Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/74th 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 21:09, 9 March 2014 [1].

74th Academy Awards

Featured list candidates/74th Academy Awards/archive1

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2002 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written.--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Winners and nominees: "the studio had previously released 1999's American Beauty, and 2000's Gladiator." Don't think the comma is needed here.
"became the second pair of actress nominated for portraying the same character in the same film." "actress" → "actresses".
Presenters and performers: Again: "Annual" shouldn't be capitalized in the first entry's note.
Ceremony information: "the" is needed in "since 32nd ceremony took place...".
Remove the apostrophe from "In view of the return of the Oscars' to Hollywood"?
Box office performance of nominees: Typo in "Moulin Rogue!".
Make that two of those in this section.
Comma needed after (1st) towards the end of this section. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: I have fixed everything listed above.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first two references in the lead are a bit trivial and may be skipped; as they are detailed in the body of the article. References in the lead should be just for statistics, such as the 4 awards (correctly referenced) and the audience (which should be referenced). long comments between brackets should be re-written to avoid the brackets, for example the "the seventh film to achieve this feat" may be reformulated as a second sentence. That Halle Berry "made Oscar history" sounds a bit excessive, considering that she's not the first African-American to win an award (being the first one to win in one specific category is too technical). The "Academy Honorary Award" and "Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award" (two and one entries) seem very short to be standalone sections, and may be merged into a "minor awards", "special awards" or similar name. You shouldn't include "in order of appearance" in the section headings, simply say at the introductory text of the "Presenters and performers" section that tables are ordered by order of appearence. File:74 academy awards poster.jpg Seems fine, but you should complete it with the templates {{Non-free media data}} and {{Non-free media rationale}}. Cambalachero (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: I have fixed most of everything you mentioned above with some notes:

Reformated the 13 nomination sentence into two sentences.
Removed "made Oscar history" but still kept Halle Berry fact with mention of first African American WOMAN to win Best Actress. I think this must be mentioned since this was one of the reasons why this ceremony is historic.
Changed non competitive awards to format like in 64th Oscars.
Updated the rationales for the poster.
Relocated in order of appearance to intro sentence.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine, so I Support the nomination. On a related issue, the file is also used at the article Alex Ross, the artist that made that poster, when discussing the awards ceremony; but that has no influence over this nomination. I will leave a comment on the talk page for that. Cambalachero (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nice work, once again.--Jagarin 20:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Tbhotch
*Comments by Tbhotch. I found no problems with the text but: a dead link inconsistent use of ALT text. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: I fixed the alt captions problem. I also found a new citation source that is in print.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Incredibly well done and informative. Great follow-up to nominator's other high quality WP:FL pages on the same subject. Excellent work, — Cirt (talk) 01:45, 25 February 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.