Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/83rd 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 09:27, 14 April 2015 [1].

---

83rd Academy Awards

83rd Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/83rd Academy Awards/archive1

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2011 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. The presenters and performers are cited with two links each containing a minute-by-minute log of the presenters and the awards they each gave out and the performers and songs. The St. Louis Post Dispatch links are working.Birdienest81 (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolved concerns from SNUGGUMS

Oppose for now From the lead: "at the Kodak Theatre in the Hollywood District of Los Angeles, California" → "at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood, California" Done: It reads "at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood, Los Angeles" like in the other ceremonies that took place at that venue. Try moving the Inception info to the sentence on The King's Speech since they both won four awards Done: The sentence now reads, Inception and The King's Speech won four awards each, with the latter film winning Best Picture. From the references: Works/publishers should only be linked in first reference used 'Done BBC News shouldn't be italicized Done ABC News should not have italics Done "PMC" should be Penske Media Corporation Done "TV by the Numbers" isn't really the best source to use I checked archives of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and the most recent post from May 21, 2013 indicates Zap2it is a reliable source since it now owned by Tribune Digital Ventures (then called Tribune Company at the time), which also happens to own Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and other newspapers), according to this notice posted HERE. So, the website functions more closely to other media websites such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and TV Guide. Furthermore, here is a Variety news article from 2014 making the announcement: [2] Publishing company is not an automatic indicator of reliability, but my point was there are sources existing with higher reputations (i.e. Los Angeles Times, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter). Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Done: I understand that companies do not make a website automatically reliable (I had a feeling you might bring that up). However, I must point out that the two editors of TVbytheNumbers, Robert Seidman and Bill Gorman joined the Tribune Digital Media staff. In other words, Tribune Company editors, who also work on articles for LA Times and such, now also have management and editorial power as stated in this Variety article and this one from Deadline.com. Also Zap2It provides television listing from most TV Channels the way TV Guide used to in print. And they do specialize in certain ratings figures where it is hard to find elsewhere. Nevertheless, I replaced all the Zap2it sources with ones from Bloomberg, USA Today, and The Oklahoman. I just wanted to explain that Zap2It has become a tool for media services especially with their growth of writers and resources, just saying. --Birdienest81 (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Publisher for Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is Journal Communications Done "Dallas Morning Newa" → The Dallas Morning News Done "TimeWarner" → Time Warner Done Don't italicize CNN Done Publisher for MTV is Viacom Done Publisher for The Washington Post is Katharine Weymouth Done "Tribune Company" → Tribune Publishing Done I'm sure you can find something better than "Zap2It" or Fox News Changed Fox News one, and one Zap2it. However, see TV by the Numbers noticeboard comment I linked. Hollywood.com should not have italics Done Not sure if "The Wrap" should be used Once again, according to this POST from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, it was deemed a reliable source. The founder and managing editor is Sharon Waxman who previously worked as a entertainment reporter at The New York Times. Her profile is here and here is a New York Times article about her website Many Oscar articles on the site have been written by Steve Pond, who wrote The Big Show: High Times and Dirty Dealings Backstage at the Academy Awards (a history book of recent Oscar ceremonies from 1994-2004). His bio is here. Works for me, though TheWrap doesn't have a space in between words Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Fixed: TheWrap is now stylized as one word. --Birdienest81 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Box Office Mojo shouldn't be italicized, and one instance is missing Amazon.com publisher in FN49 Done In FN53, The Hollywood Reporter needs italics, and publisher Prometheus Global Media is missing Done Bloomberg News shouldn't be italiczed Done' "The" is part of The Salt Lake Tribune's title Done E! should not have italics Done Try to find something better than "Salon" Done: Changed to a source from The Washington Post This is going to need some work before it's FL-worthy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS:: Okay, I've fixed everything based off your comments. --Birdienest81 (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Support I can now safely say this meets FL standards Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Fine looking list. Only correction I can see is making presenters singular at the Kirk Douglas part of presenters box.--Jagarin 01:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Done: Thanks for pointing that out.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Great, well-sourced list, it meets the FL criteria. --Carioca (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! Your support is appreciated.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Support - Pretty good work. --FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 18:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support!

--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• 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) 09:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

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