Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/78th 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 00:16, 25 August 2015 [1].

78th Academy Awards

[edit]

78th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2006 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Please note that the Brokeback Mountain vs. Crash "so-called" controversy will not be addressed due to concerns regarding Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and objectivity concerns. This list/article is primarily focused on the ceremony itself, what actually happened in that event, and analysis pertaining to the ceremony in the form of critical reviews. Birdienest81 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

[edit]
Resolved comments from Frankie talk
* A comma (,) needed after presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) in the introducing line.
  • The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences linked twice in the lead.
  • MoS suggests not to link big cities, so de-link Los Angeles in the lead.
  • "with the late Alfred Newman for the second most Oscar nominations of any individual" – I think "late" is a bit informal and redundant, so I suggest to omit that.
  • Are you sure that winners are "highlighted in boldface"?
  • BBC News needs to be linked in ref 17.
  • Ref 20: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences – ditto.
  • I think United States should go away from the entries in the Bibliography section. -- Frankie talk 22:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FrB.TG: Done: I have fixed everything listed above.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BenLinus1214

[edit]
Resolved comments from Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work
*"other winners included" and "also" make the sentence a bit redundant."
  • Done: I removed most of the word "also" throughout the article. I think the phrase "other winners included" is important at the beginning of the article since it encompasses and enumerates the other films that won awards prior to the in depth coverage of the article.
  • For better prose, do "Brokeback Mountain garnered the most nominations, with eight total…"
  • Done
  • Several of your references do not have links to the publishers, why so?
  • I only linked the publisher's name on the first mention in the references section to avoid overlinking. I do not mind linking several times for convenience, but that's what was given to me during my first submission for FLC.
  • "the aforementioned category" is a bit vague and made me stop and look for a second to realize what that was, so perhaps do "that category" instead.
  • Done
  • To preface the section on various records and barriers being broken, I would put a sentence like "The ceremony marked several notable achievements by multiple individuals and films."
  • Done: Added "Several notable achievements by multiple individuals and films occurred during the ceremony" as the second sentence of that paragraph.
  • I personally prefer boldface to the double-dagger thing, but you can do either--it's not a big deal to me.
  • Are sources required for the multiple awards and nominations tables or not?
  • I would give a little more background on Cates' role in the previous ceremony's failure.
  • I am iffy on this one. I know that 77th ceremony's ratings were a decline from the 76th show's numbers, and I do know that most television viewers did not like Chris Rock's performance, but I don't think the failure (to attain higher ratings) would be attributed to solely Cates, though. Furthermore, the sinking ratings could be attributed to the fact that fewer people saw the Best Picture nominees (compared with last year which had Best Picture winner Lord of the Rings: Return of the King). The link in the phrase previous year's ceremony links to everything including the ratings and reviews and is pretty straightfoward.
  • I think you dropped a "before" in the sentence starting "In a statement…"
  • Not sure where the word "before" belongs in the sentence. Could you restate that sentence so I know what you mean?
  • "The show received a mixed reception from media publications. Some media outlets were more critical of the show." Not only is this choppy, the second sentence is kind of obvious given the first one. I like keeping the "second sentences" for both the positive and negative reviews, but instead of just restating, expand it—i.e. "some commented negatively on the show, mainly criticizing x, y, and z." Also, I would switch the positive and negative--for mixed reviews, I usually put the positive first.
  • Done: Switched the positive and negative paragraphs. I think the reviews are straightforward in what each review liked/disliked.

@Birdienest81: A few comments. Looks like a great list! Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BenLinus1214:: I've addressed or responded to everything above with either comments or changes. Thanks for the feedback.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vivvt

[edit]
Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) 05:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* There are 11 "Uncategorized redirects" in the references.
  • The nominees were announced --> The nominees for the 78th Academy Awards were announced
  • it was revealed that 2005 host Chris Rock would not return --> it was stated that 2005 host Chris Rock would not return
  • @Vivvt: Done: It looks like Ssven2 helped me the latter two comments. For the "uncategorized redirects", I tried to replace the URLs with newer ones. All of them now work except the Filmsite.org link which I can't seem to fix. Anyways, even if they were "Uncategorized redirects", the webpage technically still works in itself. Anyways, thanks for the feedback.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jimknut

[edit]
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks very good. My only suggestion is on this line in the "Winners and nominees" section: "With his latest nominations for Best Original Score, composer John Williams tied with Alfred Newman for the second most Oscar nominations of any individual." Why not mention how many nominations they received? (I believe the number is 64.) Jimknut (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jimknut: Done: Added statistic that Newman and Williams were tied with 45 nominations for second place in most nominations. Added footnote in Notes indicating Disney as nomination leader with 64.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2015 (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/78th_Academy_Awards/archive1&oldid=1138478831"