Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Robert Bathurst filmography/archive1

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 Dabomb87 21:44, 28 September 2010 [1].

Robert Bathurst filmography

Featured list candidates/Robert Bathurst filmography/archive1

Nominator(s): Bradley0110 (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The filmography and list of stage roles of an actor you have probably never heard of.

I've been working on this list for the last month or so, mainly to get it up to WP:ACCESS's standards; all tables are sortable, the one image has alt text, and body text is not overlinked. Some may notice that there are gaps in the theatre table. This is because there are no reliable sources that cover Bathurst's early roles (since he was just a jobbing actor back then who didn't warrant much coverage). However, the section does fulfill section 3a of WIAFL (...providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items...).

I would hope that other editors agree with me that it fulfills the other FL criteria too. :) Bradley0110 (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: It seems redundant to have identical section titles as well as table titles. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AB. User:Jack Merridew explained that it is a feature of WP:ACCESS. As I understand it, the section headings introduce the section for a screen reader, then be followed by prose information within the section (though in the case of this list, all of the information is contained in the lead), then be followed by an introduction to the table in the form of the table header. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that does make sense. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I found no problems. Ruslik_Zero 08:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"spread over almost 30 years" (personal thing) would prefer "spanning almost 30 years"
"unbroadcast" whoa, odd word. Do you mean "unbroadcasted"? Either way, it's ugly.
"the Black Adder series" this links to "The Black Adder" so be accurate.
"Throughout the rest of the 1980s, ..." this is the first mention of any date at all. Perhaps you need to add a date for his debut, so this makes more sense?
"TV series" would prefer "television series".
Why doesn't Twenty-One have an article?
" role of prime minister " maybe reinforce it was British Prime Minister (there are many worldwide, after all).
"1 episode"->"One episode". Plenty of these.
Split references into "specific" and "general" so you don't have a nasty juxtaposition of bullet points and auto-numbered refs.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to The Rambling Man

"spread over almost 30 years" (personal thing) would prefer "spanning almost 30 years"
- That sounds better, so I've changed it
"unbroadcast" whoa, odd word. Do you mean "unbroadcasted"? Either way, it's ugly.
- To me, having the prefix un- and the suffix -ed looks even uglier(!) so I've changed it to "never-broadcasted".
"the Black Adder series" this links to "The Black Adder" so be accurate.
- Dropping the article from the title is grammatically accurate here (consider "when the The Black Adder series was commissioned...")
"Throughout the rest of the 1980s, ..." this is the first mention of any date at all. Perhaps you need to add a date for his debut, so this makes more sense?
- Yes, I've added the date of the Black Adder pilot.
"TV series" would prefer "television series".
- Good spot! I tend to use "television series" on first instance then "TV series" thereafter but it seems "television series" didn't appear at all here.
Why doesn't Twenty-One have an article?
- I don't know.
" role of prime minister " maybe reinforce it was British Prime Minister (there are many worldwide, after all).
- Added
Blank cells are a no-no for me. Put something in there, even if it's a note.
- Can you suggest anything to go in there?
"1 episode"->"One episode". Plenty of these.
- Please see point one of WP:ORDINAL
Split references into "specific" and "general" so you don't have a nasty juxtaposition of bullet points and auto-numbered refs.
- I've split the section but not with "specific" and "general", which is something that doesn't appear in any mainstream citation style.

Thanks for your comments, TRM! Bradley0110 (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blank cells are a no-no for me. Put something in there, even if it's a note.
- Can you suggest anything to go in there?
  - If you don't know what role he played, perhaps a "Unknown" with a note. For "no description", perhaps an em-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for getting back so fast. I've filled out the description boxes in the film section (I'm lost for a reason for why I hadn't done it before). Regarding the empty theatre boxes, putting "Unknown" would be factually inaccurate, since the roles and directors are known by someone, just not me. I've added the comment "Some data relating to Bathurst's early theatrical career are not held in published works, though may exist in individual theatre company archives." but I don't know if this sounds a bit wishy-washy to others. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, that's much better for me, let's see how everyone else finds it. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made one minor tweak, but other than that, I don't see any other issues with the article. Good job. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is referencing the lists? Sandman888 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The five unnumbered references at the bottom of the article (the Footlights archives, the British Film Institute, the Stage archive and the Scottish Theatre Archive). I haven't used inline citations in the tables simply because of the number of different sources used for each entry could be confusing and potentially more difficult for verification, particularly in the theatre table, which could potentially have one source for the play, another for the character, another for the director and many for the performance history. However I have used inline citations to reference roles and performances not contained in any of those references, such as the Botham venues and the scheduled performance in Blithe Spirit. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But to add to that (and further reveal my ignorance of Wiki-coding), I have moved the five bottom references into the table headings to hopefully make it clearer[2] (and eliminate a clash of opinion with The Rambling Man over "general" and "specific" reference labels). Bradley0110 (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak support weak because I'm new to the filmography format. Cant find anything missing here. Sandman888 (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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