Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dirty Dancing/archive1
- 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 02:05, 9 March 2008.
Dirty Dancing edit
This article is already at Good article status, and I've been meaning to nominate it for FA for awhile. The recent sad news about Patrick Swayze reminded me, so I am proceeding with the nomination at this time. I hope it meets with everyone's approval. :) Elonka 22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - The plot section is too long, reads a little to much like an ad, and seems to have some unsourced interpretation added in, which goes against WP:OR. The article format needs work, particular the image placements and the cast table (which goes against the Film MOS). Biggest issue would be that whole chunks of the article article are completely unsourced. Only 25 sources, including several in the lead (content not present in the main article)? See WP:LEAD for more on why this generally shouldn't happen. The ELs also need clean out. Side note, I hadn't heard about Swayze. :( Collectonian (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. I agree on the External links, and thinned those down considerably. I also did some other copyediting to address the tone issues you mentioned. As for the sources, some paragraphs were drawn from the same source, which is why only the final paragraph would actually have a ref. I've added duplicate refs so that each paragraph is tagged now though. The sources in the lead are necessary, because the information (especially the "goosebump" language) was repeatedly challenged as a personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor, rather than what it is, actual quotes from news sources. The cast list seems clean and neat to me. As for the image placements, I am not sure what you're talking about, could you please be more specific? --Elonka 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The jump scene image is running into the next section, when its section has plenty of room to not need that. The stage version's poster is running into the section above, again for seemingly no reason when its section has plenty of room, and it could also easily be resized if needed. The three bulletted items in the music section have no sources. Some statements from that section have no obvious sources either. Ditto in the stage section and other versions and in legacy. Also, do the tragedies mentioned in the second paragraph actually have any relation to the film at all? Did the film cause Max Cantor to quit acting and where is the source for that? Does the director dying of AIDS have any relation to the film? Ditto Jennifer Stahl. A lot of that seems like stuff to note in the actor's articles, and not anything really related to the movie. The third paragraph is also completely unsourced.
- Thank you for your comments. I agree on the External links, and thinned those down considerably. I also did some other copyediting to address the tone issues you mentioned. As for the sources, some paragraphs were drawn from the same source, which is why only the final paragraph would actually have a ref. I've added duplicate refs so that each paragraph is tagged now though. The sources in the lead are necessary, because the information (especially the "goosebump" language) was repeatedly challenged as a personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor, rather than what it is, actual quotes from news sources. The cast list seems clean and neat to me. As for the image placements, I am not sure what you're talking about, could you please be more specific? --Elonka 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The cast list is not neat in appearance to me, nor does it follow the prescribed format from the Film MOS, which prefers a list format. There also seems be a very heavy reliance on the 4th reference. For this film, I would think other references could confirm much of the same things, or at least back them up. Particularly with the production section. The Ultimate Edition DVD has tons of commentary, interviews, etc yet none of it seems to have been used at all? Collectonian (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The images have been fixed, I removed the cast list section, and am working on adding other references, including for the "Legacy" section. The work in Dirty Dancing really defined the careers of many of the participants, and the "where are they now" is included in many of the sources that provide retrospectives, so it seems appropriate to include a paragraph on it here. You're right that there's heavy reliance on the 4th ref. That's because it was a really good source. :) As for why there's no mention of information from the Ultimate DVD, it's because I don't have a copy, but I'll see what I can do about locating one. --Elonka 20:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The cast list is not neat in appearance to me, nor does it follow the prescribed format from the Film MOS, which prefers a list format. There also seems be a very heavy reliance on the 4th reference. For this film, I would think other references could confirm much of the same things, or at least back them up. Particularly with the production section. The Ultimate Edition DVD has tons of commentary, interviews, etc yet none of it seems to have been used at all? Collectonian (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Image:Dirty-dancing-coverx-large.jpg and Image:Dirty-dancing-corner.jpg do not meet WP:NFCC criteria 10c - the fair-use rationales do not mention the article the images are used in. The fair-use rationales present in the image do not have the all the neccesary components as specified in Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Guest9999 (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Issue dealt with. Guest9999 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose In agreement with Collectonian. The legacy section strays too far from the movie. Both Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze found themselves heavily typecast, with the latter being parodied in mainstream media well into the 2000s. This surely needs to be referenced and examples should be provided. Plot section still drags on too long & the production section indulges in excessive and trivial details. The reception reads too much like a laundry list - maybe move some of it to the notes section. In fact, the entire article is simply a bit too long - could be reduced and tightened which I think would improve it significantly. This : Many people list the film as one of their all-time favorites, and it proved popular across all types of social demographics, but especially among women. needs to be sourced generally and the claim about popularity among women substantiated by a slightly more reasonable source. Otherwise, the claim should be reduced to conform to the limitations of the London poll. Eusebeus (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral.: As a fan of Dirty Dancing, I really enjoyed reading this. However, I felt some of the staements were too 'personal' to the author. Eusebeus quotes a good example above: Both Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze found themselves heavily typecast, with the latter being parodied in mainstream media well into the 2000s.--Slicedpineapple (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now. The plot section needs a rewrite to address all the original research. Baby is the socially conscious member of the family, Johnny is by all standards a bad-boy rebel, the snobby waiter, tempers flare and sparks fly between the two of them, Baby's selfless act, the film's most famous line, her parents see her for the first time as more than their innocent teenage daughter, exciting dance sequence, snobby upper-class patrons, and all other instances where the feelings of the characters are attempted to be summarized. As a rule of thumb, any adjective should either be omitted or sourced. The rest of the article was an interesting and enjoyable read, but it felt at times too personally invested (WP:NPOV). – sgeureka t•c 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you recommend this be addressed? The terms are not OR, as they are exactly the way that the plot tends to be described in major sources, such as the "bad-boy rebel", it's an "ugly duckling" tale, etc. Should I include sources in the plot section itself? I can't recall seeing that done, but I can definitely do that if it helps. --Elonka 20:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pure plot does not need references, however as Sgeureka note's this article's plot doesn't just tell the plot, but includes interpretation and NPOV. The plot should probably be cut down to pure plot, and such descriptions left to the review section with proper sourcing. Collectonian (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are three main ways to address this: Either find a highly regarded reliable source and write Baby is the socially conscious member of the family<ref>John Doe of the New York Times</ref>, find a direct or semi-direct quote and write her parents see her for the first time as more than their innocent teenage daughter<ref>Jake: "Wow, you aren't as innocent as I always believed you to be."<ref>, or just remove Baby's selfless act and let the reader come to the same conclusion because of the previous sentences. To make clear what I meant with "personally invested" tone - imagine you are a viewer who saw no chemistry whatsoever between Baby and Johnny. I.e. make clear that only the producers and some of the reviewers saw this chemistry and don't write that as if it is set in stone. This would help WP:Neutral point of view a lot. But my main issue is with the tone of the plot section. – sgeureka t•c 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you recommend this be addressed? The terms are not OR, as they are exactly the way that the plot tends to be described in major sources, such as the "bad-boy rebel", it's an "ugly duckling" tale, etc. Should I include sources in the plot section itself? I can't recall seeing that done, but I can definitely do that if it helps. --Elonka 20:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Poorly written and (in terms of the requirement for professional formatting), a poor approach to linking. Needs a proper clean-up, preferably by someone unfamiliar with the article. Here are random examples from the top.
- MOS breach in ...movie history." (Dot position)
- MOS breach in space after "$US". In any case, MOS says "US" is unnecessary in a US-related article. As in the infoblot.
- "Best selling"—hyphen.
- Both occurrences of "one" in the lead would be better as "a".
- Why the comma after "including"?
- Too many amplifiers: " which won both the Golden Globe and Academy Award for Best Original Song, as well as a Grammy Award for best duet"—Remove "both" and make it ", and a Grammy ...".
- Unsure why "Toronto" is suddenly linked.
- Unsure why readers are forced to "bump" over the bright blue "goosebump". If they don't know the word, they should key it into the search window. But there are worse examples of trivial blue splotches below—"Suburban"? Hello? We do speak English. Audit the whole text for these ungainly distractions from the high-value links.
- I glanced through the rest to see lots of flab in the prose.
- Hate the "min dot" in the infobox. Spell it out? Tony (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.