Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Mad Men/archive1: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
sp
closing- promoted
Line 31: Line 31:
*6. It is stable.
*6. It is stable.
*'''Support'''. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list noms every now and then, but if not, not a problem. They tend to be long.) - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 22:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list noms every now and then, but if not, not a problem. They tend to be long.) - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 22:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --'''[[User:PresN|<span style="color:green">Pres</span>]][[User talk:PresN|<span style="color:blue">N</span>]]''' 21:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

{{FLCClosed|promoted}}

Revision as of 21:55, 8 April 2021

List of awards and nominations received by Mad Men

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

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Mad Men's pilot, Don Draper notes that "advertising is based on one thing — happiness." Unfortunately, I can't come up with such a concise and elegant quip to explain the show to others, but what I can do – and what I've done – is bring this list up to FL standard to properly list its accolades so that others can better understand its achievements. The work I did was modeled on my West Wing FL nomination, taking this from an average page to what I believe is my best FL nominee to date. As always, any and all comments are appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The table is missing a caption.

  • Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
--PresN 14:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be done – let me know if it needs to be changed, I'm not an expert with this. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • The table caption is fine (though some would remove the words from the title of this list).
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I checked sorting on several columns in the table and sampled the redirects in the table; everything looks fine.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. The one image isn't a copyright problem, per the "originality" criterion.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list noms every now and then, but if not, not a problem. They tend to be long.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:55, 8 April 2021 (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.