Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Javier Bardem 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC).

Javier Bardem filmography

 * Nominator(s): ~  HAL  333  18:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it provides a comprehensive review of Bardem's impressive work in film. I've worked on the introduction, which also mentions major awards he has won for his work. The article also includes a sortable list and is well cited. ~ HAL  333  18:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, the tables are now as complete as they can get for notable entries, I cannot find a problem with the prose. Great work. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – all comments addressed and explanation for formatting precedent is reasonable. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria.  Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment - posting this here as I've haven't received a response from the same question I posed at the Naomi Watts filmography FLC. Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but is there a reason why filmographies have shifted from the film being the first column to the year? Going by the guidelines on MOS:DTT, would it not be more beneficial for visually impaired users to have the film in the row scopes rather than the year? Seeing as that is the more important info, in my eyes anyway, shouldn't they be structured the same way as discographies and accolades list? The guideline I have linked to all has an example table of a filmography that is in the style I mentioned. This seems to have been common practice judging by older nominations, is there a reason why this has changed? NapHit (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll try to answer that. I structured it this way as it is what I saw as the precedent. Note the featured lists Robert Downey Jr. filmography (promoted 2014), Tom Cruise filmography (promoted 2015), List of Amy Adams performances (promoted 2015), Morgan Freeman on screen and stage (promoted 2015), Jennifer Aniston filmography (promoted 2020), Lauren Bacall on screen and stage (promoted 2014), Michael Fassbender filmography (promoted 2016), List of Emma Stone performances (promoted 2017), List of Tom Hanks performances (promoted 2014), etc. Although about half or so featured articles do it the other way, I think it has become an issue of preference. No more than what type of table is used. To me, placing the year before the date just seems intuitive as that is how the list is ultimately organized: chronologically. If titles were the first column, alphabetical organization would seem more appropriate. ~ HAL  333  19:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer, . Of those lists you mentioned, Tom Cruise and Amy Adams had the layout I was referring to when they were promoted. I recall the discussion around this when the shift came at FLC, as I was a coordinator back then. From what I recall and what I understand regarding MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS the reason the film came first was that it was used as the rowscope and this helped readers who were using screen readers. With the year as the rowscope, the row heading is defined as a year rather than the film and this is relayed to the screen reader. Seeing as this is a list about films, in which the films are the primary information and the year is the secondary, it stands to reason that the film should go first, as is the case with discography lists, which are essentially the same thing but for musicians. I've tried to find the discussion where this shift came about but I'm unable to find it. I'm not going to oppose over this because it's a wider issue but I'll leave my comment in case others wish to add their thoughts. I'm also going to leave a note on the talkpage at MOS:DTT to see what users there have to say, if they say it's fine then I'll happily acquiesce. NapHit (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Most of the editors follow WP:FILMOGRAPHY. Which shows the year on the left.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  12:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review – ✅ ~  HAL  333  05:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The reliability of the referencing looks fine, and the link-checker tool shows no issues.
 * All caps in the titles of refs 4, 5, 8, and 25 should be removed.
 * In ref 54, the first word of the publisher (the New York Times) should be capitalized for consistency with the other NYT cites. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 23:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.