Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by The King's Speech/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 19:45, 28 September 2014 [1].

List of accolades received by The King's Speech[edit]

List of accolades received by The King's Speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The King's Speech is the most successful independent British film, a critical and box office success. It was well-received enough to win a pile of critical riches that were poured forth onto the cast and crew alike. It's had a recent work over, and should now be FL standard. All comments and criticisms are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This isn't a necessity, just curiosity - is there a way to separate the tables like this? Especially the prestigious awards like the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, SAG awards, etc. I feel like that would be better for navigation. Again, not a necessity, the list is great and well sourced :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Lady, It's possible, but not necessarily desirable! Having the results in one table allows readers to sort all the results together. They can see, for example, the number and range of awards won by Tariq Anwar, or Colin Firth, or how many "Best film" awards were won – and all in one table. I find the flexibility of the sort is more useful for general readers than separate tables, which is all a bit too "static" for my liking. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This one was on my to do list but you got there ahead of me, gosh darnit!
  • Lead
  • Probably avoid the word hailed just state it. Include box office, production budget, Rotten Tomatoes. Include where and when it premiered and went on wide release.
  • Added info and tweaked. Rancid Tomatoes not needed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to remember that it had the most Oscar nominations probably something to mention, add which award Firth won at Globes even though it's obvious.
  • Wikilink SAG Best Actor, Best Ensemble. At the SAG, the cast is nominated so include their names as per your source.
  • That's too much bloating for the lead, I think, but I've added the full list to the table. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the BAFTAs, mention that the film had the most nominations and won the most awards. Cut the list of BAFTA awards mentioned or the including bit is pointless.
  • I believe the National Board of Review included the film in their top ten of the year, include it in the table, lead and infobox.
  • Added to the IB and table: not needed in the lead. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox
  • Not essential but would be nice if the main picture was awards related e.g. the cast or a cast member who won the most awards/nominations attending an awards ceremony.
  • I'd rather keep the film image there, with the various film members images collected together alongside their awards. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awards and nominations --> Accolades. wins and nominations --> awards and nominations
  • Aspen Filmfest is included in the infobox but isn't present in the table. Also there is wikiproject film consensus to not include awards which don't have an independent wiki so you could remove this award.
  • Cut the 2010 bit of the British independent awards. Pick one of Broadcast Film's Critics or Critics Choice Awards and ensure it's referred to as the same in the table and infobox.
  • Dallas awards need en dashes. Check this throughout the article. Detroit is present in the box but not in the main table.
  • European film awards should total 4 as per the table. It should also come before Evening Standard awards. Film Independent Spirit Awards not Independent as per table.
  • Wikilink International Film Music Critics Association. VFCC --> Vancouver Film Critics Circle
  • General note ensure that there is consistency with how the awards/awarding bodies are referred to as between the infobox and the table.
  • Check that the infobox awards are in alphabetical order and also check that the number of awards and nominations corresponds to the table.
  • Table
  • Check that the awards/awarding bodies are in alphabetical order
  • Emile Sherman is probably notable enough for a red link as a producer of a Best Picture film.
  • AFI award is referred to as "AFI Special Awards" in the source and the recipient was the film not the actress.
  • BIF actor award, the individual critics choice awards, Chicago film critics 2010 wikilink on the date, Dallas individual awards, Empire individual awards, European film individual awards, Florida 2010 (wikilink on the date), Las Vegas film critics 2010 (wikilink on date), London film critics circle 2010 (wikilink on date), London film critics circle individual awards, Los Angeles 2010 (wikilink on date), Online film critics 2010 (wikilink on date), Phoenix 2010 (wikilink on date), St. Louis individual awards should all be wikilinked.
  • References
  • Metacritic and European film academy should not be italicised. Link publishers wherever possible for example: American society of cinematographers, art director's guild and costume designer guild. Replace awardsdaily sources as it's basically a website by one blogger. Replace film-book, altfg sources.

Cowlibob (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not entirely sure Metacritic about Metacritic: the MoS says that "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized", which I think is the situation here.
  • Working on the remaining sources and should be done shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All now done: thanks very much indeed for your thoughts and comments here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Reordered the lead a bit. One minor thing I would add is an introductory sentence before the 83rd academy awards which highlights that although the film earned recognition in a variety of categories, certain aspects of the film earned the most recognition in terms of accolades e.g Firth, Hooper, Rush and Carter. In regards to Metacritic, I've seen that bit of MOS most of the time interpreted as only news/magazine sources should be italicised so I wouldn't be surprised if someone else brought it up but it's so minor. Anyway, great list which is well written and well sourced. Cowlibob (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Cowlibob. I've seen Metacritic italicised and not italicised all over the place, and it's a shame there's no concrete decision made somewhere to make the MoS more clear on this! Thanks again for your time and effort here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "ritish film ever.[5] The film appeared in the Top Ten lists of more than twenty film reviewers, for the best films of 2010.[6]" I count four "film"s here in one-and-a-bit sentences. Reads a little clunky.
  • "—more than any other film—" you use this twice, perhaps deliberately? It looks a little awkward, the unspaced em-dash combined with the references (I added spaces between the reference and the subsequent text, by the way, as it looked even odder without...)
  • "the film received seven nominations, more than any other film nominated" could you not simplify the second clause to "more than any other nominee"?

Otherwise pretty good stuff. "Just one more thing", how do you know it's comprehensive? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, The Rambling Man, I've tweaked all three points. In terms of comprehensiveness, it's as full as I've found anywhere, less the non-notable awards. I suppose if a couple of the non-notable ones rise up to their own page, then we can always add it on later. Cheers for your thoughts here. – SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support quality list, decent references, not seeing glaring omissions, all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, RM. As always, your comments are always great to have – and always lead to great improvements. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Can't fault a thing on this excellent list! Cassiantotalk 07:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Cass. Your time and effort are, as always, much appreciated! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The title is a touch unexpected (I might have gone for "Awards" rather than "Accolades") but that's of no consequence. This is a thorough and impressive piece of work, fully meeting the FL criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 10:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks indeed for your time and thoughts here. As always it is very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_accolades_received_by_The_King%27s_Speech/archive2&oldid=1138485526"