Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/84th Academy Awards/archive1

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, 20 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

84th Academy Awards

Featured list candidates/84th Academy Awards/archive1

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this 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 1st Academy Awards and 82nd Academy Awards were written.Birdienest81 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

Everything should be uniform, but the references are all over the place. Here are some of the problem I have found:

Ref 2 → oscar.com shouldn't be in italics. Also, it doesn't link to a specific article. It just lists articles from 2013.
In all refs: AMPAS → Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS). This shouldn't be written in italics either.
Ref 3 → wikilink Entertainment Weekly. Add Time Warner as the publisher.
Ref 8 → The Hollywood Reporter in italics. Add Prometheus Global Media as the publisher. Furthermore, it doesn't link to the article listed ("Milla Jovovich to Host Academy's Sci-Tech Awards").
Ref 11 → BBC News shouldn't be in italics.
Ref 13 → Daily Mail needs to be wikilinked. Add Associated Newspapers as publisher (Note: this is a tabloid newspaper and may not be reliable).
Ref 15 → CNN shouldn't be in italics.
Ref 16 + 64 → MTV shouldn't be in italics.
Refs 19 + 49 → needs date retrieved.
Ref 39 → Slate needs to wikilink to the publication.
Ref 44 → Add News World Communications as the publisher.
Ref 49 → Wikilink The Hollywood Reporter and add Prometheus Global Media as the publisher.

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: I have fixed everything with some notations

Replaced link 13 from Daily Mail to Denver Post an American daily newspaper.
Reference 8 was supposed to link article mentioning Honorary Oscars for Oprah, James Earl Jones, and Dick Smith.
Milla Jovovich reference link is number 9.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references are overlinked at the work/publisher space, for example Entertainment Weekly is linked in number 2 and 3. Just link the first time the work/publisher appears. In general, it looks good. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: I have fixed everything. Though I must ask, Underneath-it-All said I have to link everything including the references, but you said only the first mention. Who's right?

-Birdienest81 (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it done both ways. In older FLC's it was requested by other users, but I'm fine with just the first mention being wikilinked. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, now if only I can get more feedback

– Birdienest81 (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, if possible. I edit Oscar-releated awards, but most of them just vandalism and disruptive editing. If there is no problem, support. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

No comma after 1990 in the first paragraph.
Should read "between five and ten" instead of "to ten"
In ceremony section, change pending to depending.
Remove 'and' before Eddie Murphy.
The Voting trends and summary section deals just with the box-office performance of the nominees. I see this is the case with the other recent ceremony articles, but these contents do not match the section title. Material relating to voting trends and summary should be added, or please change the name of this section in this and other articles.
In Critical reviews section, change 'last year' to 'the previous year'
Quotation marks are unnecessary in the second paragraph of the Ratings section.
If In Memoriam in the header is italicized, its use in the first sentence there should be too, not in quotation marks.
Steve Jobs' role shouldn't be pointed out if no one else's is.
External links: Oscar's -> Oscars
The ABC and Hollywood Blog links now just refer to the 2013 show.
Sources and content look great, good work!

Reywas92^Talk 00:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: I have fixed everything. However, if I had kept the 'Voting trends and summary' intact would you have wanted like a summary of who won or what?

-Birdienest81 (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further back, 80th Academy Awards, 79th Academy Awards, and 78th Academy Awards have more information, but little of it can really be called trends or has any reference to the votes: it's mostly records and special occurances about the winners, though of course none of that can necessarily be applied to this ceremony. If you want to try to find any, that would be nice but not necessary. I found that Christopher Plummer became the oldest person to win an acting award, and Hugo was nominated in all seven technical categories, so those would definitely be worth mentioning, though I don't know the best way to incorporate it. Also, the multiple nominations section could be made a subsection of Winner and Nominees, which could also be done for other articles. Reywas92^Talk 03:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried creating a notable winners section for the 82nd Academy Awards, but Tbhotch said no to it because it sounded like trivia. If I remember, the 1st Academy Awards does mention some brief notable winners at the beginning. Maybe I could try to incorporate a notable winners section but in prose style (as opposed to a list style).

Birdienest81 (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, prose would be good, maybe as another subsection of the main winners and nominees section. Some of the other pages' material gets too trivial, but a few major winners like those two are noteworthy enough. Reywas92^Talk 04:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I added notable facts under the second paragraph of the Winners and Nominees section just before the awards boxes. I followed a similar format to the 1st Academy Awards which has brief tidbits about the major winners.

Birdienest81 (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, looks great. Support Reywas92^Talk 17:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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