Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by David Lynch/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 Giants2008 21:10, 12 March 2012 [1].

List of accolades received by David Lynch

Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by David Lynch/archive1

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My dog barks some. Mentally, you picture my dog—but I have not told you the type dog which I have. Perhaps you might even picture Toto, from The Wizard of Oz. But I can tell you my dog is always with me.

I believe this list meets the criteria. Having learnt from my previous foray into FLC territory, I've decided to go with something much meatier, as the last attempt faced opposition over criterion 3b. I don't believe this to be an issue here, as this collates information related a wide range of films, television programs and the strange love felt for the man by the French, in a manner which could not simply be shoehorned into any one given article. I've also taken any other relevant feedback from that prior nomination on board with this one (mostly about where to place the table references, although I'm completely open to moving these if it's deemed necessary or preferable). GRAPPLE X 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"own unique cinematic style" and "dubbed "Lynchian"" for instance, are these also covered by reference 1 or is this your own opinion?
- It was backed by this but I've added a few more specific citations of the use of the phrase "Lynchian" to support the context it's used in. GRAPPLE X 18:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"His more notable films "... according to whom?
- Fixed, I've removed the phrase. Had intended it to be backed up by the other films (Dune, Eraserhead) not having garnered awards attention like the listed films, but that's probably a piss-poor rationale. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
début has become sufficiently anglicised to remove the accent.
- Done. GRAPPLE X 18:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you've broken down the awards by film, I think it would be great if we could have a little bit of info on each film (just a couple of sentences) and then move the wikilink from the heading into the prose for each title.
- I've added some information. It's all quite uncontroversial so I've left it uncited (I doubt that "Blue Velvet is a 1986 film" is going to be challenged, for instance). Let me know if you feel more should be added (for instance I've not summarised the tables in prose, but if you think it would be better than I'll add that). GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tables need row and col scopes for screenreaders per MOS:DTT.
- I've added col scopes. Row scopes are confusing me based on that page alone but I'll have a look through some other FL tables and find out how it's done in practice. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've looked over a few other FLs and I can't see this being used anywhere, so I'm a bit lost. The example given on MOS:DTT uses a different format than the tables I've used here, should I try to rewrite them to conform to this? GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, MOS is not always intuitive. I've made a test edit to show you what I would do. Let me know if any of it needs explanation, it's not that easy to get your head around it! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've fixed the other tables based on your example. I'm pretty sure it turned out right. GRAPPLE X 20:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Looks perfect to me. I removed the central alignment of year of award I added in my test edit, so it's consistent with your other tables, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. Should these fields be centred, or is it not really important? GRAPPLE X 04:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Mainly down to personal preference, I like the way numerical columns look when centrally aligned, but it's not essential. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Palme d'Or<" <?
- Artefact left from moving a ref. Nabbed it now. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a bit retentitve, but ordinarily these kinds of lists have the tables the same format, i.e. column widths the same from section to section.
- Have added this now, let me know if it needs tweaking. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason for not linking AMPAS in the references?
- Linked. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several links with the same title exactly, I know they link to the same page but it's mildly confusing, perhaps adjust the titles to reflect the section they link to within the page?
- I've had a scan and I seem to be overlooking which ones you mean. Are you talking about the external or internal links? GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I meant reference tittles... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, yes, the Cannes titles. I've replaced the dates for this year's festival (which is present in all the page titles there) with the year of each festival being cited. GRAPPLE X 20:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why "may" isn't capitlised in the link title? Even if it's in the page title, we should make it correct.
- Got it. Not keen on hypercorrecting what is essentially a quotation (which is why I had also left in the hyphens in these titles), but I'll defer to your judgement. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 17 and 19 are bare URLs, these need to be fixed.
- (For future reference these are now refs 18 and 20). These pages have the URL used as the page title. I've given them titles to reflect their content but these are simply my own coinages. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's the right thing to do. While we may be encouraged to use the HTML title for webpages, often as not they're crap...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 24 is dead (and linked to a blog) and ref 3 isn't working for me at the moment... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added an archive URL for ref 24 (now ref 25). It is a blog, but in format only - it's still the Toronto Film Critics Association's official website. Ref 3 (now 4), I've replaced with a working one from the same site. GRAPPLE X 18:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Good raise 23:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment – Ref 27 needs a publisher, outside the title. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it. Apparently I'd listed the publishers but not actually added the "publisher=" parameter in the template. Oops. GRAPPLE X 03:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruby2010

How necessary is it to have Lynch's birth date? (Not used to reading accolade lists for one person, so am unsure if a birth date is the norm)
French government "has" not "have"
"...then as an Officier in 2009..." Input bolded
Not too sure on the lack of references in the article body; Should "The movie exhibits elements of both film noir and surrealism" for example be referenced? Or this one: "can be viewed as both prologue and epilogue to the television series Twin Peaks"?
Ref 3: Why no publisher link? Be consistent as to whether you link all publishers, or none. Ruby 2010/2013 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could remove the birthdate if it's unnecessary, it doesn't bother me either way. As for the referencing, I've bunged in a few more citations for the things you've specified; is there anything else you feel needs to be supported? GRAPPLE X 22:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Supporting the promotion of this list to featured status. Ruby 2010/2013 22:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Would like a few refs for the description about the films above the tables. For example the straight story bit could be challenged so a ref would clear this issue up.
refs that are PDFs need |format=PDF adding

NapHit (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the PDF formats, and cited both the true story nature of The Straight Story and the fact that Wild at Heart was adapted from a novel. Is there anything else you feel should be supported? GRAPPLE X 22:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 26 needs the PDF format adding and would add refs to the descriptions of films or tv series that don't have them which are Elephant man, mulholland drive, inland empire and twin peaks. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have added some refs from the Lynch on Lynch book, Roger Ebert and The Guardian to round these out. GRAPPLE X 16:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support NapHit (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only one thing that I see, and it's not major. In the two sentences on "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me", Kyle MacLachlan's name should be wikilinked. I know it's wikilinked above in "Blue Velvet", but every actor's name is wikilinked in each movie description, and it seems out of place.
Other than that, Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also left other actors unlinked on their second (and beyond) mentions as well; Harry Dean Stanton, Larua Dern and Ray Wise for example. If you feel I should add the links to all of these then that's fine, I can do that, just pointing it out so you know it's not a one-off instance. GRAPPLE X 01:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally I would, but it's not major. I know it could be considered overlinking, but at the same time, Kyle's name *not* being linked jarred me. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Got it. GRAPPLE X 03:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.