Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score/archive1

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 kept by The Rambling Man 16:23, 27 June 2011 [1].

---

Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score

Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list removal candidates/Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score/archive1

Notified: WikiProject Awards and prizes

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails several criteria. I just notices that I supported and even promoted this list back in 2007, but it no longer meets the current standards. The following are glaring weaknesses of the list:

1. The lead does not introduce the subject nor define the scope.
2. The table's structure is not useful at all. It shouldn't be broken up into separate sections. It should be one useful table with sortability.
3. The tables under "nominees" state some names.
4. Too much bolding and too much color inside the tables
5. There can be a separate reference cited under each year.
6. Any images would be greatly welcomed.

Cheetah (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Delist at this time because... WP:ACCESS fails. WP:LEAD fails. No images, no reason why the lists shouldn't be sortable, would be nice to know for multiple nominations which one it was each time round (e.g. "John Williams (13)" etc). Refs seem very small indeed on my screen, how odd. Not sure what IMDB is referencing but it's generally not considered a reliable source. One dab link (Spartacus). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC) done number 4,5,6 and 3 partially. Will do other things later.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Update please? What's happening here with the outstanding issues GreatOrangePumpkin? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry not to respond... I tried to find more information about 1953–1958, but futile. I hope the lead size is acceptable. As for the accessibility, I hope it does help people with screen readers to understand the article, thus it passes the WP:ACCESS test in my opinion. What do you think? As for Cheetahs comments above, all are done except 3,4,5. I don't understand what's the point of number 3 (?); 4: done; 5: I will finish this, I reached the half... done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 12:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My point #3 is saying that in the "nominees" column there are people's names. Max Steiner, for example, is the director of the winning film, yet he's listed under nominees. Under "Nominees", I expect to see the films that were nominated, but did not win; not the directors of the winning films.--Cheetah (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh? This format has been used by many recent FLs, namely the numerous Hugo awards tables, where nominees are listed on single lines alongside winners, with winners denoted in colour and with a symbol. This allows the nominees to be sorted instead of bunching them all into a single cell. I don't think this is a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I am going to list the remaining issues:

1. I suggest to rename the "nominees" column to "composers".
2. Write a note explaining that in the "year" column, the year indicates the period for which the awards are given and not the year the ceremony took place in.
3. The "film" and current "nominees" columns sort incorrectly and need fixing.--Cheetah (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• 1,2 are fixed; as for 3 I am not sure why you think the table sorts incorrectly. Could you name an example?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 09:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Certainly in Firefox, the numerical titles aren't sorting correctly, they always appear at the top (and sort within themselves). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    • done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 10:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good so far, is there a reason why the Globe ceremonies aren't linked on every line, just to the winners? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• No, I was just too lazy to link them all :P. Anyway, they are all linked now.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 16:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Good work GOP. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Yeah, good work, GOP. Thanks for your contribution.--Cheetah (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The first Golden Globe for Best Original Score went on Max Steiner...". "on" → "to"?
• "John Williams is the artist with most nominations". Add "the" before "most"?
• Remove "the" from "founder of the Nine Inch Nails"? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • done, thanks.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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