Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by The King's Speech/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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:20, 29 January 2012.

List of accolades received by The King's Speech

 * Nominator(s): Guy546 ( Talk ) 20:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this article meets the criteria, and I modeled this article like FL List of accolades received by 127 Hours. Thanks. Guy546 ( Talk ) 20:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Be consistent with the name of each award ceremony (83rd Academy Awards, but then just Art Directors Guild Awards?)
 * Opening sentence is a bit long, and could easily be split into two (move actors to second sentence)
 * No need to wikilink Ireland
 * Done - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "It has appeared in more than a twenty movie reviewers'..." Remove bolded
 * "The King's Speech has received various awards and nominations in different categories, including art direction, score, screenplay, cinematography, costumes, directing, acting, and the film itself" This sentence doesn't quite make sense. Perhaps move last part to a new sentence, such as "In addition, the film itself has been recognized"?
 * Done: split sentence with semi-colon, which avoids an overly short sentence. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Last sentence of lead should say how many total awards and noms it received (78 and 217)
 * Done - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Awards and nominations" -> Accolades (consistency with article title)
 * I think this is done, but please let me know if not. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You should switch around the category and recipient boxes (just a personal preference thing)
 * Now done - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Use consistent publishers for refs (compare www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog to The Guardian for example)  Ruby  2010/  2013  21:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I don't think some of the ref titles need to be in all caps, even if they are in the original source. Also, the "Category" and "Recipient" fields do need to be flipped (category first) as Ruby pointed out, as that is common in most other accolades articles and makes it easier to read. Glimmer721 talk  03:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also one dablink: and 5 dead links:   Glimmer721  talk  03:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dablink sorted, deadlinks still there... - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Deadlinks now sorrted too. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Category" and "Recipient" fields now done - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * References now no longer in caps. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not my article, but a drive-by tidy-up on these points while I wait for mine to come under the microscope. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments NapHit (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of having the refs next to the name of the award, I think it would be better if they were placed in a separate column at the end of the table
 * Table does not comply with WP:ACESS, you need to add row and colscopes to the table. See MOS:DTT for how to rectify this.
 * ref 3 needs to include the authors
 * Done.
 * ref 20 the hyphen should be an dash
 * Done.
 * ref 27 need author and date of publicaton
 * Done.
 * ref 31 needs date of publication
 * Already done?
 * ref 49 need an author
 * Done. Guy546 ( Talk ) 22:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Still a few comments that have not been addressed, especially the access one, so I'm going to oppose until those are fixed. NapHit (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Ref 60 is dead now. Glimmer721 talk  19:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I fixed it. Support. Glimmer721  talk  19:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per NapHit. Accessibility is important.  Good raise  22:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


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