Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Beautician and the Beast/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2020 [1].

The Beautician and the Beast edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you get when you put the lead from The Nanny and a James Bond in a 1990s romantic comedy? Well, if you have ever asked yourself this (oddly specific) question, you would get this film. It is about a New York City beautician who falls in love with a Eastern European dictator after being hired to tutor his four children. The film received primarily negative reviews, and was a box-office bomb, grossing roughly $11.5 million against a production budget of $16 million.

This is my first FAC for a film article so I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to further improve it. I was inspired by the FAs about films and looked to those articles for inspiration and guidance. I'd like to thank @Kailash29792:, @Shshshsh:, and @Numerounovedant: for helping with the peer review. Thank you in advance for any help, and I hope everyone is doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kailash edit

Support: Having reviewed the article during the PR, I found it satisfactory then and still do. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from Nick-D edit

I don't think I'll post a full review, but the statement in the lead that "the film performed well on the ancillary market and has since gained a cult following" and material on these topics later in the article appears to be based only on claims made by the star of this movie. Stronger (especially independent) sourcing is needed to support this. Nick-D (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nick-D: Thank you for the comment. I highly doubt I will be able to find a stronger, more independent source to cite this information so I removed the statement in the lead altogether. Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shahid edit

Support

As mentioned above, I was one of its PR reviewers. I enjoyed reading the article (film I'd never heard of quite frankly), and I find it comprehensive, well written and well sourced. Aoba47 was highly cooperative throughout the process. I'm sure a similar attitude will be employed by Aoba47 on this FAC as well if there are any constructive comments. Shahid • Talk2me 15:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the support. It is a rather obscure film so that is understandable. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Damien Linnane edit

  • 'is her first starring role in a film' - should this be past tense (was her first)? I note it is written as past tense in the production section.
  • 'the film made $22,548,300 when adjusted for ticket price inflation' - should this have a year? As in, as of what year is that the price due to inflation? Also I don't understand the reference supporting this; it's just a blank profile of Ken Kwapis.
  • It looks like the page was cleared. Here is the archived version of the webpage, which has the information, and I have adjusted the citation so the archived link is the first one available. I have also added the year. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The Beautician and the Beast was the twentieth highest-grossing PG-rated film of 1997' - personally I don't find this information helpful or interesting as no indication is given of how many PG-rated films were released that year. Is there any way you could clarify that at all? I mean, being the twentieth-highest grossing film is impressive if there were 60 PG films though for all the reader knows there were only 21.
  • I have removed this part as I agree that it is not particularly beneficial or interesting to a wider audience. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you able to say what year it was made available on prime Video?
  • Unfortunately, I was unable to find the year it was first made available on Prime Video. I did find out that it was on Prime Video when the service was first offered to Canada in 2016, but that's not much help here. Thank you for bringing this up as I was able to find sources about how the film was available on Netflix (for a very short time) and is now available on HBO Max so I have added those references. Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes 'Bad Romance Podcast' notable enough to be featured alongside reviews from Roger Ebert and TV Guide?
  • I initially thought it was notable enough since it was hosted through Vulture.com, but upon further reflection, I agree that it is not high-quality enough and there are already plenty of reviews in this section so it is not really adding much. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work as usual. Very close to supporting. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Damien Linnane: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if there is anything that I missed or anything else that requires further improvement. I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the help and support. Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Paparazzzi edit

  • "Didier C. Deutsch praised it as a..." for which publication he was writing for?
  • Didier C. Deutsch is a music producer, with his book being cited in the article. I had previously introduced him with a descriptive phrase in the "Themes" section directly before this one, but I am open to suggestion on if something should be added here too. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a 2015 listicle, Refinery29's Erin Donnelly included Joy and Boris among those romantic comedy pairings which lacked chemistry.[54] However, in the same year, Refinery29's Lauren Le Vine considered the film a classic, " the first mention of Refinery29 is not wikilinked, but the second one is
  • Not sure how that happened. I have linked the first instance, and removed the second instance to avoid repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Jeff Vice called Drescher an inferior actress to Deborah Kerr (and Dalton was no Yul Brynner),"... Is this a quote without quotation marks or your interpretation of his comment? that text in rounds brackets sounds weird
  • I see your point. The parenthetical part does seem to have a more personal tone than allowed for Wikipedia. The unfavorable comparisons are sourced in the review, but I have revised that part to hopefully make the prose cleaner and more neutral/objective. Let me know if further revisions are necessary though. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Drescher's voice was the frequent subject of criticism;Maitland McDonagh said Drescher had a "nasal honk [that] could shatter crystal", but believed her fans would enjoy her performance. Drescher received "... repetition
  • Thank you for pointing this out. Not sure how I kept reading over that. I have changed the second instance to "she" instead. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maitland McDonagh considered" for which publication he was writing for?
  • She wrote for TV Guide. She is referenced earlier in the "Critical reception" section and is linked there because she is notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article actually. I thought that was a male critic too, but I have honestly never heard of the name "Maitland" before. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll review the sources later. In the meantime, you can address my comments above. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review so far. If you ever need help with anything, feel free to ask and I will try to do so to the best of my abilities. I hope you are having a great end to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find anything unusual with the sources. I'm going to support this nomination. Great work! Paparazzzi (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and looking through the sources. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak edit

  • The poster's alt should describe the picture itself
  • I have added more information to the ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the plot, you refer (amon others) to Joy Miller as Joy later on. Shouldn't the last name be used?
  • I used the first names because the film features multiple characters that have the same last name (i.e. Boris, Katrina, Karl, Masha, and Yuri). For this reason, using the last name alone would be confusing. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and some caged animals to safety. A headline in the New York Post praises Joy as a hero → I would connect those two short sentences to: "to safety, prompting the New York Post to praise Joy as a hero"
  • Revised, but I kept the "headline" part as it is important to the plot. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She misinterprets his job offer as teaching hairstyling → I'd add a "However," in front of this
  • party for visiting emissaries, during a summit meeting, to debut → are the commas needed here?
  • I do not think so. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cast is → I would rather say "Cast adapted from [source]."
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I have revised it accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the cast section, the actors have to be sorted by their last names. As far as I see it here, they are sorted by their "relevance" in the film, but I wouldn't really recommend that.
  • I understand your point. I went with the order that was used on the Rotten Tomatoes citation. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also another overall comment — shouldn't things such as "the concept for The Beautician and the Beast" be "the concept for the Beautician and the Beast"?. I'm just asking.
  • I do not believe so since "The" is capitalized in the film's title. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to link all the actors again in the Production section? We have linked them in Cast already.
  • as a "spin" on the musical → I would simplify to as an homage to the musical
  • Rewrites on the script → Changes to the script may be a better option
  • Roger Birnbaum and Peter Marc Jacobson were also executive producers for the film. Howard W. Koch, Jr. was a producer alongside Graff.[5] → Any chance you can connect these two short, cut sentences?
  • You could add the running years for her Nanny sitcom
  • I was initially hesitant about this, but I see your point. It is helpful to point out that The Nanny was on the air at this time as it adds more meaning to the later criticisms about it for unfamiliar readers. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • he had enough funny lines → "funny" may not be the most encyclopedic word. Any alternative?
  • I do not think it is unencyclopedic since the sentence is about how Drescher wanted Dalton to have humorous lines as well (most likely to avoid him just reacting to her character all the time). Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Wembley, UK → write out "UK" to United Kingdom
  • Eidelman composed seventeen → should be 17
  • and fluffy enough → again, not too enyclopedic
  • I think it is appropriate since it is in the context of a review. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link sitcome in the second para of the Critical reception section
  • Sitcom is linked in a previous section. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would replace "romcom" with "[romantic comedy]". I don't think this term is really that known
  • Understandable. It is always good to remember readers that are more unfamiliar with the subject matter. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cartoon network freak: Thank you for the reviews. I believe that I addressed everything. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your responses and all your comments seem to be justified. Thus, I can support this nomination. This is a really strong article. All the best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Ref #4
    • does not mention original title, The King and Oy
  • I have removed the original title. Looking back, this title was supposed to be sourced with the film commentary, and I somehow misplaced this citation there instead while rewriting the article. Apologies for that mistake. I decided to remove that part altogether as I no longer have access to the audio commentary to look back on to verify that information again. Aoba47 (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add page number(s): p. A37–A38, or just p. A38

... [To be continued]... --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review so far. I have made the recommended adjustments, and I have gone through to add page numbers for the remaining Newspapers.com sources. Apologies for not adding them prior to the FAC. I'm not sure how that slipped my mind. I never thought about using clippings, but I could see how they would help with accessibility. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replaced the remaining Newspapers.com links wth clippings. I tried to find more accessible links for the two Highbeams sources, but I unfortunately could not find any. Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being proactive. I made a few more edits. I hope they are self explanatory. You are good to go in my book. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to do this review. You have helped to improve the article immensely. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Beautician_and_the_Beast/archive1&oldid=966590412"