Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by The Artist (film)/archive1

• Done: Added refs from CBS News and The New York Times.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We can probably assume that the film is not going to make any more money at the box office.

• Done: Removed "as of June 2012" and "has" from sentence.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "the most honored" That's US English and it needs a reference.

• Done: Changed "honored" to "honoured" and added reference from The Philippine Star, a daily Filipino newespaper.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get a 503 error when accessing that site. Is it possible to archive it?

• Done: Replaced with ref from Smithsonian.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Artist garnered three accolades" shouldn't use accolade as that's the reason the list is called accolades as accolades =awards or nominations.

• Done: Changed to denote both nominations and wins.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• POV issue if only one film critics top ten is used.

• Done: Added Peter Bradshaw and national Board of Review.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Golden Trailer Award is missing recipient or nominee

• Done: Credited The Artist as the recipient and added extra reference noting that it won the award.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Art Directors Guild mistakenly says Bejo was the production designer

• Done: Changed to recipients listed on the website.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• mixture of Mr X, Mr Y with Mr X and Mr Y. Use one format for recipient/nominees

• Done: Chose to place "and" where necessary.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Etoiles d'Or Awards, are the awards notable enough for redlink? If so they should be.

• Done: Added red link.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Academy Award links to the ceremony rather than the general article on them. Dates should link to the ceremony article.

• Done: Changed link of Academy Award to article about general article. Date links to 2012 ceremony.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Denver Film tie is in the table when it could be added as a footnote.

• Done: Added footnote for Mallick.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Check the sort. Laurence Bennett is sorting by first name. His name is also spelt differently in different awards.

• Done: Fixed the sorting problem with Laurence Bennett. His correct spulling is "Laurence" based on his official website and other reliable websites.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 1 could easily be replaced with a reliable third party ref.

• Done: Changed to one from The New York Times.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• PMC = Penske Media Corporation

• Done: Changed PMC to above name.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Leeds Festival, Goya Awards shouldn't be italicised

• Done: Removed items from work field and placed
  Academia de las Artes y las Ciencias Cinematográficas de España
  (AACCE) in publishers field since that is the organization behind the Goya Awards.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox should be awards and nominations not wins and nominations.

• Done: Changed "wins" to "awards" in infobox.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cowlibob:: Addressed all your comments.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a few dash violations where hyphens are used. Golden Globe Awards rows,Ref 1.

• Done: Fixed dash problems.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 11 has a mistake in the authors name.

• Done: Removed misplaced brackets in author's first name.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 15 has a typo "reviewe"

• Done: Spellchecked review.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 62 should be "Producers Guild of America" not .org

• Done: Replaced producersguild with actual guild's name.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 59 should be USA Today

• Done: Changed to USA Today, wikilinked, and added parent company Gannett as publisher.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 42 should be "http://detroitfilmcritics.com/awards/the-2011-detroit-film-critics-society-awards/"

• Done: Changed URL to one above.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 39 publisher is not wikilinked

• Done: Changed and linked to
  Broadcast Film Critics Association
  since that is the organization behind said award.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cowlibob: Addressed the remainder of the comments and have made more corrections not related to your comments.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Birdienest81: Check that the awards and nominations match up in the infobox. Alliance of Women Awards says 3 wins and 6 nominations when it received 9 nominations of which the film won 3. Cowlibob (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: Fixed awards count to say 9 nominations (according to website).

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The merged cells in the first column won't cause a problem, but navigating the table on a screen reader as it stands won't make it easy to pick up the associated dates and refs (the non-header columns that are merged). The table actually isn't that complex and has a redeeming feature, thanks to the folks who have developed the sorting script. If you sort the table by 'Award' by clicking on the header of the first cell, the JavaScript is able to "un-merge" the cells and fill in the repeated data. Try it and check that it is now a simple table. Because the table is simple enough for this sort of change to be done by script, it allows anyone using a screen reader to do that first, and then navigate the table easily. I'll ping @Graham87: to confirm he's able to do this, but I think that the Accolades table presents no accessibility difficulties as long as JavaScript is enabled. The one in the infobox/table is more of a problem because the 'show'/'hide' links can be difficult to hit for folks with motor problems (like MS, for example) and also require JavaScript, but that's not such a big problem that it would stop this candidate from being promoted. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thisisnotatest and RexxS: Thank you for your observations on this list regarding accessibility. I suggest that if there are problems that arise, I suggest you and the other accessibility experts formulate a solution and fix the tables yourselves. I'm not very good with reformatting complicated tables and am afraid I'll just mess it up even more. I agree with making the list accessibility, but I don't think we need to totally sabotage the FLC to attain FL status (not that I accuse you Thisisnotatest or anyone). In addition, if there is a problem with the accolades, could you formulate a template that does not require the award column to repeat each award for each category (i.e. having to repeat Academy Award for every category since that would make the table redundant).

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thisisnotatest, RexxS, and Birdienest81: I don't mind table spans, so the accolades table works fine for me. I didn't know about the sorting/unsorting trick though; that's nifty. Graham87 06:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The one remaining thing was the infobox. I finally figured out the totals row was part of a different table from the hidden portion (which displays for me because I have JavaScript off). It seemed weird for the totals numbers to be floating out there, not lining up with the other columns. Now it makes sense to me. Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, I consider this issue resolved.Thisisnotatest (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out my comments in this section as resolved. Thisisnotatest (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The inclusion of the film critics' lists are odd on several levels. First, it's placement after all the major awards shows is strange and not intuitive. Also, I think that they're not notable enough to warrant inclusion in a lead of an accolades article.

• Done:Removed critics awards.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I also don't think the National Board of Review thing should be in the lead either.

• Done: Removed National Board of Review from the lead.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the Étoiles d'Or awards--this appears to be a non-notable organization (it's redlinked and was also never created in the first place).

• Done: Removed the awards and fixed award count.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Put a bullet point before 2011 in film in the See also.

• Done: Added bullet point.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For the publisher of Deadline, you say Penske Media Corporation three times and Penske Media Group once.

• Done: Changed to Penske Media Corporation, which is the correct name.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The article doesn't accent it either, so it's up to you, but as a francophone myself, I can't help but wonder if you should make it "lumière" in the ref.

@Birdienest81: @FrB.TG: This is a very nice list! My personal feelings about the movie aside, you've both done a wonderful job compiling and writing it. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johanna:: I read your suggestions and have responded to them swiftly.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. NOTE: Please respond, below this entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. "Jean Dujardin received several awards and nominations for starring in the film." = suggest caption change to, "Jean Dujardin, star of the film, pictured in YEAR".
3. Footnotes - "Certain award groups do not simply award one winner. They recognize several different recipients and have runner-ups. Since this is a specific recognition and is different from losing an award, runner-up mentions are considered wins in this award tally." -- Suggest just calling runner-ups "Runner-up" or "Finalist".
4. Perhaps a few more links for the See also sect?
5. Where possible, strongly suggest adding parameters archivedate= and archiveurl= to cites, using Internet Archive, to increase posterity over long period of time for article.
6. Suggest splitting apart first sentence of 2nd paragraph into 2 sentences.
7. Otherwise, writing quality in lede intro sect is quite good.
8. Great job on meticulous referencing, throughout.
9. One image used, confirmed as free-use with OTRS on Commons, great use of perfect image page from Commons, best licensing practice possible here.
10. High quality overall, good layout and structural format for list.
11. NOTE: Please respond, below this entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

— Cirt (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Thanks for your comments. I have fixed them except for the caption one, as I think it will add emphasis. As for archiving, I might do that sometime later. -- Frankie _talk 20:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]