• Lead, well we should refer to WP:LEAD. You currently have ten paras in the lead, I would expect no more than three. You could create a section to explain Reagan's acting career, but make sure the lead just that, a lead which summarises the whole article.

• Done – Lionel ^(talk) 00:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe a little too much trimming. I said around three paras in the lead, summarising the whole article! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Un-trimmed. – Lionel ^(talk) 19:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For God and Country is a dab link.

• Done – Lionel ^(talk) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't mix date formats for things like accessdate or date. Be consistent.

• Done – Lionel ^(talk) 07:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't shout in the ref titles (e.g. ref 6).

• Done – Lionel ^(talk) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDB refs, we don't consider IMDB to be a reliable source so you need alternatives for refs 17 and 18.

• Ha!!! I copied that verbatim from the Featured Article! I tagged it over there. I'll wait a couple days for them to fix it--if not I'll take care of it.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done (commented out) – Lionel ^(talk) 07:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "May 02, 2012." no need for leading zeros in dates.

• Yikes. The stuff that somehow gets in these articles. Fixed. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the purpose of [more] which leads our readers into the depths of other namespaces?

• It allows the reader to find all films downloadable at Internet Archive. It seems to be an intentional feature Template talk:Internet Archive film built into the template. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not for me, it simply links to a list of pages which use that template. It's not useful in the slightest... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's used on a several thousand pages, and I'm hesitant to change it without consensus. I've started a discussion and asked for input from WPFilm. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I suggest you dump the template and hand-code it. The list of "what links here" contains User pages, template pages etc, and shouldn't be for our readers to consume. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done--removed link per "overwhelming" consensus at template talk.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, TRM. Hopefully this will wrap up before you-know-who finds out about it. ;-) – Lionel ^(talk) 01:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More

• Pat O'Brien is a dab link.

• Done– Lionel ^(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• New York Times should be The New York Times.

• Done– Lionel ^(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Taft-Hartley should take an en-dash not a hyphen.

• Done– Lionel ^(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Still have some concerns over the large number of shortish paragraphs.

• How does it look now? – Lionel ^(talk) 03:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Knute Rockne, All American" seems to have a comma, not a space or a hyphen as you variously have it.

• Done– Lionel ^(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Academy Award Nomination - Best Short" en-dash, not hyphen. Check others.

• Done– Lionel ^(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Best Short" is linked on its first and third time, not the second, why the relinking in this way?

• Done--only 1st is linked now– Lionel ^(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 26 is just floating and isn't really telling me what it's supposed to be citing.

• Changed column header to "Notes/References" – Lionel ^(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Academy Award Nomination and Win " well you can't win without being nominated. And after this you just say "Win..."

• Done– Lionel ^(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Format of ref 26 needs work.

• Done– Lionel ^(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure all the external links are really necessary.

• Got rid of a couple.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• there should be no spaces between the dash in the first sentence

• done – Lionel ^(talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• could link army air force

• His assigned unit, First Motion Picture Unit, is linked. Would linking AAF be too much?– Lionel ^(talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• likewise academy award for short film

• Opted to link 1st mention of "Academy Award."– Lionel ^(talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You have Screen Actors Guild in one sentence then abbreviate it to SAG in another without providing the abbreviation after the original use

• done – Lionel ^(talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "sixteen weeks out of the year, often demanding of him fourteen" you have 19 in digits earlier these two should be in digits as well

• done – Lionel ^(talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• you have GE and general electric close together, yet you never provide an abbreviation, provide it after the first use and stick with it

• done – Lionel ^(talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• link kings row in second section

• Hmmm. It appears to be linked already. Could you post part of the sentence you're referring to. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have been more specific, the sentence is "Many film critics considered Kings Row to be his best movie" in third para of the entertainment career section. NapHit (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Kings Row is linked in the immediately preceding sentence, as well as being linked when it first appears in the lede. This should be enough. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 17 should be BBC News

•  Done

• Per WP:YEAR: A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given so 1953–1954, 1961–1963, 1964–1965 need to be adjusted. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Thanks for the observations Lemonade – Lionel ^(talk) 02:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bold links in the lead are discouraged by the Manual of Style, and I personally don't see a need to bold any of it.

• Doesn't MOS require that "filmography of Ronald Reagan" be bold? Perhaps "His acting career began..." could be replaced with "Ronald Reagan's acting career began...". I fixed the em dash issue and warner bros. Ryan Vesey 23:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Ryan. @Giants, I moved the wikilink. I believe the sentence now complies with WP:LEADSENTENCE. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay. In that case, can we please fix the "Reagans acting career" and turn it into "Reagan's acting career" now? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 01:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor, but the MoS discouages unspaced en dashes (the little ones). You can switch to the larger em dash, or just make the en dash spaced.

• Ryan fixed this, thanks.

• No, he didn't, at least not for the one I saw. The one in the first paragraph, which is the one I was commenting on, is still there. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Got it--and rechecked the article. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "such as Recognition of the Japanese Zero Fighter and Beyond the Line of Duty. Beyond the Line of Duty...". Not an easy thing, I know, but try not to have something repeat from one sentence to another like this. It's not that appealing to read.

•  Done – Lionel ^(talk) 00:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it "Warner Bros. Studios" or "Warner Brothers studios"? The lead and body differ.

• Ryan fixed this, thanks.

• The capitalization of "studios" is still inconsistent, and should be made to be one style or the other. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done consistent now – Lionel ^(talk) 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Entertainment career: No need for the comma in "April, 1942." Also no need for it in later instances.

•  Done – Lionel ^(talk) 00:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "in particular those of Lemuel Boulware. Boulware...". More repetition from sentence to sentence.

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 00:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes Nndb.com (ref 19) a reliable source?

• From their website: "Additions or corrections to profiles submitted by users are not included automatically. A member of the NNDB staff vets any submitted change, and applies any changes selectively and manually." And the page has additional info on their fact checking policy. The editorial oversight makes it RS. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I just don't like using a user-generated source for a sentence such as "Reagan, a liberal Democrat, began to shift to the right as his relationship with Republican Nancy Davis grew." There has been so much written about the Reagans in reliable books, newspapers, and magazines that we shouldn't need to rely on such a questionable source, which is no different than something like IMDB (also frowned upon). Why settle when there are plenty of better sources you could use? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Got rid of it.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Giants2008 (Talk) 23:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "includes many motion pictures and television screen work." - Any way to rework this so we don't have "many ... television screen work"?

• changed to "many motion pictures and a selection of his television screen work" – Lionel ^(talk) 12:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That begs the question of what the exclusion criteria are. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The inclusion criteria is all of his works which are covered in the General references: Metzger, Allmove and the Reagan Library. Most of his work is listed, so there wouldn't be much to to which to apply an exclusion policy. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps, but it's still not phrased too well. "includes many motion pictures and television episodes", perhaps? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done why didn't I think of that – Lionel ^(talk) 07:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the latter having won the Academy Award for Best Short film." - Not when he narrated it, surely. Perhaps "the latter of which later won ..."

•  Done – Lionel ^(talk) 11:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Before the film Santa Fe Trail" - do you need "film" here? It's implied from the context

•  Done – Lionel ^(talk) 11:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix CN tag for direct quote

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 07:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (officially, the "18th AAF Base Unit") - Do you need those quotes? What purpose do they serve

•  Done– Lionel ^(talk) 11:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "He met fellow star Nancy Davis" - You just said he never regained his star status, so how could she be a fellow star?

   Done changed "star status" to "stardom" – Lionel ^(talk) 11:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the marriage would be one of the closest in U.S. political history, and the couple had two children: Patti and Ron." - Illogical joining. Perhaps "the marriage, one of the closest in U.S. political history,resulted in two children: Patti and Ron.:

•  Done much better, thanks – Lionel ^(talk) 11:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "making films such as The Voice of the Turtle, John Loves Mary, Bedtime for Bonzo, Cattle Queen of Montana, Tennessee's Partner, and Hellcats of the Navy (where he costarred alongside his wife)." - What makes these worth individual mentions?

• FYI the list was copied from the FA article

Voice: loved it at imdb; was "the best of these [post war light comedies]" --Cannon

John: Patricia Neal's first film

Bedtime: well, it's Bedtime for Bonzo!

Winning Team: "best picture of this period [post war]" --Cannon (and poster uploaded by Crisco!)

Cattle: impacted Scorsese; "the best [of his post war westerns]" --Cannon

TN: inspired one of the greatest hits of The Four Seasons, and Rhonda Fleming ooh-la-la

Hellcats: Erick Harper says it has "historical value"

Actually, I would probably drop John Loves Mary and add The Hasty Heart.– Lionel ^(talk) 12:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done a film list before (not at FLC yet!) and generally I prefer keeping only films significant to the development / reception of the subject in the lead text; the list can handle the minor works. That being said, I don't know enough about 40s and 50s Hollywood films to identify offhand which of those are important and which aren't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That works for me. I'll review the impact/legacy of his later films and get back to you. Your list is fascinating. Have you thought of going for GA before FLC? That way you could snag another WP:FOUR. I know it isn't technically an article--but the right reviewer would do it I think. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but I don't think four would even apply for FLs. Did you see my comment above? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes to "TV edisodes" and to "only films significant..."--working on 'em. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In his book [2] Lou Cannon puts Reagan's films into historical context: the list has been adjusted to reflect Cannon's perspective

• What makes General Electric Theatre "The Dark, Dark Hours" and "Ronald Reagan on TV" by Billy Ingram, at TVParty.com. valid external links? The first may fail ELNO for copyright infringement, while the second doesn't seem to be a notable website.

• Alright, just drop a note here when you're done (watchlisted) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Dark, Dark is a rare clip. I think it holds interest for our readers. I changed the link to the full page at The Atlantic which isn't known for infringement. TVParty.com is notable. "A twisted walk down memory lane!"- Sharon Edry, TV Guide, "Top Five Sites! Interviews and articles... are must reads." - London Sunday Times and other positive reviews at the website. – Lionel ^(talk) 11:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, be careful not to have too many though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you only knew what the section looked like before the FLC lol.– Lionel ^(talk) 12:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a copyedit, be sure to check it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you – Lionel ^(talk) 11:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]