Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2016

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): JAEVI (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. JAEVI (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm not sure this warrants list status. Of the lists, Studio albums, Extended plays, Compilation albums, and Other charted songs only have 1 entry in the list (!). If it's just one entry, why even have a list? This could easily be incorporated into her main article. Mattximus (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing- this is pretty clearly a premature WP:CFORK - she has only one "true" album and a handful of singles. Agree that this could easily fit into her article at present, and should not be a standalone list. --PresN 15:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Willowandglass (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is an exhaustive list of all the awards and nominations from reputable bodies that Ingrid Bergman received during her acting career. It includes all major awards as well as lesser known ones and personal achievements, and I have been unable to find any other nominations or awards she ever received. Everything is referenced where necessary or possible. It has an extensive lead section explaining the progression and breath of the awards she received, as well as accompanying images and a set of easy-to-read tables that are in the same style as many other similar articles. It also meets all the criteria and is of a similar quality to other similar lists which have received featured status. Willowandglass (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The "Personal achievements" section is hilariously ridiculous. "Nominated work: Petter Lindström / Award: Wife"? Seriously?? Get rid ASAP -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got a bit carried away. I have now removed it. Regards Willowandglass (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The list is overcrowded with Images, get rid of the three below the infobox.
• IMDB is not considered a reliable source.
• Delink United States, United Kingdom, Italy and France from the lead and the table as well.
• "was 1943's", "for 1945's", "and 1974's"? I'm sure there is a better way to describe the films alongside there year of release.
• The opening sentence is quite long, try splitting it in two.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*The inclusion of images is due to the stipulation in the criteria that 'it has images and other media'. There are only three additional images included, which are in a space that would have otherwise left an unattractive blank gap. There are also far fewer images than on List of awards and nominations received by Laurence Olivier, which has featured status.

The list you are pointing out has Images near the table, it doesn't look bloated. I can't say the same about this list. You need to adjust the Images like Oliver's list.

• I don't understand why the countries should be delinked, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason to do so? Also, there are no instances of country names being listed in tables anywhere in the article, so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about regarding that.

  Per WP:OVERLINK: "The names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions" are not usually linked.

• There's no reason why the dates shouldn't be included differently, but equally there surely isn't any reason why they shouldn't be included as they are. It's all good English and is ultimately a question of idiolect more than anything else and I included them like that simply because it reads better.

  I was rather suggesting you to mention the director's name or directly mention the name of the film. IMO, the current version doesn't really looks like an example of "good english". You can write something like "..she received major awards recognition was Sam Wood's 1943 war film For Whom the Bell Tolls." Instead of what's written. Anyway they are just my suggestions. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the constructive criticism regarding IMDb and the first sentence, I will alter accordingly.

Regards Willowandglass (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

This list requires a lot of work to become a featured list.

• Five paragraphs is way too long for only 47 awards/nominations.
• The whole lead is written in a fashion that a fan would write about their favourite actress. Please use as an example List of awards and nominations received by Laurence Olivier on how to structure the lead.
• The multiple sections for awards are not needed and indeed it would be more beneficial for navigation to include 47 awards/nominations in one table or to split them into two tables for film / television awards. Again can follow the format of Olivier's list. Tables should also include rowscopes, colscopes like the tables in Olivier's list for accessibility.
• Many awards are sourced to IMDb which is not a reliable source so those awards are essentially unreferenced.
• Nearly all the references are formatted incorrectly. There should be no all CAPS in references. The format for non newspaper/magazine sources should be: <ref>{{cite web|url=|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|accessdate=}}</ref> The format for newspaper/magazine sources should be :<ref>{{cite news|url=|title=|work=|publisher=|date=|accessdate=}}</ref>

Cowlibob (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

As said above in my oppose, there's plenty to do. Nearly every reference is formatted incorrectly. I've given examples above on how to format.

• There is all caps used in references, publishers are written incorrectly such as Oscars instead of Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
• Ref 10 is a ebook but has google books has the publisher instead of being format as book reference.
• Ref 18 is a newspaper but is formatted as cite web.
• The Laurel Awards are cited to IMDb so are essentially unreferenced.
• Some dubious sources are also used such as Infoplease, FamousFix, FilmSchoolWTF.
• Critics organisations are abbreviated.

Cowlibob (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The lead needs quite a bit of work.

• Plenty of WP:OLINK in the lead.
• " She subsequently received a number of awards, primarily during the 1940s and '50s, though she did receive some recognition during the '30s, '60s, '70s and '80s." - I don't even see a single nomination in the 1930s.
• Breathless sentences:
  • "The first role for which she received major awards recognition was 1943's For Whom the Bell Tolls, an American war film which was released in the same year as Casablanca and for which she received an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress, but failed to win, losing to Jennifer Jones for The Song of Bernadette."
  • "Outside of the United States, she also received recognition in the United Kingdom for her performance as Gladys Aylward in the British war film The Inn of the Sixth Happiness, for which she was nominated for the BAFTA for Best Foreign Actress, though she went on to lose to Simone Signoret for Room at the Top."
  • "By the 1970s Bergman had already received two Academy Awards from five nominations, but went on to be nominated twice more, winning for a third time, this time in the category of Best Supporting Actress, for 1974's Murder on the Orient Express, based on the Agatha Christie novel of the same name, for which she also received her first and only BAFTA."
• Why other winners are given undue importance in her article?
• There should be a description for each award ceremony in the body of the article.
• As Cowlibob says, there are a few unreliable sources which need replacement. Formatting needs some work.
  

—Vensatry _(talk) 18:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Lapadite (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this list again. I believe that prior concerns and suggestions were addressed. Carol is a 2015 British-American romantic drama film directed by Todd Haynes. The screenplay, written by Phyllis Nagy, is based on Patricia Highsmith's 1952 groundbreaking romance novel The Price of Salt. Carol is Metacritic's best reviewed film of 2015. Over 130 critics and publications included the film in their Top Ten lists. The film received over 190 industry and critics nominations and over 50 awards. It was nominated for six Academy Awards. In 2016, the British Film Institute named it the best LGBT film of all time. Lapadite (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support From the previous FLC, I can see that the list is now fully detailed and well organised. Great work! (p.s. I'm stuck with an FLC here). — Simon (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

• "Patricia Highsmith's 1952 groundbreaking romance novel The Price of Salt". "Groundbreaking" is WP: UNDUE.
• "two women from different classes and backgrounds" Think "social classes" would be better here.
• Too much detail on the box office for an awards list. It's final box office gross will suffice.
• Mention either Rotten Tomato or Metacritic. They both represent the same thing.
• "...the best LGBT film of all time, as voted by more than 100 film experts, including critics, filmmakers, curators, academics, and programmers, in a poll encompassing over 80 years of cinema" Since it was rated the best of "all time" the "encompassing over 80 years of cinema" is redundant.
• I'm concerned about the fact that you have devoted two huge paragraphs to paraphrase the awards the film received. This is quite unnecessary. Typical award lists have just one paragraph that summarise the key awards it won. Mentioning in prose so many of the awards it received from critics organisations, in particular, which are better represented in the table format, just bloats up the lead. A massive trim is in order. Do look into the award list introductions written by Cowlibob to get a better idea of what is expected. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for over 2 months without a lot of comment, and I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. --PresN 21:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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 not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Charles Turing (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, it's comprehensive and sourced. The list is modelled after Kerala State Film Award for Best Actress. Charles Turing (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The lead is almost a line-by-line unattributed copy-paste of Kerala State Film Award for Best Actress. Also, the nominator doesn't understand the non-free rationale for images. —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should see Academy award for Best Actor and Best Actress. Kerala State Film Awards for Best Actor and Actress are the same awards given to male and female, so there will be similarities. And I have given the credits in the nomination itself. --Charles Turing (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The links may be archived because they look extremely fragile and are in danger of link rotting. The article may have to go through a GOCE edit. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All archived. Will notify you when the GOCE edit is complete. --Charles Turing (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792 The copy editing from GOCE is now complete. --Charles Turing (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for almost 2 months without a lot of comment, and I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. Different categories of an award often have very similar leads, so the close is not based on Vensatry's oppose. --PresN 21:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-US  04:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article now because my other FLC "has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." as the rules state - five supports, no objections qualifies as substantial I think.

So I bring to you another wrestling championship list, this time I am excited about it as it's a special list to me. I am hoping to turn this into a Good Topic and potentially Feature topic over time by bringing the champion articles (Mephisto, La Sombra, Volador Jr., Negro Casas and Mascara Dorada) to Good Article status as well. But no Good Topic without this list. It is the sum total of all I have learned over the past 15 FLCs I have gone through, each of them used to create a better, higher quality starting point for my lists.  MPJ-US  04:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GaryColemanFan

• I appreciate that the background to the title is complicated. I'm hoping you can help clarify a few issues:
• Was CMLL ever part of the NWA? If not, why would they have billed their title as an NWA championship?
  • Yes they were, from the mid-1950s until 1989 they were members of the NWA. The NWA World Welterweight Championship actually pre-dated them joining the NWA and was not given the NWA prefix until the mid-1950s. When they left the NWA they simply kept the titles around.  MPJ-US  19:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Did anything prompt the CMLL's decision to rename the title? It seems like they just ignored the request for a few months and then suddenly decided to go along with it.
  • I think the repeated requests finally just made them decide to go "alright we're out", but I have no source on what actually promoted the timing of their decision.  MPJ-US  19:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Why did CMLL decide to name their new title an NWA championship? Isn't that what started the whole problem a few months earlier? Is the NWA concerned about the new title's name?
  • Oh lord I could write long, complicated essays on why CMLL does the weird stuff that they do. Problem is there is nothing solid on that, they announced it as the "CMLL World Historic Welterweight Championship", but when the belts were presented later they were the "NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship" for unexplained reasons. And I have not seen anything published about the NWA objecting to those names - In Mexico the NWA is basically Blue Demon Jr. and since CMLL gave up the titles he can claim victory and then kinda just forgot about it.  MPJ-US  19:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Was there an actual announcement of the title change, or was it just a slight change in Mephisto's introduction (like how Sparky Plugg just became Bob Holly one week)?
  • Yes CMLL announced the three new NWA World Historic championships in a press conferenceand that the first champion for each was the previous "NWA World" champions for each division. At that time there were no new championship belts, when the championship belts were actually seen they said "NWA" not "CMLL" and CMLL pretented that was the plan all along.  MPJ-US  19:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The second sentence is a little long and complicated. Is it possible to rephrase so that it isn't joined by two "when"s?
  • I will work on that.  MPJ-US  21:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The "prior" seems redundant, as it's already stated that the other requests happened "previously".
  • You are probably right.  MPJ-US  21:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Has the title been defended outside of Mexico and Japan?
  • I have not seen any reports of title matches outside those two counties.  MPJ-US  21:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Does CMLL run shows in Japan, or are the matches in Japan part of an agreement with another promotion?
  • They co-promote with NJPW so it's CMLL/NJPW shows
• Is it standard to link CMLL in each of the references? It seems like overkill.
  • Probably not, I think that's just a sign of them being added over time without checking what was previously linked, I will address that. now. MPJ-US  21:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that all of my questions would necessarily need to be added in the article, but some clarification could help readers. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @GaryColemanFan: - based on my answers, is there anything that needs to be added to the article? most of the complex back history is in the article on the original title.  MPJ-US  19:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification.
  • Is it possible to add a hatnote stating something like "For the history of the title it replaced, see NWA World Welterweight Championship"?
    • I put a hat pn it MPJ-US  21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "The championship was initially announced as the CMLL World Historic Welterweight Championship, but when the belt was unveiled, it was called the NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship", the citations should come after "CMLL World Historic Welterweight Championship", since the source doesn't give the NWA Historic name (which is not controversial and wouldn't need a citation, as it's the current name).
    • Moving i t.  MPJ-US  21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "CMLL had held the NWA World Welterweight Championship for over 53 years even after leaving the NWA in 1989,[4] when the relationship...", it seems like ending the first sentence at "1989" would work, so that it's not so much information in one long sentence.
    • Fixed?  MPJ-US  21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a reference for the traditional welterweight classification?
    • Yup, applied.  MPJ-US  21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, I think all I've got left are the last four questions ("prior", where defended, CMLL shows in Japan, and linking CMLL). GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @GaryColemanFan: answered a few questions, did come copy edits. Did it hit the spot?  MPJ-US  21:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Well-written, complete, and in keeping with the format and standards of similar Featured Lists. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for 2 months without a lot of comments, and I'm going to have to close it in order to keep the queue moving. --PresN 15:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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 not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 12:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Jennifer Lawrence, as we all know, is one of the few actresses who have garnered both critical acclaim and commercial success, and that too in such a short span of time. I wanted to work on her article since 2012 but couldn't. However, I started working on her filmography, which I feel meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 12:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not enough content for a separate article. The table content can all easily fit in her main bio without worries. No prejudice against renominating in the future, but this is simply premature. Wait until she's done more work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I was surprised to see this nominated here. She has starred in all of 24 films, 8 television shows. The tables only took up 3k of a 66k article. Needless contentfork. Recommend that it be reinstated in the main article. Cowlibob (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – Although I'm not heavily involved with media lists, I was always under the impression that 25 films was considered a bare minimum for a stand-alone filmography. Perhaps I was wrong on that number, or maybe the standards have changed over time. Personally, I think that, under her current pace of starring in movies, there will be enough for a FL in 2–3 years. Unfortunately, that doesn't help much right now. Since I don't want you to feel like the time you spent working on the article failed to produce any payoff, I have a few suggestions for you. First, the tables are clearly an improvement over the uncited ones in the main article. If you do move these into the main article, it will make efforts to upgrade that page much easier. Second, the Dior and I documentary isn't listed in the main article at all, so placing the film table in the main article will make that page more comprehensive. Third, the reference for The Devil You Know isn't that strong. Try seeing if this has the information needed; I also found articles referring to the film on The Washington Post and Huffington Post in a search. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Filmography tables in main bios only need citing when they contain information not previously mentioned and referenced within article body, just saying, though I do think it would help in general to clearly state her character names from films as opposed to only character descriptions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: This list has been reconverted to a redirect per this articles for deletion discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Lawrence filmography. Cowlibob (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, archiving then. --PresN 17:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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