Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Evita (1996 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 promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of accolades received by Evita (1996 film) edit

List of accolades received by Evita (1996 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —IB [ Poke ] 12:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this is a complete list of all the awards and the nominations received by the 1996 American musical film, Evita, based on the original musical and directed by Alan Parker. Please feel free to go through the article and let me know if you have any concern else if its free to be promoted as a featured list. Please note that this is my first nomination so I apologize before hand if I have made any mistakes —IB [ Poke ] 12:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
  • "The musical score for the film was composed by Rice and Webber"..... try using the active voice here: "Rice and Webber composed the film's musical score"
  • "Editing was done by Gerry Hambling and choreography was created by Vincent Paterson"..... same as before
  • "judged a 62 percent positive reception"..... reads awkwardly
  • Best Picture from Golden Globes and Satelitte Awards are worth including in lead
  • It would help to include some names of BAFTA noms

There isn't much to work on, thankfully. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SNUGGUMS: thanks for the important points and good catch with the active voice, it really made the flow better. If possible do check if the list looks fine now. —IB [ Poke ] 14:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. The bit on reception still reads awkwardly, though. Maybe go with "62% of them gave positive reviews". Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SNUGGUMS:, what about now? I think it gives clarity now. —IB [ Poke ] 15:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now support; everything looks good. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you :) —IB [ Poke ] 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • Ref formatting consistent.
  • Spotcheck - did so on about 10 sources and found source 7 to be unnecessary as it supports nothing.
  • This reveals no sign of copyvio, though it does score high on the IMDb source but they are all the titles of the categories.
  • No dead links.

Support - I made some tweaks, removed some unnecessary information and have provided a source review above with a question about a source. Other than that, it's a good list by an experienced editor. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FrB. The reference 7 I added to support the fact that ACE has listed the url for Ref 8 in their website. —IB [ Poke ] 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – However, there seems to be a script issue involved the "currentyear" in brackets in the lead's second paragraph. I would fix it myself but I'm afraid I don't necessarily see the problem. Carbrera (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Carbrera, but can you let me know what is the issue? Because I could not see any physical error in the article? —IB [ Poke ] 08:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*"did the cinematography", "did the production design" sounds too informal.
    • Done. Good catch and it was really informal.
  • Don't see the relevance of including inflation figures. I would just keep the raw figures from that time.
    • Would have to disagree with you in this one. I think a 20 year old film gives a good relevance regarding inflation of ticket prices and hash dollar value.
      • We should at least keep with the same number of significant figures for the inflation box office gross as the original. Cowlibob (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest rewording the Rotten Tomatoes sentence. "Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator surveyed 37 reviews and judged 62% to be positive."
    • Thanks for this suggestion.
  • Evita is unlikely to win any more awards now twenty years after release so I think the article can be written in past tense. Wouldn't use the word trophies. Perhaps "with particular recognition for....."
    • Amended this and removed the currentyear parm.
  • Philippe Turlure deserves a red link
  • Ken Weston, Nigel Wright deserve red links
    • Previous three done.
  • Any alternative source for the 1997 MTV Movie Awards, citing the ceremony itself makes it hard to verify.
    • I searched for it a lot, but except youtube videos and some newspapers again, I could not find it. So thought of using the direct ceremony itself since it was a televised event.
      • Sorry, got a working link from old MTV website and added it.
  • For the AFI awards I would list the dates when they were announced.
    • This is not available, only the year is available. This is true for some other awards also where its just the year available and not the actual date. The column name thus reflects that.
  • New York Daily News is a low quality paper any alternative ref?
    • Replaced.
  • FilmAffinity should be linked.
    • Done.
  • Any date for the British Society of Cinematographers awards?
    • See previous.

Cowlibob (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cowlibob: thanks for these comments as they did enhance the article. Please see the changes and my response to some of the comments. —IB [ Poke ] 10:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a very nice list, unfortunately it completely fails 3b of the criteria. This table can reasonably be included as part of this section. There is no WP:PAGESIZE problems that I can see. Even worse is that this list is larger than the original article. So, the table should be transferred to the main article's appropriate section. --Cheetah (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crzycheetah:, once the original article is expanded for GA, which it will be eventually, the list will be too large to be included there. This is a conscious decision to split the list of the article before such problem arises, and has been done for countless award articles for films. I would suggest you peruse of these kind of lists. —IB [ Poke ] 10:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance I would say that there is no 3b violation here: there is more tabulated information here than I would comfortably expect to see in an article. To ensure there are no problems in future, I'd remove the list on the Evita (1996 film) page and replace it with a prose paragraph or two with the general points and one or two of the key awards. Others may see it differently, of course... - Gavin (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just thinking of doing that Schrocat haha, and you commented here. Anyways, I believe the prose in the main article is better than the list like how I replaced with this edit. —IB [ Poke ] 10:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely no violation of FL criteria. Using prose in main article was also a good choice. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:18, 9 September 2016 (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/List_of_accolades_received_by_Evita_(1996_film)/archive1&oldid=1140391476"