Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Sephiroth BCR 23:12, 10 February 2009 [1].

Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama edit

Notified: Legionarius, WP:PRIZE, WP:FILM ♦ KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FL criteria
  • 1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
Fails Cr.1. There is very little prose to judge, but what is there no longer meets the criteria for FLs; for example, it begins with "This page lists...".
  • 2. Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list.
Fails Cr.2. The lead section does nothing to engage the readers and barely explains the list. A more in-depth coverage of the award and its history is needed.
  • 3. Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries.
Passes Cr.3.; however, an issue has been raised at the talk page questioning the factual accuracy. I haven't checked the entries myself. The 2008 section is also incomplete.
  • 4. Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities.
Fails Cr.4.2. Sort facilities are not included and could be easily worked in, though the table structure would have to be re-thought.
  • 5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
Fails Cr.5. One glaring example is the title, which uses a spaced em-dash. This is in violation of WP:DASH. WP:BOLDFACE is violated in the table, as are WP:COLOR and WP:ACCESS (also part of Cr.6).
  • 6. Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text; and it has a minimal proportion of red links.
Fails Cr.6. The table should have a key; currently, the "key" is part of the lead, which emphasizes further the shortcomings of this list. The color problem was mentioned above, and there are no images at all, even though one was associated with this article on the Main Page today.
  • 7. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
Passes Cr. 7.

Failure of 5½ out of the 7 criteria is more than grounds for a removal nom. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Golden Globe Award for Best Director — Motion Picture also fails all of the above criteria; indeed, it is almost identical. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably won't have time to save this myself, but I have addressed the concerns you made at Cr.3 (including the talk page thing). Another problem is I am not enough of a film buff to know which producers to list. For example, the "American Gangster" entry only lists Grazer as producer, whereas it article lists Ridley Scott, Brian Grazer, James Whitaker, Steven Zaillian, and Nicholas Pileggi all as producers. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:DASH says If used in an article's title, there should be a redirect from the version with a hyphen. -- The dash here is fine, so long as a redirect exists. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine now, but it was only recently moved to comply with MOS. The redirect does exist. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I was the one who moved the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - fails WP:WIAFL per the reasons stated above, practically what I would have state, unless those issues are fixed, this no way meets the FL criteria.--TRUCO 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Little improvement has been made. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur per the above; after a re-review, few if any changes have been made. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Dabomb87's initial analysis was correct, and little has changed. Also, it is not up to editors to decide which producers are significant, so the vast majority of entries having only one producer listed is no good.Yobmod (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2009 (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_removal_candidates/Golden_Globe_Award_for_Best_Motion_Picture_–_Drama/archive1&oldid=1138489749"