Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Deadpool (film)/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) 23:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC).

List of accolades received by Deadpool (film)

 * Nominator(s): TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Deadpool is the highest-grossing R-rated film of all time and the ninth highest-grossing film of 2016. Due to the film's popularity and numerous awards, the film's article and its sub-articles, including this list, are highly visible. The list itself is comprehensive, well organized, and well referenced and I believe its rating should reflect that. However, any comments that might further improve the list are welcomed. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher
Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Alt text missing from the image.
 * This green link should be archived.
 * Provide sources for the plot synopsis and the 'financial and critical success' bit.
 * MTV Movie Awards --> MTV Movie & TV Awards
 * Critics' Choice Awards --> Critics' Choice Movie Awards
 * Done. Thank you for your comments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 10 → ten in lead per MOS:NUM
 * Use "plainrowheaders". See MOS:DTT for more info.
 * Table still needs scope rows. Even though there's a, they still need
 * Done. Thank you for your comments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brojam
Some quick observations first, none of the recipients use sortname. Also the second and third paragraphs of the lead could use some improvements. The second paragraph talks way too much about the production of the film, which is not necessary for this type of article. Instead, maybe talk about when and where it premiered, its RT/MC scores, total box office gross. Also, you could specify some of the categories of these awards instead of simply listing the nominations in one entire sentence, in particular the major awards like for the Golden Globes and the Critics' Choice Movie Awards.


 * Accolades
 * The table should be sorted by award name.
 * 'Ceremony' should be changed to 'Date of ceremony'
 * 'Recipient(s)' should be changed to 'Recipient(s) and nominee(s)'.
 * Link Make-Up Artists and Hair Stylists Guild for Makeup Artists and Hair Stylists Guild Awards and International Cinematographers Guild for Publicists Guild Awards.
 * All awards that do not have a Wikipedia article should be removed from the list per WP:MOSFILM
 * Should use draw for Runner-up.


 * Top ten lists
 * Consensus is not to include top ten lists per WP:MOSFILM & Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_41. It should be replaced with a 'See also' section with a link to 2016 in film like other FL accolades articles.


 * References
 * Missing link to Gold Derby and Metacritic.
 * Not sure AwardsDaily.com is a reliable source.

That's what I have after a first read-through. - Brojam (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mostly done. Some of the most frequent types of categories are included in the lead sentence of the third paragraph, the table is already sorted by award and I don't think draw should be used for Runner-up since "draw" indicates a tie. Also WP:MOSFILM states "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." In this case consensus was established to include the top-ten lists here during the main article's GA review.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is what I mean with draw. For the sorting, I meant by the award's name instead of by the ceremony date (though I won't oppose this nomination because of it, just something that I've seen in most film accolades FLs). Alright, for the top-ten lists inclusion even though I don't see a consensus on the GAN review page, just an editor deciding to move it to this article instead of simply removing it altogether. Had the film not received numerous awards and nominations, then I could see the point in having this list, but since that's not the case it doesn't really serve much purpose especially considering only a handful are really noteworthy anyway. Having it just say that the film was included on multiple top-ten lists (which is already done in the lead) does the trick. Also, all the non reliable sources should be removed from the list: Reelviews, We Got This Covered, Cinema Blend, The Awards Show Show, and CinemaDope. - Brojam (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have replaced draw with partial, as it is not appropriate to use the draw template for something that is not a draw, and I feel that partial is the closest to what we need of the numerous templates listed. I believe the sorting is based on previous FLs anyway, so it might as well stay how it is. For the top-ten lists, it appears from the links you have provided that the issue is with fan cruft, and that consensus is required so that we avoid indiscriminate lists of non-notable content. I believe being on the top-ten list of a notable critic is indeed notable, and it is important to have these somewhere if we going to give complete coverage of the subject. The problem that I can see with fan cruft is the ones that you pointed out, so I will go ahead and remove those ones and just leave the significant lists. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will now support this nomination. Good job with this list. - Brojam (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Maclean25
Just checking some random items on the list...According to the website the Artios award was awarded to these people - Ronna Kress, Jennifer Page, Corinne Clark - (for their work on Deadpool, but not to Deadpool itself) but this list only names the movie. The reference "Best of 2016: Film Critic Top Ten Lists". Metacritic. Retrieved June 10, 2017." should include the author and date of article. The reference calls the "Key Art Awards" and the "Grand Clio Key Art Awards". According to MOS:FILM#Accolades "Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included." - aren't the Golden Schmoes Awards just that? maclean (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you for your comments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging . -- Pres N  04:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, TriiipleThreat's edit is fine. I didn't oppose, but if asked, from a quick look, I would probably object due to not complying with WP:LEAD, specifically MOS:FIRST because the first sentence doesn't tell the reader that the article is about Deadpool-related accolades, and MOS:BEGIN because the first paragraph doesn't tell the reader that the article is about Deadpool-related accolades. Actually, the third paragraph is a great intro; it summarizes exactly what the article is about. Are list-class articles operating from a different standard from WP:LEAD that I'm not aware of? maclean (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph is very similar to other FL-class film articles including List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film), List of accolades received by Mad Max: Fury Road, and List of accolades received by Silver Linings Playbook, just to name a few.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While we would usually introduce an article in its opening paragraph per WP:LEAD, as you say Maclean, in this case we have a sub-article whose primary topic is tied to a whole lot of information that is not here. To be more specific, this list covers all the accolades received by Deadpool, so it doesn't make much sense without a bit of context regarding that film. It makes sense to introduce that film, based on the lead of Deadpool (film), and then have what would usually be the opening paragraph as a lead-in to the actual list. If we did it the other way around, having an introduction to and summary of this list with context about the film coming second, we would still be confusing readers who had not read the film article. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've noticed other FLs and FLCs that do not conform to WP:LEAD so that is why I'm asking. If this is the case, as TriiipleThreat points out and as adamstom97 explains, that list-class articles don't have to follow these aspects of WP:LEAD to be promoted, then the director should ignore my comment as not being consistent with the FL criteria. If, however, FLs should then the director should not promote as I have pointed out the inconsistency. maclean (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Film accolades lists seems to be following a precedent of having several paragraphs of explanation before talking about the accolades; since this list is just following that pattern I'm hesitant to block it on those grounds. That said, it is a lot of background before hitting the 'accolades' part, so I'm interested if any other have any opinions. In the meantime, Source review passed, promoting. -- Pres N  22:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


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