Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by The King's Speech/archive2
- 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 19:45, 28 September 2014 [1].
List of accolades received by The King's Speech[edit]
List of accolades received by The King's Speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by The King's Speech/archive1
- Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by The King's Speech/archive2
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The King's Speech is the most successful independent British film, a critical and box office success. It was well-received enough to win a pile of critical riches that were poured forth onto the cast and crew alike. It's had a recent work over, and should now be FL standard. All comments and criticisms are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't a necessity, just curiosity - is there a way to separate the tables like this? Especially the prestigious awards like the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, SAG awards, etc. I feel like that would be better for navigation. Again, not a necessity, the list is great and well sourced :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Lady, It's possible, but not necessarily desirable! Having the results in one table allows readers to sort all the results together. They can see, for example, the number and range of awards won by Tariq Anwar, or Colin Firth, or how many "Best film" awards were won – and all in one table. I find the flexibility of the sort is more useful for general readers than separate tables, which is all a bit too "static" for my liking. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments This one was on my to do list but you got there ahead of me, gosh darnit!
Cowlibob (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Reordered the lead a bit. One minor thing I would add is an introductory sentence before the 83rd academy awards which highlights that although the film earned recognition in a variety of categories, certain aspects of the film earned the most recognition in terms of accolades e.g Firth, Hooper, Rush and Carter. In regards to Metacritic, I've seen that bit of MOS most of the time interpreted as only news/magazine sources should be italicised so I wouldn't be surprised if someone else brought it up but it's so minor. Anyway, great list which is well written and well sourced. Cowlibob (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Cowlibob. I've seen Metacritic italicised and not italicised all over the place, and it's a shame there's no concrete decision made somewhere to make the MoS more clear on this! Thanks again for your time and effort here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Otherwise pretty good stuff. "Just one more thing", how do you know it's comprehensive? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support quality list, decent references, not seeing glaring omissions, all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, RM. As always, your comments are always great to have – and always lead to great improvements. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Can't fault a thing on this excellent list! Cassiantotalk 07:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, Cass. Your time and effort are, as always, much appreciated! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The title is a touch unexpected (I might have gone for "Awards" rather than "Accolades") but that's of no consequence. This is a thorough and impressive piece of work, fully meeting the FL criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 10:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks indeed for your time and thoughts here. As always it is very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.