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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [1].Reply[reply]

List of accolades received by The Tree of Life (film)[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by The Tree of Life (film)/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Tree of Life is a 2011 drama film that shows the origins of the universe and life on Earth as well as the meaning of life through the eyes of a middle-aged architect. The film is notable for receiving several awards and nominations for its director, Terrence Malick, as well as its cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, and Jessica Chastain's performance. It is my eleventh attempt at an accolades FLC and my second attempt at a Hollywood film accolades list. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

Get rid of the first reference from the opening sentence, looks redundant.
"..who also co-produced it," --> who is also the co-producer.
Palm d'Or --> Palme d'Or
Is the 'see also' section necessary here? If not please get rid of it.
In refs 33, 42 and 76, you have mentioned the publishers name as HitFlix, but its actually Uproxx.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: It is actually HitFix BTW. The website was purchased by the Uproxx Media Group in 2016. The wikipedia article for HitFix is still here, so I linked it to that. I have resolved your other comments BTW. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support No issues now. All the best. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Thank you, Yash. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Krimuk2.0

I've made a couple of tweaks to the lead, and can now support on prose. Good job! :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Krimuk2.0: Thank you, Krimuk. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BeatlesLedTV

Support – Everything looks good to me. All links are good as well as the table and lead. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: Thank you, BeatlesLedTV. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 11:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

Might be worth mentioning the budget to compare with the film's performance at the box-office.

@FrB.TG: I have, Frank. Look again please. :-) — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, not sure how I missed that.

"its direction, screenplay, cinematography, editing, visual effects, music, and the performances of Pitt and Chastain" - something is not right here. The way I read it at the moment, it reads sth like, "its direction, its screenplay ... and its the performances". Maybe better as "its direction, screenplay ... and music, as well as the performances of Pitt and Chastain"?

Done. As asked. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"the film received three nominations—Best Picture, Best Director for Malick, and Best Cinematography for Lubezki—winning none" - the "winning none" part is unnecessary.

Done. As asked. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subject to these nitpicks, the list looks almost ready to go. FrB.TG (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FrB.TG: I have hopefully resolved your comments, Frank. Do let me know if there is anything more. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support on prose. FrB.TG (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thank you, Frank. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. No need for any additional comments on this – a nice list that meets all the criteria. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SchroCat: Thank you, SchroCat. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

For the third sentence in the lead’s first paragraph, I think you can start it off by saying “It” rather than the film’s full name. It just seems a little strange to say the full title of the film twice in three sentences when it is not absolutely necessary.
Do you think that you should include Chastain’s character in the plot summary in the first paragraph, especially since you list her as one of the stars and later point out her performance as getting significant attention from award groups?
For this part (its direction, screenplay, cinematography, editing, visual effects, and music, as well as the performances of Pitt and Chastain), you need another comma after “Chastain”.
Do you think that you should include the director when you reference Fahrenheit 9/11, especially if the Palme d’Or is awarded to the director?
In the Movieguide Awards portion of the table, there is a stray } following Jessica Chastain’s name for the “The Grace Award for Most Inspiring Performance in Movies in 2011” nomination.

Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aoba47: I have hopefully resolved your comments, Aoba. Do let me know if there is anything more. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FAC? Either way, have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you, Aoba. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review –

All of the sources appear to be sufficiently reliable, and the link-checker shows no issues.
Refs 23, 37, 65, 68, and 80 have improper all caps in their titles. Otherwise, the formatting looks fine.
Spot-checks of refs 32, 66, and 84 show no verifiability issues. So, when the all caps are fixed, this can be considered a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Giants2008: I have resolved the caps hopefully (BTW, in Ref no. 80, FIPRESCI is an abbreviation, not a word, so I left it as "FIPRESCI" itself). Do let me know if there is anything more. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support on prose I didn't see any issues with the prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wehwalt: Thank you, Wehwalt. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[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.

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