Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Alison Krauss/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 Matthewedwards 22:23, 11 August 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 00:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
Long ago I authored Wikipedia's featured article on Alison Krauss. I disappeared from Wiki for a while, but following my last return I happened upon List of awards and nominations received by Beck. Following the standards laid out in that FL (and in the many FL's by User:Gary King on musician awards) I realized I could rewrite Krauss' list which had been left to the wolves since I initially formatted it a bit during Krauss' writing process. I now feel the list stands up to the FL standard for musician awards as exemplified in the aforementioned Beck list. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple of the sources seem questionable in terms of reliability: http://www.twin-music.com/lists/40women.html and http://www.whowonwhen.com/entertainment/acm_awards/academy-country-music-2005.php. Also, the access dates shouldn't have ordinals, and refs 2 and 3 are missing publishers. The Billboard ref is dead (see [2]), but since they're redesigning their pages that's to be expected. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some awards simply don't seem to keep track of their nomination history. Those ACM nominations are mirrored by multiple sources, it's just there is no list on the official ACM site. Nominees but just for the 44th. I can happily remove the 40 women list thing, it's just an interesting honor (that once again there is limited material online about). I'll fix the refs now. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There we go, removed the ordinals and fixed the dead link. What would you recommend I do with the 40 Women list? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait for other reviewers' opinions :) Dabomb87 (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Found a WAY better, official source for the top-40 list. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really outthought myself on that one, heh. Turns out searching for wins on the official site also returns noms. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support once 1969 is unlinked. The other years are unlinked so 1969 should not be linked in my view. Consistency and all that. I'm not a fan of linking solo years anyway ;-) Nice work. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Also added a Wayback Machine ref of the 2001 ACM nomination. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And then I was smart and found a better ref. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 503 16:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support my comments addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1, Billboard is the work and Nielsen Business Media, Inc. is the publisher.
What makes http://www.metrolyrics.com/1990-grammy-awards.html a reliable source?Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It matches with everything else. The only reason I didn't use Rock on the Net is because it doesn't list Best Bluegrass Recording. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further information. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are backed by AOL. That's a large media company, yes? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an article attesting to that, BTW. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK at a glance.
- Wondering why the totals at the bottom of the infobox are formatted in such a complicated way: since green and red are the colour codings for wins and nominations, respectively, why not a single row, "Totals", with 55 and 96 across in the green and red columns. Seems simple and carries through the idea of the the colours.Tony (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's how the template is formatted. Ultimately though I don't really see it as complicated, it's basically the same length. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.