Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Philippine submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film/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, 24 October 2022 (UTC).

List of Philippine submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film

 * Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I decided to give this article a complete rework by expanding/adding a substantial and informative lead, fixing formatting issues, and adding reliable sourcing. I've tailored the structure to FLs on submissions to the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film from countries such as Latvia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, and Vietnam. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments

 * "Judy Ann Santos's two films [...] were submitted" - worded like this it indicates that she has only ever made two films, which I don't believe is the case
 * I've reworded the caption to avoid confusion


 * Refs after "screened for the jury" are out of numerical order
 * Fixed order


 * Same after "precursor to the current category"
 * Fixed ref order


 * "From 1956 until the establishment of the FAP in 1981, only four films have been submitted for consideration" => "From 1956 until the establishment of the FAP in 1981, only four films were submitted for consideration"
 * Done


 * "Since the FAP was founded, the Philippines has, on an irregular basis, submitted an entry to the Academy; Of the Flesh in 1984 and This Is My Country in 1985, with no film submissions until 1995's Harvest Home.". Not sure this really works, as it hasn't been irregular for most of the last 40 years.  I would suggest "After the FAP was founded, the Philippines submitted Of the Flesh in 1984 and This Is My Country in 1985, but then made no submissions until 1995's Harvest Home.  Since then, the FAP has submitted a film in most years."
 * Agreed, changed as suggested.


 * Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your review, always appreciated. I have actioned the above. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

NØ

 * Brillante Mendonza seems to be a director. If true I think you could replace the sentence in the caption with this: "Two films directed by Brillante Mendoza were submitted"
 * Added in the caption


 * "but then made no submissions until 1995's Harvest Home" - The word "then" could probably be omitted from this sentence.
 * Removed


 * Since a picture of Mendonza has been chosen to be a part of the infobox, I'm inclined to ask if he should be mentioned in the lead too?
 * Good point, I have added a mention in the lead.


 * Alt texts for the pictures would be recommended, if that parameter is possible for all four.
 * Oh right, seemed to have forgot about this. ALT texts added


 * Since none of the films got nominated, is it appropriate to include it as a column? A sentence like "None of the films were nominated" could probably be used as summary, no?
 * The lead mentions this In total, the Philippines has made 32 submissions to the category, but none have been nominated for an Oscar; and from the Results column in the table? Did you mean an additional summary elsewhere? I've tailored the structure to the most recent promotionLatvia
 * I meant the Result column is redundant and could be removed in favour of one line somewhere that says "None of the submissions received nominations". Although that would be a lot of unnecessary work and I understand if you want to stick to the last promotion's format.
 * That's it from me after a few reads.--NØ 08:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thansk for your review . Above actioned the above, with one clarification on the last point. Let me know if I missed anything? --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No other concerns. It's a support from me!--NØ 13:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Aoba47
Great work with this list. I do not have any comments as I did not notice anything that required further improvement. I support the FLC for promotion based on the prose. Here is hoping that one day a move from the Philippines can get a nomination (and maybe even a win) in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Source review (pass)

 * The citations all appear to be from high-quality, reliable sources, particularly in this context, and they are appropriately formatted aside from some nitpicks I have below.
 * I would recommend archiving Citation 22. It is not required for a FLC, but I think it would be helpful to avoid any future headaches with link rot and death.
 * Strangely, I ran the archiving bot twice and couldn't get FN22 archived. I was able to do it manually though.
 * The archiving bot is absolutely amazing, but sometimes it can have its moments. Thank you for handling this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is super nitpick-y, but in some citation titles, the film title is in italics while it is not in other instance. I would compare Citation 19 and Citation 20 for this difference. It is a small difference, but I would be consistent with one way or the other, and either way would be appropriate based on your personal preference.
 * A lapse on my part, film titles are now all italicized in the sources.
 * It happens to the best of us. If it helps at all, I was only really aware of this after years of working on Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have done a spot check and all the information appears to be verified in the citations.

I do not have a lot to say for my source review. Everything appears to be in shape, but before I pass this, I want to get your opinion about some of my points (even though they are again nothing major and would not hold up this review in any way, shape, or form). Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for doing a dual review (content and source) and for your support. Much appreciate you taking the time. I do hope one day we get that nomination nod (fingers crossed). I have addressed your points above. Let me know if I missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your responses. I am just glad that I could help. I decided to do a source review to hopefully help get this FLC promoted in the near future because it seems to be heading in that direction. This FLC passes my source review. I wish you the best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Image review – All of the four photos used in the lead image have appropriate free licenses, and the image itself has an appropriate caption and alt text for each of its photos. Everything looks okay in this regard. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.