Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Charlie Chaplin filmography/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 Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009.

Charlie Chaplin filmography

 * Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that Charlie Chaplin is a highly important figure in the development of cinema. The list has been peer reviewed and I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Jimknut (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They look okay to me. Jimknut (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that they shouldn't be there. Delink those links or fix them to go directly to the intended article (why is charity linked, anyway?). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm at a loss here. I've never messed with that section on any page, so I don't what to do.  Can you help? Jimknut (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the dabs in this edit. Hopefully you now understand what I meant. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire lead is a mini-biography. Does all this information belong in a filmography? LargoLarry (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Featured lists usually give a brief overview of the subject of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a mini-bio is acceptable in a filmography. Hence the reason I did it. Jimknut (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by Wildhartlivie
 * The image needs to have alt text added.
 * Added.
 * I'm not clear about the style used in the reference section. It seems that some of the links really belong under an "External links" subtitle and not the general references since the "Websites" links are not used in referencing. I don't see that the Chaplin autobiography is used in referencing, so that should be listed in a further reading section. I do think the specific references should come before the general ones.
 * The web pages have been moved into section entitled "External links". The order of the specific and general references has been changed and renamed as (respectively) "footnotes" and "bibliography". Chaplin's autobiography was used as the basis for arranging the order of his films, which is clearly stated at the top of the section entitled "Official films". Therefore, I think it does indeed belong in the bibliography section and not a "further reading" section.
 * Shouldn't the have two columns once the number of cites exceeds 12?
 * It should now, as I changed to  .  However, I'm using Internet Explorer so I can't see any change on my computer.
 * This is mostly a question. There are quite a few direct cites in the "Notes" columns, but in others, there is a blurb of information without cites. Shouldn't there be cites for that information as well?
 * Stated at the top of the "Official films" section is: "Except where otherwise referenced, the release dates, character names, and annotations presented here are derived from Chaplin's autobiography, Robinson's book, and The Films of Charlie Chaplin (1965) by Gerald D. McDonald, Michael Conway, and Mark Ricci." Is that enough or do you need specific page numbers from these books?
 * I'm not clear on the rationale for the color selection in the credits column. Does this color meet the guidelines for WP:ACCESS?
 * The Yes template automatically puts the word "Yes" into a moss green (#addfad) background. I did not create this template, so I don't know exactly what the green background is supposed to represent, but I think I can safely assume that it's purely a decoration.  People that are color blind may not be able to see the green color, but they should able to read the word "Yes" and thus able to decifer what it means.  Four of the seven filmographies that have received "Featured list" status use the Yes template.  If it's okay for them then why not here as well? Jimknut (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow up - I think all of my comments and questions are satisfied, except for the ALT text. Keeping in mind that ALT text may be used by vision impaired people who may not know what Chaplin's "tramp" persona looks like, perhaps a small, more generic description of that would be helpful. (Unless others disagree, that is. My experience with ALT text in GA/FA has been to be more descriptive and explain how something would appear, rather than assume that someone already knows.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * a number of times in the lead, you refer to his 'moving to' another company, which is a informal way of saying it - can you put it another way?
 * Actually I only used it once. I have now changed "moved to" to "signed with".
 * do you really need to wikilink rescinded?
 * I've taken out the wikilink.
 * why is the awards description in two paragraphs?
 * It seemed like a good idea at the time. I've now condensed the two paragraphs into one.
 * I question your use of the current year template, as another film could be added to the National Film Registry later, making the statement blatantly false rather than simply obsolete. Also, I count six films in which he appeared in the Registry, including the cameo in Show People.
 * I've taken out the current year template and put in just 2009. If any more films are put on the NFR I'll update the text at that time. I've also reworded the text so instead of "Five of Chaplin's films" it reads "Five of the films Chaplin starred in". Thus Show People can remain in its own sentence.
 * Should mention of the star on the Hollywood walk of fame be its own one-sentence paragraph?
 * I see nothing wrong with this.
 * In addition to mentioning your general reference in the text, I would make clear somehow in the reference section that it is the primary source for the article. Perhaps by dividing the bibliography into general and supporting references? What are your thoughts on that?
 * I think the bibliography is fine the way it is, as all four of the books listed were primary sources.
 * Why mention that a film was two reels in the title - shouldn't that go in the notes?
 * This could be changed, but I think it's okay after the title as well. I'll change it if anyone else objects to the way it is.
 * Why the itty bitty writing in the note for Limelight. Either fold it into normal text or link it to a notes section at the foot of the article.
 * Now changed to normal size text.
 * That's all for now. Geraldk (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Next batch of comments? Jimknut (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's all for me. As I said, good work. I do believe that the mention of the number of reels should be under the notes, but will wait for other reviewers to weigh in on that before making my decision on support. Geraldk (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What the 'ell. I went and moved the number of reel listed into the notes sections. Jimknut (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Support: I don't think I mentioned before, but I think this is a core filmography, and you've done great work with it. Geraldk (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - excellent work, Jim. Is it at featured standard yet?  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is waiting on more reviewers. Jim, I would suggest you leave a note for DaBomb and Wildhartlivie asking them to weigh in on whether their concerns have been addressed. Geraldk (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've past the word around asking for reviews.Jimknut (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the above comments, so if any of these conflict with issues raised above let me know. The list is very informative and does well covering his films. I've only seen a few of his films, so it looks like I need to add some more of his films to my queue. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or when you have addressed the above issues. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by Nehrams2020
 * The single sentence at the conclusion of the lead should be merged with one of other paragraphs. It also seems to me that there is a lot of detail in the lead about his background. Perhaps a few sentences could be removed/trimmed (since his main article probably covers the same details).
 * I took the final sentence and placed it at the end of the preceding paragraph. I shorted part of the biographical segment.  I think that overall the lead section fits Wikipedia's standards.
 * Periods aren't needed for all of the notes in the tables.
 * They've been removed from brief notes such as "two reels" and "Co-writer: Mabel Normand".
 * Looking to other FLs, the other notes don't seem to need periods as well. The majority are not actual sentences, so they shouldn't be included. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any update on this? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I took out the periods. Jimknut (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The note for Her Friend the Bandit should be formatted the same as Caught in a Cabaret and Dough and Dynamite with "a lost film" mentioned first.
 * Reformated.
 * United States doesn't need to be linked in the "British productions" table.
 * Unlinked.
 * I would recommend rewording "oeuvre" as readers may not know what this means (or provide a brief explanation).
 * Gee, I always thought that if you don't know what a word means you look it up in a dictionary, thereby increasing your knowledge and vocabulary. Nevertheless I changed "oeuvre" to "body of work".
 * Yeah, but readers can be lazy. If you wish, you can link the word to Wiktionary. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove "These are listed below." Also remove "Listed here are three that..."
 * Removed.
 * Consider changing "(untitled film)" to "Untitled Charity Film".
 * No, I'm leaving that the way it is. The film never had an official title, so I think "untitled film" should remain in lower case with no italics.
 * Capitalization of the external links should be consistent.
 * If you mean the very last section then, yes, it's changed.
 * I recommend the five films listed in the National Film Registry. See them with friends if you can.  Also see Easy Street (1916), in which Chaplin deals with street crime, spouse abuse, poverty, drug addiction, welfare, and religion ... all in two reels!
 * When I was working on the National Film Registry list, I added multiple films to my queue so I watched The Great Dictator, City Lights, and Modern Times. Definitely could catch some more of his work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: It seems that a fragment of a hitherto unknown Chaplin film called Zepped has been found.  It's now added into the compilation section.  See:  Jimknut (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I believe the above issues I have raised have been addressed and don't see any other pressing issues that would prevent passing. Good job on bringing the list up to FL status. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support.—NMajdan &bull;talk 17:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support good work, especially with those tricky tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.