Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rocky/archive1

Rocky edit

After a long process of getting this to GA standard, following an exellent copyedit, I believe this to be a FA worthy article †he Bread 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support A bit short, but a will written summary of a classic American film. - Mike | Talk 05:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Refs come at the end of punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence. More later. Rlevse 12:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Not bad overall, but numerous little problems throughout the entire article:

~~As Rlevse Refs come directly at the end of punctuation (a comma or a period) which means there is no space. I would not place footnotes in the middle of sentences unless it's absolutely necessary.~~

Fixed

Rocky II is not italicized in the infobox; fixed this myself.

Thanks

Lead doesn't flow too well; the second and third sentences run on a bit too long. It could also be expanded at least one more paragraph: for example, there's no mention of any of the cast except Stallone.
~~Is the Production section really big enough to have subsections?~~

No longer in subsections

~~The 4th paragraph of the synopsis feels unneeded, but the 5th paragraph doesn't make sense without it. Fix please.~~

Tided now a lead three paragraphs, no. 1 sets the scene, no. 2 details the build up and the characters, and no. 3 is the fight

Critical reception could definitely be expanded upon. One critic's opinion on each side speaks for both the positive and negative reaction to the film?
~~The Awards table and list should be converted into prose.~~

Done

Not done. It's now been converted from a table into a bulleted list, which still is not prose.

On second thought, it doesn't bother me that much. Sorry.--Dark Kubrick 00:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about Music and Cultural Influence. They just feel too small to be honest.

What is there to say about the music? And Cultural Influence could Definately be expanded, it's just hard with an older movie.

If there's not that much to say about the music, then incorporate it into another section. As for cultural influence, wouldn't the movie being old make it easier to expand that section? Since it was made in the 70s, there must be at least a couple of sources that mention its impact.

On a final note, please do not strike out other people's objections on your own, as you did with mine.--Dark Kubrick 00:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry †he Bread 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw something in the cast section on how Talia Shire just played in The Godfather Part II and had received an Oscar nomination. Now what's that doing in this article? Numerous little problems like these should be fixed, as others have said.--Dark Kubrick 11:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far, but it still needs some improvement before FA.--Dark Kubrick 13:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object The little problems as described above, limit it's status below featured. Hello32020 20:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object too many internal inconsistencies and weasels, such as 'Several Oscars' is actually three, 'rave reviews' becomes 'mostly positive', etc. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done it, any more? I couldn't see any †he Bread 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. There are several problems, overall this article falls short against other featured articles on films. What is clearly missing is a more detailed description of the cast and characters, the reviews section is too short, the plot is rather brief as well, the release is not discussed in detail, the box office run is only mentioned in the lead, etc. Sloan21 16:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay it's obvious I have alot to work on, thank you all for the most thoughrough review could have aksed for, I'll be frequently reffering to this while getting Rocky up to FA standard

Cheers

†he Bread 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]