Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terminator 2: Judgment Day/archive2

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 July 2023 [1].

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I told you... I'll be back"

Hoping this sequel is as successful as the film on which it is focused. This is Terminator 2, the 1991 action film that pits machine against machine to preserve the future of humanity.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • when he is a child -- Should this be in the past tense? Since he went back in time. (same with the plot section)
  • I would link principal photography for readers unfamiliar with the term
  • See also: List of Terminator characters -- should the linked title all be in italics?
  • that looked like an average human -- maybe an average-sized human since we are comparing to Arnold's larger frame
  • or came from advertisement backgrounds -- perhaps modelling backgrounds

Down to the end of Casting. More to follow. Hoping this FAC will gain traction from reviewers this time. With that said, might I interest you if you have spare time to review a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Three months of pre-production was truncated -- maybe shortened or something similar per WP:NOTSIMPLE
  • Over one week -- maybe for over a week
  • The production used many locations -- filmed in many locations
  • vivifying the T-1000 -- could use a much simpler term WP:NOTSIMPLE
  • A team of up to 35 -- perhaps clarify if these are 35 editors, graphic designers, etc?
  • oscillators and synthesizers -- could benefit wikilinking for context if available
  • at which the audience was -- during which the audience
  • and a new "Extended Cut", containing a further scene -- containing a scene
  • subsequent 2017 theatrical re-release of Terminator 2: Judgment Day in August 2017 -- remove first mention of 2017
  • Compared to the bleak, nihilistic theme of The Terminator, Terminator 2 -- maybe replace the The Terminator as the first film so it doesn't read or appear repetitive.
  • Terminator 2: Judgment Day has been referenced to in a variety of media -- has been referenced in a variety of media
  • Maybe merge the last para under cultural influence section since it is only 2 sentences.
  • and Empire readers ranked Terminator 2 17th on its 2017 "100 Greatest Movies" -- ranked the film to avoid repetition and since it's followed by a numeric

Those are my comments. I hope they are helpful. Another very well-written and elaborate film article. I adored this film as a kid (to this day). Pseud 14 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments Pseud, I just want to acknowledge I am aware of them and will tackle them tomorrow hopefully, had a lot going on the last few days! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pseud 14, I've done most of these, I have had a look at the prose re: "when he is a child" and I've run it through a grammar checker and it does seem to be correct as is. I get where you're coming from with it but I do think it's right as is unless anyone else can comment on it?
Thanks for the clarification. I too was debating on it, that's why I brought it up. But if your grammar check says otherwise, then I am inclined to agree. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RE: List of Terminator characters, I know it looks weird but that's how it's meant to be, I don't have the link to policy but it's something that was brought to my attention on a previous FAC, the italics are inversed for some reason.
Fair point. And seems to be very minor and nitpick-y on my part. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "or came from advertisement backgrounds", is modelling the same? I'm not clear on that. The specific reference is relating to kids who star in adverts specifically because they're taught to smile and laugh and be positive about the product. Do these count as models?
I believe any individual who appears in advertisements whether print or screen would be considered models. But I think the use of advert in this context is fine too. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "A team of up to 35", the source just says "experts" it doesn't specify their roles beyond them working for ILM.
Should be good then. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've done the other ones so let me know your thoughts on the above responses. I will also aim to take a look at Angel Aquino in the next few days, I just need to catch up on some sleep! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing your responses. Changes all look good and rationales are satisfactory. Happy to support on prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pseud 14!! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case

[edit]

I came by this after I had finished making the GA reviewer's requested changes to The Exorcist which, full disclosure, I am hoping to bring here before the end of the year with the aim of getting it on the Main Page on the 50th anniversary of its release.

One of the issues had been that article's length, at the time of nomination almost 280K. I had defended it at the time by pointing to Aliens and Back to the Future, both recently promoted to FA and both over 200K, and while seminal films in their own small ways nowhere near as seminal as The Exorcist, so, to me, that justified being longer. Another editor who said the article's length had dissuaded them from taking the review pointed out that both of those articles had a lot less total prose.

So, the earliest work was focused on trimming down the article. I was thus proud to note when I was done that The Exorcist is now a little shorter than this article.

But I thought, to be fair, I should look at this article to see how it handled the length issue. And that's how I found the first FAC, from earlier this year, and ... guess what? The same conversation had taken place!

I think Harry is being a bit hardline ... nothing in either of those criteria he cites says anything about a specific maximum length contributing to readability, or detracting from it if exceeded. And to be fair he more or less concedes this later on.

But he was right on most of his points. So I was surprised when I saw that you'd done nothing to address that issue in the months since. The article is still weighing in at 231K ... a little bit longer, in fact. If Harry comes around again to take a look, he's not going to be impressed.

So ... What I suggest you do is what I did at The Exorcist: split off the production and themes sections into separate subarticles, while leaving shortened versions behind, contrary to the wariness you expressed about that idea here. I really think you could do this without damaging the article as much as you think you would have to. I did. Because without taking more action to make the article shorter, I don't think it has a chance of getting to FA.

Another thing that has occurred to me right now on just flicking over it is that you could stand to use some more video clips. If there's any categories of articles where we should be using video, indeed need to, it's on movies. As you can see The Exorcist has three clips at the moment (and I will be adding a fourth after the GA process is complete). The informal limit to fair-use media in articles is four, so you have the room accounting for the one video you have and the music. Granted in The Exorcist those video clips are of iconic scenes in the film, and I don't know that you could say Terminator 2 has as many, if any, but you've still got the room. And even without them, you might be able to get away with a still or two as long as there's enough accompanying sourced commentary on what's in them.

Also, I think that if you're going to say in the article's intro that some people consider the film to be among the greatest ever made, that's a sufficiently extraordinary claim as to require that it be cited right there as well as where it is restated in the body (cf. a similar claim in the intro of The Exorcist). Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, from what I have seen, deals in cases that are relatively short about specific incidents, he left his opinion last time and I disagreed because we are operating in two completely different worlds, he deals in small real world incidents and I'm writing articles on culturally significant media. You're comparing this to the Exorcist for some reason when the Exoricst is nearly twice as long? Like I a can copy and paste the Exorcist article into wordcounter.com and its 17000 words so I'm not sure what you think you've trimmed but you're clearly focusing on the wikitext size I assume? Terminator 2 us only 11,000 words at the last FA including the Themes section which I HAVE to include but I do not count because it's not core to the film I am writing about. As it is now, after the last FA, others copy edited and reduced the word count to less than 10,000, again including hte Themes section which is 1,141 words of text I HAVE to include, so the actual content is about 8,700 and minus the lead it's 8,300. The article is not too long while it is still incredibly comprehensive and well re-searched. I'm not splitting off the production section when that is the meat of the article, it'd be ridiculous, it's not Avengers Infinity War/Endgame, in part because if it's in another article noone will ever read it, people read spin offs far less than the main article, they can skim the article and pick up interesting factoids which they won't if it's split off, and I have elevated multiple articles of similar and greater length without issue. More non-free content is also not needed, the Exorcist is probably outside of copyright at this point but the Terminator 2 is certainly not. Also prose size is 115 kB. I'm not sure what people's particular bugbears are with this one specific article but it's tight, well-written, and comprehensive and Wikipedia is not a 1997 Geocities website. Thanks for your suggestions but no. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also refer to WP: SIZE. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no one is saying you have to cut the entire section out of the article. Given that you have a short leftover section on the special effects on top of the spinoff article, I don't see why you can't just add the entire production section, and leave a similarly shortened section in the article (it can certainly be longer than three grafs!). I know "themes" is relatively short; if you have a separate production article you might not even need to create a separate themes article. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

More than four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Thebiguglyalien

[edit]

I love a good "one per year" set up. Let's see if we can get a star in that 1991 spot. I've seen this movie, though it's been a while. I'll post some comments by tomorrow. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General:

  • This article is missing a lot of commas. First, there are many places where two independent clauses are joined by a conjunction without a comma. For example: "The T-800 and the T-1000 converge on John in a shopping mall and a chase ensues." This includes several instances where the comma comes after the "and" or "but", but none appears before. Second, commas should also be used in situations like "In 1996 T2-3D: Battle Across Time, a live-action attraction", where a comma needs to go after "In 1996".
  • Don't overuse semicolons; they're great and all, but it's often better to start a new sentence if one doesn't perfectly lead into the next. This will also fix some of the run-on sentence issues.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the portraits, is it possible to find ones from closer to 1991? James Cameron in 1991 (or even in 2001) is more relevant to the film than James Cameron in 2016.
Someone asked this last time and I found the oldest ones I could get with them still being fair use, of a reasonable quality size, and either looking forwards or into the article Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that there's a debate about whether the articles is too long. I'll add my opinion that it is not too long, but it approaching the upper limit of acceptable length.
  • Check the use of "however". I think all four of them could be removed without changing the meaning.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice information about the budget is spread throughout the article. This is entirely a style decision and it's fine either way, but one idea would be to collect all of it into a single "budget" section. Then the other sections would focus on the aspects that aren't related to budget (e.g. casting would focus purely on the selection of actors, while their salaries would be covered under budget).
Not done a budget section but this is done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot:

  • Some of the plot feels editorialized. Things like "Earth has been ravaged" and "her violent, fanatical efforts" present opinions about the plot. These are totally fine if they're clearly described or depicted as such in the film, but they should be used carefully.
They are this way in the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do they actually use the word fanatical to describe her in dialogue? If so, then it's probably acceptable. If not, then that's just your interpretation of her actions, and the plot summary should have no interpretation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's obsessively trying to blow up places to prevent Judgment Day to the point she turned her son into a mini survivalist, I wouldn't say it's interpretation, it's the facts, but I've removed the word because I'm tired. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John and the T-800 escape together. John calls to warn his foster parents" – Two sentences in a row start with "John", and the first sentence feels choppy.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who teaches it catchphrases and hand signs" – What does "hand signs" mean in this context? Is that important enough to include?
I'll see if there's a better term than hand signs, its relevant to why he does the thumbs-up at the end, demonstrating he has learned to be more human. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarah plans to flee with John to Mexico until a nightmare about Judgment Day convinces her to kill Dyson, whom she assaults in his home, but finds she cannot kill him and relents." – This sentence runs on.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cast:

  • Is there any defining aspect that lets some cast members have bullet points but not others?
It's the people who are named both in the opening credits and the start of the end credits, the more prominent positions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe this should be made clear by saying in the article that they were the top billed actors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's necessary? No other modern article I've seen does that, I think it's obvious it's top billed people. I can throw a hidden note in there but adding "The following are the top billed actors" feels like I'm treating the reader like an idiot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Development:

  • "making director James Cameron a credible director" – Vague and doesn't really mean anything.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to a fallout with rights holder" – "fallout" is informal and unclear
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "persuaded Carolco Pictures to pursue the purchase" – Maybe just me, but I find three uses of per/pur like this distracting.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most-difficult" – Unnecessary hyphen
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the figure would increase because of Cameron's previous work" – This could be read as "Cameron has a body of successful previous work that makes him more expensive to hire" or "Cameron has historically increased the budget as he directed a film".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing:

  • This section might benefit from trimming. Some of the information here retreads the plot or content in the other sections. Much of the content here is repeated in the "themes and analysis" section.
This is inevitable, I cannot talk about themes in the writing section or writing in the themes section but theme commentary is going to have to discuss the narrative. I have trimmed it down a bit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With a set scheduled release date" – "set scheduled" is strange wording
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the printed copy was still warm when Cameron boarded Carolco's charter jet on the way to Cannes" – unnecessary
It speaks to how rushed it was. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can just say that it was rushed. Wording like "was still warm" is informal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casting:

  • Another section where it might help to trim minor details. The article doesn't need to cover everything that happened, just the main ideas.
Done
  • "although he found portraying a fearless, emotionless machine difficult" – Unclear how this is supposed to alter the previous idea. Did he have reservations about taking the role? Was this problem more applicable in the second movie?
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He extensively rehearsed action scenes with stunt coordinator Joel Kramer" – This sentence doesn't seem relevant where it's placed
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which she described as "quite a bit more" than her earnings for The Terminator" – It might be better to just say what her earnings in the first movie were.
There's no source I have been able to find that confirms her T1 salary Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She requested Sarah to be 'crazy'" – Needs rewording, and the quotes immediately follow it might work better paraphrased in a single sentence.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over the course of the six-month shoot" – This sentence and the next one aren't relevant to casting
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filming:

  • This second paragraph goes into excessive detail about Cameron's directing style and personality and uses too many examples. Most of this information should be trimmed down into a brief summary.
DOne Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "male stripper night" gag is funny, but that might be more suited to IMDb than Wikipedia. It doesn't contribute to a reader's understanding of the film or its production.
It doesn't add to understanding of the production but it does speak to the atmosphere on set and it is, as you say, a fun addition that doesn't take up much space.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the fourth paragraph feels like a prosified list, and it doesn't flow very well. The fifth paragraph has some of the same issue, though not as much.:

DOne Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the on-foot T-1000" – Awkward wording
DOne Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hearing loss and shell shock come from an interview, so they should probably be attributed to her (especially since shell shock hasn't been a legitimate medical term in a long time).
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The hearing loss is now attributed to her, but the shell shock is still stated in wikivoice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-production:

  • The first sentence runs on way too long.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special effects and design:

  • "practical limitations of staff numbers" – Unclear what this means.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music:

  • "Fiedel justified it as an accompaniment to Cameron"– Unclear what this means.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Context:

  • Not sure how much in this section is relevant. We don't need to know about all of the other movies that happened to be released at the same time. I suggest taking the fact that Terminator 2 was expected to do well for international appeal, putting that in marketing and promotion, and then losing the rest. Maybe a sentence about how competition was expected to be strong can be added as well, if it's directly relevant to Terminator.
As with my commentary with the box office section, I try to approach the article content from a historical view and I think context is helpful because ultimately while T2 might be meaningful to me, there are millions of people born after 2000 who will never have seen it and have no context for cinema in 1991. It's kind of like the time I mentioned Jurassic Park to a zookeeper and she had no idea what I was talking about, shortly before I crumbled to dust. It's very brief, measuring only 179 words, some of which are explicitly about T2 and others are surrounding the context of its release, and like with the BO section, it provides more organic internal links to promote other articles as well. I do stand by the section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that everything in this section except for the expected performance of Terminator 2 is out of scope. If readers want more information about 1991 in film, then the link to 1991 in film would be fine in a see also section below the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome your feedback but I'm not removing this section, it is perfectly within scope and it makes up 1.83232674788% of the article content. The majority of box office sections are dry and only interested in figures, I'm trying to convey more historical context than just numbers. It's easy to just say it made $500 million in 1991, but that is a lot more today, and if its competition was Porky's that changes how notable the accomplishment was. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing and promotion:

  • "the marketing was mainly aimed at younger audiences" – Do any sources specify? Anyone from 0 to 34 years of age could probably be considered "younger audiences".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Collaborations with fast-food restaurants and soft-drink manufacturers" – What sort of collaborations?
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The private screenings might be relevant, but they're not really "marketing and promotion".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Box office:

  • "about 25%–30% of whom were females" – Using "female" as a noun can be seen as derogatory. Change to "women" or to "female viewers".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section also lists a lot of other movies that happened to be playing at the time. I don't think it's relevant what the other movies are unless Terminator is in second or third place, in which case it would be appropriate to mention the movies that did better.
I include the closest competitors because it gives context for what the film was competing against plus it allows for organic links to relevant articles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As with the context section, most of this is out of scope. The article is about Terminator 2, and comparisons to other movies should only be included if they're directly relevant to Terminator 2. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception: No notes, I just want to say that this is a refreshingly well-written reception section.

Aftermath:

  • "Furlong became in high demand" – Strange wording
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph uses "despite" twice in the same sentence.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Home media:

  • "the aforementioned alternate ending" – Try to avoid referencing other parts of the article, especially if they're not close by. Maybe change this to say that it was the original planned ending.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the film's legacy to special effects" – I don't know if "legacy to" is grammatically correct or not.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the score's release should be moved up so this section can be in chronological order. It's a bit jarring going from 2017 back to 1991.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other media:

  • There's a ")" but not a "(". Was this supposed to have parentheses?
I can't find this, CTRL+F shows an even amount of ( and ) parentheses? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Bneu2013 got it with this edit. And it looks fine without parenthesis, so problem solved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making it the most-expensive film per minute" – Ever produced?
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Family and humanity:

  • This probably doesn't need to go into the specifics about Aliens and Ripley, just mentioning the similarity will get the point across.
  • The part about the Rodney King videotape seems like WP:TRIVIA.
    • Comment - I feel like this is worth mentioning considering what a major event this was in LA's history. Remember, this led to the LA riots the following year, one of the worst events of civil unrest in the country's history. It is also ironic, considering the subject matter of the film. That being said, I think the production section is a better place for it. Same for the male stripper night tidbit. I feel like this helps to reinforce the fact that this was a real club, likely a local landmark, and not just a set up for the film. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a major event in LA's history, but it's not a major event in The Terminator's history. It's just a passing coincidence that did not affect the film in any way. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It looks like what constitutes trivia can be hard to determine, but WP:TRIVIA primarily covers lists of miscellaneous facts, often presented in bulleted form, which are no longer used on Wikipedia. I want to make it clear that if a scene in this movie had been filmed near some other police incident that only got covered in the local news, I would be opposed to including this information. While the Rodney King incident may not have had any direct affect on the film, I think it is relevant, considering the fact that the T-1000 masquerades as a police officer, and some people have interpreted this as a commentary on police misconduct. Even people who don't know about the Rodney King connection have noticed the irony that this film was released around the same time as this incident and the subsequent riots. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This remains, but at best this is only tangentially relevant to the film. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violence: This section is just criticism of the violence and a passing thought by Cameron. I suggest that the former go into critical response (where it appears to already be duplicated to some extent) and the latter go into writing.

Masculinity and femininity:

  • "as well as females displaying masculine traits" – Females to women.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opinions of individual critics might have undue weight here. I've found that a good rule of thumb is that if an interpretation isn't explicitly stated by the writer/director, then it's probably not due unless multiple critics have expressed the same idea.
  • Likewise with undue weight toward opinions. Duckenfield for example might have something interesting he thought about when watching the movie, but it's hardly an accepted interpretation worthy of inclusion if no one else says the same thing.
Ok so I have bundled these into sections for explicit themes and analysis to separate opinions. Ultimately the themes sections are the interpretations of accredited people, there may be other sources out there that say something similar and if the opinions were massively out but those that are present are sensible and logical conclusions. I can reword it a little bit to say "according to" instead of it coming across more as gospel but I think losing the content entirely would be detrimental. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not satisfied by the analysis and themes section. We don't get to decide whether ideas are "sensible and logical". They should be included based on how well represented they are in reliable sources. If it's just the opinion of one person and it's not shared by anyone else, then it's probably undue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take my commentary out, the themes/analysis section is meant to be commentary by accredited people even if they're not famous, and these are accredited people published in reputable journals. There has never been any rules that I had to supply multiple sources saying the same thing for an interpretation to be valid. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural influence:

  • "became the most expensive movie" – "was" might be more appropriate than "became"
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it remains Schwarzenegger's highest-grossing film" – Avoid stating facts subject to change in the present tense. Consider using Template:As of and make sure that the source is as recent as possible.
I'm not psychic but Schwarzenegger is not churning out a film that tops T2 this late in his career. I've added the as of template. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the most-iconic and best" – these are a bit redundant to each other. I suggest removing one.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospective assessments:

  • The first three sentences of this section could be tightened up. It repeats itself and uses separate sentences to give information that overlaps.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the content here, particularly film ratings, might fit better in the reception section.
I keep the critical reception section reflective of contemporary reviews, the legacy section is for perception since its release, i.e. Rotten Tomatoes didn't exist when Terminator 2 came out and some rankings are 20-30 years after its release. I think it would muddy up the critical reception section and throw off the chronological behind-the-scenes book style I'm aiming for. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think that's everything.
I've left replies above for things that need further consideration. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partial support. I'm neutral on the "release" and "themes and analysis" sections, but I support on prose everywhere else. I believe that these two sections have a significant amount of undue content and excessive detail, but this is subjective enough that I'm not willing to oppose either. If the consensus of other reviewers is that there is no undue content in either of these sections, then I'll accept that conclusion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bneu2013

[edit]

I'm new to the FA process, but I will take a look at this one. I think it is very close, but I need to take a closer look before I can support. That being said, I will have comments promptly. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see some people have raised the length in the past, but I would be perfectly fine if it ran a little about 10k words, as long as none of the sections are too long. A movie this big is bound to have a longer than average article, and what entails constituting a complete article is bound to evolve over time. It's also important to remember that all articles are different; WP:Summary style isn't a one-size-fits-all rule. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the $519–520.9 million during the initial theatrical run?
Yes, different sources report different figures in that range Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "It is also seen as one of the most influential visual effects films of all time" to something like "it is also seen as one of the biggest influences on visual effects in films".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change "beginning the transition from practical effects to reliance on computer-generated imagery" to "helping to initiate the transition from reliance on practical effects to computer-generated imagery".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add "human" before "tissue over a metal endoskeleton."
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the cast list include Dr. Silberman's first name?
I don't think he's given a first name in the first two films but I've added a source to cover it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cameron said Schwarzenegger had always been more enthusiastic about a sequel than he was, because he had said everything he wanted to with the original." I think I know what "he had said everything he wanted to with the original" means, but this is a bit ambiguous, and I would elaborate.
I changed it to "because Cameron considered the original a complete story." is that any better? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to development, the total cost of the acquisition came to $17 million after factoring in incidental costs." - change "came" to "rose".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Kassar think Cameron's previous work would result in an increase in the production cost?
I've removed this as it's not clear why he thought that, it might be because The Abyss went over budget but it's not stated and that was a one-off at the time as Aliens was on budget, it might be hindsight when looking at films that came after such as True Lies and Titanic. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "six-to-seven" needs to be hyphenated. You could also change to "between six and seven weeks".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the Uziel Gal who trained Hamilton the same Uziel Gal who invented the Uzi?
I don't believe so, it would've probably come up in the sources discussing him but he'd also have been like 67 at the time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamilton's son wasn't twenty months old for six months.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still says she spent time with her twenty month old son during the six month shoot. The source says he was twenty months old in July 1991, the date of the film's release. I would change it to this, as calculating his age during the shoot would be original research. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "Hell" need to be capitalized in "sheer Hell"?
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he received specialized training from Gal."
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the deal with the filming date discrepancy? Do multiple sources report different days?
Yes, AFI says 8th, BFI and TCM say 9th. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The production was long and arduous, in part because of Cameron, who was known for his short temper, and uncompromising and "dictatorial" manner that resulted in the crew making T-shirts bearing the slogan "You can't scare me—I work for Jim Cameron"." consider splitting into two sentences.
DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Schwarzenegger described him as a supportive but "a demanding taskmaster" with a "fanaticism for physical and visual detail"."
I'm not sure this one makes sense? Would be using "a" before supportive and before demanding, "as a supportive but a demanding"? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I missed the "a" before supportive; was also confused by the source. Please disregard. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The production filmed in many locations in and around California" were there actually scenes filmed outside of California. If I'm not mistaken, most scenes were filmed in and around Los Angeles.
DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider mentioning that the biker bar was near where Rodney King was beaten. I know the filming of this is mentioned below, but it would be interesting to include that this scene was filmed nearby.
DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the on-foot T-1000 chases John on a bicycle, Patrick's training made him faster than the bicycle and so its speed was increased" - if I remember right, John is on a dirt bike, not a bicycle.
DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "shut" to "closed to traffic" or something appropriate.
DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Cameron limited filming on Terminator 2 to five days a week so he could edit the film on weekends from the start of filming" but the first sentence in this paragraph says Cameron didn't edit the film.
DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would cut "The film runs for 137 minutes."; this information is in the infobox and I don't see a need to mention the runtime here unless it is unusually long.
It's a catch-22, we need to source everything in the infobox and avoid sourcing IN the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Carolco executives Peter Hoffman and Roger Smith, the film cost $75 million figure before marketing"
DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove hyphen in "North-American".
DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four main companies were involved in creating the 150 visual effects:" I would change the colon to a period.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cost of producing CGI and practical limitations of staff numbers meant the effect was using sparingly, appearing in 42–43 shots, alongside 50–60 practical effects." - changed "using" to "used".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "would take up to ten days" to "took up to ten days", per WP:INTOTHEWOULDS.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Release dates repeatedly changed as studios attempted to avoid strong competition and maximize their films' successes at a time when the cost of film production had increased 20% in a year, in part due to costly salaries for stars who also commanded a percentage of the film's profits, and declining revenues from box-office receipts, video sales, and television-network deals." run-on sentence.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The films most expected to do well included Backdraft and Terminator 2, which were seen as having international appeal, Dying Young, and the year's predicted top film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." I would change this to something like "Terminator 2 was among the films expected to to well, along with Backdraft, Dying Young, and the year's predicted top film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. It was also seen, along with Backdraft, as having international appeal."
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "restricting audiences to over-17s unless accompanied by an adult" - change to something like "which restricted the film to audiences aged 17 and over unless accompanied by an adult".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would removed the "R-rated" link, as this is linked in the previous section.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for hyphen in "opening-week".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would combine the last two paragraphs in the box office section. Single-sentence paragraphs aren't recommended.
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change "began the careers" to something like "launched the careers".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to hyphenate "video-game".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarah's acceptance of the T-800 as John's surrogate father is such that she leaves it in control of John"
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Un-hyphen "visual-effects".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Un-hyphen "most-iconic".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Un-hypnen "science-fiction".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Rotten Tomatoes rating.
The score is pulled automatically with the RT Templates that are in place Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unhyphen "time-travel".
Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending all of my comments are addressed. Please let me know when you have addressed them. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's everything for Bneu2013 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support After reviewing this, I think it is fair to say that this article now meets the FA criteria, and is ready to appear on the main page. The only things I would change are the tidbit about the age of Hamilton's son's age mentioned above and combine the two paragraph about the biker bar in the filming section, but I am confident that these will be addressed promptly and am happy to support. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

I will be doing an image review and also a source review. I will do the image review first, since that's usually quicker.

Most images here (with the exception of the movie poster, the visual effects video and T-1000 theme) are under free use. Non-free media included in the article are labelled accordingly with source and rationale mentioned.

  • Video caption: The visual effects used for the T-1000 were highly advanced for the time, combining state-of-the-art CGI, prosthetics, and editing to allow the T-1000 to demonstrate its shapeshifting ability. (0:20). I suggest shortening by rewriting to: "The visual effects used were highly advanced for the time, such as combining CGI and prosthetics to demonstrate the T-1000's shapeshifting ability". Also the video is 19 seconds.
  • "Fiedel created the T-1000 theme using samples of brass instrument players warming up and improvising, encouraging them to play like they were in "an insane asylum. You're a bedlam of instruments"." - I suggest shortening to just "The T-1000 theme by Fiedel" since the caption is already in the body (and cited).

Otherwise everything is alright for the image review, with alt text provided for the images.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are all done ZKang123 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Pass for image review. ZKang123 (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will be doing source review soon.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Version reviewed: [2]

Initial review:

  • The sources used are reliable and appropriately used. Source formatting is consistent for most sources cited
  • For the NYT archives, I might suggest adding the page numbers of the original editions (e.g. Ref 28, the original article is from page 10 of that day's edition). Though I would say it's optional given it's behind a paywall and that quickly hid where the original article is from.
  • Ref 155: Suggest Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films as |publisher= instead of |website=, given website is by said organization.
  • Ref 158 live URL redirects to a pretty dodgy website; please mark |url-status= dead. Similarly for ref 155, suggest British Academy of Film and Television Arts as |publisher= instead of |website=.
  • Ref 292 to 294 also similar remarks as above
  • Ref 294: URL is dead.
  • I personally find the notes section of "Attributed to multiple references" a little excessive per WP:OVERCITE, though I say it isn't any official policy or guideline against multiple citations. You have bundled them pretty well, but I suggest maybe shortening the list and cutting some to two or three citations.

More to come, especially spotchecks.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done most of these ZKang123, regarding the use of publisher, per the discussion at Template_talk:Cite_Rotten_Tomatoes#Italics from 2022, we're not meant to use publisher to avoid italicing the names and I'm not meant to use something like Bafta.org in place of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely something of debate, but tbh that doesn't really matter. If there's consensus to retain it as such, then just go with it. I personally also don't have strong opinions whether you use publisher or website, as long as it's consistent within the article. ZKang123 (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

  • Note a: I think it can just be left as is within the article instead of as a footnote. e.g. (Also promoted and abbreviated as T2[1][2]).
  • Ref 2 is fine
  • Ref 13 is fine (with full list of actors)
  • Ref 19 checks out
  • Ref 4 checks out on "confirming Schwarzenegger's status as a lead actor and establishing James Cameron as a mainstream director" (rewritten from "made Schwarzenegger an A-list star and gave its director instant Hollywood cachet")
  • Ref 21 has the quote.
  • I think for note c you can drop ref 4 which doesn't seem to support much of the statements before beyond mentioning Cameron need to secure the rights, not who were holding the rights. Just leave refs 24, 25, 26.
  • Also, the URL for ref 24 is dead. Please update accordingly. Archived version supports statement on the lawsuit.
  • I don't see the relevance of ref 27 regarding the total costs of the rights acquisition. Neither for ref 4. Only ref 26 supports those statements.
  • I suggest regarding the statement on TriStar Pictures, ref 26 to move to end of the clause "U.S. distribution deal with TriStar Pictures,"
  • Neither refs 26 nor 32 supports statement on the film needing to be released by Memorial Day.
  • Ref 33 supports statement on the tight schedule to write
  • Tin Man statement supported by Ref 4
  • Ref 36 URL redirects to some main page. Please mark as dead. Archived version supports statement on phrase origin.
  • Ref 45 supports Schwarzenegger's views on the terminator he reprises.

More spotchecks to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Regarding "I don't see the relevance of ref 27 regarding the total costs of the rights acquisition. Neither for ref 4. Only ref 26 supports those statements." ref 4 does under the section "Part 1: “If We Pull It Off, It Will Be Huge.”".
Regarding "Neither refs 26 nor 32 supports statement on the film needing to be released by Memorial Day." yeah I'm not sure what happened there, the two sources are for the Tri-star deal but it appears all the copyediting and merging to hit an arbitrary word count for complaints above has led to a reference going astray, I've re-added it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks continued (this version):
  • $12–$15 million for his involvement.[46][4][47][48] - switch them around and compact.
  • Ref 26 on the jet checks out.
  • Ref 56 on the actor's role as the T-1000 checks out (training etc)
  • Ref 4 on Furlong checks out.
  • Just want to add about the paragraph for Furlong and his role as Cameron - I suggest you first mentioned that "Furlong, among hundreds of other prospects, secured the role as John Connor at his last audition." then continue talking about the other candidates and so on. For a moment I wasn't sure how Furlong is relevant
  • Ref 70 supports that rather hilarious statement.
  • "his short temper, and uncompromising "dictatorial" manner." - remove the comma.
  • Ref 19 supports cancellation of visit
  • Refs 19 and 73 support the improvisation of the line
  • Ref 74 also supports.
  • "and John hacking an ATM at a bank in Van Nuys. and his foster parents' residence is situated in the Canoga Park neighborhood, deliberately chosen for its generic appearance. " - I have a feeling something is cut here.
  • Ref 71 also supports.
  • Ref 78 also supports.
  • Refs 4 and 26 also supports cautionary tales of Calco's bankruptcy.
  • Suggest for the first paragraph of the post-production section to split from: several scenes were deleted... Felt that's a point worth of a paragraph alone.
  • Refs 43 and 56 supports on cut scenes.
  • Ref 98 is good on describing the music and sound effects.
More spotchecks to come. -- ZKang123 (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again ZKang123, these are done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Final spotchecks:
  • Refs 142, 143, 150, 155, 159, 161, 169, 183, 208, 209 - all checks out. I shall say with confidence that the rest of the article is sufficiently attributed to other high quality sources.
  • (Cameron and Wisher Jr.)[161] - please place full stop outside of brackets
  • What are the differences between Refs 167 and 168? Seems to be reporting similar things, though the dates are different. I might suggest keeping one. I personally suggest unpacking footnote (fn) ad and attribute to the various separate sentences/clauses of the material it cites, since the references seem to allude to various different parts taking place at different times.
  • their own violent natures.[77][72] - swap around. Ref 77 checks out.
  • This is pretty minor, but for consistency, standardised the capitalisation of ref titles, preferably in title case. (How they appeared in their original is irrelevant.)
  • Once all above are resolved, I will give a pass.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks again ZKang123 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review. ZKang123 (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2023 (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/Terminator_2:_Judgment_Day/archive2&oldid=1167637457"