Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Coldplay/archive1
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Matthewedwards 20:37, 21 April 2009 [1].
List of awards and nominations received by Coldplay[edit]
- Nominator(s): Matthew R Dunn (talk)
- Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Coldplay/archive1
- Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Coldplay/archive2
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this article for FL. I have recently rewrote it from my sandbox and turned the rather ghastly and terrible awards page to what it is now. It has a rather long lead, it certainly looks comprehensive, I do truly believe the sources are reliable, its stable and looks appealing. Awaiting review. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't read the article yet, but do you think you can explain why this passes Criteria 3b? Could this not be merged with Coldplay discography? See WT:FL?, Some of the lists about to be nominated at FLRC in the coming months, and WP:FLRC for more. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't jump the gun. I think 43 awards out of 108 nominations warrants a separate awards list. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is also a pretty big article as well (27kb), and I can safely say this has got to be one of the largest awards page for a band, since Coldplay is very well known in all parts of the globe. Besides, I saw List of awards and nominations received by The Strokes, and that is still FL despite only 6 awards and 13 nominations. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see now. I haven't listened to Coldplay for a while and I don't follow the music industry too much, so I hadn't a clue they exploded. I'll give an actual review in a few days then; please do give me a message on my talk if I forget. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is also a pretty big article as well (27kb), and I can safely say this has got to be one of the largest awards page for a band, since Coldplay is very well known in all parts of the globe. Besides, I saw List of awards and nominations received by The Strokes, and that is still FL despite only 6 awards and 13 nominations. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't jump the gun. I think 43 awards out of 108 nominations warrants a separate awards list. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Resolved comments from JD554
|
---|
Oppose
I'll leave the references for someone else to check. --JD554 (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I've given the lead section a bit of a copyedit. All my concerns are now addressed. I'll remain neutral until someone has given the citations a thorough review. --JD554 (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref review
- For BBC sources, such as BBC News. BBC News is the work and BBC is the publisher.
- But that will italicise BBC News, which is wrong. I'd have BBC News as a a publisher and leave "BBC" out. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For MTV sources, such as MTV Asia. MTV Asia is the work and MTV Networks is the publisher.
- MTV Asia is a network; putting it in the work field will italicise it, which it shouldn't be. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect, because per {{cite web}}, the work field is if the source is part of a larger work. MTV Asia is part of the MTV Networks, as it is written on the site at the bottom.--Truco 15:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2005/09/08/story219818.asp source, you need to state the work as being from the archive of Ireland or wherever its from
- and Pop doesn't seem like a reliable source because it has blogs and doesn't really state what makes it reliable. What makes it reliable?
- What makes http://www.andpop.com/2009/03/30/2009-juno-awards-show-winners/ reliable?
- http://www.ilikemusic.com/music_news/-739/4 is a sales site, what makes it reliable?
- http://eil.com/awards/mtv.asp What makes it reliable?--Truco 19:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The band has released over twenty singles, including: " Numbers over ten should be written in numeric form, per WP:MOSNUM.
- This isn't necessary, MOSNUM also states: or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words. --JD554 (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, but it needs to be consistent. The article has "The band has released over twenty singles" but "Coldplay have received 43 awards from 114 nominations." Dabomb87 (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)It[reply]
- Singles and awards aren't comparable quantities. --JD554 (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't understand; the inconsistency is that 43 and 114 are over ten and are written in numeric form while twenty is over ten but is written in words. There needs to be article-wide consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand what you mean. However, the only consistency mentioned in MOSNUM is the following line: Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs. As the singles aren't being compared with the awards I don't believe you are correct otherwise all of the numerical values in the lead will need converting to digits because 114 has to be given in digits as it is more than one or two words. --JD554 (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't understand; the inconsistency is that 43 and 114 are over ten and are written in numeric form while twenty is over ten but is written in words. There needs to be article-wide consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Singles and awards aren't comparable quantities. --JD554 (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, but it needs to be consistent. The article has "The band has released over twenty singles" but "Coldplay have received 43 awards from 114 nominations." Dabomb87 (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)It[reply]
- This isn't necessary, MOSNUM also states: or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words. --JD554 (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ""Yellow",
which wasthe band's first hit " - "the United States where it reached" Comma after "United States".
- "and "Viva la Vida" which was the band's first " 1)Comma after "Viva la Vida" 2)"which was" can be deleted
- "2009 was their most successful year having received seven nominations at the 51st Grammy Awards—more than they had done previously—of which they won three. " Per MOSNUM, sentences shouldn't start out with numbers.
- "GQ is a monthly men's magazine, where the annual winners are voted through the GQ website. " "GQ" should be italicized because it's a publication; "where"-->and; and specify what the awards are for.
- "songwriting and composing, held annually in London, United Kingdom. " 1)No comma 2)Unlink London
- "of Ireland, held annually since " No comma.
- "The NME Awards is an annual music awards show, founded by the music magazine NME, where the winners are decided by public votes."-->The NME Awards is an annual music awards show founded by the music magazine NME; the winners are decided by public votes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources (in addition to Truco's comments above)
- What makes http://www.pubquizhelp.com/ent/brit_award_winners.html reliable?
- Likewise http://www.musicsnews.com/articles/1199/1/THE-Q-AWARDS-2006 and http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4380152-1.html?
- Publications should be italicized (The Guardian, ref 31). You can do this by changing
publisher=
towork=
in the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 18 April 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.