Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Film colorization/archive1

Film colorization

Self-nomination. A while back, there wasn't a whole lot in this article, but I did some major cleaning up on it, and some other Wikipedia users have added to the article. I think that the current product is a very good, well-written, well-put together article about colorization technology: the pros, the cons, the controversy, how people do it, why people do it, etc. I think it would be interesting to see this topic become a featured article candidate. This is something that has led to so much discussion. (Ibaranoff24 00:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 00:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Object Lacks references, needs a lot more on the process of both old and modern coloring techniques. ~~Needs better orginization, technology and technique should probably be first and then a history section.~~ Needs more information on use in old films, how popular was it? Were audiences thrilled when color appeared on the screen? Generally all information should be expanded. All opinons need to referenced with in line references or some other way of stating where that opinion came from. ~~Writing needs to be in the third person, no "we".~~ References to colorization in pop culture section needs to be deleted, one line jokes are not notable. MechBrowman 02:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reorganized the page somewhat, adding in some more material. Is this update better? (Ibaranoff24 06:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Its better, but far from FA status. I recommend putting it up for Peer Review. MechBrowman 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What MechBrowman said. JoaoRicardo^talk 04:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. No references, in-line HTML citations need to be converted into footnotes (see Wikipedia:Footnotes) and put into a notes section. Lead is too short. Lacks lots of information - Please see the FA criteria, refer to peer review. — Wackymacs 11:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor object - Needs referencing section, per above. --Kilo-Lima 12:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. Slight Oppose. I got grilled for not putting in footnotes, I've been passing on the favour ever since. ~~Footnotes are needed~~, information is needed, work is needed. As per above, put it up for peer review... Spawn Man 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got the footnotes into the article. (Ibaranoff24 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Still needs to be under the footnotes section, not external links. Do you have any printed info in the footnotes? Spawn Man 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All my sourcing is from online articles. I don't have any printed material that refers to colorization. (Ibaranoff24 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Changed my vote slightly, although I still stand by my original comments. You definitely need to beef up the article substansially & get printed sources on the article. I agree with below that a library should have some stuff on it in the technology section, & that the internet is not the most reliable place to gather information. It is sad however, that people who place false things on their websites, ruin it for other who only place the facts on their websites. Excellent job with the footnotes! Most people can't get the hang of them straight away, but you're already doing them like a pro. Great job. Spawn Man 00:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I recommend aquiring books about film history and technology either through a library or some other means, I don't think this article can be comprehensive with just online sources. The majority of the content in the article are examples of colorization. The article needs to place how film colorization fits in with the advancement of film technology and film's development as an artform. It's better organized now, but it's just not comprehensive. Also when you cite your references, web or otherwise, please use a proper format. Examples MechBrowman 23:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]