Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/82nd Academy Awards/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 The Rambling Man 07:31, 29 April 2010 [1].

82nd Academy Awards

edit

82nd Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): TbhotchTalk C. 03:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because... the article have a great potential to be one. Thanks TbhotchTalk C. 03:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support Fantastic job!
  • Please have consistent linkage. In the major awards section all films are linked, but in the other awards section only new film are. Be consistent by linking them all.
Question A few weeks I unlinked all repeated links because it was overlinked. Major section could be with only a few links or both section must have Wikilinks?
Note Some movies on "other awards" section have no articles. TbhotchTalk C. 21:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally prose can be overlinked but not tables. There was a talk page post about this that often a person is looking for a specific award, not reading from top to bottom, so they should be linked at each appearance. Don't link if there is no article. Reywas92Talk 21:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linked TbhotchTalk C. 23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Overlink#Repeated links for future reference, where it says "tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own."--WillC 07:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Nominations and awards section should be renamed because that is about special notes over individual films, not all the nominations and awards.
Fixed Re-named to "Notable nominations and awards" TbhotchTalk C. 21:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason to list all the qualified films. Expanded they take up half the entire page. This is irrelevant and could practically just be replaced by a link to 2009 in film.
Removed and replaced TbhotchTalk C. 21:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the rest of the section is needed either since I now see that is linked in the lead. Reywas92Talk 21:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed TbhotchTalk C. 23:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice overall. Reywas92Talk 20:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Fixed, replaced link. TbhotchTalk C. 19:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • Honorary Academy Awards - why are the recipients a bold list? And why, suddenly, a "Source:", also bullet pointed?
  • Same for Thalberg.
For both, the ceremony wasn't in the live telecast and both awards don't appear on the references' award list TbhotchTalk C. 14:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like a sentence or two on what these awards are about. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done TbhotchTalk C.
  • Since you're hiding some tables, why not have them in full size text?
I don't understand this. TbhotchTalk C. 16:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs still need attention...
    • BBC is a publisher, if anything, while BBC News may be the work.
Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 18 appears to have a typo.
Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes the NY Times has a publisher, sometimes not.
Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 49 appears to have two "works", NYMag unlinked and NYMag linked.
Fixed. TbhotchTalk C. 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes tvbythenumbers.com a WP:RS?
    • If it is, make references to it consistent, i.e. 37 and 41 should be formatted similarly.
Removed TbhotchTalk C.
    • Ref 12 inconsistently unlinks to AMPAS.
Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 15:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inconsistent linking between 31 and 69.
Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 15:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment I'm starting all over again. I think some of the comments were resolved, some were overlooked, some were misunderstood. So, I'll start from scratch and review this list again. As such, I'm offering an oppose because until I'm satisfied that some basic elements of WP:WIAFL and what is Wikipedia's finest finest work are met, I'm not happy to see these previous and clearly unsatisfactory supports to allow this to be promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "first woman to ever win an" no need for "ever"
Removed TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other winners were Avatar with..." multiple winners? There were other "other" winners you haven't listed here.
Added all winners. TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Oscar-nominated actress" It's mildly confusing because it doesn't appear as if she was nominated this time round, so is the fact she was previously nominated of relevance?
Removed TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On February 20, 2010, took place the Scientific and Technical Achievement Awards presentation, at which they were submitted the Honorary Awards where..." it may be me, and it is early, but that doesn't read at all well.
I changed it to -> " On February 20, 2010, took place the Scientific and Technical Achievement Awards presentation. At this ceremony Lauren Bacall, Roger Corman and Gordon Willis were awarded with the Honorary Award and received an Academy statue". TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with nine nominations each" no need to repeat nominations.
Removed. TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with the relinking in the tables. You relink e.g. The Hurt Locker, but you don't relink e.g. Quentin Tarantino.
Fixed. TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "9 nominations" not sure why this is in bold and not sure you need to keep repeating "nominations" because the heading already says this is about multiple nominations.
Changed. TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for wins.
Above. TbhotchTalk C.
  • Would still like to know something, even just a one-liner about the significance of the honorary award and the Thalberg award.
Irrelevant for this ceremony. TbhotchTalk C. 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "Irrelevant for this ceremony." then why is it mentioned in this ceremony's article? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it belongs (see here in Thalberg Award Recipients list section. TbhotchTalk C. 16:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has no context in this list. It needs at least one line saying what it's awarded for. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's illogical, so also I must say why Best Picture was the Best Picture or why there are Best original screenplay is not merged on Best Adaped Screenplay. TbhotchTalk C. 16:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No because best picture is an oscar, the thalberg award is completely out of context. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC) TbhotchTalk C. 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added "an award which is provided to the 'creative porducers'."
  • Why is Tribute Montage capitalised?
Fixed. TbhotchTalk C. 15:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award (awarded November 14, 2009)" confused, what did Latifah do here if it had already been presented?
Because Latifah appeared on the live telecast. She presented a repetition of the Scientific and Technical Achievement Awards TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in sync with" synchronised with.
Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then-president " followed by "AMPAS President Sid Ganis" Perhaps the first time should be AMPAS President, and the second time just Ganis.
Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd para of Ceremony information reads really poorly, very stilted. "Mr X did A. Mr Y did B." no real flow to it.
Removed (some) TbhotchTalk C. 19:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "keep the running time of the telecast shorter" "keep" "shorter"? Perhaps make it shorter?
Changed TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cite the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences's decision" why go back to expanding the acronym AMPAS here?
Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "next highest grossing" some hyphenation here.
Fixed TbhotchTalk C.
  • "Renowned film critic" says who?
Removed TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • TIME = just Time would be fine.
fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having two host was a disadvantage. [34]" hosts, and remove the space between the period and the ref.
fixed TbhotchTalk C. 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "right'down" should be a space, not apostrophe.
fixed TbhotchTalk C. 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gave an average critic of the" critique?
Changed. TbhotchTalk C. 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are Canton and Boxer not redlinked? If the Academy deemed them notable enough for inclusion in the in memorium section, are they not notable enough for a Wikipedia article?
I always see the redlinks as spoilers, if the redlinks are acceptable I can add them. TbhotchTalk C. 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks are fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the skit was eventually done by" not done, performed perhaps?
Changed. TbhotchTalk C. 17:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Memorium needs to be in italics in the presenters section to be consistent with the rest of the article.
Fixed. TbhotchTalk C. 17:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
so, I have to change |work=Usa Today |publisher=Usa Today to |work=Gannett Company |publisher=Usa Today? TbhotchTalk C. 17:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have to change it to work=USA Today
  • Is "Best Supporting Actor" really an "activity"? "Presenting the award for Best Supporting Actor" would be better.
Changed. TbhotchTalk C. 15:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change it in the Presenters table for every relevant entry. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand this. TbhotchTalk C. 01:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you refering to this? TbhotchTalk C. 07:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added it. I don't know if it's right. TbhotchTalk C. 03:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work. --haha169 (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/82nd_Academy_Awards/archive1&oldid=1080624872"