Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2021
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC) [1].
- Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I just finished rewriting it, and I have added about 150 archived references (one for each film/television series Clint Eastwood has appeared in), making this list notable for FL. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 21:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Alexandra
- Add brief alt text to all images, to aid readers with impaired vision
- You have forgotten to close the italics in the caption
Eastwood with actress Susan Clark in Coogan's Bluff (1968)
- The lead is quite long - in particular, the third paragraph is long enough that it begins to feel like a "wall of text", making it uncomfortable to read. Remember that the lead is meant to be engaging (FLC criterion 2), and to serve as an introduction - you don't need to list off so many of the items individually in the lead, one after another, because that's what the list itself is for. Because a rewrite may be necessary here, I am holding off on reviewing the lead in detail until then.
- Link Man with No Name at least the first time the character is mentioned in the list
- Some of the characters listed do not seem to be names, but descriptions - I would expect those to be written in sentence case (ie change
Man in Crowd on Pier
toMan in crowd on pier
) - It is not immediately obvious what
Carlo/Charlie
means for someone not familiar with the film - clarify that Charlie is what the character is renamed to in the English release - Titles beginning with "The" should not sort on that when the reader chooses to sort by title - for example, The Witches should be sorted as "Witches, The"
Please ping me when you have addressed the above or if you have any questions, and I will take another look. Thank you.--AlexandraIDV 06:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Alexandra IDV: I have addressed / completed all of your suggestions. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 13:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, and sorry for the delay, I will take a look at the lead today.--AlexandraIDV 13:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
His most recent acting role was in Cry Macho (2021), which he also directed.
- this is an upcoming film, do we know if production has finished? Otherwise, it should be in present tense ("is in Cry Macho (2021), which he is also directing")
Otherwise, this looks good - clarify the Cry Macho bit, and I'll support.--AlexandraIDV 19:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Alexandra IDV: Production concludes on the 16th. Should I still change it? Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 20:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Some Dude From North Carolina: Yes - it might seem silly considering how soon it is, but we don't want to give the impression that it already finished before it did (and we don't really know that it will until it has). Either rephrasing so it correctly is referred to as a future event (and then changing tense when things change), or rephrasing in such a way that it doesn't get outdated, would be my suggestion.--AlexandraIDV 23:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Alexandra IDV: I have rephrased the sentence as requested. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 23:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Some Dude From North Carolina: Yes - it might seem silly considering how soon it is, but we don't want to give the impression that it already finished before it did (and we don't really know that it will until it has). Either rephrasing so it correctly is referred to as a future event (and then changing tense when things change), or rephrasing in such a way that it doesn't get outdated, would be my suggestion.--AlexandraIDV 23:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Alexandra IDV: Production concludes on the 16th. Should I still change it? Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 20:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comments
- "In 1971, Eastwood made his directorial debut Play Misty for Me." => "In 1971, Eastwood made his directorial debut with Play Misty for Me."
- "In 1973, Eastwood starred in yet another western" => "In 1973, Eastwood starred in another western"
- "Three years later, he starred as Confederate guerilla and outlaw Josey Wales in The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)" - if it was three years later then obviously it was 1976, so no real need to restate it
- "He has even lent his voice to a song" => "He lent his voice to a song"
- "At the early stages of his acting career" => "In the early stages of his acting career"
- In the TV section it seems odd to list his director/producer roles first given that a) in the film section it's the other way round and b) they came later than almost all his acting roles. So I would place the acting roles first.
- That's all I got on a first pass...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 19:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
Comment Although no one owns articles here, I put in a decent amount of work rehauling this article from here to there. I am still the number one contributor in terms of edits. I also listed it as one of my projects on my userpage. It would have been polite and nice if you had contacted me and I would have been completely fine with you taking over. That being said, the following changes are needed.
|
- Support ~ HAL333 19:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Source review by Bilorv
| Resolved comments from — Bilorv (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
* In the lead, most of the claims that go beyond "Eastwood appeared in X" need an inline citation, including (but not limited to): ... beginning his acting career exclusively with small uncredited film roles and television appearances ...(particularly important as the work itself then wouldn't verify that Eastwood appeared in it); his breakout film role was ...; made his directorial debut ...; was a departure from his typical genres .... There are some such sources but unless I'm missing something, the rest needs sourcing.
Other comments:
A bit of a harsh review but hopefully these comments are helpful! — Bilorv (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
|
- Support on sourcing. Appreciate the prompt replies! — Bilorv (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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) 22:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC) [2].
- Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 09:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because the filmography gives a good summary of Sushmita Sen's extensive career in the Hindi film industry. I expect constructive comments from the reviewers. All helpful comments on improvement are welcome... 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 09:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
==== Comments from ChrisTheDude ====
|
Comments from Kailash29792
[edit]25 Cents FC, I really wish you submit articles for copyediting at the GOCE before nominating them since prose is not your strong point. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Kailash29792 I think you are right mate. Will do it henceforth.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 12:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Meanwhile Kailash29792 improvement suggestions please ?--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 04:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's just prose and table-related. You get someone to re-edit the lead section, and I'll improve the table later today. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I gave an attempt to solve it by myself. Let me know if it's okay or still has issue.
- Support: Hats off to Yash and MSG17 for improving this article. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- I gave an attempt to solve it by myself. Let me know if it's okay or still has issue.
- It's just prose and table-related. You get someone to re-edit the lead section, and I'll improve the table later today. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Meanwhile Kailash29792 improvement suggestions please ?--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 04:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
* The reason the prose looks so patchy is that significant portions of the lead is directly copied from the sources. See Earwig's result here: [[3]]. The lead needs to be carefully rewritten as it currently contains a lot of plagiarism.
|
- Comments on the re-written lead
- "Sen made her screen debut in 1996 with thriller Dastak" => "Sen made her screen debut in 1996 with the thriller Dastak"
Fixed
- "In 1999, Sen accepted a supporting role in David Dhawan's comedy-drama Biwi No.1, the movie received" - "the movie" should be the start of a new sentence
- Fixed
- "the second highest-grossing movie of 1999" - among all Hindi films? Among all films in India? Among all films in the world?
- Fixed
- "Releasing just months after Biwi No.1" => "Released just months after Biwi No.1"
- Fixed
- "The film earned Sen critical appreciation, while making it financially successful" => "The film earned Sen critical appreciation and was financially successful"
- Fixed
- "for her performance in the song "Dilbar Dilbar"" => "for her performance of the song "Dilbar Dilbar""
- "Sen made a special appearance in a song Mehboob Mere" - song title should be in quote marks, not italics. Also, what does this actually mean? She her only appearance in the film was to perform this song?
- Yes. She was not a part of the movie rather appeared in that song.
- "a movie made on the concept of surrogacy" => "a film on the theme of surrogacy"
- Fixed
- " In 2003, Sen played the role of ACP Malvika Chauhan in thriller Samay: When Time Strikes" => " In 2003, Sen played the role of ACP Malvika Chauhan in the thriller Samay: When Time Strikes"
- Fixed
- "which was the fifth highest-grossing film in the year 2002" - see comment above about 1999
- Fixed
- "Inspired by a famous French play" - I would remove the word famous, it is a bit NPOV and a brief Google search doesn't suggest the play is actually particularly famous anyway.......
- Fixed
- "it emerged as the fifth-highest-grossing film of the year" - clarify again. Also, I notice this is linked to List of Bollywood films of 2005#Top_grossing_films - is there an equivalent list to link to for 1999 and 2002?
- "In the same year Sen acted in the drama Main Aisa Hi Hoon, a remake"
- "Movies where Sen played the protagonist in Kalpana Lajmi’s Chingaari (2006) and Tanuja Chandra’s Zindaggi Rocks (2006) performed badly at the box office" => "Kalpana Lajmi’s Chingaari (2006) and Tanuja Chandra’s Zindaggi Rocks (2006), in which Sen played the protagonist, performed badly at the box office"
- Fixed
- "Sen subsequently suffered a brief setback in her career as she starred in a series of films that performed poorly at the box office" - you just mentioned that her 2006 films did badly at the box office, so if the same thing happened the following year then it wasn't a "subsequent setback", it was a continuation of one which had started the year before
- Consequently ??
- I think the whole thing needs rewording. You say it was a "brief" setback, but it apparently lasted for four years, which definitely isn't brief. You also use almost identical wording twice ("performed badly at the box office"/"performed poorly at the box office"). I would say "Over the next four years she starred in a series of films, including action drama Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag (2007), romantic drama Karma Aur Holi (2009), romantic comedy Dulha Mil Gaya (2010) and action comedy No Problem (2010), which were commercially unsuccessful and failed to impress audiences" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- "After staying away from films for five years, Sen appeared in English-Bengali bilingual film It Was Raining That Night in 2005" - this makes no sense. You talk about films she starred in from 2006 to 2010, and then you suddenly jump back to 2005 (??) and say it was her first film for five years, which clearly isn't true.
- Fixed Sorry for the goof up. I actually wanted to write about her first Bengali film but forget to make a change.
- "In 2019, Sen made her debut in web television. She featured in Aarya" - the table says 2020, not 2019 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed 2020 it is.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 13:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Source review - Pass
[edit]- Youtube is not really a reliable source, especially when others exist. Would it be possible to find a different source ref 42 and 12?
- Fixed
- ref 3 is the "economic times" not the "entertainment times"?
- Fixed
- ref 14 missing author (Shomini Shen I think)
- Fixed
- your linking is inconsistent, either link all publishers or none. If you want to link all (which I would recommend) you're missing links for Rediff.com, The Indian Express, Indian Express Limited, The New Indian Express, The Times of India, The Times Group, Box Office India, News18 India, Hindustan Times, HT Media and Mid Day
- To be honest with you, I get so confused between ref's WORK and PUBLISHER thing. Do not understand if they are same or different. Some ref for example Times of India have subsidiary like Entertainment times as a result, I put Times of India as a publisher. The New Indian Express or Hindustan Times doesn't have, so I mentioned them under WORK. I am not sure if I should link WORK / PUBLISHER or both.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 16:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Aza24: Awaiting your response--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 12:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- formatting and reliability looks good, other than these things Aza24 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I completely understand your confusion, it is a little odd. Basically every news source has a work and publisher. The work is just what ever the newspaper is, like the The Indian Express or The Times of India and the publishers would be Indian Express Limited and The Times Group respectively. I believe the Hindustani Times is published by HT Media and the New Indian Express by Express Publications (Madurai) Limited D, but sometimes they're not explicitly clear. When the work and publisher have extremely similar names, like The New York Times that's published by the The New York Times company, you only need to list the work. I won't be picky here as the formatting is fine how it is now, pass for source review.
- Thanks a lot for clearing confusion I had. All sorted.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 04:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comments Edwininlondon
I am no Bollywood expert (although I do like to listen to Lata Mangeshkar), so just a few comments:
- David Dhawan's comedy-drama Biwi No.1. --> I would link David Dhawan and then unlink comedy-drama to avoid a sea of links
- Done
- link Bollywood
- Done
- Sen subsequently won --> Too many sentences use Sen I think. She will do fine quite often
- Done
- Released just months after Biwi No.1, Sen featured in love triangle musical drama Sirf Tum (1999) --> Now it reads as if Sen was released. The subject of the second part should be the film. Or rephrase entirely.
- Done
- as it went on collect --> to collect
- Done
- in a song "Mehboob Mere" --> in the song "Mehboob Mere"
- Done
- fantasy comedy film --> I'm not sure if this, and a few others like Tamil-language romantic action film, needa a hyphen.
- After initial success, --> not sure what you mean here ... her initial success?
- link surrogacy
- Done
- ensemble cast heist thriller --> doesn't look right to me. Hyphen? Hyphens? add "the"?
- in 2005 romantic comedy --> in the 2005 romantic comedy
- Done
- it emerged as the fifth-highest-grossing film of the year --> the hyphens here look right. But it was not used before, so those others (second highest and fifth highest) need fixing. Second point: I like the link here, but I now ask myself: could the other statements about second highest and fifth highest also be links?
- Sen acted in drama Main Aisa Hi Hoon --> in the drama, or in the drama movie
- Done
- Hollywood --> link
- Done
- In 2004, she also starred --> why are we now going back a year?
- in English-Bengali film --> in the English-Bengali film
- Done
- poorly at the box office --> there is a lot of repetition of this phrase in short succession. Any chance you could rephrase some?
- her first Bengali film Nirbaak directed by --> I would add a comma before directed
- Done
- Sen played dual role --> a dual role
- Done
- Source formatting check: Kyo Kii.. Main Jhuth Nahin Bolta" --> 3 dots
- Done
- "Dastak- 1996". Bollywood Hungama. --> There are quite a few of these Hungama refs. Most of them use an en dash. They should all have the same format, including the spacing around the en dash. "Dastak – 1996"
- Removed dash and year as they weren't in the original title
- "Aaghaz −2000". Bollywood Hungama] --> stray ]. Probably missing [[ ]
- Fixed
- Spotcheck sources: #1, #42, #48, #49, #50 all check out ok.
- #2 on its own does not fully support the third sentence in the lead. It doesn't seem to say the movie is from 1997.
- #3 supports most of the facts it is meant to support except for "Sen subsequently won the Filmfare Best Supporting Actress Award for her role as model Rupali."
- Source #12 says "It Was Raining That Night" never got released. Shouldn't there be a footnote to mention this?
- I am not the right person to judge whether Bollywood Hungama is a reliable source. I'm going to assume it is, even though the article Bollywood Hungama has it as a gossip site.
That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- 25 Cents FC hasn't edited for almost two months. If no-one is willing to pick this nomination it'll need to be closed in the next few days. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I volunteer to take it up. MSG17 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- MSG17 thanks! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- MSG17 I have done the easy edits, and marked them above as Done. There are a few comments that I could try to fix but I wouldn't trust myself being correct, so I left them. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Edwininlondon Can you please have a look? I have replaced most of the 'Bollywood Hungama' sources and copy-edited the lead as well. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Edwininlondon and Yashthepunisher: Thanks for fixing the article's issues quickly. I thought I would do that today, but you both did a great job on addressing these problems. I don't know how reliable Apple TV and Vagabomb/ScoopWhoop as are encyclopedic sources, though, so I have replaced them with a Filmfare article.
- Edwininlondon Can you please have a look? I have replaced most of the 'Bollywood Hungama' sources and copy-edited the lead as well. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- MSG17 I have done the easy edits, and marked them above as Done. There are a few comments that I could try to fix but I wouldn't trust myself being correct, so I left them. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- MSG17 thanks! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I volunteer to take it up. MSG17 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- 25 Cents FC hasn't edited for almost two months. If no-one is willing to pick this nomination it'll need to be closed in the next few days. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support I have performed a bunch of changes since the nominator was inactive. I don't see any issues now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- New comments Edwininlondon
I had a fresh look at the article, given its numerous changes, and I'm sorry to say I have a few new comments:
- The body now does not mention the word Bollywood. This surprises me. Is this intentional? There are 6 sources that have Bollywood in the title, so it seems to me her work falls in the Bollywood category.
- Although both Bollywood and Hollywood are well known and used in multiple contexts, filmography articles tend to use the more mundane descriptions of "American actor" or "Hindi cinema". I think this is because of practical reasons: American actors might work in the film industries of other countries, especially in the UK or Australia, and not as many readers might be familiar with the term Bollywood (then there would be the inevitable MOS discussion on whether to use the [x]ollywood name for other Indian film industries, such as Tollywood for Telugu or Bangla film).
- Sen appeared in supporting role --> I'm not a native speaker but I would write "in a supporting role"
- Agreed, decided to spice up the prose a bit and reworked the sentence
- the inconsistent use of hyphens looks wrong to me. There are cases of words strong together without hyphens (e.g. romantic action film, fantasy comedy film) and others with hyphens (e.g. comedy-drama, ensemble heist-thriller, fifth highest-grossing Hindi film). When I have time I'll study MOS:HYPHEN, but hopefully one of the other reviewers is more experienced and can review it. It may all be okay, but I have my suspicions.
- Removed hyphens in the case of genres. I decided to make "heist thrller" into "heist film" to reduce the repetition a bit as it is already an established genre. "Highest-grossing" is an example of the hyphen being needed for an adjective, see List of highest-grossing films.
- The film earned her --> repetition
- @Edwininlondon: I don't see it, did something get changed after you made this comment? Can you be more specific?
- English-Bengali --> in the list below it is given as Bengali / English language film. Is there a reason for the different order? And for different spelling?
- Changed it to "Bengali-English" (alphabetical order) for all occurrences. Delinked the languages because I think that it a case of overlinking not allowed by the MOS.
- I see there is far less reliance on Bollywood Hungama as a source, which is good but there are still a few left. I am not the right person to judge whether Bollywood Hungama is a reliable source but the Wiki article has it as a gossip site, which seems suspicious.
- Bollywood Hungama is reliable as per WP:ICTFSOURCES and WP:ICTFFAQ, although I would prefer not to use it if there are better sources available, so I have replaced all occurences.
That's it. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Edwininlondon: Responded to all your comments. MSG17 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Good job in taking over the nomination. I have not checked the sources, but I do give my Support on prose.Edwininlondon (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Promoted. --PresN 04:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC) [10].
- Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 01:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Here is another attempt at a biological list. If it passes the nomination process, this will be the first featured list covering biochemistry. I find it very interesting that the pageviews for this article peak during working days of a week - I take that to mean that it is used by students. ~ HAL333 01:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment
- The table seems to me to be only using colour to denote the Amino-acid biochemical properties of each codon. Using only colour in this way contravenes MOS:ACCESS#Color, so you will need to add some form of symbol as well.......
Done
- @HAL333: you seem to have added the symbols to the keys but not to all the tables......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I haven't gotten to that yet. ~ HAL333 21:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- No worries :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Now it's
Done ~ HAL333 03:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude Ignoring the 3c question - which you don't have to comment on - does everything else in this list hold up to the featured list criteria? ~ HAL333 18:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, although I admit reading it fried my brain a bit :-) Are you going to proceed with this nom? I notice below you seem to be leaning towards withdrawal......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude Ignoring the 3c question - which you don't have to comment on - does everything else in this list hold up to the featured list criteria? ~ HAL333 18:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Now it's
- No worries :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I haven't gotten to that yet. ~ HAL333 21:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comments
It's been quite the journey watching this page evolve, and it's in a much different place now than it was before when I made my initial comments (see below). With the changes that have been made, this page is now much more comprehensive and stands on its own. I'm happy to change my earlier vote to support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
while the list's lead states
Both pages use the same source for these very similar lines. Likewise, the RNA codon table in Genetic code has two footnotes that match the two footnotes for the list, including the sources used. Given these and other similarities, the list fails featured list criteria 3c. In my opinion, the best thing to do would be to move this list into Genetic code so the codon tables are in one place. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
|
Oppose The old version of Genetic code had all of this content and was not so long as to require a split. I'm confused why a separate article is necessary and this needed to be removed from it; it should be merged back. Reywas92Talk 23:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, it didn't have the DNA codon table. It was more of a CONTENTSPLIT than a SIZESPLIT. And there is a precedent in usage. It is similar to Protein and List of proteins, Carboxylic acid and List of carboxylic acids, etc. ~ HAL333 06:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- They're the exact same thing except T is swapped out for U, I'm not sure you even need both of them in the first place, and the DNA table would still fit back in the main article. This fails criterion 3c, sorry. Reywas92Talk 01:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- A deletion discussion regarding this article reached a consensus to keep. ~ HAL333 20:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Reading the AfD, it sounds like the page was kept because the content should be included somewhere, but it was not clear if the content should stay on its own page or be merged. (When the AfD discussion was closed, it was noted that
whether to merge this into Genetic Code is an editorial decision that deosn't need an admin to enforce
.) I personally think that the alternate codon table provides enough content to support a separate page, but I also understand why Reywas92 is concerned about criterion 3c – that's why I requested a second opinion earlier. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)- The way I feel about it is that these two articles appeal to two different audiences. A reader of Genetic code is there to understand the fundamental principles and processes and general background. They do not need to know that an RNA sequence of UGG corresponds to Tryptophan. The simple point of the gentic code is that unique sequences of nucleotide triplets are translated into an amino acid. For example, gradeschoolers are only taught the basic fundementals of the genetic code in their classes. They are never compelled to memorize the 64 triplets. This list has a clear utilitarian function that is separate from Genetic code. If a reader of the Genetic code wants to get into the specifics, they may visit the "See also" link to this article. For what it's worth, I have yet to see an IP editor complain about the absence of codon tables on the Genetic code talk page. ~ HAL333 23:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Reading the AfD, it sounds like the page was kept because the content should be included somewhere, but it was not clear if the content should stay on its own page or be merged. (When the AfD discussion was closed, it was noted that
- A deletion discussion regarding this article reached a consensus to keep. ~ HAL333 20:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- They're the exact same thing except T is swapped out for U, I'm not sure you even need both of them in the first place, and the DNA table would still fit back in the main article. This fails criterion 3c, sorry. Reywas92Talk 01:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Formatting help from Dank
- Comment Could someone help me configure Note B like all of the others? I don't know how to do it if it is at multiple points (if that makes sense...). ~ HAL333 20:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Try this:
{{efn|group=note|name=historical|The historical basis for designating the [[stop codon#Nomenclature|stop codons as amber, ochre and opal]] is described in the autobiography of [[Sydney Brenner]] [refs go here]}}
and then:
Whatever{{efn|group=note|name=historical}}
Whatever{{efn|group=note|name=historical}}
- It did the job. Thanks!HAL333 17:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- A final defense
Before I scuttle this nomination, I will try to explain why this list conforms to featured list criteria 3c:
- When I split the "Alternative codons" table from the Genetic code article, it was in an automatically collapsed state. Even though it violated MOS:PRECOLLAPSE, the writers of that article understand that it was too large to be included in full without disrupting the article. If that table, let alone the four others in this list, cannot be reasonably included in the Genetic Code article, than it merits this standalone list.
- Despite its similarity to the RNA codon tables, the DNA codon tables are not redundant. Before my revisions, around 1,000 visited this list daily just to see the DNA codon tables. Obviously those readers thought that it was relevant. An AfD also reached a consensus that a DNA codon table has a place on Wikipedia.
- This list, which fills my computer screen around five full times if I scroll, could not be fully merged with genetic code without giving undue weight to codons within the context of that article.
Hopefully this changes your mind. ~ HAL333 19:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Support from Gerald Waldo Luis
[edit]I love this list, and the format of it! It also meets the criteria, and so I'll support this nomination. I have some comments though.
| Resolved comments from GeraldWL 08:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
* Can you add alt texts on the images? I can generally put one, but the image is too complicated for me to textify.
|
GeraldWL 09:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support! The comments were very helpful. ~ HAL333 22:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from Aza24
[edit]Was planning to get to this now but it seems I have too much irl work at the moment. As such, will get here sometime tomorrow. A first comment though
- No worries! ;) ~ HAL333 17:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- For things like "Similar to translation table 11." it may be worth it to link to the translation table in question like: "Similar to [[#Translation table 11|translation table 11]]" and then putting {{anchor|Translation table 11}} next to the translation table in question Aza24 (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I wonder if the Codon table redirect should be for this article?
- I think in general you should be linking a lot of the scientific terms in the lead. Even if familiar to you, they seem mostly specialist enough to warrant such linking. E.g. RNA, mRNA, amino acids but probably others too
- "sometimes also called" – surely just "sometimes called"?
- the tables are so colorful, I love it!
- Its not clear what your reference is for the Standard DNA codon table
- I would assume you meant to put "(*)" next to Termination: stop codon in the key of Alternative codons in other translation tables? I would think the same should be done for this parameter in RNA and DNA Translation tables 1? Not sure if I'm properly explaining here
- Good catch. ~ HAL333 00:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm not sure about this, but perhaps copy the key over to above Standard DNA codon table as well? Only because if a reader goes straight to that one they'll have to scroll back up
- is Genetic code really needed in see also when you already have it in the lead? I would also wonder if List of genetic codes would be better in a the beginning of a certain section as a "further reading" – if you decide to do this you can move the portals to a portal bar below so it doesn't look too odd with just them in the see also
- I replaced "Genetic code" with another article and kept the see also section. Is that okay? ~ HAL333 00:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'll do a source review later Aza24 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Done I appreciate it. ~ HAL333 00:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support this is a very well designed list and extremely user friendly. Aza24 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Source review – Pass
[edit]Will do soon Aza24 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- All nitpicks, sorry...!
- "Oregon" in ref 2 seems to be the only location you include, I would recommend removing it
- You have "National Center for Biotechnology Information: NCBI" in ref 3 but just "National Center for Biotechnology Information" in the others – if you're going to use the abbreviation, I'd put it in parenthesis, not a colon, otherwise it makes them seem like different things.
- I think "Nature Education" is the publisher for refs 4 and 10
- Your author names are inconsistent, you got it right in ref 17, but for ones like ref 5, it should be "Shu, JJ" and ref 3 should be "Elzanowski, A; Ostell, J" for example (there are others)
- I was trying to use the Vancouver system for the journals but forgot to do a few. I fixed it. Sorry for the confusion. ~ HAL333 15:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- there's some really odd formatting with ref 11; I would stick to the cite book template
- I'm not sure what your retrieval date pattern is here; I thought it was having one for all web sources and not journal articles, but I see you have one for ref 19...?
- All sources are reliable and appropriate.
- if you can try and fix the multiple name format issue above in the further reading that would be good too, but I won't hold back a source review pass for that Aza24 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Done Nitpicks appreciated. =) ~ HAL333 15:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Pass for source review but aren't refs 3 and 19 the same thing? Aza24 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- How did I miss that? Nice catch. ~ HAL333 01:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Pass for source review but aren't refs 3 and 19 the same thing? Aza24 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment
[edit]There's some oddness around start codons in this list. The lead says that there's 3, usually AUG, while alternative start codons "include" GUG and UUG- so, are there just those 3 or are there more? None of these start codons are mentioned in the tables like the stops are, while the wheel image only has AUG marked. Some clarification would be helpful. --PresN 16:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Clarified (hopefully). ~ HAL333 19:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support - frankly I don't understand the article at all, but I can't see any issues with its prose or presentation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Alright, my issue is sorted, so now promoting. --PresN 04:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC) [11].
- Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it will help to bring a better understaning of his other contributions, besides his own work. Withing this, the list does not omit anything within its coverage. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comments
- I would combine the last two sentences of the lead as they are both very short
- The two versions of "Finesse" are not different songs so should not be listed separately. A note can be added to indicate that only the remix featured Cardi B.
- Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude Issues addressed, please take a look to see if it is fine. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments from SatDis
Well done on the list, I've left just a few comments.
- The first sentence could be changed to
American singer and songwriter Bruno Mars has recorded songs for three studio albums, one extended play (EP) and three soundtrack albums. He has also featured as a guest artist and provided background vocals to other songs.
- Could change to
the creation of this album, which involves subjects of money and sex
. Themes would be more like a sentence. - The list looks great, but for the yellow boxes, songs with uncredited vocals by Mars, "6 AM" and "Her World Goes On" have a note with reference for his vocals, but "One At a Time" and "Watching Her Move" do not. Is there a source saying he has vocals on these songs? Otherwise it is still uncredited. SatDis (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments, I adressed the first two, regarding your question, unforunately there is not a better souce online available at the moment, because it is uncredited makes it harder to find a source online for it. However, one can listen to the sample of the song and hear his vocals. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds okay to me (unfortunate no sources are available). I will support the nomination. I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments for my featured list review. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments, I adressed the first two, regarding your question, unforunately there is not a better souce online available at the moment, because it is uncredited makes it harder to find a source online for it. However, one can listen to the sample of the song and hear his vocals. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Alexandra
- The caption to the first image is a sentence fragment, so should not have a period (WP:CAPFRAG)
- Titles should not sort on "The" (so "The Lazy Song" should sort as "Lazy Song, The"); this can be accomplished with {{Sort}}.
- Similarly, names should sort on family name / last name (so "Alicia Keys" should sort as "Keys, Alicia").
- Otherwise this looks good - ping me when you've addressed the above and I will have a look at it again.--AlexandraIDV 02:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Alexandra IDV: Thank you for the comments, I'm not sure what you want me to do with the family names. Otherwise, I believe I have adressed evertything else. Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, I implemented the change myself - this is so that the table sorting function works properly.--AlexandraIDV 15:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 20:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
;Comments
That's all I could pick up. ~ HAL333 00:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
|
- Support ~ HAL333 20:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS
|
|---|
That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
|
.jpg){kind=link}
Facepalm My bad on writing credits; I somehow mixed up the songwriter column with the artist one :P. Anyway, I now support the nomination, and have no objections to the new image of File:AndrewWyattwithguitar.jpg. Media review passes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Source review – The link-checker tool shows no problems, but there are a couple things I'd like to see improved in the sourcing:
Idolator (ref 26) is a blog, and doesn't appear to be a particularly reliable source. Can we come up with something better to support that note?One formatting issue is worth noting: I'm fairly sure the publisher of ref 32 isn't actually the United States.Giants2008 (Talk) 23:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just for the record, Idolator is listed as an acceptable source at WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources. I'll leave it up to the nominator to decide whether it should be replaced with something else. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Giants2008: Like SNUGGUMS said, it is acceptable and henceforth I won't change it. I fixed the other issue. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm convinced on the first item, but there's currently no publisher listed for the other reference. It appears that Amazon should be the publisher in that case. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Giants2008 You might be conviced, but the wikiproject states otherwise. On the other hand, I fixed the publisher. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- I meant that your argument convinced me. That's why I struck the comment. That's it from me. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Giants2008 You might be conviced, but the wikiproject states otherwise. On the other hand, I fixed the publisher. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm convinced on the first item, but there's currently no publisher listed for the other reference. It appears that Amazon should be the publisher in that case. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Giants2008: Like SNUGGUMS said, it is acceptable and henceforth I won't change it. I fixed the other issue. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments and support. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
.jpg){kind=link}