Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by The Act of Killing/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) 00:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC).

List of accolades received by The Act of Killing

 * Nominator(s): &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...

It's a critically acclaimed film with real world impact -- and some of that impact has been directly connected to award nominations/critical success. I started the list a few years ago and, after coming across a couple other "List of accolades..." FLs recently, I felt up to the work. Granted, it wound up being a bit more time than I anticipated, going back to find other nominations, adding data, navigating a whole lot of 4-year-old broken festival/awards sites, but I think it's in good condition now. After reworking and expanding the lead, I feel fairly confident that it's FL material. I haven't been through this process before, though, so I look forward to your feedback. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments from Aoba47
 * I would rephrase the follow sentence (The film's primary subjects were petty criminals at the time, but promoted to be leaders of a powerful death squad during the purge) to (The film's primary subjects were petty criminals at the time, who were promoted to be leaders of a powerful death squad during the purge) as the "but" sentence construction is a little odd in this context at least to me.
 * I am a little confused by the phrase "film justifications". Maybe specify whose justifications are being filmed?
 * In the final sentence of the lead's second paragraph, I think something should be added before the final quote to fully explain how the film is different than a "historical account".
 * Everything looks good; once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments.
 * I'm not sure I understand the first point. The "...at the time, who..." doesn't sit quite right with me. The but is to contrast the roles of petty criminal and a quasi-official position of power on a death squad. Sort of like "They were nobodies at the time, but came to have a lot of power." What about rearranging as "The film's primary subjects had been petty criminals, but during the purge they came to lead a powerful death squad."?
 * That make sense to me. For some reason in my initial reading, I did not quite understand what you were referencing so I apologize for that. I think your rearrangement is stronger and I would recommending using that instead if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. Changed to "Oppenheimer set out to film the ways people justified the killings, and was struck..."
 * Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reworded from "According to Oppenheimer, the film is not a historical account of the killings themselves, but rather 'about a regime...'" to "The film has historical context, but primarily concerns the role of the killings in people's lives today. According to Oppenheimer, it is 'about a regime...'". Is this along the lines of what you mean? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense to me. I was a little bit confused on the original wording on how this was separate from a historical account (as I have never seen or even heard of this film as terrible as that probably sounds). Thank you for the rewording/revision. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Great work with this list! I can tell you put a lot of time and energy into this and it was a very compelling read (which is very difficult to do for a list of all things). I can definitely support this, and good luck with the rest of the review. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? I apologize for being so bold to ask for your input so feel free to say no if you do not have the time or energy. Good luck with this and your future projects. Aoba47 (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Good list on an important film. Cowlibob (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry to ask a FLC noob question, but is there a certain timeframe or number of reviewers we're looking for here? To be clear, I know that there's no fixed length other than >=10 days; I'm mainly asking if there's an informal number you look for to decide whether consensus has emerged. Thanks. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd normally look for at least three supports. As for ten days, I can't remember the last time a nomination was ready in less than two weeks! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Not in any sort of rush, of course. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Source review – I don't recall seeing you here before, Rhododendrites. If this is your first time nominating a list here, welcome to FLC! I took a look at the sources, and they all appear to be well-formatted and reliable enough. Spot-checks of references 19, 41, and 59 revealed no issues. The only problem came from running the page through the link-checker tool; reference 27 (Biografilm Festival) is showing up as a dead link. This will need to be repaired or replaced; perhaps the Internet Archive made a copy of it. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed my first time at FLC. Thanks. :) Oddly, that Biografilm came up above as a broken link, too, but when I click it (now, as then) it's perfectly accessible. Maybe it's a bot error? Regardless, for good measure I've archived it and added a link. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The bot sometimes delivers false positives, so it's important to check manually like you did. Since that was the only outstanding issue and it appears that a consensus has been reached, I'll go ahead and promote the list now. Nice work. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.