Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The FP/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 19:16, 25 July 2014 [1].

The FP

[edit]
Nominator(s): Corvoe (speak to me) 14:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The FP, a very inexpensive, largely unknown film that is a personal favourite of mine. The film focuses on gangs that fight using a Dance Dance Revolution knock-off, so that should set the tone for you. I've been working on this article consistently since February, and I believe it has reached FA level. The article is well-sourced, featuring many direct interviews with the filmmakers and the featurettes/commentary from the film itself. The information included is all-encompassing, noting many opinions of both the filmmakers and their critics, as well as a large amount of facts about the film. Hopefully you think it's worthy of FA status as well! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Erik (addressed)

[edit]
Resolved comments from Erik and Onel5969

Hello, here are my comments for this article. It is mostly focused on the writing since the article seems well-rounded content-wise.

  • There are too many uses of ellipses, and I don't think MOS:ELLIPSIS supports this use. I think for this kind of article, an ellipsis should be used in the midst of quoting something, like to skip some extraneous wording.
  • Hi User:Erik and User:Corvoe! The two MOS guidelines which (in my humble opinion) apply here are MOS:QUOTE and MOS:ELLIPSIS. And they really don't leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. First, MOS:QUOTE clearly states, "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced ... Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text." If you are quoting someone, and are omitting text from that quote, either at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, an ellipse should be used. Second, MOS:ELLIPSIS, under the Style heading, states that the recommended implementation is "Three unspaced periods (...)." It then goes on to state under the Function and implementation heading, that you need to "Put a space on each side of an ellipsis ...” except for the 3 examples listed under that heading (in relation to an ending quotation mark, brackets within the quotation, and any terminal punctuation). The edits made to The FP article reflected those guidelines. Any changes to that would not reflect the MOS guidelines. (btw, really like Erik's notes) Onel5969 (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onel5969, my impression is that ellipses are used within quoted text, not before and after it. I have not seen this before-and-after use elsewhere. Looking at MOS:LQ (further down), the examples do not use ellipses since nothing is being omitted from the beginning to end of the quoted text. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Erik: I understand your feeling, Erik. That was how, in my normal writing, I used them. However, if we're using the MOS guidelines, it is pretty clear, if you omit stuff from the quoted text, an ellipse MUST be used. It does not limit those omissions to only the middle of the quotation. For example, if the quote is "I only regret, that I have but one life to lose for my country." But you only use a portion of it, like: In an impassioned speech Hale regretted that he had "... but one life to lose for my [his] country." I know that some people would put: In an impassioned speech Hale regretted that he had "but one life to lose for my [his] country." In proper grammar, either is acceptable (depending on either the Chicago or MLA style). But in the MOS does not say that.Onel5969 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been searching around and don't see anything that says to use ellipses at the start. This says, "Do not place an ellipsis at the beginning of a quotation to indicate the omission of material." This says, "It is rarely necessary to use ellipsis points at the beginning of a quotation, even if the quotation begins mid-sentence." This says, "Typically, ellipses are used only within a quotation, not at the beginning or at the end of a quotation. A rare exception would be an instance where the sentence could otherwise be misinterpreted." This matches my experience reading Featured Articles on Wikipedia such as intelligent design. I really don't think that's a standard approach to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I hear you, Erik, the two major styles of grammar in the US (I know there is a difference for British English), are MLA and Chicago. The references would be The Chicago Manual of Style and the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. But that has to with general writing. My point has to do with what is stated in the MOS, which is supposed to be the guide on wp. I think this might be a useful discussion on that talk page, because I agree with you about how it looks (in other words, I also think the MOS is incorrect, using their current wording), but I attempt to follow the MOS guidelines.Onel5969 (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Onel5969: @Erik: I'm gonna throw WP:OTHERSTUFF out the window for a minute, and pull in the two film FAs that first came to mind: Dredd and Fight Club. These two both negate the ellipses at the beginning and end of quotes. I'm not saying that means we should follow that, but it does raise the interesting point that perhaps this area of the MOS has been ignored, rather than updated. Personally, I would say we leave it without all of the ellipses and opening a comment on the MOS talk page. What do you guys think? Corvoe (speak to me) 13:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additional cast members" sentence in "Cast" section shouldn't use semicolons after each name. They should be replaced by commas.
  • In the lead section:
  • Frazier Park is only linked in the second use. Why not link it earlier? Also, maybe mention in the "Plot" section that it is in California?
  • Have you considered restructuring the introduction of 248? Most people would find "a 248 gang member" jarring. What about something like "a member of the gang called 248"? And from thereon, people can understand that there are gangs titled with numbers.
  • The term "came up" is used a couple of times and may be slangish. Maybe replace these with more formal variations?
  • How about getting rid of the "Design and effects" heading and elevating "Costume design" and "Visual effects"?
  • In "Release", the second sentence is a pretty long serial sentence that's hard to read. Maybe convert that sentence into a list of bullet points identifying each festival and the screening date?
  • In "Box office", "picked up" is slangish and can be replaced by "acquired".
  • The John Carpenter picture states "Many critics" but I only see Kohn mentioning Escape from New York and Tobias mentioning Carpenter. It might be too weasely to state that.
  • Also, regarding image captions, per MOS:CAPTION, sentence-fragment-only captions don't need periods
  • In "Home media", the first sentence can have a more active voice, "Image Entertainment released The FP..."

I see a variety of minor improvements that I can go ahead and make when I have time. Let me know if you have any questions. Nice work so far on a pretty indie film! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Erik! Corvoe (speak to me) / Comment on The FP's FA nom! 11:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited the "Cast" and "Production" sections and will continue to copy-edit the rest of the article body. On the content side of things, I think the counter-response passages under "Critical response" is problematic. I have not really seen precedent for this kind of thing, especially for a minor film (as opposed to a classic one). I can't imagine a case where filmmakers are not defensive of their work, and I'm not sure if their response is due weight. The guidelines do state that "prominence of placement" is a factor, and to be frank, I think film critics, not the filmmakers, need to have the "last word" as independent evaluators of the work.

On a separate note, I've been searching for other possible sources to use in the article. One way I've done this is to search site:<domain> fp trost. With this, I've found this and this. In addition, it looks like Frazier Park's weekly newspaper is Mountain Enterprise, and searching for site:mountainenterprise.com trost shows these results to be vetted. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: I'm a bit iffy on adding the "Tugg" thing, since it isn't very notable at all. I'll extract some stuff from the NY Times article when I get back home, and I took some info from Mountain Enterprise already. The one mentioning an $80,000 budget is interesting, not sure how reliable it is though. Good info on filming too, thank you for these! Corvoe (speak to me) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Corvoe: I'm re-reading the article, and here are a few questions:
  • In the plot summary, it says "dies of a 187". I think this needs a brief explanation so readers don't have to click through to understand. Something like "dies abruptly as a result of losing the game".
  • In the "Cast" section, what does "he first did it" mean for Valmassy? Shaved his head to look like Mr. T? Danced in a scene?
  • In "Costume design", for which character does "boots worn in the film" apply? All of them? Just one character?
I'd like to give the "Release" section a good look, then after that and your replies to my above questions, I'll likely support this for the FA nomination. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've corrected everything you mentioned, even did a little more trimming to the plot. What's striking you about the "Release" section? Corvoe (speak to me) 19:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my concerns! Just that I find the "Release" section the toughest section to present. It's a challenge to have to present one review after another without doing any real editorial weaving like a journalist would. I'm also thinking that MOS:LQ needs to apply to a lot of the quoted fragments here, but I didn't want to go on a series of changes in that regard. Do you think MOS:LQ indicates that the ending quotation mark should be inside the quoted fragments? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They should definitely all have the punctuation outside of the quotes. I misread MOS:LQ when I first wrote this section. Two of the quotes actually should have the punctuation inside the quotation marks, but otherwise, you're right. Good catch! Corvoe (speak to me) 19:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Even though this is a quirky little film, the article is well sourced, as well as being well-written, without any paraphrasing issues. The images are all free or have fair use rationales. The article is comprehensive, going into detail without straying into trivia; its tone is neutral, and the edit history shows the article's stability. The lead is a very well written summary of the article which follows, and the structure is appropriate, following the guidelines of the film project, as per WP:MOSFILM. Every item which needs to be cited, is. The editor has gone to great lengths to provide the article with appropriate pictures, and the article's length is also appropriate. User:Corvoe has done an excellent job. Onel5969 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as meeting the FA criteria. The topic at the time of nomination was comprehensive and well-researched. I copy-edited some of the article body to clarify some sentences and asked the nominator to review some confusing passages, which are now addressed. The article is stable, and a concern of neutrality was addressed as stated above. Beyond that, the article satisfies the style guidelines (the general ones as well as MOS:FILM), and the free media used in this article is especially welcome for an article on a copyrighted work. Length is also appropriate. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 1ST7 (addressed)

[edit]
Resolved comments from 1ST7

Comments. This article looks very well-researched, well-written, and comprehensive, and I think you've done an exceptionally good job with explaining a subject that would ordinarily be confusing to readers (like me) who haven't seen the film. As far as I can tell, the text is neutral and everything is consistently cited. There's just a small handful of things that I would like to see addressed before supporting this nomination:

  • The first paragraph of the plot section contains two sentences that are a little redundant: The leader of the 245 gang, L Dubba E, battles and defeats the leader of the 248 gang, BTRO. L Dubba E defeats BTRO, who abruptly dies as a result. I recommend altering it to The leader of the 245 gang, L Dubba E, battles and defeats the leader of the 248 gang, BTRO, who abruptly dies as a result.
Good catch on that. I altered that sentence recently to add some clarity on what a "187" was, and forgot to adjust the previous sentence. Should read better now. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • triggering a long gunfight between the 248 and 245 ensues. The word "ensues" should probably be removed (it's in the fifth paragraph of the plot section).
Ditto to the last one, edited for clarity and failed to adjust the rest. You're a real life saver! Corvoe (speak to me) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about something in the costume design section. The first paragraph says that 245's costumes are based on the Confederate Army, while the second paragraph says that they are based on the Union.
Typo, thank you. The 248 are Union, 245 is Confederate. That was an oversight on my part. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend altering the He noted the references phrase in the first paragraph of critical response, just because the word "note" is listed under the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. The word is used again in the fourth paragraph (noting the influence of John Carpenter).
Changed both to "address(ing/ed)". Corvoe (speak to me) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck, --1ST7 (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of the helpful comments! Corvoe (speak to me) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Now that the above concerns have all been addressed, I believe this article meets the FA criteria and support its promotion. --1ST7 (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 97198 (addressed)

[edit]
Resolved comments from 97198

After making some (very minor) changes to the article myself, I just have a few comments.

  • Jason Trost got the idea for The FP when he was 16 years old and regularly played Dance Dance Revolution – to me, "got the idea" reads pretty poorly and could be reworded.
It was previously "came up with". Just copied the lead's wording of "conceived" unless I can think of an alternative. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and what the Trost brothers thought of with on set – is there an extra word here? It doesn't make sense to me.
Copy-editing issue. It originally read "came up with", I must have forgotten to remove the "with". Fixed. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarah Trost designed his character to look as transsexual as possible – this text in the image caption doesn't seem to match up with the text, which simply says "somewhat transsexual, though it is more prominent in her father's character".
Good catch, fixed. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this hasn't been addressed...? 97198 (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@97198: I could've sworn I did it. Huh. It's fixed now, for what it's worth. I double checked. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like it would be relevant to include the budget somewhere within the production section.
I initially included the budget in the box office section, but I see your point. Moved it. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I can see no other issues with the article. 97198 (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@97198: Thank you so much! Corvoe (speak to me) 15:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of the above changes have been made. Overall, it's a clearly written, thorough and well-referenced article, and IMO one that fulfils the FA criteria. Well done. 97198 (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Baffle gab1978 (talk)

[edit]

Just a note to tell reviewers that this article is currently undergoing a requested GOCE copy-edit by yours truly. Therefore it shouldn't be reviewed for FA status until the copy-edit is finished because the text will be subject to changes. Perhaps the reviewer(s) would consider putting the review on hold until then. The request is here. I'll inform the requester Corvoe on his/her talk page and I'll leave a note in my final edit summary when I'm finished. I'll also drop a note here if I remember. Hopefully this will be done by Tuesday night (UTC). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978: Gotta admit, I wasn't the c/e to start any time soon, so I felt fairly safe in nominating it :P I'm okay with putting it on hold. I suppose I could just ping everyone back here for another look through. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it might be a good idea to inform the reviewers (or just post a note here); comments above will likely be rendered obsolete by the c/e. Once it's listed on the GOCE requests page, a requested c/e can happen at any time, especially during drives and blitzes, but we usually do them within two months. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Baffle gab1978: Yeah, I probably should've removed it before nominating this, haha. Oh well. Thank you for the copy-editing! It's looking good. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now finished the copy-edit earlier than I expected; feel free to continue the FA Review. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978: I've removed the "done" template, since WP:FAC advises against those kinds of templates (they mess with the archives). I just don't want you think I'm vandalizing your posts. Also, thank you so much! The article reads a lot better now, you've done a fantastic job! I'll be pinging everyone back to ask for their reassessment now.
@Erik:, @Onel5969:, @1ST7:, @97198:, Baffle gab1978 has finished the c/e of this article. Some of you may have issues with new phrasings or things being unclear. If you wouldn't mind taking another pass at the article and reaffirming your votes, or posting new comments for improvement, it would be very much obliged. Thank you to everyone! Corvoe (speak to me) 04:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. I will take a look tomorrow. Just got home from being out of town, so I'll be resting today. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the copy-editing changes here and have no issues with it. My support still stands. And I will have to keep the {{mdash}} use in mind! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the changes. Onel5969 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As am I -- the changes look great. 97198 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also reaffirm my support for the article's promotion. --1ST7 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding image and paraphrase review

[edit]

Note Have I missed the source review (for formatting and reliability in particular)? Graham Colm (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GrahamColm: Negative. No one has done a source review or an image review, at least not on this page. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I had a note to myself about this one and thought I'd left a message here or at WT:FAC but in fact I hadn't. Yes, still needs source and image reviews and really should have a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing as I believe this is the nominator's first FAC (is that correct?). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GrahamColm: @Corvoe: I did the source review regarding citations. I do not feel qualified as of yet to do the source review regarding images. The citation source review revealed no close paraphrasing issues. Onel5969 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: No worries! And yes, this is in fact my first FAC. @Onel5969: I completely forgot about that, my mistake! Thank you, by the way. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Onel5969, didn't realise you'd looked over sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, thank you. @Nikkimaria: could we trouble you for a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: Thank you! I've updated The_FP.jpg with a more expansive FUR; I accidentally included the Wikipedia URL at the end of it, but overall, it doesn't need a direct source as all of them would be the same licensing. I also added a considerably more expansive FUR to the image of Sean Whalen. Please tell me if there's anything else you think I should do. Corvoe (speak to me) 03:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Corvoe, thanks; the poster looks fine now. I'd still like the "purpose" portion of the Whalen FUR to do more to justify it: it works really well in the Costume section, but "to illustrate the subject" doesn't explain that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I'm actually not sure how to change that. That's the default wording of the template, if I'm not mistaken. I can copy over the template's raw formatting and expand that, I suppose. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Figured it out, it was a parameter I just didn't have active. I think the purpose of use reads better now. Corvoe (be heard) 16:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

@Nikkimaria: Fixed the publication location (since Drafthouse Films is based in Austin, I'm making a safe assumption). I watched the short film again, and it opens with "The Machine presents" so I'm assuming that's the publisher. As for the CHUD source, the site itself isn't the most reliable and on its own fails WP:QUESTIONABLE, as it blatantly says that it relies on rumour and personal opinion. However, the interviewer, Iain Stasukevich (who works for American Cinematographer as he mentions) is. I mean, worst case scenario, we can remove that section, but I think Stasukevich's reliability trumps the site's lack of it. I could also be grossly misreading WP:RS and if that's the case, I'll try to find another source that includes the information. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think that explanation makes sense - if the author is an expert we can treat it as an acceptable self-published source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear! Thank you for both reviews, you've been a huge help! Sock (previously Corvoe) (be heard) 17:09, 25 July 2014 (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/The_FP/archive1&oldid=1200949657"