Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Drive (2011 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) 00:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC).

List of accolades received by Drive (2011 film)

 * Nominator(s): Blue  sphere  05:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a list of awards and nominations received by the 2011 crime movie Drive. It's a real shame that no one even bothered to work on this list before. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe I have met the comprehensiveness criteria by gathering all the awards there is to this movie, as well as summarizing to the readers significant details of the accolades through the prose. This is the first film accolades list I've worked on, so hopefully this goes well. Blue sphere  05:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – Great job on this list! I also currently have an FLC nomination going here and I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at it. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is it necessary to say "adapted screenplay"? Couldn't you say instead "Refn and written by Hossein Amini".


 * Wouldn't it be better to replace "United States' theaters" with "American theaters"?


 * "Brooks won [...] at the Florida Film Critics Awards and was nominated in the same category at the 69th Golden Globe Awards".


 * Again, "Mulligan won at the Hollywood Film Awards".

Those are the only problems I found with the lead section. The awards all seem to be in order and placed alphabetically. Unfortunately I currently lack the mental stamina to perform a source review. However, if they check out and my above comments are adressed I believe I could support the nomination. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I believe I've addressed the concerns you raised. Blue  sphere  03:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then. The lead section is very informative, thorough and on the point. The mistakes have been fixed, the list is in alphabetical order, are dated and referenced. As stated, the references need to be checked by someone but besides that, I definately support this nomination.

P.S.: Regarding the Florida Film Critics Circle, I think I made a mistake and wrote Critics Awards instead of Circle up there. So don't worry about it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this list. I honestly could not find much to comment on for this list as it is already very good and has appeared to received pretty extensive commentary from the users above me. Once my rather minor note is addressed, I will support this. Hope you are having a wonderful day so far. Aoba47 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments from Aoba47
 * For the following sentence (Bryan Cranston, Christina Hendricks, Ron Perlman, and Albert Brooks feature in supporting roles), I would say "are featured" rather than "feature".
 * Done. Likewise, ! :)
 * Thank you for addressing my comment. I support this. Good luck with getting it promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments –
 * The comma in "as an unnamed, Hollywood stunt driver moonlighting as a getaway driver" should probably be removed.
 * The table shows three wins from the Austin Film Critics Association, while the infobox shows four. Are you counting the second place finish as a win? Maybe that's why I'm counting 30 wins and 79 noms, not the 31 wins and 78 noms from the infobox. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have addressed these concerns. Slightlymad (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Now the infobox has the 30 wins, but still has 78 noms and doesn't seem to be counting the second place finish at all. Was this the intention? Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. I thought you didn't want it placed either as a win or nom. Alright, the total noms are now at 79 now that I counted the second place as a nom. Slightlymad (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Source Review: Only some small points. -- Pres N  18:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If the publisher's name is basically the same as the work, it shouldn't be included- Cite web's canonical example is The New York Times (Company), which you do in ref 1, and for other newspapers elsewhere
 * You skipped the link to the LA Times in ref 24
 * You're inconsistent in how you handle the official websites of awards organizations- e.g. in ref 43 you make "worldsoundtrackacademy.com" the work and World Soundtrack Academy the publisher, which not only violates the work-similar-to-publisher rule, but is also inconsistent with e.g. ref 36, where the San Diego Film Critics Society's page isn't called out as "work=sdfcs.org". The standard and consistent way to do it is not to set a "work" field for the website name.
 * , these are tentatively resolved. Can you take a look at it now? Slightlymad (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Souce review passed, promoting. -- Pres N  12:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


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