Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Emma Stone/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) 00:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC).

List of awards and nominations received by Emma Stone

 * Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Partially based on Leonardo DiCaprio's awards and nominations list, a list I wrote back in mid 2015, this is an exhaustive list of accolades received by actress Emma Stone. I have added every notable award that was covered by reliable sources. I initially intended to just expand the list and not bring it here, fearing it might be a WP:CFORK case as it seemed a bit short then, but I believe a page with 28 awards and 83 nominations is enough to warrant a stand-alone list. You might see some difference between this list and others of its kind; for that please read the discussion in its talk page. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support this nomination. Good luck. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from Vivvt


 * Support The nominator resolved all of my comments. Keep up the good work. - Vivvt ( Talk ) 13:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from GagaNutella
 * an MTV Movie Award to a MTV Movie Award
 * Nope, actually an is correct usage for "M" (which is pronounced em).


 * "Top 10 Everything of 2010": delete the quotation marks
 * Actually that's how it's titled so I think it should be in quotation marks.
 * No, look here.
 * Actually without the quotes, it looks like something with grammatical error.


 * Edit the image description to Emma Stone at the 2012 San Diego Comic Con International.
 * Sources from the Golden Globe Awards change the publisher to Hollywood Foreign Press Association
 * Ref 23, wikilink MTV
 * Ref 57, red link
 * Nothing is wrong with a red link, is there?
 * I don't think is beneficial to have a red link if it's going no where.


 * Ref 61 and 85, sources are unreliable
 * I don't think I can find alternatives for them. Besides, they might be considered unreliable for something controversial but in this case they are simply listing awards results.
 * They are unreliable, no matter what. I've found sources you can change. 61: ; 85: and.
 * LOL that MTV one is already covered in the list.


 * I have two doubts; first: all list of awards I have seen in Wikipedia, after the award's description there is something like Stone has won once or Stone has been nominated twice (examples). Second: why did you compact all critics association awards in one section? Is it standard or what?
 * For the first one, refer to the article's talk (the last sentence). Regarding the second one, I don't want to unnecessarily increase the article's size by creating separate sections for each of them.
 * I got it and I agree with the second point. Now about the "Stone has won once", I think you should add, because all other articles work like this.
 * That is not a very big deal for me, but you see there are times when an IP or a new user adds a new referenced award, and does not update the "has been nominated" part. As an editor on multiple articles, it's an uphill task to keep track all of my articles and go through them. I don't think they are too many to count. FrB.TG (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, she does not have many awards, so it's fine for now.

That's all! Gaga Nutella talk 03:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Many for the comments. FrB.TG (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo
 * I support this FLC. Congrats. Gaga Nutella talk 22:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The layout makes it very easy to read. Linking the year and category also provides a lot of additional information.  I did a spot check on about 20 references and #10, 55, and 75 didn't seem to support the info.  Is there a way to link to where ES is mentioned more directly?  IMDB is included as an external link.  If this doesn't add much, it may be better to leave it out, since some don't consider it a RS. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * for spot-checking the sources. I believe I have replaced those 3 references that verify the info. FrB.TG (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support That takes care of it. Good work. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Double-checked the formatting to complete the source review, and I'm fine with it; there was one cite web that was missing a url but it was easy to find. Promoting. -- Pres N  21:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


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