Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by American Hustle/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 SchroCat 08:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of accolades received by American Hustle edit

List of accolades received by American Hustle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Corvoe (speak to me) 14:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC), Cowlibob (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and Cowlibob are nominating this for featured list because it meets the six criteria for a featured list: prose, comprehensiveness, structure, style and stability. The article is well written and features professional standards of writing. The lead provides a description of American Hustle, the venues in which it was shown, the nominations and awards which it has received, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. The article comprehensively addresses all of the nominations and awards that American Hustle received with proper citation. The length of the list is appropriate for the subject, provides suitable supplementary information to the main article and does not duplicate information. The list is easy to navigate through and includes helpful section headings. The list fully complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour. There are no red-linked items. The picture of Jennifer Lawrence on the red carpet at the 70th Golden Globe Awards is freely licensed and helps to illustrate the article. The article is stable. The content has not changed significantly during the last few weeks. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments some quick ones while I wait for my flight...
  • We don't start (and haven't started for some years) featured lists with prose such as "The following is a list of accolades...."
  • Image caption, ordinarily we'd put (pictured) in italics, but I'm not even sure it's needed here, it's pretty obvious that it's her pictured.
  • Interesting mix of nomenclature, the article uses "accolades", the infobox uses "accolades", "Awards & nominations" and "wins and nominations"...
  • Being US-English, shouldn't "theatres" be "theaters"?
  • "The film has in total grossed worldwide" -> "The film has grossed a worldwide total of..."
  • "David O. Russell's highest grossing" no need to repeat first names.
  • "film-to-date" no need to hyphenate.
  • "Best Actress - Musical or Comedy for Adams" en-dash required.
  • Five lead paras is too much really, consider merging the major award paras.
  • "the film won for Outstanding Performance" not sure of the purpose of the word "for" here.
  • "American Film Institute included the film in their list" -> "The American Film Institute included the film in its list..."
  • Table needs to have row and col scopes included per MOS:DTT for accessibility.
  • "Central Ohio Film Critics Association" Catching Fire needs to be in italics.
  • "Dallas-Fort Worth" needs en-dash.
  • "Outstanding Direction - Feature Film" ditto.
  • "(also for..." varies in text size, be consistent.
  • Boxofficemojo appears to be simply Box Office Mojo.
  • Hitfix appears to be HitFix.
  • Check ref 8, 31 etc for en-dash.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done all. Has uniform nomenclature now as well. Cowlibob (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Betty Logan I think I can broadly support this, but here a few observations:

  1. The film has grossed a worldwide total of over $251 million on a budget of $40 million, making it a box-office success. – Per MOS:FILM#Box office editors should refrain from making subjective claims about whether the film was a financial success. Box Office Mojo doesn't draw any conclusions about profitability etc.
  2. Upon release, it was met with widespread critical acclaim and has a 93 percent rating on review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, based on a sample of 243 reviews – Per WP:AGG aggregators don't determine whether a film was acclaimed or not; they just tot up the number of positive/negative reviews. Instead of saying the film "met with widespread critical acclaim", you should simply state that "Upon release, review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 243 reviews and judged 93 percent to be positive". Also, I believe that critics submit their reviews to Rotten Tomatoes which makes it a survey as opposed to a sample.
  3. The blue writing on the blue background in the infobox fails the WCAG AAA contrast text. You can check color combinations at: http://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/. I suggest changing it to a non-blue background.
  4. In the Broadcast Film Critics Association entry, Christian Bale is unnecessarily linked again.
  5. There are several entries such as with the Central Ohio Film Critics Association entry where you have "Amy Adams (also for Man of Steel and Her)" and "Jennifer Lawrence (also for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire)". This is slightly ambiguous: do you mean that the actresses received further nominations in the same category or that it was a single nomination shared across several films? This re-occurs for Chritsian Bale and the London Film Critics Circle Awards. If it was a single nomination for several films this should be made clear. If you wish to see an example of the confusion this can cause see [2] and [3].
Overall this is a comprehenisve and well-sourced list. If the above issues are resolved it has my unreserved support. Betty Logan (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: Thank you for your comments! Everything but the colour change has been done. I'm having an issue figure out the actual colour of the blue links in order to fix it. It seems like nothing short of black will pass the test. And I also don't think the colour change needs to be done; virtually every film accolades page, and all but one (Up) of the Featured List pages with an info box (An Education, Atonement, Avatar, Black Swan, Frida, Gosford Park, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, The Lords of the Rings series, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, Mr. Nobody, My Week with Marilyn, Precious, Ratatouille, Sense and Sensibility, the Spider-Man series, True Grit, Up in the Air, WALL-E, Winter's Bone, and The Young Victoria) use the colour scheme currently on this page. It seems like it's been okay for a really long time to have that formatting, and appears to be more or less a standard at this point. I'm a little reluctant to change it, truthfully, and I don't think it's particularly necessary unless we also want to change the colours for every article I listed. If that's what is decided, then that's fine, but it seems a bit excessive. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are just suggestions, not demands. I am pleased you have adopted most of them and just so there is no confusion I support the list's promotion. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: I apologize, Betty. I didn't mean to imply that you were being demanding. It was a bit of overkill to list all of those, I admit. Again, I apologize. Thank you very much for your support and your help! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 14:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
  • The opening sentence of the lead doesn't read well. Consider splitting it into two
  • Four paras for a lead of this size is too much.
  • Alt text needs to mention the name of the actress per WP:ALT
  • Link Rotten Tomatoes
  • Link all the entries in "Recipients and Nominees" column, else remove sortability.@Vensatry: As per [[4]], it is convention that links only appear once per occurrence in table. Cowlibob (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2,500 theaters in United States and Canada" Don't we add a the before United States?
  • Why is that you have linked a few websites? like BBC News. They may be linked but do you have any special reason for doing it here?
  • Also why italicise Detroit Film Critics Society and Vancouver Film Critics Circle?
  • Add page nos. for ref #15
  • Expand AMPAS in refs.

—Vensatry (ping) 18:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: I did all of this but one; I'm perplexed by your confusion about the link to BBC News in the refs. If it's got a link, why not link it? Corvoe (speak to me) 19:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I mean why are they italicised? —Vensatry (ping) 02:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Double checked and everything has been done except linking every recipient every time. I used the cite news template for those references as they are news articles on the web, which automatically italicises. Cowlibob (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had linked everyone. Why'd you undo it, Cowlibob? I agree with Vensatry in this case, it either shouldn't be sortable or all names should be linked. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may have misread that bit in MOS. I've only ever seen the first occurrence being linked in tables but can see the merit in linking everything in this case. Cowlibob (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the table, American Hustle isn't linked at all. Also add links for recipients who don't have a page too. Red-links aren't a problem. —Vensatry (ping) 04:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry:Done! All recipients are now linked in the table. Cowlibob (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I cannot comment on the comprehensiveness of the list due to my limited knowledge on the topic. Rest all looks good to me. —Vensatry (ping) 14:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Krimuk90
  • "American Hustle initially had a limited release at six theaters on December 13, 2013 before later going on wide release at over 2,500 theaters in the United States and Canada on December 20 by Columbia Pictures." This does not read very well. Consider rewording this, or splitting it.
  • It is also Russell's highest grossing film to date". Please say, "as of 2014, it is also Russell's..."
  • "Upon release" is quite redundant.
  • Isn't it important to note in the lead that American Hustle is one of the few films to be nominated in all four acting categories at the Oscars?
  • In the table, consider using a separate column for the references. Just a suggestion!
  • I see several instances of poorly formatted references. For instance, why are HitFlix and Deadline.com in italics? They are web sources and not newspaper/magazine print sources. Please use the "cite web" ref format for online sources and the "cite news" format for newspaper/magazine print sources.

-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90:The lead changes are implemented. Fixed all the reference formatting I think. Deadline.com and Empire are magazines. THR and Variety are trade newspapers so can be italicised. Nice suggestion with having a separate column for references, will definitely consider doing that for future articles. Cowlibob (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was a bit unclear in the previous comment. Please format Deadline.com and BBC News using the cite web template. Anyway, I have made a few other changes to the lead. Will be happy to support after you change the ref format. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deadline and BBC News now use cite web template. Cowlibob (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I still see some discrepancies. Ref 9, 10, 11, 23, 47, and 68 are still incorrectly formatted. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should be all formatted properly now. Cowlibob (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: A great list on a wonderful film! Well done. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support! Cowlibob (talk) 14:27, 12 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_accolades_received_by_American_Hustle/archive1&oldid=1138485308"