Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/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) 00:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC).

List of Alien characters

 * Nominator(s): D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 04:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this page, which I have poured countless hours into, is ready, as it meets and exceeds the Featured list criteria. It is of professional writing standard, it has an engaging and current lead, it is comprehensive, it has an easy-to-navigate structure, it has a consistent style and it is stable, despite the fact that there is an upcoming sequel that will feature a whole new host of characters to be added near the bottom of the page. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 04:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Shouldn't we wait until the new film is released? The page will change substantially in a few months. Mattximus (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would reason that this page is in the same position as List of The Last of Us characters, in that it is stable and ready for Featured List status now, though it will have a short period of retrofitting in a few months, when the new installment hits. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 20:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I share the same concern as Mattximus about the upcoming release of a new film with a whole new cast of characters to be added to this list. I understand why you brought up List of The Last of Us characters, but that list was promoted in July 20, 2015 and the sequel was officially announced in 2016 (there were rumors about the sequel as far back as 2014, but it was officially confirmed after the list became a featured article). This is why I think these two cases are very different from one another, and I share the same concern listed above. However, I can also understand your point of view as it should not be that difficult to add the new characters to the list, but I am concerned that the amount of traffic that will mostly likely come to the page after the film's release may interfere with this somewhat. Hope this makes sense, and great job on the list as I can tell a lot of time and effort has been put into it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I appreciate your compliments towards the quality of the page, as it truly has been a complete 180 from being nominated for deletion after being of poor quality year after year. No matter what happens with this nomination, your words are recognized and I know this page will be a Featured List this year, sooner or later. That being said, I maintain my perspective that the article will remain stable, given that the organizational structuring of the list. We'll see, however; if it's not passed this time, it will be after May. Thank you, again. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, and I can definitely see this becoming a featured list sometime this year as it is very strong. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia (and even newer to editing lists) so if other users determine that the upcoming film does not affect the stability of this list (as I would trust their word far more than mine), then please let me know and I would gladly provide a review. The Alien franchise is one of my favorite so it would fun to look this through when the time comes. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

,, there's no reason to delay reviewing the list in its current state. If it's complete and comprehensive right now, that's fine. Most lists will need to be updated, some annually, some substantially, some trivially. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. I just wanted some confirmation either way as I am still relatively new to Wikipedia, and even newer to working on lists. I apologize for any delay on my behalf. I will provide my review of the list by the end of today. I look forward to looking through this in detail. Aoba47 (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the delay. I will get to this as soon as I can. Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, thank you for your concern and clarification. I have appreciated the mutual respect in this review and with that note, no worries, Aoba47, as I look forward to reading your input. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 19:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments from Aoba47
 * I might just be overthinking this so feel free to ignore this, but I am uncertain about the use of the word "character ensemble" in the first paragraph of the lead. I understand the meaning, but it seems odd to have the entire sentence be very in-universe in terms of providing a really strong summary of the setting/narrative and have a more production/out-of-universe word in the same space. I am mostly likely overthinking this, but let me know what you think.
 * I personally prefer including "character ensemble", but to test the waters, I'm trying "...the film series centers around different groups of people's struggle for survival..." I can't think of alternative wording that would not sound redundant. But, this should be suitable for completely in-universe context. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 05:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, "character ensemble" is probably the best word choice. I cannot think of a better replacement as all of the characters come from a very diverse background and they cannot be easily group together under a single title so "character ensemble" is probably the easiest way to convey that idea to a reader. Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Great work with the table in the “Summary section”
 * Thank you so much for that! :) D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 05:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In the final sentence of the “Newt Jorden” subsection, would it better to revise it to the following: (The decision to kill Newt in Alien 3 was criticized by James Cameron, who called it a…). Kill off seems to colloquial for Wikipedia, I do not believe "opposed" is the best verbiage, and the comma between opposed and the James Cameron portion leads me to think there was a large opposition to the death than just Cameron's criticism.
 * That's a valid point and the reference is specifically referring to Cameron's, so I'm trying a different take: "The creative decision for Newt to die in Alien 3 was opposed by James Cameron, who referred to it as a "Temple of Doom slap in the face"." D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 05:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In the “Amanda Ripley” subsection, I think the parts about Inglis reads a little awkwardly. You currently have one sentence about Inglis being the picture model at the end of the first paragraph and then a second sentence about Amanda's design being based on pictures of a young Inglis at the end of the second paragraph. I would imagine that these two sentences should be placed closer together as they inform one another rather than being separated by the second paragraph.
 * I've taken the content from the end of the first paragraph and introduced it to the start of the end content in the second paragraph. This way, the source supports it and it has flow with describing the performers. I briefly tried having it in the middle and even at the beginning, but it didn't work as well-- in my opinion, at least. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 12:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In the second paragraph of the “Christie” subsection, you use a similar sentence structure when introducing the source. It may be beneficial to add some variety to prevent this from coming across as a list.
 * It would appear as though the Guild of Copyeditors may have trimmed down fluff wording and the cloud to the silver lining would be that small things like this may seem redundant. I've taken the liberty of changing things up a bit. That being said,, I'm very much back from my travels and am at work at this. I also wouldn't be concerned about the drastic edits the IP editor is trying to implement, as they have a history of not following consensus and copyvios on articles already, so they certainly don't represent any considerable wave. I abruptly put things back into order. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 13:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response and take as much time as you need with this. I was not concerned about the edits being made as you have a very good handle of the list and I imagined that you would have this under control. I hope you had a wonderful time with your travels. Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is more for clarification purposes, but is there any other information on Sabra Hillard. Just want to confirm this as her subsection is significantly shorter than the others, which is fine if that is all there is out there about the character.
 * There were a couple of walls I ran into while rewriting this list and unfortunately, Hillard was the absolute worst, as she's notable enough within the context of the film to get mentioned, yet obscure enough for nobody to care. I removed her at least once, but upon consulting several administrators and standard editors, the consensus was for it to be included. Quite literally the only discussion about her part in the film was the analysis of the brief sex scene. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 04:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is understandable; the subsection on the character looks fine with that in mind then. I agree that she should be included in the list and I have definitely hit similar walls to that when working on articles on fictional characters. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For the “Meredith Vickers”, do you think it would relevant to add criticism of her death sequence to balance it out? The running in a straight line bit was pretty ridiculous (even though I could see something like that playing out in real life). I was wondering as there is criticism to the character so I was not sure if it would be helpful to provide balance for the parts on the positive reception. Feel free to not do this as it is more of a suggestion/question on my part.
 * I'll try to have a crack at this after I get some sleep. She's an ice queen and deserves due service! ;) D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 13:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me lol Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Aww-right, I've added the donut-rolling criticism. I think that with that, I've hit all your extenuating points! D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 21:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Great work with the list! Once my comments are addressed, I will support this FLC. Have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just want to let you know that several edits have been made to the list from other users. Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me. I'm traveling for the next day, but I will address this and all extenuating issues as soon as I am home. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 05:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: You have done an exceptional job with the list, especially given that its AfD was relatively recent. It was a very interesting and thorough list that made me want to go and watch some of the Alien movies, which is a success in my book. If possible, could you look at my FLC for Private Practice (season 1). I understand if you do not have the time or interest to do this as it is a busy time of the year. Good luck getting this promoted and I apologize for my earlier confusion.
 * Absolutely, I would love to. Just let me wrap up a few things, like my Virgin America GAN and I can hop on over to give some input. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 02:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Good luck with your GAN and with this nomination. I look forward to your feedback and to working with you further in the future if our paths cross on here again (I primarily focus on fictional characters/television/music). Have a great rest of your night. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Activity with this nomination has slowed down somewhat. Do you reckon there is a way to prompt more feedback and reviews to help secure the Featured List status? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 00:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would advocate reviewing other nominations and politley noting this one is still looking for input! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Impressive work on this page. But source 57. The Gametap source does not work for some reason, that page is not working. Everthing else is great. - AffeL (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I archived that source for you. So it works now. - AffeL (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Amazing catch, and thank you on all counts, AffeL! D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 09:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

,, , would you like to review this article, as a return of favor for my reviews of your nominations? I would really appreciate it! :) D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 20:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The details of the people for 2017 is much less. Only a sentence for a few of them. Wondering if this could be expanded to balance this with the others? Or is it that since it hasn't been release no more can really be said? The article is amazingly comprehensive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback! At the moment, the Alien: Covenant section contains all the available information about the principal characters, with the blanks being the ones whose details have not yet been revealed. With how much I've been admittedly hovering over this article, I guarantee to expand every principal to have the standard two paragraphs that contain summaries, development and reception! D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 22:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support This is an amazingly complete list. Support for FL. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I've only looked at the MOS (including the table) and citation style. I've tidied up the source cites for the books, nothing contro I hope.
 * It is normal to put the sources below per WP:CITESHORT (the four FAs on today's front page all have them below).
 * Done. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 06:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I heard the Daily Mail banned earlier this year, so I would suggest replacing those. I can't actually find where it says it's banned but WP:PUS says "it should be used with caution".
 * Done. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 06:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Title cases should be consistant per WP:CS1, so no CAPS.
 * Done. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont
 * The long TOC makes the page long and leaves a large empty area, with some sections only having one line. It may be better to use.
 * I changed it to a Horizontal TOC. It's a big change- an adjustment, at that- but hopefully for the better! D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 06:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's it from me. A very comprehensive "list", by that I mean it's more of an article, but it's an exception. BaldBoris 03:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * With that, I think all your recommendations have been fulfilled! D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 06:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


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