Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Irrfan Khan filmography/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Irrfan Khan filmography[edit]
Irrfan Khan filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list candidates/Irrfan Khan filmography/archive1
- Featured list candidates/Irrfan Khan filmography/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
Irrfan Khan was one of the few actors to be successful in both Western and Indian cinema. He unfortunately died before his time in 2020. Here is a rundown of his key film and television roles. As always, I welcome all constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dank[edit]
- @FrB.TG and @Krimuk2.0: No rush ... I'm just pinging because I don't want to jump into a review before I see if you guys are satisfied with the changes since the last nomination (where you both commented). - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dank: I was not involved in the previous nomination. This was a project I was working on independently to the previous nominator. Cowlibob (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying. I've always been a fan of your work. Still, it will help me out if, before I review, I can get a sense of whether they're both happy with how the article has changed since last month when the previous nomination was archived. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dank sorry for the delayed response but the list looks much better than the last time. I’ll see if I have time for a full review. FrB.TG (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks ... not a problem, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't ignoring the previous reviews and reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 12:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dank sorry for the delayed response but the list looks much better than the last time. I’ll see if I have time for a full review. FrB.TG (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying. I've always been a fan of your work. Still, it will help me out if, before I review, I can get a sense of whether they're both happy with how the article has changed since last month when the previous nomination was archived. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dank: I was not involved in the previous nomination. This was a project I was working on independently to the previous nominator. Cowlibob (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
- "Filmfare Award for Best Actor in a Negative Role" (in the Notes column): since filmographies and awards lists often list nominations as well as wins, it would be helpful if there were something in the table (in the column or in a header or in a key) indicating whether awards represent nominations or wins.
- Two films in the table that start with "The" aren't sorting correctly.
- Refs #16 and #134 don't have a "retrieved on" date. I'm not taking a position on whether refs #75, #91 and #131 need the same.
- The UPSD tool is a bit skeptical of Times of India; I'm not taking a position, I'm just asking you to search for and review these.
- The first comment (on YouTube) on the feature-length film sourced to YouTube implies that something (probably the film?) is still under copyright ... which seems likely.
- Checking the FLC criteria:
- 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
- 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
- 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
- 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool probably isn't indicating any actual problems (but see above; also, this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present (except as above).
- 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
- 4. It is navigable.
- 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine.
- 6. It is stable.
- I hope you'll consider reviewing
List of basal superasterid families orList of early-diverging flowering plant families or (whenever I can nominate it) List of nitrogen-fixing-clade families. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] - Your edits so far get it close enough for a support. Well done. I'll come back later and see what you decided to do with nominations vs. wins and the Times of India cites. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dank: Thanks for the copyediting, looks much better. The Times of India is generally accepted for these type of lists as I think previous concerns were more about political coverage and potential promotional pieces but it would be uncontroversial to use it for simple facts like appearances in a film or television show. When the award is mentioned on its own in the notes it is a win, when it was just a nomination then it has "nominated" next to it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- With Times of India, all I wanted was for you to take a look ... which you did (you made one edit). On the subject of whether the word "nomination" should appear somewhere (more than just the one time) ... it's not something I care about, I'm just saying that I'm aware that it's something people talk about sometimes. All good! - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dank: Thanks for the copyediting, looks much better. The Times of India is generally accepted for these type of lists as I think previous concerns were more about political coverage and potential promotional pieces but it would be uncontroversial to use it for simple facts like appearances in a film or television show. When the award is mentioned on its own in the notes it is a win, when it was just a nomination then it has "nominated" next to it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from HAL[edit]
- Scope row should be placed on the film title and not the year. This is a list of films and not of years, after all.
- I would archive the sources to prevent link rot.
- I'm not particularly familiar on the reliability of Indian sources, so I yield that to the source reviewer.
- There's some inconsistency in the notes column. Do blank rows imply that he was in pretty much every episode of the series? Why give the titles for the Star Bestsellers episodes if it isn't done elsewhere?
That's all I got. Glad to see Khan is getting some attention. He was a good actor. ~ HAL333 17:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @HAL333: Thanks for your review. I have amended the above. In terms of the notes column, I have added info where it is available for number of episodes he appeared and names of episodes in long-running television shows. Some he would have appeared in every episode e.g. host of the show. Others there isn't the info so I have left that blank. Cowlibob (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:57, 12 June 2023 (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.