to recall that Borgenicht--and yes, I do realise how ironic that recommendation is--covered him in some detail... *drags out book* Yep, here we are, pp.148-9: ""Remember the slightly shifty salesman in the trenchcoat? He'd stop you in the street with an all-knowing "Psst!", open his trenchcoat and show you his wares." Followed by a list of said wares and a recap of the "Golden An" sketch. (The fact that said sketch is one of this reviewer's all-time favourites may-or-may not be most of the reason she's harping on this.) Otherwise, will consider this point resolved.Shoebox2 talk 15:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I put the fruit bat reference back in. It's not really explained in Gikow, but I added more about how Elizabeth's portrayer felt about her. Lefty might be memorable to you, but none of the sources thinks he warrants more than just a mention, sorry. And I removed that phrase; more catering to aforementioned editor. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, I basically agree with this, so long as it's applied in a logical and even-handed manner. Although--while it's not a hill I'm prepared to die on--without the context, Rosita's full name already comes across as a little weird. How about just tacking "...a reference to her initial conception as a fruit bat" onto the end there? Also, while we're at it, a bit of explanation re: how Elizabeth is 'different from the typical little girl character'? And surely poor Lefty, as unique and memorable as he was, can be provided with more than the equivalent of a blank space? (There's also this little non-sequitur on the end of Segi's entry: "She later appeared on other episodes of the show." Why is that important?) Shoebox2 talk 03:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To tell you the truth, I didn't include Rosita's description as a fruit bat because I thought it was a little weird, plus her current version has no indication of it. I thought it was too minor to include, again, because it has little to do with her character for most of her history. Some of the more well-known Muppets don't have an extensive description because I didn't think that they needed it. That being said, I rewrote Grover's description and removed the Guy Smiley quote. Remember, these are just summaries; I think that a lot of the descriptions you're asking for better belongs in individual character articles, which has huge potential for improvements and all the awards that come along with them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, I have a pretty good idea where at least some of the informality comes from, as I actually own Borgenicht's Sesame Street Unpaved. While it's a clearly earnest, well-researched tribute, it's also pretty unabashedly affectionate fancruft, and I'd be extremely wary of using extensive quotes etc. from it in a Wikipedia context (the unnecessarily-cutesy entry for Gladys the Cow sums up the problem nicely). I've not seen the Gilkow book, but the title, and the content of the citations to it here, give me the impression that it has similar issues. Shoebox2 talk 16:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the informality also comes from the fact that we're talking about characters on a children's TV show. I mean, just how serious can one get about a seven feet tall and twelve feet wide whatever-the-heck-Snuffy-is? Some of the description is whimsical because of the subject matter. Some minor fancruft is unavoidable (and I love the Gladys quote! it's funny). Even Davis, which is incredibly well-researched and historical, can't help himself; he's an unapologetic fan and clearly states it. I'm not sure it can be helped, with the kind of devotion and affection The Show elicits in most of us. I agree that Unpaved is the worst case, so I did my best to limit its use, and replaced its content with other sources when possible. You're also right about Gikow, who was commissioned by the Workshop to write her book, although it's better. It's still got some valuable information, though. The most fancrufty of all is Sesame Street.org, but you'll notice that I used it the least, and only to fill in gaping holes. And I've never used Muppet Wiki. I used the least reliable and more fancrafty sources with restraint, and again, to ensure that this list is as comprehensive as possible. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I know, I know. :) Didn't mean to come across as a total Grouch--as the author of most of the 'List of Horrible Histories episodes', I haven't an, erm, trash can to stand on anyway. My only real concern was that the whimsy might be getting in the way of the encyclopedic, however most of that tendency seems to have been eliminated in the copyedit mentioned above, and successfully rationalised in the notes re: sourcing here. Objection withdrawn, with memo duly delivered to self re: not reviewing lighthearted articles while in a cranky mood. Shoebox2 talk 03:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I do appreciate the picky comments; they make for a better list. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I know, I know. :) Didn't mean to come across as a total Grouch--as the author of most of the 'List of Horrible Histories episodes', I haven't an, erm, trash can to stand on anyway. My only real concern was that the whimsy might be getting in the way of the encyclopedic, however most of that tendency seems to have been eliminated in the copyedit mentioned above, and successfully rationalised in the notes re: sourcing here. Objection withdrawn, with memo duly delivered to self re: not reviewing lighthearted articles while in a cranky mood. Shoebox2 talk 03:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the informality also comes from the fact that we're talking about characters on a children's TV show. I mean, just how serious can one get about a seven feet tall and twelve feet wide whatever-the-heck-Snuffy-is? Some of the description is whimsical because of the subject matter. Some minor fancruft is unavoidable (and I love the Gladys quote! it's funny). Even Davis, which is incredibly well-researched and historical, can't help himself; he's an unapologetic fan and clearly states it. I'm not sure it can be helped, with the kind of devotion and affection The Show elicits in most of us. I agree that Unpaved is the worst case, so I did my best to limit its use, and replaced its content with other sources when possible. You're also right about Gikow, who was commissioned by the Workshop to write her book, although it's better. It's still got some valuable information, though. The most fancrufty of all is Sesame Street.org, but you'll notice that I used it the least, and only to fill in gaping holes. And I've never used Muppet Wiki. I used the least reliable and more fancrafty sources with restraint, and again, to ensure that this list is as comprehensive as possible. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Enough so far, I have other things to do right now, so apologies for not finishing the review, but as you can see, plenty to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, man; I really appreciate the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For those Muppets without descriptions, are there no other reliable sources that can be used? E.g. is this of no use? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN 18:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC) [29].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2014 Indian comedy-drama film Queen, starring Kangana Ranaut. This is my first film awards list at the FLC, and I hope to receive constructive comments to improve it. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ssven2
edit- "The film was edited by Abhijit Kokate and Kashyap, and the cinematography provided by Bobby Singh." — "The film was edited by Abhijit Kokate and Kashyap, while the cinematography was provided by Bobby Singh."
- Amended to was provided, though I think the "and" reads better than the "while".
- "with particular praise for its direction, performance of Ranaut, cinematography, and editing." — A source for this would be good, like IBTimes's review roundup.
- Actually, this refers to the "praise" from awarding organisations, and not the critics. Per the other accolades list on films, I'm trying to say that most organisations awarded the film for its direction, performance of Ranaut, cinematography, and editing. And this is sourced in the table.
@Krimuk90: That's all from me. Overall it's a good list. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments Ssven2. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Thanks for providing the reasons and for resolving my comments. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: The only thing I would suggest is to add Prometheus Global Media as publisher to The Hollywood Reporter (although it's not a really big deal). Nevertheless, excellent list again.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Birdienest. I have omitted the publisher information for newspapers and journals to maintain consistency. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Pavanjandhyala
editSupport. Good job. However one minor correction. Wikilink The Indian Express in reference number 9 and remove the same in reference number 23. And in the lead, i suggest you to replace "garnered" with words like "earned", "received" or "won". Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. :) I have corrected the first point, but "garnered" is an acceptable word so I've left that as is. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Krimuk90: Of course, it was just a suggestion, not a requirement. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Overall a well put together list.
Cowlibob (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Good job. Hope to see many others in the future. Cowlibob (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Cowlibob. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - PresN 18:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.