Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/69th 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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

69th Academy Awards edit

Featured list candidates/69th Academy Awards/archive1

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1997 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, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (spotchecks not done):

Resolved comments from Frankie _talk

Comments by FrB.TG:

"During the ceremony, AMPAS presented the Academy Awards (commonly referred to as Oscars)"
"took place on March 24, 1997, at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles beginning" – de-link LA as MoS suggests.
Besides writing the number of awards by The English Patient at the ceremony, you should also add that it won the most awards.
"Best Original Musical or Comedy Score winner Rachel Portman became the first female winner for composing a musical score" – can be rephrased as "Rachel Portman became the first female to win the Best Original Musical or Comedy Score".
"Winners are listed first and highlighted with boldface, and indicated with a double dagger ‡"
The tables besides the one in the Winners and nominees section need to meet MOS:DTT. !scope=row is what I am referring to.
"comedian Billy Crystal to host the 1997 telecast stating," – a comma is needed before "telecast".
Why the inconsistency of wiki-linking the publisher of a source-the one in ref 5.
Ref 34, 44, 47 - ditto.

In the comments is also the source review (only concerning consistency) of the article-- Frankie _talk 17:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Done I have fixed everything except two.

Rephrasing the sentence as "Rachel Portman became the first female to win the Best Original Musical or Comedy Score" would imply that she was the first person to win Best original Musical or Comedy Score only. In other words, a woman would have already won dramatic score (which is false). Portman was the first winner for original score regardless of dramatic or comedic/musical score.
Putting a comma before telecast (1997, telecast) does not seem grammatically correct.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant after "telecast". -- Frankie _talk 07:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done" Added comma.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good to me. Jimknut (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the nomination. -- Frankie _talk 19:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

"Robert “Mutt” Lange" → Robert John "Mutt" Lange as official title and correct quotation marks
None of the listings except Submissions for the 69th Academy Award for Best Foreign Film in "See also" are relevant to this page or have any connection to the Oscars and should therefore be removed
Two citations read "Los Angelest Times" when they should be Los Angeles Times
Using publishers/parent companies for works has become largely deprecated, so I'd remove them from the citations
The book by Robert Osborne has a HARVref error since there are no citations to that book. Either remove this entry or include a citation within the article to the book.

That's all from me. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS:Done: I have responded to your comments and have promptly made the appropriate changes based on them.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now support based on improvements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believe this meets the standard. Miyagawa (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source check – I have already done a source review above, spot-checking:

FN 14 -- Used twice. Article faithful to the source.
FN 15 -- Fine.
FN 35 -- Same as above.
FN 36 -- Verifiable.
FN 45 -- Used twice. Article faithful to the source. -- Frankie _talk 19:11, 28 February 2016 (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. - – SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.