Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/58th Academy Awards/archive2

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, 14 May 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

58th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 08:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1986 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1984, 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 08:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*"The Color Purple joined The Turning Point as the most nominated films in Oscar history without a single win, as well as the most nominations without one for Best Director" - does this mean that TCP joined TTP in achieving both those things? Or only the first?

Fixed: Both films only accomplished most nominations without a win. The latter film only achieved most nominations without a Director nominations. However, I cannot find a citation for that fact.

"By virtue of his father Walter's previous wins, John's daughter Anjelica's victory in the Best Supporting Actress category made her the first third-generation Oscar winner in history" - it wasn't just by virtue of Walter's wins, it was by virtue of both that and whatever win(s) John had at some point......

Fixed: Modified fact so that a footnote indicates that John and Walter Huston previously won Oscars. This is for better sentence flow.

"Regarding Alda, Fonda, and Williams hosting performance" - missing 's before hosting

Fixed: Added an apostrophe and an s to "Williams" and before "hosting".

"various musicals numbers" - presume that should be "musical numbers".....?

Fixed: Changed "musicals" to singular.

"27.3% of households watching with a 43% share" - a 43% share of what? Not of total households, as that was 27%.......?

@ChrisTheDude: Again, I don't know if I can explain it any clearer. The first number (27.3) represents the rating or the percentage of households with a TV (REGARDLESS of if the television set was on or off) that were tuned in to the program. The second number (43), the share, ONLY counts television sets/households that had their TV turned on during the program's duration. So 43 percent of TV's that were in USAGE DURING THE LENGTH OF THE CEREMONY were tuned in to that program. Again, I can remove the share number if you find it confusing or unnecessary. The reason newer ceremonies don't have the share number is because fewer media outlets don't report the share number as often. They focus on the viewership total and 18-49 rating. This problem was also brought up during the featured list candidacy for the 56th Academy Awards.

Oh, that was me! I didn't remember that :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

Tables (specifically, the "Multiple nominations and awards" tables) need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | style=" color:white;" | 1 becomes !scope=row style="color:white;" | 1.
Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --Pres N 19:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Done: Added scope="row" to the tables.

--Birdienest81talk 02:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

"During the ceremony, AMPAS presented Academy Awards (commonly referred to as Oscars)" - suggest wiki-linking Academy Awards and isn't it the Oscars?
I think it's worth mentioning in the lede that out of the whopping 11 nominations the film The Color Purple received, it won none.
I would mention the viewership in the lede.
I would mention the year the film The Turning Point was released.
In "Box office performance of nominated films", there need to be NBSP's between the numbers and "million".
There are some unnecessarily large quotes in critical reviews. Some can easily be paraphrased. Examples: ""The show regrettably returned to its old bad habits with a boring onstage production number intended...", ""Suddenly, it seemed, somebody had listened to the complaints that had grown deadeningly familiar over the years." (this part only).
The racism that the LA Times source (#9) discusses seems worth mentioning somewhere in the article. Also, the source should be marked as dead since the main link redirects to its archive page.

Otherwise good work as always. FrB.TG (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: - Done: I've read your comments and made corrections and adjustments based on them. By the way, the primary name of the award is still the Academy Awards. The Oscars are just a secondary nickname for promotional and marketing purposes.

--Birdienest81talk 09:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was rather directed at "commonly referred to as Oscars". I was asking if it should be "the Oscars" instead of simply "Oscars". FrB.TG (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in here, that sentence is talking about the formal and informal names of the actual prizes awarded i.e. the statuettes. I think it is correct as it is and saying "AMPAS presented Academy Awards (commonly referred to as the Oscars)" would actually be incorrect -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I ask of this because according to this source, it was once rebranded as "the Oscars". However, this does not keep me from supporting this. I would appreciate comments on my FLC, Birdie, but this is obviously not obligatory in any way. FrB.TG (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Since the NYT is not fully subscription based, those refs should be marked as "url-access=limited"
assuming ref 8 shouldn't have the LAT linked as you seem to be only linking the first mentions
BoxOfficeMojo is formatted differently in refs 25 & 26
In the biblio, the location use is inconsistent, sometimes its city, sometimes its city and state, and sometimes its city, state and country. Any of the three are find, just needs to be consistent.

Reliability

No issues

Verifiability

A lot of the refs are marked as "url-access=live" when they should be marked as dead. 2 and 6 for instance, though there are others
Checked a few, no issues Aza24 (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I have addressed your comments and made some adjustments based on them. For the LA Times sources, I found new links to the same article. Birdienest81talk 08:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Nothing much, just that Will Smith really hit it hard yesterday, huh? Will also do an image review. Gerald WL 17:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The ceremony, televised in the United States by ABC, was produced by Stanley Donen and directed by Marty Pasetta." This is the lead and you cited a source, which makes sense since it's not written about in the body, but is there any way it can be moved to the Ceremony info section? Similarly to the succeeding sentences.

Fixed: Added a sentence about Pasetta's role as director since Donen is mentioned in the first paragraphy. As for the sentences regarding the Sci-Tech awards, it feels out of place since the Ceremony Information section deals only with the main ceremony itself.

A summary of the reviews would be nice to see in the lead, maybe the second paragraph.

Fixed: Added phrase that mentions the ceremony received both positive and negative reviews similar to the 93rd Oscars intro.

At what parts do you think it should be referred to as the Academy Awards, and what parts as the Oscars?

Both terms should be used interchangeably. The Academy Awards should be used in the intro since it is formally introducing the reader to the award itself. The Oscars is used only for simplicity as an adjective like "Oscar history" or "Oscar winning".

"Flying Down to Rio" --> "Flying Down to Rio (1933)"

Fixed: Linked song to said film.

"MGM" --> "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer"

Fixed: Changed abbreviation to full name.

"Of the 50 grossing movies of the year"-- change movies to films for consistency.

Fixed: Changed "movies" to "films".

Rotten Tomatoes has a critics consensus and bundle on the 58th Oscars you might wanna check out. There are 20 sampled reviews which you might be interested in to expand the review scope. Additionally I would suggest reading WP:RECEPTION on making the reviews section more engaging.

I'm extremely weary of using Rotten Tomatoes as a way to objectively generalize the critical consensus of a ceremony. I'm perfectly fine with using the Rotten Tomatoes listing for Oscars ceremonies to obtain an individual review of the show for reference. However, I caution make any sort of generalization In an earlier discussion on my talk page, I with other editors determined that using Rotten Tomatoes to measure the critical consensus of a particular show is pretty sketchy at best since its sample of reviews of a ceremony is quite small compared to say film reviews or television reviews. An example would be the 72nd Academy Awards which is missing some positive reviews from the Boston Herald and the Los Angeles Times. Furthermore, according to Inside Oscar 2 by Damien Bona, reviews of the show were more on the positive side of things as opposed to lukewarm as Rotten Tomatoes suggests. So the score of Rotten Tomatoes may have missed other reviews of the show that were positive. Finally, I think that three positive and three critical reviews are enough to maintain a neutral point of view or objectivity regarding ceremonies that aren't completely on the acclaimed side of things but not on the reviled side of thing either.

In the external links, "Official" --> "official"

Fixed: Un-capitalized "official".

"Channel" --> "channel"

Fixed: Un-capitalized "channel".

"at YouTube" --> "on YouTube"

Fixed: Changed "at" to "on".

Is the YT channel parentheses needed?

Fixed: Removed parentheses.

The Filmsite link is not needed, as it's just a repetition of the list table in this Wikipedia article, not an analysis of the telecast.

Fixed: Removed Filmsite link.

The first IMDb link is a 404 error; even with an archive it feels kinda redundant as it's IMDb, a generally unreliable source. I think the second IMDb link should cover it well.

Fixed: Removed the first IMDb. Anyways, like the Filmsite link, it was just a rundown of the winners.

The Exlink subsections are redundant.

Fixed: Removed Exlink subsections.

Infobox: in the duration, there shouldn't be a comma

Fixed: Removed comma,

Credit roles must be in sentence case: "Art Director" --> "Art director"; "Set Decoration" --> "set decorator"

Fixed: Un-capitalized "director" and "decorator".

In the presenters table, I think you can put the Hank ref to the preceding sentence.

Fixed: Moved the Hank ref to the end of the sentence.

"Announcer of the 58th Annual Academy Awards" --> "Announcer of the award"

Sims was the announcer for the entire ceremony. Using the phrase above would imply he only announced the awards for the ceremony. In fact, Sims role in the ceremony did not involve awards. He simply introduced a few presenters, introduced the telecast, or announced what was coming up next or the telecast's sponsors ("Live from the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Downtown Los Angeles...", "Ladies and Gentle the president of the Academy of..." "The 58th Annual Academy Awards are being brought to you by...").

In the performance table, suggest adding year brackets to the films..

I don't see how that is necessary given that almost all of the songs performed on the telecast are were the Best Original Song nominees which were presumably from films released in 1985 (implied since the ceremony was meant to reward achievements from said year).

"MGM" --> "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer"

Fixed: Likewise in the peformers table, changed abbreviation to full name.

"Here's to the Losers" "Once a Star, Always a Star" "Oh, Lady Be Good!" from what film?

Here's to the Losers is not originally from any film. It's actually a song by Frank Sinatra which I attributed to in the table. "Once a Star, Always a Star" was an song that was written exclusively for this ceremony. "Oh, Lady Be Good!" is from the musical Lady, Be Good which I attributed to in the table.

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I have made changes based on your comments unless stated otherwise.

--Birdienest81talk 10:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

"3 hours 11 minutes" → "3 hours, 11 minutes"
Link to John Huston in footnote a can be removed
If the multiple nominations table is supposed to be alphabetized, A Chorus Line is out of order
"Announcer of the 58th Annual Academy Awards" – any reason why "Annual" is included here but not elsewhere?
Source 20 from The Philadelphia Inquirer needs a date
- Source 38 from the Los Angeles Times could also use a date
"$13.4 million" → "$13.4 million" (double space should be removed)
"...a very good year - the year the Academy..." – replace hyphen with proper dash

Overall, this seems to be yet another solid Oscars list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: - Done: I have addressed all your comments by taking the appropriate measures to correct the issues brought up by them.

--Birdienest81talk 02:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --Pres N 15:22, 13 May 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.