Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Anne Hathaway/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Anne Hathaway edit

List of awards and nominations received by Anne Hathaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My first FLC in more than four years. After writing her FA-class biography, I have worked extensively on Hathaway's awards list in the past few days. It is a well-sourced and well-written article IMHO. That said, I welcome constructive criticism on its improvement. FrB.TG (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit

  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You're good there, except for one minor tweak: if the cell spans multiple rows, then use scope=rowgroup instead of scope=row.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 02:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: is "scope=rowgroup" a standard practice? I don't like one bit how the entries are then shown in bold. None of the award pages, featured or not, I know has this. FrB.TG (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, "plainrowheaders" should fix that, just like it does for scope=row; I guess leave it as row for now, I'll ask at WP:ACCESS about it. --PresN 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Okay, this should now be fixed, I've gotten plainrowheaders updated to affect rowgroups as well as rows. I've updated the list for you as a test, and it looks fine. --PresN 17:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Any title starting with "The" should sort based on the next word
  • As the table is sortable, anything that is linked should be linked every time
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Chris. These should be sorted now. FrB.TG (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pseud 14 edit

I have very minor comments:

  • Pipe first instance of Teen Choice Award
  • Hathaway followed with roles -- perhaps rephrase, it does come across as clunky or reads awkwardly
  • Maybe the image caption on the infobox could use some context? Instead of the usual "subject in year"
The image description says it was at an AHC campaign. And I for the life of me have no clue what that means. So I’ve only added that the picture was taken at a campaign.

Nothing more to add. Marvelous job on this piece. Glad to see this last bit of her related article on here. (FT in no time!) -- Pseud 14 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pseud. These should be resolved now. And yes, I will definitely go for FTC if and when this is promoted. FrB.TG (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some spare time or inclination, would appreciate feedback on my FLC as well. Though not mandatory at all
Comments by Brankestein
  • I've been told that tables need captions. You can see MOS:DTAB for an example.

Other than that, I don't think there's anything more to add. The list looks pretty good and I'm happy to return the favor, even if it's something really minor. --Brankestein (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brankestein, caption added. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

  • For the image, I would clarify the campaign to avoid any ambiguity or confusion. I would also add ALT text for the image.
  • For this part, with a role in Christopher Nolan's superhero film, why not specify that she played Catwoman? You could use a link to the Catwoman in other media article. I am only asking because the lead names Fantine for Les Misérables.
  • I would include the Golden Raspberry Awards in the lead. It would balance the lead, and they are a notable award.
  • Hathaway has received two nominations for playing the Grand High Witch in The Witches (including the Golden Raspberry Awards mentioned above) so I think that is worth including at the end of the lead.

Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I would be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. I think Hathaway is a very talented actress, but I have honestly not watched one of her films in a while. However, that is more so because I've fallen off of keeping up with films in general lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba, as always. All done. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do watch some of her films in the future, although her recent works have been less than great. FrB.TG (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good to me. I support this FLC for promotion. I remember that I tried watching The Hustle and The Last Thing He Wanted, but I couldn't get into either. That being said, I still pay attention to casting news about her future films. I might check out The Witches because her performance looks delightfully absurd, but I'm not crazy about the amount of CGI. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and support by PanagiotisZois edit

Source review (formatting and reliability) by PanagiotisZois

I want to point out that this isn't a full-blown source review. My comments focus primarily on the formatting of the sources end ensuring that they're all structured the same way, that the websites/publishers are always linked (not linked in some sources but not others), and that information isn't missing. I also looked at the reliability of the sources basedon on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The majority of the references come from reliable sources, so no problems there. I've included comments about some which I think can be improved.

  1. Source 4: I'm not sure if Yahoo! News is all that of a high-quality, reliable source. Since the source is about her character in Les Miserables being a prostitute and ill, I'm sure there are better sources.
  2. Source 9: The Academy should be wikilinked.
  3. Sources 11-13: The Alliance should be wikilinked.
  4. Source 19, 20, 26, 30: Variety should be linked.
  5. Source 29: Is BroadwayWorld considered a reliable source?
  6. Source 33: HitFix should be linked.
  7. Source 35, 36: The HFPA should be linked.
  8. Source 37, 38: Websites should be linked.
  9. Source 40: Gotham Awards should be linked. Lol, Gotham Awards and she played Catwoman.
  10. Source 42-46: Variety and other sources should be linked.
  11. Source 46, 49: Link HitFix.
  12. Source 51: Link Variety.
  13. Source 52: Link the National Board of Review.
  14. Source 54: Link the LA Times.
  15. Sources 56-59: Link the websites / publishers.
  16. Source 61: Link the Online Film Critics Society.
  17. Source 62 is missing the website / publisher.
  18. Sources 67 and 68 should probably include the publisher. As this is the Emmys, I'm guessing that would be the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.
  19. Source 69: Link HitFix.
  20. Source 72, 80: Link the Hollywood Reporter.
  21. Source 74: Link the website.
  22. Source 78: Link SAG-AFTRA.
  23. Source 81: Is Awards Daily a reliable source?
  24. Source 82: Link HitFix.
  25. Source 87, 89: Link the LA Times.
  26. Source 88: Link HuffPost.
  27. Source 90: Link E!.
  28. Source 95: Link Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association.

For now, these are the comments I have to make. I'll try my best to also perform a source review regarding verifiability. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these. I have decided to wiki-link sources publishers only on first instances. AFAIK, there are usually two standards: linking works on their first instances to avoid overlinking (especially in ones that are crowded with references)—this is usually my preference—or link them every time, although I have seen some not linking publishers at all. It makes me think there is no set rule for this. Otherwise, I have replaced the sources from Yahoo! and BroadwayWorld.
Regarding the 23rd point, Awards Daily's owner Sasha Stone is a noted blogger who was profiled by New York Magazine and is a member of Alliance of Women Film Journalists. It should be fine IMO. FrB.TG (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't say I necessarily like it, but it isn't really an issue with linking the websites in just the first references but not others. I'm glad to see you replaced some of the less-than reliable sources and added information in the ones that were missing it. But I see source #62 is still missing the website. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, ref. 62 does have a link. The ones that don’t are not available online, unfortunately. FrB.TG (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added in the publisher in source 62. One last nitpick I have is this: source #42 is the only one to list Variety's publisher; Penske Media Corporation. For consistency, unless you want to add the publisher in every other Variety reference, I'd recommend removing it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and thank you for the fix. I thought you were referring to the URL and not the missing publisher. FrB.TG (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I suck with Wikipedia terminology. Things are shaping up greatly. I'll try to post my remaining comments regarding verifiability soon. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review (verifiability) by PanagiotisZois
  1. Sources 1 and 2 require subscriptions. I believe Wikipedia has icons for these types of situations.
  2. Source 7 does discuss Hathaway's role in Modern Love but not that she won an award. Maybe it would be more appropriate to have the sentence read as "That year, for the role of a woman with bipolar disorder in an episode of the anthology series Modern Love,[SOURCE] Hathaway earned...".
  3. Since sources 12 and 13 are the same, wouldn't it be better to either combine the two columns and use only one source, or have just one source be repeated using "ref=name"?
  4. I might be hallucinating, but from sources 19 and 20, it doesn't seem like Rachel Getting Married won a Critics' Choice Award for Best Cast.
  5. Source 27 is apparently dead. Change the url to "=dead".
  6. HitFix sources like 32, 33, 46, 49, 69, 82 are also dead.
  7. Source 49 doesn't state that Anne Hathawaye was nominated for Best Hero for Les Miserables. It was for The Dark Knight Rises, which the source in question doesn't state.
  8. Source 51 is apparently dead.
  9. Source 55 only references Hathaway's role in Les Miserables.
  10. Source 62 doesn't bring up any Desert Palm Achievement Award that Hathaway won.
  11. Source 63 should be viewed as dead, as the page doesn't exist anymore. Same with source 64.
  12. Source 65 doesn't state that Hathaway was nominated for The Intern.
  13. Source 67 is dead.
  14. Source 71 only states that Hathaway was nominated, not that she won.
  15. Source 74 doesn't seem to state that Hathaway was nominated for Les Miserables alongside The Dark Knight Rises, for which she won.
  16. Source 77 is dead.
Thank you for a rather exhaustive review, much obliged. To avoid messing up the numberization of your points, I am replying here to the points that require clarification. The ones I haven't responded have been done as suggested.
3. They are not the same source, one is for the winners, the other for nominees.
You're right. My bad. :|
4. They didn't and the list isn't claiming to either. It only says they were nominated.
12. Unfortunately, that is the only source I found for this but given that she only had The Intern released in 2015, I think it's okay this time.
15. There's a different source for her nomination in Les. FrB.TG (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source 75 only discusses the leading acting categories, not supporting ones. I believe that's my final nitpick with the sources. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced now. FrB.TG (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing I have to say is this. I noticed that you changed all references to having their "|url-status" to be "dead", despite most of the sources still being active. I don't believe Wikipedia has a consesnus on this, but Wikipedia:Link rot seems to indicate that it's preferable for active sources to be listed as "alive". Having said that, I don't really view that as an "issue" with the page. They're all properly formatted, the majority come from pretty high-quality, reliable sources (granted, MTV News may not be BBC News, but it's appropriate), and are varifiable. I apologize for some of the mistakes I made during the review process, and am happy to pass the source review. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now, moving on to the prose review:

  1. I'd recommend clarifying that Hathaway's role in Get Real was a leading one.
  2. Similarly to The Princess Diaries, include the year of release for The Dark Knight Rises.
    1. Same with Les Miserables.
  3. I think there's something wrong with the Best Hero award for The Dark Knight Rises.
1 and 2 done but I don't understand your third point. What exactly is wrong there? Do you Hathaway unsuitable for the nomination in the category (as in Catwoman shouldn't considered a hero in TDKR) or is there something wrong in the article? FrB.TG (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that the information provided in that section goes in this order; first the Best Hero award, then The Dark Knight Rises. The two categories of "Recipient(s)" and "Category" have been mixed up. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad, and thank you for the fix. I do apologize for these little mix-ups. FrB.TG (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, no worries. Besides, it doesn't hurt to help out and make a few edits here and there during a FAC or FLC. Regardless, given its current state, I gladly give my support to this page for promotion to featured list status. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Sorry for the ping but could I get a status update on this, if possible? Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 14:43, 12 April 2022 (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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Anne_Hathaway/archive1&oldid=1082400792"