Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/91st 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) 00:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

91st Academy Awards

[edit]

91st Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating the 2019 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I 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, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2020 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
;Comment
  • "....or performed musical performances" - any way to reword this so you aren't essentially using the same word twice?
  • Fixed: Changed second "performances" to read "numbers" as in "musical numbers."
  • "AMPAS sought news ideas to the Academy sought ideas to revamp the show" - something very odd going on here......
  • Fixed: Someone else fixed the sentence to make it read "AMPAS sought new ideas to revamp the show."
  • "could hamper critically successful mainstream films from being nominated Best Picture" => "could hamper critically successful mainstream films from being nominated for Best Picture"
  • Fixed: Added the word "for" in between the words "nominated" and "Best".
  • "despite the insistence of AMPAS that such movies can be eligible for both categories" => "despite the insistence of AMPAS that such movies could be eligible for both categories"
  • Fixed: Changed the word "can" to "could".
  • "The Los Angeles Philharmonic lead by conductor Gustavo Dudamel" => "The Los Angeles Philharmonic led by conductor Gustavo Dudamel"
  • Fixed: Changed the word "lead" to "led".
@ChrisTheDude: I have addressed all your comments. Thank you for your feedback.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 06:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • You could add the release year for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
  • I am really confused by Lady Gaga was the second consecutive person to receive acting and songwriting nominations for the same film. I think "consecutive" should be removed.
  • Could you also add the year for Flashdance.

That's about it. ~ HAL333 04:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: I did all the things listed in the comments above. Thanks.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS
  • Fixed: Split the second paragraph into two smaller ones. One focusing on Picture and Directing wins and nominations. The other focusing on the other nominations/wins.
  • Under the "Critical reviews and ratings" section, "The show received a positive reception from most media outlets" should be attributed to a citation specifically mentioning overall favorable/mixed/unfavorable reviews to avoid WP:SYNTH issues
  • Fixed: Dropped that sentence since it was hard to find a reliable source backing up that claim. I simply followed the structure of the critical reviews section for the 78th Academy Awards which is pretty straightfoward.
  • For the review from The Washington Post, see MOS:CURLY

Only a few fixes needed, which shouldn't be hard to fulfill. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I made the necessary corrections based on your comments. Thanks for the help.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I now support after making a minor fix myself, and media review passes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from Some Dude From North Carolina
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Done: I ran analytics page which now archived the sources. Thank you.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the consistent retrieval dates
  • It looks like the linking of publishers/websites pattern you're going with is to link the first mention only (which is fine), if so you're missing links for ABC News (ref 4), New York (magazine) (ref 52)
  • missing authors (there's two) for ref 14
  • ref 24 has an extra ")" ?
  • In ref 27 you have "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)" the others are just "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" – either is fine, it should just be the same for all refs
  • ref 34 is missing author
  • Formatting is good otherwise
  • Spotted no reliability issues. Aza24 (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: I have addressed all your comments. Thank you for the source review.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great now. Pass for source review, thanks! Aza24 (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2020 (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/91st_Academy_Awards/archive1&oldid=1083819465"