Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/92nd 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) 00:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

92nd Academy Awards

92nd Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/92nd Academy Awards/archive1

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2020 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 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, and 2018 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81 (talk) Birdienest81 (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• You need citations for the two tables in the "Films with multiple nominations and awards" section.

• This issue came also during the FLC for Academy Award for Best Actor. User:Cowlibob said, "Number of nominations is implicitly verifiable by the main table." Furthermore, there are plenty of featured lists about the numerous accolades of film has received, and they have a total number of nominations and wins tally in the infobox which does not have citations regarding the total number figures a film has received (ex: List of accolades received by The Artist (film) or List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men).

• I would recommend following the precedent of past Academy Awards articles by making the lede three paragraphs. As in those lists, I would add a bit on the Academy Scientific and Technical Awards.

• I would have mentioned the Sci-Tech Awards in the intro if the ceremony did occur. However, it would not make sense to do so for this ceremony list due to three things. 1) AMPAS announced in 2018, that the ceremony this year would be held in June instead of February in order to accommodate the date change of the main ceremony from last Sunday in February to the second one. 2) This press release by AMPAS also mentioned that the "techonologies honored do not represent achievements within a specific awards year". 3) The COVID-19 epidemic had forced the Academy to postpone the Scientific and Technical Awards indefinitely according to this article. So, it would be inappropriate to mention the Sci-Tech awards as they have not occurred and the Academy declared they will no longer correspond to an awards year anymore. If anything, the upcoming Sci-Tech awards would be more appropriate to include in the 93rd Oscars.

• You should wikilink "Nielsen ratings".

• Nielsen ratings was already wikilinked in the infobox and in the "Ratings and reception" section. I wikiklinked Nielsen to Nielsen Media Research in the second paragraph of the intro since I am referring to the company that is keeping track of the viewership.

• This marked the earliest date on which the ceremony was held. I would change "was" to "has been".

• Fixed: Changed "was" to "has been".

• Considering the precedent, I would also recommend adding a section on "Box office performance of nominated films" and including a table.

• Unfortunately, I do not have enough information from good quality and reputable sources to do a section named "Box office performance of nominations films" and make a substantial table similar to some previous FL Oscar ceremony lists. Previous I had been able to do this because Box Office Mojo had charts of yearly box office where I could filter information to get figures of nominated films prior to the date of the nominations announcement. However Box Office Mojo changed its website last October, and unfortunately they removed the aforementioned feature in its redesigned website and other Oscar-related figures pertaining to this year's awards. Therefore, I am unable to gather information to report on box office performance of films not nominated for Best Picture nor make a table like in some years. I understand precedent, but I cannot report on figures that are not verifiable simplicity within the list (like the nominations and wins totals) or through verified resources due to the policy of Wikipedia:No original research. I believe in some precedent, but if I don't have adequate amounts of reliable sources, I can only work within the bounds of what I have.

That's all I could notice. Looks good overall. ~ HAL333 17:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @HAL333:Done: I have responded to your comments. Thanks for your feedback. --Birdienest81 (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice work. ~ HAL333 18:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, and I now support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The wording "presenter of" and (especially) "introducer of" in the "Presenters" table (which is also missing a caption, so WP:ACCESS) is beyond awkward. You would never say "Actor X was the introducer of the Y segment." You would say "Actor X introduced the Y segment." It would be far more readable and natural to reword those entries to follow a format more like "Role: Presented the award for Best Support Actress and introduced Best Film nominee Y." —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: Changed "presenter(s)" to "presented" and "introducer" to "introduced", accordingly. I was initially hesitant to change due to precedent of previous ceremony, but I decided to go ahead after reviewing the featured list review of the 82nd Academy Awards to see why the things they were for the presenters box. For courtesy though, if any article is undergoing FAC or FLC review, please post comments before making changes.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks and sure... I honestly had no idea it was undergoing such a review, though, and it's not listed on the actual article page (nor is there an edit notice). So not exactly sure how people, especially newer editors, are supposed to figure out that editing the article during a candidacy is somehow bad form. I'm not a newer editor and this is the first time anyone has brought that up. Is there a guideline on it somewhere? Because if so, that should at least be listed when people go to edit a page. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a few small copyedits but don't see any other issues. Support Reywas92^Talk 23:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

Let's get this thing moving! Doing now Aza24 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Couldn't find any missing authors, dates or publishers – all look reliable. I personally prefer linking the publisher/work (New York Times, Hollywood Reporter etc.) every time, so if that's something you might consider it should be a pretty quick fix with the select all tool and command f. Either way this is not outstanding enough to prevent a Pass for source review. Good work here. Aza24 (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2020 (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) 22:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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