Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film/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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:45, 10 March 2011 [1].

Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film edit

Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this list meets the criteria. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can see many issues here. A copyedit of the lead is needed and you may wish to check every item listed in my handy guide. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, quickfail please This is awful, sorry, and too far from the standards of FLC to be bothering with here. Just three examples for now:
    • The grammar in the lead section is foul. To take as examples the first and last sentences of the first paragraph, and the last sentence of the second paragraph, "The Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film is an annually on January awarded category", "Every year the ceremony presenting three nominees from three different countries", and "Woody Allen and Mel Gibson are the only one which films they have produced/directed were nominated twice." None of those make sense in English.
      • I put this list to the GOCE.
        • Which is, I think, an admission that it's not ready for FLC. We don't have time here to wait for a GOCE copy edit, as that's unfair on other FLCs and on reviewers. BencherliteTalk 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • For me the lead looks ok, but the GOCE team is very quick and will do it in a few days; more haste, less speed.
    • Directors should not sort by first name.
      • Why? I don't understand.
        • We sort by surname, not first name. Let me introduce you to {{sortname}}. BencherliteTalk 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I won't use this sortname. For example if I write "Bilie Hillie" and there are several "Billie Hillie"'s, for example "Billie Hillie (poker player)" or "Billie Hillie (car driver)" and I place the template {{sortname|Hillie|Billie}}, it goes me to "Billie Hillie". Also it is very compilicated, for example chinese names, as I don't know what is first/last. I think this template is very useless.
            • In that case you would use {{sortname|Billie|Hillie|Billie Hillie (director)}} -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Colour is being used to indicate something without an accompanying non-colour element.
      • I don't understand this too. I created a key to explain this; also why List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film have colored background (a FL!!!)???
        • Yes, but colour should not be used as the only method of showing something. It's quite a simple point, and one that you'll learn more about when you read TRM's handy guide, to which he has already referred you. Oh, and finding an FL that makes that mistake doesn't make it OK here. BencherliteTalk 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, but explain me how I should mark a winner, please?
  • Add a poor mixture of date formats in the references, a "National title in different countries" that makes no sense to me (why is the title different for only some of the films? What "different countries"?), a complete lack of indication as to what is sourcing the content of the table, an external link section before a references section - and I could go on (don't get me started on the flags) - but please stop and prepare properly before coming to FLC. FLC is not Peer Review, and until you can produce a list of FL quality without help I strongly suggest you take your lists there first. TRM is too polite, but I'm not (today, anyway). BencherliteTalk 20:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean with poor mixture of date formats? I have listed all countries that produced/directed the film. The sourcing is the official website! What is wrong with the flags? See the whole Grammy lists. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you've now fixed the date formats, so that's one fewer thing to complain about. As for the flags, let's take Dogville as an example. You use ten flags to illustrate the film's country. The article about the film uses none, because the documentation for {{Infobox film}} says this about the "|country =" field: "When using the field, do not use flag icons, as this places an unnecessary emphasis on nationality; see MOS:FLAG for a detailed rationale." And if the official website is being used as the source, it shouldn't be in a section marked "external links", because that title is reserved for material that is not used as a reference. BencherliteTalk 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I don't understand why you switched to its wiki article's infobox. I have actually found all these flags in the german wikipedia or IMDB or the official site of this film. And explain why all the grammy awards lists, with alot of flags, are FL now??? If you think you don't like it, please discuss not here, but for example MOS:FLAG; this is not the right place for such things.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to read {{sortname}} properly, then don't expect me to take your views about it seriously. If you're going to use IMDB as an unmentioned reference for your submissions, don't expect anyone to take them seriously. BencherliteTalk 22:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I try to do that tomorrow. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 23:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious comment please look at the link I gave to my handy guide. Read every note and check that your list meets the requirements. This list is definitely not ready for FLC, however some quick and radical changes may help. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will read this guide, but I think it is ready know (copyedited, added sortname, added refs). One thing: Should I translate the title, or is it OK so? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I replaced the background with ! scope="row"| in the winners' row, but the text is now center-aligned. Is this correct or should I center-align each nominees' cell too?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sorry, Pumpkin, looks like there's a lot of problems with this list. Comments: There's been a good amount of improvement but I still have a few concerns to sort out. Nomader (Talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The director sort doesn't work right. On one end it's "Woody Allen", on the other it's "Zhang Yimuo".
    • Mh, do you mean that chinese names should have another sorting?
      • Whoops, look like my computer did a fart or something. It's working just fine right now. No idea why there was a problem before, sorry. Nomader (Talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table is highly confusing. It's hard to tell who's won which year as the grayscale colors are extremely close together.
    • The prior layout had a blue background, but changed it to ! scope="row"| for each winners' row.
      • Putting the blue back was a good decision, it looks much better. I'd change the paragraph symbol to something that's more aesthetically pleasing but still meets WP:ACCESS-- maybe a "#" symbol? Nomader (Talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which film won, there should be a marker outside of colors and bold font that notes which film won. Maybe a dagger?
    • That's already in boldface; a dagger is already used, but I try to find a symbol. I am really confused now; some says the background should be avoided; some says I should use this code above.
      • You should really use both, and I see you've done that. I'd change the ¶ to a # symbol just out of accessability concerns and that the # symbol doesn't really have a meaningful connotation with it other than "the number symbol". Nomader (Talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are some films listed with foreign language titles, while others aren't? For example, The Queen appears to have a foreign language title even though it's in English, while Madagascar does not. There needs to be consistency.
    • Yes, that's the national title; The Queen is a co-production of UK, Italy, France. The title for Italy is "The Queen - La regina"; whereby in France and UK the national title is "The Queen". "Madagascar" was only produced in the USA and the name is "Madagascar".
  • The winning years seem to be centered and it looks to be out of whack.
    • Yes, right. That's this ! scope="row"| code; That's why I asked above about its usage here, but nobody replied since.
      • Sorry, I haven't really worked that much with wikicode. You might want to ask the user on their talk page for further comment. Nomader (Talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems unclear. Mel Gibson holds the most nominations for what? Isn't this nominations for various films?
    • For his produced/directed films. I don't know how to describe it better. You can put a suggestion here.I deleted it

For now, I think that's more then enough stuff to throw on the pile-- I don't want to add to the flames, but it needs a lot of work. Good luck, Pumpkin, we'll see how it goes. Nomader (Talk) 17:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll take another more detailed revisit the next time I get the chance, but the list has definitely improved from the first time I dropped by. Nice work-- I've struck my oppose. Nomader (Talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per MOS:BOLD, Bold shouldn't be used for emphasis. Only visual appeal on the article are the flags. Totally confused over why the winner is aligned tot he center. I'm concerned over the amount of red links in the Navbox. On another note the references have no language parameters. Afro (Talk) 00:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is the !scope="row"| code. Still waiting for consensus (it seems like the reviewer don't read my question above). I will create other articles later. Language parameter added.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I reverted this to where the winners' row are in a blue background and added a key describing what the background means. Additionally I added a second sign to mark the winner (but this is looking odd now).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You need to have something other than colour because people with colour blindness problems might not be able to see the colour, that's why you need to also have a symbol. Having said that, it would be enough to put the symbol against the film title, you don't need to have it in every single column...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally you could elaborate more on the lead, is it significant that some directors and/or producers have had more than one nomination for example? I would also like to clarify I'm still opposed per WP:FL? clearly seems to fail 5b. Afro (Talk) 17:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but I don't think a media file is a must have, is it? Also there are no free spaces to add pictures. I increased the lead.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So an image of Mel Gibson who's won the award twice wouldn't be appropriate? Afro (Talk) 15:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Use {{lang}} for foreign language phrases per WP:ACCESS.
    • done, but now there's no link.
  • "one of 20" would prefer "one of twenty" which MOSNUM allows in these sort of circumstances.
    • done
  • " It is the only category that honors non-Russian-language films." you need to re-iterate "It is the only category of the Golden Eagle Award that ..." because you've mentioned a different award ceremony in the meantime.
    • done
  • "was the film Amélie" you don't need "the film" because you've already established this is awarded to best film in a foreign language.
    • done
  • I don't think you need links to Germany and France in the lead.
    • OK
  • En-dash not hyphen for French name of The Queen.
    • done
  • Ref(s) col doesn't need to be sortable.
    • OK
  • Director should be Director(s) as several have multiple.
    • and publisher, too
  • "Titles in brackets" those are parentheses.
    • OK

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm struggling to see in refs [1] and [2] where "is one of the two most prestigious entertainment award ceremonies in Russia" is referenced.
    • But it is logical that they are the most prestigious awards for films; if Nika Award is the "Russian Academy Award" and the Golden Eagle the "Russian Golden Globe", that automatically means they are the most important.
      • But it's you saying they're "the two most prestigious" awards, you opinion based on what those refs say. Your point of view I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed sentence and replaced with a sentence about where, who and when.
  • "Each year, three nominees are selected from as many as three different countries." the table seems to contradict this as some years have many, many countries noted.
    • I don't understand you. It says "from different countries".
  • "Though infrequent, there have been occasions, such as in 2003, 2008, and 2010, when all three nominees came from the same country" again, the table disputes this, e.g. for 2003 it says France, Germany, Poland and UK as "Country" for The Pianist... this is confusing.
    • I am confused now too :/. Seems like the CE is not really great. But how to reword that?
      • I don't know. You have an inconsistency between what you're defining as "country" in the lead and "country" in the table. It needs to be fixed using reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of sounding like a cracked record and repeating myself, or things mentioned above that are still problems:
    • What's sourcing the list of countries from which the film comes? IMDB, as you say above? It's not the reference given in the refs column, if the year I chose at random (with the help of Google translate) is anything to go by.
      • No, mostly from its official site but also from its wiki article (mostly not the english wikipedia).
        • For <expletive of the language of your choice>'s sake, what on earth are you doing including information in a list based on what other Wikipedia articles say? That's a textbook example of the use of unreliable sources. Source the "countries" column properly and reliably, please. BencherliteTalk 15:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What on earth does "Each year, three nominees are selected from as many as three different countries" mean? It makes no sense at all in the context of, e.g., 2002 where the three films came from four countries in whole or in part, let alone 2003 where eleven countries apparently had a hand in the films.
      • Removed
  • Oh, and the names in the lead ought to be linked. BencherliteTalk 14:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Resolved comments from WFC
*
    • The editable parts of IMDb are effectively a Wiki, provided you have registered. As such, they cannot be considered reliable. There is therefore nothing sourcing the producers and countries whatsoever.
      • No need to "source" it; it is from the package of the film.
        • There is a need to source it, even if you claim it to be from the film packaging. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that there is no article on the awarding body, there should be a few sentences explaining why what that organisation comes up with is important. It's an important sounding name, but that's all a reader will know from this.
      • You can read it here...
        • There's not enough here for my tastes. I'm capping this not because I'm satisfied, but because there are other, more important issues to be dealt with before such minor things become worthy of debate. —WFC— 11:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the awarding body is notable in its own right, it should be redlinked.
    • I share Bencherlite's objection to the way "country" is used. It has nothing to do with flags, but the fact that I have no idea what "country" means in this context. Is Dogville considered an Austrian/Danish/Finnish/French/German/Dutch/Norweigan/Spanish/Finnish/British film? And are we accepting that, solely on the basis of poorly-defined IMDb links to the countries plus the say-so of the German Wikipedia?
      • Country means the countries that produced the film. IMDb is reliable, because it is a website from amazon, second it is wiki, but unlike wikipedia the editors are very dependable and no vandalism; in wikipedia there are much vandalism and sometimes bad editors. Also the editors review everything before they save it. The information about the actors, directors and other stuff is from the film package. For me IMDb is a very reliable website. Period.
        • It's not about if you think it's reliable, you need to prove it's reliable. Evidence should be provided that any dubious source meets the requirements of WP:RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The irrelevant countries have been removed, but it's still not clear exactly what "country" refers to. —WFC— 11:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No third party sourcing for the award. Obviously, a primary source will often be best to tell us who has won, and that's fine (although third party equivalents are preferable when known to exist). But following on from the previous two poinnts, there is no third party confirmation that anybody external to the awarding body and recipients take note of these awards.
      • That's because there are no third party sources... Also it is the official website.
        • It is always preferable to have third-party sources, and as WFCforLife says, we need evidence that the awards themselves are considered notable by anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—WFC— 07:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry I don't understand your oppose. Everything seems to be OK; if not the reviewers above would say the items you mentioned.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not true, all reviewers approach reviews from different points of view. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict with TRM) I've already made the point above that IMDB is not reliable, and I'll make it again. You just don't seem to get the need to have reliable sources for all the information you put in a featured list. Find a proper source for the films' "countries".
      • (edit conflict) I will find if I can.
      • I replaced with the imdb links with movies.yahoo.com links. Also I deleted some countries and just put the producing country.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ALT.
      • ok
    • National Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences of Russia is a redlink, and that's the awarding body. What WFC is saying is: unless you tell us why the NAMPASR is important and why its awards are important, why should a list of its awards be worth featuring? (Or, indeed, why should it be even included in Wikipedia?) Does the NAMPASR have coverage in independent reliable sources? Is there enough to write a proper article about it? Do its awards have coverage in independent reliable sources? The Oscars and the Golden Globes do, so lists of their awards will be fine. But if you are admitting that there are no third party sources for the awards, that does tend to suggest that nobody apart from the organisers has thought them worth mentioning in connection with the films. A Google search doesn't throw up many hits, and most of them are Wikipedia and its mirrors. But there may yet be something out there...
      • I am pretty sure you google'd in english; this here has much more results then this for example; and it includes another "Golden Eagle"s, for example the CINE Golden Eagle Award or the Chinese Golden Eagle Award. I can add youtube as a third-party source, but I am sure you will find it not reliable, won't you?
    • GreatOrangePumpkin, please don't get the idea that comments from the latest reviewer(s) aren't valid just because nobody mentioned them before. That's not how reviews work. You can't argue for approval on a particular point from silence.
    • This FLC has been running for two weeks now. It is still some distance from the standards of a featured list and it is draining reviewer time. All this ought to have been sorted out at Peer Review first. It ought to have been quickfailed. BencherliteTalk 11:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to revisit so that this can promoted soon as part of the nominator's campaign to progress into the second round of the Wikicup. I'm not going to support without some attempt to address the issue about whether these awards are notable. A lack of Google hits in English for an award given to a number of English-language films does tend to suggest that nobody in film or journalism cares about these awards, and without third-party sources for the notability of these awards, Wikipedia shouldn't care about them either. BencherliteTalk 14:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first round was already finished; you are a bit late. There are a lot of third-party sources; I put one some days ago.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about my comment above, where I said there are no third-party sources. I was at that moment a little bit irritated, that after at least one month another reviewed this list and gave an oppose. How much third-party sources should I include to prove that this awards are important?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any third-party sources about the awards would be a start... As far as I can tell, you've added third-party sources about the films' countries, but not about the award itself. BencherliteTalk 14:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two references in one cell in the "Ref(s)" column; one third-party and one to the official website. The Yahoo! link is the second third-party source.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:11, 3 March 2011 (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/Golden_Eagle_Award_for_Best_Foreign_Language_Film/archive1&oldid=1061972591"