Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/73rd Primetime 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]
73rd Primetime Emmy Awards[edit]
73rd Primetime Emmy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Primetime Emmy Awards are the most significant awards in American television, but I've found their articles to be a bit lacking at times. To fix this, I've overhauled this article to include better accessibility and formatting, as well as more context for the awards instead of focusing solely on listing them. This list is heavily influenced by Birdienest81's work on Academy Award ceremonies, and I hope this format can be extended to other Emmy ceremonies in a similar manner. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image review — Pass[edit]
- File:Jean Smart 2015 PaleyFest.png — I can't access the source link.
- I'm assuming the image is acceptable, as other images from the same site have been verified as acceptable (i.e., this one), but just to be safe, I've replaced it.
- I was assuming that too ... the new image is fine licence-wise. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming the image is acceptable, as other images from the same site have been verified as acceptable (i.e., this one), but just to be safe, I've replaced it.
- ALT text for double-dagger (‡) should not be "double-dagger", but what it represents. In this case, it should be "Winner" or something like that.
- Done.
– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks for the review! Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pass for image review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]
- No need for a "See also" for 73rd Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards as it is linked in the second sentence of the prose
- Removed.
- "Ted Lasso became the most-nominated freshman comedy series" - what is a "freshman comedy series"? I am not familiar with this term/concept, is there an appropriate wikilink to add?
- Replaced "freshman" with "first-year".
- Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: I've responded above; let me know if the changes work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dank[edit]
- Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
- Table captions are required, with or without an sronly template, so I added the ones that were missing.
- Checking the FLC criteria:
- 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
- 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. The UPSD tool isn't happy about the YouTube links; I suspect they aren't controversial in this context, but this isn't a source review.
- 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. You've got an image review already so I'll skip that.
- 6. It is stable.
- Support - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Birdienest81[edit]
This looks like a great list to be honest. I love how you also included the total nominations and wins tally combining the ones from the main ceremony and the Creative Arts ceremony (which is something that is indeed missing in most other lists, egregiously). My only question for clarification purposes is the statement, "The lack of winners of color was a step back from the previous year's four black winners in the same categories." Do you mean all 12 acting categories or the ones where the four black acting winners won in comparing 2020's winners to 2021's winners? Otherwise, I'm happy to support this list to featured list status.
- --Birdienest81talk 10:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Birdienest81: Does this sound better? "For comparison, the previous year saw four black winners in the acting categories." RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @RunningTiger123: Yes that's much better! Affirming my support, again.
- --Birdienest81talk 09:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @RunningTiger123: Yes that's much better! Affirming my support, again.
Source review by Bilorv[edit]
All ref numbers as of this version.
- Ref #30 has no date listed, but the source says at the bottom of each page "07-12-2021 - 5:22 PM", so I think we can date the document as July 12, 2021.
- Done.
Spotchecks: on refs 4, 5, 15, 38, 57, 75, 88, 89, 95, 102, 107. Can't find a single issue—very impressive.
Other comments:
- I really dislike "Controversy" as a subsection, because it contains no information to identify the subject. In this case, we have two completely unrelated types of criticism: COVID-19 safety and racial diversity (or a lack of each). The first should be earlier in "Ceremony information"—it follows on from the paragraph "Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the previous ceremony had been held as a virtual event with no in-person festivities", so it could follow that one in the larger section, or you could take those two paragraphs and make a subsection "COVID-19 regulations". The second one belongs in "Winners and nominees", as it's on the same theme as the sentence "However, despite the record-breaking diversity of acting nominees, all 12 of the ultimate winners for lead and supporting acting were white".
- I've moved all of the COVID-19 information to a new "Effects of COVID-19 pandemic" subsection as suggested. Regarding the lack of diversity, I think it makes more sense to keep it where it's at; the "Winners and nominees" section focuses more on records and statistics, while the information regarding lack of diversity is intended to focus on reception to the nominations. I also wouldn't mind moving it into the previous section and titling it "Reception and viewership" instead of "Critical reviews and viewership", if that would be better, or I could rename the "Controversy" section now that it's more focused.
- Negative critical reception shouldn't be segregated away from other Reception, particularly titled "Controversy". On the other hand, the way you've written it is not summary of critical reception, but statement of facts. If you want it as part of "Reception and viewership" then I'd want to hear: who criticised the lack of black winners (reviewers, the audience generally, any organizations/unions)? What did they think the Emmys should have done differently? Any quotes worth highlighting (e.g. a particularly good summary of a viewpoint or argument as to the problem)? But if it was under "Winners and nominees" I wouldn't expect this information necessarily. I guess I'm not sure why in your mind e.g. "none of the 12 acting categories were won by black performers" is a different category of fact to e.g. "43 non-Anglo actors ..." — Bilorv (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bilorv: I see your point now – I did some more research and I couldn't see any specific groups criticizing the results; it seems to just be a Twitter trend. I've moved the information accordingly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Negative critical reception shouldn't be segregated away from other Reception, particularly titled "Controversy". On the other hand, the way you've written it is not summary of critical reception, but statement of facts. If you want it as part of "Reception and viewership" then I'd want to hear: who criticised the lack of black winners (reviewers, the audience generally, any organizations/unions)? What did they think the Emmys should have done differently? Any quotes worth highlighting (e.g. a particularly good summary of a viewpoint or argument as to the problem)? But if it was under "Winners and nominees" I wouldn't expect this information necessarily. I guess I'm not sure why in your mind e.g. "none of the 12 acting categories were won by black performers" is a different category of fact to e.g. "43 non-Anglo actors ..." — Bilorv (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved all of the COVID-19 information to a new "Effects of COVID-19 pandemic" subsection as suggested. Regarding the lack of diversity, I think it makes more sense to keep it where it's at; the "Winners and nominees" section focuses more on records and statistics, while the information regarding lack of diversity is intended to focus on reception to the nominations. I also wouldn't mind moving it into the previous section and titling it "Reception and viewership" instead of "Critical reviews and viewership", if that would be better, or I could rename the "Controversy" section now that it's more focused.
- "HBO and HBO Max combined for 130 nominations, making them the most-nominated network and barely beating Netflix's 129 nominations." – Sentence needs a bit of reworking. Not sure "combined for" makes sense and "barely beating" is a bit clunky. How about "HBO and HBO Max received a combined 130 nominations, making them the most-nominated network, ahead of Netflix by only one nomination."?
- Done.
A really well-sourced and well-written list, with great reference formatting. I also hope this work can be built upon by others, and with other Emmys articles. — Bilorv (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bilorv: Thanks for your great comments! Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2021 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.