Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/M. Night Shyamalan 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) 00:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC).

M. Night Shyamalan filmography

 * ''Nominator(s):

Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) — Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)''

I am nominating this for featured list because in my opinion it is well referenced and written. With the help of we have joined forces in the creation and writing of the article. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments from HAL
 * Remove the first and third use of "also"
 * ✅ Some Dude From North Carolina wanna talk?


 * Would place scope on the film titles.
 * In ref 38, just call the work Vulture.
 * Some Dude From North Carolina wanna talk?


 * You should make some sections of the table sortable.
 * ✅ Some Dude From North Carolina wanna talk?

Overall, looks pretty good. ~ HAL  333  15:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I despise row span, but that's just my personal preference.
 * Done. Some Dude From North Carolina wanna talk? 17:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Happy to support. ~ HAL  333  01:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The tables are missing column and rowscopes, and captions.
 * Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ `
 * Each column header should be marked with `scope="col"`, e.g. instead of `! Year` it should be `! scope="col" | Year
 * For each row, the 'primary' cell should be marked with `scope="row"`, e.g. instead of `| 1992` it should be `!scope="row"| 1992`. If the way this changes the formatting of that column bothers you, you can add the `plainrowheaders` class to the top of the table at `{| class="wikitable"`
 * -- Pres N  14:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All ✅.  Some Dude From North Carolina  (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Still missing rowscopes. -- Pres N  21:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅  Some Dude From North Carolina  (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank
 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * I could be wrong, but I think there's an expectation at WP:FLC, among many reviewers at least, that the usual kinds of table columns will be sortable. Look at ... well, the tables in any of the other nominations to see how the coding works. The only tricky part is making sorting work correctly when it doesn't make sense to sort according to the first word ... either use sort and sortname, or see my nom (List of plant genera named for people (A–C)) for how to use "data-sort". (Chris and PresN do know what they're doing, and I see they didn't ask for it ... if you'd rather not do it, that's fine, but in general, it will be harder to get reviewers at FLC if you don't, I think.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅: Made the tables sortable and added the "sort" template through this edit.  Some Dude From North Carolina  (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * FLC criteria:
 * 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on some columns and sampled the links in the tables.
 * 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
 * 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
 * 3b. The UPSD tool frowns on Medium.com. Some websites, such as Bloody Disgusting, I'm not qualified to assess. Otherwise, UPSD isn't indicating problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
 * 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. The images are great.
 * 6. It is stable.
 * Qualified Support ... qualified since I'm really not the best guy to assess some of the sources. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list noms every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. -- Pres N  21:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


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