Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Total Recall (1990 film)/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 May 2022 [1].

Total Recall (1990 film) edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1990 science fiction action film Total Recall starring Arnold Schwarzenegger that questions how real your mind is if it can't be picked apart and put back together on a whim. It took about 15 years and up to $80 million to bring this project to life and Schwarzenegger had to wait until he could get his friend to buy it before he could be considered for the lead. Noted as one of the most expensive films ever made at the time and among the last major blockbusters to not only use practical effects but use them extensively. Famous for, among other things, a three-breasted woman, and Schwarzenegger committing the world's first do-it-yourself divorce. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • Probably won't get through all of this in one go, but I will make a start....
  • "who is a synthetic replicate" - is "replicate" a real word?
  • That's literally all I got up to the end of the music section. Back for more later........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChrisTheDude, thanks for taking the time to look at this. Replicate is a word but reading it, not in the context or way I'm pronouncing it in my head. I've changed it to "replica" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • "miniature sets produced by Stetson in Los Angeles, and supervised by Mark Stetson and Robert Spurlock" - is the "Stetson" in the first bit Mark Stetson? If so, his full name and wikilink should be on the first usage
  • "The film was often compared to Verhoeven's previous work on RoboCop, with some reviews remarking that Total Recall lacked the same "impudence and incandescence" or satirization of 1980s action films as the latter" - not sure "the latter" is correct here, as RoboCop wasn't the last film mentioned. Maybe change it to "the earlier film"......?
  • "over two-hundred in Die Hard 2" - never seen "two hundred" written with a hyphen.....?
  • "Verhoeven's worked with Stone again" => "Verhoeven worked with Stone again"
  • That's all I got in the rest of the article. That was a great read about a film which I probably haven't watched for over 20 years. Maybe if it's on any platform to which I have access I will watch it again tonight while my wife is out - she'd hate it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was gonna say Google says it's on Netflix, but then I clicked on it and it's the remake -_-. It is apparently on NowTV and Amazon Prime though. I'm glad you enjoyed the read and I've also addressed the issues in your comments ChrisTheDude. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (and thanks for the tip!) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note 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) 20:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis edit

Will take a look soon. Pamzeis (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pamzeis, another film you won't ever want to watch though XD Probably just a bit less gory than RoboCop. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not gonna screw this up, not gonna screw this up (hopefully ;))

  • "Lori who claims their marriage is a false memory implant, and the Agency assigned her to monitor Quaid" — wait, what? Did the Agency also assault him or did the Agency assign Lori to monitor Quaid? The commas are making it confusing...
  • "It depicts a meek clerk" — is "it" the story or the magazine?
  • "In his script, Quaid's true" — his script is... the final draft? Just kinda confused which draft "his script" is
  • "from dust inhalation on set, food poisoning and gastroenteritis from the local Mexican cuisine" — did the cuisine cause dust inhalation as well?
  • "serving as the visual effects supervisor, Alex Funke as the special effects photographer, Thomas L. Fisher as special effects supervisor, production designer William Sandell, and effects producer Mary Siceloff." — why does it switch from [name] as [job] to [job] [name]?
  • "14 ft tall and 46 ft in diameter" — the readers unfamiliar with whatever this measurement system is called might need a conversion
  • "in its second weekend and" — I thought for a second it was Total Recall's second; any way this can be clarified?
  • "the film's unique visuals" — WP:VOICE
  • "At the 1991 Academy Awards" — wouldn't it be easier to say 63rd, 'cuz this wording is a bit ambiguous?
  • "solidifying his status as the most popular international film celebrity" — who considered him to be that?
  • "It was also one of the top rentals" — for how long?
  • "the initial release for poor image quality" — WP:VOICE
  • "A special Total Recall: Mind-Bending Edition Blu-ray was" — is there- is there something wrong. My brain's bein' funny and I can't tell...
  • "[Schwarzenegger's] side trying to believe that it's all true, while [Dr. Edgemar] is" — but... Schwarz-whatever is an actor and Edgemar is a character...

Great article as usual. Pamzeis (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pamzeis, thank you for your review! I have addressed your issues I believe. I admit I read the mind-bending part a few times before I realized I think you're joking? XD Are you a teacher by any chance? Your comments always seem like you know what the correct thing to do is and are leading me to it but you want me to figure it out for myself. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yep, I'm joking. And LOL, no chance I'm a teacher! I'm the furthest thing from that, actually ;) Pamzeis (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as always Pamzeis! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from theJoebro64 edit

Review coming soon. JOEBRO64 16:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TheJoebro64! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two minor comments so far:

  • ... changing Quail to Quaid to avoid referencing then-vice president Dan Quayle... I think it's a bit confusing to place this in the Early development subsection. While Quayle was vice president when Total Recall was produced and released, the Early development section recounts events from the 1970s—which was well before his vice presidency; in fact, his career in politics probably hadn't even started! It think it'd make much more sense to have it in the Writing subsection, as the name change was a writing decision.
  • The author had wanted to expand "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" into a novella but had struggled to conceive a satisfactory ending of his own. I understand this is here to further illustrate how difficult it was to expand the short story into a larger narrative, but I don't think mentioning that Dick wanted to turn the story into a novella is entirely necessary. It's only tangentially, if at all, related to the development of the film adaptation, and the sentiment that expanding "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" was difficult is already well expressed.

I've been making little copyedit changes here and there but I'm finding this article hard to nitpick. Very well-written, comprehensive, and well sourced. I'm going to keep attacking it and will finish soon. JOEBRO64 13:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheJoebro64, thanks for your precise copyediting. I've made the changes requested above, I liked the second point as an anecdote but I couldn't figure out a natural way to work it in so I've removed it. The first point I have integrated into the writing section Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I should finish the review Saturday - I'm going to be pretty busy Thursday and Friday but will have tons of time on Saturday so I'll get it all done then. JOEBRO64 02:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just stylistic preference, but should the Themes subsection identify David Hughes, Noah Berlatsky, et al as an author, SyFy Wire writer, and whatnot? This is pretty insignificant in the long run and won't affect my support, but I personally feel it's a little odd to introduce these individuals without indicating their significance—I think it just tells the reader why I should take their interpretations seriously. I noticed you seem to do it in the Analysis subsection too.
  • Is there any reason Ryan Britt is named in the Modern reception subsection when the AV Club/CBR/Vulture writers aren't? Same with Scott Tobias in Cultural influence.
  • Development eventually ceased as the studio was unable to secure a deal with Schwarzenegger, and a series of failed films had harmed them financially. I'm correct to assume "them" is Dimension, or does it refer to both Dimension and Schwarzenegger? It's a little unclear

Given that these are incredibly minor points, I'm just going to go ahead and give a Support. Very well-written, well-researched, and informative. (Guess I have to go watch the film now...) JOEBRO64 03:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheJoebro64, thanks so much for the support. I've implemented your changes as well. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Drive-by comments. Check p./pp. for the following:
    • Ref#23: Hughes 2012, p. 64–65.
    • Ref#155: Grady 2003, p. 44–45.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch Kavyansh Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • It looks like Schneider (2013) is a chapter in a book? If so, can we add page numbers to the citation?
  • You're inconsistent about the use of publisher locations; Vest (2009) doesn't have a location but the other two do. You don't have to include locations but you should be consistent.
  • You use the publisher field instead of website in just three of your {{cite web}} citations; if you're not going to use that field in a consistent way I would suggest removing it. The website field is used for the name of the website, and if the publisher is evident from the website you don't have to include it (though you can if you're consistent about it). And for example "Hugo Award" is not a publisher.

I don't see any other formatting issues. I'll look at reliability and links next; I may not get that finished this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the following reliable sources?

  • filmsite.org
  • screenrant.com
  • filmschoolrejects.com
  • filmtracks.com
  • fxguide.com

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • [83] and [85] are the same citation.
  • In [109], both sub-citations are the same.

Otherwise everything looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • RE: Schneider: It's an e-book so I don't have any page numbers, the best I've been able to do is narrow it down by chapter.
  • RE: Locations: I've added a location to Vest, removed the link on one for consistency
  • RE: Website v Publisher, references are the worst part, I think I did these before a discussion on cite web regarding the use of the website parameter. I've removed the publisher parameters.
  • RE: Filmsite: Filmsite is a long standing speciality website managed by Film Historian Tim Dirks, relating to the film industry, and has been recognized by professionals such as Roger Ebert, Variety, and the Encyclopedia Britannica, and it's a one-man operation without any contributors or paid for articles as seen here
  • RE: Screenrant.com: Screen Rant is another speciality website in terms of relating specifically to the film industry and its history. It does have a clear editorial team, as well as a fact checking policy and according to Semrush has over 100 million visitors in the last month and is in the top 1,000 sites on the web.
  • RE: Film school rejects: It's similar to screen rant above in terms of speciality information and covering some info I just haven't been able to find elsewhere because it might be considered minituae about a character for instance, they have an editorial team and don't accept contributor postings, it's been recognized by major publicatiions such as Total Film, and it is registered as an LLC so it has some legal obligations.
  • RE: Filmtracks: This is similar to Filmsite in that it is a one-man operation with speciality knowledge that has been running for nearly 30 years and has been recognized by publications including Film Score Monthly and Entertainment Weekly, and the man running it all, Christian Clemmensen, is a member of the international film music critics society so he is a professional with expert knowledge
  • RE: FXGuide: Again its another speciality website with a focus on special effects by experts in the field. The site has provided speciality media for The Daily and Wired. It's about page is brief but mentions it is registered as an LLC with three clear editorial/owner staff, although one has sadly passed. The interviews they conduct, such as the one used in Total Recall, are also done with those involved with the film so it is coming from directly involved professionals.
  • RE: Ref 83 and 85, good catch, I've been thrown off by the different formatting/layout in each archive.
  • RE: Ref 109, the archive is two pages because the older version was broken up that way and it was the alternative I expected people would use because the live site is restricted by a paid membership.
  • I think I caught every question, thanks for taking the time to do this Mike. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck most points above. For the three remaining sites, can you point me at anything that shows they are treated as reliable by industry sources, or anything else that would help establish reliability? The two one-man operations, in particular, are functionally equivalent to blogs so we need a bit more, I think. Has the film WikiProject got any background material that would help show they are reliable? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have used those 3 sites in recent FAs, but I'll do my best:
Filmsite was previously purchased from Dirks by AMC until Dirks bought it back in about 2020. Ebert quotes him here, and make a lot of references to it throughout his career, IMDb references his work here. He is an approved Rotten Tomatoes critic, he was a writer for Sundance (the film festival). I think this evidences he is a professional critic/film historian and is treated as such.
Per the above, Filmtracks is maintained by Clemmensen who is a member of the international film music critics society which is a recognized, professional body, so he is a professional with expert knowledge. The site is mentioned in Variety, EW, as well as publised books such as The Sound of Cinema, Contemporary Film Music: Investigating Cinema Narratives and Composition and the The Oxford Handbook of Cinematic Listening, as well as research documents. I believe his acceptance as a professional and his reliability is solid.
With FXGuide, the answers are coming from those directly involved in the production so the information being cited is not to do with third parties or the site staff and its irreplaceable speciality knowledge. It was founded by Jeff Heuser, Mike Seymour, and John Montgomery who are professionals in their field. Seymour's linkedin in particular marks him as a Ph.D,. Researcher, Lecturer, Writer Media-Tech Specialist Digital Humans: MOTUS Lab USYD & fxguide co-founder. They've done features for sites such as Wired here, here, and here.
Hopefully this of some use. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those all look OK; thanks for the links. It doesn't really help to say they've been used in previous FAs, since I can't tell if the source reviewer looked at them or what they said, but feel free to point me at this FAC if I ask about any of these in the future.

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, yeah I thought that might be a bit WP: OTHERSTUFF, unfortunately some of the most useful sites for these older films are not on the recognition level of something like IGN or the New York times. Thanks for taking time with this! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, sorry to bother you but you're the only name I know off the top of my head. Is there somewhere to request an image/media review like there is for sources? I think that's all that's missing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it goes in the same place, but specify the type of review you need. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Image licenses, rationales for non-free files and samples and uses seem OK to me. Not all images have ALT text, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'll sort the ALTs shortly, just having tea. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:55, 10 May 2022 (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/Total_Recall_(1990_film)/archive1&oldid=1087194740"