Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1st 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 Dabomb87 23:10, 23 November 2010 [1].

1st Academy Awards[edit]

1st Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TbhotchTalk C. 22:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that meets the criteria, this is the first article that I nominate for something without a previous peer review. The article is the first award ceremony on either film award, so it is a bit important. Thanks for your comments. TbhotchTalk C. 22:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since these were the first awards, there should definitely be something on the background, (for example who came with the idea for starting them?). Nergaal (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like MGM/AMPAS history should be added, doing... TbhotchTalk C. 05:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did it. TbhotchTalk C. 02:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. But going through the list I saw that there are two awards retired after this. I think it would be worthwhile to have a Reception/Aftermath section also; it should discuss asides the two retired awards, how were the awards received by the public: did they care? was it prestigious enough that people demanded it the next year? what did the organizers learn from this first edition? etc. Nergaal (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the retired awards belong into 2nd Academy Awards and about reception, I will make a research, but I don't think that I would find something. TbhotchTalk C. 20:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a research, but I found no much information about the reception, there are books, but I cannot see them on Google books. TbhotchTalk C. 19:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Tickets cost five dollars and only 270 people attended to the event.[1] The ceremony lasted only fifteen minutes.[2]" - merge these two.
  • Image caption in the infobox could be more descriptive (if you know what you're describing!)
  • "nowadays" very parochial, make it encyclopedic.
  • "or television.[1] Wings won two awards" reads odd. Perhaps have a para-split after [1] and introduce more fully what Wings was.
  • The link to Honorary Award says it was instituted in 1948, while this award took place in 1929.
  • First sentence of Background section is almost verbatim copy of the lead.
  • "Fairbanks on a fifteen minutes dinner " instead of "on a" perhaps "during a"?
  • "recipers" typo.
  • "Best Picture receiver." recipient?
  • Honorary award citations need references.
  • Image captions which aren't complete sentences should not have periods.
  • Ref 11 has a spare period.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 03:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose Good list, but some problems that aren't commonly thought of, mainly with the images.
"Tickets cost five dollars and only 270 people attended to the event; and the ceremony lasted only fifteen minutes." Two things, do we really need a link to USD, and "only" twice in a sentence before a statistic is problematic. Try not to express judgement of any kind of the numbers. Instead, if you must, compare to more modern numbers.
Done TbhotchTalk C. 20:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1. You're going to make me chase through a database to reference three separate facts? Not good. I should come to a page with teh fact on it. TbhotchTalk C. 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The database has not a permalink so I cannot do it with one, another link? why this is the most reliable.
Ref 2, what on earth is this? A book? A newspaper article? That citation needs to be filled out quite a bit, and enough info to determine reliability added.
  • It is a link that became dead within the time, I added 6 months ago. TbhotchTalk C. 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 needs some reference to AMC as the publisher. As it is, I was all prepared to question it before I clicked through.
Ref 13. About.com does not enjoy a presumption of reliability- this source stands or falls based on the reputation of the individual author, and a bachelor's in history is nice, but not encouraging about reliability. Nor is her major writing credit being in anything that starts "The Idiot's Guide".
Removed. TbhotchTalk C. 20:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Wings poster.jpg How do we know this is in the public domain- i.e., that it was published without a copyright notice? Needs an RS for that.
  • I never uploaded them, is not my fault that people upload possible copyvios at Commons, this is not my business if you believe those are "non-free photos" nominate them for deletion, there's no evidence that authors still living, or they put a copyright notice on them neither. TbhotchTalk C. 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Janet Gaynor Argentinean Magazine AD.jpg The proof of licence for this one is about as wrong as it can get.
  • Published in 31, per Argentinian laws it is in the public domain.
File:Milestone1.jpg Ditto the above.
Can be replaced by this? TbhotchTalk C. 20:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one is veritably free. Courcelles 21:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:CharlesRosher.jpg How do we know this was published before 1923?
Removed. TbhotchTalk C. 21:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Warner Bros 1920.jpg King of the crop here, the tags contradict themselves. The template says PD due to being older than 1923... the description says it is from 1928!
I've temporarily undeleted File talk:WarnerBrosStudios-1920.jpg locally to be examined during this FLC. Courcelles 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, many exist. Replaced. TbhotchTalk C. 20:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:1stOscars 1929.jpg By now you know the story, needs a reliable source- the blog who is linked surely doesn't own the image, so how do we know the tag is correct?
  • Ask it to the user who deleted the copyrighted image and uploaded this at commons. TbhotchTalk C. 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you re-upload File:1stOscars.jpg TbhotchTalk C. 21:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The ceremony was helded on May 16, 1929" Held, not helded
Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 20:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Among receivers include Emil Jannings, the first person to receive an Academy Award for Best Actor," Considering we're talking about the first ceremony, that this was the first award in the category is unsurprising. If you instead mean that Jannings received the first Oscar ever, the sentence needs a rewrite.
File:Frank Borzage.jpg Another of those where literally nothing about the tag is right. When was this published? How do we know it's PD? Where did the image even come from? Before you ask, the local copy is no better. Courcelles 09:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. TbhotchTalk C. 21:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General response. It is NOT the reviewers job to go Commons-side and chase bad images. It is yours as the nominator who wants to use them. Courcelles 02:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a parallel universe I remove them, now what, you'll nominate them for deletion for possible copyvios? Will you sleep tonight for not do it? I can remove them, just with a click (except for Chaplin, Jannings, and Gaynor images that are free, and replace the Warner for another (they still producing, free images exist)), I feel that are in the PD, for the reasons stated on their summary, but you, will left it as it?. TbhotchTalk C. 04:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may or may not come back to the image issues. I haven't gotten a chance the last couple days, though, so it's not fair to the nominator to leave these out. (Besides, it would be better if/when I return to start fresh.) Courcelles 03:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:*Entire first paragraph is unreferenced
  • Per WP:LEAD references in the lead are unneeded since the information is [supposed to be] in the body. For the other references I'm tweaking them into N&W section. TbhotchTalk C. 02:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notables enough, they were nominated for an Oscar. TbhotchTalk C. 02:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't 'References' come before 'Bibliography'?
  • Done
  • "It consisted in a private dinner with thirty-six banquet tables, where 270 people assisted, tickets cost five dollars" - need a conjuction after 'assisted', rather than a comma
done. TbhotchTalk C.
  • "It was hosted by AMPAS director Fairbanks, during a fifteen minutes event" → It was hosted by AMPAS director Fairbanks, during a fifteen minute-long event"
done
  • There are four references to verify the date, and another four for the host. Isn't this a bit of overkill?
  • Over[external]linking is not forbidden meanwhile those links support the fact. TbhotchTalk C. 03:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Everything looks good, I'm not sure about image licensing, so I'll leave those to Courcelles. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good work. Ready for promotion.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 12:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Background: the semi-colon after "which would then be joined into Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer" should be just a regular comma.
  • "In August 2008, Mayer contacted the Academy Central Board of Judges to decide winners." He did this in 2008 for a ceremony in the 1920s? I have a feeling this date is wrong.
  • Try not to start a sentence with "But"; if you feel a sentence must be in this form, try "However" and a comma.
  • Add "the" before Academy Award for Best Picture?
  • Ceremony: "It consisted in a private dinner with thirty-six banquet tables". "in" → "of". And is "assisted" the right phrasing? The source says that's how many people were at the dinner. Doesn't sound like they were assisting.
  • "It not received broadcast on radio or television." Grammar is all wrong here.
  • Nominees and winners: "Among the receivers include". Again, grammar isn't the strongest. How about "The recepients included"?
  • "Frank Borzage won the Best Director, Drama". Read along with the preceding part, this doesn't flow well. "Frank Borzage for Best Director, Drama" would be better. The next bit ("meanwhile Lewis Milestone") would be improved as "and Lewis Milestone for Best Director, Comedy...".
  • "Awards also would favor big film's producers". Is "film" meant to be plural?
  • "Three categories disappear after the ceremony." Should "disappear" be in past tense ("disappeared")?
  • Reference 12 is from Time, not People. Our article on People says it wasn't even published until 1974. It looks like it was just a part of Time magazine at the time. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I did all. Thanks TbhotchTalk C. 05:35, 21 November 2010 (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/1st_Academy_Awards/archive1&oldid=1136094356"