Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/53rd 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

53rd Academy Awards[edit]

53rd Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 07:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1981 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1984, 1986, 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, 2019, 2020, and 2021 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81talk 07:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Just the first table is missing a table caption. In the "Performers" table, "People Alone" is sorting before Orchestral.
  • The 2nd, 6th and 7th images in the multiple image template are missing alt text.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the tables.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: I've fixed the remaining issues from your comments up above.
--Birdienest81talk 05:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "The ceremony was originally scheduled the day before" => "The ceremony was originally scheduled for the day before"? Current wording could be interpreted as the Academy only scheduling it (confirming when it would take place) the day before
  • "The nominees for the 53rd Academy Awards were announced on February 17, 1981, by" - can't see any reason for a comma after the date
  • "the festivities would be posted to the following day" - unless this is an unusual US English usage of which I am unaware, surely that should say "postponed".....?
  • "whether or not to televise pre-recorded remarks from Reagan [...] giving remarks" - any way to re-word to avoid this repetition?
  • "an unnamed man later identified as Hungarofilm general manager Istvan Dosai came upstage" - I would imagine that should say "on stage" rather than "upstage", unless he was already standing on the stage, which from the context seems unlikely
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done - I've addressed your comments by making adjustments based off of them.
--Birdienest81talk 06:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • Norman Jewison should be linked in lead
  • Missing dash for Confidence nomination
  • Is Unsworth's posthumous nom supported by a source?
  • Capitalizing "Visual Effects" feels odd
  • Ref. 29 (McCabe) seems to have the wrong date
  • Ref. 32 (Boyer) appears to misspell "Lowest"
  • ABC should not be linked again in Ratings section
  • "with 31% of households watching with a 58% share" – two uses of "with" in the same sentence is awkward

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source review – All of the references are high-quality reliable sources and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Everything checks out okay in this area. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 00:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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/53rd_Academy_Awards/archive1&oldid=1098893676"