Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz/archive3

< 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 User:SandyGeorgia 22:50, 25 November 2008 [1].

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

edit
Nominator(s): User:Limetolime
previous FAC (18:14, 29 April 2008)

After completing a peer review and and working with thedemonhog to improve the quality of the article, we believe that the problems in the article have been fixed. I am submitting the article again for FAC; please leave comments. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 01:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Image:Woz-poster001sm.png - This fair use rationale needs to include the name of the copyright holder. (I have expanded it a bit to make it stronger.)
Fixed: Added copyright holder. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 20:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Ashanti.jpg - The purpose of this fair use rationale is not strong enough to warrant inclusion of the image - "illustration" is not enough (see WP:NFCC). Since the singer and the Muppets are shown in the poster, I cannot see a reason for this additional image. I suggest removing it.
Removed: I agree. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 20:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For help on fair use rationales, see this dispatch. Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as BBFC, VET, etc.
Done: Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 20:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: All disambiguation pages have been set up to go the correct page. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 01:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please let others strike their own comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For a film article, there seem to be several components missing. Also, I would suggest that you find a copyeditor, as there are places in the article that need careful attention.

  • Considering this is a Muppet movie, I would have expected interesting information about production. The Muppets are puppets - what problems arose during filming, for example? How did the human stars react to working with puppets?
N/A - I have squeezed as much information possible; not even the DVD has information on it. Besides, there is already a bit about in the Production section.Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Cast" section is written "in universe". Kermit the Frog is not a real person. :) It seems odd to give him credit for playing a character. Also, I wonder if somehow which Muppet is which Oz character shouldn't be integrated into the "Plot summary" so that it is clear that Miss Piggy is the witches, for example. I realize that there are two layers here - the Muppets "playing" the Oz characters and people voicing the Muppets, but I'm not sure this is the best solution.
OK - This was brought up before; the voice actor's names are already listed. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the voice actors are listed, but the "cast" is still "in-universe", as it were (actually, it is a mix of Muppets and real people). Also, what do you think about including the names of the Muppets in the plot summary? It is not clear to the reader who has not seen the movie which characters are Muppets when reading the plot summary and this distinction should be made, I think. Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Release" section is a prose list. I would suggest a chart. It would make this information easier to digest. The lone sentence about the parade is probably better suited for a "Marketing" section.
? - What kind of chart do you mean?Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a table. Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any information about the marketing of the film or any tie-in products?
Already listed.Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any information about the marketing of the film, though? Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions the film's allusions to adult films twice, but because these allusions are never really explained, it is hard for the reader to understand these moments in the film. I would suggest adding more material on these parts of the film, perhaps in a section about the development of the script.
Will do - I'll try and look into that.Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More could be added on the themes of the film and how they reflect Baum rather than the 1939 movie. Rather than just referring to the ruby slippers, hopefully you can draw on your sources to add more detail on this front. The reviewers seem to have made some statements about the themes, for example.
Done before - I have tried to do this many times beofre, but the end product never turned out good.Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, exactly? The reviews linked from the article have statements about the movie's themes. What happened when you tried to make a section using these statements? Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we add more information about the Ashanti casting decision?
Can't - There isn't any. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there information available about the design and look of the film?
No - As I have stated before, I have squeezed out all possible info on the production. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples of prose that needs to be cleaned up (this is not an exhaustive list):
  • The second paragraph of the lead uses the word "dream" three times.
  • Most critics agreed that the film was too mature for young audiences, and that the cameo scenes and popular culture marks were unnecessary. - "marks" doesn't make sense - "allusions to popular culture"
  • Dorothy desperately wishes to break away from her home and become a famous singer, but her dreams of becoming one appear impossible. - people do not "break away" from their homes - what is she trying to do exactly?
Fixed - Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 19:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In returning home, a tornado hits her family's area - "While she is returning home, a tornado devastates the area."
  • Dorothy and Toto discover that they are in Munchkinland, a small town part of the vast Land of Oz. - missing words
  • After being threatened to be killed by the Wicked Witch of the West, the captured lion calls the Munchkins, who set Dorothy free. - wordy and passive
Well... How about instead of dumping this on me, you try and do some of it? Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am stretched much too thin right now to take on a copyediting job. Does the WikiProject Films have some copyeditors that you could ask for help? Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 05:31, 19 November 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/The_Muppets%27_Wizard_of_Oz/archive3&oldid=1136095235"