Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prometheus (film)/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 by GrahamColm 22:41, 16 January 2013 [1].

Prometheus (film) edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake IllaZilla 01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the thing that laid it's child in my chest cavity told me too. I am told it read the article on Prometheus and decided I would make a fertile breeding ground for a hyper efficient article editing machine that bleeds text. On a personal level I have been working on the article for several months, taking it from a relative bare space to what is today: a thorough document on the film Prometheus that covers every major topic on an interesting and long in development project by the master Ridley Scott. I have been helped to this end by many other impregnated users including but not limited to User:IllaZilla, User:Polisher of Cobwebs and User:Flax5 plus a thorough copy edit by User:Baffle gab1978 to bring it to the shining standard of alien infestation that it is today.. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because Darkwarriorblake as another FAC going, I've volunteered my services as co-nom on this one. I expect Blake will continue to handle most of what's involved but I'm willing to assist where I can. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I transcluded this at WP:FAC as you seem to have left off that step. Some brief comments:

Quite a few of the image captions are incomplete sentences, which are fine for that purpose, but should not end with full stops.
Please tweak the Patrick Samuel cite to fit the lastname, firstname format you've used otherwise.
There are some cites where an author's middle initial is inadvertently showing up first: "L. Dickey, Josh", "P. Sullivan, Kevin", and " J. McLean, Thomas". A middle name or initial should follow the first name, in the |first= field.
The external links to the Project Prometheus and Weyland Industries sites seem to effectively link to the same thing. Would one link suffice, or am I mistaken? In either case, it would be helpful to clearly state what the links are.

Obviously these are all very small issues; just thought I would point out what I noticed at a quick glance. I do not envy you working with all those references :) Maralia (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trascluding this.

I can say I don't know what constitutes an incomplete sentence so I've done what I can in that regard to remove full stops from the captions.
Done.
Fixed the ones mentioned, looked but could not see any more.
I removed the official site entirely, theres no information on it and it hasn't changed since well before the film was released. At the moment I kept both Project Prometheus and Weyland industries, they look similar and link to each other in certain places (And if that is sufficient enough to lose one, then one can go). As far as I am aware both sites just provide a lot of background information about the in-universe information, technology, history and Project Prometheus contains a lot of the marketing viral material and videos. I added brief descriptions to each link, I don't know if that is a little more useful.

As for the references, if there is one thing I've learned while working on Wikipedia it is do it right first time because you really don't want to have to archive 200+ references at once. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In my opinion, it will be helpful to include, right in the first sentence, the pronunciation of the title in IPA. - DSachan (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did it though I don't think there is much wiggle room in its pronunciation. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if I'll post a full review, but this article seems to be rather long - the page size tool says it has 59 kb of text (which appears to leave out some block quotes) which is longer than the 50kb maximum recommended at WP:LENGTH (though I'd note that this is a fairly flexible guideline). I'm not on strong ground making this comment given I'm largely responsible for a few quite long FAs (including the article which currently has the 6th largest amount of prose per User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics), but the importance of the topic of this article doesn't seem to justify such lengthy treatment (the 'Writing' and 'marketing sections appear particularly over-long - there seems no need to have a blow by blow description of the writing process, especially as the film's script isn't considered particularly brilliant - or bad - and the way in which the movie was marketed doesn't appear all that unusual or significant). Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's any longer than Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) was when it passed FA and requires a more detailed design design section. I'm also not keen on public perception of the plot should dictating the level of attention given to its creation. It was a highly anticipated production and a lot of scrutiny was given to it's development even if some people didn't like it in the end. Additionally the Viral side of the campaign received a lot of media attention and is notable, the non viral side incorporated a lot of non traditional methods, it doesn't simply mention trailers and posters, and it also combines a brief overview of merchandise. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What about the possibility of having a sub-article or two? For example, we have had Production of Watchmen. Depending on what is spun out, there could be a summary style approach under the respective section heading. In addition to this shortening of the main article, there could also be summaries of each section above the respective subsections. Something like Panic Room#Production, which is a work in progress, but it gives somewhat an overview of the production before getting into details. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - reading through now. Will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise, I think the article is succinct and comprehensive without being overinclusive. I disagree with Nick-D above as the issue of the scripts and their writing is important to understand how the film developed (there is much discussion about this around so it's a pretty notable topic). The marketing too was quite detailed and worthy of the same. Despite its length, it doesn't come across as long in reading it.

The prose is pretty good actually, and no clangers jumped out at me to fix. My biggest reservations are with the plot section which reads as maybe a tad too clipped. I Need to read it again.

I think it is pretty close to featured status, just need to re-read and have a think about it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think File:Prometheus spacecraft.jpg can be cropped to show only the central part of the poster, since everything else is about being artsy and does not add anything to the reader. Nergaal (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, can you stop closing my FAs? They are not remotely over. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.