Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/93rd 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) 00:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC) [1].

---

93rd Academy Awards

93rd Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/93rd Academy Awards/archive1

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2021 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 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, and 2020 ceremonies were written. Please note that because this ceremony took place during a pandemic, this list may look slightly different than others. Birdienest81 (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "rather than its usual late-February" - seems to be missing a word. Maybe "late-February date".........? Fixed: Added the word "date" after "February". "making it theleast watched" - should be a space in "the least" Fixed: added space to read "the least." "He, along with Oscars red carpet pre-show host Ariana DeBose and actor Lin-Manuel Miranda presented" - need a comma after Miranda to close the clause Fixed: Added comma after Miranda. "In an press conference" => "In a press conference" Fixed: Changed "an" to "a". "In lieu of the ceremony date change" - "in lieu of" means "instead of", so I don't think that's what is meant Fixed: Changed "in lieu of" nto "Due to the" at the beginning of the sentence. "said films were originally scheduled to have a theatrical release and are subsequently" => "said films were originally scheduled to have a theatrical release and were subsequently" Fixed: Changed the "are" to a "were". "was entertaining than the average" - should that be "more entertaining"? Fixed: Added an "more" between "was" and "entertaining". "Mike Hale of The New York Times wrote, Sunday’s broadcast" - missing opening quote mark Fixed: Added an opening quotation mark. "saying that montage was edited" => "saying that the montage was edited" Fixed: Added a "the" in between "that" and "montage". That's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC) @Birdienest81: - drop me a line when the rest of the above are resolved and I will pop back...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude:: Fixed everything you listed above. Please review the article one more time since I did add a few items such as a television review from USA Today and revised the Chadwick Boseman-Anthony Hopkins controversy section. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies for taking so long to get back to this one. I made a few minor tweaks, but the one thing outstanding for me is that I don't really get a sense of how the "Boseman NFT controversy" actually relates to the Oscars. The paragraph says "Furthermore, artist Andre Oshea apologized on Instagram after a Non-fungible token (NFT) he designed in the likeness of Boseman's face sparked online backlash", but there's no context of how it links to the ceremony (it just reads like some guy decided to do a thing, which left me wondering how it was relevant to this article). The Deadline article used as a source says "An NFT created of the late Chadwick Boseman for the 93rd Academy Awards" but even that doesn't really explain in what way it was "for" the ceremony. Is it possible to elaborate at all? Bear in mind that this question may in part stem from the fact that I am decidedly middle-aged and un-hip and don't really understand the concept of an NFT...... :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies for the intrusion, but that was my mistake. For some reason, I had misinterpreted the NFT situation as being more connected to the ceremony than it actually was. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:: Aoba47 removed the NFT items from the section. Is there anything left to address?

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The Presenters and Performers tables are missing rowscopes and captions, though you have them in Film awards and nominations

• Fixed: Reformatted the presenters and performers tables to include rowscopes and captions just like the wins and nominations tally table.

• I think this is the first one of these that's come through since I started doing accessibility reviews, so I'm working out what to do with the main "table". It's not really a "data table", because it's really just a bunch of boxes stacked next to each other for visual effect. MOS:LTAB says that in that case you shouldn't use a table element at all but html divs, but that if you do use a table, you should add ' role="presentation"' to the table. I've gone ahead and done that- I'm not going to ask that you try to recreate the look with divs, as that would be a lot, but consider going back and adding ' role="presentation"' to the prior Oscars lists to help screen reader software-using readers out with being able to parse your lists. --PresN 22:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Fixed: Added a role="presentation" to the winners and nominees table.

@PresN: - I've addressed both comments and made the necessary adjustments.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: - I've added captions to the presenters and performers tables and now I have addressed your comments in full.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Addressed comments

I have a comment for this part, by actors Priyanka Chopra and Nick Jonas. While Jonas has acted, he is far more well-known as a singer so I think calling him an actor here is rather misleading. For this part, during a live globalstream originating from London, I believe it should be "global streaming" as two words. I would also move the streaming link up to this part (since it is the first time it is mentioned) and de-link it later on. Apologies in advance for this question if it is obvious. While I love film, I have honestly not kept with recent releases and I have not seen (or really paid much attention to) any of these films. My question is about this part, Chinese-born filmmaker Chloé Zhao became. Why "Chinese-born" as opposed to just "Chinese"? For this part, the oldest ever performer to win a competitive acting Oscar, I think the following the oldest performer to ever win a competitive acting Oscar sounds better to me. I am not sure the African-American link is entirely necessary in this part, faced by members of the African-American community, and I would honestly recommend removing it. For this part, Guests were also asked to wear face masks whenever, the link leads to a disambiguation page and it would be best to avoid that. I disagree with the removal of the NFT criticism as that was something very much tied into the criticism of this awards show. The NFT was designed to be given to the nominees so it was a part of the ceremony. Apologies for my rather extreme delay in my review for this. You have done a great job with this list. The prose was engaging and I genuinely enjoyed reading this. Once my above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope this is helpful. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC) @Aoba47: - Done: I've addressed all the comments by making the necessary corrections. Thank you for your feedback. --Birdienest81 (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC) Thank you for the responses. I saw ChrisTheDude's comment on the NFT and upon further reflection and research, this source reports that it was not really connected to the awards ceremony. Apologies for my mistake on this. I remember hearing about it a lot in the days surrounding the ceremony, but it turns out that there was misinformation and the editor who removed this was correct so I would remove it. Apologies for the back-and-forth on this. This was my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC) I have removed the NFT part. Apologies if that is over-stepping. Aoba47 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - Thank you for removing the NFT. I actually do agree with ChrisTheDude's comment that the NFT issue is only tangently connected to the Oscars, but not signigcant enough to warrant inclusion on this page. I would say it would be more appropriate on the Chadwick Boseman page itself, but that article is a Good Article and I would suggest asking the user who promoted that article to GA before including it on that page. So, is there any other outstanding issue left on this list?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind response. Apologies again for my mistake with the NFT part. I support the article for promotion. You have done a great job with this. Aoba47 (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from HAL

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 21:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

*due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cinema and television It may be more concise to just say "due to the COVID-19 pandemic" Fixed: Revised phrase in the intro. by actors Priyanka Chopra and singer Nick Jonas is awkward. Is "actors" a typo? Maybe just drop their job titles. Fixed: Changed actor to actress and added singer to Nick Jonas. after Miyoshi Umeki who won the same category for her role in 1957's Sayonara There should be a comma before "who". Or you could rephrase it. Fixed: Added comma, accordingly. "African Americans

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 21:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "received mostly negative reviews and it garnered" → "received mostly negative reviews and garnered" or "received mostly negative reviews, and it garnered" Fixed: Added comma. Not sure why some categories (i.e., Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress) are wikilinked in the paragraph introducing the winners/nominees while other categories (Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Original Song) aren't Fixed: Delinked the categories to avoid overlinking since the section is approximately close to the table (consistent with other ceremony lists). Unless the cited source from AMPAS notes it, I don't think we should note Chadwick Boseman's posthumous nomination in the table; that detail is better suited to the section's introductory paragraph. Fixed: Removed reference to posthumous nomination. It is mentioned in the Best Actor controversy. In the table of presenters, Bong Joon-ho should sort by "Bong" Fixed: Used slightly different sorting template to fix Joon-Ho's sorting by "Bong". "Originally in April 2017, the Academy had scheduled" → "In April 2017, the Academy scheduled" (maybe change "decided" to "later decided" in the next sentence to help with this change) Fixed: Removed the word "originally" in the first sentence and added "later" before "decided". "However, the annual Academy Governors Awards" → "The annual Academy Governors Awards" (don't start two consecutive sentences with "However") Fixed: Removed the second "however" from the sentence. "and in a cinematic aspect ratio" – this lacks a verb to introduce it. (If you removed the other two elements in the list, you would get "including in a cinematic aspect ratio", which is wrong.) Add a verb at the start – maybe "using" or something along those lines. Fixed: Replaced "with" with "using" at the start of the clause. "In the Heights, respectively during the ceremony" → "In the Heights, respectively, during the ceremony" Fixed: Added another comma between "respectively" and "during". Clarify that the Hollywood Roosevelt was the site of the inaugural Oscars by replacing "which" with "the latter of which" Fixed: Added the phrase "the latter of" before the word "which" in the sentence. Add url-access=limited to sources from The New York Times, Rolling Stone, and Los Angeles Times Fixed: Added access limited template to said source and USA Today. I recall an earlier version of the article summarizing reviews with information from Rotten Tomatoes – any reason why that was removed? In an earlier discussion on my talk page, I with other editors determined that using Rotten Tomatoes to measure the critical consensus of a particular show is pretty sketchy at best since its sample of reviews of a ceremony is quite small compared to say film reviews or television reviews. An example would be the 72nd Academy Awards which is missing some positive reviews from the Boston Herald and the Los Angeles Times. Furthermore, according to Inside Oscar 2 by Damien Bona, reviews of the show were more on the positive side of things as opposed to lukewarm as Rotten Tomatoes suggests. So the score of Rotten Tomatoes may have missed other reviews of the show that were positive. — RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC) One more quick note: maybe mention somewhere that the show had no host? I know that's been the pattern for several years at this point, but it's still different from most awards shows and probably merits a mention. RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC) Fixed: Added a sentence at the beginning indicating that no one hosted the ceremony. @RunningTiger123: - I've addressed all the comments from above and made the necessary adjustments from said comments. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Support – I made one small tweak to the wording, but otherwise, everything looks good. As to the Rotten Tomatoes rating, it's perfectly fine to leave it out; I just wanted to make sure you were aware it was out there. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed: [2]

Formatting

• Ref 6 Deadline Hollywood missing link (should unlink in ref 10 then, I'm assuming)
• The rest looks good...

Reliability

• No issues, great sourcing all around from what I can see

Verifiability

• checked a few, no issues.
• Alas Birdienest81, finding less and less issues in your lists every time :)—Pass for source review, just look at the one minor linking thing above. Aza24 (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: - Done - Linked Deadline Hollywood on ref 6 and did the opposite for ref 10.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

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