Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/29th Golden Raspberry Awards/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 Matthewedwards 22:48, 16 May 2009 [1].

29th Golden Raspberry Awards edit

Nominator(s): Cirt (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I've recently done a bit of work on this page, and got some great pointers at a peer review, which also helped to improve it further. I present it here for consideration for WP:FL status. I'll do my best to address comments. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the heading of the image column should say "image"—Chris! ct 04:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cirt (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look pretty good, I'll support.—Chris! ct 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5
Comments from KV5
  • " Nominations were announced on January 21, 2009, and The Love Guru was the most nominated film of 2008 with seven nominations." - nominations repeated a lot, suggested reword: Nominations were announced on January 21, 2009; The Love Guru was the most nominated film of 2008, with seven.
  • Unless there is a specific rationale for doing otherwise, references should be in numerical order (e.g., "The most nominated film of 2008 was box-office bomb The Love Guru, with seven nominations.[7][1] Award results were based on votes from approximately 650 journalists, cinema fans, and professionals from the film industry.[8][1]").
  • "'An actor" - "an" should not be captialized
  • It may be MSIE, but I'm seeing some issues with the table; however, nothing looks wrong with the syntax as far as I can see.
  • Bold is used improperly throughout the table (see MOS:BOLD). Rather than using boldface text, use a symbol like an asterisk to accompany your colored win rows to satisfy WP:ACCESS.

Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Implemented all suggestions by Killervogel5 (talk · contribs), except for the last one. About the bolding: this was suggested by Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) at the peer review, see Wikipedia:Peer review/29th Golden Raspberry Awards/archive1. It is also a common formatting usage used in multiple other Featured Lists relating to film awards, see for example BAFTA Award for Best Film, Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score, and List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film. Cirt (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's common doesn't mean it's right. The current usage is contrary to the MOS, and there's no reason to break the rules here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me a Featured List that uses the format you are suggesting? Cirt (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can show you several. They are not film-related, but List of Philadelphia Phillies team records, List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons, Silver Slugger Award, and many other lists that I have worked on have been updated to meet these criteria. They use symbols to accompany color per WP:ACCESS, and the boldface text was removed from the seasons list because it doesn't follow MOS. All of the lists you mentioned were promoted before the beginning of 2008; the criteria have changed significantly since that time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bolding removed from the winners, see [2]. Cirt (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A symbol is required to accompany the color, and bolding should be removed from the first column as well. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. [3], and Done. [4]. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers and well done. I support this list's promotion per WP:WIAFL. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak oppose (and forgive me if I cover something that's been mentioned, dealt with and dismissed beforehand!)
    1. Any images available for the award in the infobox? Tried Commons and/or Flickr?
    2. "Award results were based on votes from approximately 650 journalists, cinema fans, and film professionals from the United States and 19 other countries." - is this cited anywhere? And for a non-expert, how are these voters selected?
    3. "...set by actor Eddie Murphy ..." 'actor' is redundant here.
    4. Mamma Mia could be linked in the lead as that's the first occurrence of the title.
    5. (aside) Is "Barnsdall Gallery Theatre" worth writing an article about? Is it notable enough?
    6. "...and per Razzies tradition..." not keen on "per", maybe "and according to Razzies tradition..."? No biggie...
    7. "US$4.97" just link $ to US$, it's fairly implicit, i.e. $.
    8. "Worst Picture" was the... - first time you put an award category in quotations...
    9. "... set by actor Eddie Murphy the previous year..." - again, no need for "actor" here.
    10. Consider reducing the lead a bit, there are many virtually verbatim repetitions of the lead in the subsequent sections.
    11. "John Wilson commented..." you omitted "John" before, no real need here to insert it.
    12. The key isn't quite right - it should be "winner" with a blue background and the asterisk (my markup isn't good enough to express this!).
    13. Also, consider moving the asterisk to the actual winner (i.e. not next to the movie name, next to the actor name for actor categories) -no big deal though.
    14. "(sequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade)" not required in the table, perhaps make it a footnote?
    15. "rip-off" - be careful using this term, it has seriously negative connotations. Any way you can say the same thing in less potentially inflammatory terms?
    16. Is midquel a real word? Could use an article or linking to something that explains what it means.
    17. ("Germany's answer to Ed Wood")* - could use a citation.
    18. I would move References to above Notes as you assume in notes 16 and 17 we know what references to "Wilson" mean...
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to The Rambling Man

Thank you for these above comments. I will work on addressing them and note here when done. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yes, I am currently getting some help and am in touch with someone to work on getting some free-use images.
  2. Done. Please see WP:LEAD - this is cited later in the article. I added info on how one may become eligible to vote, per secondary sources.
  3. Done. Removed "actor".
  4. Done. Changed linking to the earlier occurrence.
  5. Response to aside: "Barnsdall Gallery Theatre" - I did a search on this term for hits in books, news, etc., but did not come up with much, if someone else wants to try to write the article and make a case for notability I can of course help out, but at this point in time I am not sure WP:NOTE would be satisfied for that.
  6. Done. Changed to "according to".
  7. Done. Changed to simply "$".
  8. Done. Removed quotes.
  9. Done. Removed "actor".
  10. Done. Trimmed down the lede a bit.
  11. Done. Removed "John".
  12. Response: This is the way it is done as per {{Legend}}, and above Killervogel5 (talk · contribs) said it was satisfactory.
    Okay, I'll see if I can improve my markup ability to fix this for you, as it currently doesn't reflect what the table says... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I have fixed this, is this now satisfactory? Cirt (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In my best New York accent, Poifect. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Done.
  14. Done. Removed.
  15. Done. Removed.
  16. Done. Removed.
  17. Done. Added cite.
  18. Response: Notes subsection is always before References subsection, as per WP:LAYOUT. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think your Notes section really is a References section... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [5] = Better? Cirt (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bingo!, or Support! Cirt has produced a great list but, more importantly, acted positively on advice and created an excellent list. Fab. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • I think you need to mention that people need to pay for the membership in order to vote. Right now, it says that if you visit the website you can vote as if there's a poll on the website or something.
    • Can you remove "center" from all images in the table. It makes all images overlap with the "recipient" column in the IE browser.

--Crzycheetah 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. and Done. The fact that individuals must pay to become members is already stated - See the beginning of the sentence Paid members of the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation... Cirt (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I offered my suggestions at the peer review. This list has only improved since then. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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/29th_Golden_Raspberry_Awards/archive1&oldid=1143879520"