Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manhunter (film)/archive2
- 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 not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 24 June 2011 [1].
Manhunter (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 00:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because, after a gradual series of improvements since its last FAC nomination, and a peer review to further enhance and tweak it, I feel it is ready to be considered a featured article. It's come a long way since its time as a stubby trivia list, and the pet project I started simply as a result of opening a random back issue of Total Film has led to me learning more than any one man man should ever know about 1980s neo-noir. I feel it's only right that we all get to be privy to a great becoming. GRAPPLE X 00:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Use a consistent date formatting
- Publications like Chicago Tribune should be italicized
- Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
- Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
- Book sources need page numbers
- Ref 35: publisher?
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
Despite having formatting issues raised in the previous FAC, this article needs extensive cleanup in regards to reference formatting, particularly consistency issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have addressed everything but the page numbers, which I'm about to start adding now. Not sure how I missed the date inconsistency... :( GRAPPLE X 15:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Page numbers added now too. GRAPPLE X 16:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi, a quick thing I noticed, throughout the article you're spelling Hannibal Lecktor's name with the spelling as it is in this film, Lecktor, however, I wonder if many readers will assume this is a typo, due to the spelling of the cannibals name in the novels and other films in the series. Unless I've missed it, the article doesn't mention why the spelling was different in this film. Would the article benefit from a brief explanation of why this was in the production section? Coolug (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, there doesn't actually seem to be a reason. Both Lecter/Lecktor and Dollarhyde/Dolarhyde were changed, but nothing I've been able to turn up indicates why the changes were made. I could add a note in the cast section to say that the names were changed, though. GRAPPLE X 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on Hannibal Lecter claims it was a copyright issue, with this as a source. It's ten minutes long, so I haven't watched it all, but it might contain what you need. cya Coolug (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't make me watch Terry Wogan. I'll give it a look now, but my gut tells me it's a bit off that they would have the rights to the book but not some character names. I suppose it can be worded to be sure it's Cox making the claim, not stated as encyclopaedic fact. GRAPPLE X 17:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cannot cite YouTube to begin with because of the high potential for deletion of videos because of copyright issues. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to look for the episode information to cite the program itself but I needn't bother—what Cox actually says is that someone had acquired the rights to the name 'Hannibal Lecter', and almost forced Silence of the Lambs to rename the character. The information doesn't pertain to Manhunter. I've simply included a note in the 'Cast' section, where it mentions Cox playing the role, stating the name was changed from the novel's spelling. It may well remain one of those strange little mysteries. :( GRAPPLE X 02:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cannot cite YouTube to begin with because of the high potential for deletion of videos because of copyright issues. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't make me watch Terry Wogan. I'll give it a look now, but my gut tells me it's a bit off that they would have the rights to the book but not some character names. I suppose it can be worded to be sure it's Cox making the claim, not stated as encyclopaedic fact. GRAPPLE X 17:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on Hannibal Lecter claims it was a copyright issue, with this as a source. It's ten minutes long, so I haven't watched it all, but it might contain what you need. cya Coolug (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose due to not all references listed at the last peer review being fully vetted. A featured article needs to be comprehensive and well-researched, so the print references should at least be reviewed. If a reference's content is redundant to what exists in the article already, that is fine. But a reference like The Cinema of Michael Mann, with a whole chapter about this film, deserves a look. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have had no luck in locating this book in either my university's library or the public library, and short of buying it myself, this seems to be an unavoidable outcome, as, as mentioned in the peer review, online sources such as Google Books or Amazon do not allow even searching the book's contents, bar its initial contents page, to vet its contents for redundancy. If this is going to be a genuine stumbling block to the nomination, I'll withdraw until such time as I can purchase anything I can't find elsewhere. GRAPPLE X 14:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.