Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gremlins

Gremlins

Partial self-nomination. 1980s rubber monster movie. When I first started editing this the trivia section was the longest. That information has been reorganized and the article has been expanded and referenced. Has undergone a peer review and most concerns were addressed (the music section is still a bit short, but unless unreliable sources are used it's about as big as it can be). CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good article. The link to The Gremlins (band) should be in the dab-hat, not as a "See Also". Jkelly 05:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good work. RyanG e rbil10 05:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my concerns at the peer review have been dealth with. Nice work. Cvene64 06:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me. RN 09:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object For the following reasons:
- Peacock terms should be avoided in preference of compelling writing. Example:
  - Accomplished filmmaker Steven Spielberg was the film's executive producer. Accomplished is an unnecessary adjective.
- The plot to Gremlins is extremely simple. The Plot section does not need this much exposition. It should be trimmed to the following outline:
  - Billy gets mogwai.
  - Mogwai gets wet.
  - Mogwais eat after midnight.
  - Slapstick violence ensues.
  - Gremlins get blown up, Spike disolves in a pile of goo.
- The Pre-production section doesn't disclose very much compelling information, and what it does have, it doesn't expand on. Why did Spielberg oppose the McDonald's scene?
- The Casting section is badly worded and confusing, especially the second sentence.
- The same goes for the Special effects section. Three sentences are used where one would suffice to explain that many puppets were used for Gizmo and they were unreliable.
- The prose throughout is pedestrian.
- Many of the referneces link to the wrong footnotes. Many of the references don't seem to be about Gremlins.

In conclusion: it's not ready, it needs work. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I read it in order, the casting section makes more sense. Perhaps it does need tweaking though. RN 19:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is detailed because much of the information there is necessary to understanding the rest of the article. We need to know who Mrs. Deagle is to understand Ebert's review, we need to know a gremlin got zapped in the microwave to understand PG-13, etc. Spielberg, as far as I am aware, did not oppose the McDonald's scene. The special effects, I thought, was something people would be interested in; it goes beyond the puppets to talk about the giant head. Unreliable how? Information is provided. All references lead to the right footnotes. Perhaps you are confused because the references are combined- thus, "2" appears throughout the article. Many references are not about Gremlins because a search with both JSTOR and Academic Search Premier brings up the articles I used in this article. This article reflects the fullest extent of the academic discussion, which may not be much, but scholarly opinions are important. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ for a minor and fixable issue. Inappropriate use of fair-use image in lead. Please use a low-resolution image per the fair-use policy. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't my old version [1] be low resolution? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 18:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I've reverted to the lower resolution version. Also removed the "accomplished filmmaker" per above. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tried making some more adjustments to the casting section. Other than that I think the comments about "compelling information" are subjective. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Changed to Support. But please insert {{endspoiler}} at the required place. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good Tobyk777 07:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support Very good article. Karrmann 21:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The gremlins have always given me the heebie jeebies and I hated the movie, but the article looks good. HeyNow10029 00:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]