Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Carol (film)/archive1

List of accolades received by Carol (film)

Nominator(s): Lapadite (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carol is a 2015 British-American romantic drama film directed by Todd Haynes. The screenplay, written by Phyllis Nagy, is based on Patricia Highsmith's 1952 groundbreaking romance novel The Price of Salt. Carol is Metacritic's best reviewed film of 2015. Over 130 critics and publications have included the film in their Top Ten Best of 2015 lists. The film has received over 170 industry and critics nominations and over 50 awards. It has been nominated for six Academy Awards. Nominating this list (my first) as I believe it's notable, comprehensive enough and well-sourced. Suggestions and comments on improvements are appreciated. Lapadite (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this nomination is premature and the subject is too recent, in fact it is too current. There are still so many pending templates throughout the list, and it will be liable to change in the not too distant future. I would prefer to see this nominated when the list is complete; either wins or nominations, no pending's, because then we know that the content is not likely to change too much if this list is successful (in fact, it shouldn't have to change at all). If Carol wins a lot of the awards it is still pending confirmation for, this will have to be altered in the lead within the next couple of weeks (really not long to have waited, considering the remaining ceremonies will take place in the next two weeks or so anyway). — Calvin999 09:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there 8 awards pending (all major, e.g., BAFTA, two guilds, Independent Spirit Awards, Academy Awards). I nominated it now since this process tends to take a while. I wouldn't have nominated it if the pending awards where the regional critics (of which there are a lot) as there's usually a lot of traffic when those are announced. IMO, the pending awards are few and it's just a matter of changing {{nom}} to {{won}} and adding any wins to the lead (e.g., "nominated for __BAFTA, and won ___). But if this is considered too recent/current then let me know if I should withdraw the nomination or just wait it out. Lapadite (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I completely agree. As this film was popular with critics, it is likely that it will receive more nominations which means that the content is to change too much, therefore threatening the stability criterion. I also wanted to work on and submit the Revenant list but not until the award season is over. I hate to say this but I think you should wait for some more months and then renominate it. -- Frankie _talk 22:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You won't really have to wait that long. The film was only released in December and virtually all of the award ceremonies have taken place already, and some will take place this month. So it's not really a long process. I'd wait a couple of months. I originally was going to oppose but didn't end up saving it, because as such I think the list is good, but it's too premature and it's still a current topic. — Calvin999 10:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's fine, it can wait. In the meantime, I'd welcome comments on improvements to the article. (Edit:) Frankie, critics have already announced their awards so no updates will be needed there. Lapadite (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it's good, but the lead I think is at least one paragraph too long. I stick to facts which can't be included in the table, as well as high profile wins. We can gather most of what you've written by looking at the table. The lead shouldn't be a prose version of the table, it's duplicating info. — Calvin999 19:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Calvin999, which award(s) in the lead aren't high profile? I removed Boston Society of Film Critics from the lead. Lapadite (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Only 4 awards are left (Oscars, Costume Designers Guild, Independent Spirit Awards, Satellite Awards). Did a modest rewrite. Are there any more suggestions for lead? Lapadite (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cowlibob

Good effort but there is still much to do to improve the list.

The table does not follow the format of the recent FLs. Here is an example of the table format: List of accolades received by Frozen (2013 film). This format records the date of the ceremony as well as including rowscopes and colscopes for accessibility.
The recipient(s) column should be recipient(s) and nominee(s) and entries in this column should be wikilinked wherever possible as it is a sortable column. They should also be sorted using the sortname or sort template by last name.
The lead needs a rework. The first paragraph is okay but the Cannes premiere should be moved into the second paragraph. Essentially, first para: what the film is about, who's in it. second para: when it premiered, how much it made at the box office on what production budget, what was its critical reception, third para: major awards first then other awards, fourth para if needed minor important awards.
The Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic sentences need to be reworded. They are way too detailed. A suggested format for Rotten Tomatoes is "Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, surveyed x reviews and judged x% to be positive."
The sentence on it being on >130 critics' top ten lists does not need 11 references.
None of the images have alttext per WP:ALT.
"Carol received critical acclaim, with particular praise", I would change this to Carol received many awards and nominations in a variety of categories with particular praise for.....", to focus it on this list of accolades. Cowlibob (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cowlibob: Thanks for the comments. Added a dates column. On that topic, why are ceremony dates necessary?

A separate column is useful in having links to a general awards article and the particular ceremony where the film was nominated. Cowlibob (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Why "Recipients and nominees"? It's redundant; an individual/film is a recipient of a nomination or a win. I'd like input from others on this. Entries are wikilinked once (first appearance) in the table, per WP:OVERLINK. When the table is sorted the first appearance of the name is linked. Why does every repeated entry need to be linked?

It's not overlinking as it helps as a reader can look through list, want to know about a specific person. If only the first is linked, they have scroll back up to the top and click sort, then scroll back to the person they were looking for. Cowlibob (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Another question; how is a film's budget, gross, or release date, unless notable, relevant to an accolades article? Readers can click on the film's article to get that information. I reworked the lead per your other suggestions.

This info allows the reader to know what kind of film it is. Is it a blockbuster, is it as small indie film? We can't be sure that they got to the list from the parent article or that they are going to so a brief overview helps. Cowlibob (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Trimmed RT and MC sentences.
- Removed 4 references already linked in the Metacritic ref. The remaining refs all needed to support the "over 130" top 10 lists.
- Added an alt parameter for each image.
- "with particular praise for" should follow a critical reception statement not an awards and nominations statement. I think noting critical acclaim is important.

perhaps recognition would be better, it's useful to describe what parts of a film received the most recognition from awards ceremonies.Cowlibob (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: working on the table. Lapadite (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: finished table format, and rewrote and rearranged the lead a bit, adding gross, budget and release information. Lapadite (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]