The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 23:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC) [1]. reply
List of Naruto episodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
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
|
---|
|
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
|
---|
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
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
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
|
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
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
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 23:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC) [1]. reply
List of Naruto episodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
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
|
---|
|
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
|
---|
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
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
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
|
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
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