Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Little Miss Sunshine

< 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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:31, 27 September 2008 [1].

Little Miss Sunshine edit

Nominator(s): --Nehrams2020 (talk)
previous FAC (04:18, 5 September 2008)


I am nominating this article again after it failed a few weeks ago. In its history, the article has gone through the GA process, WP:FILM's A-class review, and multiple changes that were made in response to the comments left in the last FAC (please take a look at the last discussion). Since the nomination was failed, the hidden awards section was branched off into its own article and the plot was reworked, among other minor edits. I will try to respond to all comments as soon as possible. Thanks for taking a look and happy reviewing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per last time. Giggy (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just the one thing; is the image caption in the infobox really necessary? Giggy (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be thought to be the DVD cover (which does use the same image) or some other type of promotional image. It is common for most film articles to include a caption for the image in the infobox. Let me know if you still disagree. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please see previous FAC for unstruck sourcing concerns. (Sorry, I'm trying to catch up from being gone a week, so don't have time to retype them all!) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to copy and paste the ELs to this page that still needed some opinion by other reviewers? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to you. It certainly wouldn't hurt, I'm still trying to catch up! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the sourcing concerns weren't resolved, why is the article re-nominated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, But I was intrigued at the idea of the van going at 20mph before the family could jump on, especially as this quote had the heroine struggling with 7 mph, unless I'm missing something if the 20 mph is sourced it might be worth checking for doping allegations. ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the film, she was one of the first one to jump into the van once it had a rolling start, and each successive remaining family member would jump in based on their endurance capabilities. Wow, I made that sound really complicated. It states 20mph in the plot because that is what the mechanic recommended to the family in the first scene concerning the issue. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK lets put that down to the science of Hollywood, not something to try and resolve in this article! ϢereSpielChequers 08:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced it a bit, and it is now under 700 words, which complies with the MOS of WP:FILMS. Please take another look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the opinions of reviewers to please take a look at these external links used for sourcing numerous statements throughout the article to determine if they are reliable. I have provided rationales at the last FAC, so please see the comments there. For the majority of these, they are direct interviews with the directors or cast and only appear on these sites. After initially starting with 17 links, it has been whittled down to these five, with the rest either being removed, replaced, or were later deemed reliable. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I dont think Image:LittleMissSunshineCast.jpg is needed in order to understand the vans had to be modified for the purpose of obtaining the correct shot Fasach Nua (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the entire film and there are only two shots in the entire film that show the entire family in one camera angle within the van, including this one. I could include another angle on the side of the van, but it would only show two to four of the family members and the sides of their heads. In addition, the image reflects the views of the writer of the film, as illustrated in the quote at the beginning of the "Volkswagen T2 Microbus" section. He specifically stated that the bus would be a significant choice for the road trip vehicle because of the camera angles, including through the front windshield. Do you think that the caption should be modified to focus more on the quote and/or remain with the modification of the vans? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if it is used to show the main characters, as well as the camera angle it would be okay. The characters need to be identified in the caption and the FU rationale needs tidied up Fasach Nua (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually had the cast members mentioned in the caption, but in the last FAC it was recommended that it be removed due to the length of the caption. How should the FUR be tidied up? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference would be have the cast list in the picture caption, and the current camera related text in the main body, from which the image can then be referenced, ,but you do need to get maximum functionality out of non-free images Fasach Nua (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that would be great too, but I think that if I just mentioned the cast in the caption, people would not think it would be justifiable to keep. If readers click on the image, in the summary it states which actors are in the image. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Oppose, until the reliability of the above-mentioned sources has been determined. All of the issues I raised at the last FAC have been addressed. There are still a couple of minor linking issues (the lead link to road movie should point to road trip in the context in which it's being used; or, if you want to keep the link, it should be reworded to explicitly mention that the film is part of the "road movie" genre). I'm OK with the links in the lead to the filming locations (Arizona and Southern California), as these are articles that may enhance a reader's understanding of the topic if they're unfamiliar with the locations, but my own preference would be to delink the locations in the "Plot" section and also those in the rest of the article that point to broader locations (e.g. Canada). Also in the plot section, I don't believe there is any need to link to both homosexual or climax (narrative). Check for similar instances in the rest of the article. None of these are worth opposing this FAC for, however. As indicated above, the main niggle right now is the use of those five sources. I'll take a closer look at them later today to see if I can find any confirmations of their reliability (e.g. other, more obviously reliable sources that are happy to quote from them). All the best, Steve T • C 07:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Struck "oppose", replaced with "support" below. Steve T • C 08:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking another look. I removed the wikilinks for the ones you suggested and for all of the individual U.S. states and countries mentioned in the article. I left the individual cities wikilinked as I think many readers may not know specifically about the individual cities. Let me know if there are any others you think should be removed. I moved road movie into the intro sentence as well. For the links, I hope they can be deemed reliable, I know it is hard to classify the blog as such, but I think it is a special circumstance with it being an interview. Hopefully I can get these links resolved. Again, thanks for taking a look, I appreciate it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, let's take these one at a time. In all honesty, I think using The Evening Class blog is problematic. Beyond one of its interviews being quoted in the San Francisco Bay Guardian (here), there isn't enough coverage to let it into the article. However, replace The Evening Class with this link and your problem would appear to be solved. This is the same interview, crossposted to twitchfilm.com by the author Michael Guillen. Why is this more reliable than The Evening Class? Well, twitchfilm.com has been quoted by the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, the Washington Times, and Variety, among others. Specifically for its interviews in some cases. Personally, I think that's enough for an uncontentious interview like this. Let's see what everyone else thinks (and I'll take a look at the other four when I get another moment). All the best, Steve T • C 09:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's great that you found it on another site! I'll be happy to switch it if other reviewers agree with its reliability. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, next. Visualhollywood.com is being cited merely because it's hosting the film's production notes. These are readily available elsewhere, on sites such as the more well-known film website Movieweb.com (here (pdf)). Movieweb is another site that other reliable sources are happy to cite, including Empire. The other option is the link provided in the previous FAC to www.terrassa.cat, which is the official website of the municipal government of the Spanish city of Terrassa. Whether that makes it a reliable source for the purposes of linking to a .pdf of the production notes is something I'll let others determine. Steve T • C 15:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the Movieweb is determined to be reliable, then that would take care of the last link and probably justify using it for the production notes as well. I'd probably want to avoid the Spanish link just because this is the English Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Next we have the use of fora.tv for its hosting of an hour-long talk by the writer of the film, Michael Arndt. The recent coverage for fora.tv is a little lighter, but there is mention of it explicitly for this purpose at Wired, and details of its business model at both The Washington Post and in Forbes, among others. That, plus the fact that the writer is easily identifiable, means I'm happy with its use in the article. Steve T • C 22:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last one: filmfestivals.com. It took some tracking down, but this article in the Los Angeles Times explicitly names it as a reliable source: "There are now 1,600 festivals around the world and 650 in the United States, according to Filmfestivals Entertainment Group, an international organization that provides Web and television support to film festivals." If that's not enough, so does Fortune, (here). I'm happy with that. Steve T • C 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
these look fine to me. I wouldn't certify them as reliable in all cases, but in this case, they work. Good work! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per last time, and with fingers crossed this time. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My only concern was addressed. I make a few tweaks to the plot, so you might want to take a look to make sure I didn't mess anything up. Good work. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of last things, really:
    • The change to place "road movie" in the lead section renders the first sentence rather cumbersome ("Little Miss Sunshine is a 2006 American comedy-drama road movie and film directional debut of..." Can we find another home for it? The sentence is also telling us that "Little Miss Sunshine is a... film directional debut of..." Adding the definite article before "film" ("...and the film directional debut of..." or "and is the film directional debut of...") might resolve this. Finally, shouldn't that be "directorial"?
    • Do we have exact dates for the filming? One country's Summer is another's Winter. I strongly recommend clarifying this for our Southern-hemisphere-based readers. Steve T • C 07:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck. Steve T • C 08:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry for not getting to these, I was really busy with schoolwork, and some exciting television. I can't believe that "directional" was there for all that time. Good job pointing out the summer/winter, I always remember to use the changes in measurements, but don't take into account the difference in seasons. Thanks again for all of your help, these changes (plus the new source), and your assistance with the reliability of the sources really helped this nomination. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; all the issues I brought up in this and the last FAC have been resolved. More importantly, so have the sourcing issues. Steve T • C 08:51, 26 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Little_Miss_Sunshine&oldid=1148680730"