Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2016

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the requirements for a featured list. It is comprehensive in its content, and I have styled its structure after similar featured lists. This is only my second time working on a list, and putting something up for FLC so I would greatly appreciate feedback and comments on how to improve this and improve lists in general. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - a meaty list that is exhaustively referenced LavaBaron (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @LavaBaron: Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: you're welcome! If you had a chance to support or object to List of United States military premier ensembles, it would be appreciated. LavaBaron (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @LavaBaron: Will do sometime either today or later this weekend if that is okay. Thank you for letting me know. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I am not a fan of the current image - bad lighting and awkward pose. I see that it was changed due to the fact that the list and her bio had the same image. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having the same image in two pages (it is at least better than having a not-so good image) in fact I myself have done that in a few lists of my own.

• Done, I really disliked the image, but I was uncertain if the same image from the bio should be used. I agree with you, and the revisions have been made. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "numerous motion pictures" consider film. And I think that television should come first in the sentence as her work in TV is more prolific.

• Very true. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "guest appearances on television shows as a child" - when as a child?

• This was more of a topic sentence to refer to the minor guest-staring roles, but I don't think it is important enough for the lead so I have removed it. Let me know if that is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "After her television debut in Father Murphy" - same as above.

• Added. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "dramatic, western, television series" - unneeded commas and better as western drama television series.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "her television sitcom debut" - too specific and trivial IMO. If we talk about every first genre, it will be a long list (first comedy, drama etc).

• Oops, I thought I eliminated that. Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2016, she starred alongside" - I count four consecutive sentences beginning with "in".

• Good catch! Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "being viewed as inferior to those of Cathy Moriarty and Talia Shire in Raging Bull and Rocky" - too specific, better for her biography.

• True, got a little word-happy there lol. Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no need to describe her future projects in the lead. What makes them so noteworthy? FrB.TG (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Very true. Removed them as they are not necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @FrB.TG: Thank you for your comments. I made a lot of silly mistakes with this one so thank you for catching them lol. Let me know if anything else with the list can be improved. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support but you should also deal with Freikorp's comments. Also, if you looked at my previous nominations for my silly mistakes, you would consider yourself a master. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Well done with the article, i'm very close to supporting. Only two things stand out to me

• "Despite this, some felt" - should you attribute who felt this way? It's coming across a bit weaselish to me.

• Agreed, changed. Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "She starred alongside Alec Baldwin, Danny Glover, and Michael Madsen in the sports drama film Back in the Day (2016)." I understand you have reworded this to satisfy the above concern about four sentence starting with "In", but now I think this sounds awkward and the styling is inconsistent (year in brackets as opposed to in prose). To satisfy the original request, I would instead suggest rewording the second sentence from "In the same year" to "Later that year". Freikorp (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Revised Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Freikorp: Thank you! I have addressed your two comments. Let me know if there is anything else that can be improved. Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I didn't see anything done about the second issue - maybe your edit didn't save? I changed it myself since you thought it was a good idea also. Anyway also now the prose says "she received positive reviews" though only one source is given. I would suggest adding a second or changing the prose to a single attributed favourable comment on the show from the source given. Freikorp (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Freikorp: Thank you for your comment; I must have somehow forgot to save that edit so I apologize for that. I have added an additional reviews to that part to better support it. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do. Thank you again for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. :) Freikorp (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

• Spotchecks and formatting checks passed, though note that if you're adding an archive link to a reference where the main url still works, you can add "|deadurl=no" to the reference and it will change the main link to the present url and link the archive on the word "archived" instead of linking "original". --PresN 20:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: That makes sense. I always wondered about that so thank you for letting me know about it. I am trying to be better with the structure/organization of my references, and I will definitely keep that in mind for the future. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Michael Fassbender is an Irish-German actor who has played a variety of roles in both box office hits such as Magneto in the X-Men film series and indie films such Bobby Sands in Hunger and a slave owner in 12 Years a Slave. This filmography lists these and many others on both television and film. As always, look forward to all the constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AffeL

• Ref 3 is dead and Ref 26 does not work.
• @Cowlibob: Other than that I can't see any issues with this article. I would say that this list currently meets the FL criteria. AffeL (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AffeL: Thanks for the review. Fixed dead links. Cowlibob (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks good. Well done. - AffeL (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I think you should add a "See Also" section at the end with a link to List of awards and nominations received by Michael Fassbender, just so it is easy to navigate to. Great job.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Have added "See also" section. Cowlibob (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, meets the standards —Vensatry _(talk) 05:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the source review (no spotchecks performed though). —Vensatry _(talk) 05:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I did spot-checks on references 15, 24, and 31 and found no issues. With that out of the way, I'll be promoting the list now. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice little list. Based partly on List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "The Kenyans won the game the game by 73 runs" - bit of a stutter there :-)

    Fixed

  • Given that the lead mentions that ODIs have a limited number of overs, probably worth wikilinking "overs"

    Wikilinked

  • "Kenya has since qualified" - singular here, plural everywhere else?

    Fixed

  • "The Kenyan team has played 154 ODI games" - jumps back to singular

    Fixed

  • "In those 154 games, 50 individual players have represented Kenya" - don't think this is needed, the first paragraph already said there are 50 players on the list

    Removed

  • "Last updated 30 January September 2014" - eh?

    Corrected

  • "those players are initially listed alphabetically at the time of debut" - I don't think the last five words are needed.....?

    Removed

  • Could you combine the three notes into one, since they all say exactly the same thing just about different players?

    Combined

• Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review, I have implemented all of your suggestions. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - can't see any outstanding issues........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your review and support ChrisTheDude. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• You say "Kenya gained ODI status in its own right following a strong performance in the 1996 Cricket World Cup, ..." then "The team's first ODI came against India in the 1996 Cricket World Cup..." these aren't compatible, unless the ODIs they played in the 1996 World Cup were played without Kenya gaining ODI status.

  Not done. This page makes it clear they were awarded full status after the world cup, "As a result of these efforts, it was granted ODI status." Kenya national cricket team#ODI status also backs that up, saying "Following their World Cup performance, Kenya were given full ODI status by the ICC"

  Ok, so to clarify, those first few ODIs were played with Kenya not having full ODI status? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but they are stilled considered full ODIs by the ICC, I assume due to being in a World Cup. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It just struck me as odd that they played a number of ODIs before being awarded full ODI status. That's what the prose says, and as accurate as it may be, it would still confuse a non-expert... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Rambling Man: I have clarified it the article with a bit of prose and a note. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rageb Aga appears to be called Ragheb Aga, but perhaps you are sticking with Cricinfo's variant?

  Fixed

• Rajab Ali's BBI is "11"... not sure what that means.

  Fixed

• {{dagger}} and {{double dagger}} have an alt text flag that should be used for WP:ACCESS purposes.

  {{dagger}} and {{double dagger}} say alt text is added automatically. Well thats what I think those pages mean, I'm not 100% sure. Is there something that needs to be done?

  You can pipe it with "alt=Wicket keeper" in each case, for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, fixed

That's all I can find. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks a lot for the review. I have responded to all your points above. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: replied above. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support works for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and support. Also, early congrats to you for your likely win in the delegate elections! — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, nice work. I've checked for formatting and reliability of the sources. No spotchecks done though. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Spot-checks – I looked at references 20, 31, and 46 and all of the statistics they supported checked out. As the list has sufficient support, I'll be promoting this now that the source review has been completed. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(talk) 06:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No bowler has taken more fifers than Ravichandran Ashwin in the past one year. Making his Test debut in 2011, he is comfortably placed above the Indian spin quartet. I've modeled this list based on similar FLs. As always, look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nice list. Good work Vensatry! Also, would you mind having a look at this FLC I have open? If not thats ok. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my issues addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review - All references are well-formatted and to reliable sources, and the link-checker reveals no issues with dead links. I spot-checked references 7, 10, 11, 15, and 19, and found no concerns. Overall, the article passed the source review with flying colors. While doing checks, I noticed that the Sir Vivian Richards Stadium cell in the table could use a space after the second comma, so you may want to tweak that quickly. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Giants2008: Done, thanks for the review. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it cropped up as being an interesting side-effect of the Masters tournament. Many holes-in-one, lots of affection for the contest, a "curse" too. Yes, I have another FLC open, it's not related, it's got one set of comments that I've addressed, it's all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All of my comments have been addressed, and I like the new title. This looks like it meets FL standards now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nice list. Well done! — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• Looks fine. Just a couple of queries.
• I am no expert, but I take it that this is a single half round as opposed to the several full rounds in a serious tournament. This could be spelled out.

  That should be covered by ... on a nine-hole, par-27 course ... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The (2) obviously refers to second wins, but this should be explained in the key. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, added something.

Thanks Dudley Miles for the review! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A first rate list, although I do not see you have covered a single round. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see what you mean, I've added a few extra words which I think covers it now. Thanks again for the review. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – I don't believe there are any prohibitions against a previous supporter offering a source check, so allow me to expedite the process. All sources are well-formatted and reliable. I spot-checked refs 6 (playoffs only), 19, 20, and 30, and found one issue: there were 20 playoffs, not 19 as the lead indicates. The Masters website lists all the playoffs in its table, but apparently never updated its lead after the 2015 playoff. This should be corrected in our lead. A look at the link-checker tool reveals that ref 32 has gone dead. The page appears to have been moved here, so that can be used as a replacement. All other links appear to be in working order. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I can't believe that link went dead already, I only found it a few days back. But fixed, as is the number of playoffs. Thanks for the keen eye. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was reliably informed that the Ipswich Town F.C. featured topic would be demoted if, amongst other things, this list wasn't taken up to FL standards. So here we are. As I know it can take a month or two for these things to precipitate, I've pushed it out early doors to give the FT people the notification that I'm serious about keeping the FT going, and I'd be grateful for any and all comments here regarding this article's suitability for an FL. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • First sentence could do with a source
  • "a number of personnel associated with club" - think there's a word missing there
  • Suggest merging two sentences at the end of the first para: "The inaugural members were [names], who were selected......."
  • The notes are not sourced, and don't seem to be covered by the refs on the relevant rows, e.g. ref 1 does not seem to support any of notes 7, 8 or 9
• Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, thanks very much for your review, I believe I've addressed the comments and certainly see an improvement from them (plus I learnt about {{efn-ua}}!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good work TRM. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2

• @Struway2: not sure if you saw that I'd resolved your last notes? No worries either way. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry boss, my attention span is shrinking by the minute second... All issues satisfactorily dealt with, am now happy to support. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries boss, my attention span expands to a full five minutes these days. Could be early-onset-Altzheimers, or perhaps it's just dealing with two sub-three-year-old kids. Or both. Either way, thanks again for your scrutiny. If I become a FLC delegate, I'll be calling on you to assist, assuming you have the time.... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

passed. Promoting. --PresN 20:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 15:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it contains all the relevant information regarding Slovenia at the Olympics, and is presented in a comprehensible way. Since most of the article consists of tables, I believe it is appropriate to nominate it for a FL. The criteria:

• 1&2 - Should be fine. Probably some tweaks will be required, please point them out in the review.
• 3 - Contains lists of medallists, number of athletes at each Games, and also a list of Slovenian medallists representing former countries (but clearly listed separately with an explanation). I was considering including a list of flag-bearers at the opening ceremonies but that is a separate article already so I avoided forking.
• 4 - That should be fine.
• 5 - The tables follow the style of related articles. Flags and pictograms are public domain. No other images, though some portraits (perhaps Tina Maze and Iztok Čop) could be included. Depends on the reviews.
• 6 - I expect no major changes until the 2018 Winter Olympics ;)

Tone 15:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This list is vastly improved and I am happy to support on prose. No comment on referencing or the ref templates, I will leave that to the source review. Note: I made this copyedit as well as the three mentioned above. Well done Tone! - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! --Tone 08:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - --Cheetah (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Made some edits to the references- the work for Sports Reference is the actual name as such, not the website url, like how it's CNN, not cnn.com. Made the edits myself, so, source review passed, promoting. --PresN 03:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After making Mr. Damon's filmography a featured list, it makes sense to do the same with Mr. Affleck's screen roles. I look forward to constructive comments, as usual. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good list. Comments resolved. Cowlibob (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Birdienest81

• For a reference to Ben Affleck's credit in Wanted: the Perfect Guy, I found this book source that would serve better than TV.com's source (I personally am okay with it, but I found a better one). It is on page 3 (in case Google Books does not let you see it because it is only a preview). Also, this reference from TCM makes note of his role as Danny Coleman, as well.

More to come, but looks good.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81: Krimuk has permanently retired from Wikipedia but I'm happy to answer any queries. Have replaced the above ref with one from Turner Classic Movies. Cowlibob (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• For some reason, when I sort the Director column, Joe Chappelle is appearing out of alphabetical order, coming before Michael Bay and a few other B last names. Can you check the formatting on this one?
• In the Suicide Squad note, Cameo probably doesn't need to be capitalized.
• Is it possible to provide a page number(s) for ref 1? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: I don't have access to the book but this website shows an excerpt of it on an unknown page, supporting the statement. [[9]] Should I replace the book with this website which I think is the author's website? Cowlibob (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could replace the Google Books link with the website and leave the book citation intact. I think the author's website could be trusted to faithfully reproduce the content from the book, and showing that the content is from a published author would help show that the site is reliable enough to be used in an FL. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Replaced link. Cowlibob (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I now believe the list meets FL standards after the fixes. Nice work as usual. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 03:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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