Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Friends/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) 00:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Friends edit

List of awards and nominations received by Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friends is a classic TV show, and now this list can be an actually useful resource to those reading about the show. (Seriously, go read the old lead – it was basically incomprehensible.) It took a lot of work digging through Internet Archive and online databases to find sources, but I'm very satisfied with the result and confident it's ready for FL status. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass edit

  • Version reviewed — 1
Formatting
  • For multiple combined referenced, can we have a semi colon separating them, or is it fine the way it is?
    • I agree that the current format can sometimes be unclear, but I haven't been able to find a better option. Semicolons would look like this: [1]. It works, but the semicolon isn't super obvious; the line break is clearer. I tried using Template:Multiref2 in response to your suggestion, but it seems to mess up the formatting – compare [2] to [3]. I could also try bullet points like [4], similar to a few of the notes in the lead, but the tradeoff there is that it makes the footnote taller by indenting and by adding a line to the top of every footnote (even if I didn't type anything there, it would still be a blank line). What do you think is best?
      • I personally like the bullet points, but it looks good only if used for limited citations; but in this case, when almost half citations are multiple sources, its better to leave it as it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Ref#78, could we have a link to "Factiva aprs000020010709dx1o02j9w"?
    • I don't know if there's an easy way to do it – since that ID template doesn't add the link automatically while other ID templates do, I don't think it's really possible.
      • If you have the link, you can probably pipe it. Rest, no issues... – 05:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
        • I've added a link. Because my account is through a university, I can't log in through that link to check that it works, but I'm fairly confident it does. At any rate, the ID is the same. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest, all the citations are consistent in formatting.
Reliability
  • Overall, no issues.
Verifiability
Footnotes
  1. ^ Davies, Jonathan (January 11, 1996). "Jokes on them: NBC, Fox top comedy noms". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 340, no. 30. pp. 1, 57. ProQuest 2467875116;
    Davies, Jonathan (February 12, 1996). "'Shorty' gets comedy honors". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 341, no. 2. pp. 3, 32. ProQuest 2467933942.
  2. ^ Davies, Jonathan (January 11, 1996). "Jokes on them: NBC, Fox top comedy noms". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 340, no. 30. pp. 1, 57. ProQuest 2467875116.
    Davies, Jonathan (February 12, 1996). "'Shorty' gets comedy honors". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 341, no. 2. pp. 3, 32. ProQuest 2467933942.
  3. ^
  4. ^ Multiple sources:

Support from Pamzeis edit

While I mostly support this list for promotion, I have a few comments. I've never watched the show so forgive me for any obvious mistakes.

  • The show follows the six main characters as they live and work in New York City — reads rather awkwardly to me. Perhaps replace "as they live and work" with "living and working"?
    • How about "the characters' personal and professional lives in New York City"?
  • Also, I think "main" is redundant as I would not expect a show to not follow the main characters.
    • Removed.
  • In 2002, Friends won [...]/in 1998 [...] — MOS:EASTEREGG?
  • before receiving the group's Heritage Award — what group?
    • Clarified that it's the TCA Heritage Award.

That's it. Best of luck with this list! Pamzeis (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! Comments above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis: I realized I never pinged you to let you know I'd made the changes you suggested; while you've already supported it, it would be great to know if the changes I've made were in line with what you were thinking. Thanks! RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The list looks great! Again, best of luck with this list! Pamzeis (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table; Art Directors Guild Awards and ASCAP Film and Television Music Awards both link to redirects, and this can be an issue for some reviewers. You may want to check the table links.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. Sourcing: see the source review above. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. There are no issues with the logo.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. Btw, I didn't catch this one sooner because the nominations viewer tool was reporting it as having 3 supports already (it had 2). I don't know why. - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! Regarding the redirects, I went with those over linking to specific sections of articles because they tend to be a little more stable – if a header changes, the section link is broken, and it's easier to update one redirect to point to the right location instead of updating a range of articles. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dank: It's because the nominations viewer counts both bolded supports/opposes and supports/opposes in section headers, so Pamzeis's support is counted twice since they did both. It's a bit of a pain, but we haven't wanted to try to enforce a style on all reviewers just to make the automated count on a tool most people don't use be more accurate. --PresN 15:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Makes sense ... I"ll check manually for support totals going forward. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review – The only image in the article is a logo that is public domain due to not meeting the threshold for originality. This aspect of the article seems okay to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 9 December 2021 (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_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Friends/archive1&oldid=1060016067"