Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/67th 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 Crisco 1492 23:15, 3 February 2015 [1].

67th Academy Awards

Featured list candidates/67th Academy Awards/archive1

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1995 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, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. I have a little more time on my hands to work on this. Birdienest81 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support This looks good. The only thing I found was that in the ratings and reception section it says "6% decrease" in viewing figures when it's actually 7% increase from the previous year if I did my maths correctly. That's easy to fix though. Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: Changed figure. Oh, and I will look over your nomination, but it most likely a support as well. Thank you.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from FrankBoy _(Buzz) 22:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"commonly referred as Oscars". It should be "the Oscars".
"in 23 categories honoring films released in 1994." Same as above, add "the" before "films".
"Forrest Gump won six awards including..." Add a comma (,) after "awards".
"XXX (category) winner became first, second or whatever" is repetitive.
Since it is not a fashion article, avoid talking about subjects' clothes, look etc in ALT. Per WP:ALT#Importance of context.
It should be "the" Oscars everywhere.
It looks like that the ref. is supporting "indicated with a double dagger" as well. "Winners are listed first and indicated with a double dagger (‡).[15]" → "Winners[15] are listed first and indicated with a double dagger (‡)."

--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 16:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: I have fixed everything above except the XXX winner. I'm not very sure how to fix that since taking those words would diminish the significance of each fact.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — FrankBoy _(Buzz) 22:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Sorry for the delay![reply]

The intro is too much on the "light" side. It doesn't even mention Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption. Even the text below don't mention these two cult classics. No critics were surprised that they did not win anything? Nergaal (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp Fiction won Best Original Screenplay as indicated in the table. This list primarily focuses on the winners/nominees and the production of how the ceremony. I understand that many critics were upset that Pulp Fiction or The Shawshank Redemption were not named Best Picture, but for the sake for neutrality purposes and avoiding accusations of bias, we agreed to stick to what has actually won. We've had issues about who was snub in several instances, but there have been many opinions as to what has been snubbed or not. We decided to stick to what actually has happened. The only opinions mentioned are the critical reviews of the telecast since it pertains to the ceremony.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I get your point. You are saying that what has happened is "many critics were upset" but that is not covered in the article. Nergaal (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Oscar ceremony articles, we won't give attention to what was snubbed for the reason of objectivity. It's kinda like when people thought Fruitvale Station got snubbed for the 86th Oscars. Even though there were critics who thought it was snubbed, reviewers for WP:FLC deemed it too subjective.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list is about the ceremony. If a film is perceived to be "snubbed" (which occurs every year by the way), that can be expressed in the articles devoted to the films themselves. By mentioning the winners/nominees, we are just reporting what happened, not picking a side. Cowlibob (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support very well-compiled and sourced list Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:23, 2 February 2015 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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