Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Film – Limited Release/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Film – Limited Release[edit]

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Film – Limited Release (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my 6th GLAAD Media Award-related list, and I'm nominating it because I believe it has reached the same status as the previous ones and has the potential to become a featured list. The list proved to be somewhat tricky to make. By 1997, GLAAD has started separating films into the wide and limited categories, and the names have stayed the same since. However, prior to this point, the was the Outstanding Film award, and Vito Russo Film Award. So, the question was, which movie went to which category? To make a long story short, the current list is structured based on a Letterboxd playlist created by GLAAD itself. If this list becomes a featured one, them most film-related GLAAD Media Award categories will be complete. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Comments by Umimmak[edit]

I am not super well versed in FLC criteria, consider these just passing comments.

  • It is one of several categories of the annual GLAAD Media Awards, which are presented by GLAAD—an American non-governmental media monitoring organization founded in 1985, formerly called the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation—at ceremonies in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco between March and June. this is a very syntactically complex sentence. Right now your first paragraph is two sentences, but this second sentence is composed of four nesting clauses. I wonder if all of the information here needs to be in a single sentence?
  • You have a source for ceremonies being held in NYC, LA, and SF -- this is not quite the same as having |venue=Varies? (I see that the venue does vary, but this is uncited). I'm also noticing on GLAAD Media Award that apparently it hasn't been in San Francisco since 2013, and also in past years it was sometimes held in other cites as well such as Washington DC, and Miami.
    • I decided to remove the "Venue" parameter, as there are way too many cities across various years. I've also removed San Francisco for the reasons you mentioned. From what I've seen, the only cities where the GLAAD Media Awards have been held practically every year are New York City and Los Angeles, so I think it's best to include only those two. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The award was first given as the Vito Russo Film Award in 1994 to The Wedding Banquet, distributed by The Samuel Goldwyn Company, being a separate category from Outstanding Studio Film, and would be given a second time in 1996 to The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love. again you really like putting a ton of clauses in a single sentence; I feel this could be two or three separate sentences and possibly read more clearly.
    • Done.
  • the Vito Russo Film Award ... would be given a second time in 1996 and At the 7th GLAAD Media Awards in 1996 ... with the award being retitled to Outstanding Independent Film wait so which was it?
  • The award may be accepted by any of the film's producers, directors, writers, or actors. this is maybe outside the scope of a Wikipedia article but the lead has this sentence and this led me to expect information about who accepted on behalf of each movie. Do we have any indication of which category of people is most typical? Do they give any kind of acceptance speech in the ceremony?
    • No, the sources don't really mention who accepted the award. I tried looking for this year's ceremony to include a picture, but no luck. Also, listing every single person who accepted to award for a film would be overkill. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call for Entries why is this capitalized? GLAAD's website capitlizes it, but I'm not sure that the voice of Wikipedia need to treat this as a proper noun?
    • Done.
  • Winners are determined your source provides some sense of scale of how many voters there are: Hundreds of GLAAD Media Awards voters, this might be something worth mentioning?
  • Since its inception, consider {{as of}} for statements like this which are only accurate to a specific date.
    • Done.
  • I see GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Film – Wide Release also just lists the film and distributor... but at least to me as a reader it seems unclear why only the distributor is listed over the producers, screenwriter, director? I guess that's just how Variety does it.
    • I can understand the confusion. Given that these awards have to do with the scope of a film's release, what matters to GLAAD is the distributor. Whether the film received a wide or limited release. Also, I looked at things like the Oscar for Best Picture, and there too, only the studios are listed, rather than directors. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially, GLAAD only announced the winners during press releases, with the awards being given during the ceremonies so they weren't in press releases or they just didn't have a set of nominees in general? I'm not sure if this is "I couldn't find the information in press releases". Maybe press releases didn't have nominees but were there still nominees invited to the ceremony? Were they announced there?
    • Made some changes to make it more understandable.
  • For the 7th GLAAD Media Awards in 1996, GLAAD made the list of nominees of two categories publicly available, announcing the winner at a latter date. Given that neither of those categories is the topic of this list, I'm not sure this is relevant? I think at the very least it'd be nice to clarify that "Outstanding Independent Film" was not one of those two categories.
  • Part of me wonders if it might be worth repeating the history of the award names down here? Maybe having separate headings for "Vito Russo Film Award", "Outstanding Independent Film", and "GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Film – Limited Release"? Or some kind of note? Because right now that's only in the lead but isn't actually anywhere in the section for the award.
  • Actually now I'm looking into it plenty of things have won the Vito Russo Film Award including the film Longtime Companion the documentary The Celluloid Closet and the TV serial Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit. With that bolded in the lead, the reader expect this to be a complete article for that award as well, it seems like that award was given to various categories, not just to films? I feel this can be cleared up more. In any event that “second” seems to need to be qualified w.r.t. the 1996 ceremony.
    • Yeah, the Vito Russo Film Award was kind of weird, having been given to films, documentaries, and TV movies / miniseries. From what I have found, this award was only given during the 1990s, and every film or whatnot that won is is nowadays recognized by GLAAD as falling into one of its other, current categories; such as Outstanding Film - Wide Release, or Outstanding Documentary. I don't think the award being bolded necessarily means people will think the page will discuss it in length, but if need be, I can simply unbold it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth wikilinking Distributor the first time it appears outside the lead (MOS:DUPLINK)?
  • Costa Brava per a film review ProQuest 1305515837, its distributor was DTK
    • Done. Thank you for that. I kept looking and couldn't find anything.
  • 2009 why are two films highlighted in green and in bold but only one has a ‡?
    • Done. Thank you for pointing that out! :D
  • Why are Casi Divas and Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow? not redlinked but Costa Brava is? Do you think those two are less likely to eventually have Wikipedia articles?
    • You're right. I've removed the wikilins for Costa Brava.
  • In general I wonder if you might want to make use of {{Cite press release}} or |type=Press release?
    • Changed the one which clarified they were (or resembled) press releases.
  • WP:CITEVAR, I suppose, but I personally think it's overkill to have ISSNs for major publication, especially when you're not citing the print volume (if you were I'd expect pages, volume/issue numbers, etc., but you're citing the websites). It also feels overkill to me to include the publishers for major periodicals for things like Time, Entertainment Weekly, Variety, and it also feels overlinking / WP:SEAOFBLUE at times. I also think you don't need an access date for web citations if you also have an archive date? If nothing has changed since the archive date, then that's all you need; the access-date is more important when you don't already have a URL-archive or for websites which are less static.
    • I've never had any issue before, and don't think it's overkill. In fact, I was told to add the ISSN for periodicals. This is something I would leave as is for now, unless a plethora of editors state it should be changed.

Like I said I have no real experience with FLC, these are just some drive-by thoughts that I had while reading. Hope at least some of them are at least somewhat useful. Umimmak (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll respond more closely to updates later but just fyi: Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time. Umimmak (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Umimmak: All right, I believe I've responded to almost everything. With some of the changes, I'm not sure if they're adequate, and with others, some discussion might still be necessary. Still, thank you for all your help, and I also removed to "Done" checkmarks to help with load times. :) --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm looking though now. These are just minor prose suggestions. I kind of think your second paragraph could do a better job explaining things just by reordering. Beginning with The award was first given as the Vito Russo Film Award in 1994 is a bit confusing because the award didn't exist yet. I think something like "The award was first given under its present name for the 8th GLAAD Awards in 1997, however GLAAD includes two earlier films in this category as well", something like your last sentence, and making that be an introduction would I think just make the flow clearer. Right now the reader has to read a few sentences to understand what it means to be given as the Vito Russo Film Award.
I can see why some changes were necessary. I have reorganized things a little bit. Hopefully it reads better and makes more sense now. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:BOLDALTNAMES Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold:, given that there are Vito Russo Film Awards for categories other than Film – Limited Release, this doesn't really feel like an "alternative name", per se. The article sort of reads as if the "Vito Russo Film Award" was just what the award was for this category for the 5th GLAAD Award, but it's really more like its own thing, but one of the recipients of the Vito Russo Film Award was later recategorized as a win in this category as well. Hopefully this all makes sense.
Yeah, seeing as the Vito Russo Film Award was its own separate thing, rather than a true precursor to Outstanding Film – Limited Release, I have unboldened it and clarified that it won a Vito Russo Film Award. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also on this topic, why is Outstanding Studio Film in bold? That's an entirely different award, with a different Wikipedia article?
True, it is a completely separate award. Unbolded it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By contrast, in order for films created by and for LGBT audiences to be considered for nomination, they must be submitted after the call for entries. As a reader I was curious about this, the source provides an explanation, but I suppose this is getting perhaps too into the weeds; the explanation for why there's this contrast I suppose could go into the main article on the GLAAD Media Awards, but at least when I read this I was left with questions. Like I said though I'm not sure this needs to be addressed in detail here.
I remember having looked into this in the past, but didn't find much. GLAAD doesn't fully explain why media made by and for the LGBT community isn't monited as heavily as mainstream / straight media. My guess is that since GLAAD wishes to have a positive impact by highlighting good representation, it makes more sense for them to look out for media that are made for a mainstream audience and highlight any that have (good) queer representation. But that's probably something more suited to the page for the awards themselves, rather than the categories. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text I wonder if there are any sort of reliable sources talking about other such statistics or trends? Something other than just the most recent winner so it's not a sentence all by itself?
Merged the last paragraph into the previous one.
The text introduction to Winners and nomineess feels like a very convoluted way to say "GLAAD only began announcing nominees for all of its categories in 1997". I'm confused about the emphasis on press releases, it's not really about press releases in particular. And I maintain my earlier comment about the 7th GLAAD Awards being confusing, why is this mentioned if neither of those two categories was Outstanding Independent Film.
Removed references to this process.
Onto references. I think I'd prefer something other than https://www.glaad.org/support for your citation as to what the Shareholders Circle is. I'd also avoid having a specific dollar amount in the article, presumably this number has changed over time? All of your citations in the lead are to GLAAD itself; are there no independent sources talking about the awards? I'm not saying you can't also reference GLAAD, but it's curious there are no secondary sources about the award as a whole (versus winners of individual years).
I checked, and the amount is still the same regarding donations and joining the shareholders circle. I did try looking for secondary references, but the only ones that pop up are from GLAAD itself. Although I would like to use non-GLAAD sources, it's not exactly bad to use at least some primary sources on Wikipedia pages. And if by "secondary sources about the award as a whole" you mean a secondary source that describes everything the lead does, then I don't think we'll ever find it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|url-status=live when you use archive links for websites that are still up, e.g., ref [21]
Fixed.
Do you need citations for things like movie distributor when that information is not in the reference for the winner/nominees?
Yeah... it's unfortunate that the oldest nominations don't have the distributors listed. I tried finding sources with the films and their distributors, but the only results were either the Wikipedia list or mirror links of it. From experience, the lack of information on such things for the older nominations hasn't been at issue at FLC. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't really have much experience with FLCs, these are just my thoughts. Hope they make sense. Umimmak (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Umimmak: I have responded to all comments. Hopefully the revisions I've made are to your liking. And don't worry about not having much experience with FLCs; you've been doing great thus far. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PanagiotisZois: thanks, I think it reads a lot clearer. Just a possible suggestion, I see you entirely got rid of your paragraph about there not being nominees announced in 1994 and 1996, I wonder if your footnotes [b] and [c] might also benefit from saying there something to the effect of "GLAAD only announced winners, not nominees, this year." Also I'm sure you've looked and I realize this is a tough topic to find images for, but just for completeness I want to mention the criterion It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, and just wonder what types of images you considered. Some ideas off the top of my head: A venue for the award ceremony, a Los Angeles movie theater playing one of these films, a presenter, someone who works at GLAAD, a picture of an actual trophy (just realizing, I don't think lead actually mentions the trophy, is this worth noting?), etc. I realize it's always tough to find images for Wikipedia, and it might be that there are no suitable images but I just wanted to note this for the record. At some point I'll try to more thoroughly go through the references compared to overall impressions on formatting. Umimmak (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay a few notes on notes; other reviewers should note I'm not experienced enough to do a full "Source Review" again these are just things I'm noticing.
  • [9] Title seems to be "Support GLAAD"
  • I'm not quite sure what counts as a |type=Press release or not, but you should be consistent. For instance [10] and [11]
  • [14] is from 2000, not 2020
  • [19] and [20] seem to have some sort of encoding errors in their title; not sure you need to repeat that error in Wikipedia.
  • [25] reads Bad Education (La Mala Educación) for Outstanding Film, -- is there a source saying it specifically won Outstanding Film – Limited Release? (I see you have a source saying it was nominated in that category, but when possible let's try to avoid WP:SYNTH)
  • [35] reads Goslett's writing credits also include Little Ashes (which won a GLAAD Media Award), is there not a source specifically saying it won this category? (e.g., Gale A223150277 available through WP:LIBRARY)
Umimmak (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Followed through with the recommendations regarding the sources. Seeing as we're lucky enough with this list that GLAAD created an entire Letterboxd playlist, I decided to just use that for #25 and #35. As for the images, ideally I would like to include an image of the person(s) who accepted the award, but I have been unable to find any sources or videos discussing that. I know that the ceremony is on Hulu, but it isn't available in my country. Unless that becomes available information, it's probably best to leave it empty. I'll see about readding the section about nominations, but making a few changes. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this highlights video on YouTube also georestricted? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ruXT700GWI Umimmak (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really show anything about the individual categories; mostly some of the other special recognition categories. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry I hadn't had the change to watch the whole thing. Strange there seemingly is no way to watch the whole 2022 awards; I have Hulu and don't see it there. Strange. Jim Parsons, Matt Bomer, and Robin de Jesús accepted on behalf of The Boys in the Band for the 32nd Awards if that helps: [2]. I also found an updated secondary source talking about eligibility requirements though so you don't have to use an archived version on GLAAD itself: [3]. Umimmak (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shit, thank you for these sources. :D I can definitely use the second. The first is good to have, but with awards, you always try to place the most recent winner in the infobox; you know, due to the recency effect. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Umimmak: I readded the portion about the nominees; hopefully it's a bit more streamlined now. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: Thanks, I think that's a lot clearer to the reader. I'm not really sure I have anything else to say! The new Deadline source says requirements were "updated", perhaps the specific changes could be made clear or when the current eligibility criteria came into effect? Not sure that's necessary though. I'm still noting my comments about the SEAOFBLUE in the citations, but will acquiesce per CITEVAR unless other editors bring it up. I'll hesitantly say Support, and I'm only hedging with "hesitantly" because this is my first time ever making a recommendation/!vote for a FLC so I'm not particularly confident in my own abilities to make an assessment, but I think it falls in line with other Featured Lists for GLAAD Media Awards. Umimmak (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • This is such a nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance, but I was wondering if it would be more beneficial to move the citation from this part, such as the numbers of screens, to the end of the sentence? It just reads and looks a little off to have a citation cut off the last three words of a sentence, especially when that citation placement is not 100% necessary (i.e. to clearly define a quote, etc.).
  • Done.
  • I am likely missing this information in the lead, but who does the award actually go to? I know there is the following part, may be accepted by any of the film's producers, directors, writers, or actors, but that reads to me like these individuals can accept the award at the ceremony. The list places an emphasis on the distributor so does it just go to the company as a whole? If so, is there a way to more clearly define that for readers?
  • Based on info like here, in all categories, the award is given to a specific work, and a specific group of people can accept it. The only award given to a specific individual, rather than work, is the Music-related awards, which are given to the artists. Regarding the sentence, how about rewriting it like this: "The award is given to the film and may be accepted by any..."? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Do you think any of the films and/or distributors in the list that do not already have an article qualify for a red link (something that has enough notability to potentially get an article in the future)?
  • @Aoba47: Out of the 3 films without pages, the only one that seems to have notability and potential for an article is Kanarie. A quick Google search shows there are a few articles about the film, unlike the other two. Of course, in theory, anything could have a Wikipedia article, so... As for the distribution companies, I don't have enough knowledge to judge if any of them is notable or not. Rather than placing red links everywhere, I'd rather leave them be. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. This is more of a clarification question than anything. I agree that it is best to leave red links to only subjects that you believe can have their own articles in the future. Thank you for addressing this matter for me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the author for Citation 29 the same Stephen M. Silverman as the one in the link? If so, he should be linked in the citation.
  • Good question. To be honest... I don't know. Clicking on his name in the article doesn't bring up a biography or something that could help.
  • For Citation 49, I would specify E! News as the website/work since other citations clearly define the website/work and publication.
  • Done.

I hope these comments are helpful. I could not find much to comment on for my review, and once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. I hope you have a wonderful holidays! Aoba47 (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like verything has been addressed. I support this FLC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any input for my current FAC although I completely understand if you do not have the time or the interest since it is a busy time of the year. Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 18:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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/GLAAD_Media_Award_for_Outstanding_Film_–_Limited_Release/archive1&oldid=1130791388"