Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Regine Velasquez on screen and stage/archive1

• I have a comment about this sentence: Her breakthrough came when she played the title role of a music teacher in the film Wanted Perfect Mother (1996). I am uncertain about "the title role of a music teacher" as I have not seen "title role" used like this before as I have mostly seen it used to simply say "title role in (insert title)". I would just say music teacher instead.

Done

• I have a question about this part: Her first leading role on television came in 2000 in an episode of the IBC-13 drama series Habang May Buhay. Is it really a leading role if it is for only one episode of a series? For American television, that would be considered a guest star not a lead, but there could be a cultural difference at play here.

The weekly show features different plots/storyline (stand alone) unrelated to episodes that have already aired or future episodes. Different actors appear in each episode. I would think it this falls into the 'lead' category (and not a guest star) specific to that episode. Since in the Philippines, performances for these types of appearance in a TV show are recognized as Best Actress in a Lead nomination as opposed to a supporting role nomination.

• I would specify that this is an anthology series to make this point clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the right television terminology I was looking for, somewhere along all of this, It never dawned on me! Thanks for this. Should be updated now. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it normal to say "con-artist"? I have mostly seen it without the hyphen as "con artist".

Fixed

• I would revise this sentence, In 2013, her performance as an identity document forger in the comedy Of All the Things won the Golden Screen Award for Best Actress., to this: In 2013, she won the Golden Screen Award for Best Actress for her performance as an identity document forger in the comedy Of All the Things. I think the current wording is slightly off.

Done

• Why is her role in Elvis and James 2 represented as a —? I am not really sure what this symbol means in this context.

I took that practice from a source review done by Giants2008 where If you can't reliably source the name, I'd just remove it and put a dash in the table.

• Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Velasquez is not scheduled to appear in any future films, is the key still necessary for the "Film" table?

Removed

• The "Television" table includes a lot of her work as a host and a judge, but none of this is represented in the lead. While I do not think each individual thing she be mentioned in the lead, I believe there should be a brief sentence about this in the lead.

I expanded the last 2 paragraphs a bit and included a summary of notable work as host/judge.

• Thank you for doing this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would link Kenkoy Loves Rosing in the "Stage" table to be consistent with the lead.

Done

• Why is Noli Me Tángere not mentioned in the lead?

I opted to highlight her debut on stage with Kenkoy and since she only did two theatre productions, I think it was best to just leave it out. I was thinking perhaps of mentioning something like her last theatre role was ... , but figured it would just not fit into the flow.

• That makes sense to me. I agree that her theatre debut is more notable and unless she drew special attention for her subsequent stage performance, it is too trivial to mention in the lead. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure the music videos and video albums belong in this list. Madonna has her filmography and videography separate, while Michael Jackson has both included in his videography. I just find it odd that the lead entirely focuses on her acting so I was quite surprised that the music videos and video albums where included here as there is no mention on either in the lead. What are your thoughts on this?

That was my biggest dilemma before nominating for FLC. I consulted and sought guidance, and got Aza24's perspective (who is heavily involved with the FLC process as well) regarding inclusion of music videos in lists specific to filmography. Primary reason for the inclusion is, unlike in the U.S., the Philippine music scene is quite devoid of award, tabulation and promotional organizations e.g. Grammy, MTV, Billboard, etc, that promotes music videos, monitors music video chartings (e.g. MTV TRL, MTV VMAs recognizing music video creators and artists), or even provides a review of music videos, especially those that date back in the 80s and 90s. Videographies of Lady Gaga or Taylor Swift explore greatly on those elements, and splitting a videography list for Velasquez, would have very little juice on the lead other than she released a video for a single or collaborated with this artist on a video. Based on that, I was told it would be on the safest side to rename "filmography" to "on screen and stage" as is commonly practiced with other FLs and include music videos, video album and commercial sections as part of this list. Hopefully that provides a bit of clarification.

• Thank you for your explanation. That makes sense to me. If her music videos and video albums did not receive as much attention, then it makes sense to fold them into this list. Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Companies should not be listed as the author of a source. They would be the publisher, but the author parameter of the web citation is mostly used for article writers, etc. An example of this is Citation 80.

Done for all with similar issues

• This is not necessary for the FLC, but you do not need to include the access dates for archived citations. Access dates are used in case a citation does rot that there is a record of when it was active so that way people can look it up on an internet archive. Since these citations are already archived, I would remove the access dates. Plus, they just add unnecessary clutter to the citations.

While I understand the concern raised on the access dates (I do agree it can be a clutter and time consuming to add), I also think that its inclusion wouldn't be outright prohibited or forbidden. I have looked up the most recent FL promotions (e.g. Gwyneth Paltrow's awards and Jake Gyllenhaal's awards) and these have all included access dates that did not encounter strong opposition or were perhaps even raised in the FLC review process, I do understand each review is its own :) But also in a matter of being consistent with Velasquez's other 2 FLs I think it would be ok to keep the retrieval dates as opposed to weeding them out of 100+ citations.

• Thank you for the response on this. I agree that it is not prohibited, which is why I clarified at the start of this comment that it was not necessary for this FLC. I just wanted to raise this to your attention. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that for citations in other languages (like Citations 1 and 2), you should include the translated title as part of the citation.

Done

• The Cosmopolitan link in Citation 37 is misleading as it goes to the article on the American magazine. Since an article for Cosmopolitan Philippines does not exist, the link should be removed.

Fixed

I hope my review is helpful. The lead is well-written, and my comments about that are relatively minor. My biggest concern is about the inclusion of the music videos and video albums as neither of these two items really fit this list in my opinion. I have noticed some issues with the citations, but they should be easy to correct. I will read through the list again once all my comments have been addressed. I hope you are having a great start of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed review Aoba47, the above comments have been addressed, significant attention to the concerns raised on inclusion of music videos and retrieval dates, hopefully that provides some clarification and justification. Happy to address additional comments you may raise. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your very prompt responses. Everything looks good to me so far, but I want to read through the list one more time just to make sure I do the best review I can. I hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your quick response too Aoba47, take as much time as you need. Much appreciate all your input and hope you are doing well and safe! Pseud 14 (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]