Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment/2008/Promoted

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Film‎ | Assessment‎ | 2008

edit

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Batman (1989 film) edit

Passed. Steve T • C 08:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article because I think A-class status is a safe process to get to featured article nomination. This article has recently gone through a peer review and I think it's "ready". Comments are welcomed to make this article better. Wildroot (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The article is too blue for me, so I suggest a mass-delinking. Is that helpful? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 11:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Steve
  • Comments, suggestions, etc. from Steve T • C A good, interesting article. I've read it before, but there have been significant changes since the last time. I've split this review into two sections. The first concerns issues that probably need sorting before the article can reach A-class. The second section contains suggestions that would almost certainly be brought up during any future featured article candidacy. I know this list looks long, but really, most of these are minor fixes that can be dealt with easily enough:

*'A'-class issues:

    • Infobox:
      • Per WP:FLAG, there's probably no need for the flag image. I'd also be tempted to delink United States, an article that wouldn't really add to a reader's understanding of the topic.
    • Lead:
      • Per WP:PIPE, the link to the character article in the first line should encompass "of the same name" rather than just the last two words.
      • The statement "The film is the first installment of Warner Brothers' Batman film series, in which Batman deals with the rise of a powerful villain known as "The Joker"" makes it sound as if the whole series deals with Batman v. Joker. Suggestion: "The film, in which Batman deals with the rise of a powerful villain known as "The Joker", is the first installment of Warner Brothers' Batman film series."
      • Should it be "Warner Bros." throughout, rather than "Warner Brothers"?
      • The italics are a bit fudged in the third paragraph.
      • Remove the film series link from the fourth paragraph. It's already linked in the first.
      • Is the "breach of contract" situation a prominent enough incident for the lead?
    • "Plot" section:
      • Overlinking throughout. See "vigilante", "corrupted", "cathedral" and "bell tower" for examples. All common enough terms that they don't need definitions and explanations. Check for others.
      • The first line ("With a 200th anniversary celebration approaching...") doesn't mention what it's an anniversary of.
      • The mention of Joker's "laughing sound machine" seems trivial and the summary works without it.
    • "Cast" section:
      • This seems like a mere list fleshed out solely with plot information. Some prefer the real world casting information to be included in this section. Or consider rolling this section into the "Casting" subsection of "Development".
      • Some overlinking ("hoax", "photo shoots", etc.).
    • "Development" section, "Michael Uslan" subsection:
      • "Producers Michael Uslan, a former comic book writer and Benjamin Melniker purchased the film rights..." Who is the "former comic book writer" referring to? While it's not Uslan, some readers might be fooled into thinking that it is, and that you've simply missed a comma.
      • Remove or fix the campy (style) redlink.
      • "Columbia Pictures and United Artists turned down the offer." What offer? The pitch? If so, clarify by moving the sentence to accompany the one about the pitch, or recast the sentence to say something like "Columbia Pictures and United Artists were among those to turn down the film."
      • "Mankiewicz took high inspiration..." High inspiration? Is this any different to the regular kind of inspiration?
      • Overlinking throughout, on common terms and to articles that have already been linked close by.
    • "Development" section, "Tim Burton" subsection:
      • In the third paragraph, it's unclear whether or not the changing of Silver and Thorne to Vale and Grissom was Hamm's idea, as the sentence says he "believed" (i.e. he wasn't sure, but thought it likely) the decision was made because they weren't well known enough.
      • "Bob Kane was hired as creative consultant. He approved of the cast, production design and the script." Does that mean he had actual approval rights (unlikely), or that he "liked" them and said as much?
      • Overlinking throughout, on common terms and to articles that have already been linked close by (e.g. "film treatment", "campy", The Dark Knight Returns).
    • "Development" section, "Casting" subsection:
      • Overlinking throughout (e.g. "movie star", and again with the campy! :p).
      • The non-free image used to identify Keaton as Batman has a really weak rationale. At least consider moving it to the appropriate part of the "Design" section, so it has some defence should its deletion ever be proposed.
      • "Dick Grayson appeared in the shooting script but was deleted as the filmmakers felt he was irrelevant to the plot." Slight contradiction; wasn't he already removed from the film by Englehart at the treatment stage? Clarify.
    • "Development" section, "Design" subsection:
      • I'll stop mentioning the overlinking now. Take it as read that it needs looking at throughout the article. :)
      • "The filmmakers used matte paintings and actual 40-foot (12 m) tall buildings to help utilize the look." No need for that "actual", and I'm not sure you mean "utilize" there. What are you trying to say exactly?
      • By "setpiece" do you mean "set"? They're different terms.
      • "Jon Peters had an idea for possibly enthusing a Nike promotion." While in a technical sense, enthusing could be used here, it doesn't work due to the ambiguity it brings. Consider replacing with a like term.
    • "Development" section, "Music" subsection:
      • Fudged wikilink in second sentence. Not that it's needed, as it's yet another link to The Dark Knight Returns. :)
      • "...compilations of Elfman's opening credits were used in the title sequence for Batman: The Animated Series" Needs to be made clear that you mean Elfman's opening credits music.
    • "Reception" section:
      • I'm not too wild on the section title, which doesn't seem to cover the fact that the section contains information on marketing etc. as well as the box office and critics' views.
      • "foreign countries" would be better as "internationally", as this gears the sentence towards a less US-centric readership.
      • "Based on 49 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, 69% of reviewers enjoyed the film, with the consensus of "an eerie, haunting spectacle, Batman succeeds as entertainment, but as an addition to the character's legacy, it rings disappointingly hollow." The sentence doesn't work as written, with the segue between the prose and quote especially cumbersome. Consider paraphrasing the quote.
      • Actually, the use of Rotten Tomatoes is inappropriate here. If you notice, the reviews it lists are all dated from throughout the last twenty years, rather than from around the period of the film's release. That means it's not a good indicator as to Batman's original critical reaction. Far better to use this as a retrospective analysis, seeing if you can find another cite to summarise the critical consensus.
    • "Legacy" section:
      • "Uslan and Melniker consoled themselves with their executive producing fees of $300,000 apiece." This seems like a pretty snarky comment. More neutral wording could be used.
  • Potential future FAC issues:
    • Lead:
      • "Nicholson accepted the role of the Joker under various strict circumstances that..." The sentence works fine without the "various". Suggest replacing "circumstances" with a slightly less ambiguous term such as "conditions" or better.
      • "...deleting the character Dick Grayson." A better word than "deleting" here would be "removing", maybe "eliminating" or "discarding".
    • "Development" section, "Michael Uslan" subsection:
      • "Disappearing" might be better replaced with "waning" or similar, as the former suggests the character's popularity was on its way to extinction entirely (unlikely).
      • "Prevailing conception of the character..." "Perception" might be better here, to avoid ambiguity caused by several possible interpretations of "conception".
      • "Uslan, already disappointed, wrote a script titled Return of the Batman to "give people in Hollywood some idea of just what the hell I was talking about! It really was about ten years before The Dark Knight Returns. It was that [dark] approach to it."" The mix of prose and quote is cumbersome there, and doesn't work after the first sentence. Instead of giving the entire quote, it might be better to paraphrase it thus: "A disappointed Uslan then wrote a script titled Return of the Batman to give the film industry a better idea of his vision for the film. Uslan later compared its dark tone to that of The Dark Knight Returns, which his script pre-dated by ten years."
      • "Melniker and Uslan were promised 40% of Peters and Guber's box office profits, and felt it was best to pattern the film's development similar to Superman (1978)." The two statements aren't really related, so a new sentence rather than a comma would be more appropriate. The second part of the sentence is a little clumsy ("pattern the film's development similar to Superman"). Maybe try "pattern the film's development after that of Superman (1978)".
      • "The project was publicly announced in late 1981 to be budgeted at $15 million with still no movie studio involved." Makes it sound as if the lack of a movie studio was part of the announcement. Consider splitting the sentence for clarity ("Though no movie studios were yet involved, in late 1981 the project was publicly announced with a budget of $15 million."
      • "...focusing on Batman and Dick Grayson's origins with the Joker and Rupert Thorne as villains..." Comma after origins to remove ambiguity.
      • "...nine different writers." Redundant "different".
      • "...the comic book 'Strange Apparitions." Refer to it as a comic book the first time it's mentioned, leave it out for subsequent mentions.
    • "Development" section, "Tim Burton" subsection:
      • It's not strictly necessary, but I think the long quote from Uslan at the beginning would be better if it were broken up and paraphrased in a similar manner to the example I give above.
      • "However" is usually redundant. The same applies at the start of the fourth paragraph. Check for more.
      • "Englehart deleted the Penguin and Dick Grayson." Again, "removed", "eliminated" or similar would be better here.
    • "Development" section, "Design" subsection:
      • Long quote from Ringwood that might be better off paraphrased, placed in a quote box, or used as the caption with the image of Keaton as Batman.
    • "Reception" section:
      • The reviews don't really go into a lot of detail for the most part; they're more a collection of soundbites than specific, targeted criticisms. I think this section would need the most expansion were the article to go to FAC.
      • Is there any deeper analysis of the film's themes available? Again, maybe it's not strictly necessary for a popcorn flick, but I remember when I first saw it reading a hell of a lot about Batman and Joker, Batman's psyche etc. I'm positive this would come up during FAC.
    • "Legacy" section:
      • Is there anything else available on the film's legacy as the film that pretty much heralded the arrival of the modern superhero film?
    • As I've commented above, the whole article needs some of the overlinked words and phrases looking at. There's no need to link the first instance of every actor, producer, writer or comic book in each section, for example.
    • What makes the following sources reliable:
    • See WP:NBSP for where non-breaking spaces should be implemented (e.g. $48&nbsp;million, October&nbsp;20).
  • That seems to be it for now. Let me know if you have any questions; naturally, I'll keep the review watchlisted. All the best, Steve T • C 13:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that review. I have finished addressing your important comments for the A-class suggestions. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although the article is still a bit too blue for me, I think it is much better. And by the way, is there a way for users to access this page from the talk page of the main article? If there is, I guess I didn't look hard enough. ;) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's incredibly difficult to judge whether an article meets the 'A'-class criteria. "Not quite FA standard" doesn't really cut it as a description; 'A'-class is supposed to be a stepping stone to FAC, yet I'm forced to ignore issues I'd almost certainly bring up if I were reviewing it there. Nevertheless, this incredibly fuzzy criterion has likely been met, and I applaud Wildroot's very quick resolution of the list of issues I brought. So this gets my support, with room for improvement. All the best, Steve T • C 08:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I will get to work on the FAC criterion, so don't worry, I will not ignore it. And to Cornucopia, yes there is a way. In the WikiProjectFilms banner, you click on that thing that says Reviews. The A-class thing is right there. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this article is terrific, having copyedited it a few times. I have a few minor quibbles, so I'll support it being A-class. Alientraveller (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Passed as A-class. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Miss Sunshine edit

I worked on bringing this article to GA in February of this year from this revision. I would like to start getting some A-class articles within our project and put this department to use, and hopefully motivate other editors to add some nominations of other articles. The article covers many aspects of the film and is well-sourced throughout, covering any questionable statements. This will be the first article I have worked on to attempt to reach A-class status, so please be gentle. Just kidding, pile on the required recommended edits as I got time to kill this summer! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Girolamo Savonarola edit

First of all, congrats on getting the article this far. Generally, the content itself looks solid and well-sourced, which is usually the most difficult part, so it's good to see that so far along. I do have a good handful of comments, but they are mainly structural.
  • The lead is far too long and contains superfluous information (for a lead) better placed within the body of the article instead, such as the budget, most of the second and third paragraph, and the details of the fourth one. Placing too much information here bloats the lead and impoverishes the sections in the body where these things should be, so I recommend looking at a handful of other film FAs to get a better idea of what you should be aiming for.
Both you and Bzuk touch on this, so I want to comment here before changing anything. The lead is at its current length due to the requirements of the GA criteria that it have a sufficient lead. Looking at WP:LEAD for an article of this length, it is acceptable to have three or four paragraphs. All of the information in the lead touches on information that is currently in all/most of the sections in the article. I think the only information in the lead that is not mentioned in the article itself is "The film was dedicated to Rebecca Annitto, the niece of producer Peter Saraf and an extra in scenes set in the diner and the convenience store, who was killed in a car accident on September 14, 2005." (By the way, do you think this should be included in the article at all or can you think of a better section to include it?) I can probably trim some of the information in the lead, but this can be difficult when attempting to touch on all of the relative sections in the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be of a decent length, namely two or three short paragraphs which rehash the most perfunctory information. I feel that the current lead is too long and goes into unnecessary details (for a lead), many of which do not reappear in the article itself. That's my main point. The easiest way to get an idea of what is proper is to go over a broad number of FAs until you start to see the underlying pattern common to each. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the lead down to three paragraphs. Let me know if you want it down further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(comment originally on Girolamo Savonarola's talk page) I feel that the lead still needs a fair amount of rewriting and goes into what - for a lead - is unnecessary trivia (eg European festival premiere), while ignoring vital information (US release date - a limited release usually includes major cities, so they can't be discounted - this is the public premiere; also keep in mind that the concept of a wide release is a very recent phenomenon that came out of the blockbuster/box-office-obsessed era, and the "platform release" model long predates the concept of a wide release). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave another stab at it, but if you want more you're going to need to tell me specifically what should be removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the RT and MC information is appropriate for a lead at all, and the soundtrack/DVD release information is probably too superfluous for inclusion either. Otherwise, you've done a great job paring it down, I think. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the two statements. I must admit...I hate lead paragraphs. It is my least favorite thing to write in an article (or maybe it's tied with a plot to a film). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better - glad you were willing to take the time. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ratings table should be dropped and the ratings left out of the article unless it is exceptionally relevant to discussion of the making or reception of the film, such as film undergoing re-editing to secure a particular rating for release.
Looking at this discussion and the deletion discussion of the template itself, I don't think that it needs to be removed. I also looked through our project's current guidelines and it looks like nothing materialized on the guidelines page from the discussion. It is not only centered on the American MPAA ratings, but includes multiple ratings for other countries. I think it should be trimmed down though to just the English-language countries, since this is the English Wikipedia. Doing so, will remove ~10 of the entries and reduce the size of the template. Let me know if you think it should still be entirely removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of a rock and hard place situation - if you lessen the non-English-speaking countries, then you're in a bias situation. If you include everything, it's verging on trivia and arguably has no encyclopedic value. I believe that the guidelines already cover it in as much as discussion of the rating is encouraged wherein it had a noticeable impact on the film (such as re-cuts, controversies, etc). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that not including non-English-speaking films will have a large bias. If possible an article should have a section touching on issues reflecting any controversy related to a rating (such as Live Free or Die Hard). If no such issues occur, such as in this case, then it would be acceptable to include the template. I think it is best to leave it in for now, unless there is further consensus among editors to remove it (or if I ever take this to FA and they have the same feelings on the matter as you do). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Details about Superfreak are superfluous.
I reduced the information in the plot about this, let me know if it needs further fixing. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase as oblivious to the sexualised subtext behind the dance as the other contestants were to the provocative costumes and heavy makeup they had been wearing looks awfully like OR or POV.
I reworded, but do you think "...oblivious to the sexualized subtext behind the dance." is still pushing it or should I reword further? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that if you can find sourcing for it, then move it to the analysis section; if not, drop it entirely. There's no evidence that I'm aware of that it would be the statement of an entirely dispassionate summary of the film, which is what we strive for with the plot sections. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • smash through the barrier of a toll booth that the pageant official had stopped at - huh?
Reworded to: "smash through the barrier of a toll booth while passing the horrified head pageant official". Let me know if it needs further clarification.
Well, is it really notable in the larger scheme of things, or is it simply an anecdotal detail? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (in order of appearance) isn't necessary - just list the cast. Breaking it into main and supporting is problematic, especially considering Arkin's preponderance of awards and noms in a supporting capacity; just list the cast in one go with the most substantial roles near the top.
Removed "order of appearance" and subheadings. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cast images do not substantially support the article and should be removed unless they illustrate something relevant to the text.
I had added the images after successfully getting permission for them from Flickr to Wikimedia Commons, and figured a few free images wouldn't hurt. I've removed them though. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information to explain why Bill Murray or Robin Williams did not take the Carell role?
I looked at a Google search, and couldn't find any specific information outside of blogs, trivia sites, and copies/mirrors of this Wikipedia article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to an article in Entertainment Weekly - there is no need to identify your sources explicitly in the text when they are in the reference (unless there is something exceptional about the sourcing itself).
Reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop (summer 2005) from Carrell's casting section; this information is already in the article.
Removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relationship between Yerxa/Berger and Turtletaub is unclear - first Y/B have the script, then suddenly Turtletaub buys it, but Y/B are still producers? I normally wouldn't ask this, but since there was the awards controversy - and the section there discusses the various things Y/B did during production and post - I think this needs to be elucidated better.
I reiterated the statement in the controversy section and placed it in the "Script" section to hopefully better clarify there status as producers. Let me know if you think this is redundant or if you have a better suggestion for rewording it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You fixed that, but now my problem is Saraf and Friendly - what did they do which made them more eligible than Y/B? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything specifically stating why they were included. However, in the current source after the statements I just added, the Academy talked about how they didn't want to split the the two partners of Yerxa and Berger. Since they didn't want to split them, they likely just included the other three producers. And/or I think the Academy wanted to include the producers who were more involved later in the film's production. Anyway, I've modified the section a bit, so please take a look at my changes and let me know if they don't make sense. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop (previously USA Films) - not relevant to this article
Removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also paid for the $8 million budget - then why did he bother with the studios to begin with? Was this a change in production attitude, and if so, why?
I think the reason that he went with the studios was so that they would pay for the budget. Since the problems occurred with the studios, he and/or other investors probably pulled the $8 million together to finance the film. However, I can't find sources confirming this and don't want to include my speculations as OR. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When preparing for the scenes that would be shot within the vehicle, the cinematographer used a basic video camera and shot from various angles inside the van to determine the best locations to shoot from - I'm guessing what is meant is that the cinematographer did this during pre-production prep so that they could decide their angles ahead of shooting (and thus expedite setup time and rigging during the shoot), but at the moment the sentence is unclear and almost makes it sound as if the scenes in the van were at least partially shot with a video camera.
Reworded to "During pre-production, the cinematographer used a basic video camera and set it up at various angles inside the van to determine the best locations to shoot from during filming". Let me know if it should be reworded further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abigail had her headphones on and could not hear the lines - might want to comment that this is much like what occurs in the film
Reworded to "One scene reflected this, and only when she saw the film did she know what was being said." Do you think it needs to be expanded on further? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It works, but it's a bit awkward. How about "and could not hear the dialogue, just like her character in the film"? Simple and to the point. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "official" release date is when it becomes publicly available, even if it is in limited release. This would make the July date the release date, not the August one (although the wide release should be noted).
I included the January release in the infobox of its first appearance at the Sundance Film Festival along with its limited and wide releases. Are all three acceptable for including? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The festival and initial public releases are acceptable, but we don't differentiate between limited releases and wide ones, so long as the film is otherwise publicly accessible upon demand. This means that the limited release date would be its "official" release date. Also, the parenthetical should be (United States) rather than (limited) or (general), because we want to include the release dates from the premiere and the public releases of the producing country and all English-speaking countries. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the style guidelines it states: "In some cases, it may be necessary to distinguish between limited releases and later wide releases." I figure since the official limited release was only 7 theaters and the jump to wide release of 691 theaters is significant, it should be reflected with mentioning both of these dates. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be relevant when there are large gaps of time between the releases (see Army of Shadows), but in this case, as the article itself notes, it had the highest per-screen average for the entire period that it was in limited release, suggesting that a not-small number of the public did see the film during this period. (This really does need further clarification in the style guidelines, though.) I'm not suggesting that the wide release shouldn't be mentioned; only that it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead or infobox
Additionally, per our infobox guidelines, you should probably include the release dates for other English-speaking countries. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the UK and Australia and removed the wide release date. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DVD release section should presumably be included within the general Release section.
I moved it up to the "Release" section and shortened heading to "DVD". --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • producers Marc Turtletaub, Peter Saraf, and David Friendly were able to appear on stage to accept the award for Best Original Screenplay - why are producers accepting a screenplay award?
I think that it was probably on behalf of the screenwriter, and/or the producers wanted to be on stage for any significant awards at the Academy Awards such as this. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That might need some research, because they are usually rather strict about who can go on-stage and why. Perhaps Arndt designated them as proxies bc he couldn't attend? There must be some press on this. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found anything yet but I'll keep looking. I saw in one source that they wanted to limit the number of producers since at one 1999 film, they had way to many producers on the stage and they were all fighting for time to talk in the microphone. Also, it mentioned that when Ben-Hur was receiving an art award, there were also way too many people on stage accepting so the Academy cut the number of allowed art people that could appear on stage. Again, I think the producers are always on stage when the major Oscars are given out (such as best screenplay or best picture), but I'll try to either look for sources that state this and maybe try to watch some online archived footage of past Academy Awards to see who goes on stage. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual awards and nominations should probably be placed ahead of the controversy sub-section, since they are the meat of the section.
Moved the subsection to the end of the section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full awards listing probably merits a split into its own listing; the awards section could then be prosified to discuss only the most notable awards/noms.
Are you referring to an article of its own? I don't think it would be beneficial to split it and would be best remaining in this article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(comment originally on Girolamo Savonarola's talk page) I'm still very iffy about keeping an overwhelmingly comprehensive (and thus arguably trivial) awards list within the article, and believe that a separate awards list would stand better on its own (and we have some precedent for this already, albeit mainly with awards earned by individuals). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have cut the list down to a couple of paragraphs. Are you talking about creating a separate list of the awards? If so, I think it would be the first of its kind I've seen, but would have a chance at being featured if I worked enough at it. However, it would depend on if we do have precedent for film articles that have separate lists for all of their awards/nominations. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't exist. In any case, the prosification of the more significant awards has been well-handled. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that will be another one of my projects this summer (goodbye good grades in my summer tax class...). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not certain if the press release needs to be linked to - if it hasn't been of any use as a source within the article, it's just PR and could be construed as spam.
I've removed the external link. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, I think it's very close. A few tweaks as per above and I'd be happy to support. Good job! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look and giving me something to work with. I'm visiting family right now and am away from a computer with high-speed capabilities. I'll get to addressing these Sunday night or Monday. Thanks again! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the amount of box-office details, particular with regard to the video rentals, is perhaps getting a bit too into minutiae. (Box office porn? ;)) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do get turned on by box office figures (wow, check out The Dark Knight). I'm always checking the various news sources every Sunday afternoon to see who wins the box office each weekend. Consider it my personal touch on the article, as I think the box office performance and the rental and DVD sales are an important representation of the income a film receives in all forms of its release. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the awards lists have gone back in, albeit in hidden form. While I do respectfully disagree, I don't really feel like pursuing it further. However, I seem to remember that hidden sections are frowned upon for FACs, for reasons involving accessibility, IIRC. In any case, if it's an issue for them, I presume that someone else will mention it there. Uncrossed-out bullets are still unaddressed, but I don't find any of them substantial enough to further defer my

Support Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bzuk edit

My comments are mainly perfunctory based on a first read-through:

  • "The film starred Greg Kinnear, Steve Carell, Toni Collette, Paul Dano, Abigail Breslin, and Alan Arkin." Last comma not needed as it is a Harvard comma that completes a list. Was this order of actors from the credit list?
I've left the comma in and I don't think there was any particular order that the list is made up of. Do you think there is a better list or is it okay? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "settled on studio Focus Features" could be written without "studio" or as the "Focus Features studio."
That was added for clarification if readers were unfamiliar, but they can click on the link if they're curious. I've removed "studio". --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many of the actors' roles had been chosen by the directors, and although the role of Frank Ginsberg was initially supposed to be played by Bill Murray or Robin Williams, the role went to Carell." Was the role actually offered or merely "pencilled in?"
Can you clarify a little further? I looked for some further information but couldn't find any specifically on how he got the role. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Filming occurred over thirty days in Arizona and Southern California in the summer of 2005." can be written as "Filming in Arizona and Southern California took place over 30 days during summer 2005." Mainly tweaking words here but the number 30 is usually used as numbers zero to nine are written out as words and a numerals 10 +. However, this is also not a hard-and-fast rule.
I've changed it to "30", but I think the way that you reworded the sentence makes it appear that filming occurred in Arizona and California for 30 days, while leaving the possibility of filming in other states for other periods of time. The way it is currently worded, I think indicates that there was no further filming. Let me know if you disagree, and I'll reconsider. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A large portion of the film focuses on the family vehicle, a Volkswagen T2 Microbus, and many of the problems associated with the vehicle were based on Ardnt's past experience on a family trip. The film's pageant used actual contestants from prior pageants, and the directors held their own pageant to learn more about the process before filming." could be a new paragraph or included in the "production" section, where some of the material is repeated.
I touched on this lead issue above in the second point raised by Girolamo Savonarola. I've mentioned it briefly in the lead so that it can be touched on when readers read the article itself. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "plus ten percent" can be written as "plus 10%" but that's writer's choice here.
I think that ten is low enough to remain being written out. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from DeVotchKa, Rick James, and Sufjan Stevens" doesn't need a last comma.
Using the serial comma here. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Little Miss Sunshine received generally positive reviews, earning a 91% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and 80/100 from Metacritic and had total international box office gross receipts of $100.2 million. The film was nominated for four Academy Awards, including Best Picture, and won two: Best Original Screenplay for Michael Arndt and Best Supporting Actor for Alan Arkin. There was also some controversy over the producers' credits at the Academy Awards, which allowed only three of the five producers to receive the award for the film. It also won the Independent Spirit Award for Best Feature and received multiple other awards and nominations. The film was dedicated to Rebecca Annitto, the niece of producer Peter Saraf and an extra in scenes set in the diner and the convenience store, who was killed in a car accident on September 14, 2005.[7]" A lot of this looks like it needs to go in the "reception" section.
I touched on this lead issue above in the second point raised by Girolamo Savonarola. I've mentioned it briefly in the lead so that it can be touched on when readers read the article itself. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "plot" section is pretty good, well-written and easy to follow. One point 'Super Freak' should use the same quotation style already adopted as "Super Freak."
Fixed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cast section is also good, but there are four "redlinks" and no reference source cited.
I've removed two of the names, do the other two need to be removed to include? I always figured that it left the opportunity for readers/other editors to create an article for the red-linked names. Also, do I need to source the list of names in the section? Looking to a couple of film featured articles, I didn't see any that had a source for the list. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production, "was a relatively unknown in Hollywood" is either "was a relative unknown in Hollywood" or "was relatively unknown in Hollywood."
Reworded to "was relatively unknown in Hollywood." --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filming is mainly repetitive as it was already mentioned in the introduction.
I touched on this lead issue above in the second point raised by Girolamo Savonarola. I've mentioned it briefly in the lead so that it can be touched on when readers read the article itself. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that involved the same vehicle" was it really the same vehicle or "that involved the same type of vehicle?"
Nice catch. Reworded as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when it dropped to eleventh" or "when it dropped to 11th."
Changed to "11th". --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it really "further reading" or was the book listed a part of a bibliography that was used in formulating the article? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Based on the MOS guideline it looks like only books that weren't used as sources but for general references should be listed here. Although, I've used it for two inline citations in the article, I still think it is the only available published source on the topic (it has the script and a few production notes). However, do you think it should still be removed? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small point here - I disagree wrt the serial comma, but my advice is simply to read the article about it, decide where you stand, and...whatever. :) In any case, it's a style choice, so it shouldn't preclude anyone's support on that basis alone. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it is not a choice, and it is the biggest pet peeve of mine, so that's why all of the articles I work on use it (I actually think this is one of the reasons I first started editing Wikipedia because it bugged me!). I think I've bugged a lot of editors by adding commas, so sorry if I bug anyone further with this article. My dark grammar preferences aside, thanks for the comments Bzuk, I hope to start on all of the above hopefully tomorrow. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. **Overall, I like the changes that you instituted and have no qualms with the very minor "sticking points" that I earlier mentioned. I will certainly recommend this version for further appraisal. FWiW, sorry for the delay in posting this comment but I was "outta town" for a portion of the last month. Bzuk (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by PC78 edit

Nice article. Prose is good, athough a thorough copyedit to dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s (so to speak) wouldn't go amiss. The main concerns I have:

  • Cast. You have actor names in parenthesis within the plot summary, which is redundant to the following "Cast" list. The cast list is just bare bones: Who is Kirby? He is mentioned in the cast list, but not (so far as I can see) in the plot summary. Needs more info. Then immediately after there is a further "Casting" section. Can the two sections not be integrated somehow?
I removed the cast list, as the most notable roles are already covered in the plot section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That works too! :) PC78 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awards. My opinion on this differs to Giro's (there has been some discussion elsewhere), and as there are no guidelines for this in the MOS, I can't see any real justification for switching from one user's preferred layout to another's. I've looked at the list in a previous revision of the article: I don't personally have much of a problem with it, and would expect such a complete list in a comprehensive encyclopedia article. That said, the list by itself doesn't offer any real commentary, so perhaps it would be best prefaced by a short paragraph of text? If space is the issue, then perhaps it could be converted to a more concise layout? Or, as suggested above, it could be expanded on and split off into its own article. It's tricky, and why I feel that MOS:FILM needs to offer some guidance on the issue.
I'll wait until the decided on guideline is approved, and I may split it off myself in the future. I don't really mind either way how it is set up so long as it is adequately covered. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Your thoughts would be welcome at the other discussion (MOS:FILM talk), if you have any. :) PC78 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the full list back in the article, only as a hidden section. See what you think. It can always be taken out again. PC78 (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, and added "Full" to the heading. If there is no policy against not including it, I think it should stay. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No citation: It had the highest per-theater average gross of all the films shown in the United States every day for the first sixteen days of its release. (second sentence, "Box office")
This was hard to find a source for. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a a single source that stated this and after some research, I discovered it was actually 21 days. However, the only way to clearly illustrate this was to add seven inline citations after it (as each citation only covers 3-4 days of the box office). If you or anyone can think of a better way to source this let me know. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All seven are from Box Office Mojo, right? You could perhaps put all seven links within a single citation. PC78 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how to do that? That would be a great benefit to me for my referencing knowledge if I can learn how to do that. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. At least, that's how I'd go about it. PC78 (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Superb job. That's one way I was thinking of doing it, but you beat me to the punch before I got a chance to practice it. Thanks for the help! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more nitpicky concerns, which do not constitute an objection (though I shall mention them anyway!):

  • The ratings infobox. Personally I think this verges on trivia, though I respect the concensus over the template and therefore do not object to its use here. However, since it relates directly to the film's release, might it not look better moved down to that section?
I moved it down to the release section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red links. There are quite a few in the article, more than I would reasonably expect for an FA. Are they all necessary? Could some be turned into blue links? (Meaning, could you perhaps whip up a few quick stubs?) Some of them appear to be unnecessary duplicates.
I removed the large majority of the red links as I don't see many of them becoming articles (although I'm sure it's possible). I don't really start articles that often myself, but the names are still there for other editors to create them in the future if need be. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Screenshots. I think the article could do to have at least one screenshot somewhere, though it should of course be relevant to the article. I've not seen the film, so I have no suggestions on what to use.
I added one image to the "Casting" section to draw attention to the casting decisions made by the directors. I believe that I have justified it with the caption and fair use rationale, but let me know if it doesn't or needs anything else. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes. Per MOS:QUOTE, quotes should not generally contain links. I spotted one or two in the article.
The links that I noticed in the quotes were one for the Mission Impossible films and one for Orson Welles. I believe the links provide clarification for readers, who may be unaware of the films/actor (they may confuse Welles as a character in the film for example). Let me know if you spotted any others or if you don't think this rationale is adequate. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have any real issue with it. Merely pointing it out. PC78 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soundtrack. Though there is nothing wrong as such with the layout of the tracklisting, I would expect it to follow the same format specified at WP:ALBUM.
The guidelines state that it should go by title, then artist, and then length. Could you specify more on what needs to be done? I also modified the infobox some based on the guidelines on the project's page. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to link to the specific section of WP:ALBUM (here, BTW). Kinda like how it's set out in The Blues Brothers (film). That said, I've just had a look at some of the FA and GA album articles, and this specific layout doesn't appear to be followed religiously. PC78 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over a variety of articles, and they all seem to differ or have the album on its own separate page. If there is more opposition in the future, I'll be happy to change it then. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also. Why is there a link to Juno? How is it relevent to this article?
I think somebody added this after it was similar to Little Miss Sunshine in its popularity at the Sundance Film Festival. I removed it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you find the above of use. :) PC78 (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comments, I really appreciate it when I get more editors to look over the article. New people find old and new mistakes that prior editors and I miss. I'll get to addressing all of your issues today, and have left comments above already for some of the smaller issues. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. PC78 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Erik edit

Suggestions
  • I hate to be a stickler, but I don't think that Image:LittleMissSunshineCast.jpg warrants inclusion. I say this because screenshots need to have critical commentary, and the non-free image does not directly tie into any aspect of the "Casting" section. Four of the six cast members in the image already have free images on their biographical articles, making the the non-free image less effective. If there was some sort of design or theme behind the composition of the cast, an image would be useful. I do not see any context for having the image here.
How dare you be the stickler! No worries, I appreciate your help. Based on PC78's comments above on including a screenshot, this was the best one that I could find available online that I thought related to the content in the article. Previously I did have free images of several cast members but were removed based on comments from this review. Looking over several other FAs, it has more critical commentary than some of the ones I've seen (speaking of which there are several articles that we need to fix these image issues in, as many plot sections have images that could be argued as decorative). If you've seen this film, can you think of a better screenshot (I'll make one myself off the DVD if necessary) for inclusion? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the best way to implement non-free images is to maximize the detail in a film article then see what, if any, images could support that detail. I think screenshots are easier to implement for films that require radical production design (war films, superhero films, etc.) so drama films and comedy films are more of a challenge. This is probably more truthful for recent ones, since they probably are not analyzed as closely as some films in the past. I noticed that the film article does not have any print sources, and I think there may be more useful content out there to implement in the article. For example, I found an American Cinematographer article (Calhoun, John (July 2006). "Family Dynamics". American Cinematographer. 87 (7): 16–18.) that had this:

Overall, [Suhrstedt] encouraged Faris and Dayton to use handheld for the purposes of the story. "They not only embraced it, but went further with it than I thought they would," he says. "They liked the flexibility of it, the fact that we could react to the actors and create a little more energy." As an example, he cites an early scene that shows the family sitting down to dinner before embarking on their voyage. "We were trying to play off the chaos and confusion and accelerating energy of that dinner."

While we couldn't capture the motion of it, perhaps there is a screenshot showing handheld usage in capturing the family. There may be more print sources, either from film journals or newspapers that don't provide electronic copies, to warrant other kinds of screenshots. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately on the DVD there is no production featurette, so I am unable to find an image as suggested with this source. Would using something like this be used to illustrate the mention of the use of excessive makeup and Olive's "plump" figure? I have used my university's film databases, and was unable to properly search for some journal articles. The one you've mentioned above I've seen before, but I wasn't able to read the whole article without registering on the host site. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another image issue is the soundtrack image. I don't think WP:FILM has really discussed the best way to present soundtrack information (like when it is ideal to spin it off or not). I'm contesting the non-free soundtrack image for two reasons: It repeats the identifying poster image at the top of the article, and WP:ALBUM's two suggested rationale templates specify cover usage for independent articles. Template:Album cover article rationale#Usage: "This template provides a fair use rationale on the image page of an album cover, only for the album cover's article itself" (emphasis theirs) and Template:Album cover fur#Template documentation: "Please use copyrighted content responsibly and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. "A template alone does not make cover art fair to use. It merely helps you state why you think it is appropriate... This template is optimized for album cover art used in the article about the album."
  • I don't think this is a problem; {{Non-free album cover}} specifically allows use "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". PC78 (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, though, the fact that WP:ALBUM specifically provided these two rationale templates that disclose that particular use seems relevant. And even if the soundtrack image was valid, is it worth repeating the look of the poster image? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't tell you what policy WP:ALBUM have regarding soundtracks in film articles, though I do know that articles such as this get tagged for their project. I will concede that perhaps the image (and the infobox as a whole) would be better in a dedicated section about the soundtrack CD itself, as opposed to music in the film in general. But otherwise it's just pretty standard usage of an album cover in an infobox; I don't see any big issue with WP:NFC. As a side note, this is one area of MOS:FILM that could certainly do with expansion! PC78 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the rationale, I'd interpret it to mean that the image should be used on the article discussing the album, not just some random page (such as an artist or awards article). Although the image is the same as the poster, most covers are the same as the posters used for advertising, as well as DVD covers. The only way I could think of differing the two would be to upload a prior poster for the main infobox that has a different image. I don't think it would be best to branch off the soundtrack information into its own article, as there isn't too much other information available to expand it further. I've seen a lot of film articles split to have the soundtrack separate, and the vast majority are all stubs that will likely never be expanded too much further. In this case, I think it would be a better case of declaring fair use when included in the main article than in a small stub. As PC78 mentioned above, the MOS concerning soundtracks should be expanded for further clarification. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A final major issue is the ratings infobox. Nehrams pointed out the discussion, which was a lot of back-and-forth between Pixelface and Bignole, and I wish more people could have joined the discussion. I've actually hoped to put up the ratings infobox for deletion, and I put together an argument sometime ago: User:Erik/Sandbox#TFD argument. The ratings themselves aren't enough; there is no background explaining the context in which a rating was issued. What makes it universal on some places, and what makes it limited in others? We don't know by looking at the restrictions. Hopefully, we can have a larger discussion down the road over this, but I don't think that the article benefits from a mere list of ratings.
If consensus decides on deleting it, I'll remove it from the article (I guess I'd have to anyway if the template was gone...). For me, I don't see it a problem of including the ratings, but I'm not stuck on it either, so whatever consensus decides is fine by me. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpicking
  • Is there a better heading for "Academy Award producers controversy"? Reviewing WP:STRUCTURE, I was just wondering if we could identify the situation more neutrally.
I tried for a while with several different headings but none seemed right. I looked over a few FAs, and there were several sections that utilize "controversy" in the heading. Can you think of a better one? My mind's still drawing a blank. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of anything, either. :-P Maybe someone else can come up with a different heading down the road. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the show/hide box for "Full list of awards and nominations" have some color? It's not immediately clear that it's a box.
    • Done, though if anyone has a more suitable colour in mind then feel free to change it. PC78 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the sentences about RT and MC need to be re-worded, since readers may not understand "Fresh" or where the consensus comes from. An example to follow may be Hancock (film)#Reception. Also, the quoted RT consensus is incorrect and needs to be fixed. If we do cite all or part of the RT consensus, we should make it clear that it is the website that presents this judgment.
I reworded the statements, and added some of the same words to describe Metacritic as in Hancock. Let me know if this should be reworded further. Concerning the consensus, it appears it has changed because it was what I had included in the article just a few weeks ago. I don't know if RT is modifying their site or if it was just this article. Good job on catching that. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Breslin's depiction of Olive Hoover has also moved many critics" is weasel wording using just one USA Today columnist's perspective. I think a more retrospective source could be found to back this claim about critics enjoying Breslin's performance.
It looks like this was in the article before I had started working on it and I never went back and fixed it. I did a search of about twenty reviews and didn't see any other commentary on her role (except for continuous usage of "adorable"), so I reworded it to mention only that the USAToday author mentioned it. Again, let me know if this should be reworded further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are the fairly major issues to address for now. There's a lot of great content in place, so beyond these above thoughts, there may be some copy-editing suggestions that I'll share later. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per the more effective usage of non-free images. Not sure what else needs to be addressed. :) To A-class we go! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment/2008/Promoted&oldid=393123225"