Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manhunter (film)/archive3
- 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 Raul654 21:42, 11 February 2012 [1].
Manhunter (film) edit
Manhunter (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because, after two peer reviews, two GOCE cop-edits and two previous FACs, I believe it ticks all the criteria. A neo-noir box office flop which seem directly responsible for the increasing popularity of both forensic science and criminal profiling in pop culture. The last FAC failed due to there still being possible sources which hadn't been vetted for use, these have now been reviewed (and rejected as redundant to the material already present). Images have been used sparingly but I'm open to adding more free images if this is seen as a detriment. GRAPPLE X 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ha! First one on an FAC for once! I've just made a few grammatical edits to the article, but otherwise I have no objections. It's very well-written and informative. Interchangeable|talk to me 00:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyscape search - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - with regard to FA criterion 1a. There is a little redundancy, e.g. "in order to", where just "to" will suffice, and I would prefer to see "a ride" expanded a little – it's a little too colloquial for my tastes. I have watched this film many times, thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Reducing "in order to" to "to" can come across as very terse and can make a sentence harder to read. I think this is why "in order to" is so common even in formal writing. However, I have reduced both instances. I'm not sure whether "a ride" is colloquial or simply AmE, but I've changed it to "a lift". Wikt doesn't mark either as colloquial or regional, but I hope this is OK. --Stfg (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 4 and similar should use endash, not hyphen
- Be consistent in how editors are notated
- FN 7 and similar need not repeat publisher
- Compare formatting on FNs 14 and 15
- FN 17: punctuation
- Be consistent in whether directors are listed first or last name first
- FN 29: check title vs publisher
- FN 30: publisher?
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Check italicization
- What is SIU?
- FN 45: page?
- Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using website name or base URL, and if the latter whether these are italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for combing over this. I removed the Ain't It Cool News ref and the associated text, having found that the author has had his journalistic integrity questioned in the past. I think I've addressed the other concerns, but I've quite possibly missed a few. I'm not sure, though, where I've inconsistently listed editors or directors, could you be specific with where this is? Editors are all listed using the relevant fields in the citation templates, which always spits out "Surname, Forename. ed."; and I believe anyone credited as a director in has been listed "Forename Surname (director)". Then again, it's three AM and I might have missed something GRAPPLE X 02:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 7 for editor, 78 for director (and 64 is strange too, and 21 vs 45, possible others). Still several hyphen/dash issues, repeating and sometimes contradictory publishers (ex. FN 49), 14 and 15 are still inconsistent, 29 still misses the actual title of the cited page (though now includes work), still italicization problems (ex FN 14). That being said, sleep is probably more vital than addressing formatting issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Will give it another look through tomorrow, but have grabbed everything you've mentioned specifically for now - except FN 14 (I removed italics from it earlier, if that's what you're referring to, unless you feel they should be restored? The A.V. Club is a web-only source, not sure that's meant to be italicised); and 29 (I have the title down as "The Reds Official Web Site", its title in my browser is "THE REDS OFFICIAL WEB SITE", though I believe the convention is to replace all-caps with title casing. Does the name display differently for you, or is it the casing thing just?). Going to bed for now but I'll check for further instances of what you've noted tomorrow evening. GRAPPLE X 03:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our article does italicize AV Club, but I'll leave that to your discretion - what I was looking at there was the date formatting, and the inconsistent italicization which has been addressed. For 29, that's the name of the site, but not the specific page on the site that you're citing (you're right about the casing). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I'm not sure what the page title is meant to be (I'm only seeing the "The Reds Official Web Site" bit and nothing more), I've changed the title to the title of the interview given in the text, rather than on the browser tab. If that's not what you meant then it can be reverted. GRAPPLE X 23:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our article does italicize AV Club, but I'll leave that to your discretion - what I was looking at there was the date formatting, and the inconsistent italicization which has been addressed. For 29, that's the name of the site, but not the specific page on the site that you're citing (you're right about the casing). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Will give it another look through tomorrow, but have grabbed everything you've mentioned specifically for now - except FN 14 (I removed italics from it earlier, if that's what you're referring to, unless you feel they should be restored? The A.V. Club is a web-only source, not sure that's meant to be italicised); and 29 (I have the title down as "The Reds Official Web Site", its title in my browser is "THE REDS OFFICIAL WEB SITE", though I believe the convention is to replace all-caps with title casing. Does the name display differently for you, or is it the casing thing just?). Going to bed for now but I'll check for further instances of what you've noted tomorrow evening. GRAPPLE X 03:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 7 for editor, 78 for director (and 64 is strange too, and 21 vs 45, possible others). Still several hyphen/dash issues, repeating and sometimes contradictory publishers (ex. FN 49), 14 and 15 are still inconsistent, 29 still misses the actual title of the cited page (though now includes work), still italicization problems (ex FN 14). That being said, sleep is probably more vital than addressing formatting issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for combing over this. I removed the Ain't It Cool News ref and the associated text, having found that the author has had his journalistic integrity questioned in the past. I think I've addressed the other concerns, but I've quite possibly missed a few. I'm not sure, though, where I've inconsistently listed editors or directors, could you be specific with where this is? Editors are all listed using the relevant fields in the citation templates, which always spits out "Surname, Forename. ed."; and I believe anyone credited as a director in has been listed "Forename Surname (director)". Then again, it's three AM and I might have missed something GRAPPLE X 02:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work, even if light on images (I'm used to see these movie articles trying to become more illustrated through every free image possible). igordebraga ≠ 04:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a look through commons, and found the following free images which might be of use, in descending order of which ones I think would work best: File:Reddragon.jpg, File:BrianCox07TIFF.jpg, File:10.17.09TomNoonanByLuigiNovi.jpg, and File:WilliamPetersen2007.png. If general opinion is that more images is better, then I can slot one or two of these in. GRAPPLE X 05:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review? And Grapple, if you'd had a source spotcheck on a previous FAC, please link it-- otherwise pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Source spotcheck has not been carried out in previews FACs, but an image review was performed in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manhunter (film)/archive1, The images dealt with there are still the only images currently used in the article, if that helps. GRAPPLE X 16:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.