Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/73rd 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 Pres N 14:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

73rd Academy Awards

Featured list candidates/73rd Academy Awards/archive1

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2011 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, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 12:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

Avoid the usage of U.S. in the infobox.
"Best Director winner Steven Spielberg ... was the third person to receive double directing nominations in the same year" - who were the other two?
"the most awarded foreign language films in Oscars history" - "Oscars" is a bit informal, use "Academy Awards".
"At the time of the nominations announcement on February 13" - something's wrong with this sentence. Consider rephrasing. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 11:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Fixed everything. There's a note at the bottom mentioning Michael Curtiz and Frank Lloyd as the two previous persons (similar to Amy Adams filmography) and rephrased to Before the nominees were announced on February 13.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The issues I raised have all been addressed. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 12:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to point out again that these awards articles ought to have a controversies section. Every year, immediately after, or maybe even years later, notable figures will complain that some awards did not go to the most deserving winner. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in Oscar ceremony articles, we won't give attention to what was snubbed for the reason of objectivity. Unless the incident resulted in an action such as a protest (i.e. protests at the 64th and 68th Oscars from homophobia and racism respectively), this information of what was more deserving or not belongs in the respective film's articles.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All good! :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very much! :)

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support the only problems I could find were a couple misuses of italics, which I fixed myself. Good work! Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS" Thanks for making the changes yourself.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*ALT text needed for main poster image.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon became the third film.... add note specifying who the other two were with ref.
if nothing else, tonight;s... Is the semicolon present in the original quote?
self- satisfaction.... Is the space between self and satisfaction present in the original quote?
8% decrease in article but in line ref doesn't specify % and Ref 49 specifies 7% drop.

Cowlibob (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I've addressed everything above with some notes:

Added alt caption that reads "Official poster promoting the 73rd Academy Awards in 2001." similar to 40th Daytime Emmy Awards.
Replaced semicolon with apostrophe in "tonight's".
Removed space between self and satisfaction.
Copied ref 49 to sentence mentioning 7 percent drop and made duplicate copy of ref 49 for the following sentence.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good work on this list. Cowlibob (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as promoted - another one down! --Pres N 14:32, 8 July 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.