Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Thing (1982 film)/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2018 [1].

The Thing (1982 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase: "I know I'd make this a Featured Article. And if you were all these things, then you'd just not make it a Featured Article, so some of you are still human. This thing doesn't want to promote Featured Articles, it wants to hide inside an imitation. It'll fight if it has to, but it's vulnerable out in the open. If it takes us over, then it has no more enemies, nobody left to prevent this becoming a Featured Article. And then it's won."

The Thing is a 1982 horror film, it bombed at the time but has since become recognised as a milestone in the horror genre. Read, be enlightened, feedback, and hopefully this can become one of our top articles! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


One of my all time favorite films, of course I'll take a look at it. I was going to comment how there was no analysis section, but then I saw the cinematic analysis section. Here are a few more articles I was able to find on JSTOR about The Thing:

  • White, Eric (November 1993). "The Erotics of Becoming: Xenogenesis and 'The Thing'". Science Fiction Studies. 20 (3): 394–408. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
  • Leane, Elizabeth (July 2005). "Locating the Thing: The Antarctic as Alien Space in John W. Campbell's 'Who Goes There?'". Science Fiction Studies. 32 (2): 225–239. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
  • Gomel, Elana (July 2012). "Posthuman Voices: Alien Infestation and the Poetics of Subjectivity". Science Fiction Studies. 39 (2): 177–194. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
  • Jones, Kent (January–February 1999). "John Carpenter: American Movie Classic". Film Comment. 35 (1): 26–31. Retrieved April 5, 2018.

While the cinematic analysis section looks rather in depth as it stands, you might want to at least skim through what these journals have to say about The Thing. I'll have a close look at the article tonight. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hobo I will take a look. Sorry I didn't see this update to the talk page. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, defer to FH on source coverage.

  • How are you ordering Bibliography?
  • Further reading should be a separate section, not a subsection, and should not include Wikipedia articles. Also, formatting should match references, although additional information can be included
  • Why include a location for Los Angeles Times and not New York Times? Should be either neither or both
  • FN6 is incomplete and doesn't match formatting of other books
  • FN7 is malformed, same with 39-41
  • Newspaper refs without URLs should include page numbers
  • GamesRadar should be italicized, as should website names like Film.com - check others
  • FN 49-50: why no spaces?
  • Formatting for FN51 doesn't match similar sources, same with 167
  • Magazine titles should be consistently italicized
  • Be consistent in whether books include locations or not
Think I hit them all Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting a rather heavy use of sources that are either written by or interviews of people directly involved in the production
  • Box Office Mojo should not be italicized, nor should UPI, nor BFI, etc - check others
As I mentioned below, the template emphasises the use of the website parameter over the publisher one, and the website template italicizes its contents. UPI may be the publisher but UPI.com is the website. The only thing I can do here is change the contents of "Website" to "upi.com" instead rather than just explicitly stating UPI. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. While the use of the website parameter is emphasized, that doesn't mean any other approach is prohibited, nor that the website parameter should be used in cases for which it is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is inappropriate but I just want this FAC over at this point, I'll sort it once SerialNumber has finished with the refs. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN74: page?
  • What makes Strange Horizons a high-quality reliable source? Alt Film Guide? Screamscape?
  • Rather than Goodreads, just cite the edition directly
I am really struggling here, it's virtually impossible as far as I can see to find information on this that isn't a fansite, that's why I cited GoodReads initially. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, this particular detail doesn't require secondary sourcing - you can cite the edition directly. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I can't find information on those issues to cite, they're apparently in the back of an entirely different comic so I can't find the info to cite the original texts. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN123 doesn't match formatting of other sources
  • FN127: archive link doesn't appear to work correctly
  • FN131: use |via=
  • Per WP:ROTTEN, RT and Metacritic's reliability is limited for pre-2000s films
  • Review aggregators may be cited if the film in question has been reappraised in modern times. Patience, Slightlymad 05:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they are being cited here more broadly, not simply in the context of modern reappraisal. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oppose pending resolution of some of these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The locations were included for newspapers where it was literally a newspaper. If it's online there is no location because the website is the source.
  • You're not following that logic consistently - for example FN79 has both a link and a location - and I don't know that that approach is compatible with the guidance for CS1. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of FN79, I cannot find the original article so I can't give a page number. I included the link not as a source but because the particular content is quoted in it so people can at least fact check it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic aren't given any point of prominence in the article, it's just used to mention how it is perceived in a broad sense, it is not used in anyway to indicate modern appreciation, there's a whole load of text before the RT/MC mention that goes into detail about it.
  • Although they are not the only sources provided, they are fairly prominently featured within the Critical reassessment section. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how that is true. Those sources are the bottom of that section, they're not at the top or discussed first, they're literally the last thought of that subsection.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But are a complete paragraph within that section. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange Horizons has an article. Seems perfectly fine for what it used for. Alt Film Guide is mentioned here, I'm only using it because it's literally the only place offering the information it is citing, but I'm not attached to it so if necessary it can go. Screamscape probably isn't great, I have no idea, again it's just one of the only sites mentioning the information being cited.
  • The website parameter italices the sites automatically. Only thing I can think of is to add things like BOM and UPI as publisher and a separate website parameter.
  • Using the website parameter is not a requirement; in many cases the publisher parameter makes more sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I'm trying to read through this Template:Cite web page, and it says "Website" paramater use is suggested while "Publisher" is optional, and it uses "Rotten Tomatoes" as an example of what would go in the "Website" parameter, which would become italicized when it perhaps shouldn't be. What you're asking of me here seems to be clashing with their guidelines unless I'm reading it wrong. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • RT is a website, so that parameter makes sense in that case. But something like UPI is a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There s a heavy use of sources by or interivews with cast and crew as they are all that is available. I can't really do much about that.
  • Famous Hobo suggested above that there were other sources that may have been missed - have you looked at those already? Where else have you looked for sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • His references are on thematic analysis, which I have read through. They're not related to production. There are not many (any) sources I've been able to find that detail the more intricate aspects of the production. I don't know why that is, I was surprised as I expected the visual effects at least and design history to be more extensively detailed, but that is all I've been able to find using search engines. I don't have the BFI book, and I'm not buying it after the one I bought for the Shawshank Redemption article had no information about the production in it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got the pages that I could, but it isn't the full book. I have read through it though there wasn't anything in it not already in the article and not really any kind of minute details I could use and/or replace content with. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I date ordered the bibliography.
  • I disagree on Further Reading, a small subsection created to house like 4 links is unnecessary and visually unappealing. Where it is is logically fine, alongside navigation templates, categories, wikiquote, etc. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navigation templates, categories, wikiquote etc are in the External links section. At the moment the Further reading section is visually unappealing, and combines the function of that section and See also. If you would prefer not to have a separate section for Further reading, two of the three publications in there are potentially citable, and the third already has an article link inline. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikki, I'd like to try and close this unless there's anything outstanding from your perspective. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have flagged a few pending points above. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Refs are sorted Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely much better. It looks like you're representing refnames as author names in Bibliography, which I'm not a fan of - suggest using a different coding method. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me an example Nikkimaria? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For example "MediaIGN08" or "DarkHorse3". It's reasonable to use these in the footnotes themselves where a citation doesn't have an author, but they aren't actually authors so shouldn't appear as such in the Bibliography section. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I don't see how the referencing works without that. Either you use "ref=sfnref" so it goes directly to the ref and skips the footnotes, or use the system Serial Number 54129 has put into place, but the referencing won't work without an author. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should work fine to use {{harvid}} within |ref= in Bibliography entries, no? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried it but it seems to break it. It either skips the footnotes or doesn't work at all. I'm not super experienced at using that template though so perhaps I'm doing something wrong. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
N/m it doesn't work with harvid but it will work with sfnref. I'll work through it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have only skim read, and while the prose could do with some tingtening, they are largely fine, and am sure reviewers will work through issues (I have started light copy editing). Its a great film and very please to see the article here. Ceoil (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support: that was a delightful read. Thank you for that! I think the prose looks fine, to be honest. I will support this article on the condition that something be done about standardizing all of the citations. You seem to mix both the Template:Sfn "shortened footnote" style with the method of providing full reference information for every inline citation. I think you should choose one or the other. For instance, see the Template:Sfnp citation style for my featured article on the Mosaics of Delos, using both print sources and online media. Aside from that issue, congratulations! I have a strong feeling that this nomination will sail through the gate on its way to victory. And Kurt Russell himself will approve it with a thumbs up. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'd maybe have made parallels to WP:sock-puppets for the introduction here (or would that be more fitting for Invasion of the Body Snatchers?), but anyhow, will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pursues an Alaskan Malamute" How has the exact breed been identified here? Perhaps better to just say dog (or sled dog), as they do in the film itself... In any case, I don't see why mentioning the exact breed is in any way important to the plot.
  • "The Norwegian shouts at the Americans, but they cannot understand him and he is shot dead by the station Commander." Perhaps important to note here that he actually shoots at them first?
  • "Blair transforms into an enormous creature" Isn't this creature composed of many other individuals, though? There is even a dog poking out of it.
This doesn't seem to have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what you want it to be changed to? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that the creature doesn't just consist of Blair, but if the sources only refer to it as a Blair-Thing, then we should too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cohen suggested that he read the original novella. He found the "creepiness" of" You could name Carpenter instea dof the second "he" for clarity, as it isn't entirely clear it is not Cohen you refer to.
  • "of workers employed under Bottin" Full name and link needed at first mention outside lead.
  • "including Nauls' confrontation of the "box Thing"." Which is what?
  • There is some duplicate linking, try this script to see:[2]
  • "was special make-up effects designer Rob Bottin" Seems he is presented after his first mention, so some of that could be cut.
  • "Masur described his character as not really interested in people, but who loves working with dogs." Something missing here.
  • "He went to a survivalist store and bought a flip knife for his character that he uses in a confrontation with David's character." The change of tense here seems odd.
  • "and the wolfdog Jed appears" Present and link at first mention instead of here.
  • "They would make the 27 miles (43.5 km) hike up a small, winding road" Sure about this measurement? That seems extremely long, and I can't find it mentioned in the two online sources used for it. Did they walk this distance every day?
  • "sometimes because there was too much dialogue slowed the pace and undermined the suspense." something wrong here.
  • "Approximately three minutes of scenes were filmed from Lancaster's script that introduced the characters more directly." I'm not sure what the significance/meaning of this is in context with the preceding paragraph. More directly than what? A former version of the script?
  • "as part of film's soundtrack" The.
  • The section titled "The Thing" Could maybe be titled The "Thing", as you do elsewhere, otherwise it seems to just replicate the filn's title, instead of referring to the creature. I would maybe retitle it "creature effects" or "special effects" instead, for clarity.
  • "At the age of 21, Bottin was hospitalized for exhaustion, double pneumonia and a bleeding ulcer, caused by his extensive workload" During or after working on the film?
  • "A cast was made of Lance Anderson's arm" He could be presented.
  • "The team originally wanted to shoot the film in black and white" Why?
This seems not to have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer this one. It's not elaborated on in the source, just something they discussed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and commercially successful E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial ($792.9 million)" It seems unfair to list that after only listing what the Thing grossed in 1982... That number includes earnings from the 2002 re-release, according to the film's article.
  • Aww, you can't help but feel bad for Carpenter after that receptions section!
  • It seems the "Cinematic analysis" could need in text attribution for its statements, in the same manner as the review sections. Now these conclusions are just stated as absolute fact, though these are just interpretations by various writers. Especially when it goes into speculation about homosexuality and what not, which seems extremely subjective.
Any news on this, Darkwarriorblake? FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've added names for the more personal claims. I think the mistrust theme is more obvious. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Thing has been analysed as" Another case in point, you need to say by who, not only that it has been.
  • " Bravo listed a scene from The Thing at" Which scene?
  • I've deleted it for now. ATM it's impossible to evidence the scene (The blood test scene). I can find the series in one long cut on Youtube but can't evidence the actual episode number so can't properly source it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem the short story and art book mentioned udner cultural impact may be more fitting udner merchandise?
  • They're both not official works as far as I can see but things influenced by it. I class merchandise as licensed goods sold to profit from the film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These were published in an omnibus edition entitled The Thing From Another World Omnibus by Dark Horse Books in 2008" I can't find a good reference to this collection anywhere but that Goodreads link, not even on Dark Horse's website. Was it ever even released?
  • The impact on later film-makers could be mentioned in the intro.
  • Support - it looks fine to me now, especially after the added author attributions under analysis. FunkMonk (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was surprised not to find a link to body horror, of which this is probably one of the most famous cinematic examples. Might be worth working in somewhere with suitable refs. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • Many reasons have been cited for its failure to connect with audiences - so what does "connect with" mean as it is a vague expression? Why not just say "impress" or something?
  • ...since there were no women the men had no one to posture for, allowing for a unique psychology -I'd remove the "allowing for a unique psychology" as it isn't unique (for being all male) and is fluffy, and losing it does not lose meaning.
Err.I meant remove the whole segment "allowing for a [unique/different] psychology" - it doesn't say anything. It's not really "psychology" except in a loose sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He blamed some of the issues on his directorial method... - who is "he" here? No subject has been mentioned in the section
  • While finalizing the film, Universal sent Carpenter ... - why not just "finishing the film"? ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything about Carpenter being more satisfied or vindicated about the film in retrospect now?

Overall, a fascinating read. I loved the film when it came out....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am happy enough now...the one outstanding issue is pretty minor. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

Where are we with addressing the various sourcing and citation problems listed here? I see some threads that seem open or unresolved. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are perfectly fine, the comments want less first hand experiences, which... it's 1980 in the Antarctic, so there aren't any. As for the citation style, I've raised the point that the template advises the use of "Website" parameter and so that is what I have used. It's usage is per the guideline so I can't resolve the issue being raised. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There were comments about consistency in citation style, as to how you're mixing the shortened citations with full citations. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a format I've used in Featured Articles before, I have to cite page numbers for books, which I don't have to do for the websites. I wouldn't reformat all the web references for the fewer book references. I've tried to separate out the book refs from the web refs but can't see a way to do it, but the refs are all correct and clear. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: want me to deal with the refs? I did one as an example, and if you're feeling a bit dispirited then I'd be happy to help. But it would be a bt of an undertaking and certainly not one to undertake without permission. It would certainly be a shame for all this work... etc., you know. Say ye? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to do it and can do so without losing the content or archives, then have at please. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laser brain and Darkwarriorblake: Deepest apologies, I totally forgot about the poor old Thing; I'm about a quarter of the way through the refs, and you can see that what I've done so far shows (I think) that the issues raised are being / will be eventually sorted. Can you consider, for formality, that they are finished? I'm going to continue work on them, but they will take a while, and it seems a shame to hold up promotion of a fine article just for something mechanical / belt and braces like reformatting refs. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129[edit]

Based on the number of times I've ended up reading the thing (ha!), I believe it clearly passes all the criteria for a FA. Epic work! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brief cmt[edit]

Image review appears to be missing, perhaps overlooked? Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:
No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • File:The Thing Score Sample.ogg: Here's the issue that always nags me with such samples: Does the reader's understanding of the article topic suffer from their absence? Regular music scores arguably don't meet that standard, is this score particulary important?
  • I think there is a reasonable level of discussion about the soundtrack to justify it, particularly because it's just used so much throughout the film that even a short sample is representative of the type of music and it's tone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the complex nature of the designs makes it difficult to understand in just words. Particularly the dog thing (I've seen a much clearer picture of the actual model before being covered in shadow and slime that could be used also. Especially if you haven't seen the film, stating that a chest opens into a mouth might be difficult to understand? Maybe I'm over thinking it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No ALT text that I can see.
Jo-Jo Eumerus, could I get your response to these? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Should have replied earlier. It seems like the non-free images are barely adequate based on the explanations here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, should I interpret your comment as an objection to the FUR in use here? I'm not too sure any consensus was reached here about things like the score. --Laser brain (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am only a little concerned about the soundtrack. Unless it is a major component of the article topic I don't think we can justify under NFCC#8. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, DWB, I'd really like to wrap this up -- can we get to an agreement here, just how strongly does everyone feel about this one? Perhaps a second opinion from Nikkimaria would help... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it's reasonable to include given the commentary, but fair-use is a judgment call and it's also reasonable to disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, this is one of these marginal cases where there won't be a clear cut yes or no answer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for prompt responses Nikki and Jo-Jo -- TBH that does help me, because it seems to confirm (correct me if I'm wrong) that although there are some reservations we don't have real objections to set against a general feeling of support for promotion. I'll give you guys a chance to reply but otherwise will expect to promote in the next few hours, and ask that any further discussion take place on the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the file was just inserted with no commentary I'd agree it doesn't belong, as I do try not to be wasteful in articles, but I think given that there is commentary on it, it is also mentioned elsewhere as having received a worst score award as well, and it's used pretty much throughout the entirety of the film making it an example of the whole film score, it is justified to include it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:29, 31 July 2018 (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_Thing_(1982_film)/archive1&oldid=939551653"