Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Appian Way Productions/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2017 [1].

Appian Way Productions

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Appian Way Productions founded by the actor-producer Leonardo DiCaprio in ca 2004. The company has produced a diverse slate of films. I tried hard to find about how the company was founded but did not find much to add, but other than that I believe the article is as comprehensive as it gets. Enjoy. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant

Is 2016 as recent as the activities of the production house get?

Added a 2017 telefilm.

You could say "screened at the 57th Cannes Film Festival", to avoid the repetition of 2004.
I believe that Public Enemies, Orphan and Shutter Island will need to be followed by their respective release years.
"The company had three releases in 2013, including the biopic The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) that was a critical and commercial success." to "The company had three releases in 2013, including the biopic The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), which was a critical and commercial success."
"Another highly successful film production followed, the western thriller The Revenant (2015)" - I don't believe this to be the best transition.
"assassinate president Richard Nixon in 1974." - US President.
Not sure how the mention of Kate Beckinsale being planned adds anything to the article, as she is never really mentioned otherwise.
Maybe rephrase the "lacks" bit from the Frank Scheck review to avoid the change of tense.
"A few months later, it released The 11th Hour," - "it" might not be the best choice here.
"a mob drama from Michael Mann" - from?

I suppose it would have been more clear with "from director Michael" but rephrased anyway.

You may want to use "Appian Way Productions" at place of "the company" at a few instances Some paragraph overuse the latter, and this could help.

The rest reads fine, good job. NumerounovedantTalk 18:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vedant, thanks for the comments - resolved/replied to where necessary. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a small yet comprehensive article, well done. i can Support this. NumerounovedantTalk 13:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

"it performed modestly at the box-office": I don't know what that means. You could probably just say that it had a domestic box-office of $38 million.
"The film received positive reviews; one from Empire, wrote, "Entertaining while you're watching it but, as deceptive as a party's election promises, there's less to it than meets the eye".": That's not a positive review.
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I'm not weighing in on comprehensiveness. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dank - addressed both your comments. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

I believe that you should have ALT text for the infobox image. The Martin Scorsese image should also have ALT text.
In the phrase “box-office hits”, I would suggest using a different word than “hits” as it is a little too informal.
I am not sure what is meant by the phrase “none of which were particularly notable”. What makes them unnotable? Did they get negative/medicore reviews? Did they perform poorly or modestly in the box office? I think the meaning is unclear, and could use more context.
I think you should include a sentence about Greensburg and Under the Bed in the lead, as there are not any mentions to the television shows in the lead outside of the first sentence.
I would link Leonardo DiCaprio in the first mention in the body of the article as the lead and article should be treated separately.
In this part of the caption (Alongside producing many of the company's films he also played roles in a few of them), I believe that there should be a comma between “films” and “he”.
This is more of a clarification question, but is there any information on the reason behind naming the company “Appian Way Producions”? If not, then it is okay, but I was just wondering.

As I said in my opening statement, I did not find much about how the company came into being and such.

Wonderful work with the article as a whole. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. I hope you are having a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aoba47. Thanks for responding so quickly to my request on your talk page. I hope I have done justice to your concerns. Cheers – FrB.TG (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me; I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lookover of images by Jo-Jo Eumerus

Again, on holiday so I won't do a point-by-point review. It seems like all licenses and uses are appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jo-Jo. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

Appian way... (sounds like Happier way) is indeed a weird naming choice. Well, going into the comments.

"The Revenant (2015) followed, a highly successful western thriller about frontiersman Hugh Glass's experiences in 1823." -- experiences with whom/what? experiences at which place? please be clear about this.

Describing the whole thing would be a little too much. Simply tweaked to "the life of Hugh Glass".

Why is the History section a big, long paragraph? Can't it be broke into pre-2010, 2010-2014 and 2015-present? That would make it easy for the readers to go through.
The only existing note of the article needs to be sourced. Because, the claim is of such nature that it needs support.

Well, nothing beyond this. A short, simple and rather different choice which has the potential to be a FA. Let me know once you are done with these. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed different from my previous FAs, a part of my FT, all of whose articles I wish to make of great quality. Thanks for your comments, Pavan. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job. I appreciate your diversity for sure. But, on a lighter note, i would like to maintain that Appian Way is indeed a very weird naming choice. Good luck with the nomination. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on 1b and 1c: I'm recusing as coordinator on this one as I have a few worries. The entire article, apart from the lists at the end, is about the history of the company, not the company itself. The actual content is almost entirely about the films, with little about Appian Way's role in the production of the film. I'm afraid simply discussing the plot, cast and reception of the films is not enough when the article should be about the production company. If we cut out everything that is not about the company, we would have a very short article at the moment. I'm afraid "the information is not out there" is not enough here; we would not have a stub of a few lines as a FA, and I would argue that if so little information is available, this cannot be a FA. On a similar point, we have nothing about how, when, where or with whom the company was founded. We have nothing about its structure or staffing, whether it is profitable, its reputation. Again, "I couldn't find anything" isn't enough for this to be FA. Not-too-strenuous research on my part found a little about some of these issues here; although I haven't read too deeply, there looks to be a bit that could be added . If I could find this so quickly, what else is out there? Have we consulted biographies with DiCaprio? There are several. What about newspapers from when the company was created? What about business news, or reports? I find it almost impossible to believe that the information does not exist somewhere, which makes me suspect we are also struggling on 1c: just because it doesn't show up immediately on Google does not mean that the information is not available. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sarastro. Thanks for the comments - that's a fairly valid point you have raised. As an editor with no experience with this kind of article (based it on FA/GAs of its kind), I did do some research (maybe not good enough) and consult some Google books about DiCaprio but unfortunately most of them were trivial info about the company and some were not accessible. Anyways, I will do some more in-depth research in a day or two and see if I find anything worth adding. If not, I'll happily withdraw this nomination. Cheers – FrB.TG (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator I was under the impression that a film production company is expected to be written this way (including, of course, its early history i.e. how, when and by whom it was founded). I reckon, to add all of what Sarastro1 has asked about, the article will have to go through something of a revamp with all that expansion. At the moment, I have another article prepared for FAC (it is currently at PR; hopefully I will receive some more feedback there). What I might do is order a good book on DiCaprio's biography (which will also help me with expanding DiCaprio's article) in a not-so distant future, but that is something that will take some time and is better done away from the pressure of FAC. @Ian Rose: I wish to withdraw this nomination. Having said that, I am most grateful to everyone for their kind reviews, which improved the article in leaps and bounds. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting to this sooner FrB, I'll organise the withdrawal. I think best observe the usual two-week wait after a withdrawal/archive before starting the next one (as you say, there's a PR in any case) but happy for that two weeks to start from 28 July, when you requested the withdrawal, if you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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) 22:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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