Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Brokeback Mountain/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 08:24, 13 October 2015 [1].

List of accolades received by Brokeback Mountain edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list status because after heavy cleanup, I believe that it meets the criteria. For those of you who don't know, Brokeback Mountain is a 2005 epic romantic drama film about the complex romantic and sexual relationship between two men, Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist. It won the Academy Award for Best Director and controversially lost Best Picture to Crash. It received 77 wins and 143 nominations. I look forward to reading and responding to any comments! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GagaNutellatalk 03:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from GagaNutella
  • .The wide release -> ,which.
  • Done
  • done
  • Delete the "vertical bar" of Venice International Film Festival.
  • Done
  • See also: unnecessary descriptions.
  • Done
  • External links: prefer to use accolades instead of awards.
  • Done
  • You need to fix the sources and know when to use work or publisher, for example BBC News you use publisher because it doesn't need to be in italic.
  • Oh no, I'm not talking about "cite news" or "cite web", I meant if it is publisher or work. I'm going to list here the "work" ones, the rest you can use publisher.
- Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Herald Sun, The Boston Globe, Variety, Movie City News, TV Guide, People, Filmmaker, and Time Out. And one final thing, on the fourth paragraph, change the [6] source place right before LA Weekly. GagaNutellatalk 19:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GagaNutella: Everything you indicated should not be in italics is now not in italics. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 01:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for being so boring, but we're talking about a FL. Please, all sources containing these names I have listed above must be in italic (work). The rest you need to change for publisher. I saw you just changed some. Make it and we're finished. GagaNutellatalk 01:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GagaNutella: Oh! I thought you meant the other way around, which seemed kind of strange to me. Anyways, it should be better now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 16:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GagaNutellatalk 15:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GagaNutella: I believe that everything is fixed. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. I saw your American Horror Story awards list--I'm a fan of the show and will review that soon. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 18:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just fix the sources and it will be fine. By the way, I would love to see you reviewing my FLC. Thank you! GagaNutellatalk 19:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*87th Academy Awards should by changed to 78th Academy Awards since the film was nominated for those awards during that particular ceremony.
  • Done. I seem to do that a lot for whatever reason...
Comments by Birdienest81
  • I would count the ties and runners up as wins since some critics groups award ties and runners up. Therefore they would not be considered a "lost" since runners up and ties are considered a form of recognition. See List of accolades received by Gravity (film) for an example which includes a footnote which I strongly recommend placing next to the Total Awards and Nominations in the infobox.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: Done. Let me know if you have any other comments! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johanna: I would also change the color of the 2nd place, 3rd place, etc. to green and include them as part of the wins in the infobox. List overall looks very promising.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: Done. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Excellent list.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*No need for in addition. Just say Michelle Williams..... featured in supporting roles. This needs a ref too.
  • Done
  • "The film received its world premiere" -->The film premiered at the Venice…
  • Done
  • Too much detail about the box office. Just say how much it grossed at the end of its run on what budget.
  • Done
  • For the SAG Awards, just say "more than any other film"
  • Done
  • The last paragraph on the snub at the Oscars could be cut down a lot. Also it needs ref for "several critics". Can't use just two critics. The author of the work is of course going to be annoyed that it didn't win, no need to mention it. Overall it goes into too much detail better suited for the main article.
  • Take a look now. I could cut it down more, but that would be bordering on only showing one side… Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough to just keep adding critics, it's POV. Someone could add referenced people who thought Crash should have won and claim the opposite. You need to provide a reference where it's a summary of a lot of different critics opinions. It shouldn't be hard to find as it got a lot coverage back in the day for the "homophobia" claim.
  • Done. Added 2 refs and shortened the paragraph as a whole.
The views of one blogger, one "cinema fan", someone from a Community Center opinions are not needed. The other is a list of what critic's opinions of the "biggest Oscar shocks". Neither of the sources talk about it not being a ground breaking choice. Perhaps these sources for the homophobia aspect [[2]],[[3]].Cowlibob (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Jarhead film should be wikilinked as Jarhead.
  • Done
  • Hollywood Film Awards is missing closing of brackets.
"(also for Jarhead and Proof", Also in the Golden Globe Awards row ""A Love That Will Never Grow Old"(Gustavo Santaolalla, Bernie Taupin, and Emmylou Harris"
Done. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace Cinema Blend, Movie City News, Rockonthenet and Alt Film Guide references.
  • I tried really hard to find better sources than these, but I couldn't. Unless you can find some alternatives, should I remove them?
I'll have a look around.
@Johanna: I found an article from the Reading Eagle about Brokeback Mountain being named in the top ten for the African-American film critics society. Click here.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: Thank you so much! I incorporated these into the article. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Variety should be italicized.
  • Done
  • Alt text for image needs changing "Hilary Swank in 2010"!?
  • Done Bad copy-paste mistake… :)
  • Ref 9, 26,34, 39, 43, 52, 54 are deadlinks.
  • They're not, actually. They're just originals of links that were already archive
Fixed these for you. For future reference it's archivedate=, archiveurl= not archive-date=, archive-url=
  • Ref 6, 32 are redirects.
  • These links were already archived as well. These websites just redirected them to a generic page instead of a 404. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed these also. The USC ref redirected to the main page so there was no evidence of the nomination. I've archived the link for you.

Cowlibob (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: Take a look now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nikki Finke's article seems to be on Deadline.com not LA Weekly. Cowlibob (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should change the reference as well as the publisher still is LA Weekly.Cowlibob (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: Done. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are outstanding awards/nominations not cited to reliable sources. Amanda Award nom, American Cinema Editors nom, Austin film critics noms, Vancouver film critics noms, Dallas Fort-Worth Film Critics awards and noms.
  • After some digging I found one for the American Cinema Editors and Dallas–Fort Worth Critics (both awards and noms). Removed the rest. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also many of the entries in the award are redirects to the organisation organising the awards so they should be changed to the organisation e.g. Austin Film Critics Association Awards, Chicago Film Critics Association Awards. Cowlibob (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: I don't know what you mean here. Could you specify what you would like it to read or link to? Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Currently those above and some others just redirect to the article on the organisation who organised the awards because there is no dedicated article to just the awards. So just cut the Awards bit and just have it as the name of the organisation e.g. Austin Film Critics Association instead of Austin Film Critics Association Awards. Cowlibob (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: Okay, I see. Done. Do you have any other comments? Thanks for the thorough review. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 01:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 needs page numbers where the cited info can be found within the book. Cowlibob (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Quite well sourced and well formatted. Nice background info in the lede intro sect, which helps provide some context and ground the reader in the subject matter. Good job and good luck, — Cirt (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG edit

Resolved comments from Frankie talk
  • "The film premiered at the" – I think you should a start the para with the film's name.
  • "In total, the film grossed $178 million worldwide on a $14 million" – in total is simply redundant.
  • "The film garnered awards and nominations in a variety of categories" – same as the first concern.
  • "The film garnered awards and nominations in a variety of categories, including for its directing"
  • "more than any other film; however, it did not win any of these awards." – this one needs a source.
  • Ref 7 – I think the title should be The Daily Telegraph.
  • Is CinemaBlend a good source to use? -- Frankie talk 21:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FrB.TG: We're working on that. Cowlibob pointed it out and Birdie found several sources for me. There are still a few left to go, but it should be resolved soon. Update--everything should be sourced reliably now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – all of my craps have been dealt with. -- Frankie talk 15:19, 6 October 2015 (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_Brokeback_Mountain/archive1&oldid=1138485376"