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

• .The wide release -> ,which.

• Done

• The Los Angeles Times -> the Los Angeles Times.

• done

• Delete the "vertical bar" of Venice International Film Festival.

• Done

• See also: unnecessary descriptions.

• Done

• External links: prefer to use accolades instead of awards.

• Done

• You need to fix the sources and know when to use work or publisher, for example BBC News you use publisher because it doesn't need to be in italic.

• I think everything is in cite news that needs to be. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 18:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh no, I'm not talking about "cite news" or "cite web", I meant if it is publisher or work. I'm going to list here the "work" ones, the rest you can use publisher.

- Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Herald Sun, The Boston Globe, Variety, Movie City News, TV Guide, People, Filmmaker, and Time Out. And one final thing, on the fourth paragraph, change the [6] source place right before LA Weekly. GagaNutella^talk 19:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GagaNutella: Everything you indicated should not be in italics is now not in italics. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 01:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for being so boring, but we're talking about a FL. Please, all sources containing these names I have listed above must be in italic (work). The rest you need to change for publisher. I saw you just changed some. Make it and we're finished. GagaNutella^talk 01:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GagaNutella: Oh! I thought you meant the other way around, which seemed kind of strange to me. Anyways, it should be better now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 16:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GagaNutella^talk 15:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GagaNutella: I believe that everything is fixed. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. I saw your American Horror Story awards list--I'm a fan of the show and will review that soon. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 18:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just fix the sources and it will be fine. By the way, I would love to see you reviewing my FLC. Thank you! GagaNutella^talk 19:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. I seem to do that a lot for whatever reason...

Comments by Birdienest81

• I would count the ties and runners up as wins since some critics groups award ties and runners up. Therefore they would not be considered a "lost" since runners up and ties are considered a form of recognition. See List of accolades received by Gravity (film) for an example which includes a footnote which I strongly recommend placing next to the Total Awards and Nominations in the infobox.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81: Done. Let me know if you have any other comments! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johanna: I would also change the color of the 2nd place, 3rd place, etc. to green and include them as part of the wins in the infobox. List overall looks very promising.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81: Done. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 23:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done

• "The film received its world premiere" -->The film premiered at the Venice…

• Done

• Too much detail about the box office. Just say how much it grossed at the end of its run on what budget.

• Done

• For the SAG Awards, just say "more than any other film"

• Done

• The last paragraph on the snub at the Oscars could be cut down a lot. Also it needs ref for "several critics". Can't use just two critics. The author of the work is of course going to be annoyed that it didn't win, no need to mention it. Overall it goes into too much detail better suited for the main article.

• Take a look now. I could cut it down more, but that would be bordering on only showing one side… Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to just keep adding critics, it's POV. Someone could add referenced people who thought Crash should have won and claim the opposite. You need to provide a reference where it's a summary of a lot of different critics opinions. It shouldn't be hard to find as it got a lot coverage back in the day for the "homophobia" claim.

• Done. Added 2 refs and shortened the paragraph as a whole.

The views of one blogger, one "cinema fan", someone from a Community Center opinions are not needed. The other is a list of what critic's opinions of the "biggest Oscar shocks". Neither of the sources talk about it not being a ground breaking choice. Perhaps these sources for the homophobia aspect [[2]],[[3]].Cowlibob (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• Jarhead film should be wikilinked as Jarhead.

• Done

• Hollywood Film Awards is missing closing of brackets.

• I'm sorry, but I don't see where you mean. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"(also for Jarhead and Proof", Also in the Golden Globe Awards row ""A Love That Will Never Grow Old"(Gustavo Santaolalla, Bernie Taupin, and Emmylou Harris"

Done. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 23:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace Cinema Blend, Movie City News, Rockonthenet and Alt Film Guide references.

• I tried really hard to find better sources than these, but I couldn't. Unless you can find some alternatives, should I remove them?

I'll have a look around.

@Johanna: I found an article from the Reading Eagle about Brokeback Mountain being named in the top ten for the African-American film critics society. Click here.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is one from the Chicago Tribune that could replace the Movie City News one.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is one from the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences for the Grammy nominations.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81: Thank you so much! I incorporated these into the article. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Variety should be italicized.

• Done

• Alt text for image needs changing "Hilary Swank in 2010"!?

• Done Bad copy-paste mistake… :)

• Ref 9, 26,34, 39, 43, 52, 54 are deadlinks.

• They're not, actually. They're just originals of links that were already archive

Fixed these for you. For future reference it's archivedate=, archiveurl= not archive-date=, archive-url=

• Ref 6, 32 are redirects.

• These links were already archived as well. These websites just redirected them to a generic page instead of a 404. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed these also. The USC ref redirected to the main page so there was no evidence of the nomination. I've archived the link for you.

Cowlibob (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: Take a look now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nikki Finke's article seems to be on Deadline.com not LA Weekly. Cowlibob (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cowlibob: Done with that as well. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 23:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should change the reference as well as the publisher still is LA Weekly.Cowlibob (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: Done. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• These are outstanding awards/nominations not cited to reliable sources. Amanda Award nom, American Cinema Editors nom, Austin film critics noms, Vancouver film critics noms, Dallas Fort-Worth Film Critics awards and noms.

• After some digging I found one for the American Cinema Editors and Dallas–Fort Worth Critics (both awards and noms). Removed the rest. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 23:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also many of the entries in the award are redirects to the organisation organising the awards so they should be changed to the organisation e.g. Austin Film Critics Association Awards, Chicago Film Critics Association Awards. Cowlibob (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: I don't know what you mean here. Could you specify what you would like it to read or link to? Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 23:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently those above and some others just redirect to the article on the organisation who organised the awards because there is no dedicated article to just the awards. So just cut the Awards bit and just have it as the name of the organisation e.g. Austin Film Critics Association instead of Austin Film Critics Association Awards. Cowlibob (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: Okay, I see. Done. Do you have any other comments? Thanks for the thorough review. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 01:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "In total, the film grossed $178 million worldwide on a $14 million" – in total is simply redundant.

• Done Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The film garnered awards and nominations in a variety of categories" – same as the first concern.

• Done Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The film garnered awards and nominations in a variety of categories, including for its directing"

• Done nice catch. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "more than any other film; however, it did not win any of these awards." – this one needs a source.

• @FrB.TG: Which part? Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No part, sorry! -- Frankie _talk 20:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 7 – I think the title should be The Daily Telegraph.

• This ref has been removed and replaced, so it doesn't apply. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is CinemaBlend a good source to use? -- Frankie _talk 21:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @FrB.TG: We're working on that. Cowlibob pointed it out and Birdie found several sources for me. There are still a few left to go, but it should be resolved soon. Update--everything should be sourced reliably now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]