Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/89th Academy Awards/archive1

Add links
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 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

89th Academy Awards

[edit]

89th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nauriya (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2017 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I have followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 were written. Nauriya (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After so many FLs you guys still can't have intros that spell out the big 4. Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited that and reconstructs the section. Looking forward for more suggestions. Nauriya (talk) 20:32, April 1, 2018 (UTC)
I think you guys can probably expand the highlights part of the infobox to mention the big 4. Nergaal (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the lead section already detailed all of the Big Five and it would be repetitive to include in the infobox and they have never been included before. But its not about what previous FLCs have done it or not, the reason perhaps is that it will look overcrowded. I would like to take more comments on that, and if everybody supports this, will include. Nauriya (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Since you've talked about other ceremonies in between the main Academy Awards and "Moonlight won three..." statement, it's unclear in which ceremony Moonlight won three....
 In progress If you are talking about lead section prose, then it is obvious that it is reflecting the 89th one. Right?
No, that's the point I'm making. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
if its lead section than I think it's clear for which ceremony it has won. Lead section only reflects the winners of that year ceremony. If you are reading from the beginning, and reached third paragraph, it still is clear that we are talking about 89th ceremony, I have cross-checked previous articles as well, it seems fine to me.
No, the previous sentence says "the Academy Scientific and Technical Awards were presented by hosts John Cho and Leslie Mann.[7]" so it could easily be misinterpreted that the very next sentence is related to the previous one via the the repeat of "award". It doesn't matter what previous articles did or did not say. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to add best possible words. Please check.  Done
  • "six awards, the most for the evening from its record-tying 14 nominations " MOS NUM for comparable items in a single sentence, either 6/14 or six/fourteen.
 Done
 Done
  • Same for Pearl.
 Done
  • " 32-year-old Damien Chazelle " avoid starting sentences with numbers.
 Done I think that's how it's been done before, anyhow tried to change the structure of sentence.
  • Last sentence of "Winners and nominees" is tagged.
 Done removed that as it was more of a trivia then actually something core related to article, also no credible source was found as well.
  • Kevin J. Walsh doesn't need to be piped to a redirect back to itself.
 Done
  • Same comment applies to Travis Knight.
 Done
  • No row scopes?
 Checking... Where?
The tables? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We may can add it as previous FLCs have both with or without scoprows, it not an issue. Anyway I have added it.  Done
  • Far too many images for my screen.
 Done for any category, one picture should be there, removed multiple picture for same category. Others I think all are important, and even previous ceremony has even more pictures.
 Done
  • " host, "Someone" -> "someone".
 Done
  • "criticism of host Jimmy Kimmel over" you've already linked him and already noted his first name, and there are no other Kimmels, so just plain Kimmel will be fine.
 Done
  • "Octavia Spencer became the first African-American actress to be nominated after having already won before." not referenced.
 Done
 In progress Only one actual winner in Oscar history was disqualified, a documentary Young Americans in 1967. However disqualification over a nomination(s) has been made since 1928, numerous times. Recent being in 86th Academy Awards, in same category which is too addressed as a footnote.
Is there a list of the disqualifications anywhere? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No list but there has been nominations that were revoked and they are mentioned in that particular ceremony article, but not separate list.
Adjusted in the footnotes section.  Done
  • "snapshot of Emma Stone moments " again, no need to repeat the first name.
 Done
  • "Actress, Singer, Humanitarian" I take it the unnecessary over-capitalisation reflects what was displayed on-screen?
 Done I agree on over-capitalisation, corrected that. On screen perhaps actress was displayed but montage didn't contained any info, some of the listed people are unknown to people, so it is better to write their core profession in-front of their name.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for your review! Why it seems you are in offending mode? (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not in "offending mode", no. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: As you have resolved your comments please give your consensus. Nauriya - Let's talk, 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Resolved comments from PresN 01:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "In an event, unprecedented in the history of the Oscars, La La Land was incorrectly announced as the Best Picture but after a few minutes, the error was corrected and Moonlight was declared the winner." - the commas here are all over the place. Try "In an event unprecedented in the history of the Oscars, La La Land was incorrectly announced as the Best Picture, and a few minutes later the error was corrected and Moonlight was declared the winner."
Reviewed and  Done
  • "Following the win, Academy new rules barred" -> "Following the five-part documentary's win, new Academy rules barred"
Reviewed and  Done
  • I know it's been done for prior lists, but in the "Academy Honorary Awards" section, since the items are not full sentences they should not end in periods.
Reviewed and  Done
  • "They had to do the parachuting snack delivery thing three times?."" - double punctuation
Reviewed and  Done
  • A few instances of flipped quote-punctuation like '... Hollywood."' - the period only goes inside the quote if you're quoting a full sentence, otherwise it's '... Hollywood".'
Reviewed and  Done
  • The writing in the Critical reception and television ratings section, especially, is laborious- almost every single sentence is in the format "A from Outlet B said, "Full sentence quote that starts with a capital letter. Often multiple sentences." This really should be much shorter quotes and paraphrases, with less repetition in the sentence structure.
Reviewed and  Done
"Bewailed", "sniped", "graved", "perceived", "expressed"... the point was that the section used long quotes where paraphrases would do, and repetition sentence structure, not that it didn't have a wide enough range of verbs. Those problems are still there. Additionally, 'He also sniped saying, "Well one can't have everything."' adds nothing at all. --PresN 18:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to trimmed that was repetitive, but writing review for a particular newspaper/website - name of that outlet followed by its author has to be there and I am finding difficulty how to start it in a way that doesn't look repetitive. Nauriya (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The name of the writer/outlet needs to be there, but that doesn't mean it needs to start every sentence, nor that they need to be directly quoted. For example:
"Jeff Jensen of Entertainment Weekly complained that, "Kimmel (and/or the producers) didn't know when to stop and didn't know when to bail on stuff that wasn't working."[75] [...] Writing for The Oregonian's Kristi Turnquist lamented that, "his recurring visits got less entertaining as the evening dragged on." She felt that the recurring segments featuring actors waxing on about favorite films were "tedious and ill-advised."[77]" can be:
Critics complained about the repetition of jokes which did not land; Jeff Jensen of Entertainment Weekly said that the show "didn't know when to stop and didn't know when to bail on stuff that wasn't working", and The Oregonian's Kristi Turnquist agreed and especially noted the repeated segments featuring actors discussing their favorite films at length to be "tedious and ill-advised".[75][77]
This is just an example, not a prescription, but it turns two sentences that basically say the same thing (with... a different complaint sandwiched in the middle) into one sentence that combines similar ideas and avoids repeating the same basic sentence format ("[critic/outlet] [verb], "Really long quote"). In fact, by shortening the amount of quoted material, it ends up being slightly shorter even with some new connecting phrases. Some playing with the sentence structure like that (combined with changing all the "perceived" stuff to just "said") will make it read a lot better. --PresN 15:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really liked the way you suggested, and have kept it like that despite it wasn't a "prescription" but following this i have also changed the second half of the review as well. Nauriya talk 16:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • emdashes should not be spaced ("sensibility — the treacly"); use endashes or drop the spaces.
Have used endash, please check.
  • The references are forcing the colwidth to 20em; now that reflist automatically applies columns without being told, it's best to not specify colwidths unless you have a specific reason (it defaults to 30em); on my screen at least it makes the reflist a couple inches shorter and more readable
Reviewed and  Done
  • Not doing a source review right now, but skimming it I see some text errors ("the Guardian", ref 24), some uses of website url instead of website name as the work (latimes.com, ref 25, instead of Los Angeles Times), and mixed use of date formats (yyyy-mm-dd and Month Day, Year and Day Month Year). You also stop linking works/publishers partway through and then pick it up again later.
 Done and reviewed all the references, unlinked newspaper/media outlets that were linked more than once and aligned the date formats, added thw missing authors.

--PresN 21:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Nauriya (talk) 6:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC).

Alright, Support. --PresN 01:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from FrB.TG (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The lead should mention Damien Chazelle became the youngest Best Director winner.
FrB.TG, If I mention this in lead, then other winners have significance achievement as well, e.g: Viola's Triple Crown, Ali's for being first Muslim winner. It has already been addressed in winners and nominees section, lead section should address Big 4 only I think.
  • "The winners were announced during the awards ceremony on February 26, 2017.[15]Moonlight" - missing space.
 Done
  • "surpassing the 431-minute War and Peace" maybe add a "-long" to "431-minute"?
 Done
  • "Having previously been nominated for Doubt (2008) and The Help (2011), Viola Davis" - overlinking of Viola Davis here. You don't need to introduce their links every time you start a new para.
 Done
  • "Moonlight became the first film with an all-black cast to win the Best Picture award." - same
 Done
  • Watch for other similar instances, which there are a few of.

FrB.TG (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Nauriya - Let's talk 23:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Support FrB.TG (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

  • All of the references are reliable enough, and the link-checker tool shows that they all work.
Yes checking myself also.
  • Spot-checks of refs 4, 24, and 32 revealed one issue: ref 24 says that Taurog was 32 when he won his Best Director award, not 33 as the article states, and his bio article here seems to confirm it. That sentence will need to be reworked when correcting the problem.
 Done I am surprised no one noticed tht before, however Chazelle is still the youngest winner, just changed the sentence structure and added one more references.
  • The article is saying that Taurog was 260 days older than Chazelle at the time of his win. This is incorrect according to the sources, which say that Taurog was 32 years, 260 days old when he won. The time period (222 days) will need to be fixed. Also, the new ref's access date is in a different format than the others, so it should be converted to the style used in the rest of the cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only formatting issue I see is that the hyphens in the titles of refs 45 and 47 should be converted into en dashes instead. Otherwise things look good on the source front.
 Done
  • This isn't strictly a review of sources presently being used, but I happened to notice on a quick glance that the second paragraph of Box office performance of nominated films and the first paragraph of Best Picture announcement error don't have any sources at all. I'd expect to see this addressed before this list is promoted. The lack of sources for the error paragraph really puzzles me, as this is what the ceremony in question is best remembered for.
 Done for error paragraphs.
 Done for box office first paragraph, for second its general actually, only reference that can be given is from Box office Mojo, if you have better reference then please suggest. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I have cited it where it was necessary, and this is how in each previous FLC. Because it is not something trivial or fact that needs reference or proof to be included in the article. Nauriya - Let's talk 17:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Giants2008 - Nauriya - Let's talk 17:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/89th_Academy_Awards/archive1&oldid=847388029"