Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hoodwinked!/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 GrahamColm 12:21, 3 September 2012 [1].

Hoodwinked!

edit

Hoodwinked! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jpcase (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodwinked! was a computer-animated film released in 2005. Though it probably isn't as widely known as most recent computer-animated films, it is notable for being one of the first to be completely independently produced. Since I started working on the article a number of months ago, it has gone from Start class to Good Article status, and undergone a peer review. I believe that it is now ready for Featured Article status. Jpcase (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Passing comments from Crisco 1492:
Image review
File:Hoodwinked.jpg is fine
File:Hoodwinked st.jpg is too big and pretty much redundant to the poster. Doubt it passes the need for contextual significance (NFCC #8)
Any free images of the director or cast?
Prose review
Several sections are only a sentence or two long.
Several paragraphs are only a sentence or two long.
Direct quotes need citations.
Percent symbol should not be used, use "percent"
Kinda worried as you have 5000 words depending on a grand total of 50 footnotes (I've hit 50 just going to 2000 words) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for leaving some suggestions. I've changed all uses of the % symbol to the word percent. The only paragraph I see that is under three sentences is the following;
"Hoodwinked! received a one-week, limited release in Los Angeles on December 16, 2005 to qualify for Oscar consideration. A nationwide U.S. release was scheduled for Christmas Day, 2005, but it was moved to January 13, 2006 to avoid competition with other films released during the holiday season."
I'm really not sure how this could be expanded upon. It covers information regarding the film's release thoroughly. If you have any suggestions on how to expand it, then I will be happy to add them to the article, but I don't really see any problem with the current length of the paragraph. Are there any other paragraphs under three sentences that I am missing? All quotes in the article are referenced. If a reference doesn't immediately follow a quote, it is just because all of the subsequent information is sourced with the same reference. Am I supposed to always follow a quote with a reference, even if the same reference is used for the subsequent information? As for the number of references, I'm not sure why this should matter. Everything in the article is properly sourced.
Would you suggest removing the image of the film's soundtrack? I'd rather not, since I feel that info boxes look bare without images, but if its use isn't justified under copyright laws, then I am willing to remove it. I'm honestly not sure whether there are any free images of the director or cast. There probably are, but I'm not very knowledgeable about copyright law, so I wouldn't know what is okay for use.--Jpcase (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest it, yeah. This suggests that it isn't really accepted by the community (check out the deletion debate they link to)
Regarding the paragraphs, that "release" section is the least of my worries. The last paragraph of "plot" and "accolades" are bigger problems, methinks.
Regarding quotes, it's generally a good idea to give a citation immediately afterwards (at the very least at the end of the sentence), for easy verifiability. I can't find a specific guideline or policy for that though, although WP:WHYCITE emphasises that quotes and opinions need cites.
I may have time to give a fuller review later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've removed the image, and combined the last paragraph of the plot section with the paragraph preceeding it. It feels somewhat disconnected with the rest of the information in the paragraph, but there really isn't any way that I could expand the last paragraph without going into extraneous detail. As for the "accolades" section, what would you suggest doing here? The film was only nominated for one award. I could delete the accolades section and simply mention the film's Saturn nomination at the end of the "Critical response" section, but it would still have to be its own one-sentence paragraph. I've added a reference to the end of every sentence that includes a quote, except for in the first paragraph of the "Analysis" section, since it would require putting the same reference at the end of every sentence. It seems a lot simpler to just use the one reference for the entire paragraph. --Jpcase (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In articles such as Ruma Maida generally I keep the prose regarding awards short, allowing me to introduce a table. Other editors write what the film lost against for its individual awards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that a table would work here, since the film was only nominated for one award. The article already states that the film lost the award to Corpse Bride. --Jpcase (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can do that, but it will still only be one sentence. Personally, I would prefer to leave it in its own section, so that readers won't have to navigate through the whole "Critical response" section to find information on an award nomination. Is there an actual rule on Wikipedia that a section has to be more than one sentence? --Jpcase (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pulling that out. I still feel that the article would be more convenient for readers if the sentence was included in its own section, but I will go ahead and merge them, so as to comply with policy. --Jpcase (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose comments:
  • "It tells the story of the Little Red Riding Hood folktale as a police investigation," - "It retells the folktale Little Red Riding Hood as a police investigation,"
  • "before expanding nationwide" - perhaps "having a wide release"?
    • Hmm, I'm not sure. "before expanding nationwide" sounds much better to me. Is there any important reason why this should be changed? --Jpcase (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was released internationally too, n'est pas? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but not on January 13. The film's nationwide US release seems notable enough to be mentioned in the lede, but I'm not sure that its international releases need to be alluded to there. --Jpcase (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was in part based on director Cory Edwards' concerns over exposing children to the high level of cynicism that can often be found in the genre." - Perhaps just "Edwards'"?
    • Since there were two Edwards involved in making this film, I feel that it is important to distinguish between them. --Jpcase (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright.
  • "Critical reception to the film was varied. Negative reviews criticized the film's animation and considered it inferior to the Shrek series, while positive reviews praised the film's script and cast." - Perhaps merge. "Critical reception to the film was varied; although the film's script and cast were praised, its animation was panned." or something similar.
    • Personally, I prefer this as it is currently written. Why do you suggest the change? --Jpcase (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To avoid repeating "reviews" and to condense it a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed it to "Critical reception to the film was varied; although the film's script and cast were praised by many reviews, the quality of its animation was heavily criticized." --Jpcase (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's even better! Alright, I'll leave some more comments tomorrow (my time). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink on the first occurrence, or just don't include the casts' names in the plot.
    • I removed the cast names from the plot section. --Jpcase (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and led by detective Nicky Flippers (David Ogden Stiers), Red, Wolf, Granny, and the Woodsman are all questioned about the events leading up to the incident." - Perhaps "and Red, Wolf, Granny, and the Woodsman are questioned by detective Nicky Flippers (David Ogden Stiers) about the events leading up to the incident."
  • A couple of the testimonies may be able to be merged into single paragraphs.
    • I merged the paragraphs detailing the Woodsman's testimony and Granny's testimony together. --Jpcase (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boingo plans to add an addictive substance to the stolen recipes, and then explode the forest, making way for new real state for expanding his business." - Any indication how the two are related?
    • They are just two different ways of improving his business. The addictive substance would likely increase sales of his snacks, and the new real estate would provide various other ways for him to make money. A diagram that he shows in the film suggests that he would build a zoo, mall, amusement park, casino, etc. --Jpcase (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cast section: If its not a full sentence, it should not have a period.
  • That's it for today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names should be linked on first occurrence outside the lead.
    • Thanks for taking care of some of those yourself. I also linked Todd Edwards the first time his name shows up in the Production section, since he isn't listed in the cast section anymore. Should all words linked in the lead, be linked again in their first occurrence outside of the lead? For example, "computer-animated", "Little Red Riding Hood", "Rashomon", and "stop-motion"? --Jpcase (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think so, yes. The lede is generally counted separately for linking purposes.
  • References with multiple pages benefit from {{sfn}} or {{harv}} templates.
    • I don't really understand what I am supposed to do here. --Jpcase (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch overlinking
    • Thanks for taking care of some of these as well. Should "The Walt Disney Company" in the Distribution section be de-linked? It is the first occerence of the company's full name, but a previous use of "Disney" links to the same page. --Jpcase (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't link it.
  • previously been employed with an ill-fated independent animation studio which Hoodwinked! producer David Lovegren had helped to start. - Name?
    • Unfortunately, the reference does not give a name. --Jpcase (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found the name of the studio in another reference and have added it to the article. --Jpcase (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (such as ones produced by Pixar) - Doesn't seem necessary
  • Avoid contractions like "couldn't" in original text
    • Looks like you've taken care of this. Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and dirt was rubbed into the colors" - Avoid figurative language. Perhaps a more literal phrasing
    • The actual quote from the reference is "We wanted it to look as organic as possible, even with the color palette. We rubbed dirt into all the colors so that the look wasn’t the candy-coated, brightly colored pastel world that a lot of CGI films have." --Jpcase (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several sentences are rather long (lots of clauses) and could be split.
    • Which ones? --Jpcase (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anything with four or five commas could probably be split. "The Nightmare Before Christmas was cited as an inspiration for the filmmakers to try to bend the shapes of characters into extremes, and choices unconventional to computer-animated films were intentionally made, such as making one of the Woodsman's eyes bigger than the other, and giving Red only four fingers, so as to make her look more like a doll." is an example.
        • I've split that sentence, and rewritten a few other sections. Tell me if there are any other specific sentences that need to be split or shortend. --Jpcase (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm down to "soundtrack". More tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that you tagged the sentence, "After unsuccessfully trying to find new opportunities for the brothers, Montgomery set up a meeting for them with Kanbar, who had invested in Chillicothe." "Them" in this sentence is referring to the Edwards brothers. Is this unclear? --Jpcase (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, nix that.
  • "to avoid competition with other films released during the holiday season." - Which films?
    • The reference doesn't name any specific titles. Chicken Little, Zathura, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and Cheaper by the Dozen 2 were some of the family films in release at the time, but could I mention them without it being considered Original Research? November and December are always major release months ever year, so I don't think that it is really necessary to name which specific films Hoodwinked! would have been in competition with. The point is, Holiday Season = Lots of High Profile Movies Coming Out. --Jpcase (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "$50,000 short of the box office's number one spot." - Held by?
  • Perhaps note that 47 percent is "rotten" on RottenTomatoes
  • Fix the quotation marks from the slanted ones to straight ones. Overall you may want to paraphrase some of the quotes. A lot of this stuff is just taking the summaries from their reviews, by the looks of it.
  • Several of these quotes in the reception and analysis section are rather wordy and should be trimmed or better paraphrased.
  • Associated Content is not a reliable source. See this. Is Mr. Sexton a previously published author on the subject?
    • Here is Timothy Sexton's profile [2] It says that he has published two novels, and contributed chapters to two other novels. I see that you have tagged every sentence in that paragraph, besides the last one with a "citation needed" tag. I explained above that I wanted to just use the one reference at the end of the whole paragraph, since I thought that it would be less cluttered than to place the same reference at the end of every sentence in the paragraph. Is this not acceptable? It seems clear that all quotes in the paragraph come from the same article, so I would think that one reference for the whole paragraph would suffice, but I will add references for each sentence if you think it necessary. --Jpcase (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As posted above "Direct quotes need citations.". Paraphrasing would help cut down on that. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • More information on the sequel (quantification for the commercial and critical failure comment) may be useful.
  • After going through the critical reception and analysis section I'm not too pleased with the quote farming in those two sections. A bit of paraphrasing can go a long way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
  • FN1, 21: formatting
  • FN38: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For Rotten tomatoes, see this essay. WikiProject Film accepts it and MetaCritic — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Reception — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but those links allow the use of RT in very specific circumstances, and its current use in this article is not limited to those circumstances. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which specific circumstances are you referring to? --Jpcase (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Review consensus scores and external links. The article currently uses the site for run time, a quote, and a release date. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The quote is Rotten Tomatoes' consensus. The essay linked to by Crisco 1492 states that "Rotten Tomatoes' reported 'consensus' and Metacritic's 'metascore' description are prose that may help readers understand a film's reception." As I understand it, Rotten Tomatoes' consensus and percentage of positive reviews should not be used if the film was released before 2000, or if only a limited number of reviews for the film have been collected on the site. Hoodwinked! was released in 2005 and the site has over 100 reviews for the film, so this should not be a problem. I replaced Rotten Tomatoes with Justin Chang's review of the film for Variety as the reference for the film's run time. I assume that when you say that Rotten Tomatoes is being used for a release date, you are referring to the release date of Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil. I was actually just using it as a reference for the film's negative critical reception and hadn't thought to include a reference for the film's release date. Would this be an acceptable reference? http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=74032 --Jpcase (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fullecircle blog post is an interview with Cory Edwards, the director and co-writer of the film. The authenticity of the interview can be verfied, since it is linked to on Edwards' own official website (see here - http://coryedwards.com/?p=95). I asked whether the interview would be an acceptable reference on the reliable sources noticeboard (see here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 123#fullecirclestuff.blogspot.com interview) and was told that it might be okay, as long as the verification from Edwards' site was also included. As for cinemareview, I've been somewhat unsure of the site's reliability, but since it was never questioned in any of this article's previous reviews, I assumed that it was probably okay. I am willing to remove it though, if you feel that it is not an acceptable reference. --Jpcase (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, I've removed the cinemareview reference, and rewritten that section of the article. The Nancy Churnin review for the Dallas Morning News doesn't seem to have been officially uploaded to the internet, however the actual newspaper issue that contains the review can be viewed online through Google News (see here - http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=20060118&id=iQEyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6qIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5595,552315). I do not know whether this would be an acceptable link for Wikipedia. If you feel that it is okay, then I will link to it in the article, but otherwise, I don't think that any link is necessary in order to use the review as a reference. What are the formatting issues that you are referring to? --Jpcase (talk) 20:24, 28 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hoodwinked!/archive1&oldid=510667212"