Comment: I agree with Smurryinchester. Also, why do some of the movies have a country next to them, while others don't? Are those unlabled British films? If so, please say so in the lead.
Pepsidrinka00:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)reply
What does "Until 1960, and then sporadically later on, the awards for Best Film were not handed out to any one person." mean?
"Films in the Best Film from any Source category without a country next to them are British (pre 1960)." wouldn't be more consistent to just label them? Are there any years that a film won the any source but not the British film category. That would be worth mentioning.
Oppose. Nothing great about this list. It seems as plain text. Could you change the design of the page, maybe a tabular form?
CG13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong object - it looks really ugly (the started table format looks better, but I don't think it solves all the problems). It has inconsistent formatting (i.e. some list people (directors? producers? actors?), some don't) and a bunch of red links. References are not sufficient (i.e. both of your references list only winners and not other candidates).
Renata01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Of course table looks way better than a plain list. And imentioned actors just because it was unclear who they are and why they are listed...
Renata11:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: I agree with Smurryinchester. Also, why do some of the movies have a country next to them, while others don't? Are those unlabled British films? If so, please say so in the lead.
Pepsidrinka00:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)reply
What does "Until 1960, and then sporadically later on, the awards for Best Film were not handed out to any one person." mean?
"Films in the Best Film from any Source category without a country next to them are British (pre 1960)." wouldn't be more consistent to just label them? Are there any years that a film won the any source but not the British film category. That would be worth mentioning.
Oppose. Nothing great about this list. It seems as plain text. Could you change the design of the page, maybe a tabular form?
CG13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong object - it looks really ugly (the started table format looks better, but I don't think it solves all the problems). It has inconsistent formatting (i.e. some list people (directors? producers? actors?), some don't) and a bunch of red links. References are not sufficient (i.e. both of your references list only winners and not other candidates).
Renata01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Of course table looks way better than a plain list. And imentioned actors just because it was unclear who they are and why they are listed...
Renata11:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply