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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC) [1].[reply]

50th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/50th Academy Awards/archive1
• Featured list candidates/50th Academy Awards/archive2

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 23:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1978 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, 1985, 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. PLEASE NOTE: I have made a few revisions and corrections since the last nomination. Birdienest81talk 23:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:50th Academy Awards.jpg - Fair use
• File:Woody Allen (2006).jpeg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:Richard Dreyfuss.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:Diane Keaton 2012-1 (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Jason Robards-1975.jpg - Public Domain, source link needs to be fixed for WP:V
• File:Vanessa Redgrave (2011) cropped.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:John Williams tux.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Vilmos Zsigmond KVIFF.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.5
• File:Richard Chew, 2006.jpg - FAL
• File:Richard Edlund 1 (2).jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Bob Hope 1969 Publicity Photo.jpg - Public Domain, source links need to be fixed
• All images have proper captions and are relevant to the article, I'd suggest for the alt-text to be more descriptive.
  • That's all I got, ping me once you've done these. Arconning (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arconning: Done - Found an archived source for the Jason Robards photo and found a link on eBay to the same photo. Added a bit more alt text wherever possibble. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images, alt text should not describe a person's clothes or appearance unless the photo appears in an article about fashion or about the person's style.

--Birdienest81talk 06:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81 All good, support per image review. Arconning (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Presenters table is missing most of the scopes
• Presenters table is missing col scopes
• Presenters table is missing table title
• Performers table is missing all scopes
• Performers table missing a table title
• When you're declaring the scope of a row, while also defining a rowspan, you should be using "rowgroup" instead of "row" as the scope. As an example, rowspan="2" scope="row" should be rowspan="2" scope="rowgroup" instead
• Ref 6 – Add page 24
• Ref 7 – Add |at=sec. C, p. 15
• Ref 23 (third source) – Add |at=sec. C, p. 6
• Refs 6, 7, and 23 (third source) – Wikilink author Aljean Harmetz
• Ref 23 (first source) – Add page number (70)
• Ref 31 – Add a date of February 2009
• Could you clip some of the newspaper sources from Newspapers.com?

That's what I've got for now. Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Birdienest81 regarding the two reviews that have not yet been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I'm still addressing your comments. I've fixed the tables and modified most of the sources. I'm still in the process of retrieving some of the Newspapers.com sources. Birdienest81talk 10:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Done I have read all your comments and have made the necessary corrections and adjustments based on said comments.

--Birdienest81talk 01:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made some fixes so now I'll go ahead and support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "He noted that the Best Original Song performance were longer and more ridiculous than in previous" - think there is a missing word at the end of this sentence and the word "were" highlighted in bold should be replaced by the word "was"
• Wikilink the term Nielsen ratings in the Ratings and reception header

That's all I have EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @EnthusiastWorld37: Done - I have read both comments and responded appropriately with corrections based off of them.

--Birdienest81talk 09:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Presenters table seems unsourced

• At the beginning of the section before both tables, there is a sentence that states the individuals presented or performed musical numbers. It ends with a citation to a book which listed all the presenters and performers during the ceremony. Since that single citation lists almost every participant to back up the tables, I don't think it is necessary to end each role within the table or every individual with a citation since that would look messy and also seem redundant. I've placed one of two citations for stuff that's not covered on said citation.

• The row scopes in the presenters table appear to be using "|" and not "!"

• Changed "|" to "!"

• The Performers table appears to have the same issues

* See first point. It seems redundant to have every person or role end with a citation if one citation provides evidence.

• The listing for "That's Entertainment" should have an exclamation mark

• Added exclamation point to the title.

• Under "Winners and nominees", alot of one sentence headings, could these be grouped in a "Uncompetitive awards" heading?

• No because most of the section covers competitive awards and there are no mentions of noncompetitive awards awards. Besides, that section is devoted to notable firsts, and has been the agreed upon format for FL-worthy Oscar ceremony lists.

• The "PLO" abbevation only appears once so it could be removed

• Removed PLO from the sentence.

Ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 18:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @OlifanofmrTennant: Done - I have addressed your comments.

--Birdienest81talk 07:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Olliefant (she/her) 13:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• LA doesn't need a wikilink
• and was directed by Marty Pasetta could remove "was"
• With its 11 nominations and zero wins eleven was previously spealt out in this paragraph. For consistency I'd either spell out both or use 11 for both
• Theres quite a few violations of MOS:LAYOUT here with the multiple short subsections. I'm not sure if or how this could be fixed but it's something to think about
• of the fiftieth anniversary there are times elsewhere in the article where you don't spell out larger numbers (I think 22 is the example I'm thinking of) for consistency I would stick to one or the other for numbers above 12ish
• exactly 50 years later I wonder if it would make more sense to say 50 years earlier instead since you went from talking about the first ever meeting
• ABC also aired specials prior to the ceremony, highlighting the history of the awards maybe "to highlight..." would make more sense here?
• "anti-Israel" may benefit from a wikilink, perhaps Criticism of Israel
• later equaled this record with 11 nominations same as the other comments about spelling out numbers

That's all I have, great work. Ping me when you're able to get back to me on the feedback! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @IntentionallyDense: Done: I read your comments and made changes based off of them. For the non-competitive awards. I grouped them into a subsection called non-competitve awards and then made bold the different awards. Would you also care to look at List of Los Angeles Rams starting quarterbacks for its respective featured list promotion? I would appreciate the feedback even if you don't know anything about American football.

--Birdienest81talk 05:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Are "The Academy Awards" synonyms for "The Oscars"?, if so I would maybe recommend moving the bit about them also being referred to as "Oscars" to the first sentence to clarify

If you are able to get back to me on this one point I should be able to cast my vote. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense: The ceremony was not referred to on the broadcast as "The Oscars" until 2013, and even then, the award itself is known as the "Academy Award for Merit". There was a lengthy discussion about the name discourse on Talk:Academy_Awards#Official_name. I don't think that phrasing it as "The 50th Academy Awards ceremony, commonly known as the Oscars, was presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), honored films released in 1977 and took place on April 3, 1978, at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles." would make sense as every edition of the ceremony would be different. You couldn't just say the 1978 Oscars because even though the ceremony took place in April 1978, the Academy determines it as winners for achievements in films released the previous year the ceremony took place. Oscars is really a nickname for the award itself, and not the ceremony. Birdienest81talk 00:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me! If there has been in depth discussions in the past then I'm not going to question those as this is not my area of expertise. Support on prose. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 00:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

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