Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by House/archive1

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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of accolades received by House

[edit]

List of accolades received by House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left this list for a while, but I cleaned it up now so I hope it is ready to become a FL. Nergaal (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Leaning towards oppose, given I'm concerned with the verifiability of this list.

  • According to this, the majority of sources are dead.
Strange, I checked the refs with refcheck not long ago and they appeared to be fine. I will work on this asap. Nergaal (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bot used an erroneous cached version of the article when I checked it initially. I have replaced almost all of the dead links. Nergaal (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have dab link issues which need addressing.
I think I've fixed these. Nergaal (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Laurie, yadda...which has been regarded by some critics in the entertainment industry as among the biggest snubs in the award's history", would be nice if this was a bit more specific. Saying 'some critics' and citing numerous references is a tad open to interpretation; some of these critics aren't even critics – just wannabe hacks. What I would suggest you could do is name one critic from a respectable, high-quality source who commented on Laurie's failure to pick the award, then quote and cite where appropriate.
not yet dealt with. Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to link the name once per section/table. Is that ok? Nergaal (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.
  • Be consistent with date formats (2012-12-26 or December 26, 2012)
fixed
  • Ref 1 is BBC Learning English, which is completely different to its BBC News branch.
fixed
  • Ref 48, 82 and 111 need to be formatted correctly.
removed/fixed
  • Fix the title of Ref 56
fixed
  • Be consistent: is it Articles.latimes.com or the Los Angeles Times? Preferably go with the latter.
fixed
  • Likewise News.yahoo.com/Yahoo! News and Eonline.com/E! Online. Again, I would advise going against the domain if it has a familiar name.
fixed
  • Ref 91 needs page number.
Added the url instead. Nergaal (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove location of Ref 96 – it's already stated in its title.
fixed
  • Ref 124 is a news agency; doesn't need italicizing.
fixed
fixed
  • Huffingtonpost.co.uk and Huffingtonpost.com can just be referred to as The Huffington Post
fixed
  • Sources which cite Entertainment Weekly and Variety should be italicized as they are publications.
fixed
  • Open question: is it permissible to cite IMDb as it is user generated?
replaced it
  • Is Thehollywoodgossip.com a reliable source?
No idea. Should I try replacing them? Nergaal (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more than happy to reassess once you have made the suggested corrections; feel free to get back to me at that point. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went through all the references and tried to actually fix everything I could think of. Since I have changed so many refs, it is probably a good idea for somebody to take another look at the refs. Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 89 and 95 need a location
Removed the first, while the latter (115 now) is a USA Today, but I have no idea what location. Nergaal (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
McLean, Virginia would do. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be nice if the tables met MOS:DTT and included rowscopes and colscopes.
I have no idea what is that. Is there a bot for it? Nergaal (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is done manually and designed with accessibility in mind. I did the first table for you. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 67 has a problem.
Resolved comments from Godot13 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments-
  • Second run-through - Generally minor additional comments--
  • (Intro) 159 noms by American orgs with 50 wins; 10 noms outside US with 1(?) win… Infobox at upper right has 169 noms (correct) but 56 wins. Where are the other 5 wins coming from?
They are listed in the second hidden table in the infobox. Nergaal (talk)
So they are...
  • (Golden Globe Awards) The image of Hugh Laurie is smaller than the rest. Since he is the title character perhaps he should be the same size?
increased it from 170 to 200
  • In the same section table, the dashes in the nominee(s) column is a bit confusing, should they say “House” instead? (See last comment)
  • (Humanitas Prizes) “House has been nominated six times for the 60 Minute Category, and has one once” – change to … “has won once”
fixed
  • (NAACP Image Awards) “The show has received 12 nominations in total, seven of which for Omar Epps” – change to … “in total, including seven for”
fixed
  • Same section - Ref #82 isn’t working properly (not going to a specific article)
replaced ref

Also, should the dashes be replaced by House? (Okay, now I’m realizing that all the dashes represent the series, a comment in the beginning would be helpful)

I am not sure how to do this without making it awkward. Nergaal (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Prism Awards) – “The PRISM Awards are awarded annually by the Entertainment Industries Council to honor the creative community” Is there something better than “creative community,” it strikes me as a bit off.
replaced with artists
  • (Screen Actors Guild Awards) – The table would look better if it was brought up next to the image to be consistent with the other sections that have images.
not sure what you mean. Nergaal (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My monitor was misbehaving... All good here.
  • (Teen Choice Awards) – ‘’ House has received 16 nominations, four for” – change to “nominations, including four for” otherwise it sounds 16 + 4…
fixed
  • Same section – “Laurie has won one once for the Teen Choice Award for Choice TV Actor: Drama, in 2007” change to “Laurie won in 2007 for Choice TV Actor: Drama”
fixed
  • (Writers Guild of America Awards) – End of second sentence- replace comma with a period.
fixed
  • (Other U.S. Awards) – In the table, you might want to make the Nominee column non-sortable (currently it will only sort by the first name of the first nominee and therefore isn’t really helpful since they’re all multiple nominees).
it helps for David Shore entries though...
Well, it places his three wins side by side, not sure how useful that is...
fixed this
  • If the dashes are meant to represent “House” I can help you (I think) make the table sortable by Nominee (for single nominee table only) so that the dash is visible, but interpreted by the sort as “House.” Not necessary, your call. --Godot13 (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that would really be better. For example I don't think having House sort between Laurie and Wilde would actually make sense. Nergaal (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying, but in sorting the dash as "House" all the other names would be sorted by last name (though still visible exactly as they are...) and House would be treated as a last name. I demonstrated on the Teen Choice Awards table. Check it out, if you don't like it or it's not what you had in mind, feel free to undo the change, no hard feelings at all...--Godot13 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed this by replacing dashes with N/A. Does that work? Nergaal (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using N/A is a problem here because it is referring to the nominee. It doesn't make sense to say "not applicable" in the nominee column, particularly when describing the winner (which happens to be the title subject of the list). I think some reference to the show (e.g., House, "House", (ensemble), etc.) is necessary-Godot13 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that the suggestion to use N/A came from TRM...
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Logo" is hardly a descriptive caption.
not sure what to change this to
Perhaps something like "The logo used in the opening credits for House"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
changed
  • "U.S. Awards & Nominations" and "International Awards & Nominations" - why the over-capitalisation?
done
  • " on FOX from" -> "on the Fox network" for our non-US readers.
done
  • It has also aired internationally... 66 countries, so try not to be too US-centric, or at least mention it's been highly successful worldwide.
added
  • First para of the lead essentially recreates the info box. Pointless really, perhaps you could give us a synopsis of the show, the characters, anything relevant that doesn't just turn the info box into prose.
how is it now? Nergaal (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox "0time"?
fixed
  • " they are considered to be the television equivalent to the Academy Awards" well, you have one BBC source saying that. It's hardly definitive.
you suggest removing this altogether? Nergaal (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying add one or two more refs where the same claim is given, or else say "The BBC consider ..." The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Switched this. Nergaal (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In sortable tables, linkable items should be linked every time.
removed the sortability since it did not add anything
  • Don't have blank cells in tables, either N/A or — or something, otherwise it just looks like you've forgotten something.
fixed
  • Check for Nominee when it should be Nominee(s).
fixed
  • "to honor the best achievements in film" presumably this is a quote, if not it's hardly encyclopedic. Check this sort of thing throughout.
added the quotation marks
  • Globe Newswire seems to be GlobeNewswire.
fixed
  • WP:DASH required in the reference titles.
I think I've fixed the instance you were referring to

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2013 (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_House/archive1&oldid=567928541"