User talk:FrB.TG/Archive 10

Hello, Frank, it has been a while. How are things with you? I have nominated this list for FLC and would certainly appreciate your comments here.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FrB.TG. I'm just posting to let you know that List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 10. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Scarlett Johansson has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Good luck with the FAC.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A popular contemporary recording artist, she is known for experimenting with new musical ideas and images and for her unconventionality and provocative work.

This is straying into POV, though? Saying that she is "known" for this is an absolutely huge claim to make and it's not based in fact whatsoever. It's a normative claim and it reeks of positive bias. We all love LG and want to portray her well but that isn't neutral. And regardless, it's kinda legacy section material anyway? Wikipedia should not open articles with opinionated, subjective and likely biased sweeping statements. 333cale (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To say an artist is known for doing certain type of work is in no way POV. It is a fact that Gaga constantly experiments with new musical ideas and images (notice how different each of her albums is) and is known for her unconventionality (e.g. her outlandish fashion sense) and provocative work, and these are properly discussed and sourced in appropriate sections and paragraphs. Just like Marilyn Monroe was known for being a sex symbol for much of her life and Meryl Streep is known for her superior acting method, Gaga is known for what she is known. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG. How are you? I was wondering if you would possibly have time and interest to look at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Breeders Tour 2014/archive1. If you don't, no worries. Thanks for considering, Moisejp (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I suppose that would be great. The sections in List of Lady Gaga live performances are the ones I was/am considering using, but I like the performances cronologically. Johnnyboytoy (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, do you think you'll have any time to read over Three Sisters (Oregon)? I was hoping to bring it to FAC soon, but I wanted to get a few more pairs of eyes to read over it and give me feedback to fine-tune the prose first. I would love if you could provide me with some feedback. ceranthor 00:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I hope you are having a wonderful day so far. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments on my current FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sévérine/archive1? Thank you either way and good luck with your projects both on and off Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just have a question this time. Margaret will appear in a short film which has a poster, will be shown in a cinema (one cinema - limited release) etc. however, it will also serve as a music video for two cuts from her album. the film is titled after the songs and will most likely focus on them, which technically speaking makes it a music video. However, she calls it a short film. It will be shown in a cinema, people will have to buy tickets to see it etc. What would you classify it as then? a film or a music video. and do you think it is worth being mention in the article about her ? ArturSik (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest adding a sentence about it in her article. You should note there that it is a short film but will also serve as a music video for the cuts. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

will do that.thank you. ArturSik (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: okay so i've added the information, do you think it looks okay? + should I include it in her music videos list or her filmography or both ? ArturSik (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your comments as always, Frank. This is my first attempt at a Hollywood film accolades list BTW.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have had enough reviewers there I think. Good luck. FrB.TG (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing, you can comment here too.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. FrB.TG (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	It's always great to edit and review your great articles. Keep up the good work. John (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks and I look forward to your review of Gaga. FrB.TG (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article Scarlett Johansson From Ssven2 to FrB.TG, for taking Scarlett Johansson to FA, congratulations on your achievement! Keep it up!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was a really complicated FAC and article to take on. FrB.TG (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! on your recent success FrB.TG. Keep excelling. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thabk you. FrB.TG (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Excellent work, buddy. (I should also congratulate you in advance for Lady Gaga. I'll put on "Judas" at full blast to celebrate. :)) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gaga being FA is kinda like my whole purpose in Wikipedia :D so let’s keep our fingers crossed. FrB.TG (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Another FA for us and IndianBio! Thank you both for helping me get Stefani to where she is now!! Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! It is finally promoted and seems like my purpose on Wikipedia is now complete. :D FrB.TG (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I love how you accomplished a major goal (which is big for me too), I hope this doesn't mean you'll be leaving anytime soon. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. I just meant this was my goal almost from the beginning of my time here. FrB.TG (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's quite a relief! Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! Congratulations to all three of you. As promised, I'm now Judas-ing. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, glad you’re keeping your promise. :D FrB.TG (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to the three of you. It was a pleasure to watch this article improve to the FA level. ceranthor 21:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I’m much grateful for all your help during the PR. FrB.TG (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The featured barnstar
	Congratulations to you, IndianBio and SNUGGUMS for promoting Lady Gaga to FA! A remarkable feat indeed!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is probably my best achievement on Wikipedia. :) FrB.TG (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations FrB.TG! I'm almost emotional watching a high-profile artcile go through FAC rather smoothly. Remarkable work. 🖖 NumerounovedantTalk 17:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Well, it did go through PRs, help from admins and revamps to be where it is now, but you’re right. Cheers. FrB.TG (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relish the Glory. xD NumerounovedantTalk 18:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your comments as always here, Frank. Do let me know if you are interested in reviewing this by pinging me. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Hrithik Roshan article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 10, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 10, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when I was doing the blurb, I forgot to check TFAR. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, thank you anyway. FrB.TG (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Hrithik Roshan, "known for his acting and dancing ability, and good looks"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for the TFA and all the best for the Hathaway FAC. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and good luck to you with Michelle Williams’ article as well. FrB.TG (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations FrB.TG! Now we've had TFAs on the same day! xD VedantTalk 18:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we did. It's awesome. :D FrB.TG (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG,

I'm writing to ask whether you would consider having a look at the article. I'm aware that you've been involved with a few PRs before. I've given it a major rewrite and complete overhaul. I began working on the article late October when it looked like this and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for potentially FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I would very much appreciate a fresh set of eyes and happily address any concerns you may have.

Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll be along for a review soon. FrB.TG (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Wishing you the same. FrB.TG (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hii Frankie, happy holidays! Can you please review this article for GA? It's quite small in size and won't take much time. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to. However, at the moment, I am collecting sources for Anne Hathaway. Do you mind if I start my review on New Year's Day? PS Ugly is a really beautiful film. FrB.TG (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem. Yes, it is really one of Kashyap's best work, I'm glad you have seen it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anne Hathaway, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Interstellar, Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress and Johnny Flynn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Frank. I have nominated my first solo FAC. You have peer reviewed this article in May-June 2016. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the FAC by pinging me. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might take a look soon, but it looks like you are going to have a lot of reviews. Good luck either way. FrB.TG (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been promoted to FA. My first solo FA.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I thought about commenting but skipped it when I saw that you had more than enough reviews and supports. FrB.TG (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Frank. Please do help me with the Kal Ho Naa Ho accolades list, which I have nominated for FLC. The reference format you have used for Kahaani's FL is being questioned by User:Courcelles. Help me out, mate.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will when I have something valid to add other than WP:OTHERSTUFF. FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG! I was wondering if you could post some comments on my two current FLCs please? – Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Beastie Boys/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Daft Punk/archive1. I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure in a day or two maybe. FrB.TG (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending!  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sven. That’s very kind of you. I wish you the same. FrB.TG (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I urgently need your help at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Kal Ho Naa Ho/archive1, my latest accolades FLC as one User:Courcelles has questioned the citations of award ceremonies themselves like you did for reference number 38 at List of accolades received by Kahaani.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 05:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, Thanks for your extremely helpful input during the peer review. I have listed the article for FAC and was wondering if you would have time to provide your feedback. Thanks in advance! Pseud 14 (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, I just listed an article I've been working on, 1867 Manhattan, Kansas earthquake at peer review here: Wikipedia:Peer review/1867 Manhattan, Kansas earthquake/archive1. I'd appreciate any feedback on the article, since I hope to eventually bring it to FAC. ceranthor 21:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. FrB.TG (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FrB.TG, I've nominated the article again. I was wondering if you could take a look. Let me know, thank you. VedantTalk 17:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I’ll take a look soon. Will also appreciate comments on Anne Hathaway’s FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact I read the article yesterday. I'll come up with some comments soon. VedantTalk 19:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Frebby, I just wanted to let you know that I'm really sorry for taking so long to finish my review of Anne Hathaway's article but I haven't forgotten about it. :) I intend on finishing the review very soon. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Take your time; I’m in no hurry. FrB.TG (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it is worth mentioning that she was named after Shakespeare's wife? Courtesy, Telegraph. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is. I’ll add it shortly. FrB.TG (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another round of congratulations, FrB. You rock! 👏 --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :D FrB.TG (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, I wanted to check if you would have time to provide feedback for an FLC. I understand this is also another field you are quite experienced with. Whenever you have the time though. It has undergone a copy-edit for the lead, and comments for format and structure from a reviewer which have been addressed. I would appreciate feedback from you as well. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few days and I'll look at your FLC. FrB.TG (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The fire and smoke award
	For successfully making the article of Anne Hathaway a featured one. Let the fire keep burning and take you onto more ambitious projects. Regards, Pavanjandhyala 15:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Pavan. Hope all's well with you. FrB.TG (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, but yes. I'm doing well now, and hence am back. Pavanjandhyala 17:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, glad to see you back. FrB.TG (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Pavanjandhyala 10:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Lady Gaga. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC

Hey Frb.TG, I've nominated the article. I was wondering if you could take a look. Let me know, thank you. VedantTalk 15:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The production section of this article begins, "Shonali Bose began working on the story in January 2011". Doesn't fit well, right? Because the film has to be introduced somehow (excluding the lead, plot and cast sections). But do you feel the sentence is fine? ----Kailash29792 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point. Since it’s the production section, maybe it should start with something like, "In January 2011, Bose began working on a story.." And then it should state how it eventually became Margarita with a Straw. FrB.TG (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please leave your comments at my ongoing flc? Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at both nominations in a few days. FrB.TG (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Frank. I have nominated my fifth FAC and second collaboration with Kailash29792. You peer reviewed this article back in March last year. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the FAC by pinging me. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll take a look by the weekend at the latest. FrB.TG (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the five FAC reviews you did during February. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! FrB.TG (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good day FrB.TG, Thank you for your comments and support on the subject's list of recorded songs during the FLC process. If by any chance you would have the luxury of time, I would very much appreciate your comments on an FLC I'm putting for nom. I would be very much willing to provide my review on any future FLCs/FACs you have in the future. Cheers --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. I'll review it shortly. I also hope that you get back to her biography soon and resolve the sources issues; it's a very worthy article IMO. FrB.TG (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG, thank you. Yes I definitely will, appreciate your thoughts about it. :) need to sort that one out. I may need your help just for a quick random spot-check on the sources after I work on it and once it's ready (but not anytime soon though), if that's alright. Cheers! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)--[reply]

Of course. Ping me when you need assistance. FrB.TG (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FrB.TG, so I finally had the time to get back and work on her bio and make some changes. Was wondering if you'll have time (and active these days/weeks) to do some random spot-checks on the sourcing, before I put it for renom. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Frankie, your contributions are amazing and you are a gem. I wanted you to know your contributions are appreciated. Keep up the good work! Saqib (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I'm not good with writing BLP's on artists, however I would like to bring at least one BLP (Mahira Khan) upto GA status. She is one of the Pakistan's most popular and highest-paid actresses and therefore her bio receives an enormous amount of pageviews as well. Your tips to further improve the page will be very much appreciated. --Saqib (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the kind words; it is great to know that my work is appreciated. Regarding Khan, I’d be glad to help you in any way I can; she’s a lovely actress. Just wondering: do you want help after you’ve expanded it or while you expand it? FrB.TG (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've expanded it as much as I could. --Saqib (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I’ll give it a look later today. FrB.TG (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across this. I'll bet you feel fantastic to get such an honorable mention, and it's nice to see I was alluded to for the Gaga bit (even if not explicitly named). Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Indeed it feels fantastic. It’s also posted at a great time when Gaga is about to appear on the Main Page. FrB.TG (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and all who participated, for Lady Gaga, "known for her outlandish style and provocative work", "arguably the world's biggest pop star around 2010", and the collaboration around it, "We have been planning this since 2015; it's time we did this. Let's be prepared."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was certainly quite a project, and a great collaboration. FrB.TG (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FrB.TG,

How would you feel about collaborating on a celebrity biography article? I've been a bit exhausted from writing volcano articles for the past month or so, and I think I could write one with you in order to reinvigorate myself. What do you think? ceranthor 14:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ceranthor. I just started researching Matt Damon a little. I would love it if you collaborated with me on that. FrB.TG (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much a fan of Matt Damon, but keep me posted on what's on your radar! I'd also be happy to provide you with feedback for the Damon article once you want it. ceranthor 19:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any artist you like in particular? Maybe we could work on that. FrB.TG (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Björk? Joanna Newsom? Joni Mitchell? Do any of those interest you? ceranthor 13:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor, maybe Björk, but I’ve never worked on an artist’s article with such a long career. FrB.TG (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have additional ideas besides Matt Damon I might be interested! Keep me in the loop. ceranthor 19:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I have taken the last list of Padma Bhushan series to the FLC. As you have provided comments for earlier, I thought of checking with you if you got some spare time to take a look at the nomination. I am not sure if this would be your area of interest. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll review it soon. FrB.TG (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...some advice! I don't believe we've crossed paths before, so hello! I started working on List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey recently and most of my work so far has been adding sources and formatting. I plan on adding prose and such but I first need to have a solid list of awards and nominations and I was hoping you could help me with some advice (since I was basing a lot of the format on a featured list you wrote: List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio and you appear to have very good experience on this topic). What is the criteria for inclusion of awards in the list? The IMDb list has a lot of awards that do not have Wikipedia articles on them or have no sources other than the award's official website. Also, Matthew McConaughey has acted as an executive producer in a show. Should the awards received by the show, such as "best series", count as one of the awards received by him (with, of course, a note to mention that he was an executive producer)? Jiten ^talk _contribs 21:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jiten D, hello, sorry for the late reply. I think all of the awards that have their own Wikipedia articles should generally be included and sourced. I’m not entirely sure about the Best Series awards. Generally producers are the recipient of such categories; I’m not sure if executive producer counts as one. If his name is included in the nominations, I’d add them (with reliable sources, of course). The DiCaprio list is a good model to base the formatting and sourcing on. Good luck with your list. FrB.TG (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Sorry for pestering you. Would you mind looking at the list again? I've made some significant changes including adding a prose and an infobox. There are a couple more sources that need to be added which I'll do soon. Do you think the list is ready for FL nom? Or does it need more work? Jiten ^talk _contribs 16:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jiten D: I gave the lead some copy-edits. Generally the prose looks good, but you need to cite sources for claims like when he hit the spotlight and the films that were well-received etc. The columns under year in the tables need to be given shades like in the DiCaprio list (add a !scope="row" to each of them). Taking a quick look at the sources, they looked fine (their reliability), but some sources are missing publishers e.g. ref 91. IMO it needs some work before it is ready for FLC. FrB.TG (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome stuff. Thanks for the copy-edit and the pointers! This is my first good/featured content attempt so I'm pretty bad at writing prose. I've taken care of the things you mentioned. I want to re-check the parameters of all references and also fix overlinking, but that might take a while. If there's anything else left to be done, do let me know! Jiten ^talk _contribs 16:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the overlinking and other reference stuff I mentioned above and nominated it for FL here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey/archive1. Your comments and suggestions are most welcome. Thanks again for all the help :) Jiten ^talk _contribs 13:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for taking the time to review my list at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey/archive1. Since your last vote, there has been some discussion about changing the format of the article. If you have some time, do leave your comments supporting/opposing the change. Jiten ^talk _contribs 10:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Frank. I have nominated my sixth FAC and my first one for a Hindi film. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the FAC by pinging me. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll try to provide a comprehensive review of the article soon. Cheers. FrB.TG (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Frank. Just make it before June though as I'm planning to add it as a part of the ongoing WikiCup challenge.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG the content I contributed is not only listed in The Times of India^[1], but also in GQ (Indian edition) ^[2] and Yahoo! News^[3]. Crsakhale (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was mentioned in several sources, the title is huge and needs to be published by a high-quality reputable source. FrB.TG (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FrB.TG. I'm just posting to let you know that List of accolades received by La La Land – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for June 4. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of that visibility, I have a question. Your edit on the page "List of accolades received by La La Land", on 2017 May 3‎ at 11:44, seems a bit harsh. Is it true that the announcement of Best Picture was 'falsely' made? From what I heard, it was an 'erroneous' announcement. Using the word 'falsely' seems to imply intent. If that's what it really was, then the word is correct. If not, could you see to adjusting the verbiage to more accurately represent the actions of all involved??

Thanks! WesT (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WesT. I have tweaked it and added a little more detail to it. Hopefully it's better now. Cheers. FrB.TG (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's much better. Not only clearer but enough detail that folks who never heard about it will understand. WesT (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Frank, I was wondering if you'd want to take a look at my current FAC and offers comments. Let me know, thanks. VedantTalk 15:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Frank. Any plans yet? VedantTalk 08:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll try to leave some comments soon. FrB.TG (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Can't believe I have written eight more FAs since. Yay! FrB.TG (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! I have a FAC open, DYK? Do you have one that should appear as TFA soon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Scarlett Johansson could hit the Main Page in November, but that's too far from now. FrB.TG (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Put her in WP:TFARP, to show your interest in that date. It looks a year forward. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, as you have participated in previous FLC nomination for the Academy Awards ceremony, I would like to invite you for the review or comment on the current nomination of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/89th Academy Awards/archive1. It has already been two months and all of the content is reviewed but it has only one support. So please take sometime out and review it so it could be moved to FLC status. Nauriya - Let's talk 22:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I will leave some comments in a day or two. FrB.TG (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is in reference to this edit of yours: I purposely didn't add the two reviews that you added because we now have 2 consecutive reviews from both Saibal Chatterjee (NDTV) and Anna M. M. Vetticad (Firstpost). --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’ll see if I can replace them. FrB.TG (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, can you please review this article? Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to review it; I’ll let you know in a day or two. FrB.TG (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, will you review? Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the tests in the coming week, I am afraid I won't be able to review it. Please approach someone else for the review. FrB.TG (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I hope that you are having a great week so far. I had previously contacted you about help with this particular article during a peer review, but I took a brief pause from Wikipedia following a not-so-great experience with the FAC. I was wondering if you could possibly look through the article and provide some suggestions. I may or may not bring it through the FAC process (I am uncertain on how it would be received there), but I mostly just want to make it as strong as possible. I apologize for the random message. Aoba47 (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba, hi, I will provide some comments within a day or two, and possibly express my opinion if it is FAC-ready. FrB.TG (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, hope all is well! I was wondering if you had time to help out at the [[peer review I've opened for Mount Mazama, which I hope to take to FAC some time in the future. Any feedback is appreciated! ceranthor 21:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’ll leave some comments within this week. FrB.TG (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've recently requested a PR for the article Fawad Khan (see here). It'd be an honour for me if you consider reviewing it. Thanks. Amirk94391 (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can achieve three reviews simultaneously, but I'll try leaving some comments. FrB.TG (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I know you are busy in reviewing many articles. Just to make things a bit simpler I'd like to tell you that as of 08:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC) the article has 170 references from these 37 sources.[reply]

Daily Pakistan (3), Pakistan Today (6), The Indian Express (11), Mid Day (1), Times of India (13), Firstpost (3), iDiva (1), Dawn (23), Daily News and Analysis (3), Forbes India (1), Deccan Chronicle (3), Aaj News (2), The Express Tribune (40), Dawn Images (2), The News International (7), Gulf News (1), Samaa TV (1), NDTV (6), ARY News (5), Bollywood Hungama (2), The Economic Times (1), Daily Times (4), The Hindu (1), Zee News (3), The National (1), Hindustan Times (3), IBT India (6), India TV (2), Rediff.com (1), Khaleej Times (1), Dunya News (2), News18 India (1), Business Recorder (3), The Nation (1), Geo News (2), PTV Global (1), ARY Digital (1)

The article doesn't reference a source that isn't listed above. I hope it'll help you in pointing out non-rs. Thanks Amirk94391 (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amirk94391: Thanks for listing the sources. They look fine, except iDiva. IBTimes is International Business Times. FrB.TG (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, FrB.TG. If you find some spare time would you be mind taking a look at Angrej's FAC? VedantTalk 21:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I’ve been barely active these past few weeks. I haven’t got to Ceranthor’s article that I wanted to a month ago. I’ll see if I find some time for his and then your FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Frb.TG. Thanks for responding. VedantTalk 13:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bleeding. Or an image’s intrusion into another section. Some bleeding can be unavoidable, especially when viewed on wider resolution displays, but we should attempt to limit it as much as possible. Left aligned images can be more intrusive when they come into contact with the subsequent header. Also, there is no harm in pushing the top templates to the right.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TriiipleThreat, I insist on keeping the top templates on the left, because I don't want them to look as part of the text so that one can easily spot the links. I had not considered wide resolution displays; the image fits perfectly in the section on my screen. If you would like to revert back, feel free to do so. FrB.TG (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG

I was going through Hrithik Roshan Wikipedia Page and notice that Citation [150] had been Inaccurately Quoted. The article no where mentions that the case was files to cover up the Divorce proceedings. Kangana did refute the allegations in media. More over Hrithik has files no case against Kangana. The case filed is against an anonymous source for cyber stalking and harassment. Besides all that the data "cover up the Divorce proceedings" at citation 150 is incorrect can you please remove this.(Sirajbrunton (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

"Kangana, however, has denied this and alleged that Hrithik had created a special e-mail ID to communicate with her. This, her notice says, was done to make sure his divorce proceedings with Sussanne Roshan were not impacted" Source 151. We are not necessarily stating that Roshan tried to cover up; the article just says it was Ranaut who claimed that. FrB.TG (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]