;Comments from Johanna
- "(commonly referred to as Oscars)" why is this necessary? It's also a bit of a disruption for me…if you want to refer to them as Oscars at some point, put it closer to the top. That's just my opinion.
- In your refs, you seem to include the owner of the publication, a field that I have never seen before? Is this generally accepted and standard?
- It's not a necessity, but according to Cowlibob it can be useful in determining credibility.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add something about the ceremony's negative reception in the lead, as it does make up a substantial part of one of the later sections.
- After you list the major awards, there's a space that shouldn't be there.
- "He previously won a Best Picture award as co-producer of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Who was the first person to achieve this feat?
- Done: Added Olivier reference.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "In view the 60th anniversary of the Academy Awards," I'm not sure what you mean here, and it's clearly grammatically incorrect. If you mean "Because it was" I'm not sure what the hiring of Goldwyn, Jr. has to do with it.
- I'm not really seeing anything in the sources that says that Chase was hired directly by Goldwyn.
- "Despite the Writers Guild of America refused" it should be "refusing"
- Done: Changed refused to refusing.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "the three head writers for the telecast" should be a comma before and after the names of the writers.
-
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity, how were you able to access ref 27 (the USA Today source)?
- I obtained the information using ProQuest NewsStand available through the Los Angeles Public Library's online database (only library cardholders can access the database, unless you know of a local library that provides acceess). According Wikipedia:SOURCELINKS, "The basic bibliographic information you provide should be enough to search for the source in any of these databases that have the source. Don't add a URL that has a part of a password embedded in the URL."
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the multiple awards and nominations tallies, I'm assuming that your observations about the nominations of top 50 box office films are standard, implied across sections, and not OR, right? That's not meant to be a patronizing comment--I'm just making sure. :)
- If you can't find any mixed or positive reviews, that's fine of course, but I would remove the "most" from media outlets.
-
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the verbs you use to describe the commentary are a bit questionable in terms of POV, in my opinion. I particularly don't like "whine" and, to a lesser extent, "bemoan" and "lament". "Complain" is fine, but for the others, I would tend towards words like "criticize", "denounce", or "comment negatively", as they are more encyclopedic IMO.
- Done: Changed negative sounding words to more neutral verbs as per previous nominations. According to Cowlibob, we have to be as passive as possible irrespective of the negative or positive content.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: This looks like a very good article! As you can see, I just had a few prose comments. The tables look great and it's well on its way to becoming an FL! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johanna: Thanks for the feedback. Right now, I have school-related work to do, but I'm addressing your comments one at a time.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
