Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comedy Series/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comedy Series[edit]

Featured list candidates/GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comedy Series/archive1

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not wasting any time y'all, lol. This article is about the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comedy Series, one of the categories at the GLAAD Media Awards that recognize various works of media across many mediums for their positive depictions of the LGBT community. As one can infer from the title, this award is about comedy series. One unique aspect about this category is that it is one of the few to have been present at every single ceremony since 1990. I worked on this article during my FLC of GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Drama Series, and incorporated many of the comments I received there (such as ones relating accessibility) for this page. I believe this page has what it takes to become a featured list, and hope anyone who comes across it might uncover a comedy series they weren't aware of before; one that gets a good laugh out of them. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Great work - the only thing I would suggest is to merge the final one-sentence "paragraph" of the lead with the one before..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done. :) --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

Fantastic work on this article - only have a couple comments. Since some rows have single citations while others have multiple the abbreviation should be "Ref(s)", the full form should also be called "Reference(s)".
Since it is a sortable table, suggest linking every instance of television networks.
That's it for me. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: Thank you for your kind words. :D I did change it to "Ref(s)." and "Reference(s)". Regarding linking every instance of the networks, this was something that was brought up during the FLC of the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Drama Series, where it was suggested that, in a given year, if a specific network appears twice or more only the first instance should be linked. Do you think it's better to leave it as such, or link it every time? Since you brought up that it's a sortable list, I personally do consider that to be a good argument for linking every instance, but I'd like yoru thoughts on it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention as well, I've come across this from one of the coords comments, for sortable tables there's no way of knowing which repeated item will come first so they need linking every time. It wouldn't fall under WP:Overlinking. --Pseud 14 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: Done. I might go back to the other two GLAAD featured lists and do the same thing there at some point. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support this for promotion. Great work! --Pseud 14 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some spare time or inclination, would appreciate feedback on my FLC as well. Though not mandatory at all

Pamzeis[edit]

Let's not screw this up :)

"only twice has there ever been a tie" — this wording feels rather awkward and clunky to me...
Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works in citations like Glee should be italicised
There are a few MOS:QWQ issues within the refs
Can the citation capitalisation be consistent, per MOS:SMALLCAPS, I guess?

Not a lot; great article. I hope you don't mind, but I've made a few tweaks myself, which you can revert if you disagree with. Ping me when these are resolved :) Pamzeis (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: All right, I changed the wording to something I feel, albeit longer, is an improvement. In every instance where a show or other work was mentioned, I italicised it. Regarding the capitalization of citations, I capitalzied nouns and whatnot leaving only words such as "of" or "and" completely in lowercase format.

As for the QWQ, I'm not really sure what the issue there is. From my understanding, it has to do with quotations. But none of the sources quote something in their title, right? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were quote marks in the title... but they're gone now; regarding capitalisation, words like "with" should not be capitalised per MOS:5LETTER. Since this issue is very minor, however, you got my support! Pamzeis (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I understand what you mean. Those quote marks were probably there to indicate a specific work, where italicizing it was not possible. Funnily enough, I remember having a discussion years ago with one of my instructors about which words are never capitalized and whatnot, but I lost track of the link she had given me. Anyway, thank you for the support, and I'll go fix "with" as quickly as possible. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --Pres N 22:50, 26 May 2022 (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.