| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this list could be a FL and I and User: Tbhotch want to know what is wrong.
Thanks, Birdienest81 (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- A quickie: there are a couple of bare urls in the reference list. Seegoon (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: First thoughts: you say: "this list could be a FL", but I wonder if in WP terms it really can be termed a "list". With over 2,000 words of text, it is more an account of the 2011 ceremony, including its critical reception, than a list of the nominees and award winners. It is something of a hybrid at present, part article and part list. Perhaps the first thing to do is to decide what you want it to be. In the meantime, here are some issues that need fixing:-
- The toolbox on the right of this review page indicates one link to a disambiguation page.
- The same tool indicates that one of your external links ("Winners and History") is dead
- Reference formats need attention:-
- Italicization: only print sources (journals, magazines, newspapers) should be italicized
- Where the "work" and the "publisher" are one and the same (e.g. "AMPAS") it is not necessary to include both
- Nor is it necessry to add a separate publisher field for well-known publications such as The Los Angeles Times.
- Be consistent as between "AMPAS" and the name in full
- Some formats are incomplete: 16, 17, 42, 43, 44, 45
- Use a consistent format for retrieval dates
- Ensure that all online sources have retrieval dates
- Section headings should not be wikilinked
- It would be useful to have an explanation of "Honorary Academy Awards"
- "Controversies" section: Do these snippets really justify being called "controversies"? They read more like bits of trivia, such as are always likely to happen at occasions such as this. An actress's bleeped f-word, two blokes kissing? This is not 1955, after all.
- Prose:
- I have not been able to check out the prose fully. It seems generally readable, though a little longwinded in places. For example, we have "The 83rd ceremony marked the first time since 1957 that an Academy Awards ceremony was co-hosted by a male-female duo. It was also the first time in the history of the awards broadcasts that a male-female duo physically shared the same stage in their hosting duties." I wonder if the latter information is really worth a whole extra sentence."
- I found the information in the "Voting trends and summary" a bit hard to follow.
- In the lead, "beginning at 5:30 p.m. PST / 8:30 p.m. EST (01:30 UTC, February 28)" is overdetailing.
- General presentation: the main list looks very good, the minor lists a little scrappy.
That's all I can offer for the moment. I hope these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)