Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series/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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series edit

Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):Caringtype1 and SoapFan12 23:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets every one of the Featured List criteria. There are plenty of reliable sources, and the information is presented in a clear and understandable way. Many issues and problems have been addressed in the months of improvements made to the article since then. We feel this article more than qualifies for Featured List status. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved. SoapFan12 23:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Looks great! Well referenced and written. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! SoapFan12 Talk smile 00:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This list is well structured, written, and easy to understand. Barring slight differences, it is consistent with your previous revisions to other Daytime Emmy acting awards lists. Great work!
-Birdienest81 (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It's actually a Daytime Emmy Award, not simply an Emmy Award but you need to be careful not to make the opening sentence too repetitive.
     Done. SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " This award has been given" -> "It is given..." (assuming it's still active).
     Done. SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the early years in which this award was presented" not great for me, a little vague and non-encyclopedic.
     Done. SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recipient of this award, who won for her" -> "recipient of this award for her..."
     Done. SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One Life to Live has the most recipients of this award" no, actresses who were in One Life to Live have received the award the most, not the show itself.
    I do not understand what I have to change. So, I will tell you what the sentence means, it means that there is more actresses who won for their role on One Life to Live than any other soaps in this category. It doesn't mean that every actresses in the show, has won the award more than once. For example, Erika Slezak has won six award in this category, she is a cast member in One Life to Live, therefore their is five more actresses from the show who has the award, get me now? SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean "One Life to Live is the show with the most awarded actresses" or similar. Basically, the award is presented to actresses, not shows, so saying "One Life to Live has the most recipients..." is a little odd for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. SoapFan12 17:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the most winning actress" yuck, maybe "has won the most awards"
     Done. SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "holding the title with six wins" what title?
     Done. SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Susan Lucci has the most nominations in this category, with a total of twenty-one" -> "Susan Lucci has been nominated on 21 occasions, more than any other actress."SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
*Comments from Crisco 1492
  • The awards ceremony had not been aired on television for the prior two years, having been criticized for voting integrity. - Huh? This was out of nowhere. Your last date was 1974, the first Daytime Emmys
    • TBH, I don't see the issue here.
      •  Done. Caringtype1 (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. Soaps, the issue was that you are essentially saying "the awards ceremony had not been broadcast on television for two years prior to its inauguration because of criticism of voter integrity" (i.e. it was criticised before it had even started). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the introduction of a new category, Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series , - when?
  •  Done. SoapFan12 19:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry Now, it's  Done. SoapFan12 12:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the very basic issues I found (see my copyedit), I question the review quality of the above supports (I mean "The award first occured since the 1st Daytime Emmy Awards ceremony in 1974."? That's just torture to read) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'm holding on the support until another reviewer takes a look at prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "In 1995, Erika Slezak became the actress with the most wins in the category when she won a fourth time, surpassing Helen Gallagher's record tally of three; she went on to win in two additional years, ultimately receiving six wins." How is three a "record tally"? It appears the record is six. Do you mean "previous record"? After the semi-colon, who is "she", Slezak or Gallagher?
  •  Done. SoapFan12 Talk page here smile 22:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No free picture of the award itself? I just found several on Flickr, all high resolution. Surely someone who edits Emmy award articles can manipulate images. A picture of an Emmy at the top of the infobox would look fantastic. Never mind, any likeness of the statue is copyrighted apparently. Ridiculous, but such is U.S. copyright law. Rejectwater (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it Underlinking to have no links at all in the "Multiple wins" and "Multiple nominations" tables? Everything in the "Series with most awards" table is linked.
  • No, I have removed the links from "Series with Most wins", they are all linked in the table, no need to do it again after the table.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rejectwater (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Underlinking: No, as it's already linked in the above table. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to leave these two open for now in the hopes others will comment on this as I am not sure about it. Rejectwater (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from Rejectwater

  • All image alt texts start with "A women". Poor grammar. Should be "A woman".
  • Cynthia Watros image has no alt text.
  • None of the double daggers used in the table have alt text. Each should have text such as "Award winner" or something similar.

Rejectwater (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it Overlinking for all names of actresses, networks, and show titles to be linked every time in the table? Rejectwater (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beleive it is not overlinking since if a reader needs to look for a particular year, it will be difficult. Also, in the featured lists

([2], [3]), they do it the same way. SoapFan12 Talk page here smile 22:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it's over linking to link in a table with separate entries for separate years. I think how we have it is fine.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking: Likely, as this table is not sortable (and thus what you see is what you get, all the time), so there is no chance that an unlinked version will be placed in front of a linked version during sorting.Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I remove the overlinking for the article, IMO it would lack of visual appeal. Plus, it is extra work, for no reason. Plus, a support and oppose should be based on the featured list criteria not based on this. SoapFan12 Talk page here smile 23:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is part of the criteria. Number 5 to be precise: "It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." I do, however, concur that underlinking is not an issue. Rejectwater (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay fine. But still, it would lack of serious visual appeal. I believe it should be left alone. SoapFan12 Talk page here smile 00:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing the extra links would have no negative impact on visual appeal. Not all entries in the table are currently linked as it is: take "Maeve Ryan" for instance, plain black text, looks fine. Rejectwater (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I believe it should be left alone. Also, I have talked to a delegate and he said that it depends on personal and reviewer preferences. Me and my co-nominator (personal) believe it should be left alone and You (reviewer) says it shouldn't. I disagree, removing the extra links would have negative impact on visual appeal. SoapFan12 Talk page here smile 01:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly we can agree to disagree. I am going to leave the overlinking portion of this discussion open for others to consider. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking in tables is the only thing I've been concerned about these lists. I have to agree that it is definitely over linking. No need to repeat linking of the show and actress, IMO. I also don't see how it would negatively affect the visual appeal. Also just pointing out something small. If everything is linked in the "Winners and nominees", why isn't everything linked in all of the other tables? Kind of inconsistent, for me personally.Arre 01:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still disagree. But if I need the remove the extra links and I would need help from all of you guys, since this is kind of work I am not ready for. SoapFan12 Talk page here smile 02:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, why can it just not be left alone? Let's move on, this is way too much work for me. Plus, I will go with what the delegate told me, if I prefer being overlinked, it will be overlinked. SoapFan12 Talk page here smile 02:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to add that it would make the visual look of the table appear inconsistent and potentially confusing to readers. A reader looking for just this year's nominees would wonder why some names were linked and others weren't.Caringtype1 (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492 said, the only tables that are greenlit for overlinking are sortable ones. Therefore, I have made the table sortable. So this, should be left alone now. SoapFan12 Talk smile 20:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This actually creates more problems. Overlinking is no longer an issue, true, but the sorting doesn't work very well. In my browser nothing works after one or two clicks and even then nothing sorts in any order that makes sense. Getting a large and complex table like this one to sort properly can be a huge undertaking. I did one recently and found pretty much everything (not references, the refs column should be set as unsortable) had to be held inside the {{sort}} template. I think you're better off leaving it as a regular table. I'll consider the whole thing resolved once you change it back (unless you want to make the sorting work, of course). Rejectwater (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. Thanks! I have change it back! Can you resolve now?  — SoapFan12 Talk smile 23:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Lemonade51 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have been resolved. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I can see no issues whatsoever. This is a very good list. Congratulations to all involved. -- CassiantoTalk 23:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JDC808
  • Support as per comments below. --JDC808 ♫ 20:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good. I have one comment about the lead. There's a slight bit of repetition in the very first sentence (Daytime Emmy Award is used twice when it could be used once).
    • "The Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series is a Daytime Emmy Award presented annually by..." This can be fixed by doing this "The Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series is an award presented annually by..."
      •  Done. SoapFan12 Talk smile 20:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, looks good and I don't have an issue with the overlinking that was brought up, particularly because it's a table, not prose. --JDC808 ♫ 20:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am a bit worried over the fact that all the supports this has received come from the nominator canvassing asking other users to comment. See [4], [5], [6], [7]. I was also asked to comment here and Hahc21 (talk · contribs) was also and was later even asked to promote this.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's fine since the purpose of those comments were to get more reviews comments, not necessarily support. I don't believe my co-nominator, SoapFan12 was trying to do anything shady or insinuate something like, "I'll support yours, if you support mine." It was all in the interest of getting more feedback to improve the article.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Caringtype1. It's not canvassing if you keep the request perfectly neutral. I believe I kept it neutral. Furthermore, why? I would of love if you send me on my e-mail. Are you deliberately trying to embarass me? I could lose a lot of user friends because of this. I really do not appreciate this, please respect me. Also, I asked them if they are willing and if they said ″no″. I would respect that decision. I don't see asking people for reviews, a problem. I was not asking for a support. But thank you for warning me, I will stop asking. I never thought I was doing something wrong. SoapFan12 Talk smile 21:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly wrong, however, I feel as if the amount is a bit over-the-top (also considering the fact that many people you asked to comment just supported and didn't leave any comments). I personally don't believe in requesting comments from other users unless the FLC is dead and is in a desperate need for them; this FLC has been open for not even two weeks. I'm not trying to embarrass you.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay. Thanks again for warning me and sharing you're opinion! You know what, I happen to agree with you ( only request comments from other users unless the FLC is dead and is in a desperate need for them). It's sometimes, you feel that you want you're list to pass for featured status ASAP. Like Caringtype1 said, I was not trying to do anything shady or insinuate something like, "I'll support yours, if you support mine". Thanks again! SoapFan12 Talk smile 21:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think 6 days is "dead". 20 days, maybe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Crisco, but I believe I know what Status meant by "dead".  — SoapFan12 Talk smile 23:46, 26 July 2013 (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/Daytime_Emmy_Award_for_Outstanding_Lead_Actress_in_a_Drama_Series/archive1&oldid=1079643796"