Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Angel Aquino/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, 10 July 2023 (UTC).

List of awards and nominations received by Angel Aquino

 * Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Having worked and brought Angel Aquino's filmography to FL status, here's another one of her related list article that I am nominating. Her list of awards and nominations where I've added a concise and readable introduction/lead, formatted to a singular table, thoroughly searched for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online, since sourcing can be a challenge, 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) 15:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "for her performance in erotic drama Laro sa Baga (2000)" => "for her performance in the erotic drama Laro sa Baga (2000)"
 * Oops fixed


 * "That same year, she presented the magazine lifestyle show Us Girls" => "That same year, she began presenting the magazine lifestyle show Us Girls" (assuming she didn't only present it in 2007)
 * You are right, revised as suggested


 * In the table, "Ang Huling Cha-Cha ni Anita" sorts under H, not A. Is this because Ang means The?
 * That's correct, the direct translation is The Last Cha-Cha of Anita


 * I don't think note F is needed because it just repeats the name of the category
 * Remove efn


 * That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing a review of my FAC and this FLC ChrisTheDude. I truly appreciate it. Your comments have been actioned and provided with responses. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - great work, as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reviews and support ChrisTheDude. I'm grateful as always, much appreciated. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Dank

 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * It's not my job to evaluate the Young Critics Circle ... that's up to source reviewers and the members of the relevant wikiprojects. I'm going to assume for purposes of this review that they're an acceptable source, despite the fact that one of their official sites (Wordpress) would otherwise be problematic (as marked by the UPSD tool).
 * After some internet digging, I was able to find reliable secondary sources for each nominations at the Young Critics Circle. It seems to be a challenge in terms of sourcing when dealing with Philippine subjects, especially in entertainment. Often times I would pre-empt these in most of my nomination statements. Philippine awards organizations are generally under-funded and do not maintain domains for official websites because of costs. I typically rely on secondary sources when available. Hopefully these sources are now accpetable. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. I've skimmed the prose and made minor edits; nothing big jumps out at me. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
 * 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
 * 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
 * 3b. I'm reserving judgment on the Young Critics Circle. Otherwise, the list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
 * Same as above, wordpress source has been replaced. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
 * 4. It is navigable.
 * 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine.
 * 6. It is stable.
 * Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and support Dank. I have addressed the issue on sourcing. Let me know if there's anything amiss. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47
I could not find any issues with the list's prose so I support this FLC for promotion based on that. Since this nomination has not received a source review. I will be posting that below:


 * The citations are look reliable and appropriate for a potential FL. Thank you for replacing the WordPress citations as I would agree that those would have been questionable.
 * The citations are for the most part well-structured. When I did a spot-check, I found that the information matches the citations and what is cited in the actual lead and list. I do have a few minor points about this below:
 * Make sure that films and shows are presented in italics in the citation titles to fit with WP:CONFORMTITLE. I am mentioning this specifically for Us Girls in Citation 5, but I would strongly encourage you to double-check all the citations to be on the safe side.
 * Thanks for catching this, I may have missed this part. Should be fixed now and after a review of the rest of the titles, it should now conform to the titles being in italics. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * For the Google Books citations (Valle, Brizuela, Torre, Santamaria, and Vergara), I would include the page numbers and use the via= parameter to mark that these are accessed via Google Books just to provide a more complete citation for readers.
 * Thanks for pointing this out. It's always a hit and miss for me. Fixed now. I'll make sure to always add these parameters going forward now that you've suggested this. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Citation 38 is dead. All of the other sources are live though at least on my end.
 * I have updated the url status so that the archived and accessible link goes first. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful. Once my comments have been addressed, this should pass my source review. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoba47, Thank you very much for doing a review of the prose and sourcing. Really appreciate it. I have addressed each of your comments on sourcing. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything. I am just glad that I could help. This passes my source review. I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support Aoba47. Much appreciated. Have a wonderful week ahead. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

PanagiotisZois

 * 1) "For a role in the drama Sana Pag-ibig Na" would be better as "for her role".
 * 2) In general, I think that the first paragraph could have the sentences switched around a bit. Basically, you go "first film appearance", "first TV appearance (for which she won an award)", and then you go back to film for "first film award nomination". Maybe it'd be better to switch the last two around, so that it goes in chronological order: "first film role", "first film award nomination", and "first TV role". Given that the last two also happened the same year, you could connect that with each other. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your review PanagiotisZois. All actioned. Let me know if I missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.