Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baby Driver/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 November 2019 [1].


Nominator(s): DAP (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Edgar Wright's 2017 action film Baby Driver, starring Ansel Elgort as a young (hence the title), musically driven getaway driver seeking freedom from heisting with his lover Debora (a diner waitress played by Lily James). It is a landmark film in Wright's catalog for its artistic direction and box office success, by far his biggest hit to date. It is a relatively new good article, and after a copyedit and several more months of revisions, I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria. Looking forward to any constructive feedback. DAP ๐Ÿ’… 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I think ALT text would be helpful for the infobox image.
  • Are the references in the infobox necessary? I would imagine that this information should be present and sourced in the body of the article. I have not personally seen references used in a film's infobox like this; I am not saying it is incorrect, but I just thought it was something worth discussion.
    • Not per se. Admittedly I left the references intact for no particular reason. I can remove them if necessary. DAP ๐Ÿ’… 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I do not have an issue with it, but I just wanted to raise it to your attention. I would personally remove it, but you could also wait for other editors' comments as they may disagree with me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "getaway driver" is wikilinked twice in the body of the article. "Atlanta" is also wikilinked multiple times in the body of the article.
  • You currently wikilink "Edgar Wright" in this sentence "Baby Driver is a longtime passion project Edgar Wright had been developing since 1995", although Wright is mentioned in a previous sentence in the "Cast" section. Here is the sentence with Wright's first appearance: "Wright and the producers at Working Title Films began contemplating the lead role well before they obtained funding for Baby Driver.". The wikilink should be moved up to the first instance and Wright's full name should be used for the first time he is mentioned in the body of the article.
  • There is a hidden note that Eiza Gonzรกlez is credited without the diacritic, but the diacritic (I am assuming it is the one over the a in Gonzรกlez) is used in the body of the article.
    • Revised for consistency. DAP ๐Ÿ’… 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Working Title Films" is wikilinked twice in the article.
  • I believe the phrase "time frame" should be two words in this sentence (With the limited timeframe, the filmmakers rehearsed for only an hour before they began filming in early morning.).
  • I have a question about this part (Another principal topic of discussion among critics has been Baby Driver's treatment of race). The article says race was a "principal" point discussed by critics, but there is only one source cited so the claim seems unsupported. Even though there are two critics (David Hollingshead and Jane Hu), they are tied to one article. In fact, one of the lines in the source is "and am actually surprised that no one has discussed race much vis-a-vis the film", which suggests that the film's treatment of race was rather overlooked by a majority of critics. The issue of race is an important thing to keep in the article, but I do not believe it was as prominently featured in critical commentary as the sentence in question makes it sound.
  • I have a question about the final paragraph of the "Critical response" subsection. I have frequently seen the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores used as an opening paragraph for this type of section; I am assuming it is done this way as these sites introduce a general overview on how a film was critically received before breaking the criticism down further. Why have this part as a final paragraph? I am not saying it is wrong, but I was just curious about it.
    • This was a compromise I settled with to avoid an editing despite with another user, to deemphasize the metadata while maintaining standard practice. Truth be told, I think metadata is redundant, and the summary of reviews in verbal form makes for a much more engaging reading experience. Again, I'll be happy to remove that if necessary. DAP ๐Ÿ’… 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Understandable, and thank you for the explanation. I can understand the use of the Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic data as a way of understanding a film's reception at a glance; however, there are issues with both sites and I can understand not wanting to use either. I personally think that both should be kept in the article, but I do not have an issue with it being in the final paragraph. I think it is a fair compromise. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe this sentence, "Known in the music industry for his work with Sia, Arcade Fire, and other artists, Baby Driver is Heffington's first foray into film", is grammatically correct. The beginning, dependent phrase (Known in the music industry for his work with Sia, Arcade Fire, and other artists) should be referring to the noun of the next, independent phrase. I do not think Baby Driver is "Known in the music industry for his work with Sia, Arcade Fire, and other artists". Rather, I think you mean "Heffington" instead so the sentence would have to be adjusted accordingly.

Awesome work with the article. I remember hearing a rather large buzz about this film when it was first released so it is cool to read more about it. I have personally not seen it, because it is just personally not in my preferred genre/wheelhouse of films, but I learned a lot from reading this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the feedback! I believe I have addressed your concerns (thus far). Let me know what you think. DAP ๐Ÿ’… 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging reviewers from my last FAC: Brandt Luke Zorn, Gertanis, Wehwalt, Jo-Jo Eumerus, would you guys mind taking a took if or when you have the time? DAP ๐Ÿ’… 01:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Homeostasis07

[edit]

Sorry about the delay. I wanted to write something here several days ago, but my own FAN โ€“ and real-life stuff โ€“ got in the way. Here are my comments:

Lead

  • Not sure "heisting" is the most appropriate term here. For one, I've never seen "heist" in the gerund form before (heisting). Something like "It stars Ansel Elgort as a young, musically driven getaway driver seeking freedom from a life of crime with his lover Debora (Lily James)." might be better.
  • Every paragraph in this section begins with Baby Driver. What about mixing it up by beginning the second paragraph with "The film"?
  • "He devised the film's blueprint well into his youth, but the experience helming his early projects shaped his ambitions for Baby Driver." โ†’ I don't really know what this is supposed to mean. This seems to be a reference to the point in 'Development' about his music video for Mint Royale, so maybe something like "He had been devising the film's premise since his youth, with his later experience helming other projects helping to shape his ambitions for Baby Driver."
  • Wright later revised the film's setting to Atlanta in the script; preserving the city's ethos then became an important aspect of the storytelling. โ†’ Wright later revised the film's setting to Atlanta, and chose to incorporate the scenery and culture of that city into the story; this became an important aspect of the script.

Plot, Cast and Development

  • Nothing I'd change here.

Filming

Visual effects

  • I don't care either way, but thought I should point out here that there's a user going around removing any instance of comprised from every featured/good article. If you don't want them doing that, I'd suggest changing to "Their work for the film consisted of 430 shots," but I don't mind either way. I'd also like to point out that, after watching the film, you've done an amazing job of making this article as comprehensive as possible; those descriptions of the making of key scenes are riveting, and brilliantly written.

Stunts and choreography

  • No complaints here.

Sound design

  • Slater said, "Bradley showed me to work musically [...] How a gunshot works with a kick drum, but not too obviously. For every layer that happens musically, have another layer that happens non-musically so that you perceive it only some of the time." โ†’ I don't like the first part of this quote. I had to read the source to try and find context, but couldn't find any. "Bradley showed me to work musically" just doesn't make sense, grammatically. I'd consider paraphrasing, or removing it, since it doesn't add much to the article.

Music

  • No complaints.

Themes

  • Nice use of academic criticism. Also goes to comprehensiveness. Nothing to complain about here.

Release and Reception

  • No complaints.

Box office

Critical response

Otherwise, this is a fine article, and I'll be happy to support once these points have been fixed. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07, Thanks for the feedback, and no worries about the delay! I believe Iโ€™ve addressed all of your concerns. Let me know what you think. DAP ๐Ÿ’… 16:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the changes you've made, and have no problem providing my support for this article. Good luck with the nomination.ย ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Pinging FA coordinators for source and image reviews. DAP ๐Ÿ’… 16:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (passed)

[edit]

I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, apologies for the late response; my professional life is consuming most of my free time. I felt the few publicity shots did not service Baby Driver's color symbolism well, so I replaced the last image with a screenshot of a video essay which (in my opinion) does a much better job of illustrating that aspect of the film. Let me know what you think, and MANY thanks for initiating the image review! DAP ๐Ÿ’… 19:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from FrB.TG

[edit]

I'll look at it later today. FrB.TG (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Elgort, John Boyega, and Logan Lerman were among a raft of potential candidates considered for star billing.[7][8] The actor auditioned" - it's not wise to use "the actor" right after when you have mentioned three actors.
  • "Wright's repeated listening to Orange (1994), the then-recently released fourth studio album by the Jon Spencer Blues Explosion," I think this should be simply "the fourth studio album by Jon Spencer Blues Explosion" without "then-recently released". This is just a suggestion and hence you can ignore it.
  • "The release of Shaun of the Dead the following" - this should probably be made clear that Wight directed Shaun of the Dead.
  • "The latest figures show that 595,111 copies have been sold." MOS:CURRENT
  • This is not a criticism, quite the opposite actually. I especially like the "Critical reception" section which you have arranged thematically instead of "A said this", "B said this". Kudos!

Very well-written and comprehensive. I expect to support it once my relatively minor concerns are addressed. I myself currently have an FAC for Leonardo DiCaprio. I would appreciate your input there. (This is not supposed to be a quid pro quo though so review it only if you feel like it.) FrB.TG (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I believe Iโ€™ve addressed all of your concerns. Iโ€™ll also take a look at your FAC since I have a little bit more free time over the next week. Cheers! DAP ๐Ÿ’… 02:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent work. FrB.TG (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Coordinator notes

[edit]

@DAP388: I'm not satisfied that the loop has been closed on all of the above sourcing concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: could I get another run through please? DAP ๐Ÿ’… 14:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DAP388: What is the status on this? --Laser brain (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be good to go. @Nikkimaria: thoughts? DAP ๐Ÿ’… 07:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just the last point is still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, done. Not sure why it took me that long to spot it. DAP ๐Ÿ’… 12:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.