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 Dabomb87 23:41, 16 November 2010 [1].

Grammy Award for Best Polka Album[edit]

Grammy Award for Best Polka Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 23:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reviewers,
I have no doubt in my mind that you are sick and tired of these Grammy Award lists. Please bear with me, as I have only a few left that I have already completed and believe to be worthy of FL status. (That being said, I recently signed up to participate in the upcoming WikiCup competition, so perhaps a few more Grammy lists will make their way here!) Thanks, as always, to reviewers for taking time to review these lists and for offering suggestions!

Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Album is currently undergoing FLC review, but it has received support from reviewers already so I assume it is acceptable to nominate a second list. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: red links should be replaced with italic-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I am not a fan of "Indicates a tie for that year" (the legend), myself. I am hoping someone has a better suggestion for a replacement phrase. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Don't use just a blue background to indicate something per WP:ACCESS.
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it's a "joint award" rather than a tie?
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wins lead to the" -> "led to the"?
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Let me know if a different column should contain the asterisks (I went with the Year column), or if there are any additional concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support gets my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
The 1986 tie might be interesting to expand on in the lede
Ref 7, I'll admit I've never seen the Huffington Post considered an RS. Why is it so here?
  • Really? I'd love to see a discussion about the reliability of The Huffington Post. Would it help if the sentence read as "According to The Huffington Post...", or is its use discouraged entirely? If the latter is the case, should the claim be removed if I cannot find an alternative source indicating that Sturr has received the most consecutive awards? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a ton of such discussions on the RSN, though admittedly, many relate to BLP's. This is strange, because it's true, but the source that says it isn't really that high-quality. Courcelles 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Allmusic claims that Sturr holds the record for the "most consecutive nominations in any category"--perhaps this will work? I consider The Huffington Post to be more reliable than Allmusic (which is great for reviews), but I am willing to make the change if needed. Of course, the claim could be removed all together; I just thought it made a nice side note about the artist that dominated the category. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the Allmusic source and claim be preferred? Would adding "According to The Huffington Post,... be appropriate? I'm indifferent so I was not sure if you had a specific suggestion.(?) --Another Believer (Talk) 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 18:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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