Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021 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) 00:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC).

List of accolades received by The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021 film)

 * Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because awards season is over and I have provided sources for each award in this list. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Nothing in the lead is sourced. I think you need sources for everything up to ".....the performances of Washington and Hunter." (the rest is sourced in the table)
 * Actually that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47
You have done wonderful work with this list. My comments are incredibly nitpick-y and I would be more than happy to support this for promotion based on the prose. I really should watch this film one day as the cast and crew are excellent and I have always enjoy the play, although admittedly it has been years since I last read it or saw an adaptation of it. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd add a link to the Three Witches article to the lede.
 * There is a red link for the 2021 IndieWire Critics Poll. That is okay as red links are helpful, but I am just curious if you think that a separate list could be created in the future?
 * I'd archive web sources like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to avoid any future headaches.
 * The citations are not consistent with including work/website and publisher or just the website. For instance, Citation 1 only has Deadline Hollywood while Citations 5 and 6 have Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic with their respective publishers. It looks like Citations 5 and 6 are the only ones that do this, but apologies if I overlooked one. I do not think the publishers for those two are necessary as they are very recognizable sites to a majority of readers.
 * Link added. Template:IndieWire Critics Poll exists so that's why there's a red link. Sources have been archived. I am using Template:Cite Rotten Tomatoes and Template:Cite Metacritic, which add the publishers automatically and cannot be removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding to my points. I honestly keep forgetting about those templates and your response makes sense to me. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Dank

 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
 * 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
 * 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
 * 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
 * 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article. (The number of accolades is sufficient to justify a separate page from the film itself, I think.)
 * 4. It is navigable.
 * 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine.
 * 6. It is stable.
 * Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

 * For row scopes, e.g. !scope=row, if the cell spans multiple rows via 'rowspan' then the scope should be changed to use !scope=rowgroup instead.
 * Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. -- Pres N  23:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

AK
 * Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
 * I've added a link I thought would be helpful, but nothing else to pick at here, so happy to support. AryKun (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720 (with a source review)
I am still new to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments are appreciated.

The last sentence of the lede should probably have a citation.

Source review:


 * Refs 5 and 6 are supporting the following statement: "The film was critically acclaimed, with praise aimed towards Coen's screenplay and direction, Bruno Delbonnel's cinematography, the production design and score, and the performances of Washington and Hunter." However, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are review aggregates and they don't have editorial oversight of what they publish (since lots of their information is from an algorithm). Instead, I would quote two specific reviews that say this information. These reviews can be found from the links in Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.
 * I have no concerns about the formatting.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Image review – The only photo used in the article is appropriately licensed, as is the image it was derived from, and has alt text included, which is always nice to see. No issues here. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. -- Pres N  15:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


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