Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/90th 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, 29 June 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]
90th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the 2018 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, and 2017 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Shape of Water won a four awards- remove "a". ~ HAL333 21:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @HAL333:: Fixed: Removed the excess "a" in that sentence. --Birdienest81 (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, well done. ~ HAL333 02:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
- Made a few minor amendments and now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS
|
---|
That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Following my media review and sufficient improvements for that among other things, I support as the article is now up to FL quality as far as I'm concerned. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and comments from Aza24
- Here are some ref fixes:
- Ref #16 should be "cite news" not "cite web" and needs author
- Ref #29 should "cite news"
- Ref #39 should "cite news"
- Ref #44 should "cite news"
- Ref #47 needs author, publishing date
- Ref #49 should "cite news"
- Ref #56 needs author and should "cite news"
- I support this solid list, with the hopes that these (very) minor issues will be addressed. Aza24 (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aza24: I've fixed refs 16, 47, and partially 49, but I'm not sure what you mean by "cite news"? The other refs you listed are using the cite news template. Do you mean the refs do not provide evidence for the statements claimed in their respective sentences?
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize, that was definitely unclear! There's a couple sources that are news sites but use "cite web" template instead of "cite news" one. If you open up the editor and do command f cite web, you can through them and should be able to be able to change the ones that are news sites pretty quickly. I honestly doubt if this makes a difference, syntax wise, but consistency is always important. Aza24 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aza24:Done: Changed a few "cite web" templates to a "cite news" ones for citations using agencies such as NBC News, CNN, or CBS News. I've kept "cite web" templates for ones that are not primarily news agencies, magazines, or newspapers such as Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or Television Bureau of Advertising.
- I apologize, that was definitely unclear! There's a couple sources that are news sites but use "cite web" template instead of "cite news" one. If you open up the editor and do command f cite web, you can through them and should be able to be able to change the ones that are news sites pretty quickly. I honestly doubt if this makes a difference, syntax wise, but consistency is always important. Aza24 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text should describe what is in the photo such as Photo of a man in a dark suit smoking a cigarette --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Guerillero:According to WP:ALT#Importance of context, alt text shouldn't describe what kind of clothes the person is wearing or what action the person is doing unless this is a fashion article. I've used to do that for former articles, but someone pointed my errors in this previous FLC (see comments under FrankBoy fifth bullet point).
- Source review – The reliability of the sources looks fine throughout.
In addition to updating the templates as suggested above, I suggest that you have a look at the formatting of ref 35. Somehow, the listed title looks like an access date, and the true title of the article doesn't appear. That's definitely worth fixing.Unfortunately, I can't get the link-checker tool to work at the moment, but I'd say we're a few tweaks away from a successful source review. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]- Okay, it looks like the templates have been fixed now. I'm comfortable calling this sourcing review a pass at this point, as that was my last outstanding item. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 24 June 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) 22:07, 28 June 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.