Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Matt Damon filmography/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Matt Damon filmography edit

Featured list candidates/Matt Damon filmography/archive1

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Damon is one of Hollywood's most prolific stars. In a career spanning over 25 years, he has acted in some (and written one) of the most influential films of recent time. His work in bringing up new talent through his Project Greenlight initiative is also praiseworthy. As usual, I look forward to lots of constructive comments. Happy Damon-ing! Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have another open FLC at the moment, but that has 3 supports and no outstanding comments. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support great job, Krimuk90 LavaBaron (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, LavaBaron. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Can't see any issue. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yash. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No major issues, but I've got nitpicks:

I don't think "the director" is really needed for Coppola or Scorsese
It's probably worth noting in the lead that he was the title character in Good Will Hunting as it's one of his most famous roles
"the Steven Soderbergh-directed Ocean's Trilogy"..... I'd go with "Steven Soderbergh's Ocean's Trilogy" or "the Ocean's Trilogy"
"but the film polarized critics"..... "but" in this instance suggests you're contrasting the reception to something else, though all that comes before it in that sentence is Damon's involvement
No need for "the actor" right before DiCaprio
"was a disappointment" is both vague and POV
"biggest stars"..... better to say "top-earning" or "highest grossing"

"Top-earning" would be in reference to Damon's salary, and "highest-grossing" would be in reference to how much a film earns. I guess "biggest stars" is appropriate in this context. Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if Daily Express is a good source to use

It just provides a cite to an uncredited appearance in a film. It's okay to use this reference in this context. Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post and TV.com most definitely aren't recommended, especially with the latter being full of user-generated content

Should be good to go before long. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS Thank you for taking the time out to review this. All your points have been addressed. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. However, "failure" is still a vague description for Promised Land; you need to state whether this was critically, commercially, or both. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it received mixed reviews and was a box office flop, but I don't want to sound too monotonous, so I've tried something else. Is that better? Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I can now support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Snuggums. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AJona1992

The statement in the last paragraph in the lead is misleading, there are countless "biggest stars" in Hollywood. You wrote that box receipts accounted for $2.9 billion in North America, which would indicate that he ranks as one of the most commercially successful or prolific actor in Hollywood, I feel as "biggest stars" is a term used so often in media reports.

Tweaked. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why you omitted the budget and gross figures in the table? Since this is a filmography, I would expect numbers to be one of the major components for such an article. – jona ✉ 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Box office recipts are not compulsory fields in an actor's filmography table. Most FL-quality lists don't mention them. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, AJona1992. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mymis

"I Do Do (2)" -> "I Do Do", it's a single episode, there are no parts
"2001–05, 2015" -> Shouldn't it be "2001–05, 2015–present"? Cannot see any sources provided saying that it was cancelled or it was revived for one season only
"The Chicago Tribune" -> "Chicago Tribune"
Roger Ebert has an article, so should be linked
I would italicize The A.V. Club as it's more like a newspaper rather than a database etc

Just some minor comments/suggestion; overall, very good job. Mymis (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Mymis. Sorry about the delay. Krimuk|90 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all the issues have been solved, you have my support, great work! Mymis (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: all reliable, formatting is good and spotchecks showed the information was correctly supported and no copyvios. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krimuk90 is on leave at the moment (according to a note on his talk page), but if he clears up Mymis's comments on his return, I'll be able to promote. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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