Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronnie Rocket/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 8 February 2022 [1].

Ronnie Rocket edit

Nominator(s): ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from a pre-Watergate conspiracy that never happened, we move on to a film which was never made. Ronnie Rocket is one of cinema's better-known items of vapourware, a David Lynch project periodically invoked throughout his career and never realised. Spent a few years searching for any further information to be had on this and I believe this is as complete as an article on a non-existent film is likely to be. A copyedit and peer review were both conducted ahead of coming here so I believe the prose is suitable but as always I expect it to be my weak point. Thanks in advance to anyone having a look at this one. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 16:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

I have participated in the peer review for the article, and I think it is in great shape. I have a few suggestions, but they are relatively minor. I will list my comments below:

The infobox has two cast members (Dexter Fletcher and Michael J. Anderson), but it does not include other people attached to the film at some point (Brad Dourif, Dennis Hopper, Jack Nance, Isabella Rossellini, Harry Dean Stanton, and Dean Stockwell). Is there a reason for this? From my understanding Fletcher and Anderson were only considered for roles in the film and were not formally attached to it (as it did not progress to that stage) so they do not seem necessarily more important than the other names mentioned. I could be missing or misreading something though so feel free to correct me.
As every consideration was tentative, I just listed the two names considered for the title role as they seemed like the most obvious potential "stars". I could omit that field entirely though and it would be no real loss.
That is understandable. I am honestly on the fence about it. I could see arguments for and against their inclusion in the infobox so I will defer this matter to other reviewers if that is okay with you. This will not hold up my support for the FAC in any way. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a clarification question about this part, feeling he would be unable to find financial backing for the project, from the lead. This wording implies to me that he did not think backing would exist so he either gave up on the project prior to looking into it further or something along those lines, but when I read the article, I got the impression that they did look for financial backing, but they were just unsuccessful. If that is true, I'd recommend something along the lines of "when he was unable to find financial backing for the project.
I've reworded it to "due to an inability to find financial backing for the project", which I think conveys that he had tried across a span of time.
That looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance. For this part, feature many of the elements which have since come to be seen as Lynch's hallmarks, I think "many of" can be seen as filler words and it might be stronger and more concise to say "feature elements which have since come to be seen as Lynch's hallmarks".
Done.
For this part, while Coppola and musician Sting, I do not think the descriptive phrase is necessary. From what I am seeing, a majority of the people do not have this kind of phrase so I would remove it for consistency's sake and there is a wikilink for anyone who wants to know more about Sting.
I had included the qualifier as Sting is not primarily known for acting or filmmaking so it felt like useful context, but I've taken it out.
This is super minor, but for this part, forced Zoetrope to file for bankruptcy, I would say American Zoetrope instead of just Zoetrope for consistency and to avoid any potential confusion that American Zoetrope is a subsection of Zoetrope or something alone those lines.
Added.
I would highly encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid link rot and death. Citations 11, 20, and 21 are some examples of web citations that would benefit from archiving. I only suggest this as it can be a major headache for a link to die (or in case get hijacked) only to find out that there was not a viable archived version of the citation. To clarify this, I would not archive the newspapers.com citation as that is not necessary given where the platform.
Beginning this process now; currently waiting 173 minutes per page--eep.
URLs now archived.
Thank you for arching the citations. While it is not a requirement for a FA (at least to my understanding), I believe it is very helpful in the long run even though it is a pain. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to link Titan Books and Plexus Publishing in the "References" subsection as that would be helpful to readers and it would keep it consistent with the other ones that have their publisher linked. Kamera Books does not have an article or a redirect link so that would be okay with leaving alone.
Linked.
For the "References" subsection, I would be consistent with either including the location for each citation or not having them for any of the citations. For instance, Lanham and London are included in the Scarecrow Press and Macmillan citations, but the other ones do not have a location. From what I have been told, it is important to be consistent with this kind of thing throughout all of the citations.
I removed the locations that were there--I think the publisher is sufficient information here so taking two out feels better than adding them all.
Thank you. I agree that the publisher by itself should be clear, especially since a majority of the publishers are linked to articles so the readers can look them up further if they wish to do so. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my review is helpful. I hope you are having a great start to 2022! Aoba47 (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking another look over this one. I've gotten almost everything raised above--I am currently archiving the URLs used but archive.org is taking its time so I will return to this to note when it's completed. Here are the changes made so far. Hope your year is off to a great start as well. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing all of my comments. I understand that archive.org can be temperamental (for seemingly no reason). My 2022 has been pretty good so far so no complaints here. I will re-read the article again sometime tomorrow to insure that I did not miss anything, but I will likely support at that time. Have a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the article again and it looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion. If possible, I'd greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC although I understand if you do not have the time or the interest. Either way, I enjoyed reading this article again and I wish you best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh edit

"of his 1977 film Eraserhead, Lynch" — should there be a comma after 'film'?
Hmm. I don't believe so (the title is not meant as a gloss or an aside but as the direct subject here) but I can change it if I'm wrong on that.
The lead should mention that the film was also titled ' The Absurd Mystery of the Strange Forces of Existence '
I've added it to the second mention of the title in the lead--this isn't uniformly mentioned in sources naming it so I don't know if it's undue to include it at the first mention of the title, maybe I'm overthinking this?
"oil slick, smokestack, steel-steam-soot, fire-sparks and electrical arcs realm" — The prose does not make clear where this quote comes from
Added the book's author in prose.
"the director had seen previously" — I'd replace "the director" with Lynch.
Done.
"Both Dino De Laurentiis' De Laurentiis Entertainment Group and Francis Ford Coppola's American Zoetrope were attached to the project at different times, but both went bankrupt before work could begin" — Repetition of 'both', I feel that removing the second 'both' would not change the meaning.
Have dropped the second "both".
"in the ’50s and ’60s" — Fix the quote mark (’ to ')
Good catch, I would never have spotted that by eye.
"It was still really alive&nbsp... ruined the world for Ronnie Rocket" — this quote is long enough to deserve/warrant a block-quote
I've wrapped this in the blockquote template and changed the leading sentence to introduce it with a colon, let me know this is correct.
The short description is "American film". How about changing it to "American unfinished film"?
Not hugely familiar with short description norms, I've gone for "Unfinished David Lynch film project" as I think perhaps Lynch is more pertinent than a nationality.
That works, I think. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, that is it! Short but comprehensive article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look at this. I've been a little awol this week or so but I believe I've addressed the above; let me know if anything else needs to be looked at. Here are the changes made. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the changes. I support the nomination for promotion as a FA. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on sources – czar edit

Love me some vaporware and Venetian Snares source material. I went to start a source review and had a few questions/thoughts on breadth:

Since the article's source list is short, what databases and reference works have you checked? For a 1990s script, it is possible that there are print sources that would need to be tracked down through reference works and indexes.
A good amount of it has come from print books I own/owned, although I've tried a few other source searches as detailed below. It always seems that another pair of eyes finds a venue not yet used though, which is appreciated.
It would be helpful to note the timeframe of the work (when it was conceived, written, mothballed) in the lede
Sure, I've added a little clarification on that.
Structurally, even if the work hasn't been produced, my understanding is that part of its notoriety comes from Lynch publishing the script on his website. There looks to be enough sources to cover the work's plot/summary and conception/development. Since it's a short article, the "Overview" could be reframed as Background on Lynch's oeuvre in general, if needed, but otherwise there looks like enough sourcing for a basic synopsis of the work itself. The current Background section is more about the work's Development. Background sections usually include contextual details necessary for understanding the background to the article.
Willing to take a read over the script top to bottom again and add a fuller synopsis but I had avoided this in order to not give the sense of there being a finished work--it's a hard balance to know what's correct, is the scope of the article the script or is it the story of it never being made. I could go either way on this.
Since the scope of the article is the work, if the work's plot is known and described in sources, we should be able to paraphrase what sources have found noteworthy for the sake of completeness czar 00:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since Lynch has tried and failed to get the film started several times, as a reader, I'm interested in the context around each time he tried—what was the attempt and what did he take instead and why. E.g., he can't get this film funded but George Lucas offers him Return of the Jedi? The commercial failure of Dune affects his ability to fund Ronnie, etc.

Here are some sources I found with a cursory search, in case they are new:

Braund, Simon (2013-10-22). "Five of the greatest movies never made". The Telegraph. Gale A346546649. Retrieved 2022-01-28. – Speaks to the film's conception and has a section potentially expanded in Braund, Simon (2014). The Greatest Movies You'll Never See: Unseen Masterpieces by the World's Greatest Directors. Octopus Books. ISBN 978-1-84403-774-2.
Lynch, David; McKenna, Kristine (2018). Room to Dream. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-399-58920-1. – Appears to discuss the work at length including aspects of its development
Kurelić, Zoran (July 2019). "From Hellholes to Hell: On Political Agency in Purgatory". Politicka Misao: Croatian Political Science Review. 56 (3/4): 137–152. doi:10.20901/pm.56.3-4.06. ISSN 0032-3241. EBSCOhost 142389331. – Has a full section and context about the plot and the film's public halflife
Sterriff, David (October 9, 1980). "Undaunted moral strength -- the elephant man's story". The Christian Science Monitor. Boston, Mass., United States. ISSN 0882-7729. ProQuest 1039083126. Alaton, Salem (1986-09-16). "Director obsessed with physical, psychological and moral rot An American nightmare". Globe & Mail. Gale A165385670. – talking about the film in 1980 and 1986

I imagine there will be more within each genre above (culture studies journal articles, newspapers, misc. details buried in biographical pieces, if not the holy grail of early 1990s industry sources). czar 05:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple X Any response to this? Do you think it's possible to incorporate some of the sources mentioned above? (t · c) buidhe 19:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay in getting back to this--I've been trying to sort out a trip which is going to take me out of country for a while but I should be able to incorporate the Telegraph article in now (just started a free trial to get by their paywall). Genuinely surprised this didn't show up for me in my searching--as to the question of where I've checked for sources, I've gone through Newspapers.com, Google (both web and books), JSTOR, and just a sizeable selection of books on Lynch's life and career from my personal collection. The other sources above I don't have access to but I may be able to pick up some of the book sources. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd ask for the sources you can't access at WP:RX. They can get almost anything! (t · c) buidhe 22:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:TWL has a lot of good stuff too czar 00:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

I am not sure if czar's is supposed to be a full source review, but I'll do one anyway. The LA Weekly link is broken. Are AllMovie and Pop Matters high-quality reliable sources? Otherwise, it looks like everything is consistently formatted and sources look good. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple X ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with.

"Begun after the success of his 1977 film Eraserhead, Lynch shelved Ronnie Rocket due to an inability to find financial backing for the project": suggest "Lynch began working on Ronnie Rocket after the success of his 1977 film Eraserhead, but was unable to find financial backing for the project". I'd avoid "shelved" because it's not clear that he ever specifically shelved it -- he just could never get the project going.
"The film's art direction would have featured a heavily industrial backdrop": wouldn't this be better as "The film would have featured a heavily industrial backdrop"? The art direction is the process by which that backdrop gets created, but it's the film's backdrop.
Can we introduce Olson on first mention?
"Cornfeld found four scripts he felt would interest Lynch, but on hearing the name of the first of these, the director decided his next project would be The Elephant Man": a bit difficult to parse; it took me a second or so to realize that the first script of the four was The Elephant Man. How about "Cornfeld found four scripts he felt would interest Lynch, but as soon as Lynch heard the name of the first of these, The Elephant Man, he decided that would be his next project"?
"...as the follow-up not only to Eraserhead or The Elephant Man but also...": I think this should be "and", not "or" -- we're getting a list of films of which the same thing is true. It's not that at the start of his career he decided to make Ronnie Rocket the follow up to Eraserhead or The Elephant Man or...; it's that he wanted to be the follow up to Eraserhead, and he wanted it to be the follow up to The Elephant Man, and....

Looks good, just the minor comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple X ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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