Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Heath Ledger/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 Scorpion0422 21:50, 5 May 2009.

List of awards and nominations received by Heath Ledger

 * Nominator(s): --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 

I am nominating this for featured list because I have expanded the list and have brought it to one peer review process. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't this follow the format of other similar lists, such as List of awards received by Michael Jackson? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's music awards, as oppose to the film awards. If that's the new format, I'll set it up like that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really the new format, it's the format that's always been used. I prefer that format because the description of the awards are provided on the page. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was in the midst of doing that, cause I had seen the Sheryl Crow list, but I turned to another format. But, if I do that format, the Table of Contents is going to be big. Wouldn't that be a problem? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will be overwhelming. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To prove that I am not lying, this is how I had the list formatted. When I opened the peer review, the script noted that the ToC might have been a problem, according to the criteria. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is overwhelming. The script is just triggered by certain conditions, it is not always the firm limit. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. If there's anything else, please let me know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience. I'll be back with a full review sometime this weekend. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm here to serve you, so whatever you throw at me, I'll get to it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Now with this new format, you have to be consistent with the wording in each section about the purpose of the awards and the sourcing. For example, each section needs to state the purpose for why they are given such as The (XYZ) awards are presented for (reason).[ref] So each need a purpose and a ref to verify it (for consistency), if not remove the reference since the awards themselves verify themselves.-- T ru  c o   02:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Iowa Film Critics Awards, Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards, London Film Critics' Circle Awards, Online Film Critics Society Awards, Phoenix Film Critics Society Award, Satellite Awards, Toronto Film Critics Association Awards -- These need to be more specific as to why they are given. In addition, either source all these statements or remove some of the references verifying them because their existence verifies themselves.-- T ru  c o   21:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed Iowa, cause there wasn't an official website, so. Also, I got the ones that you mentioned. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that is a good idea, if he won that award then it should belong here. So you can't find a source as to why or how they come up with the winners, right? -- T ru  c o   23:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Iowa doesn't have an official website, but is recognized elsewhere, I guess. I've re-added the award back. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  01:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks fine now, maybe I misread it or you added something. T ru  c o   15:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL. Its come a long way ;)15:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC) T ru  c o  
 * It sure has. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - please link ensemble cast in the lead— Chris!  c t 21:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I can now support— Chris!  c t 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh joy, awards lists have spread to actors now. One might be able to argue that this list recreates existing content, since Heath Ledger does have [an extremely ugly] list of awards. However, this one is much nicer. -- Scorpion 0422  15:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from The lead (especially the first paragraph) does not flow well at all. The density of issues is troubling; parts of the lead need to be rewritten. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Heath Ledger was an Australian film actor, who received numerous awards and honours in the course of a career that spanned over 16 years. " Mentioning his propensity to winning awards and honors is POV; this is a lead sentence, start out simply. Then, we have redundancy and repetition of ideas: "who received numerous awards and honours in the course of a career that spanned over 16 years. He won or was nominated for awards for his work in several films."
 * How is this ---> "Heath Ledger was an Australian film actor, who received numerous awards and honours in the course of a career that spanned over 16 years", POV? His career lasted 16 years. This opener is similar to Judy Garland's list.
 * Saying that he has received numerous awards in the first sentence is unnecessarily putting him in a good light; the first sentence should establish notability and establish context, no more. Also, the comma needs to be removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, I've removed "who received numerous awards and honours". -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ledger received acclaim in the Australian crime film Two Hands (1999), for which he received nominations at the Australian Film Institute (AFI) and Film Critics Circle of Australia in the categories for Best Actor." The ideas are poorly presented, try "Ledger received acclaim for his acting in the Australian crime film Two Hands (1999), receiving nominations at the Australian Film Institute (AFI) and Film Critics Circle of Australia in the categories for Best Actor."
 * Done.
 * "His next film role was the title character in the 2003 biographical film Ned Kelly. His performance was acknowledged in his native Australia, from which he received his second AFI and Film Critics Circle award nominations." Repetition again: "native Australia"—we already know he was from there.
 * Removed.
 * "Ledger's next feature garnered him an Academy Award, British Academy Film Award (BAFTA), Golden Globe Award, and Screen Actors Guild Award nominations, for his performance as Ennis Del Mar in the 2005 film Brokeback Mountain." Why keep readers guessing? Try this: "Ledger's performance as Ennis Del Mar in the 2005 film Brokeback Mountain garnered him Academy Award, British Academy Film Award (BAFTA), Golden Globe Award, and Screen Actors Guild Award nominations.
 * Done.
 * "In 2006, he starred in the Australian romantic drama Candy, in which Ledger was nominated in the category for Best Actor at the AFI, Film Critics Circle, and Inside Film awards ceremony." Wordy and confusing. Suggestion: "In 2006, he starred in the Australian romantic drama Candy, and was nominated in the category for Best Actor at the AFI, Film Critics Circle, and Inside Film awards ceremony for his role in the movie."
 * Done.

~ Itzjustdrama ? C 04:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Under the People's Choice Awards, shouldn't those two award be posthumous?
 * Done.
 * "Heath Ledger was an Australian film actor whose course of a career spanned over 16 years." I don't like the way it sounds. get rid of "course of a".
 * Done.
 * "The Boston Society of Film Critics (BSFC) is an organisation of film reviewers from Boston-based publications." Consistentcy with San Franciso and Pheonix.
 * I'm not sure what you mean.
 * It currently says "The Boston Society of Film Critics (BSFC) is an organisation of film reviewers from Boston, Massachusetts, United States, based publications." I suggest changing it to match similar sentences ("The Phoenix Film Critics Society (PFCS) is an organisation of film reviewers from Phoenix-based publications", "The San Francisco Film Critics Circle Awards, founded in 2002, are given annually to honour fine achievements in filmmaking by an organisation of film reviewers from San Francisco-based publications.")
 * I think I got it. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Chicago Film Critics Association is an American film critic association and it is held annually." Is the Association held annually?
 * According to here it is held annually.
 * The source says the Chicago 	Film Critics Awards are held annually. The sentence says that the Association itself is held annually. Maybe reword to something like "The Chicago Film Critics Association is an American film critic association and holds the Chicago 	Film Critics Awards annually. To avoid confusion.
 * Done. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "In December of each year, the DFWFCA meets to vote on their Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards for films released in the same calendar year." I think it sounds better as "In December of each year, the DFWFCA meets to award their Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards to films released in the same calendar year."
 * Done.
 * "The Film Critics Circle of Australia (FCCA) is a non-profit organisation, a group of cinema critics that judge Australian films." The Film Critics Circle of Australia (FCCA) is a non-profit organisation of cinema critics that judge Australian films.
 * Done.
 * "Each year, the IFC meets to vote on their Iowa Film Critics Awards for films released in the same or the previous calendar year." Each year, the IFC meets to award their Iowa Film Critics Awards to films released in the same or the previous calendar year.
 * Done.
 * "The Los Angeles Film Critics Association (LAFCA) was founded in 1975. Its main purpose is to present yearly awards to members of the film industry who have excelled in their fields. Each year, the association honours the best in film." The second sentence sounds redudant.
 * Removed.
 * "In December of each year, the SEFCA meets to vote on their Southeastern Film Critics Association Award for films released in the same calendar year." In December of each year, the SEFCA meets to award their Southeastern Film Critics Association Award to films released in the same calendar year.
 * Done.
 * "Each year, the TFCA meets to vote on their Toronto Film Critics Association Awards to honour films released in the same calendar year." Each year, the TFCA meets to honour films released in the same calendar year with their Toronto Film Critics Association Awards to honour films. I don't know if that sounds better. I just really don't like "to vote on"
 * Done and I guess the wording is fine between the two.
 * Whoops. I suggested you write to honour films twice in the the same sentence. Remove the "to honour films" at the end please.
 * Oops, that's my bad, as well. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association (WDAFCA) is a group of film critics based out of Washington, D.C. that was founded in 2002." Founded in 2002, the Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association (WDAFCA) is a group of film critics based out of Washington, D.C..
 * Done.
 * Thank you for taking the time to give some comments, hopefully I've gotten them all. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  15:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three replies. I was a bit unclear on two of them. ~ Itzjustdrama ?  C 20:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed them. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Support I think it looks good. ~ Itzjustdrama ? C 21:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment What's the point of having a prose for every award? Couldn't readers just click on the award wikilink? --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]] call me Keith 06:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why make readers go away from the article to understand things that are essential to this list? Besides, this is the format followed by all most awards lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't think it's more productive for the reader, but since most awards list has it, then ehh... --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]] call me Keith 15:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want to throw a spanner in the works, because from what I gather from the comments here the list has gone through a few style changes, from the way it is now, to something looking like List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men, and back to this layout. WP:FILMS and WP:ACTOR award lists don't follow the WP:MUSIC award list style though, as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Matthewedwards : Chat  18:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll fix the table format, again, to comply with the right style guideline. Though, I may get to it to tomorrow, I can't do it right now. I'm just hoping this doesn't interfere with the nomination process. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  22:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I have a question. How should the list look like? Should it look like Clint Eastwood's list? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think like at List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men. But you're better off asking at the two Wikiprojects I gave earlier. They'll know more. I'm not a member of either. Matthewedwards : Chat  18:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a message at WP:ACTOR, hopefully that clears it up. For now, I'll change the list style to No Country for Old Men. For now, though. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  15:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was decided that the list should not follow music list awards, meaning that it should not have the "lengthy descriptions" of the awards. So, I've gone with the format that No Country for Old Men uses. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose until fixed up nice and proper.
 * "more than 16 years", to avoid "spanned over".
 * Done.
 * "receiving Best Actor nominations at ...", in which his performance was ack. in his second ..."
 * That doesn't make sense.
 * "garnered" ... bit lah-de-dah. Plain English?
 * Is "earned" plain English?
 * "category of"?
 * Why "of"? That doesn't make sense.
 * "in the category for Best Actor"—is it really necessary to use all of those words? "as Best Actor"?
 * Done.
 * "included"
 * Where?
 * "also" unnecessary, and discounts the "also-ran" clause.
 * This is a noun group (one big noun): "excellence of professionals in the film industry, including directors, actors, and writers." The "head" is "excellence". Put simply, when there's an "of", you need a "the".
 * Is this written in AusEng? If not, why not? "theater"?
 * St.George ... Do they really us a dot still? Space required.
 * If he's dead, don't use the recent past tense: "Ledger has received one award." More than one case.
 * Awkward hyphenation: "New York City-based publications". Better "publications based in New York City".
 * Why is "Internet" linked?
 * Sloppy again: "has decided the winners the past few years"

I haven't read through all of it. Please get someone else to sift for prose problems and glitches. Tony  (talk)  05:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gotten your queries. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  16:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I find the infobox confusing, the totals aren't reflected in the rows above. I understand you've only included the "major" awards to prevent the infobox from being enormous, perhaps you can include the others with a hide/show?  Right now it's just a bit odd as the values just don't add up!
 * I fixed the infobox setting.
 * "His next film role was the title character in the 2003 biographical ..." not true. According to IMDB (not 100% reliable perhaps, but...) he was in other film roles before 2003, including A Knight's Tale and Monster's Ball.
 * Added films.
 * "His performance was acknowledged ..." reads a little understated. Anyone could "acknowledge" his performance, but the awards industry actually rewarded him (or similar).
 * Done.
 * " for his role in the movie" - you've already said "he starred in the Australian romantic drama" in the same sentence, so some of this is redundant.
 * Removed.
 * Remove spaces between text and notes.
 * I think I got it.
 * "List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees – Youngest Nominees for Best Actor " younges nominees (these are not proper nouns so don't need the capitalisation).
 * Done.
 * The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gotten all your concerns. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  16:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments continuing...
 * May just be me being tired but I get 38 nominations, not 36 per the infobox summary. And 56 wins instead of 57.  But I do have The Sugarhill Gang playing too loud so perhaps it's putting me off from counting properly?  Could you just check those numbers for me?  Thanks.
 * It's not you. I get the same numbers. By the way, can you change the lead sentence to "whose career lasted more than 16 years"?
 * I fixed the numbers and can you give me a suggestion for the "16" sentence, since one does not come to mind. ~ Itzjustdrama ?  C 17:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)--  ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was suggesting the sentence to read "Heath Ledger was an Australian film actor whose career lasted more than 16 years." ~ Itzjustdrama ?  C 20:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you and I fixed the sentence opener. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "...biographical film Ned Kelly. He received his second ..." - "biographical film Ned Kelly for which he received his second ..." (just to be clear?)
 * Done.
 * The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the continuation comments. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Closing note I am going to archive this page for now, simply because it does have three active opposing users. However, it does seem like most of their concerns have been addressed, so I encourage you to re-submit it. -- Scorpion 0422  21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.