Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Friday the 13th (franchise)/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:48, 4 April 2009 [1].

Friday the 13th (franchise) edit

Nominator(s):  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article currently meets the criteria for featured articles, though I concede my bias and acknowledge that others might point out some flaws that need correcting. That being said, I do not believe there are any major issues that should/could keep this article from being "one of Wikipedia's best".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Explain how so? The text beside it describes the image in detail. The image itself is used to illustrate the description Cunningham gave of how he wanted the advertisement to look. That meets the very definition of FUC. I'm curious. Why is it that you immediately opposed Friday the 13th, but merely made a suggestion to the Alien FAC to look at the NFCC? Also, I'm curious how "basically" gave your support to them, but how exactly does an image of the cast become detrimental to readers if it was removed? Or, how does a still photograph illustrate someone shooting in slow motion? I know what it looks like to film an object, the average reader does to, but I don't see how this image significantly increases my understanding of slow motion filming. File:F13Variety.jpg actually has text describing it (a whole paragraph all to itself, both describing the look of the image Cunningham was going for and how that promotional ad was used to facilitate interest in a project that did not even exist).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can empathize with Fasach Nua's oppose; I cannot speak for him, but this is my view. Fair use images help the reader understand the topic in ways words cannot express (well, except for main subject identification shots, which are less critically judged unless they are living persons). Moreover, the aid for understanding has to be for a significant point. In this case, the imagery of "the words 'Friday the 13th' breaking through a glass pane" can be readily imagined by most people. Unless notable opinions claim that there is something sublime about this imagery, or that it has some quality that is not material, such a display is not of significance to the topic at hand. The poster, hence, simply functions as identification of a mere idea—decoration. The claimed fair use of this poster is not as strong as that for the theme song (whose rationale would be helped with further buffing up, and whose caption in the article should point to the distinctive quality of the tune), which has text about its "iconographic" and "memorable" properties, as well as the rhythm and sounds that cannot be accurately described in words (I doubt "ki ki ki, ma ma ma" is what everybody thinks of on hearing the tune). Jappalang (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the image serves two purposes. First, it's the illustration of text. Maybe you could visualize the text bursting through glass, but maybe you couldn't visualize it doing so in this detail (i.e. With this style of font, and with this imagery of glass shattering...maybe "glass" is synonymous with a window instead of a bare pane of glass). Maybe people think of simple bolded terms coming at them. Regardless, it does add to the understanding of the text, the question is whether is adds enough to warrant inclusion. That comes to the second point, which is that the image serves an additional purpose of illustrating the actual advertisement that Cunningham developed simply to create interest in a film that did not even exist. The simplistic nature of the ad was used to generate studio interest as well as test the waters for potential lawsuits regarding the use of the name. If there are any "problems" with the fair-use of this image, it's subjectively borderline. It's not as black and white as including some generic screenshot from a film in a plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the CAPS problem. I think you brought all this up at the Peer Review before. So, to save space (and I'm not sure if you ventured back to that page), I'll just provide a link to the peer review discussion that has my explainations for why each of those sources was used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Just because they are reviews or they are used in other GAs or FAs doesn't mean they are reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any are "reviews". If they are "reviewing" something, that wasn't what I was citing them for - I am typically citing them for describing some objective thing (e.g., this DVD contains these features...), which allows me to provide a third-party source for describing something that can easily be read on the box. Or, as was used for sites like Bloody-Disgusting, ShockTillYouDrop, or Slasherama, I'm using first-hand, exclusive interviews they conducted - that's straight from the horse's mouth (i.e. Q&A where they put in fully quoted conversations). I've been on Wiki since 2005, so I know what WP:RS is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to type "interviews" not "reviews". However, just because they are interviews, doesn't mean they are reliable. You need to make sure that the reporting of the interview is reliable also. The site itself needs to have some sort of reputation for accuracy, so we know that the interview was accurately reported. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Collectonian did that below for several of them. Using other news sources reporting on those websites doesn't prove reliability - it's more like circularly defining reliability. IMDB is cited by USA Today and many other professional, reliable news agencies but we know that it's not a reliable source of information. I'm not trying to deflect your concerns, just pointing out that having some other agency report on your website, or not having one do so, isn't necessarily reflective of reliability. I also couldn't see how an FAQ or About Us page that says "we get some of our information from exclusives" is any more helpful than one that doesn't. One could easily say, "how do we know they're telling the truth?" IME, it's always up to the communities common sense to read the actual source and make the call from their. If there are clues that the source is a little too "iffy", then suggest finding a different one. USA Today could be considered the most reliable source in the world, but I wouldn't cite them if they said "We heard from a scooper inside Universal Studios that Film X...."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry, there are problems with the prose too numerous to list. I recommend that an uninvolved editor is asked to copy-edit the whole article; it is not ready for featured status and this nomination is premature. Graham Colm Talk 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I have to agree, the article as a whole needs a third-party copy editing to fix prose issues. I'm curious on the box office box - why are so many films missing information on the worldwide release, yet the first film has it? Why is it with the development section instead part of the reception/impact section. For the overall article organization, why have Films separate when they are the main part of the franchise? Why not have the films' sections be the main sections, then have the television, novels, etc under a other media section? It seems like the article is using short references, but I don't see a notes section with the listings for those being used multiple times, like "Brack, Peter, pp. 50–52". I presume its referring to the book in ref 19, but either all the refs need to be full, or a central ref for that book added. For the referencing issues noted above, my views:
Collectonian, I have removed all of the soundtrack info (minus one statement) from the article and move it to the talk page. I was having trouble finding a reliable source to back up all of the information we had on that, so I moved it to the talk page for the time being so the FAC could continue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any specific prose examples? Vague notions of poor prose does not help. I'm not positive that most of the films even had worldwide distribution, or if it just was not significant enough to chronicle by any outside source. The books certainly do not mention anything. I don't understand " Why is it with the development section instead part of the reception/impact section?" - The Box office information is part of the "Films" section, not the "Development" subsection. I also don't understand the follow up question. "Films" IS the main section. Films, Television, and Literature are all their own independent sections. Because most of the literature does not directly tie to any specific film, they are independent. They got their start thanks to the films, but they have taken on a life of their own. As for the references, the first instance it was used you got the full citation. After that it was the short reference. It's no different than having a "Notes" section and then a "References" section, except that it doesn't put a needless section in there. Look at "References". The first time Grove and Bracke are cited they have full citations filled out.
HorrorDVD is not being used for anything beyond a listing of the DVD features. I don't even need a source for that, because looking at the back of the box will tell you what's on the DVDs. It's uncontroversial, kind of like a plot summary.
As for the sources that Ealdgyth listed, and Collectonian addressed individually, the vast majority are used for first hand interviews, which have been upheld as "reliable" in most articles because they are reporting first hand (instead of hearsay information).
I'll have to check the soundtrack link to see what exactly is being cited. I'll try and find a replacement for it. Other than Amazon, I cannot find anyone talking about the soundtracks. I'll check the books again to see if they mention them.
I fixed the journal source you mentioned.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don't give examples because it is hard for me to do so. My brain just goes, this isn't reading well for me, but my copyediting skills are not that swift, so its hard to explain why, so I usually just note unless I see something really bad/blatantly obvious. It might be good to see if the film's without info did have worldwide distro, to clarify that either "the data isn't available" or "American only release". And sorry, I meant why is box office under Films instead of Impact, but okay on your explanation of the structure. For the references, the reason for having a note section is so readers don't have to hunt through the 145 references trying to find out what Grove?Bracke refer to. Don't get me wrong, I personally hate them, but it seems to be what is preferred in WP:CITE if you're going to use that method (and feel free to point me elsewhere that says it isn't). I'd go ahead and switch the HorrorDVD to just the DVD itself, then, or point to one of the other DVD reviews (if possible), or even Amazon just to clear up the issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EL Question: Why link to just the timelines page instead of just having an official link to the main http://www.fridaythe13thfilms.com/ URL? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it did just go to Fridaythe13thfilms.com.... Hmm, I'll check that and make the correction as necessary. You bring up a good point about the "Notes" structure, and I'll take care of that as well. To answer the question about the box office stuff, it's because the "Impact" is speaking more directly about how the franchise has impacted cultured. Box office success doesn't really reflect cultural impact, and it's really specifically aimed at each individual film. "Impact" is aimed at the series as a whole, instead of any one film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey there. I wish I had the time to review the article right now (I'm trying and failing to weigh in at every film-related FAC), but I did happen to see the comments already posted via the transclusion on the main FAC listing. What I will say is that it's almost always best to give constructive examples when opposing an article's promotion on prose grounds. Sometimes an article that seems like it needs a thorough rewrite can be made good with just a couple of hours' concentrated work on removing redundancies and similar. But without that feedback, nominators can be at a loss as to what kinds of issues they should tackle. With that in mind, I've taken a look at the lead only to see what specific pointers can be given:
    • Overlinking. Examples include television program, fictional character, novel. I can't see anyone's needing to click through to these for clarification, and they draw attention away from the potentially higher-value links around them.
    • "various merchandise" is a little hand-wavy; the sentence works equally well without the "various". If you think it lacks something without a word there, clarify with a more useful term, such as "tie-in merchandise".
    • Dangling modifier. "Originally created to cash in on the success of John Carpenter's Halloween, the success led Paramount Pictures to purchase the full rights to the Friday the 13th franchise." The statement as written states that F13's success—rather than the film—was created to cash-in.
    • "[comma] with [noun] [gerund]" is, apparently, a clumsy connector. (See sentence beginning "While the franchise was owned by Paramount...")
    • Immediately following, it seems a little clumsy to say "and a crossover film with Freddy Krueger from another horror film series, A Nightmare on Elm Street." Would it be better to say instead "and a crossover film with Freddy Krueger from the A Nightmare on Elm Street horror film series" or similar?
    • "When the franchise was sold to New Line Cinema, Cunningham returned to oversee two additional films..." Some readers might define the director as the overseer of a project; this sits oddly with the statement in the previous paragraph about Cunningham's not writing or directing any film but the first. Better to be precise and say "produce" or "executive produce" (depending on what his role actually was).
    • "various comic book series". Never a fan of "various", I've always thought the more direct "several" works just as well a lot of the time. I think it does here.
    • "Though not very popular with critics, it nevertheless became a financial success at the box office." The previous paragraph ends by talking about assorted franchise media; this begins with a statement relating the film series only. Suggest clarifying by using "the film series" instead of "it". Beginning the sentence with "Though" makes "nevertheless" redundant too.
    • "but also because the extensive merchandising and repeated references in popular culture." Missing "of", or is there a word or statement missing from the end of the sentence?
  • As I say, this is based on nothing more than a quick look at the lead in isolation; I have no idea if it's representative of the rest of the article, whether it's better or worse. But I hope it gives some pointers, and I will restate the point that the prose issues may be more easily resolvable than you've been led to believe. Good luck! Steve T • C 21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from GrahamColm (talk · contribs) The nominator has asked twice, on my talk page, to provide examples of poor prose. This is not fair because this is FAC and not peer-review. Steve, has listed the ones I saw in the Lead, but there are many others throughout the article:

  • were off having sex and not paying attention - why the "off", indeed where were they?
  • Five years later, a group of teenagers arrive at Crystal Lake to set up a new camp, only for Jason to murder them, one by one. - "but Jason murders them.
  • Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985) tried to move in a new direction. - Perhaps it was the producers or director of this film that tried to adopt a new style?
  • They learn Roy was motivated to become Jason after witnessing the remains of his son, whom no one knew about, butchered at the hands of one of the patients at the institution. - Perhaps "whom had been butchered" would help.

These examples are taken from the next section. There are many more throughout the article. I agree with Steve in that a competent copy-editor could fix the article in a few hours. But at FAC reviewers have to decide whether to support or oppose a candidate. It is of no help to the FA delegates to dilly-dally. I am often guilty of such and will provide "comments" or "conditional support" and so forth. But, as I have said above, this nomination is premature. FAC is too congested, we haven't the time and are not obliged to fix articles. We judge them as they are presented here. I do not like opposing because I know the amount of time and effort that is put into writing these articles. It is a poor show to challenge an FAC reviewer on their Talk page and not at FAC. Graham Colm Talk 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I completely and utterly agree that a solid oppose should be registered if you think the prose isn't up to scratch. :) I didn't mean to try to dissuade you from doing so, I just had in mind that Bignole has several Featured articles to his name, so presumably has the writing chops to make any necessary amendments if given a few examples. Steve T • C 22:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To both Steven and GrahamColm, thank you both for the examples, that's basically what I needed. Steve showed me some flow issues, while Graham seemed to point out a concern that I mentioned on his talk page about prose problems often relating to the fact that the primary editor (in this case myself) will overlook explaining things because subconsciously they already understand it. I will get to work on not just the lead, but the whole article and try and go through sentence by sentence to make whatever adjustments necessary. When I'm done I'll provide a link for the full edit history so you can see what was changed throughout the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so there isn't worry (don't know if anyone is watching the article itself), I am in the process of cleaning up the page. I've just had a bunch of real life projects that I have had to focus on, so it's taking a bit longer than expected. I'm on the TV section right now, so I'm virtually half-way done. Just wanted to let you guys know that I am attempting to get this done in a timely manner.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Article appears to be complete. Looks well sourced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment The merchandise section alone has so many small issues that it hangs a question mark over the prose of the article, for me at least.
  • Ref #128 is a little muddled, 'The Your Sinclair Rock and Roll Years' is a fansite covering Your Sinclair (and a good one), but the article linked seems to be on World of Spectrum (an archive of magazine scans, games and misc. other things), neither of which should be mentioned when the publication details are there for it to be cited directly to the magazine article.
  • The NES game's details take several sentences, and all are cited to ref #129, GameSpot, which gives no details except for the developer/publisher/release date/genre. Fine for an infobox, but the rest of this information is unverified. Due to the game's age it will be difficult to cite this info without having access to a game magazine from the time, but that's what it boils down to.
  • I'm not convinced that Domark's release of License to Kill and Pack-In-Video's development of Rambo is relevant, film licenses were not new even then, they're not even in the same film genres.
  • The mobile phone game is sending mixed signals, I've seen examples of it being called Thursday the 12th, IE an unofficial knock-off, though some sources like GameSpot list it as Friday the 13th. It's not looking very notable and it might be worth removing it altogether, not sure though.
  • "Jason appears as a normal character in the game until he decides to attack." Meaning he's disguised as one of the teenagers until he reveals himself at random and attacks? Needs clarifying.
  • "Friday the 13th has stretched beyond film, television and literature into other collectables." Stretched? Seems far too casual.
  • "In 1988, Screamin' toys produced a model kit where you could build your own Jason statuette." I believe this is incorrect, one of the first things I learned when editing video game articles is to switch 'you' to 'the player' etc. I checked back in the history to early July 2008 and this particular line was there too. That suggests to me that this article needs some attention from an experienced copy-editor, or at least someone who's had no hand in bringing this article forward to its current state. Someoneanother 19:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're commenting on a section that I havne't gotten to yet in my c/eing (Coincedently, I was going to change that "stretched" bit as well). I'll have to check some of those sources, but I could have sworn there was one on the game that just details what the gameplay is. THe "Your Sinclair" is used merely because it is publishing a scanned copy of the actual magazine. I could cite merely the magazine itself (without the url), but I felt providing a link would help people in verifying the magazine information. The GameSpot page might have died...again I haven't gotten to that section yet so I cannot say for sure till I go through it. I'll recheck where the information is coming from while I c/e (as well as take under advisement the non-direct relation of the other games by Domark). Could I request you check out the article from the Lead through the films' section? I have the TV up to (but not including) the Merch. section done I'm just at work and haven't have a chance to impliment it yet. I'd like some looks over what has been c/e'd to see if I missed something as well as to get some more thoughts on the plot section. The Plot section is the hardest to c/e because I need someone who isn't entirely familiar with the films to let me know what is confusing (when you've seen them as many times as me, you tend to automatically fill in the blanks with your mind).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing with the Your Sinclair cite is that some may quibble about a direct link to a copyrighted scanned image, I totally get why there's a URL link but it may trip you up. If someone wants to verify that source during the process it's all here. I'll gladly check the rest of the article over the weekend, haven't seen any of the films and don't know a thing about the franchise. Someoneanother 20:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this moment, I think I'm going to leave it and if there is a real problem with it then I'll remove the link and do a typical "cite journal" template for it. I have taken care of the rest of the c/eing (what I call the "first round", because I want to make a second pass and see if/what I missed). You can all of the edits, from the start and get an idea of the changes that were made. I'll wait to do a second pass until after I have checked on some source replacement for the "Soundtrackcollector" links, because there was concern over their FAQ indicating that they take user submitted content. It may be that I have to remove the soundtrack info until I can find replacements because Amazon doesn't have release dates for most of the older CDs. I'll also check on those game sources and see if they say (or said) what they were supposed to have said about those games, as well as that "Thursday the 12th" contraversy.
I found this source, which seems to show that the mobile game was in fact called "Friday the 13th". I wonder of "Thursday the 12th" was some game released at a different time, before this mobile game?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, since I didn't see anything about it in the article at the moment: if it would be useful information, I found a reliable source on the 1989 game noting there was also a Friday the 14th board game released in the UK which was a top seller in 1989 and came "with blood capsules that you crunch in your mouth to create home-made special effects." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, if you got a RS for it, sweet. I didn't know about the board game. As an update for Someone Another, I have checked the GameSpot sources and they are useless as they are. I'll try and find replacement sources for them...otherwise (they'll all have to be ousted).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, here is the cite: {{cite news |title=Giving the games away: Sheila Johnston pits her wits and her patience against the latest best-selling video and board games-of-the-films |first-Sheila |last=Johnston |work=[[The Independent]] |date=December 15 1989 |page=27 }}; alas, she did not mention which company published the game :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have her text, so I know what it says or you could add it to save time?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sent via email. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting confusing. The mobile game listed on GameSpot is this Thursday the 12th developed by HeroCraft. Compare the title screens, they're identical except the GameSpot one is obviously Jason. 'Thursday the 12th' had players controlling 'Slayson'.. I think what might have happened is that they started with the knock-off, then managed to secure a license then changed the title screen. The mobile game reivew you found is a different game entirely developed by Xendex. Xendex's version is an adventure game whereas the Thursday the 12th .. thing by HeroCraft looks like a Splatterhouse clone (very much an action/beat 'em up game, look at the screenshots on the Thursday the 12th site). The HeroCraft game could do with some research. Someoneanother 22:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the Xendex's game info when I get a chance (didn't realize there were 2 mobile games). I found this NewsWire source saying that HeroCraft did make a "Friday the 13th" game (but it's just a list mentioning). Maybe for the time being it will be best to just remove that game mentioning from the article, given the confusion over the licensing, because I haven't really seen (was just googling) anyone talking about HeroCraft not having a license...or not initially having one but later getting one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How's this Someone?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, the description of Xendex's title coupled with the 'make your own special FX' board game info adds a lot of interest to the section. Duh me BTW, I brought up Splatterhouse without suggesting that it would be worth considering mentioning it somewhere - the game's character Rick is basically Jason Vorhees, and there should be sources out there to back it up, like this. Splatterhouse is a notable series (very few games at the time had anything like as much gore or feeling of dread), and after a break of 15 years is spawning a new game, it would probably be brought up at some point due to that. Someoneanother 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that, it seems like it might be more relevant for Jason Voorhees, than this page, given that the character is a "supposed" homage/rip-off/coincedental look-a-like for Jason, and the game itself isn't a homage to Friday the 13th in general.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 4 April 2009 (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/Friday_the_13th_(franchise)/archive1&oldid=1138461163"