Wikipedia:Peer review/84th Academy Awards/archive1

84th Academy Awards

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this list could be a FL and I want to know what is wrong.

Thanks, Birdienest81 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not being familiar with the structure of Oscar telecast lists, I looked at a couple of other examples, especially 82nd Academy Awards, which is a FL. It seems to parallel the structure of other lists of its kind. I was a little concerned about OR, especially in the "Films with multiple nominations and awards", since it seems to be complied by viewing the telecast, but this section is in other lists, so I'm fine with it. I also have no problem with using the telecast itself as a source, which is another practice followed in other lists. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Memoriam tribute: Is there any more information about the exclusions? Also, is there a more reliable source than Vulture.com?
Changes to award categories: This section, unlike every other section, uses the present tense; I recommend changing it to the past tense, to correspond with the rest of the article. It's easy enough, so I'll let you do it.
Ceremony information: There's no reference for the first paragraph of this section. You need one to back up some of your assertions, such as the 9% decline in viewership in the previous year. I'm sure you can find references in the list about that telecast. Ref 22 supports the reasons for the resignation of the original producer, but there's nothing there about Murphy's departure as host, so you need to find one. There's no reference for their replacements, not even about Crystal; fixing this is easy, since the information is in other sources, such as ref 4.
Critical reviews: This being an Oscar telecast, I'd think that they're be more reviews than the two included. (The "82nd Academy Awards" list has 5.) You also need to improve the prose here; for example: Robert Bianco of USA Today said "Crystal didn't quite meet them[Expectations]. You could simply paraphrase Biano's words, to something like: "Robert Biano of USA Today said that Crystal did not meet the high expectations of many viewers." You could also include more information from the reviews you used.
Unlike other lists, there's no "Controversies" section, only the section about Cohen. Could you expand the list to include one? That may require additional research, which I'd bet is out there.
References: You need to work on this section, and on your references in general. There doesn't seem to be close paraphrasing problems. The ref's formats aren't consistent; they need to be. I recommend and use the templates here: WP:CIT. Ref 8 isn't formatted correctly. Ref 25 states that it's from "Tribune Company", but it's from The L.A. Times, another issue easily resolved with the use of citation templates. You may run into issues with ref 26; it could venture into OR. Is there any other source that states the same information? Ref 30: Is "TV By the Numbers" a reliable source? It states it was "via press release". I recommend finding the PR and using it as your source. Ref 31: Reliable? All other references are from reliable sources.

Nice start with this list. It doesn't need many major changes to it, but I recommend making them and re-submitting for a PR before you submit it to FLC. Let me know how I can help. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

There are articles published every year on the Oscar nominees that list the movies in order of most nominations - see here for example.
There are also article reviewing the ceremony / telecast itself - see Roger Ebert again here or this from USA Today here
I was surprised there was no mention of the Cirque de Soleil performance
Or of Angelina Jolie's leg - see here - I do not see any refs to Entertainment Weekly
Some refs are not formatted correctly - Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Ruhrfisch's comments, I take back when I said about major changes. This list needs a great deal of expansion and research. There is a lot of missing information, some of which is important. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]