Academy Award was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards and prizes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I'm getting a little tired of the unprofessional and biased edits that have been made to the "Criticism" section of this article lately. Look, I understand that we all have our little beefs with the Academy's choices, but rants, uncited speculation and unecessary additions to this section are inappropriate and should be deleted immediately. Personally, I'm okay with the section as it is now, but I won't discourage someone from editing or adding something to change it, as long as it actually contributes something and doesn't make Wikipedia look like a fanboy forum. -- metafact (talk) 5:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm planning to start writing a Wikipedia article on the Oscar speech (or perhaps more broadly, the award ceremony speech/acceptance speech), explaining things like their meme-ability, their cultural significance, their ability to make or break an actor, impromptu vs prewritten, their ability to spark conversation on issues, undelivered speeches (by both losers, and people like Marlon Brandon who refused the award due to support for American Indians). I really think there is a great article there, and would live done love some advice/ help from you guys. :)--Coin945 (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou. To be fair, I had typed that from my phone... :P--Coin945 (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Someone will probably tag it AfD as soon as it is written like many deletionists do here. You may wish to start small and well sourced. That way you won't waste too much time if it is deleted. Don't forget that bald kid and the Pope picture as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
What "bald kid" and "Pope picture"?--Coin945 (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Coin945/Oscar speech - It's not much. but hey, it's a start. I'm still sussing out how such an article is meant to be structured. Regardless, this rough attempt consists of some hits from the first page of Google. Please don't hesitate to rally some Academy Award editors to give it some punch. :) Canoe1967 --Coin945 (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Coin945, I wholeheartedly endorse an Oscar speech article. There should be more than enough sources. In addition, this has a chapter called "I would like to thank ... : the acceptance speeches". If it can be a whole book chapter, it certainly can be its own encyclopedic article. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The draft looks good so far. Sacheen Littlefeather is spelt wrong. Would three sections help? The good, the bad, and the ugly? I probably remembered the Pope picture thing wrong as I couldn't find any sources for it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Should we ignore our own policies and guidelines to keep a placeholder in the info box or should it be removed. There is no free image of the Academy Award as only commons allows source country Freedom of Panorama, but Wikipedia does not and requires non free rationales for 3 dimensional artwork that is still the copyright of the artist or copyright holder.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems like an attempt to push the envelope and "make a point" to attempt to place images that are non free without a non free rationale on Wikipedia. The simplest answer is to upload a Non Free image with the proper ten point non free rationale.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
That was not legal advice nor was that in reference to Wikipedia, but Wikimedia Commons. The issue is not whether that file from commons is usable here (our polices on non free content seem to be clear, this a copyright violation on Wikipedia). We have a server location policy that only allows US applicable law for Wikipedia and this is about country of origin FOP. The issue is simply to ask contributors if they wish to keep that un-encyclopedic image place holder.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
That was the legal opinion that I received after asking about this image specifically for hosting in commons and use in en:wp. The country of origin for the photograph is Australia. Lex loci protectionis states that the law in country of origin overrides the country where the infringement is claimed which would be the the USA if the Academy wishes to file for DCMA with the WMF. Commons and en:wp follow the same laws as host country to all servers. Other language Wikipedias may have different laws but there is no difference between commons the English one. Consensus may vary with images between commons and en:wp but the USA copyright laws do not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the legal details about this, but adding a placeholder in such a way is highly unusual and most certainly requires a strong consensus before it is implemented. --Conti|✉ 19:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't know anything about the details but you decide to revert an edit without consensus? Could you please link the policy that states "highly unusual" edits should be reverted a 4th time without discussion, let alone consensus?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I have read that but you reverted a 4th time while we were discussing it here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
You made a bold edit, and it was reverted. You should not have reverted that. I restored the status quo. I'd love to discuss this, but I have not yet seen a single argument for having an image placeholder in the article in the first place. --Conti|✉ 09:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
"For most categories, members from each of the branches vote to determine the nominees only in their respective categories (i.e. only directors vote for directors, writers for writers, actors for actors, etc.). There are some exceptions in the case of certain categories, like Foreign Film, Documentary and Animated Feature Film, in which movies are selected by special screening committees made up of members from all branches. In the special case of Best Picture, all voting members are eligible to select the nominees for that category."
"The members of the various branches nominate those in their respective fields, while all members may submit nominees for Best Picture. The winners are then determined by a second round of voting in which all members are then allowed to vote in most categories, including Best Picture."
Isn't the first sentence of the second paragraph saying exactly what the first paragraph has already stated? CapnZapp (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)