Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Lampoon's Animal House/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Karanacs 15:20, 5 May 2009 [1].

National Lampoon's Animal House[edit]

Nominator(s): J.D. (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because a lot of work has gone into improving this article. It is has achieved GA status and I think is ready for FA status. J.D. (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — Looks complete and thoroughly researched. Excellent references. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose per the following concerns:

  • Judging from the length of the article, two paragraphs in the lead section seems short. No way to expand? The section lacks production information and critical consensus as well.
I have added production info and a bit about the critical reaction.--J.D. (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plot" section is bloated at 800 words. This should not be a complicated film, so I foresee it at 500-600 words instead. We should just give the reader the broad strokes of the film to have context for the rest of the article body.
I've trimmed it down some.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Characters" should be "Cast", especially if you're leading off with actors' names. Bold formatting should be removed; with bulleted items this closely clustered here, there is no need for this kind of emphasis.
Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Animal House Deltas.jpg has no fair use rationale on its page and is too big to boot. Not seeing any established significance through critical commentary in the article, so it should be removed. A cast shot may seem significant, but if there is no critical commentary about the particular shot, the reality is that it is not.
Removed.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other significant characters" sounds like a poor section heading, and I doubt that everyone in this subsection had a role that would be considered "significant".
Changed to Supporting characters as they are all fairly important to the film at certain points.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nix Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic from "Critical reception" since the film is too old for these websites to have made a contemporary assessment. Also, what was the critics' consensus of the film at the time? Was it as popular then as it is now?
Zapped RT and Meta. And added a bit about how it was received back in the day with citation.--J.D. (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "TV series, sequel" is another poor section heading. Perhaps a term that can describe this kind of follow-up media instead.
Changed to "Spin-offs" which seems more inclusive.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "DVD editions" is DVD-centric and neglects other home media... surely it was released on VHS and who knows what else. What about Blu-ray?
Switched to "Home video" and added bit about being released on videodisc.--J.D. (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Legacy", the AFI recognition information seems rather detached from the initial paragraph. Merge?
Merged. Actually removed as that info is already included.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See also" section is pretty sparse; no way to mention Meyerowitz in the article body at all? If not, I recommend pointing to "similar works" (see Allmovie for a few selections) so readers can explore them.
Thanks for the suggestion. I added a few similar works.--J.D. (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "External links", is the MP3 interview relevant to the film? The description does not seem like it.
Removed.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that this was a pretty famous film, is there no serious academic coverage about it? There is no book of any sort being referenced for this article, which surprised me for a Featured Article candidate about a famous film.
Well, there really isn't much out there that isn't directly tied into the film itself. Chris Miller's book is more of a memoir of his actual experiences as to what happened on the film itself. I think that because it is considered a low-brow, gross-out comedy, there isn't much academic study or attention brought to it outside of pop culture mags like Entertainment Weekly. The Biography Channel ran an excellent documentary on the film but it mostly recycles info. already sourced in this article.--J.D. (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although at first I chuckled at the idea of "serious academic coverage" of Animal House, lo and behold, this book claims Animal house shaped a generation of films (that's well documented), but also comic actors, and to some extent, the youth of the 1980s. There's also an academic article in Journal of College Student Development called Cinematic College: "National Lampoon's Animal House" Teaches Theories of Student Development. And here, Chronicle of Higher Education ran an article called "Animal House" at 30: O Bluto, Where Art Thou?. So there's academic coverage of Animal House... who knew? I have no idea if it's notable but it's there. You might look into the Google Books/Scholar/JSTOR results though. --Chiliad22 (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Who woulda thought? Thanks for tracking these down. I'll look into 'em.--J.D. (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are my major concerns, and there may be more, likely in regard to writing. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review
Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 0 dead external links were found with the links checker tool.
  • 0 ref formatting errors were found with WP:REFTOOLS.--Truco 21:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for printed sources, surely some of these [2] would be helpful?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.
Some of those sources look like they might be OK but I know that Wired book, the biography about Belushi is pretty notorious and slammed by many people who knew him so I don't know if it's too reliable. heh!--J.D. (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 27 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/National_Lampoon%27s_Animal_House/archive1&oldid=1089084075"