Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bad Times at the El Royale/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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2021 [1].

Bad Times at the El Royale

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 2018, 20th Century Fox released Drew Goddard's Bad Times at the El Royale, a thriller set in the 1960s. The film features an ensemble cast including Jeff Bridges, Cynthia Erivo, Dakota Johnson, Jon Hamm, and Chris Hemsworth. It was praised by critics but bombed at the box office. I rewrote the article in 2020, adding over 100 references. It is a GA and has appeared on the main page through DYK. I believe it can become an FA. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bad_Times_at_the_El_Royale_-_Hotel_Sets_and_Design_by_Martin_Whist.jpg is missing a fair-use tag and the purpose of use field in the FUR should be strengthened
File:Bad_Times_at_the_El_Royale_-_Character_Posters.png: the fair-use rationale currently seems to be based on the image being used for identification purposes; that's not really what it's being used for here
File:Kubrick_on_the_set_of_Barry_Lyndon_(1975_publicity_photo)_(cropped).jpg: the given tag says year is required for a "literary, musical, or dramatic work " - which this is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Done the first two. I am confused about the third image. The public domain tag says it could be in the public domain if "it is a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work that does not include the year." There are other reasons listed that would put it in the public domain, including: "Notice does not include the copyright symbol ©, the word "Copyright", or the abbreviation "Copr."" Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the original, it does include the word "Copyright"; is there another of those reasons that you feel may apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I guess not. The image has been replaced. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Two week update/reminder. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still think the first item could be improved - why is this essential to reader understanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I have removed it. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

2018 American neo-noir thriller film written — WP:SOB?
and slow pacing. It — "slow pacing" is WP:VOICE
and Goddard Textiles, Goddard produced — repetition of Goddard
Furthermore, Erivo would also go on — "furthermore", "also go on", seems kinda redundant
chronological order, due to most of the story taking place in the same location, to improve — kinda awkward
was working on The Greatest Showman in 2017. — if, according to TGS's article, filming began in 2016, wouldn't that be 2016 and 2017
Working with "distinctive characters" he believed — comma after "characters"?
respectively, on October 12, 2018. — remove respectively as redundant
while a digital rerelease on → while a digital re-release on
included two additional songs, "This Old Heart — I think a colon, instead of a comma, would work better in this case
and "Hold On, I'm Comin'", performed → and "Hold On, I'm Comin'", performed (edit to see)
Following its rerelease, the soundtrack → Following its re-release, the soundtrack
know about the characters so far." — per MOS:LQ, move the full stop outside of the quotation mark
high runtime, slow pacing — WP:VOICEy
Wikilink weighted average
average reviews." — move the full stop outside the quotation mark
and slow pacing.^[3] Additionally — WP:VOICE
gets too clever." — move the full stop outside the quotation mark
Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works like Bad Times at the El Royale should be italicised in citations

That's what I got on a first pass (not a lot). Ping me once these are resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: All done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – great work! BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

I do not really see the benefit of File:Bad Times at the El Royale - Character Posters.png. When looking at it in the article, the individual posters are rather small, and I could not clearly make out the differences in appearance that are discussed in the caption. The eight character posters are also discussed in the prose. I am just uncertain about how useful this image really is in the article due to the size of each individual character poster.

This is my only comment for now, but I will read through the article again later in the week. I have made some minor edits, mostly involving linking. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading the article again, this is the only note that I have for my review. Once it is resolved, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: The image has been removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support the FAC for promotion. Great work with it! Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from indopug

I haven't read the whole thing because I want to watch the film first, but the lead currently seems very bare bones and workmanlike, giving very little idea about what is unique about the film and its making. Much of the second paragraph is basically redundant to the infobox ("it was shot by X, scored by Y and edited by Z"). Just glancing through the Production section it's clear you can write a more substantive paragraph, going beyond dates and a role call. You can also add something from Themes (perhaps summarising it) to the first paragraph.

On the other hand, I feel there is some stuff you can trim. For e.g., "took place until April, ~~in British Columbia, specifically~~ mostly on a large studio set in Vancouver"? Also, what was well-received about the film is repeated twice ("its ensemble cast, soundtrack, and cinematography, ... story, cinematography, writing, and acting"). Is "Best Thriller Film at the 45th Saturn Awards" an accolade even worth mentioning? Lastly, I'm confused as to how "grossing $31.9 million against a $32 million budget" constitutes a bomb.—indopug (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: Two week update/reminder. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spot-checks not done. The source formatting looks consistent and coherent to me. I have to admit that I don't know most sources - let alone their authors - sufficiently to establish whether they are reliable, but I'll try. Is BackStageOL, Collider, iFilm and Newsweek a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The citations to BackStageOL and Newsweek contain interviews and do not state new information, so they are reliable. Furthermore, most editors have deemed Collider and /Film as reliable sources to cite. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo, is that a pass? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with the qualification though that I am not super familiar with the sources.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

Apologies for the delay.

I would consider linking jargon terms in the lead such as Principal photography and Post-production for instance.
"the TCL Chinese Theatre in" do we use branded names in these cases?
You could link Motion Picture Association.
"its lengthy runtime" ... +"of 141 minutes"?
"Emily Summerspring arrive at the hotel" should you emphasise that they arrive independently of one another here?
You link master key but not wiretap?
I don't think a common term like roulette needs linking here.
"Talking with Matt Patches" is this individual relevant?
"A major aspect of Bad Times at the El Royale was its visualization of each character's morality and if their actions were justified." this scans badly for me, this seems to be two aspects...
"the Tate–LaBianca murders, while" this necessitates me to click away from the article to understand why this is relevant, perhaps a footnote here to explain why this should be mentioned here.
"down to John F. Kennedy (JFK), Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr" sure "down to one of John ..."?

Is this correct? "the identity of the person was narrowed down to one of" doesn't sound right. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well for me it makes sense to say the identity was narrowed down to one of those listed. It wasn't narrowed down to A, B and C. Only one applies. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

" star.[40][41][22] After" ref order.
"between January 29 – April 6, 2018" replace that en-dash with "and".
"improve continuity.[49][19][50] After " ref order.
"60,000-square-foot" etc convert for our metric buddies.
"Using Avid Media Composer, a tool she used..." Using/used is repetitive.
"starting with September 17" with is unnecessary.
"2018. It was released" merge these short sentences.
Ref 13 and 58 have spaced hyphens, should be en-dashes.
Ref 64 why is "Motion Picture Association" in italics?

Great article, I think these items are relatively trivial. Ping me when you're done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~@The Rambling Man: Mostly done. Left a note above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great, I'm happy to support the article. Apologies once again for my delay in getting to it after I took it off the urgent pile. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

I remember following the PR of this article, so here I am. Gerald WL 10:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SDFNC, if my last comment about Plot is resolved, then I'll support this FAC. Gerald WL 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments all resolved, so support. Bravo with the article! Gerald WL 02:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also Some Dude From North Carolina, I have Wikipedia:Peer review/To Fly!/archive1 open and it's still unreviewed, wondering if you might wanna check it out. No pressure of course :) Gerald WL 02:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Gerald WL 02:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

=====Lead and infobox=====

The infobox looks neat and so does the lead, but: at the PR, I pointed out that the accolades sentence only seems to prioritize the Saturn Awards and suggested adding "The film won various accolades, including...", and it's marked as done. Is there a reason it is (seemingly) undid?

Someone above said the phrasing of the sentence sounded repetitive. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with that statement, but it's reasonable. Suggestion: how about changing the sentence to "It received various awards and nominations, most notably at the 45th Saturn Awards, for its writing, acting, cinematography, music, and trailer." It's broader, and doesn't sound repetitive for me. Gerald WL 16:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

"movie camera" --> "film camera"
"the Federal Bureau of Investigation" --> "the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)"

Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One addition, since I just finished watching the film so I can get a better grasp. The last sentence of the plot sound vague for me, since it's already established that she's a singer, and that the two have a good relation. Gerald WL 16:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Any suggestions? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest removing the sentence as a whole, since it serves no purpose whatsoever. Gerald WL 02:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Themes & analysis

Always nice to see articles that don't just use American and British references :)
I don't think morality needs to be linked, as it's a fairly common concept.
Should Signal Horizon be italicized or not? If not, then the name in the reference must be moved from =website to =publisher. Similar case to SSZee Media.

Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production

"Drew Goddard" --> "Goddard"
"between the border of California and Nevada" --> "between the California–Nevada border"
"on The Cabin in the Woods in 2011" --> I don't think the "in 2011" is needed, considering it's established that Cabin is a 2011 film in the Themes section
"Widows" --> "Widows (2018)"
"With Variety"-- pretty confusing bit. I suggest changing to "In an interview with Variety"
"On the matter, Hamm said" --> "On the matter, he said"
"The Greatest Showman" --> "The Greatest Showman (2017)"
"on a 1:2.39 aspect ratio"-- I think you mean "2.39:1 aspect ratio". As far as I'm aware, nobody starts with the 1.
"to capture the feature film"-- the "feature" bit is pretty vague
I think you can put the blockquote bit in the second paragraph with paraphrasing. I have this in mind: "Early in the production, the film crew realized they could not find a real place with perfect symmetry to film, and Goddard also wanted the weather to be controllable, thus the decision to build a set in Vancouver."
"the 1969 documentary Salesman" --> "the documentary Salesman (1969)"
"the jail scene" --> "jail scene" per consistency with "doctor's office scene"
"while working on Alias and Lost" --> "while working on television series Alias and Lost"

Mostly done. I think adding "Widows (2018)" would make the paragraph confusing since it mentions 2017. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing - Release

I think the subsections make the reading flow a bit stiff, removing them will make them more natural. And it's just one short paragraph for the home media.
"where moviegoers" --> "where filmgoers"
"Digital HD"-- link Digital HD
"Special features on the Blu-ray" --> "Special features on the physical release"
"a 28-minute documentary with behind the scenes footage" --> "a 28-minute making-of"
"in the lack"-- should be "in the absence", since the special features has no tracks, and "lack" means the reviewers expected more than one tracks

Overall, a nice FAC. Wish best of luck with this. Gerald WL 10:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Can you please remove the {{done}} templates per the guidelines at WP:FAC? Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2021 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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