Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/51st 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

51st Academy Awards

Featured list candidates/51st Academy Awards/archive1

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2019 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, 2018, 2019, and 2020 ceremonies were written. Please keep in mind that because this ceremony happened earlier than in recent ones that I did, the format of how I configured this list resembles more closely to the 1st Academy Awards rather than say the 71st Academy Awards and such. Birdienest81 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

"Academy Honorary Awards"

The text following each of the recipients seems to be quotations. If so it should be within quote marks. (There is a quote mark at the end of the Laurence Olivier text, but not at the beginning.) However, note MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Also the MoS says of quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.

Fixed: Added quotation marks accordingly.

"Multiple nominations and awards"

"The following 14 films had multiple nominations"; "The following three films received multiple awards". This would seem to breach MOS:NUMNOTES "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".

Fixed: Wrote out fourteen as a word instead of numerals.

That doesn't really address my concerns around MoS compliance. Could you re-read the two extracts from the MoS above - on minimising the use of quiotations and on attributing opinions in line - and either tweak the article to comply or let me know why you think it already complies? (Or should be an exception.)

@Gog the Mild: The reason why I am using direct quotes is because in a previous FLC for another Oscar ceremony list, one of the reviewers demanded that I included a rationale for why the individual received the specific honor. They said that linking the title of the awards in the header is not compatible with the MOS, and that each individual honorary awardee have different reasons for receiving the award. So I am using the direct quote that was provided by the Academy to justify the rationale of the award.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having a brief explanation of why each recipient of an honorary award is there is entirely sensible. Unfortunately, your using quotations to do so breaches two parts of the MoS. So far you haven't explained why not adhering to the MoS is be appropriate in these cases. It would seem to me that the simplest approach would be to paraphrase each quotation into your own words, which would cause the issues to disappear. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Fine, I did paraphrase the explanations for the Honorary Oscars in my own words. It should be close as possible to the original statements.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The Beverley Hilton". Why the upper case T. Eg see here.

Fixed: Removed the "The" from the name.

"Ceremony"

"Three days earlier ... on April 6" Do we need both of these?

Fixed: Removed the date.

"Initially the Academy's music branch protested that the segment be dropped from the ceremony, but it was kept intact after" I am not sure that "intact" is needed.

Fixed: Removed the word "intact."

"It was also remembered". "was" → 'is'.

Fixed: Changed was to is.

" This was also the final public appearance for Jack Haley, presenter of the Best Costume Design with his Wizard of Oz co-star Ray Bolger as well as the father of the producer, as he died on June 6 of that year." 1. Suggest a comma after "Bolger". 2. Suggest 'being' after "as well as".

Fixed: Added accordingly.

"Winners and nominees"

"Academy president Howard W. Koch an actress Susan Blakely." "an" → 'and'.

Fixed: Changed "an" to "and".

The Beatty/Welles sentence: suggest splitting into two, with the section in parentheses as a separate sentence.

Fixed: Split the sentence into two.

"Best Supporting Actress winner Maggie Smith became the only person to win an Oscar for playing an Oscar loser" Optional: add in which film.

Fixed: Mentioned California Suite.

Overall it is in good shape. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Addressed all the comments. Thank you.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Birdienest81, that satisfies me on everything except my first comment on quotations, where I have given a little more information. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments

"Initially the Academy's music branch protested that the segment be dropped from the ceremony," - this doesn't read quite right to me. Maybe "Initially the Academy's music branch protested the segment and urged that it be dropped from the ceremony,"

Fixed: Replaced original phrase with one you suggested.

"This was also the final public appearance for Jack Haley, presenter of the Best Costume Design with his Wizard of Oz co-star Ray Bolger as well as the father of the producer" => "This was also the final public appearance for Jack Haley, the father of the producer, who presented the Best Costume Design with his Wizard of Oz co-star Ray Bolger"

Fixed: Replaced original phrase with one you suggested.

"president Howard W. Koch an actress Susan Blakely" - an should be and

Fixed: Replaced "an" with "and".

Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I addressed all the comments above and made all the necessary corrections based on them. Thanks.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment – ~~The list of cites has both a Davis 1996 and Davis 1998, neither of which are in the bibliography.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Done: I've fixed the references by replacing them with different citions.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"as well as being the father of the producer" does not make sense grammatically.
All the more recent ones like 88th Academy Awards have the category name within the cell rather than in their own cells. I think this was for accessibility reasons and should be consistent.

I think that's all I've got! Reywas92^Talk 03:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Done: I addressed your comments according and made the necessary adjustments and corrections based on them.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that sentence about Jack Haley still needs fixing. I suggest "This was also the final public appearance for Jack Haley, the father of the producer, who presented the Best Costume Design with his Wizard of Oz co-star Ray Bolger" as per my comment above.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Downtown Los Angeles may be a more relevant link in the "Ceremony" section.

Fixed: Wikilinked Downtown LA and removed California to avoid redundancy.

Is there any way you could restructure the sentence Orson Welles had previously been nominated for writing, directing, and starring in Citizen Kane, but though he also produced it and it was nominated for Best Picture, the studios, rather than the producers, were the official nominees of that category at the time.?

Fixed': Changed the sentence that reads While Orson Welles had previously achieved the same feat for Citizen Kane, rules at the time determined that the studio releasing the film, as opposed to the individual producers, were the official nominees for Best Picture.

That's all I noticed. ~ HAL333 23:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: I have addressed all the comments and responded with the appropriate fixes.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~ HAL333 14:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Reywas92^Talk 05:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ at the moment.

"the Beverly Hilton " "the" is part of the name of the hotel.

Done: Included "The" in the wikilink to the hotel.

"The Deer Hunter won five awards" needs reiterating we're talking about the main ceremony as the previous sentence was talking about the technical awards.

Done: Added the phrase "at the main ceremony" in the sentence.

"late night" should be hyphenated.

Done: Added hyphen to "late night".

" the father of the producer" which producer?

Done: Inserted Jack Haley Jr. in the sentence.

"February 20, 1979 by" comma after 1979.

Done: Added comma after 1979, accordingly.

"became the only person" perhaps "first" as the source is 1993, are we sure it hasn't happened since?

Okay, I changed the reference source to one from 2013 which happens to be the official AMPAS-supported history of the Oscars. According to the section "Academy Facts and Records" in the book, it still recognizes Maggie Smith as the only acting winner to portray an Oscar loser. I'm pretty sure that record still holds today. I could make a chart on here about the roles each Oscar acting winner portrayed, and probably only three people have won for playing fictional or real life actresses since 2013 (namely Emma Stone for La La Land, but her character Mia is not portrayed to have been nominated for an Oscar in said film). The closest thing to replicating that record is probably Renée Zellweger winning for portraying the titular character in Judy who in real life lost two acting Oscars. However, she did win a special Academy Juvenile Award in 1940. So that probably does not count. Otherwise, Cate Blanchett would have been recognized as the second person to win for portray an Oscar "loser" since she played real life Oscar winner Katharine Hepburn (who lost the Best Actress category eight other times) in the 2004 film The Aviator. For evidence, see this sample from the book 80 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards which was published in 2008. On page 48-49 of the sample, it mentions that Maggie Smith is still recognized as the only person to win an Oscar for playing an Oscar loser.

Why wouldn't an Oscar-winning producer be notable? E.g. John Peverall?

Done: Created a stub article for the producer even though reliable sources about the producer is extremely sparse.

"Music and Lyrics" any good reason Lyrics is capitalised?

Done: Changed "lyrics" with lowercase "L".

Some of the references (e.g. ref 25) are geographically limited, so should use the url-access=limited parameter.

Done: Added said parameter for ref 25. Also added paramater for sources that were retrived via Google News Archive.

Others require subscription (e.g. WaPo) so that's url-access=subscription required

Done: Added parameter for Wapo and NY Times sources.

"Multiple nominations and awards" tables row scopes and captions please.

Done: PresN did this

Same for "Presenters and performers" tables, which also require col scopes.

Done: Also done thanks to PresN

ISBNs are inconsistently formatted.

Done: All ISBNs are formated with the 978 prefix and with the same cluster format.

I don't see any mention in the prose about ratings for the show.

Done: Added sentence on ratings in the second paragraph in the intro.

That's a very quick blast through. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I have addressed all your comments and have made the adjustments.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass

TRM makes a lot of valid comments for the sources above that I would be sure implement first.

Formatting

Biblio

The locations are inconsistent; sometimes you have "State, Country" vs "City, State" vs "State"

Fixed: Reformated locations for consistency.

retrieval date missing for ref 14

Fixed: Added retrieval date for said ref.

References

you have "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)" vs just "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" either is fine, just needs to be one or the other

Fixed: Removed AMPAS since it was under publisher parameter.

Reliability

no doubts here

Verifiability

Checked a couple and they all seemed to verify the information cited. Aza24 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I have addressed all your comments and have made the necessary corrections.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --Pres N 23:17, 15 March 2021 (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.