Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/89th 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 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC).

89th Academy Awards

 * Nominator(s): Nauriya (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2017 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I have 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, 2015, and 2016 were written. Nauriya (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

After so many FLs you guys still can't have intros that spell out the big 4. Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have edited that and reconstructs the section. Looking forward for more suggestions. Nauriya (talk) 20:32, April 1, 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you guys can probably expand the highlights part of the infobox to mention the big 4. Nergaal (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the lead section already detailed all of the Big Five and it would be repetitive to include in the infobox and they have never been included before. But its not about what previous FLCs have done it or not, the reason perhaps is that it will look overcrowded. I would like to take more comments on that, and if everybody supports this, will include. Nauriya (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As you have resolved your comments please give your consensus. Nauriya - Let's talk, 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC).


 * Alright, Support. -- Pres N  01:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Its been two months now, please review further or proceed to closing this. Nauriya - Let's talk 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC).
 * I could close it as not promoted if that's what you prefer, or you could find some more people to review it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the point of all of this then? I want this to be promoted to FLC. Nauriya - Let's talk 20:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC).
 * It has one support. That's never been enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have invited editors to review. Nauriya - Let's talk 23:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC).


 * Support Can't see any issue. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support FrB.TG (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review –
 * All of the references are reliable enough, and the link-checker tool shows that they all work.
 * Yes checking myself also.


 * Spot-checks of refs 4, 24, and 32 revealed one issue: ref 24 says that Taurog was 32 when he won his Best Director award, not 33 as the article states, and his bio article here seems to confirm it. That sentence will need to be reworked when correcting the problem.
 * ✅ I am surprised no one noticed tht before, however Chazelle is still the youngest winner, just changed the sentence structure and added one more references.
 * The article is saying that Taurog was 260 days older than Chazelle at the time of his win. This is incorrect according to the sources, which say that Taurog was 32 years, 260 days old when he won. The time period (222 days) will need to be fixed. Also, the new ref's access date is in a different format than the others, so it should be converted to the style used in the rest of the cites. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Dates format is corrected, and the the age difference has also been updated. Nauriya - Let's talk 17:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC).


 * The only formatting issue I see is that the hyphens in the titles of refs 45 and 47 should be converted into en dashes instead. Otherwise things look good on the source front.


 * This isn't strictly a review of sources presently being used, but I happened to notice on a quick glance that the second paragraph of Box office performance of nominated films and the first paragraph of Best Picture announcement error don't have any sources at all. I'd expect to see this addressed before this list is promoted. The lack of sources for the error paragraph really puzzles me, as this is what the ceremony in question is best remembered for.
 * ✅ for error paragraphs.
 * ✅ for box office first paragraph, for second its general actually, only reference that can be given is from Box office Mojo, if you have better reference then please suggest. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can't cite that paragraph reliably, then it should probably be removed altogether. I wouldn't want to see totally unsourced content creeping into FLs. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I have cited it where it was necessary, and this is how in each previous FLC. Because it is not something trivial or fact that needs reference or proof to be included in the article. Nauriya - Let's talk 17:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC).

- Nauriya - Let's talk 17:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC).

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.