Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series/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 Giants2008 10:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series[edit]

Featured list candidates/Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series/archive1

Nominator(s): AIRcorn (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list on behalf of SoapFan12 (talk · contribs), I will let them expand on the reasoning. AIRcorn (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments:~~ Support

For an article of this length the introduction seems a bit short. Perhaps add information about the most awarded actresses or its broadcast history?
Ref 1 is a dead link. Please find another reliable source.
Ref 2 → Please add the author (Connie Passalacqua) to the reference.
Using IMDb as a reference is debatable. I really don't see it as a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb).
Is there a publisher for Soapcentral.com? How reliable is it?
Ref 50 → Yahoo! Voices redirects to Associated Content. Add Yahoo, Inc. as the publisher.
Ref 60 → OnTheRedCarpet redirects to On The Red Carpet.
Ref 68 needs publisher information.

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall Associated Content not being a reliable source. You should check WP:RSN to see if this is still true. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all inline references to IMDb, soapcentral and Yahoo/Associated Content, replacing with what I believe are reliable sources. I also expanded the lead a little bit and added some Commons photos throughout. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree with above comments, however, looks like they have been responded to and addressed adequately enough. — Cirt (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Try to avoid using the phrase "Daytime Emmy" three times in the opening sentence.
Avoid bold links.
Is the US flag really necessary in the infobox?
"having been criticized for voting integrity" presuambly for "lack" of voting integrity?
"She was nominated again the following year, holding the title with eight nominations" why not "She won the award the following year"?
Winners don't need bold, but ideally need a symbol like {{double dagger}} for WP:ACCESS.
I don't see any use in sortable tables that are split from one another by decade. Suggest you merge the tables.
Please ensure all tables meet WP:ACCESS (most specifically MOS:DTT for row and col scopes).
Second external link needs an en-dash per WP:DASH.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed, corrected, added and ensured everything. With the exceptions of comment 2 and 5. What do you mean by "Avoid bold links"? Furthermore, for Comment 5, I can not correct it because she (Heather Tom) did not won the award the following year therefore what should I write? Thank you for reviewing the article. SoapFan12 18:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean avoid using bold text for wikilinks (as you have with "ingenue"). As for Tom, I think you have to be clear that she won it on the seventh nomination, and not by saying her eighth nom came "holding the title"... at least that's what I think you're trying to say? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you so much. Can you review it one last time to see if there is any other fixes? SoapFan12 10:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support All the major issues have been addressed. Although, in the "Multiple Wins/Nominations" sections, we link to the actresses' articles, even though they've already been linked to in the main table. Is this necessary? I think linking once is enough, and seems like a WP:REPEATLINK to me.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for reviewing the article. SoapFan12 00:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please add a legend box to this article? I think it's needed, more professional. Apart from this, Support . Ar re 04:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

The previous commenter is absolutely correct: some type of key is needed for the color and symbol, at least.
- There is now a key, but the symbols have been removed. According to WP:ACCESS, colors must have matching symbols, so they should be re-added. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~"The criteria of the new category was deemed confusing". "was" → "were"? Criteria is a plural word; singular would be criterion, which I don't think is the intention here.~~
~~"In the lists below, the winner of the award for each year are listed and highlighted first". "winner" → "winners"?~~
~~External links: If publishers are going to be provided for these, the soapcentral page should have one like the others do.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't have to remove the link altogether, but since external links aren't any kind of requirement I'm striking this concern anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for reviewing the article. This means a lot! SoapFan12 00:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Heather Tom image could use alt text.
- I don't see that photo now, but a bunch of images have been added that lack alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008, I had to remove the link because soapcentral isn't a reliable source. I strongly believe that I have follow the requirements for the alt text. I am positive that I have fixed, added, corrected and removed all the edits according to you're comments. Thanks again! SoapFan12 02:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see alt text, and I'm fairly sure that we can't say the requirements have been met when there's no alt text in any of the images. My other comments are resolved; this is the last one outstanding from me. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand what you mean by alt text. I've read WP:Alt text and I believe that I followed the requirements however since you say no. Can you please do it for me? SoapFan12 01:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't perform work for nominators; that's not what a process director should be doing, and most reviewers aren't going to do that either. What I can do is explain alt text further, since you appear to be confused about it. It's basically an extra parameter for an image that describes the image itself. Alt text helps users of screen readers and is part of the WP:ACCESS guidelines that FLs should optimally follow. The best advice I can give you is to seek out other lists that have alt text and try to follow the general style and formatting that they use; there should be plenty of lists currently at FLC that have it already. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you! So you mean that you need to explain where the female was, so by example : Jacqueline MacInnes Wood at the 40th Daytime Emmy Awards, two time emmy winner? Can you give me example of FL articles that uses alt text? Please and thank you. SoapFan12 18:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Never mind! I got it! Thank you again. SoapFan12 23:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The last two photos have typos in their alt texts: "brunetet" and "rwed" respectively. Take care of these and this will be ready to be capped like the rest of my comments. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Thank you. SoapFan12 01:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Still see "rwed" in the Heather Tom alt text. Also, I don't know if the non-free image that is added truly meets WP:NFCC. I can't see how the reader's understanding is improved by a text logo. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. It increase the reader's comprehension by showing them how they present the award, also shows the currently category's name because it is the third name they have been using since 1991. I strongly believe it's needed and meets WP:NFCC. If you don't agree with this reasoning, I will remove the image. SoapFan12 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The image is absolutely needed. There is no way we can accurately describe the category without some form of visual representation. The best way to do this is by having thé actual logo used by the network during the ceremony.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        IMO, the image is completely unneeded. It's just an image that helps the reader in no way gain a greater understanding of the named topic. In addition, I have observed that it's very uncommon for a non-free image like that to be used in a list ([2], [3]). It's unacceptable for a FL. I think having the free images of the recognized actresses is enough. Also, the rationale is inaccurate. Should be removed.Ar re 11:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess I will remove the picture :(. SoapFan12 12:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Shouldn't somewhere we link to to daytime drama, to specify what is meant by drama series? Also there is a lot of ref repetition is the lead paragraphs. The 2007 nominees could also use an additional reference.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. With the exceptions of the lead paragraph part. I don't see why having lots of ref repetition in the leads is a problem. Thank you! SoapFan12 11:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs really only need to be used once, at the end of the sentence(s).Caringtype1 (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done and fix everything. Thank you so much! This will mean a lot to me if it could pass for an FL. SoapFan12 11:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.