Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Up in the Air/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 Dabomb87 23:39, 20 August 2010 [1].

List of accolades received by Up in the Air edit

List of accolades received by Up in the Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dan Dassow (talk), JuneGloom07 Talk? , Courcelles (talk)

We are nominating List of accolades received by Up in the Air for featured list because it meets the six criteria for a featured list: prose, comprehensiveness, structure, style and stability. The article is well written and features professional standards of writing. The lead provides a brief description of Up in the Air (film), the venues in which it was shown and the nominations and awards which it has received. The lead clearly defines the scope and inclusion criteria. The article comprehensively addresses all of the nominations and awards that Up in the Air received with proper citation. The length of the list is appropriate for the subject, provides suitable supplementary information to the main article and does not duplicate information. The list is easy to navigate through and includes helpful section headings. The list fully complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and color. There are no red-linked items. The picture of Vera Farmiga on the red carpet at the 82nd Academy Awards is freely licensed and helps to illustrate the article. The article is stable. The content has not changed significantly during the last few weeks. Dan Dassow (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.stlfilmcritics.com/awards.html is dead. Ucucha 05:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for pointing this out. I've removed the dead link which is a citation for the St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association. I will replace the citation when I find one that is suitable. --Dan Dassow (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed, simple typo. They use a .org website, and somehow it got put in as a .com. Courcelles (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just resolved two re-directed links by replacing them with the equivalent non-redirecting links for citations. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (creator of list) List meets all criteria and has been polished by the editors nominating this list. Opening gives a thorough summary of the film's awards season. Everything is checked and very well referenced. I cannot find anything to nitpick about. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 04:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure if other film accolades articles feature this spacing issue, but the dates column is compressed strangely if the browser window is compressed horizontally. (Just a minor observation.) — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 04:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, despite my best efforts, I was unable to duplicate the problem you documented. I tried both IE and Firefox. Which browser did you use? Thank you for your support. --Dan Dassow (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using Google Chrome. I meant to say that the dates are expanded, not compressed. My date format is month day, year (like "March 7, 2010"). It is honestly not a big deal though, and certainly not a problem at all in its current state. Cheers. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 14:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Over its entire theatrical run" can you tell me how long this was so I can put the takings into context?
    • The U.S./Canada run was 18 weeks, added. I'm afraid there's not such a neat timeframe for the foreign box office, due to scattered release dates. Courcelles (talk)
  • Last sentence first para + first sentence second para both have "earned" so reads repetitively for me.
  • "The film received six Academy Award nominations and Farmiga and Kendrick both received nominations for best supporting actress, though the film failed to win any of the awards" -> "nominations with Farmiga and Kendrick both receiving nominations.." to avoid and..and perhaps?
  • Some award names are capitalised, some aren't, is that for a reason?
  • "Vera Farmiga, Best Actress nominee in a Supporting Role " should that be "Best Actress in a Supporting Role nominee"?
  • Dates in references should all be in the same format per WP:MOS (e.g. look at ref 15).

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - it seems to meet all the required criteria. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 19:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - no complaints here. It meets the required criteria from what I can see. Great work. Mike Allen 05:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Checklinks: List of accolades received by Up in the Air is incorrectly showing references 33, 43, 53, 58, 59 as dead links. These are all from altfg.com. Checklinks had shown these as active links in the past. I just checked these links manually and they loaded properly. Are there known issues with checklinks pinging a web server too quickly and getting spurious results? --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list is commendable! "Lead" section looks like a good overview of the awards, and the list looks comprehensive and well-referenced. I have a couple of suggestions. First, rename "Awards and nominations" to "Accolades" because film circles are more about "honors" than any kind of tangible award given to someone. "Accolades" was meant to encompass that kind of recognition. Secondly, we do not need the color scheme of green for winners and red for non-winners. While I understand its application, the colors' meanings may vary by culture. I think it would be more universal to be without color and rely only on "Won"/"Nominated", which is easy to differentiate. As an example, List of accolades received by American Beauty suffices without using the color for the awards. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erik, I wish to thank you for your comments. Regarding renaming "Awards and nominations" to "Accolades", I am assuming you are referring to the section in the main article Up in the Air (film), since this child article already has the title "List of Accolades …". Regarding using color to highlight wins and nominations, even List of accolades received by American Beauty uses green and red in the info box. I personally prefer using color coding, but understand the problems with using red and green or other contrasting colors to indicate wins and nominations. As you mention, there may be cultural differences where red and green have reversed meaning. Likewise, people with red-green color blindness cannot distinguish between the two colors. If there is a standard for this kind of list, I would prefer to follow that standard. If not, I would like other people's thoughts on this matter before making any changes. --Dan Dassow (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm referring to the "Awards and nominations" section in List of accolades received by Up in the Air. It's a list of accolades, which is a wider category than just award wins and nominations. That is why I mentioned film circles and their honors. The article is titled "List of accolades..." and the section heading should be "Accolades" as in, here they are now. As for the color scheme, I don't think there's a best practice with its use. Just depends on what works best. I'm grudgingly fine with color in the infobox, but I think that color all the way down the right of the table is a bit much. Color blindness should not be an issue, anyway -- it only applies to where the contrast might be problematic, and I'm pretty sure that black on pink and light green is readable anyway. I just don't find it necessary for readability. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Erik's recommendation, I've change the section heading in Up in the Air (film) changed to "Accolades". I will wait for a few days regarding Erik's suggestion regarding color pending other comments. --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the level 2 header in List of accolades received by Up in the Air to be consistent with the article's title which, I think, is what Erik was getting at. :) I'm not a nominator or anything, just a helpful talk page stalker :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find the colour useful, as it allows more glancing reference than having to focus and read the word in the last column. Further,t here are eight existing FL's of the type, only one of which; List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men doesn't use the colour scheme. That one is also the (I think) oldest of the promotions, and the only one without an infobox. Further, the colours are part of the template calls used to construct these lists, Template:Nom and Template:Won. Courcelles 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC) (ETA: List of accolades received by American Beauty is, IMO, not a valid comparison, as the list is not an FL, and while the lede is well-written, the list is not ready to make an appearance at FLC; though it likely could be within a few days, if anyone wanted to do the work.) Courcelles (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Meets the required criteria. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:39, 18 August 2010 (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_Up_in_the_Air/archive1&oldid=1141921103"