Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/73rd Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards/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, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]
73rd Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following the successful nomination of 73rd Primetime Emmy Awards to featured list status, I've updated this article to cover the additional Emmy categories presented in the same year. It is admittedly a bit of a long, dry read, but I think it's important to cover these awards as well to complete the set. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated, especially since I'd like to apply this format to other Creative Arts ceremonies. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I got nothing. Brilliant work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dank
- Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
- Checking the FLC criteria:
- 1. The prose checks out. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the tables.
- 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 actual 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. At a glance, the images seem fine.
- 6. It is stable.
- Support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Read through the article and could not find anything wrong that stands out. Nice job! MWright96 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by Aoba47 (pass)
[edit]- The citations are all high-quality and come from publications that I would expect to be in this kind of article. I do not see any issues the structure for the citations.
- I have done a spot check and the information matches the citation (i.e. author, publication date, etc.) and the information in the list is supported by the citations.
For the above reasons, this FLC passes my source review. It is nice to see these categories represented in the FL space. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To add to Aoba's source review, the link-checker tool shows no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 02:42, 28 January 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.