Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey/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, 17 July 2018 (UTC).

List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey

 * Nominator(s): Jiten talkcontribs 13:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of awards and nominations received by actor Matthew McConaughey, well known for his role in the movies Dazed and Confused (1993), A Time to Kill (1996), Bernie (2011), Killer Joe (2011), Magic Mike (2012), The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), Dallas Buyers Club (2013), Interstellar (2014) and the TV series True Detective. I tried to make the list as comprehensive as I could and used the List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio as a base for the format. This is my first good/featured content nomination so I hope I haven't messed anything up. Questions and suggestions are most welcome. Thank you for your time and efforts. Jiten talkcontribs 13:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per my so-called comments on my talk. I have made several edits to the list i.e. copy-edits, formatting. I don't know if I am too involved to support it, but I think it meets the criteria. FrB.TG (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support after a read-through, this appears to meet the criteria. I added an "a" and a "the" in various places... Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me. I wouldn’t mind having a similar table when writing a future list (although I haven’t written an FL in months). FrB.TG (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This kind of format is starting to get me down a little. The MASSIVE whitespace in the lead beside the basically pointless TOC is frankly awful and the multiple single-entry tables are pretty much useless.  I'm unclear as to why we wouldn't use the "List of awards and nominations received by ... A MOVIE" template which puts all the wins, nominations etc into a single table.  The movie award FLs don't feel the need to explain the reason behind each award, and simply link to them instead.  I know the default response is "all the rest are like this" but I honestly can't remember one with the visual shortcomings that this one has.  It's nothing personal at all, but I can't, in all sincerity, support this format.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the whitespace is pointless and the awards with a single nomination/win just make the article lengthy. However, I find the introduction for each award quite informative. I'll gladly remove them if they seem unnecessary though (as I said, I'm a newbie when it comes to featured content). I'm not sure which template you are referring to. Can you provide an example? If the template makes the article more visually appealing, I'm all for it. I found that finding sources and making the list as exhaustive as possible was the hard bit. Switching the format shouldn't be too hard — just lots of copy-pasting stuff around. Jiten talkcontribs 17:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding and open thinking! I guess I'm thinking along the lines of List of accolades received by Call Me by Your Name (film) for example, just to see if we can create a more aesthetically pleasing single table?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I've revamped the format along the lines of the list you recommended. How does this look? Pinging and  for their opinions on it as well.  Jiten talkcontribs 23:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * sorry for the delay, I've been batting away some nuisance flies. I think your proposed new format looks spot on.  Hopefully others will agree, and we can start a new dawn for individual accolade FLs! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries about the delay! I've left a note on the talk pages of the other two reviewers for their opinions on the new format. If there is agreement, I'll implement the changes to the article right away. Jiten talkcontribs 10:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The new format looks better to me. Courcelles (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've made the changes to the article. Let me know if there are any other improvements that can be done. Jiten talkcontribs 09:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will do. I'm sorry I haven't got back to it, I've been super busy in real life and now I'm away on business but I'm hoping I can get to this review as soon as possible.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Great work! — Miss Sarita 15:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support This is a really great work and a definite improvement with the new format which is very much pleasing to the eye aesthetically I should say. — IB [ Poke ] 09:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Otherwise I think it's a great piece of work and should set the new standard in actor accolade FLs. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see McConaughy introduced before we start talking about his awards, so effectively something like switching the first and second paras around.
 * Or at least put his acting career into some kind of perspective in the opening sentence (e.g. when he made his debut etc).
 * I have a test lede here if you dont mind taking a look. Another option is to just drop the "...has received various awards and nominations, including an Academy Award..." part since a lot of the awards are covered in the other paras.
 * Comments like " to critical acclaim. " really need inline references.
 * Added ref.
 * I think "5th place" to "9th place" should sort between "Runner-up" and "Nominated".
 * I did a little bit of testing in my own time and it looks like the code  doesnt work well with   for example. The only workaround I could find was to manually edit the cell and add the sort parameter along with it (which is what I did here). If you have a simpler method in mind, do let me know!
 * Thanks for the comments, . Let me know if you agree/disagree with the proposed lede and the other changes I made. Jiten talkcontribs 20:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You good to go on this one? -- Pres N  01:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good, no great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review – The reliability of the references looks okay, but there are several issues I found. Most are minor, but at least one is significant. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Refs 9–12 (all from PR Newswire) each show up as dead links on the link-checker tool. If they are dead, we'll need either archived versions or replacements. The rest of the web sources appear to be in working order.
 * Archived all 4 links. Thanks for pointing it out!
 * Access dates are missing from refs 47 and 48.
 * Added access dates.
 * The publisher of ref 37 (Horzu) should be italicized since that is a print publication.
 * Done.
 * Some of the HitFix refs have the publisher italicized and some don't. I'd imagine that one style should be used consistently throughout the article.
 * Italicized in all refs.
 * Thanks for the source review, . I've made the necessary changes. Let me know if more needs to be done! :) Jiten talkcontribs 12:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * With those fixes, I consider this source review a pass. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

-- Pres N  17:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.