Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Judy Ann Santos 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC).

Judy Ann Santos filmography

 * Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Judy Ann Santos is a Filipino actress whose career started as a child, and appeared in a starring role on a TV series at age 10. In the last three decades, she has enjoyed success in independent films and blockbusters, as well as multiple lead roles in soap operas/TV series. The late 80s to the early 90s (considered to be the golden era of Philippine cinema) saw her appear in numerous films each year, while concurrently doing television shows. I think her work is worthy of the bronze star so I am nominating this article for featured list.

In the past few days, I re-worked the existing page. I’ve added a substantive lead, fixed the tables, and included citations. I’ve tried my best to thoroughly search for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online, since information dating back in the 80s and 90s has been a challenge to find, especially for Filipino subject(s). Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Image review — pass – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Fantastic work on this article! My only comment is that if the article is a Filmography, then the Discography and Bibliography sections don't really belong IMO, as those aren't subsets of "a listing of motion pictures by actor, director, genre, etc.".  They would fit perfectly on her own article but I don't think they belong here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review ! Agreed, while also not trying to pull a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST but its usage is also frequent in many other FL-class filmographies (e.g. List of Kate Winslet performances, List of Emily Blunt performances, List of Emma Stone performances), but then again they are named as "list of subject's performances", so I concur that filmographies (e.g. Matt Damon filmography) be in accordance to the above definition :) I have removed the subsets which can just be added on the subject's main article. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your support! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

 * For this sentence, The show became the longest running Filipino television series at that time., do you think it would be beneficial to be more specific with the dates (i.e. when it was no longer the longest running Filipino television show)? It is likely irrelevant to this list, but the "at that time" phrasing did make me question the timing. Maybe something like, The show was one of the longest running Filipino television series., would avoid that?
 * That was actually my initial phrasing/structure, which was to include the show that surpassed the record, but found it's mention irrelevant which I agree with you, and this only happened in 2020, so it was quite a longstanding record. I've followed your latter suggestion.


 * For this part, and the namesake anthology series, I would drop namesake. I know what you mean by this word choice, but it reads awkwardly to me and it is not entirely necessary as the reader already knows she is the lead in this show by context.
 * Done


 * The "while" transition for this part, while she received a Star Award for Best Actress, does not really make sense in this context. This is a viable transition, but "while" is used either to describe multiple events occurring at the same time or to indicate contrasting ideas. I would use a different transition.
 * I have reworded and clustered all the roles, adding the award for the latter as separate sentence.


 * Since almost every sentence has a citation, I would also include one for this sentence, The following year, she reprised her role in the sequel Sakal, Sakali, Saklolo (2007)., for consistency. I know that this information is supported by the table and the citation there, but it looks odd to have one sentence without a citation in my opinion.
 * Added


 * I believe this part, high-profile directors', should be high-profile directors's as other instances in the list use s's and not s'. I do not have a strong preference either way, but I would be consistent with one choice or the other.
 * You're right, fixed to be consistent. I was unsure as to whether I should or should not, as I've only been using it for proper nouns.


 * I am a little confused by the departure from playing "emotionally troubled and oppressed women" as I would imagine an abused wife would also fall into this category. Could you clarify this for me? This source makes it seems like she is more so playing against her more wholesome image.
 * I did want to highlight her shift from being type casted, so I included that phrasing. I do realize that it in context, including the word "abused" would still fall into that description, however, I did want to emphasize the part where she sought revenge, as the abused wife role was the character's foundation from the initial episodes, while the core of the show explored the latter strong-willed character who learned how to do krav maga, (loosely based on the film Enough by Jennifer Lopez :-D). As for the latter source, further down the article it does mention that "the character is very dark ... the hatred and pain in her heart are fueling her need to wreak havoc as a way to avenge her mother." Classic 'antihero' qualities for a lead character. Sorry this got too lengthy.
 * Thank you for the response. On a somewhat related note, I actually really enjoyed Enough, and I think it is a solid example of how under-rated Jennifer Lopez is as an actress. Anyway, I am still confused by this part. As I have already said above, one of the articles says that Santos was type-cast with a more wholesome image and it looks like that both of these roles are leaning more into playing "emotionally troubled and oppressed women" rather than going against it as the list currently says. The citation in question even says that Santos is exploring "her dark side" in the title so again to seems like she is shifting more from wholesome roles to darker, edgier roles. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have completely removed the phrasing instead in order to avoid confusion. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Great work with the list as always. You have done a wonderful job with succinctly providing an overview of her acting career. I have honestly never heard of this individual before, and I very much enjoyed reading about her. Once all of my above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing your review and commentaries, I have addressed all points you raised, including a not-so-brief but hopefully clarifying rationale for the last point. Let me know if these are satisfactory or if there are things that remain unaddressed. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the responses. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. If you have the time or interest, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * much appreciate your support. I intended to do a review of your FAC at some point this week, you just beat me to reviewing my FLC first. I'll be happy to have a look, I saw Frankie put in a place holder as well, so I'll be on board when his is complete so I don't overlap. Hope your week is going well too! Congrats on your new job! Pseud 14 (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Lady Lotus
I don't have many comments as this is a great list :)
 * The "row" scope needs to be in the first column for year per MOS:DTAB
 * Fixed


 * I would take the "center" style out of the year as that's not common for year to be centered plus it's not a wide enough column to make a big difference
 * Fixed


 * There need to be sorts with last name first - example Angelina Kalinisan Orteza needs to have the sort under Orteza.
 * Fixed


 * "several high-profile directors' projects" - what makes them high-profile? ref to back the "high profile" part?
 * I've added references to support her work with these directors.


 * "The show became one of the longest running Filipino television series" - maybe add how long is ran for or the year span it ran.
 * Added year to clarify


 * "Santos's film roles have also garnered praise from critics." - what critics and what films, refs to back?
 * The succeeding films after the above sentence were the intended reference that received notable praise and recognition (Sabel and Kasal, Kasali, Kasalo), so I've placed/added the citations after each films to support it (e.g. reviews, coverage)

Great work :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 22:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for your review. I have addressed the above points raised. Do let me know if there's anything else I may have missed. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - lovely list :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * much appreciate your support! Thanks Pseud 14 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Maile66
Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. I wanted a second opinion before I posted here. Please either move the year to the second unscoped column, or move the Scoperow to the title in the second column. For someone using a screen reader, it would seem the film titles are the important column. I've actually gone through some of my old lists and moved the Scope Row to the second column where I had the film titles, but I never took those through FLC.— Maile (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * could you confirm that this version is what you meant? This was originally how I sorted my tables, but at the advice/comments above per MOS:DTAB, it should have been otherwise. I would like some clarity before having to do the changes again. Thanks Pseud 14 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that would take care of the issue. — Maile (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * should be fixed now. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Good job on both the scope, and the list overall. — Maile  (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your support! Pseud 14 (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. -- Pres N  01:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.