Before you remove an edit (which is actually breaking news, as you will find out soon), I suggest you check more thoroughly (perhaps with his agent?) You will become the laugh of the town for removing this bit. I leave it up to you to restore it.YakiD (talk)14:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it were “breaking news”, I wouldn’t need to look “more thoroughly” or “check with his agent”. Besides, it is not my responsibility to check for sources for an unsourced addition by someone else; it lies within the responsibility of the editor making this change. Feel free to re-add it though if you have a reliable source.FrB.TG (talk)15:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great then add it as and when you have a reliable source accessible to the public/published by a reputed newspaper/magazine/website (this month as you say).FrB.TG (talk)15:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and nice to see himon the Main page today, introduced: "Oscar Isaac has been part of Marvel films/shows, Star Wars sequel trilogy and several high-profile films, yet it's the underrated gems like Inside Llewyn Davis, A Most Violent Year and Ex Machina where he truly shines." - On Debussy's birthday, - and he isalso pictured :) --Gerda Arendt (talk)18:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting my edits on Tom Holland for i did not see that other page. But I think it would be helpful if we could link that page somewhere on the Tom Holland page. Thank you!Cherrell410 (talk)03:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, FrB.TG! The article you nominated,Bad Romance, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Thenomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you maynominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers,Gog the Mild (talk) viaFACBot (talk)00:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to congratulate you on this promotion. I know I have said this a few times already, but I have a lot of respect for you for working on such a well-known song, and you had done an excellent job with it. I am looking forward to your next FAC.Aoba47 (talk)01:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Aoba. It gets a little challenging sometimes to work on popular articles as you have to consider so many aspects, but overall it's fun to give important articles quality status.FrB.TG (talk)08:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14, thank you. I have a couple more non-BLP FACs in mind. Regarding the ALT texts, they need to be descriptive, in the sense that they add something not already present in the caption. Something as simple as "Billie Eilish looking toward the camera" should suffice, but if ALTs don't do more than just repeat the caption, they should be removed altogether (they're not FAC requirements after all). Another thing I would ensure is consistency. The article in question uses a very detailed ALT for the film poster but elsewhere it's the exact opposite. If I do that for the poster, I would try to describe other pictures in the same manner. I hope what I'm saying makes sense.FrB.TG (talk)16:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Btw, I was wondering if you may want to trade source reviews for our current FACs. Since they are similar in size and I remember both of us struggling to find SRs for our last ones. Regards--NØ07:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if it's not too much to ask, can you add a placeholder as well to affirm the QPQ and signal to potentional source reviewers that this one's taken?--NØ01:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I have noticed that you are doing FACs forThe Fame Monster singles, and I was curious if you were going to do all the songs related to the EP or particular ones? Apologies for the super random question btw lol. This EP, as well asThe Fame, is just so nostalgic for me. When I listen to certain songs, I can remember very specific locations and people and it feels like I am right back there. It is bittersweet in a sense. Anyway, rambling done (at least for now lol).Aoba47 (talk)20:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Aoba. I am planning to at least go for "Telephone" and "Alejandro", but I would like to tackle most (if not all) ofThe Fame Monster tracks, as well asThe Fame singles "Just Dance", "Poker Face", "Paparazzi" and "LoveGame". While researching "Bad Romance" in all those books and journals, I found lots of info on other TFM and TF singles and thought I might as well do the whole album LOL. Plus, seeing all those FAs in pop musicians' Wiki-projects, I thought I should do the same for Gaga considering how much she dominated the music industry in the first few years of her career and the fact that I must've listened to these two albums a thousand times by now LOL.FrB.TG (talk)21:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Best of luck with those nominations. I look forward to your work on them and I will do my best to participate in all of the future FACs. I agree that it would be nice to see Gaga more represented in the FA space. It is interesting to see which songs were taken through the FAC process and were successfully promoted as FAs. I would honestly love to read what a musicologist or an academic focused on music would say about the current crop of song FAs. You are definitely inspiring me to go back these songs lol. I'd be curious to see where Gaga goes next musically, but I'd imagine her attention is focused on the nextJoker film.Aoba47 (talk)23:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I would love to hear such commentaries from professionals. I remember reading a post from years ago where experts rated FAs from their field and gave constructive criticism. Reading such criticism would certainly help a lot in making these articles even better.FrB.TG (talk)19:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be interesting. I was actually more so thinking of academics analyzing different factors about the song FAs (such as genre, artists, time periods that are well represented) and discussing how and why this may have occurred, but constructive feedback is always helpful!Aoba47 (talk)19:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to add another response to this topic, but I was wondering if you could reviewmy DYK nomination for an article calledThe Random Years. I am honestly just so incredibly burned out with Wikipedia at the moment that I really need to take an extended wikibreak (and a real one for a change) so I want to get this DYK nomination done. Apologies for the super randomness of this request. I hope you are doing well!Aoba47 (talk)03:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure. I'll take a look at it. And I think you really have earned a break from this place. I myself am starting to doubt my ambitious plan to turn TFM and TF singles to FA LOL. I have been collecting sources and reading the journals/books in the background, but I don't know if I can do it for all of them. Even though I was away for around 13 months before 2022, I'll take it a little slowly so I don't burn myself out. "Dance in the Dark" is already my sixth FAC this year and I've never gone beyond 4 before.FrB.TG (talk)16:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I completely understand your doubts. You have already done a lot of really amazing work on those articles so I would be proud of that. I believe the best thing to do is to take it slowly and at your own pace and have breaks for yourself as this site and the work and time put into it can be a lot of a lot. It is good that you are aware of that. I know that I need to be better about that and it is something that I am still actively working toward being better about for myself. If it helps at all, it looks like "Dance in the Dark" is heading toward a promotion. I wish you the best of luck with "Telephone" or "Alejandro", depending on which one you choose or if you go for a completely different one altogether. I hope you have a great weekend!Aoba47 (talk)16:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Alejandro" is next. The good thing about picking these songs is that most of the academic/journal sources are the ones from "Bad Romance", which is understandable since no academic would mention TFM songs without "Bad Romance". Anyway, you too have a great weekend.FrB.TG (talk)17:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a soft spot for "Alejandro". I remember that song came out when I was in high school and one of my friends would always refer to me with that song title because my name is Alex (and in my Spanish classes, my Spanish name was Alejandro). And yes, I am super old lol. I look forward to seeing your work on it. I remember the music video getting some blowback at the time.Aoba47 (talk)22:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Just wanted to come by to express my appreciation for your work on Gaga's articles. I somehow relate myself to you in that I am actively contributing to articles on Taylor Swift's country-era songs and albums, which remind me of such a simpler time. Best of luck with your future FACs and I am more than willing to support :)Ippantekina (talk)16:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words, Ippantekina, and for your helpful reviews of these articles. I must say your work with Swift articles are also very impressive. I remember when I wrote the FA-class biography of Swift (can’t believe that was six years ago; time goes by really fast), there was no activity in the FA area concerning Ms Swift. It’s great to see that has changed drastically over the years thanks to users like you. Seeing all these FAs in Swift Wiki-project was one of the reasons I aimed to churn out FAs for Gaga songs.FrB.TG (talk)19:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ErnestKrause. Although I know nothing about Olympic seasons, I'll take a look at your FAC within a few days. I saw your request at the DitD FAC, but just haven't been able to finish all of my current reviews to take a new one. I will at least leave a placeholder very soon so that I don't forget.FrB.TG (talk)16:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back. You had mentioned that you might be able to take a look at doing some support/oppose comments the sports article at FAC for Yuzuru Hanyu Olympics here:[1]. The coordinators are requesting added reviewer comments sometime over the next couple days, if you might be able to find the time.ErnestKrause (talk)17:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hithere. Unfortunately, I’ll be traveling until Friday with no access to a notebook/PC so I won’t be able to get back to this until at least then. However, it looks like your FAC is getting a certain amount of attention, where it’s no more at the risk of getting archived due to inactivity.FrB.TG (talk)16:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush on this and good travels in the meantime. If you have time when you get back, then maybe you could leave some comments at that time.ErnestKrause (talk)00:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, FrB.TG! The article you nominated,Dance in the Dark, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Thenomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you maynominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers,Hog Farm (talk) viaFACBot (talk)12:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I was wondering if you could do a source review formy current FAC since you helped with one of my past FACs (here) which was also about a television series? I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest, but I wanted to reach out and ask. I know the nomination is still very new, but I always find it helpful to get the source review done earlier than later. I hope you have a great weekend!Aoba47 (talk)19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, much appreciated, though no need in the end. Seems I stepped on another editors toes who wanted to take it forward, so I've closed the PR and will leave it up to them to request a review if they want to. Thanks again in any case. -Kj cheetham (talk)09:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! First of all, I'd like to say that I very appreciate your work on Lady Gaga's song articles, it probably takes a lot of your your time, so thanks! :) However, I see that you still tend to remove EarOne as a source, even though while conversating onTalk:Bad Romance#Release history you said that it was okay, did anything change or something?infsai (talkie? UwU)22:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, FrB.TG! The article you nominated,Alejandro (song), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Thenomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you maynominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers,Gog the Mild (talk) viaFACBot (talk)12:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on getting "Dance in the Dark" displayed as Today's Featured Article. It looks very good on the main page!--NØ03:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, thank you today for the article, introduced: "Another nomination of a Lady Gaga song from her EP The Fame Monster by me. Unlike "Bad Romance", my previous nom, this did not enjoy much popularity and was released as a single only in France."! - Congrats also to the new FA! --Gerda Arendt (talk)17:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for piling on to this discussion, but I also wanted to congrtulate you on the TFA. You have done awesome work on here and it was nice to see this article being celebrated on the main page.Aoba47 (talk)22:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Yes, 2020 is right. I’m currently working with several books so it gets a little confusing sometimes. Thank you for identifying this error.FrB.TG (talk)16:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FrB.TG, congrats on getting the article promoted to FA! Just wanted to apologize as I could not commit to thoroughly reviewing the article to the end as I had limited time. I also noticed you have wiped your userpage... Hopefully it's not a sign you're retiring soon? Best,Ippantekina (talk)07:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. No need to apologize - you did more than it was required on your part. You gave me enough pointers on how the article could be further improved and that was very helpful. Also many congrats on getting the "Love Story" song to FA status.
Congratulations, FrB.TG! The article you nominated,Christopher Nolan, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Thenomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you maynominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers,Gog the Mild (talk) viaFACBot (talk)00:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you still here Frank. Hope you're doing well (I see Chris Nolan is FA because of you! Congrats!). I'll be checking in on Wikipedia from time to time. Will be back to active editing in a short while. —Ssven2Looking at you, kid08:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sven, it’s great to see you back. I was gone for a long time myself but returned last year and wrote a few more FAs. Nolan's article was already in a good shape when I took it - I just did a lot of book research to strengthen the sources. I’m glad it finally made it to FA. I look forward to seeing what you’ll work on as and when you fully return.FrB.TG (talk)10:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. I'll focus again on film articles as usual but will branch out more into video games and pro wrestling articles as well (Particularly Pay-per-view events). Will begin once I come back full time. What are the other FAs you made recently may I ask? —Ssven2Looking at you, kid11:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Video games sound fascinating, although wrestling doesn't particulary interest me. I wrote FAs in different areas, my first was a return to Bollywood (Katrina Kaif). I wrote two other actor BLPs (Tom Holland andOscar Isaac) and branched out into song articles byLady Gaga ("Bad Romance", "Alejandro" and "Dance in the Dark"). I'm currently planning another Gaga song for FA ("Telephone") and if time allows, I might write more FAs on film directors (maybeQuentin Tarantino?). Oh, and I also triedLeonardo DiCaprio at FAC but it failed due to sourcing issues. I would have to reexamine the sources at some point and use the biography book more in the article.FrB.TG (talk)12:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrestling is scripted, not fake! Lol sorry for unleashing the wrestling fan in me. As for video games, I feelJedi Fallen Order might be a nice place to start as it is the first PS4 game I played (And the most I've played. I played it 3 times). Tarantino is an interesting choice and a good one. Gotta be thorough with that one. As far as Gaga goes, you can try takingPoker Face to FA sometime. —Ssven2Looking at you, kid08:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Poker Face is definitely in the cards alongside a few other Gaga songs. If I ever did a gaming article, the first would beCounter Strike. I’ve spent hundreds of hours playing that damn game. :DFrB.TG (talk)09:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's great (For you lol coz regrettably shooter games are not for me. Not that interesting imo. For me, 3rd person games with a lot of story and character involved pique my interest like Assassin's Creed series, Red Dead Redemption, Ghost of Tsushima, God of War series, Uncharted series, Horizon Zero Dawn, Horizon Forbidden West, Last of Us 1 & 2 etc.) Also idk ifJaguar is still around butDarkwarriorblake has done a fair share of gaming articles so I might get his advice for starting a gaming article to take to GA/FA. —Ssven2Looking at you, kid09:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thinkSpider-Man (2018 video game),Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, andSouth Park: The Stick of Truth are still solid FAs, though after several years of learning if I had the time I'd probably go back to Bloodlines just to reinforce the sources as I have higher standards now after the efforts to get so many film articles through. I agree Fallen order would be a good one, as would God of War/Ragnarok, and The Last of Us Part II, which is a good game but gets overlooked because of that opening. If you haven't played it, I will just say I had no interest playing the game more than once after it and I think many people were the same as the discourse just kind of died off. If you ever get into film articles, Roger Rabbit is long overdue for an uplift. I like wrestling but I couldn't work on the articles, it feels like, especially for the wrestlers, you will never get enough reliable sources to fully complete their articles.Darkwarriorblake /Vote for something that matters12:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: As far as hollywood film articles go, they're quite a lot of work compared to Indian film articles (More references and sources to read lol). Me either as far as TLOF 2 goes (maybe a second time after a year or two lol). The part about wrestlers biographies is true which is why I'll focus more on PPV events. I had already worked onMoney in the Bank (2018) before so I'll start there again soon enough. —Ssven2Looking at you, kid08:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: possible to move this to 21 July (to coincide with the release ofOppenheimer)? It was also requested atWP:TFAP by Sheila1988. Although I prefer the 21 July date, we can also opt for 30 July, Nolan's 53rd birthday, if it doesn’t work.FrB.TG (talk)15:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's too far ahead. I can remove it for 12 March (Oscars day), but I can't schedule July. I would suggest that the birthday would be better, scheduling it for the release of a commercial movie might strike people as promotional.--Wehwalt (talk)15:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated.Gog the Mild (talk)13:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FrB.TG. You have an article at TFA Potential for 22 May. If you wish to nominate it at TFA Requests, the time window for this is now open.Gog the Mild (talk)14:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: WOW, thank you so much for this kind gesture! I haven't noticed it! If you have time and energy, please do it for me, because I'm too busy at the moment. If you are busy yourself, then I'll do it as soon as I get more free time. Thanks a million for being so thoughtful, my friend.Shahid •Talk2me18:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I can do it, no problem for me. I just thought of pinging you first as I know a lot of people find immense joy in nominating their work for their glorious day on the main page. :-)FrB.TG (talk)19:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! Regarding my edit on the "Telephone" article about the Romanian peak, and according to "what the sources say", "Telephone" did peak at #14 on the respective chart. It says thatRomanian and international positions are rendered together by the number of plays before resulting an overall chart, so the correct way of "reading" that chart is by the number of plays, Rihanna at #1 with 207 plays, Deepcentral at #2 with 188 plays, Black Eyed Peas at #3 with 183 plays, and so on. That means, while "Telephone" did peak at #4 on the International songs-only chart, on the overall airplay chart it reached #14. Hope this bring some light to it. Best of luck with the FAC nomination! —TabooMatters94 (talk)09:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right there. Even the template confirms that. I have corrected the position to number 14. Thank you for clarifying this.FrB.TG (talk)19:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, FrB.TG! The article you nominated,Telephone (song), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Thenomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you maynominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers,Gog the Mild (talk) viaFACBot (talk)00:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for the article, introduced: "Having recently watched a lot of Marvel films, I chose Holland's article to improve due to my lack of time to undertake a bigger actor's article."! -- (and then forgot to sign)
Thank you today for your share inKatrina Kaif, introduced: "Katrina Kaif's success could very well be the plot of a Bollywood film. Born in Hong Kong, she started modelling in London and impressed a filmmaker who cast her in his disastrous film. She soon became one of the most well-known faces in India. What she lacks in acting abilities, she makes up for by being a fantastic dancer, which is crucial in being a successful Bollywood heroine. In case you forget her name, you can get your answer here; it seems 200 million people did forget it."! --Gerda Arendt (talk)05:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that theChristopher Nolan article has been scheduled astoday's featured article for July 30, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so atWikipedia:Today's featured article/July 30, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so atWikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2023.
Thank you today for the article begun by a missed user, introduced: "Christopher Nolan is one of those rare filmmakers who make highly intelligent blockbusters, which ponder the bigger philosophical questions. His films leave you thinking for days. Nolan's work with IMAX technology and insistence on minimalising the use of CGI have been highly influential. One of his films (which BTW is also at FAC currently) redefined the modern superhero genre as we know today and is the third highest-rated film on IMDb. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point."! - Mystory today is about a 20-hours "opera" that was filmed. --Gerda Arendt (talk)07:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HeyFrB.TG hope all is well with you. I've been meaning to come back to your last DiCaprio nomination when I realized it had already been archived without you getting to it. Hopefully you'll be back at it in the future, as it'd be nice to get that article to FA. But also congrats on Nolan, as well as your non-BLP FAs!
On another note, if you're not too occupied at the moment, I wanted to request for your help with mycurrent BLP FAC. Didn't quite get some traction as I'd hope for after over a week. I fully understand if you do not have the time and busy IRL. Have a great rest of your week. Cheers!Pseud 14 (talk)16:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14, I have left comments on the FAC. As for the DiCaprio FAC, it was ridiculous seeing it get archived after three days without even so much as a warning. I literally just finished collecting the academic sources and was ready to add them in the article (I still have the document in my desktop LOL). Maybe I'll give it another try some day when I have the time and motivation for this place.FrB.TG (talk)11:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and leaving comments FrB.TG! Really value your inputs in BLPs and they've helped improved it tremendously. It's a bit of a bummer, after you did an extensive research and waded through online sources. I was hoping third time's the charm for Leo, and I def feel your frustration after not being able to address it when you were finally ready. Here's to seeing it back in the FAC space in the future, I'll def look out for it, and anything that you will put forward in the future. I hope things are well on your end and you enjoyed seeingOppenheimer. Cheers!Pseud 14 (talk)13:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't watchedOppenheimer yet. I intend to watch it next week, along withBarbie and the newMission Impossible film. That's a whole lotta films - let's see how many of them I get done. :DFrB.TG (talk)17:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy sir! Me again. I know I've asked you for a favor in reviewing my FAC already, but thought I'd asked. I was wondering if you have time to do spot-checks on it? It has already completed a source review and another editor requested for a little more spot-check. Totally cool if you are busy IRL.Pseud 14 (talk)18:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: I can do it sometime around the weekend. However, if there's been concerns about source-to-text integrity, I suggest you go through every source before I do further spot-checks and then give me a nudge. This would save us both an additional check; that is unless you're absolutely sure there aren't any further issues with source-to-text fidelity.FrB.TG (talk)19:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I've reviewed it source by source over the last couple days, and may have a look at it again to be sure. I initially pinged the source reviewer if they'd be willing to do it. If I don't hear from them, I'll give you a nudge by then. Really appreciate it. And also good luck to your FAC. Glad it has made a comeback :)Pseud 14 (talk)20:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and congrats on being one of the new FAC coords! Very well-deserved! Had a bit of a break and I was going to have my hand at reviewing your FAC nom, but realized it has gotten thorough reviews at this point. I usually only do this as a last option, as I generally tend to exhaust my QPQs first, however, no luck yet lol (which I don't take personally of course as it is in fact not a requirement). I was wondering if it's not outside the realm of possibility and if you still do reviews from time to time, could I perhaps ask for some feedback on mycurrent FAC given your expertise on BLPs. This one is on the shorter side of word/character count. I completely understand if it is too soon to ask. Hope all is well with you.Pseud 14 (talk)16:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to congratulate you as well. I was going to add the fifth support soon if the article didn't get promoted today. Congratulations!--NØ20:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For your tireless and laborious efforts of finally gettingLeonardo di Caprio to FA status. I've seen you work undeterred as you went through all the hoops in each nomination you've put forward, and despite taking a short breather in between, here we are finally getting to see it get its well-deserved and rightful bronze star. I am happy to see it finally paid off. Congratulations!Pseud 14 (talk)18:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, FrB.TG! The article you nominated,Leonardo DiCaprio, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Thenomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you maynominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers,Gog the Mild (talk) viaFACBot (talk)00:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry if your feeling like your getting a bit of a bashing on the nom...perhaps sometimes unfairly (from me, I might strike a lot of it shortly): Mike's stats certainly show how active you have been. I might have been too dismissive without firm ground (never seem him around...but then that shows Ive not been around enough), and frankly its not as if we have an abundance of people volunteering for the -very necessary- position. My advice is hang on in there; the discussion is really more meta than your eligibility, and that this stage, least of all your integrity which is see now is impeccable.Ceoil (talk)21:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. As long as the criticism is constructive, I don't take it personally. And thank you for the encouraging words. :)FrB.TG (talk)18:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your appointment as a FAC coordinator, and thanks for taking on the role. Thanks, also, for promotingSad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands. As the bot only notifies one nominator, would you mind posting an appropriate message on my co-nominator Mick gold's talk page? (I could do something like that myself, I know, but I think it's more special coming from a coordinator.) Regards,BennyOnTheLoose (talk)16:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today forLeonardo DiCaprio, introduced: "With a career spanning over three decades, he's proved himself to be atitan(ic) of the industry. From aRomeo with a heart of gold to aconman with a devilish grin, he's a rare actor who has hardly gone wrong with his choices of roles."! - I love the puns there ;) - I understand that it isn't only his birthday, but Veterans Day, and for me St. Martin's day, matched as short as I could ina 2010 DYK remembered, - basically about sharing. --Gerda Arendt (talk)08:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it "impossibly ridiculous as written, scientifically"? In the source, the claim is made by quoting DiCaprio himself. How DiCaprio remembers or has this information is not clarified but as stated in my edit summary, it must've been his parents who probably filmed the moment or told him about it later on or he just remembers it himself? Some people do remember important events that occurred early in their life.FrB.TG (talk)19:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
per behavioral science, no one remembers, contextually, events at two years old.
as written, it sounds like he was already looking for an agent, so i removed it as self or parent invented mythology.
you seem to have special knowledge about early toddler memories, whereas I'm surprised this patent nonsense is in an encyclopedia.
"as self or parent invented mythology". Literally everything in early life section is recollections from the actor himself. How else would you have this information? Should I stick an "According to DiCaprio" at the beginning of every sentence? Or do you expect that a journalist documented every moment of his life as a child but didn't verify this? In any case, I have added "According to DiCaprio" at the beginning of the sentence so the readers know from whom the claim stems and decided for themselves whether or not they choose to believe it.FrB.TG (talk)20:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
indeed, that was my second choice. the reason i didn't similarly couch the claim was due to the featured article status.
Congrats! This article is one of the only ones I read through just for fun, so that means you did good.
Before it went on the front page I made edits to remove the {{official website}} template; I guess something happened to it and an error message shows instead. Is there another official website of his you can link to?Panini!•🥪22:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Panini, I'm glad that you had fun reading it. I had just as much fun writingsourcing it. I'm not aware of any other website run by DiCaprio.FrB.TG (talk)08:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks fordoing that! My suggestion is to wait to see how it behaves on the next FAC launch, before adding it to FAR; the only reason I say that is I'm unsure if the variable dates will work through the substring correctly.
And overall, although I never got back to you from the time you were named Coord, as your long and thoughtful response was in a discussion that was closed before I returned, I do hope you know that I'm most impressed by and appreciative of your dedication, communication and responsiveness. Overall, my answer to your response to me would have been a reminder to "teach 'em to fish for themselves" rather than giving them a seven-course meal on a page clogging platter :).
Sandy, too late for that as I did that for FAR too before you posted here but the good news is I tested them both at different times, and they worked as desired every time.
Thank you so much for your kind words! It's truly heartening to know that my efforts are noticed and appreciated. I believe in fostering a space where everyone feels heard and valued, and your encouragement reinforces my commitment to that. I truly admire just how passionate you are about the FAC project. And given how long you have been part of this, there's obviously a lot of wisdom and knowledge reflected in your comments there so I will always be receptive to and appreciative of your feedback. And regarding your "'teach 'em to fish for themselves' rather than giving them a seven-course meal on a page clogging platter" comment, I will keep that in mind. Thank you for that. And with the upcoming RfC, I am pretty hopeful that things will improve around here.
On an unrelated note, I recentlyupdated the FA stats originally done by you but I forgot to credit you so apologies for that. (I was hoping that it would kickstart some sort of discussion but it hardly went anywhere but since I didn't give any specific topic to discuss to begin with, it should've hardly been a surprise.)FrB.TG (talk)06:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I realized after my post that you had installed at FAR, and it works-- thanks again so much. No need to credit me on things like stats ... I may be passionate about the functioning of the process, but I hope it's not driven by ego. The issue with those stats is that, for example, medical FAs used to be a huge part of the process and now they're gone. We can't buy a review. Anyway, I know I'm repeating myself, and verbosity/repetition are my middle name, but you are truly a breath of fresh air, and your participation inspires hope. Bst,SandyGeorgia (Talk)11:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Huge Thank You for reviewing this one so quickly. I’m really pleased with the final look of the article after your comments. Much appreciated.ArturSik (talk)12:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per my discretion as an admin, outlined onWP:APAT, I have decided to give you the autopatrolled user right. This means that pages you create will be automatically marked as "patrolled" and will not required a manual, human reviewer to approve. Please ping me if you have any questions or concerns.Z1720 (talk)01:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should go with Cooper's GG page. Funnily enough, the career section doesn't discuss any of the Best Picture nominations but the overall count does consider them.FrB.TG (talk)08:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just informing you about this because I believe you got the wrong idea based on what was onWP:Featured article candidates/William Utermohlen/archive5. I did not forget about the nomination, if you saw the article history, Ceoil's "Hello?" comment was from January 15th, and after that I made an edit to the page yesterday, at 9am. I don't want the nomination to be un-archived, I frankly am done on doing anything forWilliam Utermohlen featured article wise, for the sole reason that I hate the idea of seeing "archive6" failing and having to resort to "archive7" and I think continuing this Sisyphus-like situation is a stupid decision on my end.Realmaxxver (talk)19:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see your response from yesterday. In any case, sometimes archiving a nomination is the fastest route to promotion, especially a nomination where reviewers express major concerns right after a day it was opened. Best of luck with the article.FrB.TG (talk)20:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in, butRealmaxxver, as somebody that was nearing support, your problem what more that you didn't attend to comments on time, and suffered a lack of interested reviewers. Re the latter, there were some bites pre-the last nom from medical editors that you didn't cultivate. AND FAC is a for better or worse a community, and if you try again, it might be worthwhile building goodwill and giving back to the process by reviewing some other candidate articles. Overall, I think it was a fair close.Ceoil (talk)00:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, FrB.TG! The article you nominated,Speechless (Lady Gaga song), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Thenomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you maynominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers,David Fuchs (talk) viaFACBot (talk)00:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled astoday's featured article for 11 March 2024 (second appearance). Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found atWikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article atWikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there byuser:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlistWikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!
Also please be aware that this will be TFA on Oscar night. I have placed proposed language to cover each combination of Oscars that Cooper might win (including none) and if everything goes smoothly the blurb will be altered right after each award (if any) is given to Cooper. See the ongoing discussionhere—Wehwalt (talk)16:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for keeping the alternatives ready although I think his chances of winning in any of the categories look pretty slim.FrB.TG (talk)19:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for the article, introduced (in 2016) as about "the recipient of People's 'Sexiest Man Alive' in 2011, though it's more of 'Sexiest White Man Alive'. Aside from the so-called accolade, he is a talented actor, having found his breakthrough in his mid 30s in late 2000s. - Did you see [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#MOS:FORCELINK|the discussion about infobox entries such as "full list"]] that I don't really understand, - I mean: is there a better way to summarize someone's achievements than an early link to all his works? --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gerda. I once tried to summarize the number of wins in that link in the info box but I was reverted for the reason that it won't always be up to date and it's not sourced in the main article.FrB.TG (talk)21:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestions to say "x operas and y other works" came up but I think the neutral list is the best summary of someone's works, without editorial. I think that demanding "no link" to the achievements is kafkaesque, but don't have the language to be understood. I have tried for years. The Rossini discussion was archived. - On a brighter note: vacation pics uploaded, at least the first day, - andAribert Reimann remembered: so rich music for voices! --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI regarding your questionhere on a "cousin once removed", this is based on which generation descendants family members are. When two siblings each have children and their kids are first cousins, a grandchild of one sibling would be a first cousin once removed of the other sibling's kids and vice versa. The grandchildren of each sibling would be second cousins to one another. If my words alone aren't enough, then you can view a helpful charthere that lays out different types of cousin connections. On another note, while I do agree that the addition you reverted was poorly sourced, I have no objections to restoring it with a stronger reference.SNUGGUMS (talk /edits)00:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for yourgood faith edit to Cross Temple, as you changedfullwidth punctuations into halfwidth ones (e.g. ” -> " ). Unfortunately I am inclined to revert it. In the article, fullwidth forms are only used in original Chinese-text quotations, which use fullwidth punctuations. Your edit results in a mismatch between Chinese characters and English / Western punctuations.
Thank you today forBad Romance, introduced (in 2022): "If someone were to ask me to define "Lady Gaga", this song would be my answer. It has everything that made Gaga famous—catchy chorus, elaborate music video, outlandish costumes and nonsensical chanting. I have been working on this article intermittently for quite some years now. A few months ago, I digged deep for academic sources and found to my delight many of them. A song called the catchiest in the world by a prominent organization of psychology should have the highest-quality article on Wikipedia."! --Gerda Arendt (talk)05:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I hope you are doing well. If possible, I was wondering if you could look through the sources formy current FAC on theKes (Star Trek) article? I would greatly appreciate a spot-check, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. In the FAC, it was brought up that there were several instances where the citations did not support the information in the article. I believe that I have addressed this, but it would be nice to have someone else to help to be on the safe side. Apologies for this super random message. I hope you are having a good end to your week!Aoba47 (talk)18:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the double response. I was just curious if you are still able to look through the FAC. I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest or anything like that. I mostly just wanted to check in to see.Aoba47 (talk)18:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I have a question regardinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katrina_Kaif.Here 'Early life and family' and 'Personal life' have been separated by 'career' section, which i think doesnt make sense. As per me both 'Early life and family' and 'Personal life' should be together. I tried to make edit but another editor says we need to have discussion on her talk page. Even her husbands page has similar issue. I am asking for your opinion on this.Bonadart (talk)06:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadart, the two sections are big enough to stand on their own. The early life is more about who she was before she became an actress whereas personal life explores her relationships, personal beliefs etc. There's a distinction. And I definitely don't like "life as actress" as a section title. That sounds way too magazine-y.FrB.TG (talk)09:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi @FrB.TG I agree and that is my point if they are able to stand on own then early and personal life should be in sequence one after other and then followed by career. i feel that is more appropriateBonadart (talk)10:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey old friend. Good to see you back. I'm doing well. I haven't done much content work lately but I have been a coordinator of theWP:FAC project for about a year now which is fun. How have you been?FrB.TG (talk)15:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow! A FAC coordinator! That's quite the promotion for you. Congrats! I have been doing good. Real life has me quite inactive on here but I am getting back into the thick of things. Also belated congrats on getting Dicaprio to FA! That's a big undertaking! Was kinda hoping you would do the same for Daniel-Day Lewis and Scorsese too but maybe someone else might take it up. I have got a pro wrestling related article (Money in the Bank (2018)) up for GA. I was wondering if you could take it up or if you know someone who works on articles related to professional wrestling if you aren't quite familiar with the sport. Thanks. —Ssven2Looking at you, kid03:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The DiCaprio article was a nightmare to take on. Because it was listed as GA, I believed that the sources were supporting the claims in the article. A spot-check revealed otherwise and then began a nightmarish work on the sources. As for Scorsese, I have worked onanother filmmaker's article before so I could see it happening in the future where I have more time but it'll be very time-consuming. I think you mentioned a while back that you want to work on wrestling or video game-related articles.FrB.TG (talk)20:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. I feel MITB 2018 is a good place to start. The reason I chose it was because of the last man standing match betweenAJ Styles andShinsuke Nakamura. They have such good chemistry together in the ring. I honestly feel Nakamura should have won the WWE championship title even if for a short reign. He deserves it. I popped for his bad guy/heel turn at WM 34. —Ssven2Looking at you, kid02:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad you've found something beyond film to be passionate about. I for one am not a big wrestling fan although I must admit I used to play wrestling card games with my friends as a kid, which I really enjoyed doing.FrB.TG (talk)07:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in thisanonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on itsMeta page and view itsprivacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Reply for your last edit onPooja Hegde. I have given correct summaries for previous edits[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10]. I have replaced unreliable sources with "good" reliable sources which is supported byWP:ICTFSOURCES. I don't understand why other user CNMall41 is always removing my edits. I kindly request you to please restore my last previous version. Thanks.Thesanas (talk)17:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today forTelephone (song), introduced (in 2023): "Get ready to be dialed into Lady Gaga's world with "Telephone", where she delivers a phone-tastic performance that's sure to ring in your ears long after the song ends." - Happy new year! Music on my talk (every day). --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the concerns you've brought up here a while ago, can you take another look at this article and either give me support or tell me what needs more work? I think your support would put this article over the line for promotion. Thank you for reviewing!Departure– (talk)16:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's up, FrB.TG? It has been a lot of time since we got the chance to interact. WithHolden Commodore (VE) beingpromoted with three prose supports and one on sourcing and images, I was wondering what elseDance the Night with three prose supports and one on sourcing needs. I was just curious about how similar the progress on both FACs looks, and they were also initiated quite close together.--NØ01:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm aware of the progress your FAC is making but given that three supports are the bare minimum to get an article promoted and that your FAC hasn't been open for that long, I'd like to keep it going for a while to see if it attracts any further commentary.FrB.TG (talk)22:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely your call. I just wanted to make sure it was not getting missed that it has the exact same amount of supports as the other one promoted yesterday, but I can now see you had only promoted that one after eight days of inactivity. You are a better judge of when it will be the right time for you to cast your spell on the night...--NØ23:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I thought of you because of your outstanding work onTaylor Swift and other contemporary entertainment bios. While wearing my admin hat, I recently had my attention drawn to Cabello's article. In particular, I was concerned about the tabloidy nature of the personal life section. I did a bit of trimming to ensure BLP compliance but I don't want to get so involved that I would have to take my admin hat off. I don't suppose you would have time to give the article a more detailed look for tone and sourcing? Not an emergency, but I'd be very grateful.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?15:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell, I looked at the section. I didn't sense any gossipy tone. Three relationships which lasted for a while and are backed up by reliable sources. Mentions of her disorder, property and racial controversy seem all noteworthy and are also properly sourced.FrB.TG (talk)17:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you peace, joy, and renewal this Easter season. Thank you for all you do to keep Wikipedia growing and thriving.Stay well, and happy editing!MSincccc (talk)08:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, FrB.TG. MyFAC nomination for the article on the Princess of Wales was archived due to sourcing concerns. Some reviewers mentioned that more book sources would strengthen the article. However, I have noticed nominations with few book sources that were promoted. I would appreciate your guidance on this matter. Thank you.MSincccc (talk)04:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSincccc, it depends on the availability of books. For a topic like the Princess of Wales, I would expect a substantial number of books to exist. The same doesn't apply to a say rising mainstream celebrity in the digital age, where fewer published works may be available. Because of this difference, it's difficult to compare two such articles based on the number of books cited. According to FA criteria 1b and 1c, all major sources should be covered. So if your article hasn't incorporated the key books on the subject, I'd recommend reading them and including them in the article.FrB.TG (talk)19:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I was hoping you’d be able to take a look at the article on actress Rashmika Mandanna, as I’m aiming to get it promoted to FA-class. Given your experience with articles on Indian actresses, I figured you’d be the ideal person to ask. Thanks in advance!19Arham (talk)17:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! Sorry I didn't see them sooner, I wasn't notified that you had added anything else since the last time.19Arham (talk)23:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your wiki anniversary was20 days ago, marking12 years (as per SUL) of dedicated service! I wanted to extend a heartfelt thanks for your amazing contributions. With over29,081 edits, your dedication is an inspiration to the community. Wishing you all the best for the year ahead!
Use thisTool to send wiki anniversary wishes to other amazing Wikimedians.
I mean absolutely no offense by this, and maybe there's something I'm missing, but the closing of the recent FAC feels very perfunctory and unfair. Yes, the candidate had been open for a month with little to address the issues, but that was because I was given literally no time to respond to or address any of the issues provided. All the oppose votes have come within the last two days and I didn't have a chance to reply to all but one in any capacity before the nomination was closed. After a month of thinking this FAC was going to be smooth sailing I frankly feel a bit offended my nomination was closed so abruptly with a sudden dogpiling of voters, especially when multiple of the editors in question had been monitoring this FAC for some time and yet only elected to offer any comments at the end of the nomination, and not during the month prior when any of these comments could have been addressed in a far more timely fashion. I understand that from their perspective it would be deemed helpful to address any concerns that hadn't been given any airtime prior to that, but the fact I was given no time to address them is where the bulk of my problems lie.
Frankly, I feel I could have easily addressed most if not all of the issues within the span of FAC, and I didn't have any hypothetical "FAC pressure" or what have you; all I have is a bad taste in my mouth at the whole process if a nomination I've spent a month on can suddenly get closed in two days without allowing for much input from me at all. Now, instead of just addressing those issues within the span of the FAC, I instead have to wait two weeks to renominate this and use up considerably more of my personal time than I would've had to otherwise to address any issues and make sure the article is sound. I understand if the issues are too numerous or too much for a single reviewer to address, I wouldn't put that on them if they were, but I still would've at the very least appreciated an opportunity to address thison the nomination. Several of the points against the article were things I elected to do because of past reviewers and comments on the article, not just because I overlooked things, and I would've appreciated an opportunity to at least hash out a plan of attack of what I needed to do when every aspect of the article is taken into account, and then closed the FAC of my own accord if the issues proved to be too much. As it stands, I didn't even get that opportunity.
On the whole, I feel like I didn't get nearly enough input, time, or leeway to do anything productive on the article. I'm not going to push for a re-opening as that seems like more trouble than it's worth at this stage in the game, but:
-I would at least appreciate some clarification on why exactly this was closed under the FAC guidelines and as a whole, because I feel unprepared isn't really cutting it when I've had three prior copyedits/reviews and most if not all the issues on the FAC were not substantial problems, and why suddenly being dogpiled gives such a short grace period to, at the very least, touch base with the reviewers in question.
-I would like to request that if I can address every reviewer concern within the next two weeks, which is wholly possible in my view, that I can at least re-nominate this before the time gap window has passed. I want an opportunity to show that this was something wholly fixable within the span of an FAC window, and I want to prove that I am capable of addressing those concerns; plus, if I am able to address these problems effectively, I'd prefer not to have to wait for so long on an article with its problems already resolved. If I am unable to address it within that span, then I will nominate after the two weeks are over like standard process and will learn a lesson in humility.
I will clarify that I do not have any personal disdain towards you or any of the reviewers, as I understand this was enacted out of process, but I frankly feel like my capabilities are being judged unfairly when that I have not been given the proper time or resources to actually enact upon or explain anything I want to, especially when I encountered none of these issues at my prior FAC nomination. I apologize in advance if this comes off poorly, as that is not my intent. Still, I would appreciate whatever response on the above you are willing to give; thank you. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)00:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since I did forget to ask above: To clarify on the reception issue, the paragraphs are already joined by topic (First para is overall reception/why the monsters succeeded, second discusses Peladon, third discusses Cold War, fourth is mythos and such.) Admittedly fourth's rationale is a bit weaker, but it's good reception that doesn't quite squeeze into the first para, so I'm not sure what quite to do on that front. If you have any advice on making this clearer/organizing this better please let me know.
Also, opening sentences have been controversial for fictional character reception articles; there's been several debates about it in the past and I'd rather not include them when it's unclear if they're OR or not. It's why the article doesn't use them at all. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)00:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply but the nomination had been open for a month already and the amount of concerns expressed wasn't a good sign. It would be one thing if they were minor issues highlighted early on and quickly addressed. However, Roy only sampled a small portion of the article with multiple issues, which are usually indiciative of a larger problem throughout the whole article. An article is already expected to meet the FA criteria at the time of the nomination so when such major concerns are raised, they are best addressed outside the FAC venue.
As for the reception section, there are ways to avoid OR in such introductory sentences if you remain neutral in your formulation. For example, "several reviewers commented on x aspect", followed by reviews on said aspect wouldn't be OR. "Many reviewers praised x aspect", on the other hand, would be if you just place a bunch of reviews together when you can't prove that these are indeed representative of the praise. Another way to avoid A said B would be to group reviews together by theme. Something like "the character's portrayal of x was called good by A, fantastic by B, marvellous by C" is usually my way to approach this. As it stands, almost every sentence in the section begins with A said B.FrB.TG (talk)21:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG I think I get a bit of what you mean, and I'm currently working with the other reviewers to try and figure out the exact steps I'll need to carry out to take this to FA-level prose so it'll be ready for next time. No worries about the late reply, I appreciate the informative and detailed response immensely no matter the timing.
On the reception queries, is there a particular policy or consensus for the opening sentences? This is largely just so I know what past discussion has been on this since I'd like to know for the future what to do in regard to this topic. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)03:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999, there's no specific policy on this but I think such sentences help the readers immediately understand the theme of each paragraph better and know what to expect.FrB.TG (talk)23:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
—IB[Poke ]10:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, FrB.TG. I'm just posting to let you know thatList of accolades received by Inside Out (2015 film) – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been submitted as a candidate to be featured on the Main Page asToday's featured list. The proposed content can be seenhere. You are more than welcome to post your thoughts on the nomination. Regards,Chompy Ace15:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
