Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diane Keaton

Diane Keaton[edit]

Self nomination. I've been working on this article for the past month, and after a peer review I only received minor suggestions, which I have fixed.--Fallout boy 00:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support/Comment Looks good. My only comment is that there are no red links - red links are a feature not a bug! Are there useful red links being covered up which could be reinstated e.g. some movie titles? Also, some wikilinks need to occur earlier with earlier mentions of their phrases - for instance wikilinks for Reds and Baby Boom appear later than they should at the moment (I would also suggest that for ease of use, all the movie titles in the table be wikilinked regardless of if they have been mentioned in the main text already). Bwithh 09:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks have been added to the filmography.--Fallout boy 11:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice article, comprehensive (as far as I can tell) and very well referenced. Pics are appropriate and properly licensed, and format is good. Kafziel
Support Excellently written and well sourced (with inline citation) article that covers the entire gambit of her career, rather than just one section. Staxringold 21:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per above. -- Gnetwerker 00:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object filmography is wrong way round, should be earliest at top, latest at bottom. 2000s section is messy, doesnt follow chronological order, and why is production stuff mixed up with acting in family stone, please have that section copyedited. everything appears to be a websource. no books? Zzzzz 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your objections, in the order received: (1) There is no requirement over which way the filmography goes, and every other recent actor FA has used most recent on top and the earliest on bottom. (2) The 2000s section looks a little messy on closer inspection, which I have reorganized. (3) As for web sources, only eight (excluding Box Office Mojo for BO stats) of the 41 sources I used are actually web sources, everything else is print or an online mirror of a print source.--Fallout boy 22:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2000s is cleaner now; but upside-down filmog should be fixed in those other articles also; because some bad previous decisions were made, it does not set a "precedent" for this FAC. objection stands. Zzzzz 08:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography has been reordered.--Fallout boy 07:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

objection striked. Zzzzz 11:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comprehensive, well-written and well-documented. The Disco King 23:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very well structured, written and referenced. You've obviously spend a lot of time on this article - well done for that. Schizmatic 22:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]