Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Back to the Future/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 9 August 2022 [1].

Back to the Future edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dun dun dunnnnnnnn dun dun dun dun dun dunnnnnnnn da da da dun dun dun dun dun da dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

You should now hopefully have the song stuck in your head for a while. This article is about Back to the Future, possibly the greatest family film ever made about a kid going back in time and almost accidentally having sex with his mom. Pure family entertainment with an enduring legacy, it is now your turn to go feel the power of love and supply the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity needed to elevate this article to FA status. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, watched the film a few weeks ago and never knew that it is on FAC! I think that this article shines when you reads the whole thing, and with an exception of technical stuff, there's nothing much that I can think of to improve the article further. Some copyediting by others may be helpful, which is usually done in FAC anyways. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Let me do an image review for this. Images used are either under public domain or have Creative Commons licenses. The poster, while non-free, is being used appropriately under fair use (illustrates the article). No other image copyright issues. Just a few ALT issues (see):

  • Missing alts for File:Michael J Fox 2020.jpg, File:Christopher Lloyd May 2015.jpg, File:Lea Thompson by Gregg Bond (2008) (cropped).jpg and File:Crispin Glover 2012 Shankbone.JPG

Other alts are pretty descriptive enough.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed ZKang123 (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "Doctor Emmett "Doc" Brown (Lloyd). " I might omit the "Doctor"
  • "Trapped in the past," I might change "Trapped" to "While". Marty may not yet know how he's going to return to 1985, but he's not trapped in the past.
  • "inadvertently prevents his future parents' meeting" I wish I could come up with a better way of expressing this. It probably isn't their first meeting. George certainly knows who Lorraine is, and when Marty is urging Lorraine to go out with George, she knows who he's talking about. Maybe "inadvertently prevents his future parents from falling in love"?
  • " Biff has been bullying him since high school" perhaps "Biff was bullying George even then"
  • "Lorraine was supposed to meet George instead of Marty after the car accident" perhaps "George was supposed to be hit by the car, and tended by Lorraine"
  • "Back to the Future features a 1985-era cast that includes" Maybe "Also featuring in the 1985 portion of the film" or similar. I similarly suggest changing the "1955-era". I might even mention Strickland last, after detailing the 1985 characters and the 1955 characters.
  • Some of the cast members, for example Tolkan, are double-linked.
  • "serves as the Twin Pines ranch where Marty lands in 1955 and Puente Hills Mall in Rowland Heights is the Twin Pines mall that replaces the ranch in 1985." Do you want to footnote that Marty's killing of a pine causes these names to change?
  • "and Griffith Park, where Marty begins his drive to the courthouse to return to 1985, crossing by a lamp post, situated outside of the Greek Theatre.[80]" What does "crossing by" mean here?
  • "The flying DeLorean used a combination of live-action footage" I might throw in an "in the final scene".
  • "Even so, Marty's future is enriched at the expense of others." Anyone else besides Biff?
  • "Where most people can only know their parents, Marty is given the opportunity to see his parents as his peers, when they were his age and shared the same ambitions and dreams as him." The first part of this sentence doesn't really say what you want it to. Really, this is saying the same thing as what Thompson says in the Legacy section about kids and dreams and it might be good simply to replace the above with what she said.
That's pretty much it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, thanks for taking the time to review this, these are the changes I've made, I think I've hit everything. Thank you again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Changes look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma edit

This is an amazingly comprehensive and well written article. I will do a close reading later, just one thing for now:

  • "Most reviewers agreed the film was almost the year's most entertaining, which offered a return to a focus on storytelling, despite Paul Attanasio considering some aspects to be "mechanically" designed to create the broadest audience appeal." This is a bit convoluted, and it seems to me that many reviewers actually did consider the film to be the year's most entertaining. Maslin in the NY Times writes "easily the most sustained and entertaining of this summer's adventure fables", for example. Can you re-word this?

More later! —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, that "almost" was meant to be "among", my bad, but I've copyedited it further. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead and post-production section: "more time in theaters" isn't accurate; what is meant is more times during the peak summer season.
  • Lead: I'd prefer "three Saturn awards" as "an Academy Award, Saturn Awards, and a Hugo Award" reads a bit odd.
  • Cast: Why no cite for Fox/Marty? (for completeness, as the others all have cites)
  • Comma before respectively? (Not sure)
  • Conception and writing: "Originally, the changes to 1955 had a more significant impact on 1985, making it more futuristic" I don't know who "it" is here: 1985 or the movie?
  • Some of the Casting section is actually about filming, but it seems to work OK.
  • Filming with Stoltz: " he and Zemeckis collaborated on Romancing the Stone" had collaborated?
  • Special effects: "Optical department" looks odd; optical department or Optical Department (as in the source)?
  • Delorean: "The time machine was conceived " consider adding originally for clarity?
  • Art direction and makeup: "Actual brand names, such as Texaco were" Curious whether this would work better with zero or with two commas? (Not a native speaker so ignore me if I am wrong)
  • Context "avoid the negative perception of films released later in the summer period, instead of early like other blockbuster films" is that a thing?
  • Box office: "ahead of Independence Day holiday weekend" add the?
  • "the western Pale Rider" Western?
  • Cultural influences: "$78,500 was crowdfunded" when was that?
  • Sequel: do we know when they changed their mind about making a sequel? The current prose doesn't flow well from "sequel not originally planned" to "sequel written and split in two parts".

Think that's all! —Kusma (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The part about "Context 'avoid the negative perception of films released later in the summer period, instead of early like other blockbuster films' is that a thing?", yes that's a thing. May/June/July are the big months, while successful films can be released outside these (in December for example) studios rarely released big films expected to do well later in the summer, because if it was meant to do well you'd want it in theaters during the busiest time of the year. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point about "western" was that is often in capitals, but Pale Rider can't make up its mind about that either, so lowercase probably works too. Other changes are fine, especially the sequel story is much better now. Happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kusma! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ovinus edit

Exciting. Coordinators: are spotchecks still needed? If so I can perform them. In any case, will review over the next week or so since it's a long one. Ovinus (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ovinus, spot checks are not required, Darkwarriorblake being something of an FAC veteran. But if you felt moved to do some, there never go amiss. The best way to attract the attention of the coordinators is to use {{@FAC}}. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info Ovinus (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have very few comments so far.

  • "Originally, the changes to 1955 had a more significant impact on the future, making 1985 more futuristic, but every person who read the script hated the idea." I'm not sure if "changes to 1955" makes sense. I would clarify "Marty's changes to". Also what does "making 1985 more futuristic" mean? As in, much more technologically advanced than it was in real life?
  • With "between 1955 and 1985", maybe "between 1955 and 1985 culture" or something, since I think that's the point you're trying to make
I've made some changes here. The futurstic aspect is difficult because sources just say "futuristic" which I interpret as years ahead of its time, but I can't say with detail what changes they made. As a guess, I would say that 1985 would've been like the 2015 they envisioned for Back to the Future. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re below: I intended to recuse but I'm really sorry for not making that clear. I'll review the article in full. Ovinus (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made some prose tweaks which I have no strong opinion about; do revert ones with which you disagree
  • "He also wanted to change the name" who is "he"?
  • "the female crew overwhelmingly" what is this "female" detail for? Did the crew's men disagree?
  • "There is a dispute if a shot of Stoltz's hand is in the finished film in the scene where Marty punches Biff. Gale noted it is impossible to tell without checking the original film negative, which would risk damaging it." This is unneeded trivia, imo
  • "did not look erratic enough" maybe chaotic or dramatic? I'm not sure what erratic means here
  • "glut of youth-oriented films targeted at those under 18" is "targeted ... 18" a necessary clarification
  • "priced at $79.95" relevant? (idk what standard wikipedia practice is)
  • "but the filmmakers received financial compensation for their inclusion, making them symbols of commercialism and thus materialistic" How does paying for brand placement, an act not portrayed in the film, make them symbols of commercialism? Weren't they already symbols of commercialism?
  • "As of 2020, Wilson carries around cards containing answers to fan questions he has been asked over the preceding years, to avoid constantly repeating himself." A little too random... I'd recommend removal

I'm actually quite happy with the article. It's a bit long, but I reckon that's warranted for such an iconic film. Once these concerns are addressed, I'm happy to support. Apologies again for the multiple delays. Ovinus (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
  • The female crew are the only ones discussed which I imagine was the authors' intent because it relates to a point about Marty's girlfriend.
  • It's a common dispute regarding the film, to remove it, I think, would just lead to people re-adding it down the line.
  • Changed, it's to do with the bolt looking random
  • In the film industry youth can mean people under 25 or under 30, it seems to change depending on the year and era
  • It leads into the point immediately following about sales figures at that price point
  • I've rewritten this a bit, it's discussing the act of inclusion of these symbols as materialistic but I get the confusion
  • Removed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, checked the new edits. Happy to support. Ovinus (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ippantekina edit

  • "A development deal was secured" with whom?
  • "delayed production and the film's release date but, following highly successful test screenings, the date was brought forward to July 3, 1985" wordy
  • Link critics to film criticism
  • "Critics praised the story, comedy" but the first sentence does not introduce it as a comedy
  • "was also a global success" WP:PEACOCK
  • "is now considered to be" by whom?

This is gonna be a long read... More to follow. Ippantekina (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments... Do respond to me where you find inexplicable.

  • "but every person who read the script hated the idea" pretty harsh; the Guardian interview wrote "our script readers had problems with that", so something like "took issue with" should suffice
  • "The pair knew the time travel had to be an accident" how did they "know" that? On what grounds.. This bit is confusing
  • "They knew it had to be Lorraine who stopped the relationship" again with the verb "know"; I get what this means, but how could they "know" something before it materialized? "believed" or "conceived" would be more appropriate
  • "but he did not think it would impress others" who are "others"? The audience, the critics, the executives...?
  • I am not sure if we need to list every original contender for the roles
  • Some bits of info sound like trivia i.e. "Actresses Kyra Sedgwick and Jill Schoelen were also considered; Schoelen was told she looked too "exotic" and not All-American enough" then what? Ippantekina (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes as requested Ippantekina, with the almost-cast, I personally find the alternatives fascinating in an alternate history aspect of what we could have had, and ultimately if you don't include them, you will be constantly fighting a battle with people who do add them. You can cut the number down but where do you draw the line? Similarly, the Jill Schoelen thing, I don't consider it trivia, it's on par with Melora Hardin being rejected for making Fox look too short, and IMO if you read it, too "exotic and not All-American enough," comes across as pretty racist. Too exotic is basically too ethnic. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's justified. Thanks! Ippantekina (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several filmed but deleted scenes include" could just be "Deleted scenes include.."
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina and Ovinus: - Do you have any objections to promotion, or have your comments been satisfactorily addressed? Hog Farm Talk 19:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I totally forgot about this again. I read the first third of the article with no objections, but I can't give a support since I haven't read the full thing. Ovinus (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far I have no objection, but please bare with me until I have finished reading the full thing. Ippantekina (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ippantekina and Ovinus:, been a week since the previous ping, will either of you be likely to comment again very soon? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ippantekina and Ovinus:, sorry to bother again but it's been a couple of weeks. Ovinus, you might have recused yourself based on the above comments, I'm not sure. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Not required, but you might consider adding chapter page numbers to Schneider and Ní Fhlainn (2014).
  • You're missing the website parameter in [145].
  • For [277] you're using {{cite MC}}, which outputs a publisher parameter; this is inconsistent with your other web citations which don't use publisher. I'm not going to hold up a pass for this, but you might consider asking whoever maintains that citation template to add an option to exclude publisher. FAC requires consistency and it would be best if templates like that allowed you to match your preferred citation style.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • slashfilm.com [15] and [187]
    • backtothefuture.com [103], [168], [227]. I can't tell if this is a fan site or something with official backing.
  • Do you need the New York Post source for [165]? It's not a good source in general and you have it bundled so I can't tell if you really need it.
  • [138] seems to lead to different results when you click on the original and the archived link. I don't understand the non-archived link -- it seems to show a dramatically lower total for Back to the Future.

I'll check links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links:

  • I see you mostly archive NY Times links to archive.org, but [162] is archived to archive.today, and the link leads to archive.ph and a server error.
  • The archive link for [188] is not working.
  • [236] leads to what looks like an insecure usurped site for the main link, which would be OK if the archive link were working. The archive link leads to a page that's so badly laid out (as often happens with archive.org pages) that I can't tell if it retains the information you are citing.
  • The archive link for [267] is not working.
  • The archive link for [269] is not working.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ní Fhlain seems to have page numbers? The Schneider book is an e-book without page numbers so I only have the section unfortunately.
    I meant that in the "Works cited" section some editors add the page range of the chapter. Completely optional. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlashFilm does have a clear editorial and staff page here and a page detailing policies including ownership here which is run by Static Media and backed by Greycroft, BDMI, Lerer Hippeau, and Mark Cuban.
  • Backtothefuture.com is the official website, the social media accounts Twitter and Facebook link back to it, although the INstagram links to backtothefuture.events, which is the same website and LLC running it but the dedicated events page. There are separate LinkedIn pages for the company running it and Backtothefuture.com which indicates it was a fan site until 1995 and became the official site thereafter.
  • Removed the NYPost ref
  • I'v marked 138 as dead. The archive figure is correct, since BOM changed its website and made some things paywalled sometimes figures (which seem to be automatically calculated) are not always accurate on every page.
  • 162 worked for me but looking at it the screenshot was not the full page due to the "subscribe" thing, so I've replaced that with Archive.org
  • 188, 267 and 269 work for me? Took longer than usual but they did load. Maybe archive.org was down? 236 is the same, it does work, the formatting is terrible, but Back to the Future is there among I think 10 films total on page 2 covering 100 films.
  • made other incidental requested changes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck everything except 138. I can see that BOM ought to be treated as a reliable source, but if you're saying they now are producing errors I'm not clear how we can rely on the older numbers either. How can we get comfortable with the accuracy of the older numbers if they're no longer supported by the site? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily an error, looking at the live site it looks like the issue is that they've added individual figures for like 7 countries, and so it's only automatically counting those figures and churning out $11 million which BTTF obviously earned significantly more than internationally. The BOM reference is backed up by the Gaines reference which does give the same figure of $170.5. The only alternative is The Numbers, but that's even worse because it just adds every release on top of the figure, so if a film has had 5 re-releases over the decades it just adds them to the total figure and doesn't differentiate between releases, so I think the BOM archive and Gaines Reference are the most solid option. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems to show only five non-US markets which I agree must be an underestimate. Unfortunately there's no archive.org copy of that page. Do you mean Gaines says $170.5M for overseas? If so let's drop the BOM ref for overseas. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Mike_Christie Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does it. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro edit

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/Back_to_the_Future/archive1&oldid=1103521268"