Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Limited or Anthology Series/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Limited or Anthology Series[edit]

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Limited or Anthology Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do plan on doing this with all the award categories. (: This award recognizes excellence in the depiction of queer people in limited / anthology series. It's probably one of the most complex awards by GLAAD that I've worked on, having gone through multiple changes and reorganizations throughout the decades. For more details, just go to the page itself. Most recently given to HBO's The White Lotus, if anyone has seen it. "These gay lists... they're trying to murder me." --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Welcome back. A quick comment:
  • Check the order of your cites for 1990, 2003 and 2008 ... I can't tell if the order is reversed because you want it that way, but I'm guessing that in this particular ref format, it shouldn't be reversed. (If you separate the rows, then, sure.) Also, there's something weird going on with the second 2009 ref. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. :D Regarding the numbering, since I leave the lede last, I often end up reusing sources from the list at the top of the page, causing them to gain a new, and lower, number. I am curious, is that a FL criterion? Having the references in numerical order? As for the 2009 ref, yeah, my bad. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFAIK, yes, it's required at FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dank: All right. Done. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dank I believe Panagiotis was trying to list the citations in order (nominees first and then the winner). I have had 3 FLCs pass even though they have the wrong order of citation numbers. Is this requirement actually enforced? -- EN-Jungwon 05:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought it was, but I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's apparently some disagreement about the order of refs, so I'll try again to do something useful :) The table coding looks good, I don't see any prose problems in the tables, and I've checked the sorting in all the tables (for non-numerical columns).
  • Btw, you might (or might not) be interested in reviewing WP:Featured list candidates/List of COM-clade families/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing my review.
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've skimmed the prose and made minor edits; nothing big jumps out at me. I checked sorting as above and sampled the links in the tables.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 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 images.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. You might be interested in reviewing (when this link turns blue) WP:Featured list candidates/List of malvid families/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 01:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon[edit]

  • Add table key for the double dagger and green background.
  • Done.
  • The 1993 entry: The source doesn't directly say that "Doing Time on Maple Drive" won the award, I feel like I may be misinterpreting the source so can you please clarify this for me? Also, the movie's Wikipedia article has no mention of this award and a quick Google search didn't reveal much. The second reference (which seems to list all the winners) doesn't list any winners for that year. It is also not listed in the page template ({{GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding TV Movie or Limited Series}}).
  • Although the Variety source doesn't state this explicitly, the "Past Winners" source does show how Doing Time on Maple Drive won in the TV Movie category. The fact that the Wikipedia article and template don't show this isn't really relevant. Wouldn't be the first time that omissions would exist on GLAAD-related pages. Here is another source on the TV film: https://www.tvweek.com/in-depth/2005/04/glaad-awards-15-years-of-recog/. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 22 doesn't mention the network of the series.
  • "The Fear Street Trilogy" should sort under "Fear".
  • Done.

Thats all. -- EN-Jungwon 18:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If you have time would you mind reviewing the FLC for List of Music Bank Chart winners (2017) -- EN-Jungwon 05:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The second paragraph of the lead is a bit confusing. You say that The Women of Brewster Place won in 1990 but don't specify what award it won. Then you say "In 1994, Fox's Doing Time on Maple Drive became the first television film to be recognized by GLAAD." - was this the same award? Presumably it was, because apparently after that win, "various television films and miniseries would be recognized as different categories". How do these different categories tie in with the winners in the table, where there never seems to be more than one winner in any given year.....?
    • The Women of Brewster Place likely won in the "Miniseries" category. Unfortunately, the nominees list by GLAAD doesn't explicitly state each category's name for their first ceremony, but given that it's a miniseries and a few years later, Tales of the City won in the TV Mini-series category (as indicated by the "Past Winners" source), it can be inferred that WoBP won in that category. Doing Time on Maple Drive then was the first TV movie (rather than miniseries) to be recognized, in the TV Movie category; unsurprisingly. As indicated by GLAAD's Letterboxd list, both of these separate categories are treated as one, as they're both precursors of the unified Television Movie/TV Movie and Mini-series category. Which was then expanded to include anthology series, then separated... God, the whole thing is giving me brain damage. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, to confirm, "various television films and miniseries would be recognized as different categories" isn't meant to indicate that these different categories existed together in any one year.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @ChrisTheDude: Yeah, based on the "Past Winners" source, at no point up until 1999 did GLAAD recognize both a miniseries and TV movie in the same year. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 2003, during the 14th GLAAD Media Awards," => "In 2003, during the 14th GLAAD Media Awards,"
    • I get it, but that's part of the problem with this award. It's whole history is a mess, and there isn't much info from GLAAD. I do know that by this year, GLAAD was recognizing both TV movies and miniseries within a single category, but I'm not sure if this is when the process started. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • If all that is known is that the change happened "by" 2003, then "during the 14th awards" isn't appropriate. "By 2003 and the 14th awards" would probably work..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed it in a different manner. Hopefully it's acceptable. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "American Horror Story winning for its second season" => "American Horror Story won for its second season"
    • Done.
  • Note b does not need a full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
    • Chris, do you happen to know if references are supposed to be in numerical order within one cell at FLC? See above. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I always thought they were, but when someone pushed back on that at a previous FAC/FLC (I forget the exact details) I couldn't actually find anywhere that stated it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/GLAAD_Media_Award_for_Outstanding_Limited_or_Anthology_Series/archive1&oldid=1156858831"