Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Graffiti/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:14, 4 May 2008.

American Graffiti

I have donated a great deal of effort towards this article. I'm strongly looking for suggestions and opinions of other editors to get this to FA status. Thanks. -Wildroot (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a really good article for a really good movie. A think that the plot section could possibly be expanded a bit, considering the size of the rest of the article. I would also be interested in a brief section on the soundtrack with a {{Main}} link. Looks good overall. Good work. Grsz ^talk 05:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the plot section is good enough as it is—Wildroot (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Picky, but if you're going to refer to a book subsequently by its author's last name, it'd be nice if they were listed by the last name first so that you can find the full bibliographical entry easier.
What makes http://www.geraldpeary.com/essays/def/fields-verna.html a reliable source?

It's an interview with Fields—Wildroot (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what makes the site it is on a reliable place for interviews? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll take it. Yeesh. —Wildroot (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You use IMDb a bit, it might be safer to use the awards' sites themselves for some of the awards.

All other links and sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, but it's really hard to find the archives of even their own links.—Wildroot (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it strikes me as odd that the only screenshot is Wolfman Jack... and I think the caption is a little hokey. Can I have some more justification of why it's an image of him and not a group image or the main characters? 128.175.80.4 (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pivotal moment in the film, where the main protagonist sees the outlook of his decision. However, I probably should add an image of the group or something.—Wildroot (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the opening sentence is too long and complicated. "American Graffiti is a comedy-drama film directed by George Lucas." should be enough. The genre as of now (with the year also attached) is a little confusing to read. Overlinking galore: don't link Lucas, Universal, Coppola or any of the actors after their mention in the prose. indopug (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humph, "If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text." Also, I see Universal, Ron Howard among other things still overlinked. indopug (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that big of a deal. Besides, Ron Howard is a bad-ass.—Wildroot (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Neutral: I love this film, so I'm glad to see its article is of such high quality. A few points:

"Storyline" is one word.
Another user mentioned overlinking above, and I have to agree. Ron Howard and Wolfman Jack are linked three or four times in the body of the article and there are other examples of similar terms; it's not a big deal, but it's annoyingly repetitive.
That characters and actors are mentioned in the plot and the separate "Cast" section is also somewhat repetitive, as well. I've seen film articles that take an either/or stance with this and I approve: if there's a cast section, there's no need to have parenthetical actors' names in the plot section.
Why isn't there a section on the soundtrack? 41 Original Hits from the Soundtrack of American Graffiti exists as a spin-off article, but shouldn't there be a short, summarized section about the impact of the film's soundtrack in the main film article? The music plays such an important role in the film, it seems a shame to ignore it. All that we have now is a "see also" link at the top and details about how much the rights cost.

I can't really find info on how successful the soundtrack was. However, I could "merge" the soundtrack article into a section. I did that same thing for The Truman Show. What do you guys think?—Wildroot (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe it should be merged back in. María (habla conmigo) 18:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Now I've got "At the Hop" stuck in my head... María (habla conmigo) 14:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Changed my !vote to neutral; Johnbod and others below brought up some very good points that I did not previously take into account. Note to Wildroot: in responding to reviewers, you may wish to tune down the attitude. Replies like "Yeesh" and dismissing well meaning comments as "dumb suggestions" will only turn people off from this nomination. You're not entitled to satisfy every single person here, but politeness goes a long way. Just FYI. María (habla conmigo) 18:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A great film, nice to see a full article review. Some minor, very minor points below:

Lucas stated, "I was Terry [the Toad], fumbling with girls. Then I became a drag racer like John [Milner]. And finally I became Curt [Henderson]." could be written as stated without the editor's notations as to characters.
"Lucas contacted Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck to write the script, but they were too busy with Messiah of Evil (1972). However Katz and Huyck were willing to write the story with Lucas." Confusing, were they too busy and yet worked on the script?

Katz and Huyck didn't work on the script right away. They turned it down at first because they were working on Messiah of Evil. They basically were nice enough to help Lucas write a little story outline. NOT a script. However, later on (probably like a year), they had their schedules open to help Lucas with his screenplay with dialouge and stuff. I hope that answers your question.—Wildroot (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"contributory factor", try "contributed."

done

"They also passed on the science fiction idea, which Lucas temporarily shelved (this would eventually become the birth of Star Wars)." Awkward phrasing, were they involved in the Star Wars? evidently not, so it really doesn't lead to the film. "Birth of" = "genesis, creation, start, beginning."

done

Love the quote and the use of a quotebox.

thank you

"with Steve Bolander (Ron Howard) and Laurie Henderson's (Cindy Williams) storyline" instead "with the Steve Bolander (Ron Howard) and Laurie Henderson (Cindy Williams) storyline" or "with the storylines of Steve Bolander (Ron Howard) and Laurie Henderson (Cindy Williams)." Note "storyline" correctly spelled here.

done

"Other locations included Sonoma, Richmond, Van Ness, and Novato" is a list, eliminate the Harvard comma, and write it as " Other locations included Sonoma, Richmond, Van Ness and Novato."

done

That other title list is huge and detracts from the rest of the article. Have you considered a framing statement and a sub-article?

Sorry, what exactly is a "framing statement"?—Wildroot (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major area to consider is to set up a true endnotes and bibliography since you have references that stem from major works. e.g. References: Notes: (1) Hearn 2005, pp. 55–57. (2) Hearn 2005, p. 53. Bibliography: Hearn, Marcus. The Cinema of George Lucas. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2005. ISBN 0-8109-4968-7. If you are interested, I can help you set up this system with Harvard citations (which you are using – sort of...) and an APA or MLA bibliographical record. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry, I respect your enthusiasm, I just don't want to go into specifics with Harvard stuff. I wrote my references similar to the style of the Jurassic Park (film) article.—Wildroot (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is not ready yet. The prose is below the required standard in many places. There are missing prepositions, tense-switching and some strange expressions. I have made some suggestions here, [1] and below are more examples:

The film's box office success made George Lucas an instant millionaire, giving a large amount of the profits to Haskell Wexler for his visual consulting help during filming, and to Wolfman Jack. - and he gave ?

Don't see any problem

...was intrigued by the idea and impressed with Lucas's work on THX 1138 (1971), offering Lucas the chance to direct Lady Ice (1973). - and offered ?

Don't see any problem

...and intrigued with both American Graffiti and Lucas's untitled science fiction film, giving Lucas $10,000 to develop a script. - gave Lucas?

I Don't know what your problem is, but in wikipedia we like to copyedit. I believe you are trying to say something in your three suggestions above but I can't tell what you are trying to say. —Wildroot (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filming was interrupted by fixing camera mounts to cars .. - ??

Don't see any problem

The final shooting script came 160 pages. - ? to ?

OK. So what?—Wildroot (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..feeling he was commercially famous after.. - commercially famous?

In short sense The Godfather made Coppola a famous guy in the mainstream crowd of the 1970s. Everyone liked Godfather and Coppola directed the film.

Katz and Huyck wanted to tell the fate of the girls.. - tell of the fate ?

Don't see any problem

Eventually, good word of mouth around various employees at Universal .. - ?

Don't see any problem

while Paul Le Mat was sent to the hospital, finding out he was allergic to walnuts. - and found out?

Not a big deal.

A street racer who is roughly older than most teenagers.. - roughly older?
Curt is the most personal towards George Lucas, as he himself finds some of the film autobiographical. ???

Don't see any problem

"towards" is ungrammatical. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas persuaded the studio for a $775,000 budget, which made Coppola reluctant enough to start raising money himself, although Coppola ultimately failed. - reluctant enough ?

Yes, Coppola was inspired to start funding some own money but he failed. Does that answer your question?

His girlfriend Laurie, who is also Curt's year-younger sister, is unsure of him leaving, - year-younger ?

Meaning she is the same age as Curt is.

"unsure of him leaving" is ungrammatical too. "about" ? Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..with a five-page story treatment and less than US$500 to his name. - story treatment ?

In the film industry it "story treatment" just means a story outline, or what the plot is basically about. Quit freaking out.

These are examples of many problems throughout the article. Someone new to the article is needed to help with this.--GrahamColm ^Talk 08:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~PS The nominator should not strike-out any of the reviewers' comments. To date they have all been added by the nominator.~~ If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. GrahamColm ^Talk 13:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildroot, please review the instructions on the WP:FAC page, and please refrain from striking comments made by other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. The prose is frankly pretty poor - take the opening para, bits in bold:

American Graffiti is a 1973 comedy-drama film directed by George Lucas, and written by Lucas, Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck. The film includes a cast of Richard Dreyfuss, Ron Howard, Paul Le Mat, Charles Martin Smith, Cindy Williams, Candy Clark, Mackenzie Phillips and Harrison Ford. American Graffiti is set in 1962 Modesto, California, and tells of the exploits of a group of teenagers and their adventures within one night of driving around town, listening to pirate radio personality Wolfman Jack (who cameos as himself)."

-personally I would prefer "has a cameo role" too. There is persistent poor use of present participles. Despite the nominator's "I'm strongly looking for suggestions and opinions of other editors" the valid points by others above have been mostly dismissed, and unless this changes, don't expect my !vote to change. The plot section should include the final "what happened to them" bits. Generally the legacy section could do with a bit more on the wider 50s/early 60s nostalgia of which the film was an important popularizer. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I striked out those comments because I completed them. I listened to all your guys' suggestions and I did the ones I found to be at least good for this article. Some of you guys had dumb suggestions that weren't even that big of a deal. I'm sorry I crossed them out, I must have read the statements wrong at WP:FAC. I thought it said cross them out rather than using graphics. My bad. For know on I'll just put Done at the end of every comment when it is, well, "done".—Wildroot (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is a great film that deserves a comprehensive wikipedia article. Unfortunately, I have to agree with many of the previous comments regarding the extremely poor prose of the article. This should have gone through a peer review prior to nomination.-Hal Raglan (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.