I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria. I recently created the article as a fork from the article Boys Don't Cry (film), which I am working hard at to get to FA status. Even more recently, I did some cleanup on it, mainly looking through archives to find better sources. Checking the article against other similar FLs, I definitely think it can meet the criteria. Thank you to any willing reviewers in advance and I look forward to reading and addressing your comments! :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work19:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to mention only the key people in the film. I haven't seen the film but I presume Swank, Sevigny, Sarsgaard, Sexton would suffice as the main roles. With only supporting actors who play a key role additionally being mentioned. It's not clear why Goranson is needed.
done Removed.
When describing the film's release, start with its premiere at the Venice International Film Festival and then discuss its limited release. Box Office Mojo's domestic isn't always just United States, it can include other North American countries.
done It actually premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival, but I changed it. :)
The Toronto International Film Festival is not in the source provided. The film premiered at the Venice International Film Festival [[1]]. Cowlibob (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't say roughly. You can say over $11 million.
done
Review aggregators shouldn't be used as a reference for critical acclaim, other sources should be used. You can however say something like this "The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 76 reviews and judged 88% to be positive."
done I put in a Michael Sragow quote calling the film a "critical knockout".
We don't generally mention who the nominee lost to in these type of lists.
done
Should add alttext for main image per WP:ALT for accessibility.
'done
Las Vegas, Online Film & Television, Southeastern awards should be removed as non-notable. There is WikiProject film consensus to not include non-notable awards which don't merit a separate Wiki article. Indeed these three have had their pages deleted for non-notability.
done
rowscopes have not been added to every award row.
done
Refs 3, 16, 21 are dead.
For what was formerly ref 16 (the Guldbagge Awards) there's a slight problem—it's a database-type source that doesn't change the url when you actually search for the correct listings. What should I do? The other two are done.
Refs should have separate column
done Let me know how that looks.
Recipients column is sortable so each entry should be wikilinked. They should also sort by surname.
done I think this should be good now.
awardsandwinners.com is not a reliable source
Hmm. There's literally no other source I could find that listed the Critics' Choice awards for that year. What should I do?
formatting for references is incorrect. For web sources such as Florida Film Critics Circle, National Board of Review, it should be <ref>{{cite web|url=|title=|publisher=|date=|accessdate=}}</ref> For news/magazine sources such as Variety or Empire should be <ref>{{cite news|url=|title=|work=|publisher=|date=|accessdate=}}</ref>
done There weren't a lot of news publications in this, but I changed them for the ones that are.
Not yet done. Box Office Mojo, BAFTA, Rotten Tomatoes, MTV, Swedish Film Database, Hollywood.com, AFI, the various critics organisations in the refs should be publisher= and use the cite web template shown above. Empireonline should be [[Empire (film magazine)|Empire]]. Satyajiray.org.uk should be The Satyajit Ray Foundation
@BenLinus1214: Sorry for the delay. Have struck my oppose for now. Thanks for the improvements you've made thus far. The replied inline was that I have replied to some of the comments in line above such as Venice being the premiere of the film. I shall look at the list later, when I have some more time. Cowlibob (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change the date for its premiere, you still have the date when it was screened at TIFF. Also replace ref 3 with the one I provided which actually discusses Venice premiere.
done
The source used for critical acclaim is enough for saying the film was critically acclaimed but not that Swank and Sevigny were the reason for the acclaim. You can use this one (Los Angeles Times source) [[2]] which at least specifies that Swank performance was acclaimed.
Alright, I couldn't find a source for Sevigny, so I'll do that.
Instead of the line "Boys Don't Cry has received honors for its writing, directing, and acting,....". how about this as a rephrasing "Boys Don't Cry garnered awards and nominations in a variety of categories with particular praise for Swank's performance as Teena, its screenplay and its direction."
done
You can't say that a film performed poorly. Just simply state the fact that Swank was nominated at the BAFTAs as it's a POV issue.
fixed
Sevigny is not wikilinked at every occurrence in the table.
According to the IMDb, the film was nominated for a Robert Award which is missing from the table. Also received awards and nominations at the Stockholm International Film Festival. Young Hollywood Awards are also missing. Please check these out as often IMDb is right about this and provide a reliable source when you add them to the table.
If there is no reliable source for the award then it's ok to not include it. I shall do my search to see if I can dig up something on these missing awards. Cowlibob (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look, found this ref [[3]] from Canal Plus. If you google translate it, [[4]]. You can see it supports the Young Hollywood Awards for Best Screenplay and Best Director and Stockholm Screenplay Award. Cowlibob (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Here is a link to an archived version of the Critics Choice Awards website that lists Hilary Swank's award for Boys Don't Cry. I'll fix the link if you want me to.
@Birdienest81: Thank you! It turns out the association which runs the awards had just changed their domain. archive.is is apparently discouraged (there was a big RFC) but I found the url on Wayback Machine. Are you planning on taking a look through the list? :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work13:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replace ref 7 with this link this one because when I click on the current one you have, nothing appears because the information about the 72nd Academy Awards was derived from a awards search which times out. The one I gave you at least keeps the mention of Best Actress without timing out.
The period should go outside the quotation marks in the phrase "critical knockout", per WP:LQUOTE
done
I would amend the following sentence so that it reads: "The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 76 reviews and judged 88% of them' 'to be positive." (Or something similar, I just feel hanging 88% there is a little hard to follow)
done
What I would do for the Guldbagger Awards reference issue is just add a little note at the end of the reference that says something like: "Note: 'Award' and 'Year' must be manually entered", or something like that
done
This might just be a stylistic preference on my part, but in Ref 1, for instance, you don't have a wikilink to The New York Times, but in the very next reference, you do link The Washington Post. I would either link all of 'em, or link non of 'em.
"The film was critically acclaimed, particularly for Swank's acting,[5] with one reviewer Michael Sragow.."
done
I think you should merge second sentence with third sentence from the second para, as they are too similar. See: "At the 72nd Academy Awards, Swank won for Best Actress, while Sevigny.." and "At the 57th Golden Globe Awards, Swank won for Best Actress – Drama, while Sevigny.."
done
"as well as her work co-writing the screenplay with Andy Bienen" – something does not seem right with this sentence.
done changed "co-writing" to "co-authorship"
Wiki-link FIPRESCI in the lead.
done
Since you have considered the runner-up awards wins, I think you should add a footnote regarding it.
Actually, I have considered the runner-up awards losses--where should I put the footnote?
The four dead links are actually just included in the list because they are original links--all of them were already archived. The changed subdomain does not affect the page.
@FrB.TG: I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Thank you for the feedback!