Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Drama 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, 13 April 2022 (UTC).

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Drama Series

 * Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Outstanding Drama Series is one of the categories present at the GLAAD Media Awards, which honor various forms of media for their excellence in depicting the LGBT community. As one can understand, this category focuses on dramatic television series. The page has existed since 2017, but the lede consisted of just one sentence, and no references were present. In fact, despite the nominees for 2022 having been announced back in January, nobody had added them in for over a month. I based the structure of the lede from the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book page, which was promoted back in 2018.

The references consist of a mixture of primary and secondary sources, as I believe the latter help showcase that this award is of importance to various independent organizations and corporations. Also, just in case this issue might be raised in the future: while this award and some others at the GLAAD Media Awards have always been competitive categories with various nominees, GLAAD never announced the nominees until 1996. Up until that point, the nominees were only discussed internally, with only the winners being announced in press released, and the awards being given at the ceremonies. It was later that GLAAD started announced the nominees in press releases first, with the winners not being revealed until the actual ceremony; like the Oscars. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

 * Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop.
 * Added in the period.
 * Also, that caption probably needs a source
 * Added in sources for both instances that Cruz accepted the award.
 * Anything that starts with "The" should sort based on the next word
 * I've done that with all of the shows. I have two questions; firstly, is the method I've used appropriate, or is there a better way of doing it? Secondly, should I also do that with all of the networks as well? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the method you have used is spot-on, and yes I would say the same needs to be done for networks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. I also did it to the "Multiple wins and nominations" section, although that might be a bit unnecessary since the tables aren't sortable. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

 * Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting + caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting + instead. Right now, you're using the caption as the key for the table, which doesn't work- move the key out above the table and replace it with a valid caption.
 * Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have them, they just need a small tweak for some of them: if the cell spans multiple rows, then use instead of.
 * I get what you're going for with the split ref columns, but only because I read the footnote- without it, it's confusing, and with it it's still visually confusing and weird for screen reader software. The referencing isn't so complicated that you can't just have two refs in one cell.
 * It's not an accessibility problem, but the purple/green combo is really visually jarring. Consider using a less clashing combo, or dropping the purple altogether.
 * Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. -- Pres N  01:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All right. I'll admit, I initially didn't understand most of the things and terminology you were using. But I did look into MOS:DTAB, and I believe I've correctly followed through with your instructions. I also changed the colour for the "Award year" column so that it's less jarring against the green. I took some inspiration from the Oscar for Best Actress page. Regarding your second point, is changing the "row" to "rowgroup" the only change I needed to make in the code, or are there others as well? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're good now; I made a minor tweak (you only need row 'group' if it's a group of rows), but that's all. Thanks! -- Pres N  15:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to do that. At least now, I know how to more forward with both this and other GLAAD-related or similar articles I work on. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis
This is a pretty solid FLC, though I have some comments to help polish it up.  Gerald WL  16:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "is an annual award that honors dramatic series"-- ehh I don't think anyone calls it "dramatic series", just "drama series". Dramatic is subjective; drama is objective.
 * But the characters are just so melodramatic, lol. Fixed it.
 * Infobox also needs LGBT parantheses like the lead.
 * Done.
 * Images require alt text.
 * I added alt text. Although, I have to admit, I've always sucked at them as I'm not sure what to write.
 * Lmao don't worry, I often suck at writing them too especially for portraits. I copyedited yours for clarity.
 * In the infobox, United States shouldn't be linked. Also if you state "United States" in full there, you must state it in full too in the lead.
 * Decided to change it to "American organization".
 * "New York" City
 * Specified it's the city, not the state.
 * "of the GLAAD Media Awards" --> "of the annual GLAAD Media Awards"
 * Done.
 * While definitive articles cannot always be avoided, in paragraph 2's case (where there's three-at-once sentences starting with "The award") this is avoidable. In the second and third sentence, "The award" can be changed to "It".
 * Removed two of them.
 * "The award was given to the ABC series HeartBeat and NBC series L.A. Law"-- must be made clear that this is this the first titles to win the award. I also think paragraph 2 as a whole can be moved as paragraph 3.
 * Made it more clear the ties was also the first time the award was given. Also, I merged the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs into one. I'm assuming that's what you meant, right?
 * Yep! :)
 * "GLAAD can still nominate a mainstream work even if it was not submitted for consideration." Isn't this already covered at "GLAAD monitors mainstream media to identify which drama series will be nominated"?
 * Removed the latter part.
 * "Shareholders Circle members"-- maybe add a footnote on the Shareholder Circle?
 * Looked into it and added a note explaining what the Shareholders Circle is.
 * "as well as volunteers and allies." Allies as in, heterosexual people who supports LGBT? If so it must be linked.
 * I looked, and by "allies" they're referring to allies of the organization. To use one example GLAAD points out; a person who is a Special Honoree is not a member of GLAAD, but will be viewed as an ally and can vote. However, they don't exactly specify which criteria can make someone an ally. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you can paraphrase it to "Supporters". We don't need to use the organization's term all the time, and especially for an LGBT article this can be confusing.
 * Would it be better to use something like "affiliated individuals"? I think supporters just makes it sound as if any one random person that supports the organization can vote. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good :D  Gerald WL  14:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph can be easily combined with the previous paragraph.
 * Done


 * (1990s) For the 1990 and 1991, it uses the same citation, ref 5, so it can be merged.
 * Done.
 * The first example for this is in the 2000 part. There's duplicate links to the WB in one year; I think this is excessive and duplicates within a year row should be removed.
 * Removed duplicate links within a given year's ceremony.

All right. I hope followed your instructions correctly. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - sorry for the long wait! It drowned way below my watchlist until Aoba commented.  Gerald WL  15:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

 * I have made some copyedits here to avoid repetitive prose and ensure a better flow. Let me know if I messed up something.
 * I don't see anything wrong with it. Thank you. :)
 * "Wilson Cruz (pictured) accepted the award during the 2021 ceremony for Star Trek: Discovery,[1] having previously accepted" - can we find a way to avoid repeating "accept" in such a close proximity?
 * Made changes to second sentence. Let me know if it's appropriate or if you'd like for me to change that.
 * "The Shareholders Circle consists of donors who have made a donation of $1,500 or more." Same as above (this time with donor/donation). FrB.TG (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed the word "donors" to "individuals". I'm not sure if that's a problem since the following sentence (outside of the note) also uses that word. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - good work. FrB.TG (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate some feedback on my FLC but to state the obvious, it is in no way mandatory.

Support from Aoba47

 * For the Wilson Cruz image, I would include when the photo was taken in the caption.
 * Was there an official reason for the award not being given in 1992?
 * For this part, producers, writers, and / or actors, I do not think the spaces around the backslash are necessary.

Everything else looks good to me. Great work with this FLC. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * To elaborate Aoba's point 1, typically in a caption extend the (pictured) parantheses to (pictured YEAR).  Gerald WL  15:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The clarification was useful, thank you. I added in the year and shortened the "and/or" part. As for why there was no award given in 1992... I honestly have no idea. GLAAD never released a statement, and given the time period, the GLAAD Media Awards weren't all that well-known and there isn't much information available, as is. I'm guessing GLAAD just didn't deem any drama series during that year as being worthy of nomination in this category, so they just omitted it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything! I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Version reviewed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For magazines like Playbill and Variety (magazine), etc., and maybe even newspapers like The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, etc., suggesting to add ISSN numbers. It is not a definite requirement, but advisable to add. You can easily find ISSN number in the infobox of respective Wikipedia pages of publications. Can also find at https://www.worldcat.org/.
 * Like 2165-1736 for Los Angeles Times?
 * Yeah. Either that one (web version), or 0458-3035 (print version) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll try and do that as quickly as possible.
 * Done. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ref#5, #15, #37, #39 requires an en-dash (–) in place of hyphen. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * I am assuming that the second and last para of lead is a summary of the table, that is why no citations. Right?
 * Yes. :) All the information in those two sections is taken from the tables.
 * Other concerns:
 * I see blank white space between the infobox and the table of content, due to
 * Removed. Although the downside is that if the "Contents" box is closed, it sandwhiches the 1990s section.
 * In this/these sortable table(s), each thing which deserves a link should be linked every time. For instance, ABC should be linked in all the instances in the table 2010s, etc.
 * Initially, that was the case but suggested it'd be better if within a given year / ceremony, I only link a network that appears twice or more only the first time.
 * "1997 (8th)" and "1998 (9th)" rows do not have citations in numeric order ([12] should be before [13]). Check rest as well. Again, not a definite requirement, but advisable to do.
 * Yeah, I understand what you mean. The thing is, with every table, I've always put first the references that deal within a given ceremony's nominees and then the references about the winners. For this reason, would it be appropriate to leave them as is?
 * Yeah, fine! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Passes the source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. -- Pres N  14:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


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