Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/72nd Academy Awards/archive1
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Giants2008 10:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
72nd Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the 2000 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 2009, 2010, 2012 Oscars were written. I am still making more updates and changes currently.Birdienest81 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks great, just add (|format=PDF) for ref. 35 – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Added (|format=PDF) for ref. 35
- Nothing in the controvery section was actually a controversy, just incidents. Reywas92Talk 04:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed: I integrated the sections mentioning the missing ballots and stolen Oscars into the Ceremony information. I believe they are still worth mentioning because they happened in the course of the production of the ceremony. As for the Whitney Houston debacle, I removed it because I felt it was more appropriate in the eponymous singer's article.
- Support: Looks good to me. Excellent presentation, well done. --smarojit HD 02:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I made two minor changes, but also I found the reference 40 has to be consistant with other LA Times refs. I found no other issues. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* Oppose just because this has so many supports and I found a number of issues..
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.