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).

69th Academy Awards

 * Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

Source review (spotchecks not done):

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

Support the nomination. --  Frankie talk 19:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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


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

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)

- – SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.