Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Naruto episodes/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) 23:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Naruto episodes edit

Featured list candidates/List of Naruto episodes/archive1

Nominator(s): 1989 (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because IMO, I think this list is suitable to be a FL. I have made fixes on my part to make sure there wasn't anything wrong. If I missed something, hopefully, you will bring it to my attention. Thanks. 1989 (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of 2nd simultaneous nomination

Just as a note, I do not believe it is allowed to have two FLCs open at one time. While your other FLC for Family Guy (season 4) has received a lot of attention and is close to promotion, I believe that it is best to withdraw this and open it as soon as your everything with your other FLC is complete. If you could like the featured list director and/or delegates about this as I could be incorrect. Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- On hold -- 1989 (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that the guide says "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." I think, given that Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 4)/archive2 has three supports and no outstanding comments, it is perfectly acceptable to have two FLCs open at the same time. Harrias ^talk 13:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aoba47: -- 1989 (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we'd prefer if you ask first, but since the other FLC has 3 supports already I'll allow this one to stay up. It's generally discouraged regardless of the wording in the guide because some editors take a pretty liberal interpretation of what "substantial" means, but multiple supports and no opposes is generally fine. Remember that having two nominations up simultaneously means that you may want to provide extra reviews to other nominations so that both of yours get enough attention. --Pres N 14:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: After reading it few times, I did not found any problem with the list. Great work and good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DragonZero

Comments from DragonZero

Waiting MSN episode guide is unreliable. I've dealt with it in the past and found inconsistency with it before. This was from a 30 second check. I might be able to give a deeper look later. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonZero: What are you referring to when you say MSN? Also, how is the list unreliable? Just want clarification. -- MCMLXXXIX 03:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The MSN episode guide in the the general references. Well, let's skip the whole Wikipedia talk about editorial department and establishing the source as reliable; I'll provide an example instead. In 2010, I used MSN's Bleach episode list as a reference which turned out to have incorrect dates and was just generally sloppy as a source. I suggest replacing or removing the source from the list. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonZero: Done I removed it, the link was dead, and it didn't get better when I saw the archive. -- MCMLXXXIX 04:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add some refs for the first paragraph.
Second paragraph could use some references.
Checking ref 4 (at the time of this edit), add deadurl=no. It might just be my browser, but it doesn't look like webcite archived the link correctly.
"The first DVD series has been the only one to be collected in VHS format" Clarity.
"There are a total of five series," clarity. Series does not sound like the correct word here
Source for OVA section?
Fill something in for the blank release dates
The OVA summaries seem too weak to be considered for FL level.
Scope= columns and rows are missing for the tables. Also why are the tables limited to 60%?
Don't worry but this point doesn't affect my voting for FL. I'd remove the OVA and Film from this list. OVAs and movies have individual license, unlike the anime series episodes which are often grouped into parts.

Overall, I don't think it's ready, but I won't vote for an oppose. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonZero: How are the tables limited? Also, how big do you want the OVA summaries? Please clarify. BTW, I saw other featured lists based on episode lists part of A&M, and they had an OVA and film section, if one existed in the series, so I won't consider removing them from this one. MCMLXXXIX 11:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The DVD tables have their size restricted to 60%. The length of the OVA summaries are not the issue. They are just weak in general. If you're looking at a featured list promoted before 2013, those were when the standards were lower. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonZero: I did a test preview edit, and it appears that they get smaller when I remove the width option. MCMLXXXIX 11:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I dealt with tables, I'll take a look at it next week maybe. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonZero: Done I fixed everything except for the 60% table. I'm still waiting for your response to it. MCMLXXXIX 20:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonZero: The tables are basically 60% because if the parameters that control that were removed, it would make the tables smaller. I would like to keep them as they are. Making them any wider would look IMO distorted. If you have any suggestions, please reply. Also, do you have a verdict? MCMLXXXIX 04:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was only wondering about the table size restriction, I didn't mean it as an issue. As for a verdict, I'd have to do a thorough review so I can't offer one right now. The list above were things I noticed from a quick scroll down. Anyways, I took a look at the table and so you know, scope col/rows will auto bold their content. You should remove the triple comma bolding where the scopes do the work. I'm not sure when I can offer a full review so don't wait up. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done MCMLXXXIX 18:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: Do you think that the OVAs and film section should be removed? MCMLXXXIX 14:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should since the is nothing that connects them.Tintor2 (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done MCMLXXXIX 20:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake

In the lead, it would be better to shift and cite the story information to before the bit of staff information.
The American distributors should be completely moved into the second or third paragraph depending on whether Viz Media handled the TV broadcast or home media releases.
This is purely optional, but is it possible to cite when the episodes aired in Japan and North America? If there are sources within the article or other articles related to individual seasons that confirm the dates, then this issue doesn't need to hold things up.

That's really all I saw. Once these are addressed or explained, I'll be willing to give my opinion on the article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done @ProtoDrake: For the third bullet point, It may take some time. MCMLXXXIX 19:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: The last point isn't essential in my view. I'll Support this article's promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I'll do the source review as requested by the nominator. Every single citation is archived and wikilinked. All of them appear to be reliable. As a result, I support it. However, @1989:, I suggest you using a reference for "The episodes are based on the first twenty-seven volumes in Part I of the manga, while some episodes are just filler." since this can be considered WP:Original research. There is a magazine from my country that says something similar (it's in Spanish though), but I think an Anime News Network review or other website could be used instead.Tintor2 (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I added a reference to it. MCMLXXXIX 14:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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