Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/86th 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 02:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

86th Academy Awards edit

Featured list candidates/86th Academy Awards/archive1

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2014 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013 Oscars were written. Since the ceremony is nominated for several Emmys, I prefer that the list be promoted until at least after August 16. Also, if you see someone changing the double dagger to boldface, please revert it promptly.--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Leaning to supporting. Just a few minor things.

In the honorary academy awards, there's a mention of the 1st Governors awards which I think is a mistake.

The quote about the theme of the ceremony is not fully represented in the Variety source. Alternate: the press release[2]

In the ceremony information section, mention that the six young filmmakers were part of the Team Oscar contest so that people know what Channing Tatum was presenting.

I'm not familiar with ratings in the US so it would be helpful if you could clarify some things. The ratings in the infobox says: 43.72 million but the source says 43.74 overall and I can't find the 25.66% number in the source. In the ratings and reception section, THR source says 43.7 million not 43.72 million. I couldn't find the 25.66%, 39.93 share in the cited Businessweek source. The LA Times source says nearly 72 million not 72.78 million. Also the 13.79 and 34.52 share number, I can't see them in the cited USA Today source. Could you please explain?

Cowlibob (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob:*Done: I fixed everything you mentioned above. Here's some rundown of what I did:

The Governor's Award error was a typo from copying the sentence from another ceremony list. Thank you for spotting the mistake!
Replaced the source regarding the ceremony theme quote with the press release.
In the third paragraph of the Ceremony information, I mentioned that Channing Tatum introduced Team Oscar which was six film students who handed the statuettes to the presenters.
The ratings ordeal is a long one to explain but I'll attempt

The overall average viewership may be listed as 43.7 or 43.74, but they are the same number. Some people just round the decimals
The LA Times source listed it that 72 million total individual people watched at least portion of the ceremony (This count the total length of the broadcast. The 43.74 number represents the average viewership over each hour).
Ratings/share is the trickiest part to explain. A rating is the percentage of households watching a certain program at any give time while a share is a whole number representing the amount of households tuned into that same program in its particular time slot. The 18-49 rating measure the key demographic advertisers desire. For that number, I changed the source to a different one. For more info how ratings/share works, see here:[3]

--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Cowlibob (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great list. Learnt something new to boot. Cowlibob (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very organized and provides adequate information.--Jagarin 23:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes Ellen is an actress, but I'd call her a talk show host currently.
Comma after "nominations were revealed", no comma after "finally"
An Adele Dazeem twitter account isn't notable, that seems to happen for everything nowadays.
No comma after "In Memoriam tribute", and a period after Barry. Reywas92^Talk 03:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:*Done: I fixed everything you mentioned above. I dropped the Adele Dazeem twitter account phrase altogether. Thanks for the help.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, nicely done. I do follow the FLC page, so you don't have to notify me every time. Reywas92^Talk 01:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- In the critical reviews section, I would replace the informal words, such as lamented, quipped, raved etc, with the more traditional wrote, reviewed, noted, said etc. Other than that, this one has my support. Great job once again. :)-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

In the first sentence, a comma is needed after AMPAS.
Box office performance of nominated films: Not sure if my comment is valid, but was The Great Gatsby in the top 50? That not only got a nom, but actually won an Oscar, somehow.
DeGeneres' Oscar selfie: "DeGeneres and eleven ceremony attendees such as ...". Not sure why we have "such as" when the whole roster is given. In fact, the whole roster seems indiscriminate. Why not pick four or five of the most notable people in the photo (Pitt, Lawrence, Streep etc.) and only name them?
Also, "in" is needed in "participated a group selfie."
Adele Dazeem incident: A contraction ("wasn't") needs fixing.
Ratings and reception: The second paragraph is stubby with just one sentence. Can it be merged with the previous paragraph, which isn't overly large?
In Memoriam: Comma needed after "who died more than a week prior to the ceremony". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I fixed everything you suggested. I forgot about Gatsby so thank you for noticing it! I also trimmed the selfie list down to six actors. I merged the second sentence with the remainder; However, I may separate it again if the ceremony does won several Emmys.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent and well-sourced list. --Carioca (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work as usual.--Earthh (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The telecast garnered nearly 44 million viewers in the United States, making it the most watched Oscar ceremony since the 72nd Academy Awards in 2000." — Source? Jimknut (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimknut:*Done: Added resource. The Wrap is an :entertainment business journal, not a gossip website. And some media outlets will round off 43.7 to the nearest whole number therefore 44 million.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2014 (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) 02:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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