Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/54th 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

54th Academy Awards edit

54th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 10:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1982 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1986, 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, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81talk 10:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - my only comment is that after the "Multiple nominations and awards" heading, there's an absolutely colossal whitespace, more than the entire height of my laptop screen, before the actual content of the section. Any way to avoid this? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked about this before, and it seems to be because the images and tables are floating objects; the objects on the left side (the tables) can't appear until the objects on the right (the images) finish. (See WP:MFOP.) The easiest solution is to reduce the number of images – I think the Big Five winners plus Supporting Actor/Actress, and maybe one or two others if some of those are missing, are plenty. (I feel like this used to be normal and recently there's been more of a push to add more images? Or maybe it's just me.) Another option is to use div elements like at 91st Academy Awards, though this will end up sending the images way down the side of the page. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done - I removed some images that seemed a bit not proportional in a 4:3 portrait ratio to determine which images to keep and ones to delete. It's fine to have images of winners, but as per Wikipedia:Gallery and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not designed to be a repository or college of images and galleries should be used sparingly and in a proper format and context.
--Birdienest81talk 20:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Link Marty Pasetta in infobox
  • "Reds earned the most nominations with 12; On Golden Pond came in second with ten." – spell out both numbers or write both as numerals
  • "her last win for On Golden Pond, set the record" – no comma needed
  • "'The Academy is fortunate..." – missing the closing quotes
  • The Tonight Show should be italicized and probably linked
  • Johnny Carson should be linked
  • "However, in February 1982..." – remove "However" since it doesn't contrast the immediately preceding sentence
  • "A maximum of seven films eligible would be needed for the award to be handed out." – maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this doesn't seem right to me. Shouldn't it be presented if a minimum number of films are eligible?
    • I found the source and the article didn't really match what it described, which was part of the issue. I've reworded it; feel free to adjust as needed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sabulis's review is used twice
  • "sputtered in others." – period should be a comma?
  • This is a broader issue, but it came up during a separate FLC so I'll mention it here: The background colors in the table headings need to be lighter to meet the WCAG AA contrast ratio of 4.5:1 (MOS:COLOR). Currently, linked text (#3366CC) on the gold background (#EEDD82) gives a contrast ratio of 3.9:1 (3.83:1 if the link has been clicked). Give me a little bit and I can propose some colors that might work better.
    Update: Maybe #F9EFAA would work? (Example: Would go from  Best Picture  to  Best Picture ) RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @RunningTiger123:: Done: I have read your comments and made the necessary changes to the article.
--Birdienest81talk 19:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Linking consistency of works/newspapers is a bit strange, should either be on of the three: link all, link none, link on first mention
  • Looks good overall, I adjusted some small things in the biblio
Reliability
  • No issues. Some smaller local sources, but they're mostly for quoted critic reactions
Verifiability
  • Checked a few, no issues
Comments from TheDoctorWho
  • Remove 9pm EST from the lead per MOS:TIMEZONE. If the eastern time is relevant only for the broadcast it should be moved to that sentence (something like "The ceremony, televised in the United States by ABC beginning at 9:00 p.m. EST, was")
  • The infobox lists two producers but the lead only mentions one?
  • "One week earlier, in a ceremony held at The Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, California, on March 21, the Academy Scientific and Technical Awards were presented by hosts Lloyd Bridges and Fay Kanin." feels a bit odd here. The lead should summarize the article, but there are no further mentions of these anywhere in the page. I fail to see the significance of the sentence and don't lose any understanding by skipping it.
  • "However, in February 1982", the word "however" should be removed, I see it was mentioned above, but it seems like it may have slipped through that support.
  • Link Harold Schindler in critical reviews section
  • "which was a 6% increase from the previous year's ceremony." the source does not directly support this statement. It only gives the top ten broadcasts and the 1981 broadcast isn't listed there.
  • The reference following that sentence returns a 404 page not found error. The url needs updated to this.
  • Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is only linked in reference 3 and 12, either delink or 12 or link in 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 23, and 34 (MOS:REFLINK)
  • Link The Washington Post in reference 6
  • Link Variety in reference 11
  • Add "|author-link=Janet Maslin" to reference 19
  • Reference 21 should be changed to {{Cite press release}}, it was authored by Don Morgan
  • Link Los Angeles Times in reference 22
  • Add "|author-link=Harold Schindler" to reference 28
  • Link Anthony Holden, Robert Osborne, Mason Wiley, Damien Bona in the bibliography
  • Dependent upon my third comment, the related external link may need removed

Great work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nearly a week with no response from the nominator. Gonna have to oppose unless these are addressed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TheDoctorWho: Done - I have read your comments and made the necessary changes to the article.
--Birdienest81talk 10:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of bullet point 4, which for the second time was not addressed and is simply a grammatical error that is not up for debate. Points 5 and 14 were not addressed, but that won't keep me from supporting for now. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Dylan620
  • The sole non-free image present, the poster for the ceremony, has an adequate FUR and is used appropriately in the infobox. All other images are free-use or otherwise compatibly licensed.
  • I like the vertical gallery that goes along the right side of the main awards table. Unfortunately, it seems to be contributing to a great wad of empty space that starts this section. Is there a way this can be addressed?
  • The photos themselves are all excellent, each one contributing encyclopedic value. Props for incorporating two FPs.
  • For that entire gallery, and again for Johnny Carson's photo later on, the alt text doesn't say anything more than "x actor in year xxxx". This is worthwhile information to include in alt text, but it leaves some detail to be desired. What is each actor wearing? Are any of these photos black and white? Is there anything worth writing about the poses or hand gestures?

Once my points regarding whitespace and alt text are addressed, I will be comfortable supporting on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dylan620: I don't see any whitespace near the vertical columns. I already removed several pictures as noted above in previous comments. I viewed the page on Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome, and no whitespace appears. RunningTiger123 or SNUGGUMS, do you see any whitespace?
  • As for the alt text, according to Wikipedia: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. The Queen Elizabeth II examples says, Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the alt text for this image of Elizabeth II should not be "an elderly woman wearing a black hat". 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).
--Birdienest81talk 07:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: I've struck my comment about the whitespace. I looked at the area on mobile this morning, both logged in and logged out, and didn't see any whitespace of concern. I just briefly logged out now to look at the area on my laptop, and didn't see any whitespace in that case either. Maybe it's just an issue with using the MonoBook skin on my laptop? Regarding the alt text, that's interesting to note. I've been trying to get Not Strong Enough (Boygenius song) to FA and used the Bad Romance article as a template for alt text; there, each image of a person has alt text which contains a rough description of what that person is wearing. Also, I recently reviewed a few sports-related FLCs – in each of those lists, images of players have alt text giving a loose description of their clothing (generally team uniforms). Any black and white images on those lists were also denoted as such in the alt text, which is what informed my suggestion to do so here. Knowing now that a previous FLC of yours was opposed in part because you did basically what I was asking you to do here, I'm willing to accept that I may have been a bit overzealous in my comments regarding alt text. Support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:39, 5 March 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/54th_Academy_Awards/archive1&oldid=1212064573"