Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama

Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama
Self-nom. I tried to (re)create the list based on FL principles. --Legionarius 09:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * I'm not sure if the table format is absolutely necessary, but if you insist on it, the header for each years are totally necessary, a format like this (which I've seen somewhere, but can't locate.) is by far preferable.
 * The list is not comprehensive; it lacks too many nominees. If there were none (or none were disclosed), it should be noted appropriately.
 * Category:Film awards is redundant with both the Golden Globes and Best Picture awards categories.
 * Your "producer" note reads "When there is more than one director [...]"
 * Remove the "Main article" at the top and use a proper wikilink in the lead sentence. Main article is used for sub-articles of the current article, not the other way around.
 * Circeus 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Please see my actions below. Please let me know what else I have to do to "pass". --Legionarius 00:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. great suggestion. Changed it already. I removed the gray difference because it wasn't working, specially in the 1940s. The original format came from another feature list, that's why I chose it.
 * 2. That's true; I am looking for a WP:Rs citation that they were never nominated (or that the nominations weren't released)
 * 3. removed. I had kept the ones that were before.
 * 4. fixed.
 * 5. fixed.
 * I still think the awarded movie should be outlined as in the original. Until the holes are filled, my oppose stands. I'll keep an eye on the nom page. Maybe you could try for paper refs, though? As nice as web references are, sometimes you really need to get books to find what you need. Circeus 01:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I trusted the original page too much, and missed some inconsistencies. Now those are corrected and the data is referenced (the data was "hidden" in the GG site). I brought back the gray outline. Do I need to ref every single award or just the top ref is good enough?--Legionarius 02:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the general refs combined with refs for any peculiarities (a format found in several other FLs) is fine. I googled and found this, which says the 1953-1954 nominees lists have been destroyed or lost. It also seems several sources (including the article itself) give The Robe as the 1953 winner. That HFPA source is, as you've pointed out yourself, ambiguous to look up. Maybe you should cross-check it with something else (e.g. or ) just in case. Circeus 15:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the IMDB is not trustable (At least in this case).
 * There is only one winner in 1953; he is a winner for best picture, there was not a split.

For IMDB's convenience, the mixed best picture and best picture - drama, that's why we ended having a 1944 "best drama" winner in 1943 in the original article.
 * About LA newspapers' comment, I think they are just inferring the fact that the information was lost - I guess we should go with he original source in this case(I did not say they are not a good source, just that I could not find the info in their site before). I am 90% sure they just copied the information from the HFPA site - even the layout is the same. Maybe change the comment from not released to "not available" - maybe an acceptable compromise. I will track down a book, but I have no special reason to think they should be any different than the other sources. I will keep you posted :-)
 * I checked two books at the bookstore - both just copied IMdb's list, they have the same mistakes even. --Legionarius 17:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ooooh.I wasn,t aware there was a specific "Best film" in addition to "best film - Drama"... Circeus 02:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only you but a lot of books, the previous article...:-)(and me of course!) it is not exactly an addition, but a "split" - the years that had a best film, there was not a best drama or best comedy award, and vice-versa.
 * I am trying to get this list qualified so I can start doing the same for the other Globe Awards lists. Some need improvements. --Legionarius 02:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe that bears a note for 1953? "There was an award for 'Best film' (not 'Best film - Drama'). Many sources treats it as the same award."Circeus 03:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I put a note saying that the robe won best film for 1953 and said that the award was reunified in the body of the text. I am a bit wary of putting "many", because I saw it in IMdb, two books, and some websites, but the "many" can be disputed. Looks like websites copy their information from HFPA or IMdb. I expanded the ref in the article. thoughts?--Legionarius 04:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. And BTW, I remember that it's the BAFTA FL that has the same format. I can,t believe I didn't remember that before... Circeus 04:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: I don't see anything major missing in the article. One thing that could be added is the image of the GG Award statuete or someone in the last 50 years with it/receiving it. --Kalyan 06:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Couldn't the lead be a little bit longer? Buc 13:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is not much to be added to the lead besides history; I blended the two sections and added a small pic. What do you guys think?--Legionarius 15:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool Support now. Still needs one more. Buc 09:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Great list, some minor comments:
 * Could you specify in the lead or in the list which person actually gets the award. I think that in time the recipient of the award changed. It was either the director, the producer or both.
 * And why did you change the "gold" background to the boring gray. It is the "Golden Globe", right? :-) CG 12:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)