• The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences linked twice in the lead.
• MoS suggests not to link big cities, so de-link Los Angeles in the lead.
• "with the late Alfred Newman for the second most Oscar nominations of any individual" – I think "late" is a bit informal and redundant, so I suggest to omit that.
• Are you sure that winners are "highlighted in boldface"?
• BBC News needs to be linked in ref 17.
• Ref 20: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences – ditto.
• I think United States should go away from the entries in the Bibliography section. -- Frankie _talk 22:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @FrB.TG: Done: I have fixed everything listed above.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I removed most of the word "also" throughout the article. I think the phrase "other winners included" is important at the beginning of the article since it encompasses and enumerates the other films that won awards prior to the in depth coverage of the article.

• For better prose, do "Brokeback Mountain garnered the most nominations, with eight total…"

• Done

• Several of your references do not have links to the publishers, why so?

• I only linked the publisher's name on the first mention in the references section to avoid overlinking. I do not mind linking several times for convenience, but that's what was given to me during my first submission for FLC.

• "the aforementioned category" is a bit vague and made me stop and look for a second to realize what that was, so perhaps do "that category" instead.

• Done

• To preface the section on various records and barriers being broken, I would put a sentence like "The ceremony marked several notable achievements by multiple individuals and films."

• Done: Added "Several notable achievements by multiple individuals and films occurred during the ceremony" as the second sentence of that paragraph.

• I personally prefer boldface to the double-dagger thing, but you can do either--it's not a big deal to me.

• According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, bold lettering is discouraged in marking up winners because some screen readers cannot differentiate bold text from non-bold text.

• Are sources required for the multiple awards and nominations tables or not?

• That issue came up in the FLC for Academy Award for Best Actor. Cowlibob said, "Number of nominations is implicitly verifiable by the main table."

• I would give a little more background on Cates' role in the previous ceremony's failure.

• I am iffy on this one. I know that 77th ceremony's ratings were a decline from the 76th show's numbers, and I do know that most television viewers did not like Chris Rock's performance, but I don't think the failure (to attain higher ratings) would be attributed to solely Cates, though. Furthermore, the sinking ratings could be attributed to the fact that fewer people saw the Best Picture nominees (compared with last year which had Best Picture winner Lord of the Rings: Return of the King). The link in the phrase previous year's ceremony links to everything including the ratings and reviews and is pretty straightfoward.

• I think you dropped a "before" in the sentence starting "In a statement…"

• Not sure where the word "before" belongs in the sentence. Could you restate that sentence so I know what you mean?

• Although a "before" could have worked, you probably just dropped a comma, so I added that. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 15:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The show received a mixed reception from media publications. Some media outlets were more critical of the show." Not only is this choppy, the second sentence is kind of obvious given the first one. I like keeping the "second sentences" for both the positive and negative reviews, but instead of just restating, expand it—i.e. "some commented negatively on the show, mainly criticizing x, y, and z." Also, I would switch the positive and negative--for mixed reviews, I usually put the positive first.

• Done: Switched the positive and negative paragraphs. I think the reviews are straightforward in what each review liked/disliked.

@Birdienest81: A few comments. Looks like a great list! Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 00:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @BenLinus1214:: I've addressed or responded to everything above with either comments or changes. Thanks for the feedback.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominees were announced --> The nominees for the 78th Academy Awards were announced
• it was revealed that 2005 host Chris Rock would not return --> it was stated that 2005 host Chris Rock would not return

• @Vivvt: Done: It looks like Ssven2 helped me the latter two comments. For the "uncategorized redirects", I tried to replace the URLs with newer ones. All of them now work except the Filmsite.org link which I can't seem to fix. Anyways, even if they were "Uncategorized redirects", the webpage technically still works in itself. Anyways, thanks for the feedback.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jimknut: Done: Added statistic that Newman and Williams were tied with 45 nominations for second place in most nominations. Added footnote in Notes indicating Disney as nomination leader with 64.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]