Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tender Mercies/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:41, 21 March 2009 [1].
Tender Mercies edit
- Nominator(s): Hunter Kahn (talk)
I am nominating this for featured article because I've put a good amount of work into it and I think it's as thorough and comprehensive as it can be. Looking forward to any suggestions or comments! Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical Review
- Dabs and external links (using the checker tool in the toolbox) are found up to speed.
- Ref formatting (using WP:REFTOOLS script)
found an issue: The following refs are duplicated and appear in the ref section as such, a ref name should be used instead for the following duplicated refs..
Comments -
Make sure all your web sources have last access dates.- Added to the web sources, but I didn't add them to the ones I got off Lexus Nexus, where I had pages and sections and whatnot, even if I also had a website for them. Check to make sure that's acceptable for you. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://countrymusic.about.com/od/interviews/a/lbrodyint_4.htm a reliable source?- I was under the impression that About.com was reliable; it's been around a long time, is one of the most visited sites on the web and is big enough to warrant its own article here. But, if it isn't, I'll check Lexus Nexus to see if I can find another source of that info to replace it with. I'll be able to do that tomorrow... --Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced that source with new sources. Couldn't find anything on Buckley demanding more moolah for the soundtrack, but the rest of it was covered by other sources. Got no URLS for those, but if you want the exact wording, I can email you copies of the articles I've copy and pasted from my Lexis search. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that About.com was reliable; it's been around a long time, is one of the most visited sites on the web and is big enough to warrant its own article here. But, if it isn't, I'll check Lexus Nexus to see if I can find another source of that info to replace it with. I'll be able to do that tomorrow... --Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On About.com see ... Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MoS cleanup needed throughout. There are WP:PUNC logical punctuation issues, and problems with consistency in page numbers in the citations. Samples:
- "winning but extremely low-key film." Maltin also said Foote's screenplay is "not so much a story as a series of vignettes."
- I think I got them all, but if I missed any please feel free to fix them or point them out to me. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maltin, Leonard (October 2003). Anderson, Cathleen; Sader, Luke (eds.). Leonard Maltin's Movie & Video Guide (2004 ed.). New York City: Plume. pp. pg. 1388. ISBN 0451209400.
{{cite book}}:|pages=has extra text (help)
- English is default, delete. Understand the difference between p. pp. and pg, don't mix them, use a consistent style throughout. It should be p. 1388 or pp. on page ranges. The placement of punctuation on both quotes is wrong per Wp:PUNC.
- Dropped the english. I seems someone else fixed the pages thing in this case. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maltin, Leonard (October 2003). Anderson, Cathleen; Sader, Luke (eds.). Leonard Maltin's Movie & Video Guide (2004 ed.). New York City: Plume. pp. pg. 1388. ISBN 0451209400.
- Slawson p. 158-159
- Should be pp. and page ranges are separated by WP:ENDASHes, not hyphens.
- Done. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be pp. and page ranges are separated by WP:ENDASHes, not hyphens.
- "winning but extremely low-key film." Maltin also said Foote's screenplay is "not so much a story as a series of vignettes."
- These items should be easy to fix, but standard fare for repeat FAC nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments-
- I would suggest greatly expanding the cast section. Every other section is overflowing with information on each respective topic; try adding some more info to the cast section. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 21:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell me specifically how you would suggest expanding this section? I was under the impression in Film-related articles, only major cast members should be listed so that it's not simply a list of every single minor part, which would run the risk of creating a IMDb-lookalike. I mean, I guess I could add more actors/characters to the list, but since all the pertinent information is in the "Casting" section under Production, I'm not sure it would serve the article very well... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Blurred and distorted images detract from rather than enhance the article, and I'm not sure the rationales provided when they were uploaded meet Wikipedia requirements.
- The only image that appears blurred and distorted (at least on my screen) is the Awards one, although I think you are correct regarding that one. I've dropped it, and it will eventually get deleted as a result. The others, however, I think are much clearer, and their rationales are in line with many others of their type on Wikipedia. Can you tell me anything specifically that ought to be changed regarding them? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refer to the extensive comments made by Bignole below. I agree with what he has to say re: the use of images sans critical commentary to support them. The photographs you have added act as decoration more than anything else. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image of Betty Buckley, which really doesn't belong in the article, is extremely distorted on my screen. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have replaced an image of Duvall in a screenshot from the film with one that is even less appropriate for this article. The new image of Duvall was taken years after Tender Mercies was released and doesn't show him engaged in any activity related to the film. Just because an image is available in Wikipedia Commons doesn't mean it should be used at random. The one you selected would be acceptable in the article about Duvall himself, but not in articles about films in which he appeared. Please allow me to reiterate that you appear to want to add photographs as decoration more than anything else. I understand the desire to break up acres of text with a colorful image - I'm guilty of adding too many myself in the past - but they need to have a connection to text within the article, and this one has none at all. LiteraryMaven (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right about my desire to add photographs as a way of decorating the article; obviously, I'm not a pro when it comes to the Wikipedia image policy yet. However, I do feel it's important to have a photo of Robert Duvall in this article, since this was a very personal project to him, he played a very important role (not just acting-wise) in the film and it's the only movie for which he's won an Oscar. As per that line of thinking, I've decided to try readding the one picture of Duvall that I had dropped earlier; I feel it makes sense and is in line with what you are saying, because I think it has a connection with the article, has a connection to the specific text it aligns with and serves as a strong visual example of what the article talks about. Let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 07:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have replaced an image of Duvall in a screenshot from the film with one that is even less appropriate for this article. The new image of Duvall was taken years after Tender Mercies was released and doesn't show him engaged in any activity related to the film. Just because an image is available in Wikipedia Commons doesn't mean it should be used at random. The one you selected would be acceptable in the article about Duvall himself, but not in articles about films in which he appeared. Please allow me to reiterate that you appear to want to add photographs as decoration more than anything else. I understand the desire to break up acres of text with a colorful image - I'm guilty of adding too many myself in the past - but they need to have a connection to text within the article, and this one has none at all. LiteraryMaven (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The photo you reverted relates to the film, and therefore is more appropriate, and the caption is an improvement over the previous one. However, the image still is distorted. I wanted to check the original but unfortunately you failed to make note of the source when you uploaded the image, which is a requirement. If you click on "Upload file" and then click on "screenshot," you're given a template to complete. This automatically appends itself to the image's page after the upload is complete. Obviously you didn't go this route when you uploaded this particular image. What was the source for it, i.e., on which website did you find it? (BTW, I agree with you about all the rules and regulations re: images - they frustrate me, too!) LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this image [2] which is much clearer. If you think it's better, you can upload and use it instead of the present image or, if you prefer, I'll be happy to do it for you. If you do it yourself, be sure you use the method I mentioned above.
- In completing the summary, you may want to use the following as a guide. It was recommended to me by a more seasoned editor, and not one of the pictures I've uploaded using this summary has been deleted.
![[2]](http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/Tender%20Mercies%20pic%202.jpg){kind=link}
- Description = Robert Duvall in a scene from the film
- Source = [3]
- Article = Tender Mercies
- Portion = All
- Low_resolution = The image is only used once and is rendered in low resolution to avoid piracy. The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product. The image is of much lower resolution than the original, and would not be mistaken for the original. Any copies made from this image would be of inferior quality.
- Purpose = The image is significant in identifying the star of the film, who was involved in every aspect of its production and won an Academy Award for his performance. It is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification for informational and educational purposes. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality for uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original product.
- Replaceability = As the film is copyrighted, no free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the film's star in relation to his role.
- other_information = Use of this image in the above article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above.
- I hope this helps! LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, grammatical and spelling errors abound throughout the article. "Beresford also clashed on set with Wilford Brimley, a friend of Duvall who was cast in a supporting role at the Duvall's instance" is just one example.
- I've fixed that one, but can you tell me of others? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be simpler for me to correct them myself, which I'll do first chance I get. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to clean this up but I still find problems in it. You repeatedly refer to "filmmakers" but fail to identify who you mean. I removed some of what I considered trivia, but I still think there's some here, particularly everything in the "Cultural references" section, which I feel adds nothing to the article and therefore is unnecessary. I also removed at least two claims that Duvall and Foote worked on "many" films prior to Tender Mercies, as it appears their only previous link was To Kill a Mockingbird. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed any reference to filmmakers that I could; in all the remaining ones, the source isn't any more specific. Thanks for fixing my TKAM mistake. As for the cultural references section, I felt it showed that the film had lasting power well after the time it was released. I've seen these kind of sections on film articles before and it seems appropriate to me. I frankly think it's a shame to see so many of these things disappearing from the article, but if it's really going to hold up the FA for the article, then I'll delete cultural references. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 03:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to clean this up but I still find problems in it. You repeatedly refer to "filmmakers" but fail to identify who you mean. I removed some of what I considered trivia, but I still think there's some here, particularly everything in the "Cultural references" section, which I feel adds nothing to the article and therefore is unnecessary. I also removed at least two claims that Duvall and Foote worked on "many" films prior to Tender Mercies, as it appears their only previous link was To Kill a Mockingbird. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, a lot of what's included here borders on trivia. The fact Betty Buckley was playing the role of Grizabella in the Broadway musical Cats when the film was released is irrelevant (had she left the production to make the movie, that might be worthy of comment), and, in reference to Tender Mercies, it is hardly significant "the role includes the song Memory, one of the most famous numbers from the play." LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The names of cast members are listed an excessive number of times in this article - in the infobox, in the opening, in the plot synopsis, in the cast list, and in the casting section. Seems like overkill to me. At least remove them from the opening and plot synopsis.
- I think you're right about this, and I think the solution was to drop the Cast list section altogether. Since moving the casting info into it's own section, the "Cast" section really became unnecessary and redundant. I consulted Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Cast_and_crew_information and they suggest dropping the Casting section and simply linking the actor names in the Plot synopsis in such cases, and they cite Tenebrae (film) as precedent. I think this addresses the issue here. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, why are so many names linked multiple times? Isn't once enough?
- Fixed. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't appear to be "fixed" - the cast names are linked in the first paragraph and then again in the plot section. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. And that's as per WP:Wikilinks. It says: "These links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions." In fact, the way they were before was probably acceptable according to this guideline, but I scaled them back anyway. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't appear to be "fixed" - the cast names are linked in the first paragraph and then again in the plot section. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree there's a lot of trivia in this article. Two examples: 1) "Some time after filming on Tender Mercies was finished, Duvall would surprise Allan Hubbard by attending his tenth birthday party, where he gave Hubbard his first guitar as a gift." 2) The entire section that begins with "After the film was released, Universal Studios offered to host a party for the cast and crew at the famous Studio 54 in New York City. But Duvall felt the atmosphere was not right for the film and instead suggested a hoedown at one of the city's country and western clubs; when the studio refused, however, Duvall simply cancelled the bash altogether and hosted a party at his own apartment." I don't see how these details are relevant to the film at all or why they belong in an encyclopedia article about it. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree on the Hubbard surprise party bit, I dropped that. As for the second item, I think it's worth making brief note of because it sort of illustrates the difference in philosophy shared by the studio and filmmakers over the movie and the lifestyle portrayed in the movie. However, I think I probably included way more info on it that was appropriate, so I scaled it back significantly. What do you think, fair compromise? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I think your feeling that the comment about the party "sort of" illustrates the difference in philosophy shared by the studio and filmmakers over the movie and the lifestyle portrayed in the movie is your POV more then fact. I still think the comment doesn't belong here. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree on the Hubbard surprise party bit, I dropped that. As for the second item, I think it's worth making brief note of because it sort of illustrates the difference in philosophy shared by the studio and filmmakers over the movie and the lifestyle portrayed in the movie. However, I think I probably included way more info on it that was appropriate, so I scaled it back significantly. What do you think, fair compromise? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose one image has no FU rationale, two have invalid ones, and another is poor at best Fasach Nua (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be too much trouble to ask you for help in what's wrong with the FU rationale, or what can to be done to improve them? Images aren't my strong suit... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 04:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issues with the images comes primarily from the lack of critical commentary. To start with the first (the film poster), it needs a copyright tag. I assume that it would be copyrighted to whomever owned the movie in 1983 (as it's their poster). Now, about the other images and "critical commentary" (CC). CC is something you are not going to find in a plot section; not unless the plot section is written like this. WP:MOSFILMS#Other article components discusses non-free images used in film articles. It basically boils down to, unless you have reliably sourced text describing the image specifically then you cannot use it. To provide an example, the plot image says "the relationship between these three characters, which is a crucial element of this movie" on the image page. The question you have to ask whenever dealing with non-free images is, "do I need a visual aid to understand what this person is talking about" (e.g., I need a visual image when Tom Savini describes the look he was attempting to achieve in creating Jason Voorhees's physical appearance in Friday the 13th). "Is this specific image/scene even discussed"? Another example, how does this image create a better understanding of country music? That's what the fair use rationale says, but the image is captioned with information about Duval's travelling. If you just want an image of Duvall, then there are a bunch of free ones that can serve the same purpose. The other is of Betty singing. It's unlikely that an image of Betty singing is going to greatly enhance a sentence that said Betty sang. The average reader will know what someone looks like singing. Scanning the article I don't see a lot of sections that would require an image per say, so free ones might be your better bet. I'd check into some free images maybe some on-location areas for the "Filming" section. Quote boxes are good as well to break up the prose and give the eyes a breather. There is also a general standard for the structure of the lead paragraphs, mainly that the basic synopsis of the film should come after you've introduced the people who made the film. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is a similar sized article, featured, that could provide a good example. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...I hate the images policy on Wikipedia. lol. But you're obviously right, and way better versed in this stuff that I. I had hoped at least the first two (Duvall and the flag, and the three of them) would survive, since I do think they serve those purposes pretty well (showing the country music flavor, showing the relationship between the three), but I've dropped them all and added generic free pics instead. As far as the poster, I'm still not entirely clear on what needs to be added (this pic was here before I started working on the article). Unless I'm missing something (and I probably am) it seems in line with movie poster images from other FA movie articles (here, here, here and here). — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I remember when they cracked down in non-free images and I had to watch as dozens of images that I had uploaded to Smallville went bye-bye. But, I've grown to understand the policy better because of it. As for the poster, the further I look at the more I see issues with it (nothing that would result in it being removed of course). But, I've gone and made the corrections. To explain what I did, in case you work some other film articles or just come across this issue (some of those FA posters have this problem, and I think it's sometimes ignored during FACs because it's "the poster" for the infobox which is a standard image). First, we have to know who owns the image, and in this case I wasn't entirely positive which company "owned" the marketing rights for the film, so I put the three majors. Second, the source originally just had a basic website, but the image must have the webpage that it was taken from. Lastly, there are 10 criteria for fair-use, and (again, I don't know why or how this goes ignored on other posters) the image must explain how it meets all 10 criteria. Sometimes this seems trivial (e.g., Do I need to really say that there are no non-free movie posters available?...maybe, maybe not. Always best to "err on the side of caution" ;D). There was also a bit--"Derived from a digital capture (photo/scan) of the Film Poster/ VHS or DVD Cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the film company or the artist. Claimed as fair use regardless."--which is kind of confusing, and I'm not sure the person who put this in really knew what they were saying. So I removed that completely. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much for taking care of this, and for educating me on this area of Wikipedia where I'm still a bit fuzzy. Also, I've decided to try to add one of the photos that I cut back into the article, but I believe it's in line with the image policy and not simply for decoration purposes. Please see my rationale above, and let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 07:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I remember when they cracked down in non-free images and I had to watch as dozens of images that I had uploaded to Smallville went bye-bye. But, I've grown to understand the policy better because of it. As for the poster, the further I look at the more I see issues with it (nothing that would result in it being removed of course). But, I've gone and made the corrections. To explain what I did, in case you work some other film articles or just come across this issue (some of those FA posters have this problem, and I think it's sometimes ignored during FACs because it's "the poster" for the infobox which is a standard image). First, we have to know who owns the image, and in this case I wasn't entirely positive which company "owned" the marketing rights for the film, so I put the three majors. Second, the source originally just had a basic website, but the image must have the webpage that it was taken from. Lastly, there are 10 criteria for fair-use, and (again, I don't know why or how this goes ignored on other posters) the image must explain how it meets all 10 criteria. Sometimes this seems trivial (e.g., Do I need to really say that there are no non-free movie posters available?...maybe, maybe not. Always best to "err on the side of caution" ;D). There was also a bit--"Derived from a digital capture (photo/scan) of the Film Poster/ VHS or DVD Cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the film company or the artist. Claimed as fair use regardless."--which is kind of confusing, and I'm not sure the person who put this in really knew what they were saying. So I removed that completely. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...I hate the images policy on Wikipedia. lol. But you're obviously right, and way better versed in this stuff that I. I had hoped at least the first two (Duvall and the flag, and the three of them) would survive, since I do think they serve those purposes pretty well (showing the country music flavor, showing the relationship between the three), but I've dropped them all and added generic free pics instead. As far as the poster, I'm still not entirely clear on what needs to be added (this pic was here before I started working on the article). Unless I'm missing something (and I probably am) it seems in line with movie poster images from other FA movie articles (here, here, here and here). — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment - What's the source for all the various award nominations and wins? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, right. Added those. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another - In the cultural references section it says: "The film is also referenced several times in a tenth season episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 spoofing the 1985 film Boggy Creek II: And The Legend Continues. The Boggy Creek film, set in rural Arkansas, featured a county music-style score, and the MST3K characters repeatedly sang "Wings of a Dove" to the film's music." Now, if this was an original song created for the film, I'd be more inclined to accept a primary source verifying the reference, but from what I can see "Wings of a Dove" was around before the film. This poses the question of "how do we know they were referencing Tender Mercies and not just the song itself?" Also, it says "several times" in the episode. "Several" is a weasel term (i.e. it's non-descriptive, as "several" could mean anything). If there are a lot of references, the words "multiple" or "various" are good substitutes, because they are (and I steal this from one of my professors) "specifically vague" enough to be acceptable when describing a lot of things without a specific number count. That being said, it also begs the question "what are the other references". There is only the one, the song, listed. If there are others, they should be listed, and a better source would probably need to be found, unless the show was clear in their reference (e.g., calling a drunk character Mac Sledge...that's pretty straight forward). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, right. Added those. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 02:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issues with the images comes primarily from the lack of critical commentary. To start with the first (the film poster), it needs a copyright tag. I assume that it would be copyrighted to whomever owned the movie in 1983 (as it's their poster). Now, about the other images and "critical commentary" (CC). CC is something you are not going to find in a plot section; not unless the plot section is written like this. WP:MOSFILMS#Other article components discusses non-free images used in film articles. It basically boils down to, unless you have reliably sourced text describing the image specifically then you cannot use it. To provide an example, the plot image says "the relationship between these three characters, which is a crucial element of this movie" on the image page. The question you have to ask whenever dealing with non-free images is, "do I need a visual aid to understand what this person is talking about" (e.g., I need a visual image when Tom Savini describes the look he was attempting to achieve in creating Jason Voorhees's physical appearance in Friday the 13th). "Is this specific image/scene even discussed"? Another example, how does this image create a better understanding of country music? That's what the fair use rationale says, but the image is captioned with information about Duval's travelling. If you just want an image of Duvall, then there are a bunch of free ones that can serve the same purpose. The other is of Betty singing. It's unlikely that an image of Betty singing is going to greatly enhance a sentence that said Betty sang. The average reader will know what someone looks like singing. Scanning the article I don't see a lot of sections that would require an image per say, so free ones might be your better bet. I'd check into some free images maybe some on-location areas for the "Filming" section. Quote boxes are good as well to break up the prose and give the eyes a breather. There is also a general standard for the structure of the lead paragraphs, mainly that the basic synopsis of the film should come after you've introduced the people who made the film. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is a similar sized article, featured, that could provide a good example. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.