Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2017

Comments from Aoba47

• Would you define Hi-5 as a "pop music group"? I know that the primary genres listed on the group's main page are children's and edutainment, but there are several references in the body of the same article referring to its material as pop music. I am only asking this as I was wondering if this should be categorized using Category:Pop music group discographies?
• In the Infobox box image, you should identify where they are performing. I would revised the caption to say something along the lines of "The original members of Hi-5 performing in concert in Wellington, New Zealand in 2006". You can keep the member's names in parenthesis as it is helpful for an unfamiliar reader.
• Add "the" in front of the Australian Recording Industry Association in the first paragraph of the lead.
• I would encourage you to sell out the word number rather than abbreviate as No. for a more formal and appropriate tone for the site.
• You use a few repetitive sentence structures in the lead and I would suggest adding variety. For instance, the two sentences about the release of "It's a Party" starts with the similar phrase "The album was..."
• I am not a fan of how the release dates for same albums are placed in parenthesis after the title and others are put in the text. Be consistent one way or the other for all of them.
• I would suggest combining the last two paragraphs as they are rather short.
• The second sentence in the lead's third paragraph reads rather awkwardly as it quickly jumps from one idea to the next without a transition or flow. You want this to be a strong narrative documenting the group's releases so avoid making the lead sound like it is jumping around or listing ideas.
• Revise the last sentence in the lead's third paragraph. "a which was a record at the time" is not grammatically correct and needs to be redone. I get the idea, but the wording needs to be improved.
• Remove "most recently" in the two instances you use it as it is unnecessary when you give the date.
• I do not believe the (sales thresholds) is necessary in the charts. I have never seen it used in a FL for an artist's discography.
• iTunes Store should not be italicized in the references.

@SatDis: Good job with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. If possible, could you possible review my FLC for Alyssa Milano discography? I know it is a busy time of the year, so I understand if you do not have the time or interest of doing this. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Aoba47: I would describe them as a pop group for children, yes. I've added the category. I also might add Pop to the main page.
  • I've added Wellington. For the main page I was advised to keep it succinct, hence why the location wasn't included.
  • I guess the (sales threshold) was there for reference, but I've removed it now.
  • All phrasing issues and other comments addressed.
  • Thankyou for your feeback, I myself don't feel qualified enough to take a look at your page but I definitely will have a go at leaving feedback when I get the chance. SatDis (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a note, I do not believe it is allowed to have two FLCs open at one time. While your other FLC for Family Guy (season 4) has received a lot of attention and is close to promotion, I believe that it is best to withdraw this and open it as soon as your everything with your other FLC is complete. If you could like the featured list director and/or delegates about this as I could be incorrect. Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold -- 1989 (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the guide says "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." I think, given that Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 4)/archive2 has three supports and no outstanding comments, it is perfectly acceptable to have two FLCs open at the same time. Harrias ^talk 13:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      @Aoba47: -- 1989 (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, we'd prefer if you ask first, but since the other FLC has 3 supports already I'll allow this one to stay up. It's generally discouraged regardless of the wording in the guide because some editors take a pretty liberal interpretation of what "substantial" means, but multiple supports and no opposes is generally fine. Remember that having two nominations up simultaneously means that you may want to provide extra reviews to other nominations so that both of yours get enough attention. --PresN 14:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DragonZero

Waiting MSN episode guide is unreliable. I've dealt with it in the past and found inconsistency with it before. This was from a 30 second check. I might be able to give a deeper look later. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonZero: What are you referring to when you say MSN? Also, how is the list unreliable? Just want clarification. -- MCMLXXXIX 03:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The MSN episode guide in the the general references. Well, let's skip the whole Wikipedia talk about editorial department and establishing the source as reliable; I'll provide an example instead. In 2010, I used MSN's Bleach episode list as a reference which turned out to have incorrect dates and was just generally sloppy as a source. I suggest replacing or removing the source from the list. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonZero: Done I removed it, the link was dead, and it didn't get better when I saw the archive. -- MCMLXXXIX 04:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Add some refs for the first paragraph.
• Second paragraph could use some references.
• Checking ref 4 (at the time of this edit), add deadurl=no. It might just be my browser, but it doesn't look like webcite archived the link correctly.
• "The first DVD series has been the only one to be collected in VHS format" Clarity.
• "There are a total of five series," clarity. Series does not sound like the correct word here
• Source for OVA section?
• Fill something in for the blank release dates
• The OVA summaries seem too weak to be considered for FL level.
• Scope= columns and rows are missing for the tables. Also why are the tables limited to 60%?
• Don't worry but this point doesn't affect my voting for FL. I'd remove the OVA and Film from this list. OVAs and movies have individual license, unlike the anime series episodes which are often grouped into parts.

Overall, I don't think it's ready, but I won't vote for an oppose. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonZero: How are the tables limited? Also, how big do you want the OVA summaries? Please clarify. BTW, I saw other featured lists based on episode lists part of A&M, and they had an OVA and film section, if one existed in the series, so I won't consider removing them from this one. MCMLXXXIX 11:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The DVD tables have their size restricted to 60%. The length of the OVA summaries are not the issue. They are just weak in general. If you're looking at a featured list promoted before 2013, those were when the standards were lower. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonZero: I did a test preview edit, and it appears that they get smaller when I remove the width option. MCMLXXXIX 11:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I dealt with tables, I'll take a look at it next week maybe. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonZero: Done I fixed everything except for the 60% table. I'm still waiting for your response to it. MCMLXXXIX 20:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonZero: The tables are basically 60% because if the parameters that control that were removed, it would make the tables smaller. I would like to keep them as they are. Making them any wider would look IMO distorted. If you have any suggestions, please reply. Also, do you have a verdict? MCMLXXXIX 04:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was only wondering about the table size restriction, I didn't mean it as an issue. As for a verdict, I'd have to do a thorough review so I can't offer one right now. The list above were things I noticed from a quick scroll down. Anyways, I took a look at the table and so you know, scope col/rows will auto bold their content. You should remove the triple comma bolding where the scopes do the work. I'm not sure when I can offer a full review so don't wait up. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done MCMLXXXIX 18:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera

• For references mentioning "ABC Medianet" as the publication, ABC should only be linked on the very first source awhile the rest are unlinked

• Same with "Annie Awards" references

• Reference #2, 23, 25, 33, 34, 52, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 - Date should be consistent with the rest of the citations

That's what I got for now. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera: Done -- 1989 (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at it tomorrow and give more thoughts. Thanks for the rapid responses. Carbrera (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• I would suggest adding ALT descriptions for the two images in the infobox.
• Reference 1 is dead and needs to be archived. Same goes for Reference 9 and 18 and 42 and 57 through 65. The external link is also dead.
• I do not understand the need for the “List of Family Guy episodes” in the “See also” section when you already have a link for this in a previous section. I would eliminate the “See also” section completely to avoid repetition unless you can find other things to put there instead.
• Avoid saying “bitterly” in such close proximity in the last paragraph of the “Reception” section. I would change one instance for variety.
• Some phrases in the episode summaries sound a little awkward and should be revised or removed, such as “Thus returning life back to normal.” I would look careful through the episode summaries for any awkward language or sentence construction.

@1989: Overall, the list looks very good and once my comments are addressed, I will look through it again and support it. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: Done. However, I couldn't find an archive link for Reference 9. I don't know if I should remove it or not. -- 1989 (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @1989: Thank you for the response. I would suggest removing Reference and possibly replacing it if you find a similar source. A featured list should not have any dead links. Once this is addressed, then I will look over this again and most likely support this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aoba47: I removed the whole sentence with the reference for now. If I can find something else, I'll re-add it. Done -- 1989 (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the reception section is a little bit longer, I would suggest adding some subsections, as done in Lost (season 3), to provide some guidance for a reader and give this section a little more structure. This is more of a suggestion so I understand if you would prefer not to add this. This is the only note that I have left for this before I support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aoba47: Done -- 1989 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Many of the plot summaries need revising:

• "sexy" from "Brian's sexy replacement teacher" is a blatantly biased description, even if Chris finds her sexy
• "His ambitions, however, ultimately cost him" is a bit clunky; try putting "however" at the beginning of this part
• "Meg becomes extremely attractive" as well as "Meg's new attractiveness and talented singing voice" are also obvious POV statements
• Not sure about the tone of "badly" in "he can not kill another human being, even though he hurt him badly"
• "which is a parody and complete reference to the ending of Rocky III" is too much here; it's better for the episodes to contain details on cultural references
• "he's" in "he's a genius" should be "he is" per WP:CONTRACTIONS
• "Peter gets depressed at first, but realizes that, now he is retarded, he can get away with a lot of things" could read better; try something like "While Peter is initially depressed, he observes that people more easily forgive his actions when he states he is retarded"
• "beautiful" in "his new, beautiful babysitter" is not a neutral description
• "She is, of course, overjoyed to see Peter safe when they are saved by a cruise ship, but is torn" is a bit wordy, and "of course" isn't appropriate tone; try "While Lois is overjoyed when she learns Peter is alive, she is torn"
• "puts Lois into having sex" reads awkwardly
• "thus putting the show back in its original setting" is overkill
• "it's" in "When it's revealed" should be "it is" per WP:CONTRACTIONS
• "But, Peter's attitude forces Tom" is a fragment. None of the words from "FANBOYS" (For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So) should be used to start sentences.
• "sissy" and "wimpish" in "sissy, wimpish English football team" are not appropriate tone at all
• "Quagmire actually falls in love with a maid whose service Peter won on a game show, and even marries her, changing Quagmire's personality" → "Quagmire's personality changes after he falls in love with and marries a maid whose service Peter won on a game show"
• "But when the old Quagmire returns" → "However, after his old personality returns"
• "puts a kibosh on"..... ends; this isn't the place for slang
• "spices things up"..... again, avoid slang, maybe say it restores or revives their sex life
• "equally-malicious" is needless, even if Bertram had a similar personality to Stewie
• "Brian tries to expose Mayor West as the corrupt politician he is"..... a more neutral way to say this would be "Brian tries to convince others that Mayor West is corrupt" per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
• "start smoking pot"..... marijuana; please remember not to use slang in a professional encyclopedia
• "ridiculous moments" is more blatant bias
• "feel up a girl"..... again, please avoid slang
• Again, cultural references are better for episode articles, so I'd remove "In a parody of the film Poltergeist,"
• Not too sure about the use of "followed by even stranger events"
• Let's improve the tone of "their equally exotic and dysfunctional ancestry" by just saying "their ancestry"

• Citations could be better:

• Toronto Sun isn't exactly the best of sources
• "SoundtrackNet" → Soundtrack.Net
• "ABC Medianet" → "ABC"
• I'm sure you can find something better than Fox News
• Don't italicize United Press International
• Publications should only be linked in the first ref they are used (i.e. just link USA Today in ref#5, and ABC in ref#16)
• The Heights is a student paper, which tends not to be as professional as other organizations, so let's try to find something better

This is certainly not FL quality at the moment, but I don't think it's beyond repair. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @SNUGGUMS: Done Thanks so much for bringing this to my attention. Hope you can reconsider. -- 1989 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would recommend adding this article to the list for a request for a source review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Please clarify. -- 1989 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before a list can be passed as a featured list, a user will have to provide a source review. A source review is when a user goes through the references of an article or list (in this case a list) to make sure that was not any close paraphrasing and to make sure all of the information cited with a source can actually be found in the source. If you look near the top of the FLC main page, you will see a box that says "Source reviews needed" and you add your article to that list. You only add your article to that list when your FLC has three "support" votes or more as that space is reserved for FLCs that are near completion. And before you ask me, I will be unable to provide a source review for this as it is preferred to get a new pair of eyes on this for that process. Let me know if you need further clarification on this. I could add this to the list if you would prefer since you are new to the process. Aoba47 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Done -- 1989 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review I've done this mostly for FAC so if I'm off base on anything, please bear with me. All sources seem of appropriate quality and are consistently cited. I note the following.

• Per MOS:TITLE, short works such as articles and webpages should be consistently capitalized. Refs 29, 55 seem especially odd here.
• Cannot accessdates, especially where not archived ,be updated from 2009?
• Why is it necessary to put "Staff" as the author of 44, 46, 47?
• On ref 12, "Family Guy: Volume Three: Commentary for "North by North Quahog"" Is there someplace where this title is spelled out in this manner? If you are simply describing it, then the italics (other than for the series title) are probably not justified.
• I only glanced at the prose but why is Deceased Indian Chief capitalized like that?
• I'll give another run through once this is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wehwalt: Please claify what you meant at bullet point 2, and on bullet point 4, the title is italics because the template {{cite AV media}} automatically does it. MCMLXXXIX 22:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that accessdates from 2009 make the article look outdated, as if it hasn't been worked on but for polishing since 2009. A reader thus may discount what is said then. But it's main purpose is to say that on such-and-such a date, the webpage was still working and still said what the article says it did. While I will do spot checks, I don't plan on looking at every source. Remember, you by bringing it here say the list abides by WP:V. One way of avoiding doing this in a rush is to update the accessdate as you go through the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Done MCMLXXXIX 20:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done what? They still show 2009. I'm suggesting you check each one and update the accessdate, assuming it still says what you think it should.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Bullet Point 4, is that the actual title, or is that a description?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: I don't know if you haven't noticed, but I updated the accessdates on the ones without the archivelink parameter. I guess you wanted me to do it on those ones as well. I updated them. Part of the title is the actual title, but where it says the North by North thing is the description. I fixed that one as well. MCMLXXXIX 11:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly I loaded an old version. Thanks, great.

Spot check

• Ref 5 supports the text.
• Ref 15 you give 9.20 million but the source, if rounded, is 9.21 million. (9260 thousand)
• Ref 25 supports the text.
• Ref 35 supports the text.
• Ref 45 supports the text
• Ref 55 is offline, so instead: Ref 54 supports the text.
• Ref 62 supports the text.

• Done @Wehwalt: I fixed the issue in bullet 2. MCMLXXXIX 15:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now

• I'm not sure if this should include roles that weren't part of her professional career in the lead

Removed the name but just a mention of when she began acting would not hurt.

• "After small television roles in Medium, Malcolm in the Middle and Lucky Louie, she made her screen debut"..... TV has screens as well; "film debut" would be more accurate
• Without establishing a budget figure for Ghost of Girlfriends Past, it's hard to say how financially successful the film was based on its earnings (successful if it earns the total of the budget or higher, failure if it makes less than the budget)
• "Further success came for her in the horror comedy Zombieland"..... do you mean commercially for the film or general success for Stone's individual career? It certainly made more than enough to be a financial success. (It's better to use the link I provided than what you have now since it includes budget to help determine commercial success plus the genre).
• For Crazy, Stupid, Love and The Help, it again is better to use specific links for the films like these since they actually include genres as well as budgets for determining financial success
• "became her most widely seen film with a worldwide revenue of $757 million"..... this is potentially misleading since people can see films multiple times in theaters as well as many instances outside of theaters; it would be more accurate to say "her most financially successful film" or "her highest grossing film"
• While I do know that La La Land is a musical, it seems a bit odd to state "The musical is her highest rated film on the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes" when you don't previously mention the film's genre
• Are the La La Land songs really appropriate for the lead? Even if including any songs in tables (which is rather unconventional for lists of this general nature), I'm not sure she's gotten any particular attention for certain tracks. It also doesn't seem right to have rowspans for the songs here; even if discography pages tend to use those, this isn't a discography article.

Yeah, but the section is discography so.. I also do not like to repeat the same thing over and over (only to increase bytes) when you could do the same thing without making it look repetitive.

Well, it is her works list. Given that she has done that more than once, it should be noted. Besides, it is not her biography where it is not mentioned.

• While her role in Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping wasn't credited, something doesn't seem right about listing "Unknown" for her character
• Not sure directors are really worth including in the tables, but they certainly don't need multiple links either way

Well, the table is sortable so..

• The ref used for Battle of the Sexes doesn't even mention the film, but here is something that does
• I'd merge all of the SNL appearances into one listing with multiple years (except for maybe the 40th anniversary special) with a collective "various roles" description to encompass everyone she played

I think it is good the way it is because it is more clear this way - what role she played and when. Denzel Washington on screen and stage is also like that.

• It seems too soon to have Maniac listed when her role and its premiere date haven't been announced yet

I'm sure this can be improved in a reasonable amount of time, but I can't support it yet. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I hope that I addressed your concerns to your satisfaction. - FrB.TG (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better, but I still don't feel sure directors are needed, and the rowspans from "discography" still shouldn't be here; let's keep it consistent with the other tables by not using them. On another note, I don't think the "replaced Michelle Williams" bit is needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Directors are not very common in Hollywood filmographies, but they are widespread in Bollywood lists. I think it can prove informative. - FrB.TG (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• This is probably obvious, but why is the list titled "List of Emma Stone performances" instead of "Emma Stone filmography" or something along those lines. Again, there is probably an obvious answer, but I was just curious about this.
• I found the sentence about the The New Partridge Family to a little confusing as you describe it as a reality show that produced an unsold pilot, but when I look at the Wikipedia page about this, The New Partridge Family is the pilot. Wouldn't it be clearer just to say Stone made her television debut in the unsold pilot for The New Partridge Family? The way it is currently phrased makes me think that The New Partridge Family and the pilot are two separate entities.
• Not sure if this matters or not, but why is the "Voice role" in the "Notes" section for the "Film" table, but "Voice" is put in parenthesis by the character name in the "Television" table. I was just wondering for the sake of consistency throughout the list.

Otherwise, everything else looks solid. Most of comments are just for my own clarification. I will support this nomination once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is film, television, video game, music and what not. I don't see any other title more suitable. I have rectified the errors. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the opening sentence describes Smith as a producer, I'd at least note how he executive produced some episodes on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air
• If talking about his Golden Globe nominations, then I don't know why his nomination for The Pursuit of Happyness was left out
• "The film received poor reviews but became his eighth consecutive to gross over $100 million"...... earnings have nothing to do with reviews, so maybe go with "While the film received poor reviews, it became his eighth consecutive to gross over $100 million"
• "he appeared in action film Suicide Squad which grossed over $745 million at the worldwide box office despite receiving a generally negative reception"..... same as before, and "receiving a generally negative reception" reads awkwardly
• Per consensus here, it's best to change "1990–96" to "1990–1996" and "2003–07" to "2003–2007"; more complete and professional

Overall, looking pretty good. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for the review. Have made relevant fixes, I think. Cowlibob (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk) Looks good. Just a couple of things to fix before I can support:

• It would be nice to have more info added onto the "Rural municipalities" section. You could add an explanation on the difference between a county and a district.

I wonder if the content that follows in the subsections doesn't already do this. Let me think further about this. Perhaps there is a solution without appearing to be redundant in close proximity. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this work? Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The gallery of pictures in the "List of municipalities" section could be more visually appealing if both rows are centred with the page, with the bottom two pictures having the same length.

Mattximus, you are more often successful with image-related edits than I am. Care to take a stab? Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the gallery mode actually automatically adjusts based on your screen resolution, so if we did make an edit it would look well on K. Annoyomous' computer but would look worse on the vast majority of others. Specifically, only monitors with resolutions less than half the average laptop would be affected by having two lines of images that you are seeing. As far as I can tell, without hyperbole, almost every computer that is not set up for visually impaired users or cell phones should see the images as on a single row. Sorry, but to be more specific I would have to know your screen resolution. Thanks for the comment! Mattximus (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had no issues on my two laptops and work computer. Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kings County is Nova Scotia's largest county municipality." Clarify that it is the largest by population, and not by area.

Good eye. Fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you consider adding a general references section? There are a number of citations that are referred to a good amount of time that could simply be put in a separate general references section.

I haven't considered it and it hasn't been a suggestion received in the 10 predecessor FLCs. Allow me to consider this and other options that may be available. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this and this, which has reduced the repitition of the second reference by 12 (from 26 to 14). Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #14 is a dead link.

Fixed. It died sometime within the past three weeks. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is User:Canadaolympic989 not a part of the nominators? Seems like he was a major contributor in addition to you two.

No sleight intended. Canadaolympic989 started the article over two days in early 2013. Subsequent edits to add villages didn't stick since they aren't considered muncipalities in Nova Scotia. The effort to begin bringing to FL status began in December 2013, while the only subsequent additions (2001 census data) didn't survive either as 2001 census data isn't included in the 10 others and can be problematic where municipality boundaries before 2006 differ from those in 2011. If Canadaolympic989 would prefer however, I am not aware of there being a maximum of two co-noms. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm semi-retired, and I don't check my watchlist that often, so please message me on my talk page. Kind regards. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K. Annoyomous, thank you for your review. Interim responses provided above. I'm on the road for the next 36 hours and will swing back again to finish up after I'm back. I'll ping again. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, K. Annoyomous. Please review my latest replies and advise if there are any further concerns. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hwy43, see above: please message me on my talk page --PresN 17:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do so now. Thought I'd try a less intrusive ping first. Hwy43 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The phrase “an average grosser” sounds a little odd to me. I would rephrase it.

  Rephrased —Vensatry _(talk) 06:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the sentence about Varalaru, you describe that he plays three roles and only say one (the classical dancer). Why did you only mention one of the three roles?

  I think it was added because he is not really known for his dancing skills. Removed the bit as there's no context. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you identify in the sentence in Reference 19 that supports how he broke the “stereotypical image of a leading man in Tamil cinema”? I cannot locate it in the source.

  Removed the bit as it was not the first-of-its-kind Tamil film. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree with Mymis’ above comments.

• @Ssven2: Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Good luck with this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mymis and Aoba47: Thanks for the comments —Vensatry _(talk) 06:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vensatry, thanks for addressing various comments in my absence. I found out that Ajith's performance in Mankatha earned him a Best Actor nomination at Filmfare South (as seen in this video at 2:37). Mymis and Aoba47, since there are probably no reliable text sources covering this, could I cite the event itself? But the video is from an unverified channel, even though it shows the event being broadcast on Star Vijay. We can't deliberately leave out such things as it borders on gaming the system. Also, should we list his major wins/nominations in the table under the "notes" column? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792:@Vensatry: Thank you for addressing my comments. I would not include a table of his major wins and nominations as there is already a separate list devoted to that (as put in the "See also" section) so that would not be necessary. I am honestly not sure if the video would work as a citation (I am leaning more towards no, but I am uncertain), and you could also pose this question at Wikipedia:RSN as they would have more informed about what can be used as a source and in what context. I apologize for not being much help in that matter. Aoba47 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47, Kailash29792, and Vensatry: I believe it can be cited like reference number 32 in List of accolades received by Kahaani.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. That appears to be an appropriate citation method. Once this is addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]