Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/96th 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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC).

96th Academy Awards

 * Nominator(s):  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. It followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1986, 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, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 ceremonies were written.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 13:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Drive-by comment – While it's not required for similar articles to use the same format, this article currently does not use the same format as previous years (even though the nomination suggests it does). Sections are in a different order, and the winners and nominees section in particular needs to be rewritten to actually focus on key points instead of the various trivia thrown in there haphazardly. A more thorough proofreading might be in order. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @PrinceofPunjab: Any comments on this? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @RunningTiger123 After making some edits, I believe that article is now following the format more closely to the prior ceremonies than when your comment was made. On Trivial section, I am open to editing the stuff you think is more trivial for the general reader.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 14:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll come back for a full review later, but I would suggest rewriting the trivia section to focus on items that are firsts (or maybe seconds/thirds if they aren't super contrived) or records. For instance, Scorsese being the oldest nominee for Best Director is an actual record, but six couples received nominations that they shared together in their respective categories is just a random fact. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I promised a full review, so here's one now.
 * No source in either the infobox or the body for the producers or runtime
 * ✅ Done.


 * Network should probably just be ABC (ABC.com and the ABC app are just different ways to watch the main network, as far as I know)
 * ✅ Done.


 * "The films which went home with one award each include..." – awkward wording
 * ✅ Done.


 * "An American Sign Language livestream was broadcast..." – probably can just go in the body instead of the lead
 * ✅ Done.


 * As noted before, the trivia in the "Winners and nominees" section should be cleaned up
 * Governors Awards should go after the main awards – this matches previous years (which, while not strictly required, is more convenient for readers)
 * ✅ Done.


 * In general, the "In Memoriam" section also goes later
 * ✅ Done.


 * Use lighter shades of gold for the award headings to meet MOS:COLOR (see colors used in previous year)
 * ✅ Done.


 * I'm conflicted as to whether the names listed all at once at the end of the "In Memoriam" section should be included. It's really hard to parse the sea of links and if they weren't notable enough to get their own moment, they may not be notable enough to be listed here. Would be curious to know what other reviewers think.
 * "Pre-ceremony information" can just be "Ceremony information", again for consistency
 * ✅ Done.


 * Move the introductory paragraphs under "Ceremony" up to this section
 * ✅ Done.


 * "For the last two awards" – suggest "years" instead of "awards" to make clear it is not referring to award categories
 * ✅ Done.


 * "underrepresented" and "cognitive or physical disabilities" – no need to quote these common terms (MOS:DOUBT)
 * ✅ Done.


 * "the Barbenheimer phenomenon" – remove italics
 * ✅ Done.


 * The whole paragraph about Messi the Dog feels a bit excessive. If it's relevant, it can probably be discussed in the "Reception" section. Speaking of which...
 * I really like the way the "Reception" section is written; I actually get a sense of what parts people liked and didn't like and what made this year's ceremony unique. Some small quibbles:
 * "The highlights of the ceremony are considered by many to be" → "Highlights in reviews included" (more neutral)
 * ✅ Done.


 * "respective wins of Japanese films Godzilla Minus One and The Boy and the Heron" – not convinced that "some people liked the winners" is relevant to ceremony reception, that's almost always true
 * ✅ Done.


 * "in 18–49 demo rating" → "among adults ages 18–49" (less jargon)
 * ✅ Done.


 * "from 4.03 rating of last year's ceremony" → "from the 4.03 rating of the previous year's ceremony"
 * ✅ Done.


 * "is so far the largest viewership" → "set the largest viewership" (won't fall out of date)
 * ✅ Done.


 * "post-COVID-19 pandemic era" → "post–COVID-19 pandemic era" (MOS:PREFIXDASH)
 * ✅ Done.

If you need help with any of this, I suggest reaching out to – he's worked on a fair few of these lists. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @RunningTiger123 I have edited the article according to almost all of the suggestions by you. I will address the other points soon.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , : It seems that Princeof Pujab decided to nominate the list for featured list. Unfortunately, the list as it is right would definitely not pass FLC criteria. Among the many issues, the facts sections reads like a trivia list, there are questionable sources, and some sections could be combined together. Usually, I wait until the Emmy Awards are given out before I nominate the ceremony for FLC. If you don't mind, I'm probably, going to do a full rewrite of the ceremony on a sandbox and make it more in line with other Oscar ceremony lists that have featured list status. Right now, this certainly would not pass.
 * Please note, I am down one computer and don't have access to the one that is working at the moment. So it may take some time to do a full rewrite. Birdienest81  talk  08:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree the list needs work as it currently stands, the implication that you specifically need to do a rewrite (on a separate page) reads a bit like WP:OWNERSHIP to me. Maybe it would be better to work on the existing article with in mainspace instead of pursuing a full rewrite in a user sandbox? RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. While I appreciate the concerted efforts to maintain consistency among these Academy Awards articles, it may be to their detriment as these keep growing in coverage. The paragraphs for this one in particular have excessive parabreaks in the "Winners and nominees" and "Ceremony information" sections, which have several flow issues and could benefit from another c/e. I suggest adjusting the first para in the lead from "The 96th Academy Awards ceremony, which was presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)," to "The 96th Academy Awards ceremony, presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)," and I also suggest adding before Kimmel: "The ceremony was directed by Hamish Hamilton." Other than that, I think it may be having an over-reliance on notes, such as in the lead for Kimmel's prior hosting duties and for the Governor Awards' prior date, which could be converted into prose text. There are also plenty of references that would benefit from links to their websites. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review
I'm puzzled that many images have alt text solely consisting of a full stop. Only the Kimmel image has any alt text more descriptive than that. I strongly recommend adding more descriptive alt text to the rest of the images in the listicle, including those that are grouped together by the  template; see its documentation for details on adding alt text to such groups of images.

Other than that, all seems good: Dylan 620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All images except for one are appropriately licensed for either PD or CC; the sole exception—the poster for the ceremony—has a valid fair-use rationale.
 * All images are of good quality and contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
 * Sources check out for each image.

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for over two months without any support, and I'm going to need to close it to keep the queue moving. Feel free to renominate it in the future. -- Pres N  02:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


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