Wikipedia:Peer review/MTV Video Music Award for Best Group Video/archive1

MTV Video Music Award for Best Group Video

Submitting this list for peer review to determine whether my improvements have brought it up to FL standards or not, and to get suggestions on what can be done to make it a potential FLC if possible.

Thanks, Carlobunnie (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24

Sorry that you haven't received any comments thus far! I'll take a close look sometime in the next few days. Best - Aza24 (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• There is some good formatting at Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award which may be helpful.
• "was first given out" sounds a little to casual for an encyclopedia; try something different, such as "an award/honor first presented"
• The formatting of the first sentence seems less than ideal, the semi colon is separating the "in 1984" with the winner of that year in an odd way, and ideally we want to link to the 1984 MTV Video Music Awards if we're going to bring it up. It's also not really properly explain what the award is for. Perhaps the first sentence should be who is presenting the award and what it is for, with the second sentence lining to the first ceremony and explaining who won it then. A link to music video would be nice as well, in could be included in this proposed new first sentence.
• What was the name before "Best Group Video"? Or is it now "Best Group" (isn't that something completely different?) the chronology is confusing here, especially since the article is titled "MTV Video Music Award for Best Group Video" even though the infobox says it is formerly called the "Best Group Video". This should be explained far more clearly

Reply: The award was orig called Best Group Video since its introduction in 1984 up to the 2006 show. It was renamed Best Group in 2007 when the MTV awards underwent a revamp (they changed up the awards presented+their names). The chronology is correct but I probably should have written "from 1984–2006" in the lead to make it clearer. I was unsure at the time if renaming the article to Best Group would be okay so I just updated the infobox alone until I got clear direction. Should I just rename the page then? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly unsure. I would say it makes sense to, though it may be worth it to do a formal RM to see what others say. Aza24 (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• "eleven years later in 2019" sounds redundant

Fixed: edited to just "in 2019" -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• "biggest winner " – perhaps "most frequent"? "Biggest" seems ambiguous

Fixed: changed to "most awarded artist..." -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• there could surely be more images next to the table

Reply: the MJVVA page has all its images contained in the table itself. I like how it looks so I'll convert this one the same way and that should take care of the lack of images. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I inserted one image into the table as a test but idk how I feel about it. I also realized that the MJVVA table lists the winners alone but I like showing who the other nominees were for each year so I might not convert it after all. For photos, should I add for all winners or just select ones? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at other award list FLs (such as Academy Award for Best Actor) it seems that deciding the inclusion of which artists as photos is somewhat random. In this respect, you can probably pick whom ever you want, as long as they don't start to reach below the table. Aza24 (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• the lead seems a bit short still, perhaps look at similar lists to see if any other information could be included. Perhaps something should be said about 2020 and 2019 including far more nominees than the rest?
• Due to the (if I understand it correctly) significant name change, this should be mentioned in parentheses in the first sentence, and perhaps the transition should be clearer in the table. To do the latter, I would recommend something like what I've done in my work-in-progress List of Medieval composers, where a column span is used to separate entries better.

Reply: I did the colspan demarcation earlier to indicate the name change. Is there a particular preference for bg color in the styling for tables of this nature? I did BGV in gold and BG in pale blue as a test but idk which to stick with. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen one, usually because I don't come across award lists with a change of name! I think the blue looks fine, as it seems to fit with the blue linking of articles already. A brighter color like gold may be a bit distracting. Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• While these are some relatively large changes that need to be made, I'm confident that (given the work thus far) you're more than capable of addressing these things Carlobunnie. I think after these changes it will be around FL standard, and additional comments at FLC would assure that. I'll be happy to do a source review at FLC and will watch this page if you have any questions about my comments or anything. Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: my apologies for only now replying to you. I've been busy with a few other projects so I didn't get a chance to fully check all my notifs until now. Thank you so much for taking the time to review the page (it's been so long since I listed it that I actually forgot that I did). I'll go through your comments and make the necessary adjustments as best as I can once I'm done with the current articles I'm working on. And I'll def reach out with any questions. Again tysm!!! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, and no rush at all of course. If the PR is closed by someone else due to being listed too long, just come to my talk page. Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)