Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2015

• WP:ALT needed for the image.

Added.

• Her only music video appearance (that too before acting) needs to be mentioned.

Added.

• Filmfare Award for Best Actress linked twice in the lede.

Corrected.

• Surely there is a better way to describe her role in Bachna Ae Haseeno than "Ranbir Kapoor's love interest"?

I think it's okay, because her main purpose in the film was as the love interest.

It sounds so sexist as we never say that a hero played the love interest of an actress. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 11:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of Bollywood films are sexist, sadly. I would have described her by her profession or such, like I did with Piku, but in Bachna Ae Haseeno her role was meant as the love interest and little else. If the purpose of a male actor is simply as the love interest of the actress, then I would put it as such. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Padukone's first film release of 2009, the kung fu" - We are aware that we're talking about films until now.

She might have had a music video release as well, couldn't she?

• The sentence mentioned above is really long. Consider splitting it.

Split.

• Ref. 7 has a publishing date.

Added.

• When you say that the film Cocktail marked a turning point in her career, you do not need to further say that "critics praised her performance".

It could have been a turnaround simply because it earned a ton of money. This wasn't the case.

• "Among these were two of the highest-grossing Bollywood films — the romantic comedy Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani and the action-comedy Chennai Express — and the tragic romance Goliyon Ki Raasleela Ram-Leela, for which she won the Filmfare Award for Best Actress." - Whoa, so long!

Is this even a valid concern: "Whoa so long!"? Tell me one FLC criteria that says sentences cannot be long! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the criteria. It will be a little bit tiring to read such a long sentence, therefore I think it needs to be divided into parts. It can be rephrased with s/th like "Among these were ... Ram-Leela. For the last of these, she won a Filmfare..."

Split.

• Link The Indian Express in ref. 15.

Done.

• I don't see a need to add three images of her, all taken during the same time.

Not a valid concern.

All of her looks spotted in the list are all same. I don't think there is a need to crowd the list with overuse of images.

Removed the 2013 image, kept the 2010 image. It definitely does not crowd the list.

• Why two sources for Billu? Ref. 26 should suffice.

Removed.

• Source 35 says that the song's name is "Dum Maro Dum Mit Jaye Gham", not "Mit Jaye Gham".

Changed.

• Ref 41. does not cite the name of the director of YJHD.

Added.

• The spelling of her character (in Chennai Express) in the source is "Meenalochani" while you spell it as "Meenalochini"

Changed.

• Her character in the film has also a nickname.

So?

What do you mean by "So"? It needs to be added.

• Are you sure that the language of Finding Fanny was entirely English?

Yes, the source says that as well. The Hindi version was a separate dubbed one.

• According to ref. 20 the name of her character in Piku is only "Piku", not "Piku Banerji". -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 15:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed.

I didn't mean that you change her name to "Piku". You can use this source and add her full name back. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 15:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Thanks for the ref. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of your comments warrant an oppose. It's highly unethical to oppose a nomination without providing a reason to. None of your comments are major concerns. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! Wanted to write "Comments". Mistaken. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 15:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments were definitely helpful, but I was very disappointed that you previously opposed the list without a valid rationale. Over the years, I have seen how common bad-faith opposes and comments are among a large number of Indian editors on Wikipedia, but it still saddens me when it happens. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes happen! -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 11:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For her performance, she won the Filmfare Award for Best Debut and also received....
• For Love Aaj Kal specify it was a commercial success or some term akin to it to make it clear.

I think overusing the word "success" may not be such a good idea, that's why I provided the gross instead of repeating the term several times in the lead.

• Padukone had five film releases in 2010.
• Repeated use of the year xxxx to begin sentences, rephrase it. I don't know much about this actress but am presuming that Cocktail was her first acclaimed role which led to a string of box office hits the following year so something along those lines would suffice.
• As she won a filmfare actress award for her role in Ram-Leela specify what role she played in the film.
• Finding Fanny and portrayed... I'm never sure with these but I think a Oxford comma is needed there.
• This one is personal preference. For the image next to the table, maybe pick one associated with Ram Leela or one of her more well known film roles. Cowlibob (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob Thanks for the comments. :) I've left the image beside the table as is, so that there is some time gap between the two pictures in the list. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure "box office hit" is encyclopaedic
• "Among these were two of the highest-grossing Bollywood films" – all-time or just 2013?
• You could add a line about Kochadaiyaan, not because it was her first non-Bollywood film in long time. The motion capture technology was something new in India and the film was definitely among her high-profile releases. Also, in the table it's worth mentioning what kind of film it was.
• Date of ref #11 is 11 July and not May. Likewise, for ref #13 it's 13 July 2012 (updated date of course)
• Refs. #16, #23 and #39 need author
  

—Vensatry _(ping) 16:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vensatry All done. Thanks for the comments. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed them.  — Calvin999 11:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is Katy Perry's image caption in italics?
  • Oh that was just where I'd left two apostrophes there. I've removed them.  — Calvin999 16:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is it that you have only repeated the links in "Originating album" and not in "Artist(s)" and "Writer(s)"? -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 13:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're only referring to why Ariana Grande isn't linked every time, it's because the article is about her, as such, as it's pointless to link her name every time. All album titles are linked because depending on how you sort, the only linked one may not always be at the top otherwise.  — Calvin999 16:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh it's sortable. Then it's okay. I am facing some problems with the table that's why I thought it is not appropriate to link every time. Anyways I will try to look at it, and will probably leave some more comments if any. In the meanwhile if you can look at my nom. It's okay if you are not comfortable with the topic. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 17:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. Sure I'll take a look.  — Calvin999 18:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• All images except File:Lorde Laneway 7 (cropped).jpg need personality rights templates at the Commons

• Artists should sort by last name, not first; Big Sean, for instance, should sort below Ariana Grande
  • I completely agree, but some editors told me not to do that in the previous nomination.  — Calvin999 07:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ariana Grande's name should be linked throughout the "Artist" section of the table
  • No it doesn't, because of WP:OVERLINK. None of my previous nominations have ever linked every instance of the primary artist.  — Calvin999

• Go through the table to ensure all non-linked songs don't have articles

• in 2011 when she contributed to the soundtrack "contributed" is too vague; what did she actually do?

• Grande later revealed that she did not like how it why wouldn't she like if it was aimed at children? No context in article

• Can you link "extended play"?

• 1990s R&B influenced → 1990s-R&B-influenced

• The phrase "more mature" never appears in the citation to which it's referenced...

• determined Grande as an artist who performs dance, pop and soul music awkward use of "determined"

• "Break Free" is an EDM expand the abbreviation on first use

• Refs use both "iTunes Store, Apple" and "iTunes Store. Apple." Seattle (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks.  — Calvin999 07:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my unresolved comments. Seattle (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Seattle, the singer's names are all sorting by surname and always have since the previous nomination (check the templates in the table for yourself), and I won't WP:OVERLINK Grande's name because you're not supposed to (so you're going against guidelines), so I don't see how your oppose is justifiable?  — Calvin999 09:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (1). You haven't addressed three of my original comments. (2). You've introduced new errors with the comments you have addressed, such as the inappropriate caps on electronic dance music and the abbreviation of extended play to EP. (3). OVERLINK specifies: "Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, at the openings of new sections, in the cells of tables, and in image captions" (emphasis mine); I don't see how readers wouldn't benefit from links to Grande's article throughout the table. Seattle (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Seattle I don't see how linking Ariana Grande 41 times is beneficial? It is linked in the lead, all of the songs obviously feature Grande with links to her bio, same with the albums, there are templates at the bottom of the article with links to her bio. I've removed the caps from EDM, and removed the abbr. of EP. You haven't addressed that all of the names do sort by surname.  — Calvin999 08:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Calvin. Linking Grande in her own page that too over 41 times? Don't think it's a good idea. She is linked in the lead, which I think is enough. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 13:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate comment- two points: I was the one who told Calvin999 in the last nomination that "Big Sean", as a stage name rather than a real name, should sort by "B", not "S"- "Big" isn't a first name. The only instance of those names I find questionable is whether Iggy Azalea should sort by A or I; currently it's I. Second: while the usual standard is to link every instance of something in a sortable table, since various different rows can come up first depending on how you sort the table/if new additions are made to the table, I think that it's a reasonable exception to say that Grande is linked in the lead, and the list is about her, so you can skip linking her at all in the table. Not because there's 41 of them, but just because it's not a likely link for readers to want to click, as opposed to an artist that the list isn't about. --PresN 02:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Iggy Azalea is irrelevant here. It's Ariana Grande featuring Iggy Azalea, so the template says Grande, Ariana featuring Iggy Azalea.  — Calvin999 07:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Iggy Azalea sorts after "featuring Elizabeth Gillies" and before "featuring Mac Miller"; if it sorted by "A" instead of "I", it would sort as the first "featuring" song. Seattle (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, because 'I' is after 'E' in the alphabet, and before 'M', so that makes complete sense for Iggy to sort after Elizabeth and after Mac. Not sure how you are working it to not make sense.  — Calvin999 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's not a direct response to the question. It makes a difference if Iggy Azalea sorts under "I" or "A"; it's not "irrelevant". Seattle (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• PresN's exception to the linking rule seems reasonable for the list. My unaddressed comments, copied from above:

• I said the same, but clearly me telling you wasn't good enough..  — Calvin999 07:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you told me that linking Grande's name 41 times in a table wasn't beneficial; PresN's rational was because this list represents a subpage of Grande, "[n]ot because there's 41 [table links]". That's different. What's the difference between "featuring", "with", and "and" in the table? Seattle (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I also said "It is linked in the lead, all of the songs obviously feature Grande with links to her bio, same with the albums, there are templates at the bottom of the article with links to her bio." So I was also saying that this is a subpage and that there are multiple links to her bio.  — Calvin999 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Grande later revealed that she did not like how it why wouldn't she like if it was aimed at children? No context in article
  • It's a song which was supposed to be the lead single from her debut album, but it was scrapped as a lead single in favour of giving Grande more freedom, which I say.  — Calvin999 07:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't follow the logic. Seattle (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've given an overview of her musical career, that is what the lead is supposed to be doing and what I was asked in the previous nomination to pay more attention to. I'm saying what happened in between her being on the Victorious soundtracks and her debut album, and why she was given more control for her debut.  — Calvin999 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Go through the table to ensure all non-linked songs don't have articles
  • I have.  — Calvin999 07:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The phrase "more mature" never appears in the citation to which it's referenced.... Seattle (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC
  • Show me where this is in the article please.  — Calvin999 07:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ??  — Calvin999 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What does "blue" in the "TBA" cell mean? Seattle (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'To be announced', meaning that the title of the album hasn't been announced but the album is slated for release... It's a pre-coded template, so I can't help that who created template made it blue, not that it really matters. There's no issue with singles being purple (which I was asked to do last time).  — Calvin999 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the difference between "featuring", "with", and "and" in the table?
  • That's how they are credited.  — Calvin999 17:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2011 Grande also began to work an independent artist missing an "as". Seattle (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added.

• • I've done all that you asked.  — Calvin999 17:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1982, Washington made his first appearance as Dr. Philip Chandler sentence implies he play Chandler again.

• The role proved to be the breakthrough in his career. what does this mean, exactly? Can you provide a direct quote here?

• playing Trip, former slave-turned-soldier can you add an "a" after "Trip,"?

• The lead gets a bit repetitive after a while, especially the final paragraph; can you cut out some unimportant detail?

• for playing wrongly convicted boxer Rubin Carter wrongly convicted → wrongly-convicted

• "Year" column in the "Television" section should be "Year(s)"; same with "Role"

• MOS:SLASH recommends against use of slash; can you replace with "and"?

• "Stage" "Year" column should be "Year(s)". Seattle (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seattle: Thanks for the review. I think I've sorted most of this. I've wikilinked breakthrough to make it clear basically St. Elsewhere is what launched his acting career and where he first got recognition. Tried to cut down the detail, he's had a near forty year career so it's hard to remove roles as he's noted for many films. For the multiple roles in television I've added breaks to separate them. Hope that's ok. Cowlibob (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Two years later" spotted five times. Can one/some of these be replaced with something else to avoid repetition.
• "In 1993, he starred in the Kenneth Branagh's adaptation" - I don't know why is "the" there.
• "In 1999, Washington won the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama,[10] and his second Silver Bear for Best Actor[9] for playing wrongly-convicted boxer Rubin Carter in the biographical film The Hurricane.[11]" - Can you shift the ref. 9 to the very end of the sentence?
• The table has much space to add directors' names, no? I think this info. can be added.
• Can you remove the width size from the third table (section "Stage") and let it adjust automatically as the empty space in "Year(s)" and "Ref." look so weird. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the review. I think I've sorted these. I prefer to highlight the important collaborations in the lead rather than have a separate column. Cowlibob (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any harm to have a separate column for the directors, and the table has the space. I am just asking it for the ease of readers in case they want to know the names of the directors rather than going to those pages and looking at the names. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 15:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Added director column. Cowlibob (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• By virtue of his win, he became the first African American actor to win two competitive Oscars, and the first since Sidney Poitier in 1964 to win the leading actor Oscar.[15][16] Oscar(s) -> Academy Award(s)
• For his portrayal of an alcoholic airline pilot in Flight (2012),[21] he garnered a nomination for the Best Actor Oscar.[22] Don't use Oscar.
• He seems to have played two roles in one of the Happily Ever After: Fairy Tales for Every Child episodes he was in, but he isn't clear, which. Maybe put those two roles in the same line or use rowspan to and separate the two episodes.
• Only link publications and publishers the first time you use them in references. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Littlecarmen: Since the editor is unavailable at the moment, I have addressed your first three comments. As for the last one, there are absolutely no problems with repeating the links in references, and like I said before it can indeed be useful as we don't know which one is going to be clicked first. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 18:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Littlecarmen: Thanks FrB.TG for taking care of these when I was gone. In relation to overlinking it doesn't apply to references and could be useful as we don't which ref would be viewed by the reader first. I believe SchroCat said it was ok in a previous nomination. Cowlibob (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are areas of a page which are exempt from OVERLINKING, one of which is the reference section. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem with the length of the list, eight entries is fine.
• Is the name sorting right, for them all to sort by first name? I'm sure you'd know better than me, but it seems odd to me that in the prose you refer to Mohammad Nissar as "Nissar", but he sorts by the "M".
  • I have no problem over sorting the table by last name. But we have this problem with South Indian names – In Ravichandran Ashwin, Ashwin is the actual name of the person while Ravichandran is patronymic. In case of Mohammad Nissar, Nissar is a surname. Generally speaking, we are advised to use last names, however, WP:PATRONYMIC suggests the person should be referred to by their given name (it doesn't have an Indian perspective though). —Vensatry _(ping) 12:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Add in publisher and location details where relevant (particularly I'd say, #1, #2 and #3.
  • Linked publishers. Are locations mandatory? —Vensatry _(ping) 12:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 5 to 14 use "ESPNcricinfo" but 15 to 22 are "Cricinfo". Make these consistently "ESPNcricinfo" as the website parameter and add "ESPN" as a publisher.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 12:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 10 needs author details and date.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 12:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 13 needs endashes rather than hyphens.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 12:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a nice list. Also worth noting that as Lugnuts is listed as a co-nominator, that support should probably be struck. Harrias ^talk 09:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thanks for your comments —Vensatry _(ping) 12:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor quibble with the title, some of those listed took more than five wickets...
  • True that. I remember someone had pointed out this at a thread in WT:CRIC. Will move the page once we're done with this nom. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "As of February 2015" it's now June, is this still correct?
• "The eight such occasions " not keen on this phrasing, still thinking how best to rephrase though...!
  • What's wrong with this? I too cannot think of a better alternative. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "The first Indian to achieve this feat" if it was me, I'd say "The first Indian to take a five-wicket haul..."
• "In the event, Nissar became the first Indian to take a five-wicket haul in Test cricket." I think this is sort of obvious considering it was India's inaugural Test match, but I'd merge it with the previous sentence, so ", becoming the first Indian ..."
  • Moved to FN —Vensatry _(ping) 17:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• " a Leg spinner" no need to capitalise Leg.
• "As of May 2015, he is the only Indian cricketer to take ten or more wickets in a Test match on debut." it's June, and can we reference this?
• No need to relink "fast bowler" in the last para of the lead.
• Be consistent with the application of full stops in the key.
  • Only complete sentences are ended with a full stop. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Checking the source, Ashwin took 6 for 47 I believe.
• I don't know but it may be worth clarifying that although this is about debut fifers, the debut includes both innings of the Test match, e.g. Ashwin didn't take a fifer on his debut bowl, it was his second innings...

That's all I have from a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Think I'm done with everything. Thanks for the timely response. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Just to remind you! —Vensatry _(ping) 11:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "by the critics..." is there a better word you could use other than critics? Just sounds wrong to me. If not then remove "the" as it is not needed
• "The eight such occasions..."
• "with five of them being inside India; two were taken at the..." -> five in India, two of which were taken at the
• The table does not meet WP:ACCESS, you need to add row and col scopes
  • Ah, don't know how I missed this. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @NapHit: All done —Vensatry _(ping) 18:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason why the mini-LP isn't noted in the lead?
  • Because it hasn't been released yet and the sentence it would be included in says "Mac DeMarco, a singer-songwriter from Canada, has released". I was going to add it once it's released but I could change the sentence and add the mini-LP if you think I should. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "his debut extended play" you've already abbreviated extended play so use EP instead. This happens more than once in the lead.
  • Fixed. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "The EP sold out its 500-unit run. " is this explicitly referenced somewhere?
  • "and soon all 500 copies of the self-released EP were sold out." In the reference following the next sentence. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "from contemporary music critics." don't think the link to music journalism is either appropriate or necessary.
  • Removed. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "acclaim and peaked at number 26 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart and was" and and .... one too many run-ons for me.
  • Fixed. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "met with critical acclaim" repetitive.
  • Fixed. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't link United Kingdom, at the very least link the appropriate charts article.
  • Done. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Which country is each release date pertinent to?
  • Wherever it was first released. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • State each location explicitly. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "November 8, 2013[15][16]" why two refs for a single date? This happens more than once.
  • For several release formats. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• mini-LP release is not referenced.
  • • But the refs are next to the date. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've moved the extra references next to the release formats. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rock and Roll Night Club release is not referenced.
  • I was told previously that releases that have their own articles don't need references, but I've added them now. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Check reference titles for WP:DASH violations, i.e. don't use spaced hyphens, use spaced en-dashes.
  • Done. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Avoid SHOUTING in reference titles.
  • Done. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Another One is referred to in its link as an EP, which redirects to album which states it's a mini-LP. Bit messy.
  • I've changed it to the album link now, but do you think the article should be renamed to Another One (mini-LP)? Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I've addressed all of your comments. Littlecarmen (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Mac Demarco @ The Middle East Downstairs (13720056215).jpg: Needs a personality rights template at the Commons.
  • Added. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Mixture of links and no-links for works and websites in the "references" section
  • They're linked the first time they're used. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 34, 35, and 36 shouldn't link to YouTube unless they're licensed videos; see WP:COPYLINK and Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.
  • They're all licensed. Ref #34 and 35 are on the directors' channels and 36 is on the label's channel. This doesn't violate WP:COPYLINK. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you know that? Have you contacted the YouTube channels to confirm licenses? None are verified profiles; how do you know those are the actual directors? Seattle (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • All right, I've removed the links to YouTube and exchanged them. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DeMarco was in several bands in high school and, after graduating in 2008, released his debut EP, Heat Wave, under the name Makeout Videotape, in 2009. sentence poorly constructed
  • Changed. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Heat Wave was followed by two EPs, Eating Like a Kid and Bossa Yeye, and one studio album, Ying Yang; all in 2010. incorrect use of semi-colon
  • Fixed. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• In 2011, DeMarco went back to recording as a solo artist, which resulted I'm not sure his decision to work independently caused Captured Tracks to release the EP. Is this accurate?
  • Changed. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• peaked at number 90 in the United Kingdom, on which chart?
  • Added. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 was met with critical acclaim and peaked at number 26 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart do you have references for "critical acclaim"?
  • Yes, the Metacritic page for 2. It says "universal acclaim". Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "EPs" in infobox doesn't link anywhere
• "mini-LPs" section doesn't link anywhere either. Seattle (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just used Template:Infobox artist discography. Is EPs supposed to link somewhere? I added a link for mini-LPs, but it won't show up. Maybe there's a problem with the template because I also don't see any links in the examples used on the template page. Thank you for your comments! Littlecarmen (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're supposed to link to the appropriate section in the text, in this case "Extended plays" and "mini-LPs". Seattle (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh okay, I've fixed it now. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't help but think that these tables would benefit from being restructured to make them sortable. The "Album details" column looks as though it should be split into three different columns, "Release date", "Label" and "Formats", rather than providing these as bullet points in a cell, which to be honest, defeats the purpose of putting them in a table in the first place.
• The lists of singles and music videos can be made sortable pretty simply in their current layout. Harrias ^talk 20:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never seen that done on discographies on Wikipedia. I've made the music video table sortable so people can sort the videos by director but it doesn't make sense to me to make the others sortable as well. Littlecarmen (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never seen it done on discographies on Wikipedia either, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Being able to sort by name, by date, by chart position seems to me as though it would make the tables more useful. (With these tables being so short, I appreciate it isn't going to be as useful in this as in others, but I would still judge it an improvement.) Harrias ^talk 06:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've made the tables sortable now, I just kept peak chart positions and formats unsortable since only one of his three studio albums has charted so it doesn't make sense to sort by chart position right now and formats are listed so sorting doesn't really help the reader see which formats an album was released in. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, I think that's an improvement. I added a template to sort the directors correctly by surname, but otherwise all good. Only further question I have is whether it is worth mentioning the upcoming mini-LP Another One in the lead at all? Harrias ^talk 15:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your improvements! I think so, I added a sentence about it to the lead. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I'm just being picky, but I think a link to a "news" article would be better. This article has a bit at the bottom maybe? Harrias ^talk 16:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem, I exchanged the source. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mac DeMarco, a singer-songwriter from Canada, has released" - I would reword this as "Canadian singer-songwriter Mac DeMarco has..."
  • Done. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "DeMarco is set to release a mini-LP titled Another One in the summer of 2015." - This is an event which hasn't happened yet, so what's this doing in the lead?
  • Harrias requested it in the resolved comments box above. Now I'm unsure. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No sales amount for studio albums?
  • I've never seen sales numbers for any of his releases. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Section 1.3: "mini-LPs" => "Mini-LPs".
  • Fixed. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Billboard needs to be linked in ref. 5, not 12.
  • Fixed. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you make all the links white ("working") here?
  • Done. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For this to pass, you need to invite one more editor. Also, I would like you to look at my nomination. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 22:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it now! Thank you for your comments :) Littlecarmen (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• General comments
  • All violations of MOS:DASH need to be fixed.
    • I think I've fixed them all. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All instances of {{N/A}} need to be filled in with an explanation as to what they mean, EG {{N/A|Non-album single}} for Young Blood, and the same for whatever the two directors have N/A's for.
    • Done. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead comments
  • "2 was met with critical acclaim" Needs source.
    • It had a source later on but I've moved it. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "DeMarco was in several bands in high school until he graduated in 2008." Needs source.
    • Same as above. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Heat Wave was followed by two EPs, Eating Like a Kid and Bossa Yeye, and one studio album, Ying Yang, all in 2010." Needs source.
    • That's all sourced in the body of the article. WP:LEADCITE says not to add references to information that is sourced in the body. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2011, DeMarco went back to recording as a solo artist and was signed by Captured Tracks." Needs source.
    • Added. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They released his EP Rock and Roll Night Club in early 2012" Needs source.
  • "peaked at number 26 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart." Needs source.
    • Both sourced in the article body. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Body comments
  • The lead mentions how the album 2 charted at number 26 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart, but it's not displayed in the charts table.
    • Added. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd remove all mentions of "(as Makeout Videotape)" and replace them with a symbol, explained in a footnote at the bottom of the page.
    • Done. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to the album tables, I really detest the current layout entirely in the body, sorry to say. I'm not sure if it's policy to follow a certain stylistic layout, and if it isn't then feel free to keep it as is, but I'd really suggest changing the format to something similar to that of the majority of other featured discographies, like Lady Gaga discography or Lily Allen discography (With one column for Album details, listing release date, label and format). I don't see the point in having three separate columns for album details when they can all be shoved into one small box.)
    • Just seen after writing this that another user suggested changing it, it looked perfect before. Harrias, why did you suggest such a radical, messy layout change that virtually no other discog article uses? Let alone a featured-grade one?
      • So should I change it back or should we ask the delegates? Littlecarmen (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if there's no definitive policy that states all discographies should have concurrent layouts, then I guess it's up to you, or delegates as you suggest. But I see no pros to the new format change, especially if information is released giving means for a "Sales" column to be added in the studio albums table, squishing everything even smaller still. The sortable options also make no sense to me, dates are already sorted in regular tables from earliest to latest release, I see no reason why people would want to sort labels, especially in this case as there's two of the same label and one N/A, I can maybe just see reason for title sort option, but even so, there's three albums, it's not like we're dealing with tons of information. But hey, even though there may not be a policy, I think some common sense needs to be applied to our thinking, and having a concurrent layout theme from discog to dicgoc, in order as to not confuse readers, seems more than logical. Azealia911 _talk 15:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested the change because I felt it would be an improvement, and in my opinion, it is. While I grant that the appearance may be slightly compromised, the ability to sort adds increased functionality. Yes, this is a relatively short list, and therefore the benefits might be relatively small. The question of why to do this on a "featured-grade one" seems odd: the point of the "Featured" process is to refine articles, lists and images, and to improve them. Otherwise this page would be nothing more than a list of people saying "Support" or "Oppose". Maybe requesting such a change was radical, maybe it was beyond the purview of a single FLC and should be a wider discog MOS discussion. But at the end of the day, I made a suggestion that I thought would improve the list. Harrias ^talk 16:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the formatting of the discography back now. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I respectfully disagree per my comments above. I feel the confusion and unnecessary messiness (for lack of a better word) that it adds, outweighs the slight benefit it brings to the page. I'd probably agree with you had the discography been long and hard to navigate otherwise, but I don't feel it's necessary in tables of 3-5 albums per listing. Littlecarmen I'll leave it up to you or delegates to decide which, and Harrias, I'll be more than happy to partake in a discussion on the MOS of discographies with you. Azealia911 _talk 16:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Even though they have independent articles, all three albums need refs to back up their release dates.
    • Added. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd remove all sortable options from the tables, they're rarely used in discography articles.
  • I see no issue in using rowspans for singles, maybe music videos as they cross into filmography teritory, but certainly seems ok to use them for singles.
    • These two have to do with the format change of the discography requested by Harrias so I'm going to wait before I change them. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May have some more comments later, that was a brief scan of the article, so some things may not need fixing, feel free to tell me something's already done/sourced/correct. Azealia911 _talk 20:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you comments! Littlecarmen (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, thankyou for addressing the majority so quickly, I appreciate it! Azealia911 _talk 15:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! Littlecarmen (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• One tiny final comment, there's various refs for "digital download" in album details boxes. It's pretty much a given that projects released in the 2010's are released for digital distribution. If anything, I'd source the far less common cassette release, but that's purely optional.
  • All formats are sourced! The formats are usually mentioned in the references used for the release dates and I only added a separate sources for formats that aren't mentioned in the source for the release date. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't Knight Commander a better target for KBE?

• Hmmm... that's from the {{post-nominals}} template. I'll look into the documentation and see if there is a reason. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• More quickly than I thought, there is no good answer! I've tweaked the link for a workaround. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "to which he remained devoted all his life he was" I think it would read marginally better if there was a comma after "life".
• "and his early novels were mostly school stories" this reads oddly to me, kind of tagged on.
• "novel and story writing" I would have thought these should be hyphenated, i.e. novel- and story-writing career...
• I'm going to hate myself but wouldn't "who became familiar to the public" be better as "with whom the public became familiar"?
• Two links to A Gentlemen of Leisure could be confusing, perhaps you could clarify that one links to a film?
• "and then for RKO Pictures" worked for?
• "During the Second World War Wodehouse was captured by the Germans" how did that happen?
• "In chronological order" -> Initially in chronological...
• (All London) is probably best incorporated into the hatnote as "All publishers based in London".
• (New York unless otherwise stated) - I couldn't see any "otherwise stated"s...
• Be consistent with the full stops in the notes.
• Plays, initial sort order, the 1911 should come before the August 1911 otherwise you can never sort back to the initial order.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Might it be worth adding (MGM) after Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. I know you link it, and never refer to them by the abbreviation, but there are plenty of people around who will know them better as MGM than Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

• Done. – SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the "UK title" is the "row scope" column for the Novels list, could it be made slightly wider? At the moment the width seems to diminish its importance.

• I'll have a look in the morning on a range of screen sizes. I tend to leave the columns to break where they are because there are so many variations in screen size. – SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Now looked - and I've widened the first column so that none of the titles break onto a second line. The formatting is ignored on some readers (tablets, phones and narrower screens), but there isn't much we can do about that! - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the non-linked films and plays non-notable? Otherwise there is nothing wrong with red links. I notice they are red linked in the nav box at the bottom.

• Im not sure they are! (Although that's because I don't know enough about them. I'll copy the red links from the na box so they match, which seems a sensible option. – SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In the references, I found it slightly confusing that you use "pp. 30–37" (rather than "pp. 30–7") but "pp. 331–33" (rather than "pp. 331–333") And similar later.

• It shoud never have a single digit as the second number (unless the page is 1-9), but shoud otherwise have either two or three. I go for double dit its in ranges. – SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can ref #17 have a full stop at the end, to remain consistent with all the other references?

• Good spot – done. – SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias ^talk 20:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers Harrias - good points, which I've largely followed.- SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Article title spaced at "P. G. Wodehouse" but infobox spaced as "P.G. Wodehouse"

• In good BrEng there shouldn't be a space (or full stops), but we are forced by the US-centric MoS to have them as such for titles. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Love among the Chickens - cover - Project Gutenberg etext 20532.jpg: needs a tag to explain why it's PD in the US.

• New tag clarifies.it now. – SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• in an arrangement that "helped transform the American musical" of the time. how so?

• I've added a broader description of what he did that was considered radical. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Vanity Fair should be italicized in the Louder and Funnier row

• Good spot. Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I count 15 scripts instead of 14

• Done. A few pieces of his work were added later, but I forgot to update the IB. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I count 42 plays instead of 37

• Ditto! - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I count 24 collections instead of 23. Seattle (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto! – SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done, bar the Americal musical comment, for which I,need my sources to clarify: I'll do so shortly as I'm away from my books at the moment. Thanks very much for your comments – very much appreciated. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Seattle, All now done, with the final point (on the Americal musical) now addressed. Thanks agan for your thoughts and comments on this. Ceers - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref. #1, needs a page no.
  • No page seems to be written there, but the link directly goes to the page no. (unknown) which I have used as a reference for the info. present in the list.
    • A page no. is definitely there. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It says pg 2002, but I ain't sure about it (if a book has 2000+ pages, which is a little bit rare). Anyways I have added that. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 21:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can find out the exact page no. by browsing through sites like Amazon, provided the corresponding page is available under a free preview. —Vensatry _(ping) 15:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not available under the free preview either. I have replaced that source with another one by Hindustan Times. I hope that's okay. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 17:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Sanjay Dutt and Shah Rukh Khan are linked twice in the lede
• "Dixit then played roles in commercial failure" - borders tautology
• "Her breakthrough role came two years later with the lead role in" - first role is redundant
• The above sentence is a little too long. Consider splitting it
• "one of the highest grossing film" -> one of the highest grossing films
• "her role of a violent revenge-seeking woman was well received." - This is not verified by either of the sources.
  • I missed this – "She won a second Best Actress award ... woman who rebels against her manipulative mother-in-law in the drama Beta" This isn't verified by the source either. Page #573 of the book talks about Saroj Khan. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops, my bad! It's pg 394 that says "In Beta, Madhuri Dixit takes on a scheming mother-in-law, Aruna Irani, to ensure justice for..." The "Best Actress" part has also been cited with a reliable source. @Vensatry: Please let me know if I have resolved your concerns. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 18:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "she played a woman escaping from her abusive marriage" - Same as above
  • Yes, it doesn't, yet it talks the same thing about Julia Roberts' character in Sleeping with the Enemy; Yaarana was its remake. And since Dixit is the one stepping into the role of Roberts, I think the source is okay.
    • What are you trying to say? Is there a mention of Sleeping with the Enemy anywhere in this article? —Vensatry _(ping) 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now there is. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 17:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • My bad, didn't know it was in ref #13. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "However, her 1997 release of the romantic film Dil To Pagal Hai was a major success" -> However, the 1997 romantic film Dil To Pagal Hai was a major success.
• "Her two film releases in 2002 were ... " - We are aware that we're talking about films until now.
• "In the latter film, she portrayed a prostitute in love with an alcoholic" - I'm not sure about the usage of the word prostitute here. Courtesan would be more appropriate.
• A mention of Gaja Gamini could well be made in the lede owing to the importance given to her character.
• The link to Bombay Talkies in the table points to the studio
• "The role of a con woman in Abhishek Chaubey's black comedy film Dedh Ishqiya (2014) marked her comeback after five years, which earned critical acclaim" - It's quite obvious to anyone that the gap was seven years.
  • Whoops! Mixed up with Aaja Nachle. Corrected!
• "For her role in Dedh Ishqiya, Dixit received her 14th nomination of the Filmfare Award for Best Actress" - This should precede the previous sentence.
• Swati was directed by Kranthi Kumar, not L. V. Prasad.
• Be consistent with T. Rama Rao and Tatineni Rama Rao. Likewise, for K. Bapaiah and K.Bapayya.
• "She served as the judge from fourth season til seventh season." - typo
• Refs #26, #32, #52 are missing publishers
• Link Zee News in its first occurrence
• Why is India TV italicised in the ref.
  

The table looks fine, but the lede needs a fair amount of work before this gets promoted. —Vensatry _(ping) 13:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the amazing review. All of the concerns have been taken care of. --FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 15:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Madhuri Dixit cropped.jpg: Needs a personality rights template at the Commons

• Slashes in the "Role(s)" section should be removed per MOS:SLASH

• Television "year" section should have ndash in 2012–14

• She continued to play the female lead in the successful critically or commercially?

• Dixit featured alongside Jackie Shroff and Sanjay Dutt no need to repeat Dutt's given name again

• Both of Dixit's releases in 1996—Rajkumar and Prem Granth—were unsuccessful. critically? financially?

• However, Yash Chopra's 1997 romantic film Dil To Pagal Hai was a major success for whom?

• The widely praised role → The widely-praised role

• from fourth season till seventh season. "till" is informal; change to "until". Seattle (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @Seattle: for the comments. I have responded accordingly. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 09:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to repeat Vidya's name in bracket each time in prose.

Removed.

• And the same for Khan.

Removed.

• You may add an FN for Apsara being known as Star Guild Awards now.

Added.

• Don't really know what's this exactly called, but use !scope="row" in the table.

Added.

• Are you sure that the BIG Star Entertainment Awards ceremony was held on 18 December.

Yup, from what I see online. The show was aired on TV on 31 December, but the ceremony was held on 18 December.

• I don't think that the date for the Filmfare Awards is correct.

Corrected.

• People's Choice Awards' ref. doesn't work. Besides it only seems to be for the wins, and not for the nominations. --FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 09:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added archived url. The same page mentions the nominations as well.

Thanks for the comments, FrB.TG. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Dirty Picture should be sorted under D.

Can you review this?--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skr15081997 Both done. :) Yup, I'll look into your nom as well. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Vidya Balan at WWF World Earth Hour event, ITC Grand Maratha, Mumbai.jpg: needs a personality rights template at the Commons

Commons states that "the {{Personality rights}} template may be used to warn re-users of Commons’ content that local laws may impose additional requirements on reuse, over and above those enforced here". I don't think this is mandatory.

• Image licensing falls under 5(b) of the featured list criteria; this wants to be a featured list, after all. Seattle (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, of course, and the image is already appropriately licensed. But I haven't heard any reviewer mention the personality rights template before. Are you sure it's a mandatory requirement? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want the list to be the best it can be, why wouldn't you add the template? Seattle (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle, I just wanted to understand the rationale behind including it. Not a problem, I've added it now. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• produced by Shobha Kapoor and Ekta Kapoor why not just "produced by Shobha and Ekta Kapoor"?

Changed.

• the film narrates the rise and fall story story isn't needed here

Removed.

• The film stars Vidya Balan as Silk, who's this?

Tweaked.

• Made on a budget of of → between

Changed.

• The Dirty Picture released on 2 December 2011 where?

Tweaked.

My mistake; I should have been more clear. In which country was the film released on 2 December 2011? India? Worldwide? Seattle (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked, again.

• with particular praise for Vidya's performance, the dialogues, and the costume design by Niharika Khan. what "particular praise"? Can you provide citations for each?

The "praise" here refers to the accolades the films received. The sentence says that "the film garnered awards and nominations in several categories, with particular praise .." From the listing, it can be deciphered that the film was mostly awarded in those three categories.

• Vidya's performance ... Best Actress awards for Vidya Vidya → Balan per WP:SURNAME

This is something that has been discussed here. I don't belong to that part of India, so I am unsure of the naming convention, but as per the note on the top of her biography page, the name Balan is apparently a patronym and not a family name, and therefore she should be referred to by her given name.

• Refs 7 and 8 need ndashes. Seattle (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected.

Thanks for the comments Seattle. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Image caption needs a full stop.
• "the film narrates ... The film " repetitive prose.
• Our article on Vishal–Shekhar appears to separate the names using an en-dash.
• "Best Dialougue" is that a deliberate typo?
• Why are we including minor awards which are so un-notable that they don't even have a Wikipedia page, e.g. Dadasaheb Phalke Academy Awards? ETC Bollywood Business Awards?

The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man I've addressed your comments. The reason I included those awards is because they have been covered by prominent, reliable sources. I guess that's the pre-requisitve for inclusion here. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then presumably they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, so they should be linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they are, but no one has created them as yet. I guess I will, given some time. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they are notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion, they should be linked whether the articles exist or not. See WP:REDLINK for details. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ""A national panel annually appointed by the government selects the actor ... " Who appoints the panel, the government itself or through DFF?

• Corrected now Vensatry --FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 23:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The following sentence is unsourced
• "The Directorate of Film Festivals instituted the "Best Supporting Actor" category in 1984" We are not sure when the winners were declared, but I'm sure it wouldn't be 1984.
  • I did not tell you to do away with this fact. I wanted the year actually. —Vensatry _(ping) 10:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you didn't, however, Krimuk did. Scroll down and read the comment no#2 by him.
      • Alright —Vensatry _(ping) 17:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "The first recipient was Victor Banerjee, who was honoured at the 32nd National Film Awards (1984)" Same as above
  • Year needed —Vensatry _(ping) 10:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added.
• "As of the 2013 awards, three actors—Nana Patekar, Pankaj Kapur, and Atul Kulkarni—have each been honoured twice" As of the 2013 awards, three actors—Nana Patekar, Pankaj Kapur, and Atul Kulkarni—have been honoured twice
• Link 54th National Film Awards in the lead
• "At the 42nd National Film Awards, Ashish Vidyarthi and Nagesh tied for their" Something is missing here
• You have mentioned years in brackets, alongside films. What does it indicate, the year of theatrical release or the year in which it was sent to the DFF?
• The last five lines of the lead are unsourced. I know that they are verifiable in the table, but we need some sources for the prose part.
• In LRM, did Dilip Prabhavalkar actually play Mahatma Gandhi?
• Infobox needs to be updated.
• Barring Atul Kulkarni, why is that we have the pictures of Arjun Rampal and Saurabh Shukla in the article? Although it has got nothing to do with the criteria, I'd like to know on what basis you've chosen this.
• Link Koimoi in refs.
• Is ref #33 a press release?
  • Still not answered. Looks like the refs. have been shifted now. —Vensatry _(ping) 10:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, ref. 33 (now 41) is a press release. In fact I borrowed the reference from the National Film Award for Best Actor and Best Actress, both FLs. --FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 13:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about #40? —Vensatry _(ping) 17:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oops, corrected. --FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 17:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• In these type of lists, it's enough if we just mention the names of the people in alt text per WP:ALT.
  

—Vensatry _(ping) 11:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Vensatry: I am done with resolving your queries. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 14:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the "official name" of the award referenced?
  • @The Rambling Man: Each award is officially known as by its prize, which is Rajat Kamal for this one. All of them are cited in all of the references under the "Ref." column.
    • Sorry for being obtuse, I looked at the first ref and last ref and couldn't see this "official name". Incidentally, the first ref (and possibly others) in the table should be tagged with the language in which they are written as they are non-English... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @The Rambling Man: Please check the second win. That's available there. As for the language, they are not particularly written in Hindi, but also with some inclusion of English (not all, there are some which are written/published entirely in Hindi). I haven't tagged them, yet I have added an FN. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 10:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "annually appointed" switch round "appointed annually"
• Why is "Cinema" capitalised in the infobox?
• You have Paroma yet our article refers to it as Parama.
• "Tamil-Hindi" or "Tamil / Hindi", be consistent.

Otherwise a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments TRM. I have resolved all except the first one. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 09:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The 9th Academy Awards ceremony was held in 1937 with Walter Brennan receiving the award for his role in Come and Get It." You need to mention that this was the first year the award was presented.
• "Initially winners" Add a comma after "initially".
• There's a huge clear space after the "Multiple wins and nominations". Remove one or two pictures to fix this.
• ref #6: Link the LA Times and Tribune Publishing.
• The Academy Awards Database is dead. I don't know if this may only be temporary, though.
• Don't link articles multiple times within one table. Littlecarmen (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed: I addressed all the problems.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't fix the last one. Walter Brennan is linked a total of six times throughout the article, even though one link would be enough. Same with a lot of other actors. Littlecarmen (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not very sure about this. I removed one link from the Brennan caption, but I left the ones in the introductory paragraph and the tables. There was a similar issue at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Daytime_Emmy_Award_for_Outstanding_Lead_Actor_in_a_Drama_Series/archive1 regarding WP:Overlinking in the tables. Normally multiple linked tables are suited only for sortable tables, however I can't enable sorting because it would create more problems with nominees being paired with the wrong films and such. Another issue is consistency. I have two other lists that have been promoted as featured list (Lead Actor and Lead Actress) and there was no comment about overlinkage. If I unlink the multiple nominees here, it would make the table look aesthetically unappealing and it would confuse readers as to why some names are linked and some not. For example, in the Best Actress list Katharine Hepburn was nominated 12 times over 48 years. Unlinking the 11 other instances would force readers especially on mobile devices to scroll up and down to find her link in the article. If I unlike the multiple nominees here, people might question me as to why am I have multiple links in Best Actor and Actress but not in Supporting Actor (to the possible point of delisting) So why now?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would've raised the same issue with the other lists if I had been there to review them. The issue of having to scroll up to find the article link applies to all articles but really isn't an issue in my opinion. I don't think removing links makes the tables aesthetically unappealing at all. I think it would be okay to leave one link per actor in the table since WP:Overlinking allows that, but six links are just too much. Littlecarmen (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Littlecarmen: It's not really about aesthetics. You can link more than once if it is useful to the reader which is specified in WP:OVERLINKING. This is the case here. For a multiple winner/nominee, the reader would be forced to look up the first win/nomination in the table to go to the relevant article on the actor. Cowlibob (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I've been trying to say to Littlecarmen. It would be super inconvenient for a reader to search for the first win/nomination in the table in order to find the link if I only linked the first time. For an example in this case, a reader would have to find Robert Duvall's link in 1979 (as opposed to simply clicking on his name in 1998 or 2014). That might frustrate some viewers especially people reading this list on mobile devices or those who do not know when his first nomination is off the top of their head and would get crosseyed searching through 395 nominees. I know the Walter Brennan nominations are close together, but actors like Duvall have nominations that are spread out over several years which would be inconvenient for several readers (his nominations are between 19 and 16 years in this table which is long enough for mobile readers). And we could not just unlink Brennan's name alone because that would not be consistent.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The issue of having to scroll up to find the article link applies to all articles but really isn't an issue in my opinion." I already addressed this. Do you also want to link articles over and over and over again in other articles? I don't think having to scroll up a little is inconvenient at all, I think you're underestimating readers' patience. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It may not seem inconvenient to some people, but there are people who do view this article on cell phones or small devices. We have to be considerate about everyone who will read this list. Besides, this is not an article, it's more a list with a really long table. I read WP:Overlinking and it does say "if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables".

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted that part as meaning that articles that have already been linked in the lead can also be linked once more in an infobox, table, image caption, footnote, hatnote, and at the first occurrence after the lead, which concurs with my advice to link actors (also ones that have already been linked in the lead) once more in the table, but not more than that. I don't see how this not being an article changes things. There's actually a lot more text to scroll through in most articles and people also read those on small devices. I also find it quite condescending of you to ask other users to explain the rules to me just because I disagree with you on something. They're not very complicated and I understand them quite well. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat, Crisco 1492, and PresN: Before this gets personal, let's just get the delegates to decide. The issue is whether it is ok to link actor's names multiple times in the table if they have won or been nominated multiple times. Paging..Cowlibob (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous consensus has been to allow it in sortable tables. This one's not sortable, so... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series, and Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance are all featured lists that are overlinked and unsortable. I tried doing sortable to the table, but it completely messes up the table like this: (http://postimg.org/image/tli5irot5/). --Birdienest81 (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. It's a problem with the rowspan template. It doesn't sort. So if you use row span, you're stuck with an unsortable table. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm? Hugo Award for Best Novel - rowspans sort, they splits into individual rows when you do. Let me play with it a bit. --PresN 03:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Try sorting by name, then by year again. It doesn't reform. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yeah, rowspans don't reform. Doesn't mean they don't sort- just means that as soon as you sort by something, the table converts to a non-rowspanned column, just like you'd have if you didn't use rowspans at all. Anyway- I fixed the table on this list so that it sorts; if you decide that you don't want it to be sortable please just remove the "sortable" class from the table itself, don't revert the change. The table as it was was broken- you had the year column with a 6-row span, then inserted an invisible row to the 5 rows that were actually there. When I made it sortable it kept injecting a new row for every year, and the first year was just a huge mess. You also had it trying to make the table yellow with dark gray headers, then overriding that. Also, as per sorting- your actor column is sorting by first name, not last name, so you'll want to use {{sortname}} to fix that, and your film column is sort by a, an, and the, so you'll need to use {{sort}} to fix those. See the first row of the table at Hugo Award for Best Novel for an example. --PresN 03:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a great idea, but I'm in the midst of studying for finals. Either someone else has to do it, or wait until May 22. Also it would be nice if the same modifications be made for the other Oscar acting awards lists.--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To respond to one of the points above, in cases where items in a list appear more than once, we suspend the normal guidelines that recommend against overlinking. If an actor has more than one nomination in a career, I see no issue with links for each nom. In fact, WP:OVERLINK itself allows for repeat links in tables. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Littlecarmen: What are your thoughts now? Have added sorting to film, actor and role column. As it is now a sortable table, there should be no issue about linking names multiple times as Crisco and Giants2008 agree. Thanks, PresN for adding the initial sortability to the table. Cowlibob (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't make sense to me to interpret "a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead" as saying that a link can be repeated over and over again within an infobox, table, image caption, footnote or hatnote. I guess it's a little ambiguous about tables, since other people have interpreted it differently, but it makes no sense to repeat a link within an infobox, image caption, footnote or hatnote, does it? So I still don't agree that WP:Overlinking technically allows overlinking in tables, even if they're sortable (it would actually make more sense to me to allow it in non-sortable tables since you would automatically see the first link if you sorted it by actor), but if the delegates agree that it's okay, I'm fine with it. I feel like much too big of a deal was made of this anyway. Littlecarmen (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Littlecarmen: Sorry, if I was being a little insistent about the overlink, but at least we decided to ultimately leave it up to the delegates to decide (as is the case when things get heated up). This overlink debate has been going on for years, and TECHNICALLY the rules do allow bypassing of WP:Overlink in special cases with permission from the delegates as Giants2008 pointed out (the Academy Award ceremonies are overlinked in the tables and unsortable because of special permission during the 82nd Academy Awards's FLC review in 2010. That being said, could you kindly wrap these comments in a bar so that they don't create a long mess for other commenters? I can help you if you want.--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]