Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2017

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 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Bagumba

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

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

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

• In the opening paragraph should state unconditionally that .400 is considered a rare feat. Attributing the quote by SABR makes it sound like .400 is not generally revered. Per WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. "—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, but still left the exact wording in quotations (if that's alright). —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quotations should always be attributed in text, not merely with a citation. That being said, I don't see why this specific quote is needed. It's probably more common place to say that it is currently considered unlikely to be reachable.[2][3]—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not inclined to use the word "considered" – it's a weasel word in this situation. Not to mention that this article was AFD'd three times in just over a year because of that word in its title. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Feel free to suggest an alternative. Note WP:WEASEL says "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." How do you otherwise propose avoiding use of the specific quote from: "The achievement of a .400 batting average in a season is recognized as 'the standard of hitting excellence'"?—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • This issue is still unresolved. Similar point on "a writer for The Washington Post called the mark 'both mystical and unattainable'". The opinion is not limited to the Washington Post, and a paraphrase is sufficient as opposed to a verbatim quote.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Washington Post quote has been resolved below with the comment from Giants2008. I also agree that with him that it should be attributed, since those are not common words used together by other sources to generically describe the .400 'club'. And those words are, in my opinion, the most fitting words to describe the club – can't think of any paraphrase that captures the same essence. I know I can't satisfy everyone, and have no inclination to act as a middle man between two editors who have differing views on wording or use of direct quotes from sources. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • As for "the standard of hitting excellence" quote, I again can't think of any other phrase that more appropriately captures the feat achieved by this group of players. I'm not trying to water down the achievement by quoting only one source. But I do think SABR is a source universally respected across the baseball world that it is capable of speaking not just for itself, but for the overwhelming baseball community —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also added a sentence (2nd last one in para. 2) about Shoeless Joe Jackson's .408 mark being a rookie record – hope that checks out as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bagumba – I've addressed all the comments you've made so far. Is there anything else that needs to be improved? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Impact of relief pitchers.[4][5][6]
  • The use of relief pitchers doesn't specifically affect batting .400.[7] They also affect consecutive hit streaks, the reduction in 200 hit seasons today, and the overall decline in offence.[8] The more appropriate place for this info is the general batting average article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mentioning relief pitchers here doesn't imply their impact is limited to .400 hitters. At any rate, there should be some explanation given in an FL as to reasons why the feat hasn't been duplicated in 70+ years.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You win on this point – added a short note in the first sentence of the last paragraph. But I won't bog this list down with the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia". —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 5 players combined to hit .400 seven times in 20 years before Williams.[9]
  • Unresolved.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia" quote above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 players hit .400 in 1922[10]
  • Unresolved.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of the "stats in subsequent comments that are borderline trivia" quote above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Aside from Brett, only Williams and Carew have batted .388 in a full season since[11]
  • Trivia – why the artificial delineation of .388? Could've used a rounded whole number like .390 or .375 … —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NY Times also mentioned Carew. Multiple experts in reliable sources mention Carew; it's not for us to do OR and create our own threshold of a round number.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not in favour of creating my own threshold. But there is a longstanding norm[12] for baseball FLs to only include players who have successfully attained the milestone, not the 'almost made it' players. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Bob Hazle hit .403 in 1957. His 134 at-bats were most by .400 hitter since Williams.[13]
  • Irrelevant, in my opinion, since he couldn't even qualify for the batting title. If they were instead discussing the most plate appearances, then that would be a different story. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I interpreted it that the feat is so difficult that only a player with 1/3 or fewer of the reqd plate appearances has hit .400.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like the other baseball stats/stat club FLs, the lead and the tables should only focus on those who joined/are in the club and not mention those who 'almost made it' (also applies to the .388 comment). Notwithstanding the fact that Hazle wasn't even close – again, trivia. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• current drought of .350 hitters longest since 1962–66[14]
  • 1968 year of the pitcher, steroid era, specialised RP era – historical trends which are already covered in the MLB GA. If readers want to find out more, they can simply click on the link in this list, which is not the place for me to regurgitate this info (which no other baseball FL does). And once again, .350 is 'almost made it'. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Oppose Biggest stylistic concern is unnecessary use of quotes and inline attribution on uncontested opinions reagrding hitting .400. Per WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." As stated at MOS:QUOTE, "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words ... Consider minimizing the use of quotations by paraphrasing, as quotations should not replace free text (including one that the editor writes)." As far as content, it does not meet FL expectation to educate a non-baseball fan on the history and later significance of hitting .400. It is not "trivia" to use facts from multiple reliable sources to explain that .400 was a semi-regular occurrence until Williams, and it has rarely been approached since. Do not confuse this with a Wikipedia writer cherry-picking random facts from a stats site. Williams, who in 1941 was the last person to achieve .400, himself stated, “If I had known hitting .400 was going to be such a big deal, I would have done it again.”[15].—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC) [16].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...

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

Comments from Aoba47

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

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

@Aoba47: Thanks for your comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The bot sometimes delivers false positives, so it's important to check manually like you did. Since that was the only outstanding issue and it appears that a consensus has been reached, I'll go ahead and promote the list now. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[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) 21:38, 23 April 2017 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC) [17].[reply]

---

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

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

Comments from Aoba47

• Include an ALT description for the image.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Skr15081997

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The redlinks can be removed.

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

• The Telegraph (Calcutta) should be The Telegraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Vedant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Maari and Thanga Magan are missing release years.

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

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

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

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

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

Looks good to me. Support. NumerounovedantTalk 19:28, 22 April 2017 (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) 21:18, 23 April 2017 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC) [18].[reply]

---

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

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

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

Comments " by a total of 22 teams" never keen on fluffing, why not just "by 22 teams"? 18 teams obliged to participate, 5 invited, but only 22 in total, who didn't show, and why? "The riders arrived to the arena" normally arrive "at", not "to" somewhere. Third lead para is a little clunky, lots of short sentences without much flow. I'm not sure what to do about this as it's not my forte. BaldBoris 00:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] "Of the total average ages" odd phrase, perhaps just plainly "X team had the highest average age while Y team ...."? Are the jersey icons accessible? I'm not too sure, but I've changed it from {{cjersey|yellow|General classification|Yellow jersey}} () to my usual [[File:Jersey yellow.svg|20px|link=General classification in the Tour de France|alt=A yellow jersey.]] (). BaldBoris 00:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I thought I counted 34 nationalities in the table vs 33 claimed in the lead? That's it for me, pretty good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I've sorted out the above with this edit (edit summary should say per FLC I know) Thanks for taking a look at this. BaldBoris 00:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC) [20].[reply]

---

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

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

Comments from Aoba47

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Tintor2

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

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

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

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

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

Source review by ProtoDrake

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

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

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

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

Comments by AffeL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose with comments: "Naruto: Shippuden is an anime..." please don't start with a redirect. "adapted from Part II for Masashi Kishimoto's manga series" you mean from part II of... "It is set after two and a half years" seriously? after after? "against the criminal organization Akatsuki who wish to obtain nine creatures known as the Tailed Beasts" why? who cares? "In 2008, Viz Media and Crunchyroll began providing eight English subtitled Naruto: Shippuden episodes on the official Naruto website every week until it caught up to the Japanese anime." really odd. This article needs a proper copyedit from native English speakers and anime experts (combined). I could go on, but this is a list of lists, and such cases, the prose element has to be excellent for me to even consider a support. I am really concerned with the swiftness of support votes, that's something we'll need to look into. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: I fixed your issues, and re-did the lead. About the list of lists, an editor has been restoring revisions to an earlier point by seasons and that caused my changes to be removed. MCMLXXXIX 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: Did I resolve your issues? -- MCMLXXXIX 13:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: ? 1989 18:03, 4 April 2017 (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. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2017 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC) [21].[reply]

---

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

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

Source review

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

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

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

Comments from Aoba47

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments "The cover of the forty-nineth volume of the Naruto manga, also the first tankōbon of the second half of the Part II storyline, was released in the United States by Viz Media on October 5, 2010." well, it should be 49th, or forty-ninth, and I assume it wasn't just the cover that was released, need to re-phrase to avoid the ambiguity. Intro sentence is dull as dishwater, tell me what the series is all about before getting into the technicalities of the divisions in chapters and parts etc. "The story.." sentence is too long, split. "sealed within him...." by "him" who do you mean? The last person you mention is Uchicha, I presume you don't mean that? "series began serialization" somewhat tautological. Try rephrasing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] "February 15, 2007 on" comma after year please. Naruto Shippuden or Naruto: Shippuden ? "The English serialization" English-language? "Part II, beginning with chapter 245" and the table starts with 454, so it's worth adding in the lead somewhere how many chapters form a volume, or at least have a note that says that as this list deals with volumes 49 to 72, that's chapters 454 to 700. Ref 6 has VIZ not Viz (like all other refs). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: I resolved your issues. MCMLXXXIX 16:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] Not really, I checked the first "resolved" issue, to find the caption now reads "The cover of the forty-nineth volume of the Naruto manga, also the first tankōbon of the second half of the Part II storyline." which still has a typo and is now a fragment so no longer needs a full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: My apologies. That problem wasn't fully addressed. I fixed it now. MCMLXXXIX 17:11, 26 March 2017 (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. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2017 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC) [22].[reply]

---

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Resolved all your comments, Editor 2050. BTW, there isn't any order for dual roles. I've listed them in alphabetical order of names.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 05:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Editor 2050: So, support or neutral?  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you, Editor 2050. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor 2050: Can you do a source review in that case? Officially of course.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

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

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

Resolved all your comments, Aoba47.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN, Giants2008, and The Rambling Man: Pinging you for source review.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments from Vensatry

Regretful oppose

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

Done. Removed mainly.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. Removed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. Removed her name.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. Removed the sentence.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. Placed the latter before.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Vijay's portrayal of a singer who becomes responsible for the loss of his lover's eyesight in Thulladha Manamum Thullum" - He did not portray a singer but played a cable operator who "aspires" to become a singer. Furthermore, the "earned him the image of a romantic hero.[4][7]" bit isn't verified by the sources.

Done. Tweaked the sentence and found another source to support the romantic hero bit.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Done.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yeah. Both were successful and both the Sreedhar Pillai sources back them. Sivakasi was termed a super hit while Pokkiri was a blockbuster.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. Removed first.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wasn't Vettaikaran commercially successful?

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

The Times of India source (Reference no. 21) Says Vijay's films from 2007-2010 were failures. But Sify says it is a hit.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Resolved.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It probably did not get much significance just because it is a remake (almost frame-by-frame) of 3 Idiots. Thalapathy was brilliant in it though.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. Written a few bits about Nanban.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "star-studded" is journalese

Done. Written "multi-starrer" instead.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. Removed the sentence with the reference.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. Tweaked this part.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have changed the Ghilli reference title.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. Removed the trans_title fields.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Additional comments

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

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

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

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

Done. Found a reference for it.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Vensatry: Resolved your source review comments.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Revisit

• Sura in the lead is linked to Surah

Done. Redirected to the film.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Removed link.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. Rectified for all.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Emdashes shouldn't be spaced per WP:MOSDASH

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

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

@Vensatry: I have removed the spacings between the emdashes.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Accessdates are not needed for archived references.

Removed accessdates.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. Rearchived.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. Replaced with English source.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments from Krish

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

Thank you, Krish!. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments from Cowlibob

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

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

Comments from The Rambling Man

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

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

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 via FACBot (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC) [23].[reply]

---

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments from Aoba47

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

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

@Aoba47: I have hopefully resolved all your comments.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

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

That's because in case more than one reference is added to support the content in the table I have written it as "Ref(s)" instead of "Ref".  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Kailash29792: I have resolved your comments.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Kailash29792: I just glad you did support it. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

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

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

@Yashthepunisher: Resolved [1] and [4]. As for [2], he is credited with the dubbing for Junior B. In case of [3], refs 49 and 64 are the only ones available. I have even shown the time where he appears. Cinema Junction is a well-known YouTube channel, just doesn't have a Wiki Article. The MSK video is official BTW.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Editor 2050

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Editor 2050. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 20:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Editor 2050: Read the footnotes [e] and [f], my friend. I have stated it clearly there. Besides, the information would look bloated on the list.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man

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

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

Comments from Cowlibob

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

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

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