Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment/2008

Promoted

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Batman (1989 film)

Passed. Steve ^{T • C} 08:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article because I think A-class status is a safe process to get to featured article nomination. This article has recently gone through a peer review and I think it's "ready". Comments are welcomed to make this article better. Wildroot (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The article is too blue for me, so I suggest a mass-delinking. Is that helpful? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 11:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Steve

• Comments, suggestions, etc. from Steve ^{T • C} A good, interesting article. I've read it before, but there have been significant changes since the last time. I've split this review into two sections. The first concerns issues that probably need sorting before the article can reach A-class. The second section contains suggestions that would almost certainly be brought up during any future featured article candidacy. I know this list looks long, but really, most of these are minor fixes that can be dealt with easily enough:

*'A'-class issues:

• • Infobox:
    • Per WP:FLAG, there's probably no need for the flag image. I'd also be tempted to delink United States, an article that wouldn't really add to a reader's understanding of the topic.
  • Lead:
    • Per WP:PIPE, the link to the character article in the first line should encompass "of the same name" rather than just the last two words.
    • The statement "The film is the first installment of Warner Brothers' Batman film series, in which Batman deals with the rise of a powerful villain known as "The Joker"" makes it sound as if the whole series deals with Batman v. Joker. Suggestion: "The film, in which Batman deals with the rise of a powerful villain known as "The Joker", is the first installment of Warner Brothers' Batman film series."
    • Should it be "Warner Bros." throughout, rather than "Warner Brothers"?
    • The italics are a bit fudged in the third paragraph.
    • Remove the film series link from the fourth paragraph. It's already linked in the first.
    • Is the "breach of contract" situation a prominent enough incident for the lead?
  • "Plot" section:
    • Overlinking throughout. See "vigilante", "corrupted", "cathedral" and "bell tower" for examples. All common enough terms that they don't need definitions and explanations. Check for others.
    • The first line ("With a 200th anniversary celebration approaching...") doesn't mention what it's an anniversary of.
    • The mention of Joker's "laughing sound machine" seems trivial and the summary works without it.
  • "Cast" section:
    • This seems like a mere list fleshed out solely with plot information. Some prefer the real world casting information to be included in this section. Or consider rolling this section into the "Casting" subsection of "Development".
    • Some overlinking ("hoax", "photo shoots", etc.).
  • "Development" section, "Michael Uslan" subsection:
    • "Producers Michael Uslan, a former comic book writer and Benjamin Melniker purchased the film rights..." Who is the "former comic book writer" referring to? While it's not Uslan, some readers might be fooled into thinking that it is, and that you've simply missed a comma.
    • Remove or fix the campy (style) redlink.
    • "Columbia Pictures and United Artists turned down the offer." What offer? The pitch? If so, clarify by moving the sentence to accompany the one about the pitch, or recast the sentence to say something like "Columbia Pictures and United Artists were among those to turn down the film."
    • "Mankiewicz took high inspiration..." High inspiration? Is this any different to the regular kind of inspiration?
    • Overlinking throughout, on common terms and to articles that have already been linked close by.
  • "Development" section, "Tim Burton" subsection:
    • In the third paragraph, it's unclear whether or not the changing of Silver and Thorne to Vale and Grissom was Hamm's idea, as the sentence says he "believed" (i.e. he wasn't sure, but thought it likely) the decision was made because they weren't well known enough.
    • "Bob Kane was hired as creative consultant. He approved of the cast, production design and the script." Does that mean he had actual approval rights (unlikely), or that he "liked" them and said as much?
    • Overlinking throughout, on common terms and to articles that have already been linked close by (e.g. "film treatment", "campy", The Dark Knight Returns).
  • "Development" section, "Casting" subsection:
    • Overlinking throughout (e.g. "movie star", and again with the campy! :p).
    • The non-free image used to identify Keaton as Batman has a really weak rationale. At least consider moving it to the appropriate part of the "Design" section, so it has some defence should its deletion ever be proposed.
    • "Dick Grayson appeared in the shooting script but was deleted as the filmmakers felt he was irrelevant to the plot." Slight contradiction; wasn't he already removed from the film by Englehart at the treatment stage? Clarify.
  • "Development" section, "Design" subsection:
    • I'll stop mentioning the overlinking now. Take it as read that it needs looking at throughout the article. :)
    • "The filmmakers used matte paintings and actual 40-foot (12 m) tall buildings to help utilize the look." No need for that "actual", and I'm not sure you mean "utilize" there. What are you trying to say exactly?
    • By "setpiece" do you mean "set"? They're different terms.
    • "Jon Peters had an idea for possibly enthusing a Nike promotion." While in a technical sense, enthusing could be used here, it doesn't work due to the ambiguity it brings. Consider replacing with a like term.
  • "Development" section, "Music" subsection:
    • Fudged wikilink in second sentence. Not that it's needed, as it's yet another link to The Dark Knight Returns. :)
    • "...compilations of Elfman's opening credits were used in the title sequence for Batman: The Animated Series" Needs to be made clear that you mean Elfman's opening credits music.
  • "Reception" section:
    • I'm not too wild on the section title, which doesn't seem to cover the fact that the section contains information on marketing etc. as well as the box office and critics' views.
    • "foreign countries" would be better as "internationally", as this gears the sentence towards a less US-centric readership.
    • "Based on 49 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, 69% of reviewers enjoyed the film, with the consensus of "an eerie, haunting spectacle, Batman succeeds as entertainment, but as an addition to the character's legacy, it rings disappointingly hollow." The sentence doesn't work as written, with the segue between the prose and quote especially cumbersome. Consider paraphrasing the quote.
    • Actually, the use of Rotten Tomatoes is inappropriate here. If you notice, the reviews it lists are all dated from throughout the last twenty years, rather than from around the period of the film's release. That means it's not a good indicator as to Batman's original critical reaction. Far better to use this as a retrospective analysis, seeing if you can find another cite to summarise the critical consensus.
  • "Legacy" section:
    • "Uslan and Melniker consoled themselves with their executive producing fees of $300,000 apiece." This seems like a pretty snarky comment. More neutral wording could be used.
• Potential future FAC issues:
  • Lead:
    • "Nicholson accepted the role of the Joker under various strict circumstances that..." The sentence works fine without the "various". Suggest replacing "circumstances" with a slightly less ambiguous term such as "conditions" or better.
    • "...deleting the character Dick Grayson." A better word than "deleting" here would be "removing", maybe "eliminating" or "discarding".
  • "Development" section, "Michael Uslan" subsection:
    • "Disappearing" might be better replaced with "waning" or similar, as the former suggests the character's popularity was on its way to extinction entirely (unlikely).
    • "Prevailing conception of the character..." "Perception" might be better here, to avoid ambiguity caused by several possible interpretations of "conception".
    • "Uslan, already disappointed, wrote a script titled Return of the Batman to "give people in Hollywood some idea of just what the hell I was talking about! It really was about ten years before The Dark Knight Returns. It was that [dark] approach to it."" The mix of prose and quote is cumbersome there, and doesn't work after the first sentence. Instead of giving the entire quote, it might be better to paraphrase it thus: "A disappointed Uslan then wrote a script titled Return of the Batman to give the film industry a better idea of his vision for the film. Uslan later compared its dark tone to that of The Dark Knight Returns, which his script pre-dated by ten years."
    • "Melniker and Uslan were promised 40% of Peters and Guber's box office profits, and felt it was best to pattern the film's development similar to Superman (1978)." The two statements aren't really related, so a new sentence rather than a comma would be more appropriate. The second part of the sentence is a little clumsy ("pattern the film's development similar to Superman"). Maybe try "pattern the film's development after that of Superman (1978)".
    • "The project was publicly announced in late 1981 to be budgeted at $15 million with still no movie studio involved." Makes it sound as if the lack of a movie studio was part of the announcement. Consider splitting the sentence for clarity ("Though no movie studios were yet involved, in late 1981 the project was publicly announced with a budget of $15 million."
    • "...focusing on Batman and Dick Grayson's origins with the Joker and Rupert Thorne as villains..." Comma after origins to remove ambiguity.
    • "...nine different writers." Redundant "different".
    • "...the comic book 'Strange Apparitions." Refer to it as a comic book the first time it's mentioned, leave it out for subsequent mentions.
  • "Development" section, "Tim Burton" subsection:
    • It's not strictly necessary, but I think the long quote from Uslan at the beginning would be better if it were broken up and paraphrased in a similar manner to the example I give above.
    • "However" is usually redundant. The same applies at the start of the fourth paragraph. Check for more.
    • "Englehart deleted the Penguin and Dick Grayson." Again, "removed", "eliminated" or similar would be better here.
  • "Development" section, "Design" subsection:
    • Long quote from Ringwood that might be better off paraphrased, placed in a quote box, or used as the caption with the image of Keaton as Batman.
  • "Reception" section:
    • The reviews don't really go into a lot of detail for the most part; they're more a collection of soundbites than specific, targeted criticisms. I think this section would need the most expansion were the article to go to FAC.
    • Is there any deeper analysis of the film's themes available? Again, maybe it's not strictly necessary for a popcorn flick, but I remember when I first saw it reading a hell of a lot about Batman and Joker, Batman's psyche etc. I'm positive this would come up during FAC.
  • "Legacy" section:
    • Is there anything else available on the film's legacy as the film that pretty much heralded the arrival of the modern superhero film?
  • As I've commented above, the whole article needs some of the overlinked words and phrases looking at. There's no need to link the first instance of every actor, producer, writer or comic book in each section, for example.
  • What makes the following sources reliable:
    • http://www.superherohype.com
    • http://www.snarkygossip.com
    • http://www.dailyscript.com
    • http://www.batmanytb.com
    • http://www.batman-on-film.com
    • http://www.scifiscripts.com
    • Just to clarify, I'm not bringing these up because I'm overly pedantic. I know most of these are "reliable" (i.e. I personally trust the information), but I also know that you'll have to rightly prove that should the article ever go to FAC.
  • See WP:NBSP for where non-breaking spaces should be implemented (e.g. $48 million, October 20).
• That seems to be it for now. Let me know if you have any questions; naturally, I'll keep the review watchlisted. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 13:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that review. I have finished addressing your important comments for the A-class suggestions. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, although the article is still a bit too blue for me, I think it is much better. And by the way, is there a way for users to access this page from the talk page of the main article? If there is, I guess I didn't look hard enough. ;) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's incredibly difficult to judge whether an article meets the 'A'-class criteria. "Not quite FA standard" doesn't really cut it as a description; 'A'-class is supposed to be a stepping stone to FAC, yet I'm forced to ignore issues I'd almost certainly bring up if I were reviewing it there. Nevertheless, this incredibly fuzzy criterion has likely been met, and I applaud Wildroot's very quick resolution of the list of issues I brought. So this gets my support, with room for improvement. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I will get to work on the FAC criterion, so don't worry, I will not ignore it. And to Cornucopia, yes there is a way. In the WikiProjectFilms banner, you click on that thing that says Reviews. The A-class thing is right there. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think this article is terrific, having copyedited it a few times. I have a few minor quibbles, so I'll support it being A-class. Alientraveller (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Passed as A-class. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Little Miss Sunshine

I worked on bringing this article to GA in February of this year from this revision. I would like to start getting some A-class articles within our project and put this department to use, and hopefully motivate other editors to add some nominations of other articles. The article covers many aspects of the film and is well-sourced throughout, covering any questionable statements. This will be the first article I have worked on to attempt to reach A-class status, so please be gentle. Just kidding, pile on the required recommended edits as I got time to kill this summer! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Girolamo Savonarola

First of all, congrats on getting the article this far. Generally, the content itself looks solid and well-sourced, which is usually the most difficult part, so it's good to see that so far along. I do have a good handful of comments, but they are mainly structural.

• The lead is far too long and contains superfluous information (for a lead) better placed within the body of the article instead, such as the budget, most of the second and third paragraph, and the details of the fourth one. Placing too much information here bloats the lead and impoverishes the sections in the body where these things should be, so I recommend looking at a handful of other film FAs to get a better idea of what you should be aiming for.

Both you and Bzuk touch on this, so I want to comment here before changing anything. The lead is at its current length due to the requirements of the GA criteria that it have a sufficient lead. Looking at WP:LEAD for an article of this length, it is acceptable to have three or four paragraphs. All of the information in the lead touches on information that is currently in all/most of the sections in the article. I think the only information in the lead that is not mentioned in the article itself is "The film was dedicated to Rebecca Annitto, the niece of producer Peter Saraf and an extra in scenes set in the diner and the convenience store, who was killed in a car accident on September 14, 2005." (By the way, do you think this should be included in the article at all or can you think of a better section to include it?) I can probably trim some of the information in the lead, but this can be difficult when attempting to touch on all of the relative sections in the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead should be of a decent length, namely two or three short paragraphs which rehash the most perfunctory information. I feel that the current lead is too long and goes into unnecessary details (for a lead), many of which do not reappear in the article itself. That's my main point. The easiest way to get an idea of what is proper is to go over a broad number of FAs until you start to see the underlying pattern common to each. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I cut the lead down to three paragraphs. Let me know if you want it down further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(comment originally on Girolamo Savonarola's talk page) I feel that the lead still needs a fair amount of rewriting and goes into what - for a lead - is unnecessary trivia (eg European festival premiere), while ignoring vital information (US release date - a limited release usually includes major cities, so they can't be discounted - this is the public premiere; also keep in mind that the concept of a wide release is a very recent phenomenon that came out of the blockbuster/box-office-obsessed era, and the "platform release" model long predates the concept of a wide release). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave another stab at it, but if you want more you're going to need to tell me specifically what should be removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the RT and MC information is appropriate for a lead at all, and the soundtrack/DVD release information is probably too superfluous for inclusion either. Otherwise, you've done a great job paring it down, I think. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the two statements. I must admit...I hate lead paragraphs. It is my least favorite thing to write in an article (or maybe it's tied with a plot to a film). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better - glad you were willing to take the time. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• The ratings table should be dropped and the ratings left out of the article unless it is exceptionally relevant to discussion of the making or reception of the film, such as film undergoing re-editing to secure a particular rating for release.

Looking at this discussion and the deletion discussion of the template itself, I don't think that it needs to be removed. I also looked through our project's current guidelines and it looks like nothing materialized on the guidelines page from the discussion. It is not only centered on the American MPAA ratings, but includes multiple ratings for other countries. I think it should be trimmed down though to just the English-language countries, since this is the English Wikipedia. Doing so, will remove ~10 of the entries and reduce the size of the template. Let me know if you think it should still be entirely removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of a rock and hard place situation - if you lessen the non-English-speaking countries, then you're in a bias situation. If you include everything, it's verging on trivia and arguably has no encyclopedic value. I believe that the guidelines already cover it in as much as discussion of the rating is encouraged wherein it had a noticeable impact on the film (such as re-cuts, controversies, etc). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that not including non-English-speaking films will have a large bias. If possible an article should have a section touching on issues reflecting any controversy related to a rating (such as Live Free or Die Hard). If no such issues occur, such as in this case, then it would be acceptable to include the template. I think it is best to leave it in for now, unless there is further consensus among editors to remove it (or if I ever take this to FA and they have the same feelings on the matter as you do). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Details about Superfreak are superfluous.

I reduced the information in the plot about this, let me know if it needs further fixing. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The phrase as oblivious to the sexualised subtext behind the dance as the other contestants were to the provocative costumes and heavy makeup they had been wearing looks awfully like OR or POV.

I reworded, but do you think "...oblivious to the sexualized subtext behind the dance." is still pushing it or should I reword further? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that if you can find sourcing for it, then move it to the analysis section; if not, drop it entirely. There's no evidence that I'm aware of that it would be the statement of an entirely dispassionate summary of the film, which is what we strive for with the plot sections. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Reworded further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• smash through the barrier of a toll booth that the pageant official had stopped at - huh?

Reworded to: "smash through the barrier of a toll booth while passing the horrified head pageant official". Let me know if it needs further clarification.

Well, is it really notable in the larger scheme of things, or is it simply an anecdotal detail? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Reworded further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• (in order of appearance) isn't necessary - just list the cast. Breaking it into main and supporting is problematic, especially considering Arkin's preponderance of awards and noms in a supporting capacity; just list the cast in one go with the most substantial roles near the top.

Removed "order of appearance" and subheadings. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The cast images do not substantially support the article and should be removed unless they illustrate something relevant to the text.

I had added the images after successfully getting permission for them from Flickr to Wikimedia Commons, and figured a few free images wouldn't hurt. I've removed them though. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any information to explain why Bill Murray or Robin Williams did not take the Carell role?

I looked at a Google search, and couldn't find any specific information outside of blogs, trivia sites, and copies/mirrors of this Wikipedia article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• According to an article in Entertainment Weekly - there is no need to identify your sources explicitly in the text when they are in the reference (unless there is something exceptional about the sourcing itself).

Reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Drop (summer 2005) from Carrell's casting section; this information is already in the article.

Removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The relationship between Yerxa/Berger and Turtletaub is unclear - first Y/B have the script, then suddenly Turtletaub buys it, but Y/B are still producers? I normally wouldn't ask this, but since there was the awards controversy - and the section there discusses the various things Y/B did during production and post - I think this needs to be elucidated better.

I reiterated the statement in the controversy section and placed it in the "Script" section to hopefully better clarify there status as producers. Let me know if you think this is redundant or if you have a better suggestion for rewording it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You fixed that, but now my problem is Saraf and Friendly - what did they do which made them more eligible than Y/B? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything specifically stating why they were included. However, in the current source after the statements I just added, the Academy talked about how they didn't want to split the the two partners of Yerxa and Berger. Since they didn't want to split them, they likely just included the other three producers. And/or I think the Academy wanted to include the producers who were more involved later in the film's production. Anyway, I've modified the section a bit, so please take a look at my changes and let me know if they don't make sense. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Drop (previously USA Films) - not relevant to this article

Removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• He also paid for the $8 million budget - then why did he bother with the studios to begin with? Was this a change in production attitude, and if so, why?

I think the reason that he went with the studios was so that they would pay for the budget. Since the problems occurred with the studios, he and/or other investors probably pulled the $8 million together to finance the film. However, I can't find sources confirming this and don't want to include my speculations as OR. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• When preparing for the scenes that would be shot within the vehicle, the cinematographer used a basic video camera and shot from various angles inside the van to determine the best locations to shoot from - I'm guessing what is meant is that the cinematographer did this during pre-production prep so that they could decide their angles ahead of shooting (and thus expedite setup time and rigging during the shoot), but at the moment the sentence is unclear and almost makes it sound as if the scenes in the van were at least partially shot with a video camera.

Reworded to "During pre-production, the cinematographer used a basic video camera and set it up at various angles inside the van to determine the best locations to shoot from during filming". Let me know if it should be reworded further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Abigail had her headphones on and could not hear the lines - might want to comment that this is much like what occurs in the film

Reworded to "One scene reflected this, and only when she saw the film did she know what was being said." Do you think it needs to be expanded on further? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It works, but it's a bit awkward. How about "and could not hear the dialogue, just like her character in the film"? Simple and to the point. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The "official" release date is when it becomes publicly available, even if it is in limited release. This would make the July date the release date, not the August one (although the wide release should be noted).

I included the January release in the infobox of its first appearance at the Sundance Film Festival along with its limited and wide releases. Are all three acceptable for including? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The festival and initial public releases are acceptable, but we don't differentiate between limited releases and wide ones, so long as the film is otherwise publicly accessible upon demand. This means that the limited release date would be its "official" release date. Also, the parenthetical should be (United States) rather than (limited) or (general), because we want to include the release dates from the premiere and the public releases of the producing country and all English-speaking countries. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In the style guidelines it states: "In some cases, it may be necessary to distinguish between limited releases and later wide releases." I figure since the official limited release was only 7 theaters and the jump to wide release of 691 theaters is significant, it should be reflected with mentioning both of these dates. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That may be relevant when there are large gaps of time between the releases (see Army of Shadows), but in this case, as the article itself notes, it had the highest per-screen average for the entire period that it was in limited release, suggesting that a not-small number of the public did see the film during this period. (This really does need further clarification in the style guidelines, though.) I'm not suggesting that the wide release shouldn't be mentioned; only that it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead or infobox

Additionally, per our infobox guidelines, you should probably include the release dates for other English-speaking countries. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the UK and Australia and removed the wide release date. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• DVD release section should presumably be included within the general Release section.

I moved it up to the "Release" section and shortened heading to "DVD". --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• producers Marc Turtletaub, Peter Saraf, and David Friendly were able to appear on stage to accept the award for Best Original Screenplay - why are producers accepting a screenplay award?

I think that it was probably on behalf of the screenwriter, and/or the producers wanted to be on stage for any significant awards at the Academy Awards such as this. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That might need some research, because they are usually rather strict about who can go on-stage and why. Perhaps Arndt designated them as proxies bc he couldn't attend? There must be some press on this. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found anything yet but I'll keep looking. I saw in one source that they wanted to limit the number of producers since at one 1999 film, they had way to many producers on the stage and they were all fighting for time to talk in the microphone. Also, it mentioned that when Ben-Hur was receiving an art award, there were also way too many people on stage accepting so the Academy cut the number of allowed art people that could appear on stage. Again, I think the producers are always on stage when the major Oscars are given out (such as best screenplay or best picture), but I'll try to either look for sources that state this and maybe try to watch some online archived footage of past Academy Awards to see who goes on stage. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• The actual awards and nominations should probably be placed ahead of the controversy sub-section, since they are the meat of the section.

Moved the subsection to the end of the section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The full awards listing probably merits a split into its own listing; the awards section could then be prosified to discuss only the most notable awards/noms.

Are you referring to an article of its own? I don't think it would be beneficial to split it and would be best remaining in this article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(comment originally on Girolamo Savonarola's talk page) I'm still very iffy about keeping an overwhelmingly comprehensive (and thus arguably trivial) awards list within the article, and believe that a separate awards list would stand better on its own (and we have some precedent for this already, albeit mainly with awards earned by individuals). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have cut the list down to a couple of paragraphs. Are you talking about creating a separate list of the awards? If so, I think it would be the first of its kind I've seen, but would have a chance at being featured if I worked enough at it. However, it would depend on if we do have precedent for film articles that have separate lists for all of their awards/nominations. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it shouldn't exist. In any case, the prosification of the more significant awards has been well-handled. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that will be another one of my projects this summer (goodbye good grades in my summer tax class...). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not certain if the press release needs to be linked to - if it hasn't been of any use as a source within the article, it's just PR and could be construed as spam.

I've removed the external link. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

All in all, I think it's very close. A few tweaks as per above and I'd be happy to support. Good job! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and giving me something to work with. I'm visiting family right now and am away from a computer with high-speed capabilities. I'll get to addressing these Sunday night or Monday. Thanks again! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also, the amount of box-office details, particular with regard to the video rentals, is perhaps getting a bit too into minutiae. (Box office porn? ;)) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I do get turned on by box office figures (wow, check out The Dark Knight). I'm always checking the various news sources every Sunday afternoon to see who wins the box office each weekend. Consider it my personal touch on the article, as I think the box office performance and the rental and DVD sales are an important representation of the income a film receives in all forms of its release. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I see that the awards lists have gone back in, albeit in hidden form. While I do respectfully disagree, I don't really feel like pursuing it further. However, I seem to remember that hidden sections are frowned upon for FACs, for reasons involving accessibility, IIRC. In any case, if it's an issue for them, I presume that someone else will mention it there. Uncrossed-out bullets are still unaddressed, but I don't find any of them substantial enough to further defer my

Support Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Bzuk

My comments are mainly perfunctory based on a first read-through:

• "The film starred Greg Kinnear, Steve Carell, Toni Collette, Paul Dano, Abigail Breslin, and Alan Arkin." Last comma not needed as it is a Harvard comma that completes a list. Was this order of actors from the credit list?

I've left the comma in and I don't think there was any particular order that the list is made up of. Do you think there is a better list or is it okay? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• "settled on studio Focus Features" could be written without "studio" or as the "Focus Features studio."

That was added for clarification if readers were unfamiliar, but they can click on the link if they're curious. I've removed "studio". --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Many of the actors' roles had been chosen by the directors, and although the role of Frank Ginsberg was initially supposed to be played by Bill Murray or Robin Williams, the role went to Carell." Was the role actually offered or merely "pencilled in?"

Can you clarify a little further? I looked for some further information but couldn't find any specifically on how he got the role. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Filming occurred over thirty days in Arizona and Southern California in the summer of 2005." can be written as "Filming in Arizona and Southern California took place over 30 days during summer 2005." Mainly tweaking words here but the number 30 is usually used as numbers zero to nine are written out as words and a numerals 10 +. However, this is also not a hard-and-fast rule.

I've changed it to "30", but I think the way that you reworded the sentence makes it appear that filming occurred in Arizona and California for 30 days, while leaving the possibility of filming in other states for other periods of time. The way it is currently worded, I think indicates that there was no further filming. Let me know if you disagree, and I'll reconsider. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• "A large portion of the film focuses on the family vehicle, a Volkswagen T2 Microbus, and many of the problems associated with the vehicle were based on Ardnt's past experience on a family trip. The film's pageant used actual contestants from prior pageants, and the directors held their own pageant to learn more about the process before filming." could be a new paragraph or included in the "production" section, where some of the material is repeated.

I touched on this lead issue above in the second point raised by Girolamo Savonarola. I've mentioned it briefly in the lead so that it can be touched on when readers read the article itself. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• "plus ten percent" can be written as "plus 10%" but that's writer's choice here.

I think that ten is low enough to remain being written out. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• "from DeVotchKa, Rick James, and Sufjan Stevens" doesn't need a last comma.

Using the serial comma here. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Little Miss Sunshine received generally positive reviews, earning a 91% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and 80/100 from Metacritic and had total international box office gross receipts of $100.2 million. The film was nominated for four Academy Awards, including Best Picture, and won two: Best Original Screenplay for Michael Arndt and Best Supporting Actor for Alan Arkin. There was also some controversy over the producers' credits at the Academy Awards, which allowed only three of the five producers to receive the award for the film. It also won the Independent Spirit Award for Best Feature and received multiple other awards and nominations. The film was dedicated to Rebecca Annitto, the niece of producer Peter Saraf and an extra in scenes set in the diner and the convenience store, who was killed in a car accident on September 14, 2005.[7]" A lot of this looks like it needs to go in the "reception" section.

I touched on this lead issue above in the second point raised by Girolamo Savonarola. I've mentioned it briefly in the lead so that it can be touched on when readers read the article itself. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The "plot" section is pretty good, well-written and easy to follow. One point 'Super Freak' should use the same quotation style already adopted as "Super Freak."

Fixed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Cast section is also good, but there are four "redlinks" and no reference source cited.

I've removed two of the names, do the other two need to be removed to include? I always figured that it left the opportunity for readers/other editors to create an article for the red-linked names. Also, do I need to source the list of names in the section? Looking to a couple of film featured articles, I didn't see any that had a source for the list. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Production, "was a relatively unknown in Hollywood" is either "was a relative unknown in Hollywood" or "was relatively unknown in Hollywood."

Reworded to "was relatively unknown in Hollywood." --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Filming is mainly repetitive as it was already mentioned in the introduction.

I touched on this lead issue above in the second point raised by Girolamo Savonarola. I've mentioned it briefly in the lead so that it can be touched on when readers read the article itself. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• "that involved the same vehicle" was it really the same vehicle or "that involved the same type of vehicle?"

Nice catch. Reworded as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• "when it dropped to eleventh" or "when it dropped to 11th."

Changed to "11th". --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Was it really "further reading" or was the book listed a part of a bibliography that was used in formulating the article? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC).

Based on the MOS guideline it looks like only books that weren't used as sources but for general references should be listed here. Although, I've used it for two inline citations in the article, I still think it is the only available published source on the topic (it has the script and a few production notes). However, do you think it should still be removed? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Small point here - I disagree wrt the serial comma, but my advice is simply to read the article about it, decide where you stand, and...whatever. :) In any case, it's a style choice, so it shouldn't preclude anyone's support on that basis alone. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For me, it is not a choice, and it is the biggest pet peeve of mine, so that's why all of the articles I work on use it (I actually think this is one of the reasons I first started editing Wikipedia because it bugged me!). I think I've bugged a lot of editors by adding commas, so sorry if I bug anyone further with this article. My dark grammar preferences aside, thanks for the comments Bzuk, I hope to start on all of the above hopefully tomorrow. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. **Overall, I like the changes that you instituted and have no qualms with the very minor "sticking points" that I earlier mentioned. I will certainly recommend this version for further appraisal. FWiW, sorry for the delay in posting this comment but I was "outta town" for a portion of the last month. Bzuk (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC).

Comments by PC78

Nice article. Prose is good, athough a thorough copyedit to dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s (so to speak) wouldn't go amiss. The main concerns I have:

• Cast. You have actor names in parenthesis within the plot summary, which is redundant to the following "Cast" list. The cast list is just bare bones: Who is Kirby? He is mentioned in the cast list, but not (so far as I can see) in the plot summary. Needs more info. Then immediately after there is a further "Casting" section. Can the two sections not be integrated somehow?

I removed the cast list, as the most notable roles are already covered in the plot section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That works too! :) PC78 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Awards. My opinion on this differs to Giro's (there has been some discussion elsewhere), and as there are no guidelines for this in the MOS, I can't see any real justification for switching from one user's preferred layout to another's. I've looked at the list in a previous revision of the article: I don't personally have much of a problem with it, and would expect such a complete list in a comprehensive encyclopedia article. That said, the list by itself doesn't offer any real commentary, so perhaps it would be best prefaced by a short paragraph of text? If space is the issue, then perhaps it could be converted to a more concise layout? Or, as suggested above, it could be expanded on and split off into its own article. It's tricky, and why I feel that MOS:FILM needs to offer some guidance on the issue.

I'll wait until the decided on guideline is approved, and I may split it off myself in the future. I don't really mind either way how it is set up so long as it is adequately covered. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Your thoughts would be welcome at the other discussion (MOS:FILM talk), if you have any. :) PC78 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put the full list back in the article, only as a hidden section. See what you think. It can always be taken out again. PC78 (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it, and added "Full" to the heading. If there is no policy against not including it, I think it should stay. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• No citation: It had the highest per-theater average gross of all the films shown in the United States every day for the first sixteen days of its release. (second sentence, "Box office")

This was hard to find a source for. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a a single source that stated this and after some research, I discovered it was actually 21 days. However, the only way to clearly illustrate this was to add seven inline citations after it (as each citation only covers 3-4 days of the box office). If you or anyone can think of a better way to source this let me know. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

All seven are from Box Office Mojo, right? You could perhaps put all seven links within a single citation. PC78 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how to do that? That would be a great benefit to me for my referencing knowledge if I can learn how to do that. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. At least, that's how I'd go about it. PC78 (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Superb job. That's one way I was thinking of doing it, but you beat me to the punch before I got a chance to practice it. Thanks for the help! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Some more nitpicky concerns, which do not constitute an objection (though I shall mention them anyway!):

• The ratings infobox. Personally I think this verges on trivia, though I respect the concensus over the template and therefore do not object to its use here. However, since it relates directly to the film's release, might it not look better moved down to that section?

I moved it down to the release section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Red links. There are quite a few in the article, more than I would reasonably expect for an FA. Are they all necessary? Could some be turned into blue links? (Meaning, could you perhaps whip up a few quick stubs?) Some of them appear to be unnecessary duplicates.

I removed the large majority of the red links as I don't see many of them becoming articles (although I'm sure it's possible). I don't really start articles that often myself, but the names are still there for other editors to create them in the future if need be. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Screenshots. I think the article could do to have at least one screenshot somewhere, though it should of course be relevant to the article. I've not seen the film, so I have no suggestions on what to use.

I added one image to the "Casting" section to draw attention to the casting decisions made by the directors. I believe that I have justified it with the caption and fair use rationale, but let me know if it doesn't or needs anything else. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Quotes. Per MOS:QUOTE, quotes should not generally contain links. I spotted one or two in the article.

The links that I noticed in the quotes were one for the Mission Impossible films and one for Orson Welles. I believe the links provide clarification for readers, who may be unaware of the films/actor (they may confuse Welles as a character in the film for example). Let me know if you spotted any others or if you don't think this rationale is adequate. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have any real issue with it. Merely pointing it out. PC78 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Soundtrack. Though there is nothing wrong as such with the layout of the tracklisting, I would expect it to follow the same format specified at WP:ALBUM.

The guidelines state that it should go by title, then artist, and then length. Could you specify more on what needs to be done? I also modified the infobox some based on the guidelines on the project's page. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to link to the specific section of WP:ALBUM (here, BTW). Kinda like how it's set out in The Blues Brothers (film). That said, I've just had a look at some of the FA and GA album articles, and this specific layout doesn't appear to be followed religiously. PC78 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked over a variety of articles, and they all seem to differ or have the album on its own separate page. If there is more opposition in the future, I'll be happy to change it then. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• See also. Why is there a link to Juno? How is it relevent to this article?

I think somebody added this after it was similar to Little Miss Sunshine in its popularity at the Sundance Film Festival. I removed it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope you find the above of use. :) PC78 (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments, I really appreciate it when I get more editors to look over the article. New people find old and new mistakes that prior editors and I miss. I'll get to addressing all of your issues today, and have left comments above already for some of the smaller issues. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. PC78 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Erik

Suggestions

• I hate to be a stickler, but I don't think that Image:LittleMissSunshineCast.jpg warrants inclusion. I say this because screenshots need to have critical commentary, and the non-free image does not directly tie into any aspect of the "Casting" section. Four of the six cast members in the image already have free images on their biographical articles, making the the non-free image less effective. If there was some sort of design or theme behind the composition of the cast, an image would be useful. I do not see any context for having the image here.

How dare you be the stickler! No worries, I appreciate your help. Based on PC78's comments above on including a screenshot, this was the best one that I could find available online that I thought related to the content in the article. Previously I did have free images of several cast members but were removed based on comments from this review. Looking over several other FAs, it has more critical commentary than some of the ones I've seen (speaking of which there are several articles that we need to fix these image issues in, as many plot sections have images that could be argued as decorative). If you've seen this film, can you think of a better screenshot (I'll make one myself off the DVD if necessary) for inclusion? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the best way to implement non-free images is to maximize the detail in a film article then see what, if any, images could support that detail. I think screenshots are easier to implement for films that require radical production design (war films, superhero films, etc.) so drama films and comedy films are more of a challenge. This is probably more truthful for recent ones, since they probably are not analyzed as closely as some films in the past. I noticed that the film article does not have any print sources, and I think there may be more useful content out there to implement in the article. For example, I found an American Cinematographer article (Calhoun, John (July 2006). "Family Dynamics". American Cinematographer. 87 (7): 16–18.) that had this:

Overall, [Suhrstedt] encouraged Faris and Dayton to use handheld for the purposes of the story. "They not only embraced it, but went further with it than I thought they would," he says. "They liked the flexibility of it, the fact that we could react to the actors and create a little more energy." As an example, he cites an early scene that shows the family sitting down to dinner before embarking on their voyage. "We were trying to play off the chaos and confusion and accelerating energy of that dinner."

While we couldn't capture the motion of it, perhaps there is a screenshot showing handheld usage in capturing the family. There may be more print sources, either from film journals or newspapers that don't provide electronic copies, to warrant other kinds of screenshots. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately on the DVD there is no production featurette, so I am unable to find an image as suggested with this source. Would using something like this be used to illustrate the mention of the use of excessive makeup and Olive's "plump" figure? I have used my university's film databases, and was unable to properly search for some journal articles. The one you've mentioned above I've seen before, but I wasn't able to read the whole article without registering on the host site. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Another image issue is the soundtrack image. I don't think WP:FILM has really discussed the best way to present soundtrack information (like when it is ideal to spin it off or not). I'm contesting the non-free soundtrack image for two reasons: It repeats the identifying poster image at the top of the article, and WP:ALBUM's two suggested rationale templates specify cover usage for independent articles. Template:Album cover article rationale#Usage: "This template provides a fair use rationale on the image page of an album cover, only for the album cover's article itself" (emphasis theirs) and Template:Album cover fur#Template documentation: "Please use copyrighted content responsibly and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. "A template alone does not make cover art fair to use. It merely helps you state why you think it is appropriate... This template is optimized for album cover art used in the article about the album."

• I don't think this is a problem; {{Non-free album cover}} specifically allows use "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". PC78 (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Still, though, the fact that WP:ALBUM specifically provided these two rationale templates that disclose that particular use seems relevant. And even if the soundtrack image was valid, is it worth repeating the look of the poster image? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I couldn't tell you what policy WP:ALBUM have regarding soundtracks in film articles, though I do know that articles such as this get tagged for their project. I will concede that perhaps the image (and the infobox as a whole) would be better in a dedicated section about the soundtrack CD itself, as opposed to music in the film in general. But otherwise it's just pretty standard usage of an album cover in an infobox; I don't see any big issue with WP:NFC. As a side note, this is one area of MOS:FILM that could certainly do with expansion! PC78 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the rationale, I'd interpret it to mean that the image should be used on the article discussing the album, not just some random page (such as an artist or awards article). Although the image is the same as the poster, most covers are the same as the posters used for advertising, as well as DVD covers. The only way I could think of differing the two would be to upload a prior poster for the main infobox that has a different image. I don't think it would be best to branch off the soundtrack information into its own article, as there isn't too much other information available to expand it further. I've seen a lot of film articles split to have the soundtrack separate, and the vast majority are all stubs that will likely never be expanded too much further. In this case, I think it would be a better case of declaring fair use when included in the main article than in a small stub. As PC78 mentioned above, the MOS concerning soundtracks should be expanded for further clarification. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• A final major issue is the ratings infobox. Nehrams pointed out the discussion, which was a lot of back-and-forth between Pixelface and Bignole, and I wish more people could have joined the discussion. I've actually hoped to put up the ratings infobox for deletion, and I put together an argument sometime ago: User:Erik/Sandbox#TFD argument. The ratings themselves aren't enough; there is no background explaining the context in which a rating was issued. What makes it universal on some places, and what makes it limited in others? We don't know by looking at the restrictions. Hopefully, we can have a larger discussion down the road over this, but I don't think that the article benefits from a mere list of ratings.

If consensus decides on deleting it, I'll remove it from the article (I guess I'd have to anyway if the template was gone...). For me, I don't see it a problem of including the ratings, but I'm not stuck on it either, so whatever consensus decides is fine by me. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking

• Is there a better heading for "Academy Award producers controversy"? Reviewing WP:STRUCTURE, I was just wondering if we could identify the situation more neutrally.

I tried for a while with several different headings but none seemed right. I looked over a few FAs, and there were several sections that utilize "controversy" in the heading. Can you think of a better one? My mind's still drawing a blank. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of anything, either. :-P Maybe someone else can come up with a different heading down the road. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Can the show/hide box for "Full list of awards and nominations" have some color? It's not immediately clear that it's a box.
  • Done, though if anyone has a more suitable colour in mind then feel free to change it. PC78 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• I think that the sentences about RT and MC need to be re-worded, since readers may not understand "Fresh" or where the consensus comes from. An example to follow may be Hancock (film)#Reception. Also, the quoted RT consensus is incorrect and needs to be fixed. If we do cite all or part of the RT consensus, we should make it clear that it is the website that presents this judgment.

I reworded the statements, and added some of the same words to describe Metacritic as in Hancock. Let me know if this should be reworded further. Concerning the consensus, it appears it has changed because it was what I had included in the article just a few weeks ago. I don't know if RT is modifying their site or if it was just this article. Good job on catching that. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Breslin's depiction of Olive Hoover has also moved many critics" is weasel wording using just one USA Today columnist's perspective. I think a more retrospective source could be found to back this claim about critics enjoying Breslin's performance.

It looks like this was in the article before I had started working on it and I never went back and fixed it. I did a search of about twenty reviews and didn't see any other commentary on her role (except for continuous usage of "adorable"), so I reworded it to mention only that the USAToday author mentioned it. Again, let me know if this should be reworded further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think these are the fairly major issues to address for now. There's a lot of great content in place, so beyond these above thoughts, there may be some copy-editing suggestions that I'll share later. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support per the more effective usage of non-free images. Not sure what else needs to be addressed. :) To A-class we go! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failed

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Failed - tabled for too long without further action or review. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Macedonian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

This list is currently too short to pass at WP:FLC, so I'd like to get it to A-class as a form of recognition. I realize that we haven't had lists before for WP:FILM, but I know other projects (namely WP:VG from the top of my head) accept lists at A-class review. Again, as this list cannot pass FLC period, A-class is basically as far as it can go. Cheers, sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly have no objections supporting, I'm not convinced that this isn't FL-able. One comment on the FLC does not a judgement make. Surely a six-entry list is sufficient, if done appropriately. (And of course, there's no reason why it won't continue to grow naturally over time.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The relative minimum of ten entries has been discussed at length at WT:FLC (see Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 3#Size of lists, Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 3#Nominations of lists with small scopes, and Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 2#Length), and is probably not going to change in the future. The big question is whether a small list can be representative of Wikipedia's "best work". The list can be comprehensive, sourced, well-written, and stable, but there comes a line in which we have to consider whether this is our "best work" that we want to be showcasing. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Support. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Milčo Mančevski is wikilinked twice in the table. With the present sorname template, I didn't know how best it needs to be handled. You might want to unlink one. Mspraveen (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that the overlinking is bad, but I don't think there's a way to use the sortname template without having a link present. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note - in light of the recent reversal of the Indonesian FLC, and since it was only mentioned briefly in this article's last FLC, I think that this stands a reasonable chance at still attaining FL-status. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I only submitted the Indonesian submission list because it had more than ten items. The Macedonian list would still not pass at FLC. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask about the three redlinks for the Macedonian directors. Have you tried to start articles on these individuals? If not, do you need help on that front? Ecoleetage (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I specifically don't start articles on the directors because I am unaware of whether they are notable or not. If you wish to start articles on them, feel free to do so. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rang De Basanti

Considered a highly influential film in the Indian society, this article underwent a successful GA nomination recently. Thereafter I've made a lot of edits to increase its comprehensiveness. However, I would vastly gain from insights provided by external experienced editors. After considering and implementing your valuable comments and suggestions, I would like to make its best pitch at FAC. Thanking you in advance! Mspraveen (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
:I'd suggest that you move this review to A-class review instead, since this is already at GA. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Please excuse me for my ignorance, but I hope taking it to the A-class review doesn't limit it to being an A-class article alone. Instead I was hoping, with the constructive criticism of the article, to take it to FAC. Mspraveen (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they aren't mutually exclusive - it's just the next step between GA and FA. Peer review is for sub-GA articles. You can find the instructions on how to do this at the link I placed above. See you there? :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Very minor point for editing purposes, since aircraft are integral to the plot, all uses of the word "plane" are usually deprecated and the word: "aircraft" is substituted because the "plane" is derived from "planing tool" as well as being a colloquialism of "aeroplane" and "airplane." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Thanks Bzuk, for your edits to improve it further! :) Mspraveen (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by PC78

I'll get the ball rolling with this one... :)

• Film poster. Per guidelines at MOS:FILM, the film poster image should be reduced to a width of 300px.

Though I've added a width parameter in the infobox, I don't quite see much change in the width. I don't know if that is normal. Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the actual image itself, not as it is used in the infobox. It's a simple enough task, though, so I'll take care of it myself. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Mspraveen (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Infobox. The Indian flag in the infobox is rather unnecessary, and should be removed. Would it be appropriate to link "UTV Motion Pictures" to UTV Software Communications?

I've removed the Indian flag - I think that it shouldn't be here as well. Thanks for pointing that out :) And yes, I've linked "UTV Motion Pictures" to UTV Software Communications. Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Lead. The paragraph beginning "Based on accounts taken from..." is confusing. It's not immediately apparent that this is a recap of the plot. On first reading it appears as if the film itself is based on diary entries.

Oops, that's why I like a second opinion! I've reworded the paragraph now. I hope it is okay now. Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Better. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Cast: This section is somewhat redundant, as actor names are given in parenthesis in the plot summary; alternatively, you could remove the actor names from the plot section.

Removed the redundant cast section now. Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Film quote. How is the quote in the "Production" section relevant? How is the screenshot essential in the reader's understanding of the quote? If retained, the screenshot should also be cropped and reduced in size.

I need advise here. Let me explain: The quote is depicted because 1) the dialogues brought the writer an award nomination 2) it is one central theme of the movie that summarizes the transformation of the youngsters. The screenshot, captured at the time of the quote delivery, provides information on the key cast. This screenshot may be removed as it is non-free. Already two effective (poster and a visual collage on the social influence) ones are used. However because of the mentioned reasons, I hope the quote can be retained. Thoughts? Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless that quote itself has been discussed in external sources, then you might reasonably pick any line of dialogue from the script as an example. The article says little about the writer beyond mentioning the award nomination, and I think the themes of the film are already adequately covered. Personally I would remove it, but hopefully you will get some opinions from other people. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I do appreciate your thoughts here. Maybe we decide on its fate after a few more opinions. Mspraveen (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Casting. Sentence beginning "After the auditioning, she was flown to Mumbai..." – who is the article referring to here? I assume it's Patten, but the previous sentence mentions two actresses, so it isn't clear.

Removed the ambiguity now. Thanks for pointing that out! Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Soundtrack. I'm not sure what to advise here, because this is something currently being debated by project members at WT:FILM. However, why is a seperate article required for what is essentially just an infobox and tracklisting? (And incidentally, what makes the India Project regard such a brief article as Start-Class?)

I come from India WP and it was purely oversight that caused me to wrongly assess the soundtrack article as "Start". I've corrected the mistake now. Now I could have added the tracks in the music section, but I felt that would appear silly because presently, the music subsection falls within the Production section. I didn't/couldn't think of any further ideas to have it within the article. Help on this would be appreciated too! Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Best leave it for now. As I say, project members are currently discussing the issue of soundtracks in film articles, so it remains to be seen what (if anything) will be decided. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll wait until there is any consensus on this matter. Mspraveen (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• External links. The BBC review is cited in the article, so an additional link here is not necessary.

Removed it now. Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Those were the most immediate things I noticed, besides a few copyediting issues. But on the whole it's a very thorough and well-written article. PC78 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments :) Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you can also spot areas that need copyediting. :) Thanks for your assistance! Mspraveen (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Further thoughts anyone? Mspraveen (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Nehrams2020

This article was really interesting to read and is well-sourced throughout. I have listed multiple suggestions below (don't be overwhelmed, the majority are very simple fixes) and will be happy to take another look once they are addressed. If you have any questions about these, just place a comment underneath them. Good job so far, I believe the article is close to A-class. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Made on a budget of Rs. 25 crores..." I think that because this is the English Wikipedia, it may be beneficial to convert this to also dollars or Euros, since dollars are also mentioned in the article. Also the dollars should be converted to crores as well. I don't know the exact policy on this, but if you can find something that disallows it, then ignore this suggestion. If not, be sure to fix the other occurrences within the article.

I used crores primarily because the sources are based from India and crore is common usage here. Secondly, the usage of USD was again as the source and the context (earnings in USA) require usage in USD. I tried browsing the WP:FILMS and WP:MOS but couldn't gather much. Maybe Girolamo pitches in here. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm curious on what should be done here. I just think it would be less confusing for a reader who reads the whole article and have to bounce back and forth between two different currencies. But then you also have to take inflation into effect and I'm sure other factors. I'd definitely like to hear the opinion of other reviewers as well on this so that we can implement it into our MOS guidelines. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• "They gradually begin to realize that their own lives are not very different from the characters they portray on the screen and that the same state of affairs that once plagued the revolutionaries continues to torment the present generation." Why is there a reference after this statement? Plot sections don't usually need sources unless, say, this particular statement is open to interpretation.

I would need some help here too. For the first time in my film-related articles, I realized that an external source's text aptly summarized a particular phase in the plot. I could not come up with any better sentence structure to explain that. So I decided to use the sentence directly from the source and cite it. Is this to be avoided? Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is word for word from the source, then I'd say something like "Critic stated that the plot shifted to the characters "gradually beginning to realize...". However if it is just a plot summary in the cite then I'd recommend taking another stab at it and trying again to rewrite the statement yourself. Give it a few tries, I'm sure you can come up with something. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done I rewrote the same trying as much as possible not to change the essence of the previous sentence. I hope this would be acceptable. Mspraveen (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• "is killed when his fighter crashes." Should this be changed to "are killed when the flight lieutenant's fighter crashes"? I'm not sure who was flying the plane.

Changed to Ajay Singh Rathod (Madhavan), who is Sonia's fiancé and also a Flight Lieutenant in the Indian Air Force, is killed when his fighter crashes. I hope this makes it clear. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that there were two characters. I either read it to fast or wasn't paying attention. Either way, it reads clearer as you have it set up now. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the production section change "(as Paint it Yellow) and Hindi.[8];" to "(as Paint it Yellow) and Hindi;[8]"

 Done Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• As PC78 focused on the quote above, I too have some concerns about it. From what I can tell the quote infobox is only used in articles actually covering the movie quote, so I don't think that it is relevant to include here. If the screenshot is just showing the actors speaking the line, then it is not really that relevant for inclusion in the article (unless a notable source specifically commented on how the line was stated for example and the image illustrated that). In any case Image:DJ Karan RDB.jpg needs to be reduced in size with one of its dimensions not exceeding 300px (consider trimming the widescreen bars as well). If this line was very significant then I'd see no problem in mentioning it in the article, but as it is set up now, I don't think it to be necessary.

Since this seems to be of some concern, I've removed the infobox. As I said in reply to PC78, the quote depicted is the central theme of the plot. Since the quote was in Hindi, I am not able to secure a reliable source which commentates on it. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Mehra said that despite Khan being a acclaimed actor" "an acclaimed actor"

 Done Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Madhavan, a well-known Tamil cinema actor, played the role of a fighter aircraft pilot, and thought that it was amazing to work with Aamir." If the word "amazing" was specifically used, then put quotations marks around it and add the inline citation directly after it. Otherwise, this may be seen as POV.

 Done Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• The other films in this article all have the year directly after them, but there are a few that don't. I'd recommend making it uniform throughout by adding the years to those that are missing them.

 Done for most, but for the films used in the Release section. I felt the use of year release to be redundant because these films that were co-nominated with Rang De Basanti were anyways from the same year as that of the film. Please correct me if I am mistaken here in its usage. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Aamir Khan, with his useful knowledge of Hindi and Urdu," I don't think "useful" is needed here.

 Done removed Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "After expectations of its box-office success from the media" The hyphen is not needed for box office, unless that is common for English used in India. If so, then ignore this comment.

 Done removed Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd recommend adding another wikilink for MiG-21 in either the production section or the release section.

 Done in the Release section Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Although the filmmakers had obtained No-Objection-Certificate..." I'm not familiar with this certificate, and it's possible others may not know about it is as well. Consider adding a brief description of what it is.

 Done I created a new stub article for this terminology. I hope that this will reduce the text size of this film article. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "In 2006, it premiered in France with the Lyon Asiexpo Film Festival,[55] the Wisconsin Film Festival,[56] and the Morocco-based International Film Festival of Marrakech." The serial comma is used in this sentence. Since it is not used throughout the rest of the article, this occurrence should be removed so that the article is uniform throughout.

 Done removed serial comma Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Out of the Rs. 10 crore (100 million) marketing campaign, Rs. 2 crore (20 million)..." If this is in dollars, be sure to add the sign right before 100 million and 20 million.

 Done Everything is in Rupees. I've removed crores now and just have the currency in million. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The soundtrack, first released commercially in early December 2005, met with good success." "Good success" seems redundant, consider rewording.

 Done removed "good" Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Since Rahman's last musical success, Saathiya, was back in 2002, there were high from the media." I don't understand the last half of this sentence.

Oh well, User:Epbr123 has been lending me a good hand with copy editing this article. The sentence actually says: "Since Rahman's last musical success, Saathiya, was back in 2002, there were high expectations from the soundtrack in the media." - The word "expectations" got deleted accidentally. It is fixed now. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "was reportedly voted as the "Song of the year" for 2006..." "Song of the Year"; "but also two tracks were to be considered for an Academy Award nomination.", reword to "but two tracks were also considered for an Academy Award nomination."

 Done reworded as per your suggestion Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Besides these, the producers joined hands..." Consider rewording "joined hands".

 Done reworded to "collaborated" Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "In India, The Hindu reported that with..." "The Hindu" should be italicized.

 Done Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The DVD release broke sales records: sales was the highest selling title of its time, selling more than 70,000 copies in six months time." Reword to "The DVD release sold more than 70,000 copies in six months time, and as a result, the film was the highest selling title of its time. Also, add a wikilink for VCD in the next sentence.

 Done Thanks for the suggestion. Fixed it the wikilink as well. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "A Rediff.com reviewer, while appreciating the music, cinematography, dialogues and art direction, thought that films like this can easily get into "preachiness"; this did not happen and Mehra could get his message across well." Reword to "A Rediff.com reviewer, while appreciating the music, cinematography, dialogues and art direction, wrote that films like Rang De Basanti can easily get into "preachiness", but believed Mehra got his message across while avoiding this."

 Done reworded as per your suggestion. Thanks again. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The review from the BBC gave it a five star rating..." Is this five out of five?

 Done The sentence now says: "The review from the BBC gave it the highest possible five star rating ...". I hope this is alright and is not POV. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Despite these qualms and Mehra's belief that his film didn't stand..." "didn't -> did not" This also occurs a few sentences later, make sure to fix that one as well.

 Done fixed both Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice use of "qualms" by the way. I need to start using that word in the articles I write... --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Music composer, A. R. Rahman performed several concerts..." Remove the comma.

 Done Fixed this Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Besides this, it was nominated for the" Reword to "The film was also nominated for..."

 Done Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:RDB advertisements.jpg this needs to be reduced in size with one dimension at 300px or less.

 Done

Thanks so much for the detailed review. I sincerely appreciate you taking out time in doing so. Should you have any concerns in my response, please feel free to let me know. Thanks once again. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So far, you did an excellent job in addressing the issues I raised. I'm sorry for leaving so many suggestions that are very simple fixes, but I do so so that editors can further improve their writing and catch these issues in the future (Plus, I think it makes me look like I did a more comprehensive review!). Anyway, good work, and keep working on the other issues. Once a few more editors have looked over the remaining issues and have done their copyedits, I'll take a final look to support it. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once again. Well, I prefer longer reviews because at least that is a good way for preparing the article for the rigor of FAC :) The article has been copy edited by User:Epbr123 and I think it is in a better shape with the help of PC78 and your reviews. Any further reviews are welcome. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm archiving this due to little/no movement in several months. It can always be renominated if the original nominator feels it it now ready. Steve ^{T • C} 09:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Withdrawn due to gaining FL-class. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

List of Indonesian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

Another list not long enough to pass FLC. Do note that this is the only other list I have at the moment that I want to send through A-class review. Not trying to flood the process :p sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem the list or anything (or the other one currently nominated), but am just wondering if A-class applies to lists or not? I haven't seen it myself in other projects and I guess it makes sense if we can't get it to FAC. Just wanted to know the rationale before we begin passing too many lists. If so, I'll take a look to help with the review. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A-class does apply to lists. It's simply not commonly utilized because lists tend to go straight to FLC. As an example, List of Final Fantasy media is an A-class list within the scope of WP:VG. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case, I have no problem with the nomination. Besides the multiple red links, I think the article meets the criteria, so I Support it being assessed as A-class. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, with the added submissions (over ten items) and the general source I found, this can now go to FLC (nominated here). The Macedonian list can go to A-class for not being long enough though. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As this list is now a FL, this nomination can effectively be considered moot. Can someone archive this? As I'm unfamiliar with the archiving process :p — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as not supported. Girolamo Savonarola (talk)

---

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

I am nominating this article for A-class becasue it meets all the criteria and I want to get a few more tips before nominating it for featured article status again. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Congrats! It's a strong article, but I have a couple of points (mostly minor) -

• There's no need to link multiple times in one sentence to the same reference - a single ref at the end is sufficient.
• The parenthetical information in the infobox should not be italicized
• Why is retrieving the eye impossible?

Re-written

I should clarify - is the magic eye a actually her phsort of talisman, or is it her pysical eye? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Her physical eye. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd highly recommend deleting the quote box, especially since the content already exists in the article and is superfluous. It may also contravene some general style guidelines, IIRC.

Removed

• You might want to consider splitting the production section into Development for the pre-shooting material and Production for the shoot and post-production.

Split

Don't see it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Vancouver is in North America, last I checked...

:) - Reworded

• Giacchino's previous awards are appropriate for his bio article, not this one.

Removed

Still in there. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is "Calling All Munchkins" in the film? I only wonder because it seems that all of the Oz tracks from the soundtrack appear at the start of the disc, and this track is sandwiched between them.

Yes - It is, but the film version is very short.

Why is it not mentioned at all in the article as a song from the film, then? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• The soundtrack might be better split to a separate article, especially as it is a compilation album with some tracks not exclusive to this project.

Sorry, I can't do it. There isn't any more reliably-sourced soundtrack information on the net, and a split would slimply be a waste of time. (No offense).

Fine, I'll withdraw that one. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• The retail price for the film is not exceptional enough to be a notable fact. You might also want to simplify a lot of the data for the various region releases by creating a table.

Table created, but I want to keep the retail info. (If that's okay.)

Don't see the table, but the prices are gone, which is my greater concern. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Promotional material may warrant its own section - as before, please drop the prices, as Wikipedia is not a store.

This is funny, Bzuk told me to merge it with distribution, go figure. Well, back to a sub-section.

If it's that pared down now, then I'd agree to keep it within Distribution. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Many of the review websites seem to fail WP:RS.

This has been discussed on the previous FA nominations, actually. It was decided that references for reviews were OK.

• Technicolor should be capitalized.

Done.

Good luck with further edits! I look forward to seeing the article continue to develop. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed most of the requests! Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the last reviewers had commented that this article is not yet ready for another review, and regretfully, I must concur especially in the area of "Reaction" as it is overlong, two or three opinions will suffice and as I indicated earlier, there may be need to continue to work on this as a project. The use of a number of fansites or blog-type reviewers is an area of debate anong reviewers and is normally not highly regarded as a means of substantiation. FWiW, I would caution that the article itself is comprehensive but perhaps too detailed for what amounts to a singular project and one that is generally considered a failure. Bzuk (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC).

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Failed - tabled for too long without review. PC78 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

Previous A-class review (23:17, 31 May 2008)

I want to try again and reach A-class status. Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 19:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.