Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/60th Academy Awards/archive1

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 via FACBot (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

60th Academy Awards[edit]

Featured list candidates/60th Academy Awards/archive1

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1988 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, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the big five go to? And I've heard so much complaining about Cher getting an award I am surprised it isn't covered in here. Nergaal (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: Done: Added the major winners in the intro. As for people objecting to Cher's Best Actress win, that is a point of view issue that will not be covered due to Wikipedia:NPOV.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments from Johanna

"(commonly referred to as Oscars)" why is this necessary? It's also a bit of a disruption for me…if you want to refer to them as Oscars at some point, put it closer to the top. That's just my opinion.
In your refs, you seem to include the owner of the publication, a field that I have never seen before? Is this generally accepted and standard?

It's not a necessity, but according to Cowlibob it can be useful in determining credibility.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would add something about the ceremony's negative reception in the lead, as it does make up a substantial part of one of the later sections.
After you list the major awards, there's a space that shouldn't be there.
"He previously won a Best Picture award as co-producer of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Who was the first person to achieve this feat?

Done: Added Olivier reference.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In view the 60th anniversary of the Academy Awards," I'm not sure what you mean here, and it's clearly grammatically incorrect. If you mean "Because it was" I'm not sure what the hiring of Goldwyn, Jr. has to do with it.
I'm not really seeing anything in the sources that says that Chase was hired directly by Goldwyn.
"Despite the Writers Guild of America refused" it should be "refusing"

Done: Changed refused to refusing.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the three head writers for the telecast" should be a comma before and after the names of the writers.

Done: Added commas.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how were you able to access ref 27 (the USA Today source)?

I obtained the information using ProQuest NewsStand available through the Los Angeles Public Library's online database (only library cardholders can access the database, unless you know of a local library that provides acceess). According Wikipedia:SOURCELINKS, "The basic bibliographic information you provide should be enough to search for the source in any of these databases that have the source. Don't add a URL that has a part of a password embedded in the URL."

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like the multiple awards and nominations tallies, I'm assuming that your observations about the nominations of top 50 box office films are standard, implied across sections, and not OR, right? That's not meant to be a patronizing comment--I'm just making sure. :)
If you can't find any mixed or positive reviews, that's fine of course, but I would remove the "most" from media outlets.

Done: removed "most"

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the verbs you use to describe the commentary are a bit questionable in terms of POV, in my opinion. I particularly don't like "whine" and, to a lesser extent, "bemoan" and "lament". "Complain" is fine, but for the others, I would tend towards words like "criticize", "denounce", or "comment negatively", as they are more encyclopedic IMO.

Done: Changed negative sounding words to more neutral verbs as per previous nominations. According to Cowlibob, we have to be as passive as possible irrespective of the negative or positive content.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81: This looks like a very good article! As you can see, I just had a few prose comments. The tables look great and it's well on its way to becoming an FL! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johanna: Thanks for the feedback. Right now, I have school-related work to do, but I'm addressing your comments one at a time.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support @Birdienest81: Thank you for the replies. For the ones you did not change, I think they are fairly minor and am fine with them remaining the way that they are. If you could review this for me (an accolades list for Lost in Translation as a QPQ, I would be very grateful, as it desperately needs a couple more reviews. Thanks! Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johanna: Thanks for the support. I'll try to like at your FLC (barring Christmas festivities and parties). I also added a few more citations regarding Goldwyn and Chase being selected as producer and hosts. So there you have it.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"became the eighth film to win Best Picture without any acting nominations" when was this achieve last? "a dull and anticlimactic atmosphere" should be probably be put in quotes. Also, might be outside the scope of the current nomination, but did anybody suggest that "a dull and anticlimactic atmosphere" might lead to decreased viewership the following years? Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: Done: Added mention of Gigi being the last Best Picture winner without acting nominations in the intro. As for the "dull and anticlimactic atmosphere" in the reviews section, those words were not found in the actual review. It was just me paraphrasing a section of the review to summarize what he was saying. Also, insinuating that a dull and anticlimactic atmosphere would lead to decreased viewership in future years is false. Five of the eight following ceremonies had increased viewership (exceptions were 1990, 1994, and 1996). Furthermore, we can't synthesize or suggest questionable facts without verifiable information (Wikipedia:SYNTH).

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What were the two special awards for? Nergaal (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Added explanations for the non-competitve awards.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Comments from SNUGGUMS

Let's have a look.....

Not sure if "The Last Emperor became the first film since 1958's Gigi to win Best Picture without any acting nominations and the eighth film overall to achieve that distinction" is necessary; seems better for the film's article
"Moreover, its clean sweep of its nine nominations tied Gigi's nine awards for the largest sweep for a single film in Oscar history at the time"..... tone doesn't seem right, try "It became the first film since 1958's Gigi to earn nine Oscar nominations".
File:Cher Empire Cinema Cropped.jpg doesn't seem to give as clear of a view of Cher's face as File:Cher - Casablanca.jpg, even if it's in color while the other is in black and white
"Jr." in "Three months later, Goldwyn, Jr." isn't needed since there is no other Goldwyn being discussed in the article
None of the links in "see also" except for List of submissions to the 60th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film are relevant to this article and should therefore be removed

That's all from me. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Done: Replied to all your comments and made the appropriate fixes.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support all good to go now Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie _talk

Comment – nice work. I've got a few concerns with references but they are not major anyway:

Wiki-link USA Today and Ganenett Company in ref 2.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences does not need italics in source 5.
Reference 10 – wiki-link The Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia Media Network).
Reference 27 – de-link USA Today (Gannett Company). -- Frankie _talk 19:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Done:Fixed everything you mentioned in the comments. Thanks

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – great work. -- Frankie _talk 08:44, 20 December 2015 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 21 December 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.