Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Frozen (2013 film)/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 Giants2008 02:10, 4 August 2014 [1].

List of accolades received by Frozen (2013 film) edit

Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Frozen (2013 film)/archive1

Nominator(s): ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC), Cowlibob (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Frozen is recently an unprecedented commercial success and has garnered a number of awards from many film critics and circles, and this article seems to have covered all aspects of them. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Corvoe edit

Some quick observations first, then I'll go more in-depth. First thing I noticed is that there are numerous unlinked recipients. If the table is sortable, all recipients, whether its people or the film title itself, should be wikilinked so a reader doesn't have to go searching for the article. Jeff Draheim is notable enough to have an article, so he warrants a redlink. Also, make sure the references in the ref column are in the correct, numerical order (both the Annies and the Oscars are out of order). More later. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The film centers on a fearless princess, named Anna, who sets off on an epic journey..." This does not read well at all, way too much fluff and promotional sounding language. For starters, change "centers" to "focuses", and make Anna mentioned first. "The film focuses on Anna, a princess..." (as she's far from fearless). Remove "epic journey". Not sure how to deal with "icy powers", but that doesn't read very well either.
"on a budget of $150 million" isn't quite accurate, as that $150m number doesn't include marketing. How about "against a production budget of $150 million"?
"Frozen has garnered awards and nominations in a variety of categories with most of them being in the Best Animated Feature category and..." Far too many words in this sentence. Try something like "Frozen has garnered a variety of awards and nominations, many of them in the Best Original Song (for "Let It Go") and Best Animated Feature categories."
Songs titles aren't italicized, they're put in quotation marks.
"At the 71st Golden Globe Awards, the film earned two nominations and went on to win..." can be shortened to just "two nominations, winning..."
Monsters University should be italicized.
"both earning ten nominations each." This is redundant. Either remove "both" or "each".
"including for Best Animated Feature". For needs to go.
"the Critics' Choice Award for Best Animated Feature and Best Original Song as well as four Visual Effects Society awards." Run-on sentence here. I'd say change "...Original Song as well..." to "Original Song, and..." Also, it won the Critics' Choice Awards for Best Animated/Original Song, as there were multiple awards won.

References

I didn't see any unreliable sources, but some of the publishers/works are not linked while others are. I know some of them probably don't have Wikipedia pages, but Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo should be linked. BOM also doesn't need the publisher of Amazon.
Why is Deadline italicized in one instance, but not italicized and with a ".com" in another?

Not entirely sure that's everything that could be improved here, that's really just at a first read-through. I'm going to have to lean in the favour of opposing this nomination at this time, unless the list is significantly improved in the near future. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Corvoe: I think I've fixed the majority of your points. The references seem out of order because they're also referred to in the lead as well. Have a second read-through and hopefully it should be more pleasant. Cowlibob (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: Well, you definitely improved it significantly in the near future. I made a small copy-edit to the Visual Effects Society Awards. Also, I know the references are odd because they're referred to in the lead, but either a bot or an AWB user will eventually come by and fix the ref order anyway. It should always be numerical, rather than order of content. Once that's fixed, I will be happy to support. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the order. Thanks for the helpful comments. Cowlibob (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! I now endorse my support of this article's promotion. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent work here.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: on prose. Can't find any errors in the lead. Nice job! AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 02:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No major concerns. Excellent job! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well-written, well-sourced. Nice work. --Carioca (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Good work! —Zia Khan 00:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)#[reply]

Thanks for the support! Cowlibob (talk) 06:57, 2 August 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) 02:42, 4 August 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.