Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/87th 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 01:21, 21 September 2015.

87th Academy Awards

 * Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2015 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, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Support — I can not find anything wrong at the moment. It looks excellent to me. Jimknut (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support — Another brilliant list from Birdie. A sure-shot FL material. Krish |  Talk  16:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Good job. Sorry for the delay in returning. I do reiterate that you should look at standardising the Academy Award ceremonies lists when you have more time. Cowlibob (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How come you guys could add a criticism section to this but to the previous ones you couldn't? Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In this specific ceremony, there was a fair amount of coverage regarding the lack of diversity among the nominees that was not pertaining to only film critics (i.e.: being covered in a neutral third person perspective). Usually we do not include what was snubbed at the Oscars for Neutral point of view purposes and objectivity concerns. However, if there is criticism that results in action that affects the production of the ceremony (protests against homophobia at the 64th Academy Awards and protest regarding lack of diversity at the 68th Academy Awards) without being related to any specific film in particular, then it was agreed that it can be included. The criticism was in response to a lack of diversity based on omission of not just one film in particular (you might think it was because of solely Selma, but also other films such as Beyond the Lights, Dear White People, and Get on Up with prominently black actors were overlooked as well). Furthermore this is focusing on a social problem in general rather than a snubbing of particular films. So we won't give focus on film critics whining that Forrest Gump, Shakespeare in Love, or Crash got "robbed" for the sake of objectivity purposes. Those can be dealt at the respective film's articles.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All I am trying to say is that even those points can be briefly mentioned in those articles. If this was widespread and received a whole section, in those cases they probably warrant a sentence somewhere. There are plenty of respectable sources that some actors/movies surprisingly did not win or get nominated in other years. Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if they come from respectable sources, that does not mean they should be used. There were many people who thought Fruitvale Station was snubbed for the 86th Oscars or Michael Fassbender in Best Actor for Shame. Every year there will always be perceived snubs. Iget what you are trying to say, but in order to satisfy neutrality, there has to be a rebuttal statement or article defending such choices which is difficult. Snubs and surprises are very arbitrary. Anyways, I suggest you bring this up in the respective talk pages of the ceremonies you think is appropriate. Better yet, ask the FL delegates such as Crisco 1492, Giants2008, or PresN about your inqueries. This FLC should only be devoted to stuff pertain to this specific ceremony.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are some actual comments:
 * I don't see the point of having the acronym AMPAS in the intro, nor the start time of the ceremony (they can simply me mentioned only later); "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences " is used twice in the intro.
 * AMPAS is placed in the intro in order to identify the abbreivation. Removed Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and used AMPAS to avoid redundancy.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * the governors awards stuff from the intro should be trimmed town to half; there is other more important information that can be present in the intro instead
 * Done: Removed the Governors Awards items since they are mentioned below the competitive winners table and seems redundant. Moved the Sci-Tech Awards sentence to first paragraph like most Oscar ceremony lists. That sentence is still important since that is part of the annual awards festivities.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * the intro should mention all the big five winners
 * Done: Second intro paragraph now is only devoted two winners of Picture, Director, and four Acting Awards. It also has who won most and small mention of ratings.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "every nominated film won at least one award" you eman every fo the films nominated in the best film category probably, since not all shorts and documentaries could win
 * Done: Changed to "every Best Picture nominee"
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * why not have winners in bold?
 * Done: Originally there was a dispute over if bold can be used simultaneously with the dagger because according to Manual of Style/Accessibility, screen readers cannot usually detect bold text. The Rambling Man said that the bold text can remain as long as there is a symbol that screen readers can detect (daggers in this case).
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * the gover nor awards section probably does not need an extra bullet for the explanations; remove the extra bullets or even merge the explanation row with the winner
 * Done: Both award and reason are on same line separated by em-dash
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * you can probably have "The following 17 films received multiple nominations:" move as table cation with the "|+ [insert caption here]" so you dont have sentences ending in "
 * Done
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "the box office section can probably discuss the oscar bump the movies received (i.e. how much more they made after they were nominated)
 * Done: Large table added with pre-nomination, pre-awards, and post-awards box office figures.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Memoriam can probably easily use 3 rows, and I think some people complained about featuring non-film related entries here
 * Done
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've addressed all your comments.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support nice work! Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could you hide your comments in a bar so that these comments don't make a mess and that the FLC delegates can see your comments have been resolved. Keep the support comment outside the bar.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG


 * Support – Very good piece of work. --  Frankie talk 21:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For clarification, I support the accessibility improvement. I'm not qualified to support or oppose the content itself, as I do not follow the awards. Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The following comment by was inadvertently included in the above discussion on accessibility. I do not know whether it has been resolved, so I am not comfortable hiding it: "My only other comments would be replacing 'Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)' with just 'Birdman' for recognizability (not everyone knows it by the full title) and replacing 'Hollywood, Los Angeles' with 'Hollywood, California' since it seems incomplete to list a city/county/neighborhood/etc. without a state. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)" Snuggums is welcome to edit this section, including removal of my comment wrap, to reflect their current concerns. Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no concerns left, Thisisnotatest, since the dagger has been implemented and the prose has been adjusted. Reaffirming my support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 20 September 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.  Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


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