Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Naruto episodes/archive1
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 15:31, 27 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
- 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of Naruto episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): 1989 (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because IMO, I think this list is suitable to be a FL. I have made fixes on my part to make sure there wasn't anything wrong. If I missed something, hopefully, you will bring it to my attention. Thanks. 1989 (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of 2nd simultaneous nomination
|
---|
|
Support: After reading it few times, I did not found any problem with the list. Great work and good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from DragonZero
|
---|
Waiting MSN episode guide is unreliable. I've dealt with it in the past and found inconsistency with it before. This was from a 30 second check. I might be able to give a deeper look later. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I don't think it's ready, but I won't vote for an oppose. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was only wondering about the table size restriction, I didn't mean it as an issue. As for a verdict, I'd have to do a thorough review so I can't offer one right now. The list above were things I noticed from a quick scroll down. Anyways, I took a look at the table and so you know, scope col/rows will auto bold their content. You should remove the triple comma bolding where the scopes do the work. I'm not sure when I can offer a full review so don't wait up. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
- @Tintor2: Do you think that the OVAs and film section should be removed? MCMLXXXIX 14:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they should since the is nothing that connects them.Tintor2 (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from ProtoDrake
- In the lead, it would be better to shift and cite the story information to before the bit of staff information.
- The American distributors should be completely moved into the second or third paragraph depending on whether Viz Media handled the TV broadcast or home media releases.
- This is purely optional, but is it possible to cite when the episodes aired in Japan and North America? If there are sources within the article or other articles related to individual seasons that confirm the dates, then this issue doesn't need to hold things up.
That's really all I saw. Once these are addressed or explained, I'll be willing to give my opinion on the article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @ProtoDrake: For the third bullet point, It may take some time. MCMLXXXIX 19:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @1989: The last point isn't essential in my view. I'll Support this article's promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review
I'll do the source review as requested by the nominator. Every single citation is archived and wikilinked. All of them appear to be reliable. As a result, I support it. However, @1989:, I suggest you using a reference for "The episodes are based on the first twenty-seven volumes in Part I of the manga, while some episodes are just filler." since this can be considered WP:Original research. There is a magazine from my country that says something similar (it's in Spanish though), but I think an Anime News Network review or other website could be used instead.Tintor2 (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I added a reference to it. MCMLXXXIX 14:02, 22 February 2017 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.