Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dredd/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Ian Rose 10:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Dredd[edit]
Dredd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The future Wikipedia Federation is a dystopic irradiated wasteland known as the Cursed Earth. On the English Wikipedia lies Dredd, a violent action film with a criminally underperforming box office but critical achievement. The only force for order are the Admins, who act as judge, jury and reverter. Crime is punished harshly. The sentence for not leaving an edit summary: 30 cryo cycles. The sentence for replacing content with "Josh is awezum!": 400 cryo cycles. The sentence for not passing this article: Death. Or banning.
So Dredd is an awesome film and what we have here is a well sourced and all encompassing article containing any and all information that can be found about it. I think it is worthy of FA status, and hopefully you all do too! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Thirlby caption shouldn't end in period
- Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Dredd_-_Ma_Ma's_Requiem_Sample.ogg: how long was the track from which this sample was taken? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 3:37Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that's a problem - per WP:SAMPLE, non-free sound samples may be no longer than the shorter of 30 seconds or 10% of the original, and 10% of 3:37 is 21 seconds, not 29. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that's a problem - per WP:SAMPLE, non-free sound samples may be no longer than the shorter of 30 seconds or 10% of the original, and 10% of 3:37 is 21 seconds, not 29. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 3:37Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think this can be comprehensive without mentioning The Raid: Redemption. - hahnchen 19:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentioning what about it? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he means both being recent films about authority figures being trapped in buildings and needing to face their enemies while getting out. Maybe see if there's commentary from a reliable source making the connection? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the article, you cite Empire's review as positive coverage, yet Empire concludes that The Raid is the better film. IGN's review makes a Raid comparison too. The two films that Mark Kermode's BBC Radio 5 Live review (around the 50 minute mark) compares it to, are the 1995 film, and The Raid. - hahnchen 20:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Raid sentence about schedules seems out of place in the reception. That comparison might work better in the post-production or marketing sections, where you could note how viewers saw Raid similarities in the trailers. Try to say something about what those comparisons were, only mentioning why they were made begs the question. - hahnchen 03:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried but I can't make it work without going into more detail than the topic requires as it involves an unnatural tangent in any section but the reception section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The production schedules sentence does not have any real connection to the sentence preceding it. The Washington Post review for example, gives you a better idea of how to link the two - stating while Dredd feels derivative, the timing is a coincidence. - hahnchen 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried something else. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The production schedules sentence does not have any real connection to the sentence preceding it. The Washington Post review for example, gives you a better idea of how to link the two - stating while Dredd feels derivative, the timing is a coincidence. - hahnchen 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried but I can't make it work without going into more detail than the topic requires as it involves an unnatural tangent in any section but the reception section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Raid sentence about schedules seems out of place in the reception. That comparison might work better in the post-production or marketing sections, where you could note how viewers saw Raid similarities in the trailers. Try to say something about what those comparisons were, only mentioning why they were made begs the question. - hahnchen 03:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the article, you cite Empire's review as positive coverage, yet Empire concludes that The Raid is the better film. IGN's review makes a Raid comparison too. The two films that Mark Kermode's BBC Radio 5 Live review (around the 50 minute mark) compares it to, are the 1995 film, and The Raid. - hahnchen 20:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he means both being recent films about authority figures being trapped in buildings and needing to face their enemies while getting out. Maybe see if there's commentary from a reliable source making the connection? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentioning what about it? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Erik
Hello, it looks like the article is comprehensive and well-researched. Most of my comments will be rather focused:
- In the infobox, do we need the inline citations? I assume these citations are in the article body too. Like with the lead section, we do not need to have citations in the infobox unless it was controversial. I assume that these cited items are well-accepted now.
- In the lead section, per MOS:FILM#Lead sentence, I do not think we need "British-South African" in the lead sentence. Since it is not singular nor a specific collaboration, I would just have "English-language". Per the guidelines, to mention the UK and South Africa, you could mention DNA Films as the British studio and also state that the locations were in these cities in South Africa.
- Again in the lead section, can we clarify that "2000 AD-endorsed" is referring to Rebellion, the 2000 AD publisher?
- In "Cast":
- Can Ma-Ma not be above Kay? The lead section mentions the Urban-Thirlby-Headey grouping and leaves out Harris, while the infobox mentions all four. I assume that some billing-block logic is applied, but it seems clear that Ma-Ma is more primary than Kay.
- Can MOS:LQ be applied to the "Reich described" sentences? Can colons also be replaced by commas in sentences with "said"?
- Can you break up the last paragraph into individual sentences? Right now, it's just one long "sentence". I would suggest grouping them somehow. Maybe group the Judges, then group characters as outside/inside the building?
- In "Development":
- IM Global is mentioned twice, the second time as if it was new, which seems inconsistent with the first mention.
- The distribution deal is only tangential to actual development in that it covers part of the budget. Could this be moved to "Release" instead? Same with the release date announcement? (Considering that the release date didn't change, I don't think it's worthwhile to mention the announcement.)
- The "Pre-production" paragraph taking place in August 2010 is after the "During the TIFF" paragraph taking place in September 2010. I think that if there is emphasis on months and years, there should be chronological flow.
- In "Writing":
- Can it be clarified that Garland wrote Sunshine and 28 Weeks Later? I can tell that it can be inferred, but without clarification, it could seem like he had some other role with these films.
- Can the sentence with "Democracy" and "Origins" be separated into two? It is a bit long for the detail it provides.
- In "Design", the "Lawgiver" is mentioned as an operational weapon. Maybe it is somewhat obvious, but can it be stated that blanks were used in the film?
- In "Box office", could the million-dollar figures be rounded up? I think it is more readable, especially considering that the hundred-thousand figure and downward do not add much value.
- In "Critical reception", could the groups of reviews at Metacritic be mentioned -- 18 positive, 7 mixed, 4 negative? It would give readers a sense of the distribution of critical consensus.
I'll give the article a second review and see if I can make any smaller changes more directly. Also, I found this that mentions why filmmakers chose South Africa for production, and I think the article would benefit from stating the reasons. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done what I can, I don't agree with rounding the BO figures, I can't find a source that says the Lawgiver was a working prop that fires blanks, and having read MOS:LQ I don't quite understand what you are asking me to change regarding the quotes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why shouldn't they be rounded? Publications like Variety often do not report full figures in running prose. To write "a total of $41,037,742" is to report more information than needed comparing to writing "a total of $41 million". Why do readers need to know about the extra $37,742 in this encyclopedic article? It does not add value, and rounding it makes for better writing and reporting of box office performance. If it's because other articles have done it that way historically, it's probably circuitous. We've done it because that's the way it's always been done. We can change that going forward. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well why round out the numbers but specify the metacritic ratings? In the one specific instance which is the opening sentence of that section, if we have the info available I think it is nice to extrapolate the figure a little and get a little closer to what the actual figure is meant to be. Plus if you round then the argument starts over do you round up or down? I don't think extended figures in the lead sentence of the BO section is a significant issue. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Metacritic recommendation is not applicable here. As for the box office figure, I reviewed the reference, and this mentions $35.6 million instead of the $41 million mentioned in the article. Also, The Numbers states $40.9 million worldwide. I think both sources are considered reliable, but maybe the larger figure is more appropriate? In light of this uncertainty, I think MOS:NUM#Large numbers applies here: "Avoid excessively precise values where they are unlikely to be stable or accurate, or where the precision is unnecessary in the context." I think rounding is fully appropriate per the MOS. To return to Metacritic, my suggestion is to show the distribution of reviews. The Metacritic overview of "mixed or averaged reviews" looks to be inconsistent with the summary statement that the film received positive reviews. By stating the distribution, it can be clearer that 18 critics out of 29 sampled gave positive reviews (and the remaining, 7 mixed, 4 negative). Erik (talk | contribs) 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The BO figure is BOM's US figure with it's international figure, clicking through to the international figure you can see they haven't updated their international total, adding up the individual nation figures gives the existing figure of $41 million. Other changes made. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Metacritic recommendation is not applicable here. As for the box office figure, I reviewed the reference, and this mentions $35.6 million instead of the $41 million mentioned in the article. Also, The Numbers states $40.9 million worldwide. I think both sources are considered reliable, but maybe the larger figure is more appropriate? In light of this uncertainty, I think MOS:NUM#Large numbers applies here: "Avoid excessively precise values where they are unlikely to be stable or accurate, or where the precision is unnecessary in the context." I think rounding is fully appropriate per the MOS. To return to Metacritic, my suggestion is to show the distribution of reviews. The Metacritic overview of "mixed or averaged reviews" looks to be inconsistent with the summary statement that the film received positive reviews. By stating the distribution, it can be clearer that 18 critics out of 29 sampled gave positive reviews (and the remaining, 7 mixed, 4 negative). Erik (talk | contribs) 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well why round out the numbers but specify the metacritic ratings? In the one specific instance which is the opening sentence of that section, if we have the info available I think it is nice to extrapolate the figure a little and get a little closer to what the actual figure is meant to be. Plus if you round then the argument starts over do you round up or down? I don't think extended figures in the lead sentence of the BO section is a significant issue. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why shouldn't they be rounded? Publications like Variety often do not report full figures in running prose. To write "a total of $41,037,742" is to report more information than needed comparing to writing "a total of $41 million". Why do readers need to know about the extra $37,742 in this encyclopedic article? It does not add value, and rounding it makes for better writing and reporting of box office performance. If it's because other articles have done it that way historically, it's probably circuitous. We've done it because that's the way it's always been done. We can change that going forward. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done what I can, I don't agree with rounding the BO figures, I can't find a source that says the Lawgiver was a working prop that fires blanks, and having read MOS:LQ I don't quite understand what you are asking me to change regarding the quotes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to follow up on my initial comments. Unfortunately, I am not satisfied enough with the writing of the article to support it. A more detailed comment for the nominator was shared here. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support promotion pending a few minor issues:
- I think in the BOM reference you should make a note that the foreign total is derived from adding up the individual country totals, since the worldwide figure you are stating differs from the worldwide figure BOM is reporting. I'm aware of the issue here, that BOM only periodically updates the totals, but to the unaware reader it looks incorrect.
- In the box-office section, I think you should replace "international markets" with "markets outside of the United States and Canada" or something to that effect. Remember, this is a British/South African film so the terminology could be interpreted as meaning markets outside those countries.
- There is a spaced em-dash in the first paragraph of the critical reception section; en-dashes can be spaced, em-dashes should not be spaced.
- Citations 114 & 115 are bare links.
- Other than that I think this is a well-written and comprehensive article that deserves to be promoted. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment - taking a look now - queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The theatrical gross made a sequel unlikely, but home media sales and fan efforts endorsed by 2000 AD's publisher Rebellion have maintained the possibility of a sequel. - reword so you don't use the word "sequel" twice if possible....
Ma-Ma orders Dredd and Anderson killed, and the Judges fight their way through dozens of armed thugs. - the "and" not a good linking word here. Need a more contrastive word (?) - worth rewording.
- Meanwhile, Ma-Ma sends her henchman Caleb to confirm the Judges' deaths, but when they meet, Dredd throws Caleb off the tower in full view of Ma-Ma. - maybe split this sentence and avoid repeating "Ma-Ma" if possible.
Duncan Jones had previously been offered the role of director - would be good to add why he turned it down, if it can be found out.
The visual effects and slow-motion sequences induced by Slo-Mo received consistent praise. - "universal praise"?
I don't get a huge feel for how it differs conceptually from the comic - is there any more on this?
Other than this looks on track for FA status- Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done most but I'm not sure what you're asking for the last two. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (a) Replacing the adjectives - "universal" more accurate than "consistent", (b) any other info on how the film differs or is similar to teh comic?
- A) I'm not keen on the use of "universal" for the same reason we generally avoid saying a film received "universal acclaim", what about something like "broad" or "widespread"? b) not that I have seen, all I have found relates to the changes in costume and budgetary constraints limiting the inclusion of things like Robots and Aliens. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough - I'll pay that - I think "broad" is better than "consistent", and take on baord that all sources have been exhausted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed broad. Yeah, the home release doesn't even have commentary tracks, so at the moment there doesn't seem to be any more information available. Thanks for the support. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough - I'll pay that - I think "broad" is better than "consistent", and take on baord that all sources have been exhausted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A) I'm not keen on the use of "universal" for the same reason we generally avoid saying a film received "universal acclaim", what about something like "broad" or "widespread"? b) not that I have seen, all I have found relates to the changes in costume and budgetary constraints limiting the inclusion of things like Robots and Aliens. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (a) Replacing the adjectives - "universal" more accurate than "consistent", (b) any other info on how the film differs or is similar to teh comic?
- I've done most but I'm not sure what you're asking for the last two. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems to satisfy WP:WIAFA with just a minor niggle:
- The article goes back and forth between "Andrew MacDonald" and "Andrew Macdonald". Which one is correct?
Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, good eye. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Ranges should use endashes
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
- Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized, what is capitalized, etc
- Be consistent in whether you include publishers for newspapers and magazines
- Use a consistent date format
- What is your rationale for using this source?
- FN90 is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Are you sure you meant to ask about the Rotten Tomatoes one? RT is a standard inclusion in film articles, its a major review aggregator. I replaced the accentcoach one with one from Metro, a British news paper, replaced Bleeding Cool with Digital Spy.
- Pending
- Done
- Done
- Per Vocus "Ctrl+F" PRWeb, it seems like a reputable company that owns several companies including PRWeb which is used for the dissemination of press releases by businesses that are then picked up by news outlets. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DoneDWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Re 1: should be endashes, not emdashes. Re 2: yes, I'm sure. The aggregate score is fine, but the RT summary review generally should not be used, unless you've a good rationale for doing so. Re 3: we're looking for consistency here. For example, you've got Time Inc. wikilinked in FN84 but not FN46; Digital Spy is italicized in FN65 but not FN54; Guardian.co.uk is capitalized in FN69 but not FN67. Take a look through and look for little details that are inconsistent - expanding to general rules where possible (ie. either all website names are italicized or all are not, instead of a mix). Re 6: my question is more why you're choosing to use a press release (a primary, non-neutral, essentially self-published source) rather than an alternative source. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I've addressed the linking/italicizing issues with the references and the dashes thing. For RT, per Prometheus (2012 film), I'm not sure there are many articles not using the consensus, its a simple summary. For PRWeb, I don't believe the information it is sourcing is controversial as it speaks to the musician's thought process behind creating the songs rather than making any kind of extraordinary claim. If it still isn't satisfactory I can try to find something else, but the direct quotes there do not seem to be used elsewhere from a cursory google search. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 22:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still a few inconsistencies creeping through - compare for example FNs 4 and 66. As to RT, I'm not seeing any source review at all at the Prometheus FAC - not sure how that was missed, but a non-review shouldn't be counted as an endorsement of the article's sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I've addressed the linking/italicizing issues with the references and the dashes thing. For RT, per Prometheus (2012 film), I'm not sure there are many articles not using the consensus, its a simple summary. For PRWeb, I don't believe the information it is sourcing is controversial as it speaks to the musician's thought process behind creating the songs rather than making any kind of extraordinary claim. If it still isn't satisfactory I can try to find something else, but the direct quotes there do not seem to be used elsewhere from a cursory google search. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 22:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.