Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Film – Wide Release/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, 22 September 2022 (UTC).

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Film – Wide Release

 * Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has the potential to reach this status. This is my fifth GLAAD Media Award nomination after Outstanding Comic Book, Drama Series, Comedy Series, and Video Game. Admittedly, I did run into a few problem. By the late 90s, the separation between Outstanding Film - Wide Release and Limited Release has become solidified, but the early 90s were more mixed up. Sometimes films won and were labelled as just that; Film. At other times, one of them was labelled as having won the Vito Russo Film Award. Not sure if the latter is to be viewed as a precursor of the Limited Release category, but for simplicity's sake, if something was labelled as "Vito Russo" or "Limited", it wasn't included here. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments

 * "one of only two instances where two film won" => films
 * "While the movie was recognized in 1993" - should that say "no film"......?
 * "The followin year" - second word is spelt wrong
 * "a distinction was between films" => "a distinction was made between films"
 * "that received a wide releases" - last word should be singular
 * Titles starting with "The" or "A" should sort based on the next word
 * That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Man, I really suck sometimes with this grammatical mistakes. Oof. Anyway. Done with all of the above, unless I might have missed any "A" or "The" titles. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Aoba47

 * Was there a public reason the award was not given out in 1993?
 * I wasn't able to find one, but based on some of the other lists, I don't think GLAAD gave out any such statements; at least not in the 90s. If I had to guess, they probably didn't find any films from that year good enough for nomination. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is what I had thought as well. Thank you for clarifying this point for me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would link plurality vote in the lede. I know this will sound rather dumb on my part, but I would not be 100% with providing a definition to this concept so I'd imagine other readers would be in a similar position and would like further clarification.
 * Done.


 * Is it worth noting in the lead that the 7th GLAAD Media Awards was the first time nominees were made public as opposed to just the winners (as done in the previous ceremonies)?
 * I guess there might be room to include that somewhere. Do you think it's better to include that in the lead, or have it appear as a note in the infobox during the 1996 ceremony? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * At the risk of giving a non-answer, it is up to you. It could also be a case where this is unnecessary to note because it is not that important or it just comes as awkwardly inserted in the lede or in a note. To clarify this question was not a requirement, but more so of a clarification question and you could disagree with it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All right. I think I found a good place to include it. Let me know if it needs improvement.

I do not have much to say in my review, which only consists of two clarification questions and a request to link a particular item in the lede. You have done a great job with this list. Hopefully, it will inspire other editors to work on GLAAD lists or LGBT lists in general. Let me know when everything has been addressed, and I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. That was actually my hope back in 2018 when I worked on the Outstanding Comic Book list; that other people would decide to work on the following lists. Then I realized that wasn't happening, so I decided to do it myself. Lol. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt responses. I really should work on one of these lists in the future. It has been a while since I last worked on a list (since 2019 actually) so it would be nice to focus on something outside of the FAC process for a bit. I appreciate that you added the Chloe Zhao image to the list. Everything looks solid to me. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Dank

 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * This probably needs on the first line.
 * "Film created by and for an LGBT audience must be submitted in order to be considered for nomination, as GLAAD does not monitor such works for defamation.": That's what GLAAD's website says, but it's not clear what it means. I recommend dropping the part after the comma ... and the part before the comma borders on a close paraphrase, so please fiddle with that a bit.
 * "Shareholders Circle members, as well as volunteers and affiliated individuals": Not quite the right tone, and again, I'm not sure what that means, so I recommend simplifying this to: "as well as some of its supporters, volunteers and affiliated individuals". This would remove the note, of course.
 * "The Weinstein Company" needs to sort under W, and "The Samuel Goldwyn Company" needs to sort before "Sony".
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
 * 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. At a glance, the images seem fine.
 * 6. It is stable.
 * Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. -- Pres N  18:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll follow up with the nominator on their user talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


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