Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1st Magritte Awards/archive1


 * 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 SchroCat 08:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

1st Magritte Awards

 * Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The list is very easy to navigate, contains images and is a stable article. Earthh (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: The only suggestion I have for the list is to make a table for the multiple nominees and winners (see: 84th Academy Awards). Otherwise, fantastic work.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think those tables are so useful. That section is easier to read without tables.--Earthh (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). A few recommendations to improve the page: (1) Strongly recommend removing the sect Films with multiple nominations and awards, as it seems unencyclopedic, but also it's redundant to the infobox and elsewhere higher on the page which has similar info. (2) Suggest adding Portal:Belgium to the other portals in the See also section. (3) Might want to wikilink the director and producer in the infobox. (4) Subsections Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award -- not sure which citations are confirming this info. That's it for now, otherwise nicely done overall. I particularly like the Background sect. Keep me posted, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, Cirt. I'm not sure about removing that section, every FL about award ceremonies has a "Films with multiple nominations and awards" section. I don't think Portal:Belgium is so useful when we have already Portal:Brussels, what do you think? I didn't find so many information about the director and producer to have separate articles. Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award are sourced by ref 13.--Earthh (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hrm, well I've thought it over, again, and I respectfully stand by my comments above. The section may be in other pages but it doesn't look encyclopedic, and it's unsourced, and it's redundant to multiple places higher up on the same page, including the infobox and other subsections. Please let me know if you care to respond to my comments, above, and I'll consider changing to support. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should leave that section per convention. Portal:Belgium would be redundant since we have already Portal:Brussels. Director and producer of the show did not even have a profile on IMDb, there's no encyclopedic content about them.--Earthh (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to your judgment about the portal placement, and director and producer info. Subsections Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award still appear to be unsourced. Keep me posted if you change your mind about the unsourced and unencyclopedic section Films with multiple nominations and awards and I'll gladly consider switching to support. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I've given it some more thought and I actually wish to change my position and state that I don't think I should hold back from supporting based on the section Films with multiple nominations and awards. So the only thing left to do would be to make sure the reader can easily understand that subsections Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award are sourced to that ref, best to make that more clear please, as at the moment it is only apparent that this ref is citing the subsection Awards, and not the others. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Honorary Magritte Award and Audience Award are subsections to Awards now, in this way the reader can easily understand that they are sourced to that ref.--Earthh (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. After helpful and polite responses by to my above comments, I am now ready to Support. High quality page. Deserves the star. Great work, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cirt, for your support and helpful comments.--Earthh (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome! Sorry if there was confusion after I re-thought out my position regarding above. I'm certainly glad my comments were helpful. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment - There are a lot of overlinks in the list, and you shouldn't list Maggrite Award and Académie André Delvaux per WP:ALSO. Except for these concerns, it's excellent! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, Gabriel Yuji. I've removed some links and fixed the See also section.--Earthh (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice! You have my Support now. However, I think the links on the image captions are also unnecessary since they are linked on the table. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Best films of 2010 - yet there is a 2008 film here...?
 * By that we mean best films released in Belgium in 2010.
 * That needs to be explicit in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is written in the lead.
 * Académie André Delvaux, - can we avoid repeating this twice in quick succession?
 * Where? Currently it is not repeated twice in quick succession.
 * Twice in two sentences is not "quick succession" to you? Wow. The Academy, the AAD, w.e. ... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could you be more specific so I can fix it?
 * Overseen by the Académie André Delvaux, the Magritte Awards replace the Joseph Plateau Awards, which were disestablished in 2007. - isn't this redundant to the above paragraph?
 * The Joseph Plateau Award info is presented only there.
 * In other words, the majority is redundant. This can be reworked to flow more smoothly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific?
 * their works during the 2009–2010 period. - in the led you just say 2010
 * The Academy considered films released in the previous calendar year (2010) which, according to their rules, run from September 2009 to September 2010.
 * This also needs to be explicit in the article, with reference. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "their works during the 2009–2010 period" is not enough for you?
 * (the first film to garner that many nominations), - well, obviously, this is the first award ceremony for these awards. Should probably be removed
 * Removed.
 * the first film to receive six awards: - per above
 * Reworded.
 * Has anyone checked the images yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the images.--Earthh (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not what I asked. Has a reviewer checked the images to ensure that all are inline with Wikipedia's copyright policy, that the attribution is correct, etc.? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No one has done this yet.--Earthh (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, what happened to this?--Earthh (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This still needs an image review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked the images, everything is fine.--Earthh (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You =/= neutral reviewer, but = article author. Image reviews have to be from reviewers at this level. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Could someone check the images so that we can close the nomination?--Earthh (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked all the images, and they seem to comply to fair usage standards. I also added alt captions to the photos. So it seems to be all fine.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Erm, except that there should be no fair use images in this article except for the poster. I'll check, so this can be closed.
 * File:Joff cannes.jpg - I don't see convincing evidence that this is a free image. Is there anything more solid? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly, these are the only available images.--Earthh (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed that questionable image.--Earthh (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. Another delegate can close this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

– SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


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