Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Marilyn Monroe performances and awards/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) 00:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC).

Marilyn Monroe performances and awards

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe is still an icon, even over fifty years after her death. Her fame and status rests on the 29 films in which she appeared, of which possibly ten are truly memorable. This filmography has recently been updated and revamped, and is now at FLC standard. – SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Television
 * Comments by jimknut
 * The Jack Benny Program, The Bob Hope Show, and President Kennedy's Birthday Salute should be in italics, not quotation marks.
 * The Bob Hope Show redirects to a radio program called The Pepsodent Show. Either find a correct link or don't link it at all.
 * As Monroe's credits were all on American television, the column listed as "Channel" should be changed to "Network". ("Channel" is more apt to British television and thus does not apply here.) Jimknut (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks,, all three suggestions followed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * It's probably not a common practice to add a comma after "in [the year]" in British English. Should comma be added here?
 * I think it is in AmEng, but I'd be grateful if a passing American could confirm this for us. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "the Hollywood Walk of Fame on February 8, 1960" - do we need to be so specific about the time? I think only the year would suffice.
 * I agree on the walk of fame date, which I've slimmed down. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Same goes for the dates in the television section.
 * I think we should be more precise on the television appearances where possible. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it should be "Ref" instead of "Notes" in the awards and nominations section. Just for the sake of consistency.
 * Yep – my error – I deleted the wrong column heading while putting it together. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing major; thanks for working on it. FrB.TG (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comments – much appreciated. I've tweaked a couple, per your comments, and left a couple (one for others to clarify, as I'm not 100% sure on the US practice. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, I am sure a comma won't make that of a big difference. The change can be made accordingly as and when an American confirms it. Great work! FrB.TG (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments by Montanabw:
 * No quite sure what the comma question is above, but as an American, I can tell you that correct general formatting is Month X, 19XX. So wherever there is a day, you always add the comma there. In situations where it is just month/year there usually isn't a comma between month and year, but we often add one right after the year: "It happened in May of 2016," or "It happened in May 2016," or "It happened on May 1, 2016." Rephrased, I'd punctuate it  "In May 2016, it happened," or "On May 1, 2016, it happened."  Does that help?  Montanabw (talk)  07:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! It was the comma in sentences such as "In 1950, she ..." which was the point in question, so you've covered that. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: As far as I can see, this list is comprehensive, well-sourced and meets the FL criteria.  That said, this is my first FL review, so I may have missed something.  Montanabw (talk)  22:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Montana: many thanks for looking over this one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – I must be getting dottier than ever: I could have sworn I'd looked in here and added my support already, but ahem! Happy to support now: no problems with the prose and content of the introduction, and to my (inexpert) eye the tables seem authoritative and comprehensive, and are certainly well documented. I can't imagine the page being done better than this. –  Tim riley  talk    11:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Source Review


 * Formatting: pass
 * Spotchecks: Checked refs 9, 22, 41, 62; all pass
 * Completeness: pass

Source review passed; promoting list. -- Pres N  19:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


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