Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sam Waterston on screen and stage/archive2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Sam Waterston on screen and stage: support |
closing- promoted |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
*'''Support''' Did an extensive review of it, last time around and looks good now. Will need a good source review though. [[User:Cowlibob|Cowlibob]] ([[User talk:Cowlibob|talk]]) 11:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' Did an extensive review of it, last time around and looks good now. Will need a good source review though. [[User:Cowlibob|Cowlibob]] ([[User talk:Cowlibob|talk]]) 11:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
;Source Review |
|||
* Formatting: A handful of refs flipped from the usual "last, first" to "first last"; I just fixed it myself since I wanted to go ahead nad get this closed. Do note that "author" is only for named people; "Variety staff" should not be mentioned, as it can be assumed to be a staff writer for the publication if no author is noted. |
|||
* Spotchecks: checked refs 8, 34, 150, 200; all pass |
|||
* Completeness: pass |
|||
The shortest nomination I've seen in quite a while, but I checked it out myself and it looks fine. Source review passed, so promoting. --'''[[User:PresN|<span style="color:green">Pres</span>]][[User talk:PresN|<span style="color:blue">N</span>]]''' 19:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{FLCClosed|promoted}} |
|||
Revision as of 19:20, 18 August 2016
Sam Waterston on screen and stage
Sam Waterston on screen and stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list candidates/Sam Waterston on screen and stage/archive1
- Featured list candidates/Sam Waterston on screen and stage/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Arbero (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I would like to make this list my first featured list. Thanks. Arbero (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Nice work on the text and tables. I've not checked the sources, but may get round to a source review before the end. – SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Cheers, I hope everything is alright with the article. As for the references, I'm quite sure most of them are reliable, but a check wouldn't hurt. Arbero (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Overall, the list looks good. I've got no problems with the sources, they all seem reliable. — Mediran [talk] 08:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Did an extensive review of it, last time around and looks good now. Will need a good source review though. Cowlibob (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Source Review
- Formatting: A handful of refs flipped from the usual "last, first" to "first last"; I just fixed it myself since I wanted to go ahead nad get this closed. Do note that "author" is only for named people; "Variety staff" should not be mentioned, as it can be assumed to be a staff writer for the publication if no author is noted.
- Spotchecks: checked refs 8, 34, 150, 200; all pass
- Completeness: pass
The shortest nomination I've seen in quite a while, but I checked it out myself and it looks fine. Source review passed, so promoting. --PresN 19:20, 18 August 2016 (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.