Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chris Evans performances/archive1
- 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) 23:05:30 12 January 2020 (UTC) [1].
List of Chris Evans performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Evans is an American actor best known for his role as Steve Rogers/Captain America in the Marvel Cinematic Universe series of films. I am nominating his filmography to be a featured list because I believe it has been developed to be of comparable quality to other actor filmographies that have also been promoted to featured status. Any feedback on how this list can be improved is welcome. Morgan695 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Lady Lotus
- Support - very nice :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I suggest a small edit - changing the "prolific" in this sentence "His most prolific comic book movie role would be as Steve Rogers" to "most notable" or "most recognized"? I would also remove "critically-acclaimed performances" sounds a bit WP:PEACOCKish. I'm also not a fan of Networks being in the television table - for any page, not just this one. Networks change or become outdated or don't apply to how people watch them, just seems excessive. The page as a whole is well written with correct table styles, after those tweaks I would certainly support. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lady Lotus: Edits have been made. Morgan695 (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables need to be in Year then Title format per WP:FILMOGRAPHY. Full support after that LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lady Lotus: Edits have been made. Morgan695 (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables need to be in Year then Title format per WP:FILMOGRAPHY. Full support after that LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from ChrisTheDude
- The only thing I have picked up on the lead is that you seem to use "would" an awful lot, and I'm not sure it's actually necessary in most cases. For example, rather than saying "While comic book films would form the bulk of Evans' filmography from the late 2000s through the entirety of the 2010s", why not just say "While comic book films formed the bulk of Evans' filmography from the late 2000s through the entirety of the 2010s"?
- The key shows colour and a symbol for upcoming projects, but then you haven't actually put the symbol against them :-)
- If the tables are to be sortable then anything starting with "The" needs to sort under the next word
- Images need Alt Text
- Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Edits have been made. Morgan695 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from zmbro
- Very minor but in the last two tables, "Ref." is not abbreviated (meaning Ref.) while every other table has that
- Along with the previous comment, last table's ref col is not centered while the rest are
- The first table has "Ref." but some have more than one while the second table is labeled "Ref(s)" but every entry only has one. Think these should be revered
- I went ahead and archived most refs for you (so they never die).
Very good list. I'll be happy to support once these are taken care of. – zmbro (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zmbro: Edits have been made. And thank you for archiving the sources. Morgan695 (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – No problem! There's still a few that aren't archived so you may have to do those manually since the bot didn't take care of those. All good for me now. Happy to support. :-) – zmbro (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments by Cowlibob
From a quick first runthrough
Cowlibob (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
Source review –
What makes CelebMix (ref 39) a reliable source? The publisher itself seems shaky on reliability terms, and the article looks like a low-quality listicle.
- Paper Boy is one I've really struggled with, as information on it seemingly does not exist anywhere on the internet. (Even the Chris Evans fan fourm bemoans as much.) The film clearly exists and Evans starred in it (per the American Illustration and Backstage sources), but I can't find any source confirming that his character was named "Ben" and that it came out in 2003, outside of IMDb. (Sources are also divided on whether it's Paper Boy or The Paper Boy, but the director and film poster refer to it as Paper Boy so that's how I've erred.) CelebMix is clearly a low-quality source, but was the only non-IMDb source I could find confirming this info. Do you have any suggestions/ideas for a remedy?
- If you can't reliably source the name, I'd just remove it and put a dash in the table. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Paper Boy is one I've really struggled with, as information on it seemingly does not exist anywhere on the internet. (Even the Chris Evans fan fourm bemoans as much.) The film clearly exists and Evans starred in it (per the American Illustration and Backstage sources), but I can't find any source confirming that his character was named "Ben" and that it came out in 2003, outside of IMDb. (Sources are also divided on whether it's Paper Boy or The Paper Boy, but the director and film poster refer to it as Paper Boy so that's how I've erred.) CelebMix is clearly a low-quality source, but was the only non-IMDb source I could find confirming this info. Do you have any suggestions/ideas for a remedy?
Ref 63 (the Donatelli book) is classified as juvenile nonfiction, so I don't think it's that strong of a source. Other than these couple of references, the source reliability looks okay.
- Replaced with higher quality sources.
One formatting issue is worth noting: all caps in the title of ref 18 need fixing.
- Resolved.
- I'm having trouble accessing the link-checker tool, but most of the references appear to be archived so I'm not overly concerned. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Giants2008: Comments above. Morgan695 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With the last point now done, I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has received a source review from Lady Lotus, and is in good shape now. Pinging Giants2008, PresN and The Rambling Man to see if they have any additional comments, or if they believe the list is now in good enough shape to close out and promote. Morgan695 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2020 (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) 23:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.