Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/69th Academy Awards/archive1: Difference between revisions
→69th Academy Awards: Support |
final steps |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
*'''Support''' I believe this meets the standard. [[User:Miyagawa|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa|talk]]) 13:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' I believe this meets the standard. [[User:Miyagawa|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa|talk]]) 13:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
'''Source check''' – I have already done a source review above, spot-checking: |
|||
* FN 14 -- Used twice. Article faithful to the source. |
|||
* FN 15 -- Fine. |
|||
* FN 35 -- Same as above. |
|||
* FN 36 -- Verifiable. |
|||
* FN 45 -- Used twice. Article faithful to the source. -- '''[[User:FrB.TG|<span style="color:#00308F;cursor:help">Frankie</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:FrB.TG|<font color="#6E7F80">talk</font>]]'''</sub> 19:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:11, 28 February 2016
69th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I am nominating the 1997 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Source review (spotchecks not done):
Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
---|
Comments by FrB.TG:
In the comments is also the source review (only concerning consistency) of the article-- Frankie talk 17:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
|
Support - Looks good to me. Jimknut (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Support the nomination. -- Frankie talk 19:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
|
---|
That's all from me. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
|
I now support based on improvements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support I believe this meets the standard. Miyagawa (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Source check – I have already done a source review above, spot-checking:
- FN 14 -- Used twice. Article faithful to the source.
- FN 15 -- Fine.
- FN 35 -- Same as above.
- FN 36 -- Verifiable.
- FN 45 -- Used twice. Article faithful to the source. -- Frankie talk 19:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)