Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Breaking Bad/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) 00:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC).

List of awards and nominations received by Breaking Bad

 * Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have added about 200 reliable sources, merged all tables into one, and expanded the lead to FL-quality. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Support – well-sourced and well-written, this is a very deserving list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * All that I could pick up is that the first paragraph is unsourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank
 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * FLC criteria:
 * 1. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table. You've got a couple of supports already so you should be covered on prose, and if the FLC coords want another prose review, those are generally not hard to come by when everything else has been covered.
 * 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 problems except for the external link (which is fine), 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.
 * 4. It is navigable.
 * 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
 * 6. It is stable.
 * Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Source review – The reliability and formatting of the sources both appear solid enough, and no dead links were identified by the link-checker tool. Everything looks okay on the sourcing front. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 23:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since a source review has been provided by Giants2008, I have striked this nomination from the Source reviews needed (grey box) on WP:FLC. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.