Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/88th 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC).

88th Academy Awards

 * Nominator(s): Nauriya (Rendezvous) and Birdienest81 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We are nominating the 2016 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. We followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were written. Nauriya (Rendezvous) and Birdienest81 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Guys, please review it!, its has been four days since i nominate this article. Please review it and state your verdicts. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 14:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been more than 20 days, since this nomination was made and it didn't receive any sufficient reviews despite the fact that article merely have any issues. Academy Awards articles are one of the most potential articles on Wikipedia so please i urge all to review it as soon as possible. It really needs FLC candidateship. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 18:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Support - It looks good and I can't find anything to comment on. Jimknut (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Resolved comments. Good list. Cowlibob (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WTF This is like the 4th FLC on Oscars where I come to ask to have the big 4 explicitly stated in the intro. Can you guys not remember from one FLC to another???? Nergaal (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Am i missing something? I didn't understood a word you just wrote above. I mean are you asking to add Big 4 categories in lead section? Nauriya (Rendezvous) 16:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the user is asking that the winners of the so called "Big 4" (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress) are mentioned in the lead. Cowlibob (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done: Added acting winners and directing winners to introduction.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Support – A fine piece of work, except for some minor quibbles:
 * The first four lines of the last para (lead) seems too listy. I think it's better to merge the 'Best Actress' line with the succeeding one.
 * ✅ Done, added "whereas"
 * I know the 'Films with multiple nominations and awards' section is just a summary, but there's no harm in sourcing it.
 * ✅ Done, cited with The Washington Post and The Rolling Stone references.
 * In refs. why is that the some publishers are linked while others are not? (The Hollywood Reporter, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, The Daily Telegraph to name a few)

&mdash; Vensatry (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done, all publishers' references that has been used at least once is being linked.
 * : All that concerns you mentioned has been resolved. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 18:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Support - Very strong list, and I cannot find anything that needs improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Source review passed, with the exception of the formatting of works- do not manually override the italicization of the "work" field by putting the names in italics. Not only does it break things, but the field is italicized for a reason- works are supposed the be italicized in citations (and in text). If you really don't like it, put the newspaper/magazine as the "publisher" - still wrong, but less so. Anyway, I fixed it myself, so now promoting. -- Pres N  23:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


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