Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Groundhog Day (film)/archive1

Add links
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2020 [1].

Groundhog Day (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No fancy intro, this is Groundhog Day, even if you've never seen it, you've heard the term. Classed as one of the greatest comedy films ever made, up along the likes of Some Like it Hot and Annie Hall, this article has had a major overhaul, a copy edit and has now passed GA. Please impart your wisdoms so it can be elevated to FA. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Driveby comment: The Epoch Times has been deprecated as a source, so it should be removed, and any information sourced to it that cannot be sourced elsewhere should be removed with it. I am getting a lot of potentially useful hits on Google Scholar. Have these been dug through? Josh Milburn (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dug through for what? There is an extensive Themes section if that is what you mean. I've removed the Epoch source. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking if there is an extensive themes section. I am asking if you have hunted down and read the scholarly analysis of and academic research about this film, and incorporated material from it where appropriate. If you have not, I advise you withdraw this nomination, and then renominate once you have. If you have, perhaps you could quickly explain why there is no (very little?) scholarly work cited in the article? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an example of what is not already covered in the article? I can't respond if I don't know what you are talking about. There is no rule that I have to cite a student essay to say what I have found on a website elsewhere. There's a deep analytical themes section. Please advise on what is absent. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked what I take to be a straightforward question, but I can try to rephrase it if you do not understand. You are putting words in my mouth. I have no opinion on whether the Themes section is or is not extensive. I have not made any claim about what is or is not covered in the article. I have not asked you to cite a student essay. I have asked you whether you have delved into at the scholarly literature on this film. If you have not, I have advised you to withdraw the nomination. If you have, I have asked why the scholarly literature is not (as far as I can see) cited in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you get the time to read the article, the term "groundhog day" is heavily abused and misused. I have gone through Google Scholar because of what happened at the Ghostbusters II FAC and have found nothing that was either relevant to the film itself or not already covered. That is why there is not an exhaustive referencing of google scholar links. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick sample of sources that could be cited: [2][3][4][5][6]. While there are sources that use the term for unrelated things, there are definitely relevant ones out there as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And which of these say something that is not already said in the article? When did it become a default that Featured Articles must cite these spurious essays by nobodies? This is the third(?) time now that J Milburn has drove by to derail an FA nomination, such that I preemptively prepared a thorough analysis of the themes in the film this time and yet still this is not enough because I have not cited *cough*
Life on a loop: The enduring appeal of groundhog day

Abstract: Few films have entered the cultural imagination as pervasively as Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis, 1993). The title itself has become a kind of linguistic shorthand, referring to the sense of being trapped in some kind of undesirable recurring situation. Yet while the central narrative conceit may seem overwhelmingly familiar by now, the film itself remains a tangled web of contradictions: a high-concept romantic comedy with a surprising amount of pathos and a genuinely dark undercurrent. In hindsight, it represents a career highlight for its stars, Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell, as well as for its director. It is also a work of rich thematic depth, and provides a useful entry point for considerations of altruism, happiness, and deeper existential and metaphysical concerns.

All of which is already present in the article. Or Mass Market Medieval: Essays on the Middle Ages in Popular Culture, the contents of which from searching through it, are funnily enough, already present in the article.
And the worst thing is that it's always paid material, like the months you give up to write the article are not sufficient toil. But DWB I hear you remark, you can ask on the Resource Exchange for these. I know, I reply. And you get the contents and for something like Memory and Movies the film is probably mentioned in passing once in the entire book like with the Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II "scholarly" articles suggested by yourself or others. OR you're waiting 3 months on for a Variety article for Scrooged. BUT, there's still Revisiting Groundhog Day (1993): Cinematic depiction of mutative process; Its contents from that abstract are already covered in the article. Which is to say, I have pre-empted this argument because I expected the attempt at derailment again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could have effectively pre-empted this argument by writing what WIAFA refers to as "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", which in this case includes scholarly literature. What leads you to believe that these materials are "spurious essays by nobodies" and the sources you have chosen to cite are not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I raised these concerns on your first Ghostbusters II FAC (or "drove by to derail an FA nomination", as you put it) purely because the first person to raise these concerns "declin[ed] further involvement/help" because they could not "work in the environment created by the nominator here". Had that oppose stood (i.e., had the editor in question, who is one of the FAC directors, not been forced out of the review), I would not have contributed. I don't think your badgering of opposers and your disdain for scholarly sources (and, I add, the "nobodies" who write them...) has any place at FAC. As I have said before: such apparent hostility towards the idea of incorporating academic analysis or seeking out scholarly sources is surprising for someone who chooses encyclopedia-writing as a hobby. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis is included and I've just laid out that the sources Nikkimaria invoked are already covered in the article by documents other people can actually check. The analysis is incorporated, you're just unhappy that it isn't from student essays. That is not a complaint, it's a preference. The sources I was forced to include for Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters 2, written by people who can't even get the names of the characters right, are not vital or enlightening articles, they are things I would have been asked to write for a 6th form media studies essay. And I wouldn't include my 6th form media studies essay here either. The analysis in this article is comprehensive and thorough, the entire article is thorough, it is MORE thorough than Ghostbusters II. If the pair of you cannot say what is missing from the article (because you have clearly not actually read it) then kindly stop involving yourselves in these nominations and/or attempting to bully me at every nomination into doing things that are not required. If you're unable to do a proper review, you shouldn't be here. When one of your first statement's is "If you have not, I advise you withdraw this nomination, and then renominate once you have." you are clearly not here for any purpose but to push your own agenda, an agenda that is not required to pass FA. It is It's not possible to say the article is not comprehensive and contains an academic analysis, because it does, it passes all FA metrics. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've written quick stubs about two of the nobodies students senior professors who authored some of the work Nikki referred to above: Jude Davies and John Seamon. As Nikki has said, criterion 1c is a part of the featured article criteria. In my view (and as Nikki said above), the "relevant literature" referred to in 1c (in cases like this) includes the the journalistic and academic literature. I don't think that this is in any way an unusual or unreasonable view: I do not think this is a mere eccentric "preference", I do not think there's some secret "agenda", and I do not think raising questions about it constitutes "bullying". If you don't want to engage with academic literature, that's your prerogative. But don't be surprised if you meet resistance at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) DWB, you're not doing yourself any favours here. You're free to disagree with reviewers' comments and ask them for specifics but pls do so in a collegial manner. I see no attempt at "derailment", no "agenda", and none of the condescension and arrogance in Josh or Nikki's points that I've seen in some of your responses. It's common for a coord to archive a nom when an experienced reviewer has recommended withdrawal but I haven't done so yet because I wanted to give you the chance to discuss it civilly -- I hope I won't have cause to regret that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to discuss? I have said at least 5 times that the information they want included is ALREADY in the article. They have said, in essence "ok, but why aren't you citing that same information to Josh's friends?". Neither of them have said that they have read the article. If you have not read the article, and have ignored my comments that the information you want including in the article is already in the article, what am I meant to do here Ian? If you want to understand why your quality FA noms are going down and no one bothers, this right here is why. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had never heard of any of these people before you nominated the article here. With no disrespect meant, they are not my friends. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There, I've included even more content specifically from academic sources including John Seamon. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I am pleased that you have done this. I'll leave reference formatting to the source reviewer, but two quick comments about the new additions: 1) The Pick is a student journal. It has roughly the shape of an academic journal, and its content is (apparently) peer-reviewed, but I do not think that it counts as a high-quality reliable source. 2) Mass Market Medieval is an edited collection. You should cite the particular chapter, not the book as a whole. See Template:Cite book#Examples for an example of how to use that template to do it. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the chapter. I can't say I am familiar with The Pick, the editorial process sounds pretty thorough but I am not familiar with the university to say if it can be relied on to uphold that standard. Would you recommend removing the reference and associated information then? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but others may have a different view. It seems that this is the kind of "student paper" you were objecting to above; The Pick a journal for students to publish their coursework in, not an outlet for peer-reviewed research. (Proper peer-reviewed journals will sometimes publish students' coursework, of course, but only if it's gone through the usual review process.) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you made the Ghostbusters II article worse by including bullshit academic texts to pander to FAC reviewers, you should remove them. I know how many people read the New Yorker and how reliable and influential it is. Whereas it looks like no-one read or cited "Immigrants as aliens in the Ghostbusters films". Including academic work just because it exists is WP:UNDUE. I trust your judgement here, as long as you've read the texts, you needn't include them. - hahnchen 13:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

One of my favorite films, though I've always considered the ending a bit forced. I'll wait to do a full review until you've addressed the above comment, but preliminarily:

  • I think in the plot summary, some mention should be made of the homeless old man, whose recurring deaths teach Phil that he is not a god and that there are limits to what he can do, that man is going to die no matter what Phil does.
  • Many years ago, I leafed through one of the early scripts (I looked at it well after the movie came out) and it contained an explanation of why this happens to Phil, that he has been placed under a curse by a former girlfriend. You mention that having such a scene was considered. Does the source go further than merely considered?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a line in the plot mentioning his failed attempts at helping the old man already. Did you mean to add more?/
Must have missed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only mention I can find on a website about the girlfriend being in the script is from someone who was not involved in the film but claims to have read the script. There is mention in the article that they would put something in if needed to satisfy the studio but that they were never going to include and/or film that scene because they did not want it in there. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Wehwalt Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking if you're all done here, Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a day or so to look it over, please. I see it's bottom of the list.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Argento Surfer

[edit]

I'll probably add more comments as I read and digest, but the line "It can be argued that the length of time is not important." strikes me as too vague. I assume at least one person actually made this argument? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at work so I'd have to have a thorough read through of the source, but the quote that stands out to me is "It could be 10 years or a thousand, however long it takes him to memorise the personal histories of Punxsutawney's townsfolk, and to become, among other things, a pianist, an ice-sculptor and a doctor ("It's kind of an honorary title," he shrugs)." I could change "argued" to "said" if its a semantics issue. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at re-framing the sentence. Feel free to tweak it. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
  • First off, kudos for all of your work so far here! I've seen this movie many times and it still is something I love, so nice to see somebody took the time to improve its article. Now I'll kick this off with a media review.
Thanks for taking the time to add your review SNUGGUMS. I will have to take a look at some of these when I get home from work but a few responses. The Cherry Tree in image, I do understand your point, I think the Filming section just wasn't big enough to include it, but it seemed a shame to not have an image of that particular location so I put it where it was next most applicable. The Boddhisvasta image is somewhat decorative but I did add it to be informative as I wouldn't know what a Boddhisvasta was otherwise (I'm not even sure I'm spelling that right without checking). The decorative part is breaking up a big wall of text. The reversed images of Minchin and Warchus, on a previous FAC I was told that images of people should be facing into the article rather than away from it. The staggering of images means they fall on the right hand side, and at least in Minchin's case I believe that was the only image we have of him for free, hence the flipping. I will take a look at the Anne Rice image too. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My pleasure. For the reversed images, you could re-flip those and then align them to the left instead of the right to face the text, and also move the 2008 MacDowell towards the right so it does the same instead of the left where it currently is. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the Anne Rice image by adding the correct link. Clicking on an image on the site shows it marked as Public Domain. I guess Anne Rice is just really cool and not pointlessly possessive over photos. I also flipped the Warchus/Minchin photos. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better. Now the Warchus and Minchin photos can be aligned to the left instead of right in order to "face" the text, and for the same reason, you can align the MacDowell pic from 2008 holding a Groundhog to the right instead of the left. After that, I'll review the prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 07:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the plot section:
  • Using a day within "The following day, February 2" is redundant when we've already established that the previous day is February 1st.
  • It looks like "He confides his situation to Rita who directs him to a psychologist and neurologist who cannot explain his experiences" is missing a comma after "Rita". Also, when telling Phil to get his head checked (or something along those lines), he goes to the neurologist, and that guy is actually the one who refers him to the psychologist.
  • I get what you mean with "better himself", but that doesn't seem like the best tone for (what's supposed to be) a neutral and professional encyclopedia. Using "change himself" would be more appropriate.
  • The semi-colons in "he saves people from deadly accidents and misfortunes; learns to play the piano, sculpt ice, and speak French; and reads poetry" should be replaced with commas, also I'd take out the poetry bit as that isn't a skill (even though Mr. Connors does offer to read French poetry to Rita at one point and recited some to her)
  • "so eloquently reports" feels like puffery regardless of what the intended point is
  • That's all I have time to assess for now aside from "cast", which is underreferenced and this only mentions a few of the roles. WP:FILMCAST doesn't say these sections are exempt from in-text citations regardless of what other sections contain. If you don't wish to provide individual sources for each role, then I'd be fine with one collective reference for as many as possible and having "Credits adapted from ______" or "Credits taken from _____" or something similar. See Saving Mr. Banks and Evita (1996 film) for examples of this. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made all changes barring the "so eloquently reports" one. I don't think his reporting is eloquent and am puffing it up, in universe that is the case. I cannot think of a better way to say something, ironically so eloquently, in other words to convey what is happening in the film during that scene. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rearranged the sentence to make it seem less of an opinion and more matter-of-fact. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement. Looking through again, I'm not sure "manipulate" is the most accurate word choice within "so that he can manipulate her into sleeping with him" as that could give a misleading impression he tries to trick Rita into sex or make her do so against her will. I'd recommend "so he can sleep with her" instead. Now for other parts.....
  • Under "Development", the use of "flop" within "his last directorial effort, Club Paradise (1986), had been a flop" is subpar tone. You'd be better off saying "unsuccessful" or "failure", and I'd specify whether this was in terms of reviews, box office, or both.
  • From "Writing", it looks like the "studios" part of "the studios demand for a broad comedy" is missing an apostrophe (to read as "studio's"). Also, I'm not sure what "accessible" supposed to mean in "the changes made it more accessible to the audience", but it reads awkwardly regardless.
  • Within "Pre-production", maybe add "As" to "A Chicago native, Ramis enjoyed filming in Illionis"
  • For the third paragraph under "Filming", it feels monotonous to have three consecutive sentences start with "Murray"
  • "Critical reception" and "Accolades" shouldn't be in the same section as "Release" or anything pertaining to "Box office" (entirely separate matters).
  • In "Aftermath", I'd replace "misfortunes at the box office" with "box office failures", and "classic" from "had created classic films like" is puffery.
Have at it! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still didn't take out the misleading use of "manipulate" from "manipulate her into sleeping with him. Also, I'd say the script bits "voice over" and "thinking" under "writing" should be in parentheses instead of italics, and the use of "hit" isn't really professional tone when talking about success (found within lead, "release", and the latter's "box office" subsection). Thankfully the un-mirrored pics of Minchin and Warchus (respectively File:Tim Minchin singing (Cropped).jpg and File:Pride 02 (15085757719).jpg) are appropriately licensed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change manipulate because I'm not sure what is wrong with it? He's deliberately learning stuff about her so he can manipulate her into sleeping with him. He's very deliberately trying to manipulate her feelings to make her want him in a short time period. It's a malicious act. He upsets her multiple times over multiple loops and only cares about learning more information for next time. It's selfish, evil, and manipulative.
Done the rest. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with saying Phil manipulated Rita in that regard is it incorrectly suggests he forced her to have sex with him against her will or tricked her into the act. This doesn't mean I condone his actions, I just feel it gives the wrong idea of what he was doing. We're better off going with something like "so that he can sleep with her". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You now have my support. Good work! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by isento

[edit]
  • copyvio tool shows what appear to be serious issues. Can this be possible at this point in the article's development? isento (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with Snuggums' view about the wording. "Manipulate" does not mean "force". At least a few high-quality sources ([7], [8]) frame what Phil does as a tactic or ploy for sex, even with Rita. If not "manipulate", I suggest wording it as one of these sources does: "Phil momentarily recognizes that he actually loves Rita, but quickly turns that realization into another one of his ploys for seduction." Or something like that. isento (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I also brought up the idea of manipulation being a way to trick people into doing things. Phil didn't try to trick Rita into sex from what I could tell when watching the movie. Seduce for self-serving purposes, yes, but it's not like the guy attempted rape her even if using love as a means to obtain sex. Perhaps ploy could be used when he was indeed taking advantage of the time loop and his knowledge of her and the day for personal gain. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I personally wrote the article and the site the tool is saying is a 99% match is a forum, I would guess that they have copied the article not the other way around. The next is the New Yorker and the match appears to be the quote from the article, which I can't do much about. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, everything else seems fine. Support isento (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Isento. I can't see those files on the forum without signing up, which given the URL I don't particularly want to do, but I can put my hand on my heart and say I didn't 99% copy the article from a dodgy forum XD Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review - Pass

[edit]

A lot of refs so I may do this in two passes, we'll see. Aza24 (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • One minor thing not part of the source review, "Groundhog Day (musical)" shouldn't be listed as the "main article" of the adaptions section, since it's not, the main article would be an article like "Adaptations of Groundhog Day". So I would switch it to "further reading: Groundhog Day (musical)" or "see also: Groundhog Day (musical)"

The works cited

  • Gilby 2004 should be ISBN 13 (use the converter)
  • Racicot 2006 needs an ISBN
  • Seamon 2015 needs an ISBN (Make sure these are both ISBN 13s as well – they're 13 if they start with "978" if not you can simply convert them with the tool above)

References

  • Ref 15 missing date
  • Refs 20, 24 and 28 are all "16, 17" or "22, 23" these should both be "pp. 16–17" and "pp. 22–23" (You do it correctly later in the refs it looks like)
  • Ref 34 missing date, you could also put the author here as something like "Staff" or "THR staff" but only the date is required for when the author is unspecified I believe
  • Ref 35 missing date
  • Ref 42 missing author
  • WP:MOS dictates that the article title shouldn't be in all caps (or have multiple words like that) (for ref 55)
  • Ref 63 says it's from "Website"? Linking format error I'm assuming
  • Ref 121 missing date
  • Link for ref 127 doesn't work for me – probably fine since it's archived though
  • Ref 144 missing author
  • Page number for ref 146?
  • Having both ref 150 and 151 seems unnecessary, doesn't hurt though I guess? (Especially since 150 doesn't mention Groundhog day)
  • Same thing with 154 and 155, but in this case both of them mention Groundhog Day
  • Reliability throughout looks good.
  • That's all I got, I'll do some spot checks later. Aza24 (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input Aza24. I've addressed the ones above but I am working on the ISBN ones as I'm not clear on how those work. RE: Ref 150 and 151, and ref 154 and 155, I've included both as one is the actual list and the other explains the context of what it is for. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK I think I have sorted the ISBN issue as well. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
[edit]
  • Can't find anything about a "scooter" in refs 1 and 2 ("Punxsutawney Phil is portrayed...")
  • Checked 10, 50, 70, 87, 109, 133, 169–171 and 197, all good. Address the above and then you'll be good with the source review. Aza24 (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The scooter credit is under the BFI one, you have to click the "more" option on the credits. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say there is no page number for the Schneider reference. I have an ePub file of it and there are no page numbers, and apparently page numbers change depending on what program you use. So while I could guess a page number for it based on where it is, it would likely be a different number for someone else. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is everything now, Aza24? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks for the ping, forgot to check back in. Changes look good, I tweaked an ISBN and now we should be set, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, are we still waiting for more reviews? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I wanted to make another pass at both article and review after my first quick look and haven't found time yet -- this w/e I expect. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Groundhog_Day_(film)/archive1&oldid=1138461961"