Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Holby City/archive1

Add links
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 promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Holby City[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Holby City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Soaper1234 - talk 15:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating List of awards and nominations received by Holby City for featured list because I believe that, after extensive work, it meets the Featured List criteria. In my opinion, the prose is professional and the lead is engaging, with a summary of Holby City and what the article lists. It covers every aspect correctly, is within suitable length and meets requirements of the stand-alone lists. The list is easy to manage and navigate and complies with the MOS. The list is ordered by award and date, with section headings to enhance the reader's ability to navigate. The list features three images, which are all appropriately captioned and checked, and the article is not subject to any sort of edit wars or content disputes. This is my FLC so all comments are appreciated and very helpful! Thank you. Soaper1234 - talk 15:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments welcome, some initial comments...
  • Can't use that non-free image in the infobox, no fair use rationale exists for its inclusion in this article.  Done
  • Link "Screen Nation Film and Television Awards" in the infobox.  Done
  • " equally fictitious " is that necessary?  Done - changed to fictitious?
  • Shouldn't "life and death" be hyphenated?  Done
  • Why are 5th and 4th coloured in mustard?  Done
  • Broadcast magazine is a work so should be formatted Broadcast magazine.  Done
  • Same for Inside Soap, TV Choice etc.  Done
  • All tables need row and col scopes per MOS:TABLE.  Done
  • Some dead links in there to fix please.  Done

That's it for a first run. Don't hesitate to give me a shout if you need any clarification. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aoba47
  • The following references are dead as shown by this resource here: References 6, 35, and 41.  Done
  • Please replace the infobox image with a non-free image. You can choose something related to the television show, as done with the 30 Rockefeller Center used for the 30 Rock list, or images of the one or two of the actors that were nominated repeatedly or received special/notable nominations, as done with the Jessica Lange image in the American Horror Story list. Just wanted to give you two different options. You can use this image here, 1, or move one of the actor’s images up to the infobox. Adjust the caption and ALT text appropriately.  Done
  • Numbers greater than should not be spelled out according to Wikipedia’s policy on numbers. For instance, fifty should be represented as numbers (I think this is the only number you missed in the list). - Greater than what?
  • I also agree with The Rambling Man's comments above, and feel that they should be addressed as well.  Done

Wonderful job with this list. I will support this once my comments are addressed. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support this as all of my comments have been addressed. I apologize for the extreme delay in my response back to you.Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response Aoba47. I shall work on the number issue shortly. Soaper1234 - talk 15:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response

First of all, thank you The Rambling Man and Aoba47 for taking the time to suggest improvements. Sorry my delayed response; I shall begin work on the article now. Soaper1234 - talk 10:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man and Aoba47: I have searched for alternatives to the dead links within the article and cannot find any. Would the best option here to be to remove all deadlinks and the information supported by them? Soaper1234 - talk 10:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can't have unsupported claims or dead links for FL I'm afraid, so unless you can find alternative reliable sources then I suppose you either keep these dead links in attempt to get others to find something and withdraw the nomination, or else remove the claims. You could always add those things you're removing to the talk page to see if others can help now or in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I would personally prefer to do that than withdraw the nomination. I shall move the dead links to the talk page for the future. Soaper1234 - talk 20:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved all dead links and the information supported by them to the talk page, meaning no dead links feature on the list. Soaper1234 - talk 20:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from N Oneemuss[edit]

I've never seen this programme, but I do watch Casualty. This list looks good to me, but I do have some comments:

  • BBC Elstree Studios in the caption is a disambiguation link.  Done
  • The use of "broadcast" in the first sentence seems a bit weird to me; how about "was broadcast"?
    • I don't feel that would make sense as was is past tense, which the serial isn't. Would changing has broadcast to broadcasts make more sense? Soaper1234 - talk 16:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph needs to be attributed to Young (there should also be a comma before "while").  Done
  • Add the abbreviation BAFTA to both the lead and the body (because it's more widely known than the full name).  Done
  • Maybe mention that it has never won any of the National Television Awards (in the lead).  Done - although this may want checking. Soaper1234 - talk 16:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite unsure about the last sentence of the lead. I see several problems with it: (1) it has probably received more awards that haven't been added/sourced (like the ones with the dead links that you removed – are they counted), so is unlikely to be accurate; (2) it's very difficult to verify (did you count everything in the list?) and could go out of date easily if the list is updated; (3) the inclusion criteria are complicated (and not specified) – do you count "mentions" or "Worst Drama" nominations? I think that even if this is standard for such articles (which it might well be, I don't know), it should be removed.  Done
  • Link BBC Online (you can delink it in the references if you link it in the body). -
  • Do the BBC Drama Awards still exist? -
  • I feel like the 2006 link should be added to footnote 6, seeing as all of the other years are there.  Done
  • Should "Worst Drama" really be included?  Done
  • For the characters that don't have their own articles, I think that List of Holby City characters should be linked somewhere (maybe using {{see}} under the subsection headings where it is relevant). I'm unsure of how best to do this though, so if you think it isn't doable then don't worry. -
  • I'm not sure if the two "mentions" are worth mentioning (pardon the pun).  Done
  • With the Inside Soap Awards, I don't think there should be a horizontal line in the second column between the shortlisted and longlisted Best Drama Star nominations (it's inconsistent with other tables).  Done
  • Finally, have you thought about running this tool that archives all links? I haven't used it before, but it was mentioned on WT:FLC and could be very useful, seeing as there have been issues with dead links in this list. Alternatively (or if it doesn't work) you could archive the links manually, but I appreciate that it would be a lot of work.  Done - I just hope I have done this correctly! Soaper1234 - talk 16:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once these issues are addressed, I will support this nomination. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 15:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments - I shall response to these in due course. Soaper1234 - talk 15:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@N Oneemuss: I rectified most of your comments and responded to the rest. Thank you again for reviewing this list. Soaper1234 - talk 16:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just have two comments left, but they're both minor so I support this nomination. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 17:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@N Oneemuss: I've replied to one of your comments, but thank you for your support. Soaper1234 - talk 18:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by Mymis (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Mymis
  • "The show's hospital set, at BBC Elstree Centre in Borehamwood." -> Comma and period not needed.  Done
  • Why can't you squeeze Writers' Guild of Great Britain Award nominees into the table? The table already is not too big anyway.  Done
  • The descriptions for each award are in some places sourced and in some they are not.
    • I presume you mean when describing the award ceremonies? If so, I have added references to support these. Soaper1234 - talk 20:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BBC Drama Awards" -> why is ref 6 necessary if you provide the refs in the table?
    • I personally would prefer ref 6 to refs 7-22. Would this also work? Soaper1234 - talk 20:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing is a complete mess in general. Not easy to navigate. For instance, for Broadcast Awards why can't you separate the refs and add to each year rather than list them under one ref? Referencing is not consistent throughout the article.
    • I believed that references should be included in the body rather than the table, and it is advisable (I can't remember where it is stated) that references are bundled rather than left in one big row. Soaper1234 - talk 20:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mymis (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Mymis. I have responded to these - Soaper1234 - talk 20:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description for "BBC Drama Awards" still needs a ref.
    • The reference at the end of the paragraph references that particular sentence. Soaper1234 - talk 11:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say adding refs in the table would be easier to navigate and check the sources. But that is just my preference. There is probably no rule about it. However, it definitely should be consistent throughout the article, you need to chose one way.
    • I personally would prefer stick to the main consistent theme, leaving them in the bodies of the article. My only question is are the links already provided in the body of BBC Drama Awards suitable to reference the awards underneath? Each source states a direct link to the each award winners and nominees, without actually stating it on each page. Soaper1234 - talk 11:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The descriptions of each award are almost exactly the same: "XXX award is presented annually and recognize XXXX." Extremely repetitive. You can look up at other similar FL articles for ideas, such as List of awards and nominations received by American Horror Story and List of awards and nominations received by Parks and Recreation.  Done

Mymis (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: Thank you for your reply. I have responded. Soaper1234 - talk 11:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description for "BBC Drama Awards" does not have a source. Ref 6 does not support it.
  • Each awards for "British Academy Television Awards" must be referenced. Just providing a general link to award database is not enough.
  • I still do not understand your argument why references should be excluded from the tables. I find it extremely confusing and very hard to navigate. It may work for tables that require one ref or so, which is not the case here. For instance, ref 32 has 12 references bundled together. Adding them into tables would make things easier finding which ref supports which nominations.

Mymis (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: I have reworded the BBC Drama Awards introduction to make the reference work. I have followed your guidelines on referencing within the table in the article. If you would like to take a look and decide whether your support can be given towards the list. Soaper1234 - talk 13:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the issues were addressed. Great job on the article. You have my support. Good luck! Mymis (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Holby_City/archive1&oldid=1136093918"