Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Vikram Vedha/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) 19:31:27 27 March 2019 (UTC).

List of accolades received by Vikram Vedha

 * Nominator(s): —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 07:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2017 Indian Tamil film, Vikram Vedha starring R. Madhavan and Vijay Sethupathi. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members several awards and nominations. It is my fourteenth attempt at an accolades FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 07:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Provide alt text for the images.
 * "is a 2017 Indian Tamil-language neo-noir action thriller" --> is a 2017 Indian Tamil-language neo-noir action thriller film
 * The 'husband and wife duo' bit seems redundant to me. It'll work better without this bit
 * , I wrote it specifically because they are husband and wife. I feel readers would know it then and there. If you still insist on removing it, then I will do so. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Do we need to mention the banner also?
 * Y NOT Studios is a notable Tamil cinema production banner so I feel it needs to be included and also to let our readers know the company that financed the film. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You should mention the editor's name as well
 * Provide a reference that can back the 'received positive reviews' claim. Right now, there are only two reviews
 * , it is in the India Today reference I've placed before (Reference no 9). The line states "Thanks to Vikram Vedha, which has opened to rave reception from critics and audience alike." Rave here obviously is positive reception. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A tweet cannot be considered a RS, IMO. Try to replace them with better source
 * tweets be considered RS if they are from verified accounts. -- Kailash29792  (talk)  10:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I second Kailash's comments. Vikn Media Creations is a company and also I found no other better source than this one that covers all the awards. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, . Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 11:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Everything else looks good to me. I will support this when my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support from Aoba47
 * The image caption should have punctuation since it is a complete sentence.
 * I agree with the first two points raised by the above reviewer.
 * For this part (feature in supporting characters), it should be either "feature as supporting characters" or "feature in supporting roles".
 * , can you tell me where I should use punctuation in the caption as I really don't see where any punctuation could be used. The other two comments, I have hopefully resolved them. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, if a caption is a complete sentence/idea, then punctuation is required. Aoba47 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made a change to it. Can you check it now, ? —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 07:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added the punctuation to the caption. I support this for promotion. Wonderful work! Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You could've just said "Add the full-stop" lol. Anyways, thank you very much, . Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 09:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support from Kailash: just add the trans-title value for this source, and if possible, link all the sources within the citations. Kailash29792 (talk)  07:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, . Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. I've added the trans-title. As for the source linking, I've only linked their first instance of being mentioned, which is common for most Wikipedia articles as it wouldn't be good with Manual of Style/Linking.  —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 08:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Looks good to me. Sorry I was waiting for everyone else's comments to be resolved first. Great job! :) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, . Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 09:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

 * First para is over-long, needs splitting after "respectively"
 * titular characters&mdash;"title characters is more usual"
 * ₹110 million (about US$1,661,631 in 2017)... ₹400 million (about US$6,042,296 in 2017) worldwide &mdash;"about" seems redundant when you are converting to the nearest dollar. Even if it was exactly ₹110 million and ₹400 million, which I doubt, the conversion is over-precise.
 * in the refs, is [@viknmedia] necessary?
 * That's all Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have hopefully resolved your comments, . Do have a look and get back to me. Thank you. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 08:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that you have missed the point of my conversion comment. To quote the US currency to the exact number of dollars, you must have assumed that the rupee figures are accurate to the nearest rupee, which I simply don't believe, they have obviously been rounded off. To me, it should read ₹110 million (about US$1,700,000 in 2017)... ₹400 million (about US$6,000,000 in 2017) worldwide or perhaps better ₹110 million (about US$1.7 million in 2017)... ₹400 million (about US$6.0 million in 2017) worldwide Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done as asked, . —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 15:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, no other issues, so supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, . Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 10:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N  19:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


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