Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Winter's Bone/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 Dabomb87 16:23, 6 June 2011 [1].

---

List of accolades received by Winter's Bone

List of accolades received by Winter's Bone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Winter's Bone/archive1

Nominator(s): Crystal Clear x3 06:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I am nominating this list for FL because I believe it meets the criteria. If there are any problems with this list I am more than willing to immediately fix them. Thanks! Crystal Clear x3 06:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose some basic issues, but here's a list on a quick run-through. Don't bold Winter's Bone in the intro per WP:MOSBOLD.  Done "$84 thousand" why not "84,000" and which dollar, US or Canadian?  Done "ranking 35th place at the box office." what's the context for this, is this in the top 1%, top 10% or what? I have instead removed that part. "Since then it has grossed over $6,500,000 domestically and $12,466,317 ..." last figure far too precise!!  Done "two dozen movie reviewers Top Ten " surely a missing apostrophe here?  Done "Her role in this movie..." would be better to re-confirm "Lawrence's..." here.  Done "in A Motion Picture - Drama" en-dash needed.  Done " It received four nominations from the 83rd Academy Awards ceremony" surely "at the ceremony" rather than "from the ceremony" - the nominations take place way before the ceremony. In fact, maybe this needs completely rewording. I have reworded the sentence to "It received four nominations from the 83rd Academy Awards, but did not win any accolades at the ceremony." Is that better? "Lawrence and Hawkes' acting" why not "Lawrence's" here as well?  Done Why are some award bodies linked in the infobox and others not, when they're linked in the main table? e.g. Berlin International Film Festival?  Fixed "Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film" is omitted from the infobox, any reason why? Especially when you totalise the awards and nominations but this body's awards will be omitted...  Fixed Los Angeles FCA was a nom, not a win (infobox is incorrect it would seem).  Fixed San Fran FCCA has 2/2 in infobox but only one entry in the list.  Fixed Also check Toronto.  Done Avoid all those CAPITAL LETTERS IN THE REF TITLES.  Done The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your input! Much appreciated. Is there anything else wrong with the list that would stop you from supporting it becoming an FL? Crystal Clear x3 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 06:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

;Comments by Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Infobox Requesting ALT  Done "John Hawkes has received numerous nominations for his work in Winter's Bone" -> Which was his work?  Fixed & -> Change to "and" per WP:& (in all the article)  Done 91 nominees -> I counted 92  Fixed Lead 94% -> WP:%  Done of the movie itself (Best Film), to its direction, cinematography and writing (Best Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Adapted Screenplay), -> Why do not keep it short?  Fixed mainly John Hawkes's and Jennifer Lawrence's for Best Supporting Actor and Best Actress. -> Suggesting: mainly John Hawkes for Best Actor and Jennifer Lawrence for Best Supporting Actress.  Done Awards and nominations Chicago Film Critics Association: Black Swan -> Oops!  Fixed References 2.- IGN Entertainment. -> Flixster  Done I have fixed everything you suggested. Is there anything else? Crystal Clear x3 05:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I'm not American as you know, but "grey" should not be "gray"? Or both are used. Also, I mean this, sorry for not being explicit. On the other hand, you should avoid to use {{done}} and {{fixed}} per WP:FLC rules "Graphics are discouraged", just use a bolded done. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC) done Crystal Clear x3 06:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Why not, a very good work which deserves a star. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!! Crystal Clear x3 06:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. First, let me declare my interest. I did copyedit the article earlier following a request from Crystal Clear x3. I fixed up some of the sentence structures and removed a redundant description of Rotten Tomatoes. I think the prose is OK now and the links all check out. I can see no issues with the criteria. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 07:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! Crystal Clear x3 20:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Noticed some misplaced apostrophes in a couple places. There's "appeared in more than two dozen movie reviewer's", where the apostrophe should be at the end, and "included in the Top Ten Best Film's of 2010", which doesn't need one at all. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected those two sentences. Are there anymore? Thanks Crystal Clear x3 06:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have some basic prose issues.

• 2010 independent American dramatic production directed by Debra Granik --> Why not just drama film? Dramatic production seems a bit too archaic.

done

• Winter's Bone appeared in more than two dozen movie reviewers --> Substitute the name of the movie here with "The film", since you just mentioned the film's name in the preceding sentence. It looks like repetition.

done

• The film has received various honors in nomination categories ranging from --> The list is mainly about the accolades right? So to make it more straight forward, "The film has received honors in different categories, ranging from..."

done

• Lawrence and Hawkes' acting earned them each a nomination from the 17th Screen Actors Guild Awards. --> Repetition of Lawrence, better would be "Both the principal actors earned a nomination at the 17th Screen Actors Guild Awards..."

done

• It needs a last summarizing sentence indicating how many awards were won frm how many nominations.

done

These are all I found from the lead. The references and the table formatting looks splendid, although it would be better if you start archiving the references. Some of them are bound to be dead links soon, especially PDF references. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, much appreciated! Crystal Clear x3 22:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Support I am supporting this nomination for promoting it as a FL, but in future I would really like you to archive the links for maintaining its FL status. So many articles deteriorate because of not archiving links. Alas, if only I personally had started it early. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

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