Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/57th Academy Awards/archive1

57th Academy Awards

Featured list candidates/57th Academy Awards/archive1

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 09:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1985 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 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, and 2024 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81talk 09:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042

There are 7 harv warnings, all of which need to be fixed.
"Robert Towne was credited as P. H. Vazak" has no inline citation.
"The telecast garnered 38.9 million viewers in the United States." needs a source because the text trying to support it outside of the lede says something different. It is "garnered 38.9 million viewers in the United States." compared to "an average of 38.9 million people over the length of the entire ceremony."
"For this first time in Oscar history," -> "For the first time in Oscar history,"
"actor Jack Lemmon would would" has a double "would".
"Jack's untiring energy, zest for living, zest for living and imaginative talents" has a double "zest for living".
Ping me when done please. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@History6042: I've fixed most of everything except the harv warnings. I don't know how to fix those errors unless you know of a different method to cite multiple times from the same book. As for the ratings, since the source is the only one I have supporting those figures (TVbythenumbers was once owned by the same company that once owned the Chicago Tribune) does not explicitly mention viewers in the United States or that it was based on an average, I just slightly tweaked the sentence.

--Birdienest81talk 22:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you did good but I cannot support an article with 7 harv warnings, oppose (no longer oppose). I will change this to a support if you can fix them. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to fix to the Harv warnings? I don’t know how to do so. Birdienest81talk 22:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@History6042: Your oppose is rather vague here and unhelpful to the nominator or anyone trying to make the corrections in good faith. These warnings do not appear at all in the default interface and aren't apparent from what I can see; consider trying to use your feedback as an educational opportunity rather than being overly critical. Sounder Bruce 22:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce, they are appearing for me in yellow/orange text. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These warnings are produced by a script. In the future, be sure to mention which script you are seeing warnings in, and specifically where they are; in this case, a more helpful comment would have been "Citation 13 has several warnings that were highlighted in this script that state "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named." It is much easier to resolve issues when there's clearer communication. Sounder Bruce 02:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@History6042: I have fixed the single reference error. The remaining are warnings, which are displayed by a user script you installed, and which happen to be false positives here – caused by using multiple citation templates inside a single reference footnote, which is permitted by WP:BUNDLING and does not violate the featured list criteria. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry I did not realize that it was a script. I will change this to a support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"The Sacramento Bee's George Williams It was a classy show all the way" - something's gone awry here
"He criticized the decision to cut off various winner's speeches" => "He criticized the decision to cut off various winners' speeches"
"Moreover, the show drew lower Nielsen ratings compared to the previous ceremony" - "moreover" would seem to imply that the actual viewing figure was also down, but as you don't actually say that the word is just sort of weirdly there not doing anything. I would either clarify the situation with regard to viewing figures or just lose the word "moreover"
That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done - I read your comments and have made the appropriate corrections based on them.

--Birdienest81talk 09:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have changed "moreover" to "also", but that doesn't really change the sense of the sentence. Saying "The show also garnered lower Nielsen ratings compared to the previous ceremony," only really makes sense if the audience figure mentioned in the previous sentence was lower than the previous year's figure. If it was, then state that explicitly. If it wasn't, then remove the "also" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I added the lower to the viewership figures since the reference used to support the sentence shows a table of Oscar ratings figures clearing indicating a decline in audience size compared to the previous year.

--Birdienest81talk 09:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]