Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Soundgarden awards/archive1

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 User:The Rambling Man 06:57, 13 August 2008 [1].

List of Soundgarden awards edit

Ready for nomination :). --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got much help from -5-.

Comments
- The LA times link you use in ref [3] doesn't cover all the awards listed. It also says "Pretty Noose" was nominated for the 1996 Grammy's, not 1997.
  - It would be impossible for "Pretty Noose" to have been nominated in 1996. The 1996 Grammys took place in February of that year, while the song wasn't released until May of that year. So, it has to be 1997. Here is footage of Cornell at the 1997 ceremony.-5- (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I found a source for the missing awards that covers both. One was Best Rock Album for Superunknown and the other was Best Rock Song for "Black Hole Sun".-5- (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As The Rambling Man said to me regarding references on The White Stripes discography, can you find more direct links for refs [1] and [2] instead of search engines? Red157(talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand, these are the primary sources for these certifications/awards. There's no better place to get RIAA certifications than the official RIAA website, and likewise for the Clio Awards there's no better place than the official website.-5- (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It just needs a direct link like this (For RIAA). And what's happened to the infobox? Red157(talk • contribs) 00:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I changed the RIAA link to the link that you provided, and added an additional reference for the Clio Award.-5- (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looks good to me. Will hold off supporting it pending more comments, as I'm kind of new to this reviewing thing. Red157(talk • contribs) 11:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- No image? Shame.
  - That's out of our control. There's no free images on the internet currently available. It doesn't help that the band broke up over ten years ago.-5- (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Didn't say it was in your control, it would be nice to have an image, that's all. Have you tried Flickr and Commons as well? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, they have been checked, and nothing is currently available for use.-5- (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The album would be nominated" - it "was" nominated.
  - Addressed.-5- (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not impressed by the lead. It's basically a list of facts (which could be a bullet point list) with full stops instead of bullet points. There's no real flow to the prose.
  - Well, at least its factual. That's a good thing, right? Would you point us in the direction of a good "List of awards by..." lead, This lead doesn't seem to be better or worse than the leads for List of Linkin Park awards and List of The Killers awards.-5- (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No point in referring to other lists, I'm reviewing this one and I'm saying the lead fails criteria 1 and 2 of WP:WIAFL, namely "Prose. It features professional standards of writing. " and "Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list." note "professional standards" and "engaging lead".
      - I had a look over it, should be a little better now. Skomorokh 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Platinum or platinum?
  - In all of the album articles that I've worked on that were eventually elected to good article status, platinum was changed to "Platinum". See Ten (Pearl Jam album) or Vitalogy.-5- (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So be consistent within this article - you have both varities of p/Platinum. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - All capitalised now. Skomorokh 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does the 1984 formation get referenced?
  - Comprehensive histories of the band added as refs. Skomorokh 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Same for the rest of the first paragraph.
  - See above. Skomorokh 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "They are awarded in a number of fields, including: TV, Print, Outdoor, Radio, Integrated Campaign, Innovative Media, Design, Internet, Content & Contact, and Student work. " - what relevance to this list? At the very, very most, this is a footnote. Nothing more.
  - Addressed.-5- (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "to celebrate the top music videos of the year" - is this a quote from the award organisers? If so then it needs to be in quotes, otherwise its POV/peacock nonsense.
  - How come this wasn't an issue for List of Linkin Park awards and List of The Killers awards? Those are two featured lists and it says the same exact thing.-5- (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Things change - it should be an issue for those lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's just a little strange that those were made featured lists within the past month, and you were involved in the review process for both lists. How is someone supposed to know what makes a featured list for this type of article when those that have reached featured-status aren't even worthy of that status? Just curious, that's all...-5- (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's down to evolving (and improving) standards. It shouldn't be difficult to solve. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Addressed.-5- (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 6 doesn't mention Soundgarden at all.
  - Yes it does. You have to click on "Winners". There's no way to direct link to the Winners section, but Soundgarden is definately there.-5- (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You had to tell me how to get that information so the citation is not adequate. Find another citation where I don't need to click around. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Addressed.-5- (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty Noose Grammy isn't referenced by [4] or [5]. Not even sure of the point of [5].
  - It certainly is referenced in [4]. In fact, it's the very first thing shown. It says "1996", but that's only when the nomination was given. The ceremony took place in 1997. It would have been impossible for a song released in May 1996 to have been nominated for the 1996 awards, held in February 1996.-5- (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I found another reference for the "Pretty Noose" Grammy nomination that clearly says "1997 Grammy Awards" and spells the song correctly.-5- (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Clio awards, the reference says "Soundgarden's "Black Hole Sun" and Hole's "Violet" videos have won silver Clio Awards in the alternative category, " - so Silver, not Gold? Doesn't sound the same as "Won" to me.
  - I changed it to "Silver Award - Alternative Music Video", if that's preferable. The reference agrees with them having "won" that award.-5- (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 2 just links to a search page which is of no use.
  - Okay, it's been removed.-5- (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks really good. My only complaint is that the year columns should be centered. And yeah, it would be nice to get a picture in there, but if not that's fine too. Drewcifer (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I addressed your concern about the years being centered, but I'm not entirely sure.-5- (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, what about stuff like this? Seems pretty important. I recommend something a la List of Nine Inch Nails awards. Drewcifer (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only question I have is what are the notable publications to include and what should be excluded?-5- (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I would say that if a good indication would be whether the publication has an article. If it's notable enough to have it's own article, then it's probably notable if they give such an acclaim. And vice versa. I think it's fair to say that a list like this will never be complete (since we can never include all of the lesser-known awards in the world), so I think it's okay to cherry pick the most notable miscellaneous awards and such. Drewcifer (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the response.-5- (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, addressed.-5- (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, looks great. One more complaint: I'm not sure what the mentions of the album's going platinum have to do with the actual list, since certifications aren't mentioned at all here. I think you should keep the lead focused on the awards. And now that you have an extra section, you need to mention some of those in the lead as well. Drewcifer (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed.-5- (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great. Drewcifer (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.