Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Carol (film)/archive2
- 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 not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of accolades received by Carol (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Lapadite (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating this list again. I believe that prior concerns and suggestions were addressed. 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 included the film in their Top Ten lists. The film received over 190 industry and critics nominations and over 50 awards. It was nominated for six Academy Awards. In 2016, the British Film Institute named it the best LGBT film of all time. Lapadite (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support From the previous FLC, I can see that the list is now fully detailed and well organised. Great work! (p.s. I'm stuck with an FLC here). — Simon (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Krimuk90
- "Patricia Highsmith's 1952 groundbreaking romance novel The Price of Salt". "Groundbreaking" is WP: UNDUE.
- "two women from different classes and backgrounds" Think "social classes" would be better here.
- Too much detail on the box office for an awards list. It's final box office gross will suffice.
- Mention either Rotten Tomato or Metacritic. They both represent the same thing.
- "...the best LGBT film of all time, as voted by more than 100 film experts, including critics, filmmakers, curators, academics, and programmers, in a poll encompassing over 80 years of cinema" Since it was rated the best of "all time" the "encompassing over 80 years of cinema" is redundant.
- I'm concerned about the fact that you have devoted two huge paragraphs to paraphrase the awards the film received. This is quite unnecessary. Typical award lists have just one paragraph that summarise the key awards it won. Mentioning in prose so many of the awards it received from critics organisations, in particular, which are better represented in the table format, just bloats up the lead. A massive trim is in order. Do look into the award list introductions written by Cowlibob to get a better idea of what is expected. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for over 2 months without a lot of comment, and I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. --PresN 21:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been not 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.