Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/75th 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 SchroCat 11:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

75th Academy Awards

Featured list candidates/75th Academy Awards/archive1

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2003 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013 Oscars were written. Please note that some references were retrieved via Internet Archive. --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some links need to be fixed.--Earthh (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the links are dead. The ones in green may have domain changes, but are still accessible and readable.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work as usual.--Earthh (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Winners and nominees: "It was the eight film to receive that many nominations." "eight" → "eighth".
Double punctuation by ref 12 should be removed. The period isn't needed with the exclamation mark there.
Ceremony information: "However, as time passed and Crystal still undecided regarding the job". Needs "was" before "still", or you could just replace that word with "remained".
Ratings and reception: The number for the % decrease in viewership is missing.
There's a stray bracket in the publisher of reference 49.
The end of the bibliography has a template regarding citation inconsistency. It looks like it has something to do with the postscript parameter, which I haven't encountered before. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I fixed everything you mentioned above. Thank you.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Another excellent list from Birdienest. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Terrific work again. Keep it up --Jagarin 17:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments
"making it the least watched and lowest rated telecast at the time." - I'm having trouble figuring out what this means. The lowest-rated awards show broadcast in the US in 2003? In that timeslot on that day? The lowest-rated Oscars ever?

File:Oscars2002.JPG has an incomplete WP:FUR. {{Non-free use rationale}} may help in including all the necessary details.

A minor point, but this list is in the category Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL, so there is a print source used with a redundant accessdate. This should probably be fixed.

Adabow (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: I changed "making it the least watched and lowest rated telecast at the time" into "making it the least watched and lowest rated televised Oscar ceremony at the time." I also updated the {{Non-free use rationale}} for the poster. I don't know how to fix the accessdate problem. All the sources with accessdates have links to the website(s).

~~--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Support Adabow (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2014 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.