Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Despicable Me 2/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC).

List of accolades received by Despicable Me 2

 * Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 11:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Despicable Me 2 is one of the best films of 2013 that received the most accolades that any Despicable Me film did. Here's a list of its accolades, as always I am open to constructive criticism on how to improve it. Chompy Ace 11:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I couldn't find anything. great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123
— RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The infobox doesn't seem to match the table. The infobox lists 11 wins/54 noms but the total says 8 wins/51 noms, and the table itself includes 8 wins/52 noms.
 * who is used three times in two sentences in the lead – suggest rewriting to remove at least one occurrence
 * It garnered – the film or the soundtrack?
 * Move note 1 to the recipients column
 * ✅ except for the fourth point: Notes are distinct from References. Chompy Ace 05:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @RunningTiger123 last amend made. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

 * No concerns with the lede
 * Lots of wikilinks in the chart which are not needed. While not necessary for a support, consider MOS:REPEATLINK and if every instance of "Despicable Me" should be wikilinked.
 * Image check - pass
 * Source check: Version reviewed
 * Ref 11: Suggest archiving
 * No other concerns with formatting or quality of sources.

Support: no major concerns, everything listed above is optional for my support but I hope will be considered. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay throughout, and no issues were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.