Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Selena (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 not promoted by NapHit 12:43, 17 October 2012 [1].

List of accolades received by Selena (film)

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

Nominator(s): Jona ^{talk to me} 16:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...I believe it meets the criteria to be a featured list. Best, Jona ^{talk to me} 16:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Link Jennifer Lopez and Selena in the main box

Done Jona ^{talk to me} 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid bold links per WP:CONTEXTLINK

Do you mean in the infobox? Jona ^{talk to me} 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. TBr and ley 02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tables don't meet MOS:ACCESS, add scope="row" to ensure it does

Can you tell me how to do that if I'm using {{awards table}}? Jona ^{talk to me} 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That template only covers scope="col" for the main header, scope rows can still be added with the contents of the table. TBr and ley 02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table don't meet MOS:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does

Per above. Jona ^{talk to me} 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm stuck on this one. It's fine, I guess. TBr and ley 02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher of Box Movie Mojo is actually Amazon.com (who owns the Internet Movie Database)

Done Jona ^{talk to me} 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double quotes (") should be single quotes (') in references per WP:MOS, as seen in ref. 9

Done Jona ^{talk to me} 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add alt text to the image per MOS:IMAGES and WP:ALT

Done Jona ^{talk to me} 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBr and ley 16:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I question whether this article meets criterion 3b ("In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.") With such a short list, could this not reasonably be inserted into the main article body? Ruby 2010/2013 05:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um no it cannot, it will drag the main article down (once fully expanded for FAC) plus FAC reviewers never favor list in article prose and will almost always ask the nominator to turn it into prose. So planning ahead, what is on this list is what it has to offer. If merged into the main article, it will be removed to please FAC reviewers. Best, Jona ^{talk to me} 22:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ruby, fails 3 b. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per above. Jona ^{talk to me} 22:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. It is fails criterion 3b, as well there are not many awards for the film. I'd put it into the main article body. And, if you are taking that article to FA status, just write the awards and stuff out in prose, it is done on many FAs including House (TV series). Also see Grey's Anatomy, an A-Class article. And, the tables still don't meet MOS:ACCESS, but that's another story. TBr and ley 23:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose could easily be merged into the main article which will then make a suitable candidate for good or featured article. If the FAC reviewers object to a couple of lists in a mainly prose article, then more fool them. (Also, you have another candidate running without any support, please re-read the instructions for running simultaneous candidates...) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not going to be merged because I figured it would be best to have a separate list on it instead of stressing about what FAC commenter's have to say about a list-format section and turning it into prose which is not my forte. Secondly, why on Earth do you favor on criticizing me about having two nominated lists yet I see others that have 4+ lists? If you are only going to comment on me then save yourself the embarrassment. Thirdly, I will renominate this candidate again and again until an open minded reviewer sees potential in this list and not bitch about how "easily" it can be merged into the main article. However, what about this? it can easily merge with the main article but yet it passed . Jona ^{talk to me} 12:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid threatening to disrupt this process to somehow prove a point won't help your nomination. And yes, I'll go and check other people running multiple nominations and ask them not to if they're not following the instructions properly. And no, the list you gave as an example could not easily be merged into the main article. Firstly the list is a lot longer than this one, secondly the article it would be merged into is a lot longer than the one this would be merged into. Finally, since this list is never likely to grow, merging it into a good/featured article candidate is the optimal solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can also assure you that FA reviewers don't care about lists as much as you think. See Pride & Prejudice (2005 film) and Ed, Edd n Eddy for two recent examples of FAs with accolade lists. Ruby 2010/2013 16:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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