Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tom Mix filmography/archive2

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) 23:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC) [1].

---

Tom Mix filmography

Tom Mix filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Tom Mix filmography/archive1
• Featured list candidates/Tom Mix filmography/archive2

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured list because Tom Mix was a major and influential star of the early days of American cinema. He warrants having an outstanding filmography. I strongly believe that what is offered here is of FL status. Please take a look and tell me what you think. Jimknut (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by BeatlesLedTV Each table is missing scope rows and scope cols that are required per WP:ACCESS (specifically MOS:DTAB). Added. Center the references in every Ref column. Fixed. Some tables have more than one reference for a specific film. Retitle these Ref(s) to indicate more than one reference. Changed. Other than that it's very well written and well referenced. Good job. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestions. Jimknut (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Support – My comments have been resolved. I fully support the promotion to featured status. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Jimknut (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Source Review

• Jimknut I know I've already given my support on the list but I've decided to take care of the source review as well. Just know my support still stands.
• Link Hollywood Walk of Fame in ref 11

• What do you mean by this? The link goes to the Hollywood Walk of Fame's web page on Mix.

• I mean link to the Hollywood Walk of Fame's page here on Wikipedia. It's honestly no big deal if it isn't.

• Using the toolbox:

• I found ref 155 has a download error and is marked dead.

• I checked the link. It works fine for me.

• There are MANY green links; every one except for one or two is from the Library of Congress. Also, almost all of them are marked "changes sub-domain" so I would consider archiving them. Here is the full list.

• I fixed these.

• Everything else looks good. Hope this helps it become featured! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the insight. Jimknut (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep everything's fixed. Source review passed. Great job and happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments Maybe it's an ENGVAR thing but instead of " 1910 until 1935" I'd use " 1910 to 1935". Changed. " His horse Tony " I would format that as "His horse, Tony, " and link just Tony (and avoid piping a redirect). Changed. " in Wild West Shows " no capital S for Show. Changed. " and stunting prowess" is "to stunt" a thing? I see nothing wrong with this. My reference is from The Hollywood Western by William K. Everson. What he says is: "Mix gradually dropped the stress on comedy in favor of stories which allowed him to exploit his riding and stunting prowess." " notable directors that " you've already linked film director, so unlink here. Unlinked. " With the coming of " I'd replace "coming" with "advent" Replaced. "In 1998 Mix's " comma after 1998. Comma added. I would limit the TOC to top-level headings only, the huge whitespace at the top of the article is quite off-putting. Now limited to only top headings. I would consider merging those yearly tables, there's no benefit to chopping the career in that way. Well, I think there's some benefit but I changed it anyway. "Archives with Mix films" I don't really understand how this section is formatted, it looks like a key, (why the abbreviations?) it should probably have references, and should definitely not have those inline external links. The inline external links have been taking out. Yes, this section is a key. Please enlighten me of any way to format it better. Abbreviations are used so that the survival status section of the Fox films isn't clogged up with the complete spelling of the Archives. Most of these abbreviations are linked to the Wiki articles on them (i.e. the ones that have Wiki articles). As for references, all of Mix's silent features are linked to a page on them at the website of the American Silent Feature Film Database, which is published by the Library of Congress. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks for input. I hope the changes made are acceptable. Jimknut (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments – "in places such as the Arizona's Grand Canyon and the Colorado's Royal Gorge." Either remove both "the"s or make it "the Grand Canyon in Arizona and the Royal Gorge in Colorado." Otherwise the grammar doesn't work well. Fixed. Selig Polyscope Company: Remove "were" from "and were attracted more attention than Selig's average releases." Fixed. FBO Pictures: The Role column is sorting by first name, not last name as the others correctly do. Fixed. Archives with Mix films: Don't think the second word of "Fox Films" should be capitalized, as this is referring to the movies from that studio and not the studio itself. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Fixed. Jimknut (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – My issues have been addressed and I think this meets the criteria. Nice work on the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

*Not sure what you mean by "and often photographed to show him doing his own stunt work." Shot at such an angle to be clearly doing his own stunts, or literally photographed? Reworded. "Among the notable directors that he worked with during this time were John Ford, Sidney Franklin, Jack Conway, George Marshall, and Roy William Neill. His leading ladies included Colleen Moore, Esther Ralston, Laura La Plante, Billie Dove and Clara Bow. In 1928, after eleven years and 86 films with Fox, Mix moved to FBO Pictures for a series of five films. With the event of sound, Mix abandoned his film career and returned to working in Wild West shows. He came back to films in 1932 for a series of nine sound features for Universal. In 1935, he appeared in his final film, a 15-chapter serial for Mascot Pictures. Mix died in an automobile accident in Arizona five years later." Source, well, all of that. Sources added. "one of his former 101 ranch associates" At least capitalize ranch here, phrase it is a way that doesn't sound like you're saying he had 101 associates! Capitalized. "Following his departure from Fox Mix" Comma needed here? Comma added. "Following his departure from FBO Mix returned to the vaudeville circuit for several years." Source? Source added. "Other possible film appearances" section... why are we giving a user-generated resource like IMDb this much space? It strikes me as similar to having an "Errors in Other Encyclopaedias" section in an article, we already know IMDb isn't a reliable source, so who cares what they report? It isn't a standard issue conflict between reliable sources that needs explaining. Courcelles (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC) My goal is to make the most complete Mix filmography as possible. The IMDb does indeed list these films in their Mix filmography. It is possible that Mix is in them and since these films are listed in the section as "Other possible film appearances" I see no harm in having this section but if it really "bugs" you I will delete it. Jimknut (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC). And I could go add three more to IMDb as a joke and likely never get caught. Absent some other source reporting these as possible, it's just not encyclopaedic to report on what IMDb has to say. I'd say treat IMDb like you would Wikia or Citizendium, completely irrelevant to our article content. Now, if you've got something that is an RS reporting these appearances as possible, they by all means belong, but not until that can be proven. Courcelles (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Section revised. Jimknut (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Great. Courcelles (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:03, 1 February 2018 (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.