Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Amy Adams/archive1

Comments from Aoba47

• The following references are dead and need to either be archived or replaced: 3, 10, 18, 22, 63, 89, 61, 88, 97, 120, 104, 146.
• Make sure to list work and publisher in the references when appropriate. A large portion of your sources is missing work and/or publisher and this should be corrected.
• Do not shout in the reference titles (see references 74 and 77 for an example of what I mean, but look through all of the references for this)
• The description in the "People's Choice Awards" subsection requires a reference to support it as you have done in other article subsections.

These are the main areas that I noticed after reading through it once. Once you address my comments, I will look through the lead more carefully and make some more comments/suggestions. Great work on the list so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: Done.Krish | Talk 22:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mymis

• All the statements in the introduction that are not referenced within the rest of the article must have a source. Mymis (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mymis: Done.Krish | Talk 22:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are the sources for:

• "in the 2005 acclaimed independent comedy-drama Junebug"
• "performances in the critically acclaimed dramas Doubt, (2008), The Fighter (2010) and The Master (2012) garnered"

• ^ The sources only talk about her performance and not about the films themselves.
• More links must be archived, especially for award websites as they become broken very quickly.
• Where links are archived, accessdates are not necessary.
• Ref 53 missing date and author, same with many other sources, and loads of formatting inconsistencies, Variety is always in italics etc.

Mymis (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mymis: Done. I ahve written a dozen of Featured content on wikipedia and no one ever questioned me for adding accessdates for the archived links. If I'm not wrong that is how it always been here.Krish | Talk 02:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the accessdates do not serve any purpose when the link is archived. It would also make the ref section less heavy. The references generally need a lot of work. Many sources do not have dates and authors etc. Mymis (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mymis: I cannot make a change just to please you because that is how its done here. And, coming to many sources not having dates and authors, it is simply because those sources don't have any such as the critics associations links and others. However, I fixed few other sources.Krish | Talk 13:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to please me? I did say that accessdates are simply unnecessary, and you are not giving any other reasons why they should stay besides the fact that no one else brought it up for your previous FLs. Accessdates are removed in many other featured articles, interesting you've never seen it before.

In terms of formatting the refs:

• Gold Derby should be linked
• New York Times -> The New York Times
• Ref 29 needs date
• Ref 31 not working
• Refs 50, 51 and 52 do not even mention Amy Adams???
• Ref 61 needs date
• Ref 68, Variety -> Variety
• Ref 113 needs date
• Ref 123 needs date
• Indie Wire - > IndieWire
• Ref 134 needs date
• E! -> E! Online or E! News
• I may have missed many more.

Mymis (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mymis: All Done. Aditionally, I re-checked everything.Krish | Talk 18:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 31 and 32 need authors.
• More links could be archived, especially for award websites as they become broken very soon.

Mymis (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey! @Mymis: I am sorry I didn't notice your comments. I cannot archive right now as I am very busy. Do you have any more issues?Krish | Talk 14:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo

Figured I might as well stop by and give at least a few comments on a list about my favorite actress (I'm still mad that she didn't receive an Oscar nod for Arrival or Nocturnal Animals, not to mention five Oscar nods without a win. What does this woman have to do?)

• @Famous Hobo: Well, you are not alone in this. I have been saying this (5 Nominations without a win) for a while. To be honest, I literally cried few times after her name did not appear in the Oscar nomination streaming video. Plus the outrage on social media is the proof that she deserved her sixth nod more than anyone. Previously, she has been snubbed by the Academy for Enchanted (an excellent film) and Big Eyes (not so excellent), but her snub for Arrival hurts the most.Krish | Talk 14:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, would this picture go better in the lead? I know award lists like to have a picture where the subject was at an award ceremony, and the new picture would work, as that was taken at the 2011 Oscars. It's more recent, and in my opinion, looks better than the current lead image.
• There's a decent amount wrong with the first sentence. First off, Amy Adams is an American actress and have received various awards and nominations. The first "and" in that sentence disrupts the flow, and should be replaced with "who". Second, it's "has", not "have", as that would me Amy Adams is plural, which she isn't... Finally, I don't think you need to mention which awards she has won in the first paragraph of the lead. Jennifer Lawrence's and Bradley Cooper's award pages do not list their wins in the first paragraph, and I think it's better that way. I would keep the Star on the Walk of Fame though, that's pretty interesting.
• The biggest problem I have with the lead is that there's very little flow. The two paragraphs talking about her films and which awards she won follow the same formula: In 20XX she starred in this film, and was nominated for these awards. Try to mix up the formula a little bit, as to not make the lead so monotonous.
• The lead doesn't mention her nominations for Man of Steal or Batman V Superman. I'm okay with letting that slide, since it was just one nomination for both performances, but just wanted you to be aware of that. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Famous Hobo: Actually someone had edited the lead and I didn't notice the changes until you said. FYI, I myself had written Jennifer Lawrence's list, so I know that. Plus I have fixed the repetitions and other problems. I hope its okay now.Krish | Talk 14:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up the monotony of the lead. As someone who worked on Bradley Cooper's awards page, I know that listing multiple awards in the lead can really break up the flow, but I think you did a great job. My last possible issue is with ref 2. What makes Golden Derby a reliable source? Besides, every use of that ref is in the lead, but it seems like you have reliable sources for those awards in the actual table. So is the Golden Derby ref even necessary? Famous Hobo (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Famous Hobo: Thanks and Yes, the Gold Derby Awards and the website itself is very much reliable. Actually, the above reviewer asked me to add a source as it gives information about the roles, which are not mentioned in the boxes below. I hope it is fine now.Krish | Talk 05:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]