Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/72nd Primetime Emmy Awards/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

72nd Primetime Emmy Awards

72nd Primetime Emmy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/72nd Primetime Emmy Awards/archive1

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on my successful FL nomination for the 73rd Primetime Emmy Awards and the ongoing nomination for the corresponding Creative Arts Emmys (now at three supports), I've continued my work by updating the previous year's ceremony. Of note this year: Schitt's Creek dominates everything by sweeping the comedy categories for the first time ever – quite the feat for a show that had no Emmys before this year! (Though I'll always be a bit disappointed that it kept one of my favorite shows from winning anything...) As always, any feedback is greatly appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

• I would encourage you to add ALT text to the infobox image.
  • Good catch, thanks!
• Why is the "Criticism" section separate from the "Critical reviews and viewership" subsection? I would think that it would fit better directly after the "Critical reviews and viewership" subsection rather than after the "In Memoriam" section. Since the criticism is directed at the nominations, I would rename the section to be more specific.
  • The section has been moved accordingly, and the section heading is now "Criticism regarding lack of diversity", which is what the 87th Academy Awards article uses for similar issues.
• For the second paragraph of the "Critical reviews and viewership" sub-section, I would recommend varying how the critics are introduced as for each of the three instances it is "X of/from Y publication" and it can read as rather repetitive.
  • Done.
• There are a few items linked multiple times in the list itself, such as Schitt's Creek and the 71st Primetime Emmy Awards, when items should only be linked on their first mention.
  • Done.

Great work with the list. Once my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. If possible, I would appreciate any feedback on

@

Aoba47: Thanks for the feedback! Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Thank you for the responses. The list looks solid to me. I support the FLC for promotion. Best of luck with it!
  Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Per
  MOS:CONFORMTITLE
  , titles of works like Schitt's Creek should be italicised, regardless of what the original source does
• Per
  MOS:ALLCAPS
  , be consistent with capitalisation
• ref 44: (EXCLUSIVE) → (Exclusive) (
  MOS:ALLCAPS
  )
• ref 52: Faux House: "This Isn't A MAGA Rally" → Faux House: 'This Isn't a MAGA Rally' (
  MOS:QWQ
  )
• ref 56: why is Penske Media Corporation listed as the publisher when no other publication (published by the corporation) lists the corporation
  • All items above: Done.
• ref 37, 64, 65, 67: The works titles should not be italicised, no?
  • I've generally adopted the approach that if the website is for a company/organization and is secondary to their main work, it should not be italicized (i.e., Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, United Parcel Service), while if the website is part of the main work of that group, it should be italicized (i.e., pretty much everything else in the article). The documentation for Template:Cite web isn't super clear on this, but it's the approach I've adopted.
• ref 84: May Be "Ethnic Or Niche" → May Be 'Ethnic or Niche' (
  MOS:QWQ
  )
  • Done.

Reliability

Seems fine.

Verifiability

• Basically all the sources with pages: it is rather unhelpful to cite (amount of page numbers). Can page numbers be added?
  • Any sources in particular where this is an issue? There are several PDFs with multiple pages, but most are used as a source in their entirety – for instance, the winners and nominations lists.

    Oh, I think I was referring to ref #2 as I don't think a whole 77-page PDF would be required to cite a sentence as simple as that. Pamzeis (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I see now, done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotchecks checked out :)

Pamzeis (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Thanks for your thorough comments! Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Great! That's a pass for the source review! Pamzeis (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

• Per
  WP:OVERLINKING
  you shoudln't link popular cities (Los Angeles), but I will leave it up to you to decide.
  • Since the LA setting is fairly important, I think it should be kept.
• "During the ceremony, Emmy Awards were handed out in 23 categories." Is the usage of "Emmy" really necessary? Considering it's the Emmy Awards, I would assume they award Emmy's only there unless other awards were given too.
  • I wrote it this way so I could link
    MOS:BOLDLINK
    .
• "The nominations for the 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards were announced on July 28, 2020, by host" - not sure if the comma after 2020 is needed.
  • MOS:DATECOMMA
    suggests this format.
• "Disney+, Apple TV+, and Quibi all received their first Emmy nominations this year,[4] and each would receive its first wins this year as well." Too verbose. Why not just "Disney+, Apple TV+, and Quibi all received their first Emmy nominations and wins this year."?
  • Done.
• "Additionally, the annual Governors Ball was cancelled for the first time in its history, with the Television Academy making a $1 million" - there should be an nbsp between $1 and million.
• "Several rule changes were announced in December 2019."
  MOS:NBSP
  between December and 2019.
• "In March 2020" - nbsp
  • All spacing: done.
• " When the Los Angeles Times reported the criticism" - duplicate link. You have already linked LA Times in "Critical reviews and viewership".
  • Good catch; done.

That's it. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the comments! I've replied above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good work. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate comments on my FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MWright96

• "for most wins for an individual in one year," - for the most wins
• "following Angels in America as a miniseries in 2004." - not mentioned by the CBC but it is by the NJ.com source
  • The CBC article mentions it: "The only other series to do the same in any other category was the HBO miniseries Angels in America..."
• "only made up 1% of the nominees." - percent per
  MOS:PERCENT
• " who died on August 28, 2020," - E! Online citation covering this chunk of information doesn't state Boseman's date of death

That's all I've got for this review MWright96 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MWright96: Thanks for the comments! I left a reply above; everything else has been addressed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nothing further from yours truly MWright96 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
  goes through.