Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Anne Hathaway/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Contents
List of awards and nominations received by Anne Hathaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My first FLC in more than four years. After writing her FA-class biography, I have worked extensively on Hathaway's awards list in the past few days. It is a well-sourced and well-written article IMHO. That said, I welcome constructive criticism on its improvement. FrB.TG (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You're good there, except for one minor tweak: if the cell spans multiple rows, then use
scope=rowgroup
instead ofscope=row
. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 02:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: is "scope=rowgroup" a standard practice? I don't like one bit how the entries are then shown in bold. None of the award pages, featured or not, I know has this. FrB.TG (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, "plainrowheaders" should fix that, just like it does for scope=row; I guess leave it as row for now, I'll ask at WP:ACCESS about it. --PresN 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @FrB.TG: Okay, this should now be fixed, I've gotten plainrowheaders updated to affect rowgroups as well as rows. I've updated the list for you as a test, and it looks fine. --PresN 17:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, "plainrowheaders" should fix that, just like it does for scope=row; I guess leave it as row for now, I'll ask at WP:ACCESS about it. --PresN 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: is "scope=rowgroup" a standard practice? I don't like one bit how the entries are then shown in bold. None of the award pages, featured or not, I know has this. FrB.TG (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Any title starting with "The" should sort based on the next word
- As the table is sortable, anything that is linked should be linked every time
- Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, Chris. These should be sorted now. FrB.TG (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Pseud 14
editI have very minor comments:
- Pipe first instance of Teen Choice Award
- Hathaway followed with roles -- perhaps rephrase, it does come across as clunky or reads awkwardly
- Maybe the image caption on the infobox could use some context? Instead of the usual "subject in year"
- The image description says it was at an AHC campaign. And I for the life of me have no clue what that means. So I’ve only added that the picture was taken at a campaign.
Nothing more to add. Marvelous job on this piece. Glad to see this last bit of her related article on here. (FT in no time!) -- Pseud 14 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Pseud. These should be resolved now. And yes, I will definitely go for FTC if and when this is promoted. FrB.TG (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- P.S. I just saw her bust out "Since U Been Gone" during a game on The Kelly Clarkson Show. Love her! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have some spare time or inclination, would appreciate feedback on my FLC as well. Though not mandatory at all
- Comments by Brankestein
- I've been told that tables need captions. You can see MOS:DTAB for an example.
Other than that, I don't think there's anything more to add. The list looks pretty good and I'm happy to return the favor, even if it's something really minor. --Brankestein (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Brankestein, caption added. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Brankestein (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Aoba47
edit- For the image, I would clarify the campaign to avoid any ambiguity or confusion. I would also add ALT text for the image.
- For this part, with a role in Christopher Nolan's superhero film, why not specify that she played Catwoman? You could use a link to the Catwoman in other media article. I am only asking because the lead names Fantine for Les Misérables.
- I would include the Golden Raspberry Awards in the lead. It would balance the lead, and they are a notable award.
- Hathaway has received two nominations for playing the Grand High Witch in The Witches (including the Golden Raspberry Awards mentioned above) so I think that is worth including at the end of the lead.
Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I would be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. I think Hathaway is a very talented actress, but I have honestly not watched one of her films in a while. However, that is more so because I've fallen off of keeping up with films in general lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Aoba, as always. All done. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Do watch some of her films in the future, although her recent works have been less than great. FrB.TG (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything looks good to me. I support this FLC for promotion. I remember that I tried watching The Hustle and The Last Thing He Wanted, but I couldn't get into either. That being said, I still pay attention to casting news about her future films. I might check out The Witches because her performance looks delightfully absurd, but I'm not crazy about the amount of CGI. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review and support by PanagiotisZois
editSource review (formatting and reliability) by PanagiotisZois
|
---|
I want to point out that this isn't a full-blown source review. My comments focus primarily on the formatting of the sources end ensuring that they're all structured the same way, that the websites/publishers are always linked (not linked in some sources but not others), and that information isn't missing. I also looked at the reliability of the sources basedon on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The majority of the references come from reliable sources, so no problems there. I've included comments about some which I think can be improved.
|
For now, these are the comments I have to make. I'll try my best to also perform a source review regarding verifiability. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for these. I have decided to wiki-link sources publishers only on first instances. AFAIK, there are usually two standards: linking works on their first instances to avoid overlinking (especially in ones that are crowded with references)—this is usually my preference—or link them every time, although I have seen some not linking publishers at all. It makes me think there is no set rule for this. Otherwise, I have replaced the sources from Yahoo! and BroadwayWorld.
- Regarding the 23rd point, Awards Daily's owner Sasha Stone is a noted blogger who was profiled by New York Magazine and is a member of Alliance of Women Film Journalists. It should be fine IMO. FrB.TG (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can't say I necessarily like it, but it isn't really an issue with linking the websites in just the first references but not others. I'm glad to see you replaced some of the less-than reliable sources and added information in the ones that were missing it. But I see source #62 is still missing the website. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, ref. 62 does have a link. The ones that don’t are not available online, unfortunately. FrB.TG (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I added in the publisher in source 62. One last nitpick I have is this: source #42 is the only one to list Variety's publisher; Penske Media Corporation. For consistency, unless you want to add the publisher in every other Variety reference, I'd recommend removing it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, and thank you for the fix. I thought you were referring to the URL and not the missing publisher. FrB.TG (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I suck with Wikipedia terminology. Things are shaping up greatly. I'll try to post my remaining comments regarding verifiability soon. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, and thank you for the fix. I thought you were referring to the URL and not the missing publisher. FrB.TG (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I added in the publisher in source 62. One last nitpick I have is this: source #42 is the only one to list Variety's publisher; Penske Media Corporation. For consistency, unless you want to add the publisher in every other Variety reference, I'd recommend removing it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, ref. 62 does have a link. The ones that don’t are not available online, unfortunately. FrB.TG (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can't say I necessarily like it, but it isn't really an issue with linking the websites in just the first references but not others. I'm glad to see you replaced some of the less-than reliable sources and added information in the ones that were missing it. But I see source #62 is still missing the website. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review (verifiability) by PanagiotisZois
|
---|
|
The last thing I have to say is this. I noticed that you changed all references to having their "|url-status" to be "dead", despite most of the sources still being active. I don't believe Wikipedia has a consesnus on this, but Wikipedia:Link rot seems to indicate that it's preferable for active sources to be listed as "alive". Having said that, I don't really view that as an "issue" with the page. They're all properly formatted, the majority come from pretty high-quality, reliable sources (granted, MTV News may not be BBC News, but it's appropriate), and are varifiable. I apologize for some of the mistakes I made during the review process, and am happy to pass the source review. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now, moving on to the prose review:
- I'd recommend clarifying that Hathaway's role in Get Real was a leading one.
- Similarly to The Princess Diaries, include the year of release for The Dark Knight Rises.
- Same with Les Miserables.
- I think there's something wrong with the Best Hero award for The Dark Knight Rises.
- 1 and 2 done but I don't understand your third point. What exactly is wrong there? Do you Hathaway unsuitable for the nomination in the category (as in Catwoman shouldn't considered a hero in TDKR) or is there something wrong in the article? FrB.TG (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem is that the information provided in that section goes in this order; first the Best Hero award, then The Dark Knight Rises. The two categories of "Recipient(s)" and "Category" have been mixed up. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, my bad, and thank you for the fix. I do apologize for these little mix-ups. FrB.TG (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, no worries. Besides, it doesn't hurt to help out and make a few edits here and there during a FAC or FLC. Regardless, given its current state, I gladly give my support to this page for promotion to featured list status. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, my bad, and thank you for the fix. I do apologize for these little mix-ups. FrB.TG (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem is that the information provided in that section goes in this order; first the Best Hero award, then The Dark Knight Rises. The two categories of "Recipient(s)" and "Category" have been mixed up. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 and 2 done but I don't understand your third point. What exactly is wrong there? Do you Hathaway unsuitable for the nomination in the category (as in Catwoman shouldn't considered a hero in TDKR) or is there something wrong in the article? FrB.TG (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FLC director and delegates: Sorry for the ping but could I get a status update on this, if possible? Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 14:43, 12 April 2022 (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.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.