Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Ray LaMontagne/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 13:41, 8 April 2009.

List of awards and nominations received by Ray LaMontagne

 * Nominator(s): Another Believer  ( Talk )

I am nominating this awards list for FL status because I believe it qualifies and I have made several improvements to the list based on suggestions made in the peer review process. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 
 * Lead
 * Singles that have charted include "Trouble" (#25 on the UK Singles Chart)[5] and "You Are the Best Thing" (#90 in the US and #42 in Canada). -- What are these US and Canadian charts being referred to?
 * US = Billboard Hot 100 and Canada = Hot Canadian Digital Singles. The sentence now includes the chart names. Still working on below... -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph should summarize his awards more, just the awards won from his first album isn't representative of his overall career.
 * Better?
 * Yes.-- ₮  RU  C  Ө   23:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * Awards
 * Some awards have the purpose of the awards, others don't. The purposes need to be added and verified by a source. A purpose must state as to why the awards are given, not just what they are.-- ₮  RU  C  Ө   21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Better? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The MOJO awards needs a source.-- ₮  RU  C  Ө   23:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I clarified that awards are voted on by readers of the magazine, and added a reliable source for verification. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.-- ₮  RU  C  Ө   01:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Complies with criteria 1–7. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to use EveryHit? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would this and this work for the two album chart sources? I am having trouble finding another source for the singles chart... Is that a problem? I will keep looking. -- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 03:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead and change the references used, though I have not heard back from you on the issue. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay, I have been busy. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose What is this, a list of awards and nominations or a discography? The first paragraph speaks only about the albums released by Ray Lamontagne, while the second speaks very little about his awards and nominations. Please expand.  C anniba loki  23:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This awards list follows the exact same format as many of the other lists, including 5 similar awards lists I constructed and took to FL status. I am surprised to see this one criticized when the others were not. However, I will try to see what I can do to receive your support.


 * LaMontagne has also released two EPs: Live from Bonnaroo 2005 was released through RCA in 2005 and Live Sessions was distributed via iTunes in 2009, reaching a peak position at #119 on the Billboard 200. (This sentence is irrelevant and confusing; what EP reached the peak position on the Billboard 200?)
 * Why irrelevant? Live Sessions reached the peak position--would a comma after 2005 help to clarify?


 * Singles that have charted include "Trouble" (#25 on the UK Singles Chart)[6] and "You Are the Best Thing" (#90 on the Billboard Hot 100 and #42 on the Hot Canadian Digital Singles chart). (You must merge the releases according to the nominations that this artist received.)
 * Can you please clarify what this means? I am not sure I understand.

Comment I question whether this list is even needed. Only one of these awards, the BRIT Award, is a non-regional award. Three of them are magazine awards, one of them is a radio award. Ray LaMontagne is only 14 KB, I think this page could easily be merged into there. -- Scorpion 0422  00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly concur with Scorpion. With the main article being so short, why must we have a separate list for the awards? His article is short, and this list is short: only 14 awards, most of which are minor. The lead of the list simply summarizes the main article anyway. I see no reason why they should not be in a single article. Reywas92 Talk  01:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think these awards lists are very informative, organized, and contain a great deal of information, including years, nominations, wins, award descriptions, references, context, etc. I am not sure how you could merge this list into the Ray LaMontagne article while still maintaining the amount of information it occupies in an orderly fashion. The size of the LaMontagne article should not have an influence on this awards list--that article is one that simply needs to be expanded. Featured awards lists with comparable numbers of awards and nominations (or even less) exist for Adele, Fiona Apple, Katy Perry, Matchbox Twenty, Scissor Sisters, etc. I think this list is an asset to WP, and provides the framework for future awards and nominations received by LaMontagne. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I really did not like promoting them because I think such lists promote the belief that all you need for a FL is a lead and a small table and do not represent wikipedia's best work. Why would the table be less informative if merged? You could still split into sections, or merge all of the awards into one table like this, but you could introduce a key to keep the award name size down (I can help you do it). -- Scorpion 0422  02:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was simply suggesting that it would be hard to put all of the information from this list onto LaMontagne's WP article--the awards descriptions, years, results, nominated works, references, etc. However, I take no offense, and my purpose here on WP is simply to try to conduct research, generate frameworks for displaying information as accurately and organized as possible, and making improvements whenever needed. If more experienced users feel this list is unnecessary, I will leave that in your hands to decide. I feel the list is worthy and appropriate, but being the creator I am certainly biased. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would like an example of a GA for a BLP that also has an awards table, there is Julie Kavner. The awards list has more items than this one does and is not too unwieldy. I just don't think incorporating a fully formatted table would look as terrible as you think. -- Scorpion 0422  03:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this seems to be a serious issue. I am striking my support until we reach a consensus. To be fair, I don't think this FLC and other similar ones should be archived until the issue is resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly is a consensus being reached on? Whether or not the list should exist as its own article? That decision will have to be made by others. I feel I created this list by following examples of other FL awards lists. It is accurate, relevant, of FL quality, and I believe it should remain as is. However, if others feel differently, I understand and respect the process of WP. However, I am not sure why this list is different than the others previously mentioned, or why this list would be questioned or considered for removal. I've seen other featured awards lists that I feel are of lesser quality. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) See. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored my support because although there is debate on whether this should be a list, as a list, this article meets the current criteria. The support has no relation to my position of whether this list should or exist or not. If a new criterion is added to the FL criteria, this would be a different story. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but I think that it does not meet the very first, and most important, part of the criteria: "A featured list exemplifies our very best work." The criteria also says: "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content", although they are not specifically mentioned, I believe this list is not notable enough for it's own page and is content forking. Currently, there is no opposition to the proposed criteria change, so I'm not sure I like the idea of promoting pages that may just end up at FLRC within a few months. Either way, I'll leave this one for Matthewedwards to close. -- Scorpion 0422  14:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so here is my compromise. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Cr. 7. Even though this page does not have any edit wars, the ongoing discussion about this topic makes all these "award" pages unstable. I suggest putting on hold all nominations of such lists until a consensus is reached.--Crzycheetah 05:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per 3b of the new FL criteria. This is an excellent list, but I no longer believe this list warrants being split off from the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.