Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Frida/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 21:06, 30 November 2012 [1].

List of accolades received by Frida[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Frida/archive1

Nominator(s): JuneGloom Talk 01:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started work on this list back in January 2011, but had to stop after struggling to find sources for a few of the awards and nominations (particularly the Chicago Film Critics Association ones). However, through some further research with the help of the Wayback Machine and Highbeam, I finally managed to complete the list. I'm confident that I've got all of the accolades Frida earned during it's run in the awards season. I also believe that the list passes 3b of the FL criteria. I look forward to your reviews and comments. - JuneGloom Talk 01:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, quite comprehensive, good formatting, and meticulously sourced. — Cirt (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ fails 3b. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 21:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per 3b. There isn't enough awards, and this could probably be quickly merged into the main article for Frida, or be written and changed to prose at that main article for it. As said at the criteria for 3b, it needs to pass WP:SAL, which it sadly doesn't. Sorry. TBr and ley 23:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well I've improved the main article a bit, so the list won't be the best thing in it. I guess I have to withdraw the nomination here? To merge this article with the other, do I just move the table over and create a redirect? Or will I need an admin to perform some sort of history merge? (And thank you Cirt for your lone support). - JuneGloom Talk 22:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to merge the table into the main article, then yes you'll need to withdraw this nom. If that's what you're going to do just let me know and I'll close it for you. Also moving the table and creating a redirect is the way to go. NapHit (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a 47-item list is too short for WP:FL, since when? Even if that were so, I don't see why this should be merged with the main article, as it would make the latter too bulky. As for WP:SAL, what exactly does it violate?122.167.172.189 (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is only 20,000, so I think there is an argument that it could be included there. NapHit (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure myself. I'd suggest the FLC is considered on its own grounds, a very reasonable SAL. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it is a fork of the main article. It can be easily merged into the main article as was demonstrated there. The lead of this article paraphrases what the table already orderly conveys in a few sentences. Not sure what the anonymous editor means with "too bulky". There is already a table in the main article and it is almost the size of the nominated list's table. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"it is almost the size of the nominated list's table" - clearly incorrect. This list has 47 entries, the list at the main page has 14. That's less than a third of the content here. The shortened table there should be removed entirely and a {{main}} template used to just direct the reader here. "The lead of this article paraphrases what the table already orderly conveys in a few sentences." um, that's what a WP:LEAD should do. It should summarise the article. Once again, this list can stand alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've experimented with putting the list in the main article, but to me it overwhelms the latter half of the article and I don't think it can be reasonably included. It also makes that See Also section kinda disappear between the table and the references. I do wonder if I had fully expanded the main article first, if we would be having this discussion? Having looked at a couple of promoted accolades lists that have far less nominations than this one, it seems the main articles contained more prose than Frida does when they were brought here. - JuneGloom Talk 03:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the list was half of its current size, I would be in agreement that it violates 3b. With 47 nominations, though, I believe a stand-alone list is justified. I have to express disagreement with the opposes registered earlier, as I think 3b is met comfortably. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments this is a perfectly acceptable standalone list as far as I'm concerned, so to that end, some comments on the content...

Infobox image caption doesn't need a full stop.
"biographical film about the life of" biographical films generally are about the life of someone, so this phrasing seems a little redundant to me.
Academy Awards etc refer to make-up without the hyphen.
"The film was handed four nominations" a shade colloquial.

Otherwise very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, I've made the appropriate changes. - JuneGloom Talk 16:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support a good quality list. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Giants2008 and The Rambling Man. Seems of very good quality. TBr and ley 18:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your supports. - JuneGloom Talk 00:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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