Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Academy Award for Best Director/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) 23:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC).

Academy Award for Best Director

 * Nominator(s): Johanna (talk to me!) 17:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria. I have modeled this page on the pages Academy Award for Best Actor, Academy Award for Best Actress, Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, and Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, none of which were significantly contributed to by me. I have completely redone the table on the page and have also written a lead, a "multiple nominations and wins" section, and an "oldest and youngest winners" section. Thanks to any commenters on this historic and important subject! Johanna (talk to me!) 17:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: I can help you with the remainder of the sorting. Anyways, great job!
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment from Jimknut
 * It looks like the film titles still need some work with the sorting. Titles that begin with "A" or "An" should sort under the second word in the title.  Likewise, while it's optional, I think titles that begin with number (such as 12 Angry Men) should sort as if the number was spelled out (i.e. Twelve Angry Men). Jimknut (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * After looking at Birdie and Cowlibob's edits with regard to sorting, I understood how to do this and was then able to complete the sorting by myself. I am finished with all the films that begin with "A", "An", or "The". However, I do not think that I should change titles that begin with number, as this was how they were initially marketed. Also, it would be a bit silly to change 2001: A Space Odyssey to "Two Thousand One: A Space Odyssey" or 8½ to "Eight and a half". :) Thank you for the comment! Johanna (talk to me!) 02:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Source review (spot checks not done):


 * Additional comment from Birdienest81
 * I've replaced the TBD bar for this year's slate of nominees into bar that reads "Winner will be announced on February 28, 2016". From my understanding, that is how fellow featured lists from the Daytime Emmy Awards indicate a ceremony that has yet to happen.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support the nomination. --  Frankie talk 19:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too much trouble to fixup. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the entries in "See also" really belong as they don't pertain to the Oscars themselves
 * The Levy citation has a HARVref error since it doesn't properly connect to its source.
 * "Rainbow Media" and "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" shouldn't be italicized
 * I have fixed your comments. Thanks for your review! Johanna (talk to me!) 03:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And I now support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment from Miyagawa
 * The only comment I have is regarding the table formatting of the first awards. It isn't immediately apparent that three of the films were considered for the Dramatic category and two for the Comedic. As I see it, there are two options - either the bracketed Dramatic/Comedic lines are added to the nominees or just for that year, add a further column in to state dramatic/comedic. I would personally suggest for former, only because that way it won't break the sort function for the Director(s) column. Ping me back when you've had a chance to look at this and I'll lend my support. Miyagawa (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I have added a parenthetical of (Dramatic) or (Comedy) to the nominees as well. Johanna (talk to me!) 19:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, happy to Support. Miyagawa (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Source check - I have done a source review as seen above in my comments and now after checking them for verification, I think all of the references are meticulously sourced. The facts present in the article can easily be verified with the sources. --  Frankie talk 19:05, 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.