Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropic Thunder/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 Karanacs 18:51, 3 November 2009 [1].

Tropic Thunder[edit]

Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I have been working on this article for several years now, helping it to reach both GA and A-class. I've been fortunate to get multiple free images for the article, something that is usually rare for a film article. The article makes use of the new list-defined references citation style and has had a recent copyedit to improve the prose. I look forward to addressing all suggestions for further improving the article. Happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

On first look, a great start. I started copyediting the article, check my changes but I think they make things flow better and remove some extraneous detail. One issue I noticed immediately is that the last paragraph should probably talk about the disability controversy, since it's given a good chunk of weight in the article body... and perhaps maybe a line about what critics liked and disliked?

  • On the images... I'm iffy about File:TropicThunderDowneyCruise.png. At the very least it needs a more personalized fair use rationale, but I'm not sure if a fat suit and blackface equals the threshold of significantly increasing reader understanding. It's touched on in both development and reception, but only in a general sense... I'll probably leave this to the other reviewers to decide.

I'll try and take a look tomorrow or the day after, complete the copyedit, and come back with any issues I see. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial copyedit, I appreciate it. I expanded the lead a bit, please take another look. As for the use of the two screenshots, they provide a better understanding of the extensive changes between the actors and the characters. The roles didn't just use a few dabs of make-up and some fake hair, but used a variety of changes to create a very different look for the two actors. For readers who don't see the film and just read the article, the screenshots can illustrate the significant changes that were used to portray the two characters. I've gone through and updated the fair use rationale, and if you can think of how it can be expanded further, that'd be helpful. I tried looking to some recent film FAs that focus on characters, but there wasn't anything more extensive than what I've added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through again and done some more line edits, in addition to some styling (mostly I just desized the images and staggered them a bit, but I also condensed the promotion section.) Couldn't the soundtrack reviews be prosified? It seems odd to have this forced line break for information in infoboxes that can simply be shunted to the body. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new changes. I added the reviews from the infobox to the prose, and split up the paragraphs so the score and soundtrack are separate (I also flipped the infoboxes around). Let me know if you spot anything else. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review:
  • Other images are fine, and good work getting OTRS releases for them. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking them over. I don't believe that the screenshots conflicts with NFCC#1, as the images are not of just the actors dyeing their hair or wearing a mask (or basically, looking very similar to how they normally look). These two screenshots provide readers with a better understanding of how in-depth the transformation was from the actors to the characters in the film. Readers may have difficulty trying to visualize Downey portraying a modern-day blackface role, or Cruise in a role that looks nothing like his other characters (side note, I haven't seen all his films, so don't quote me on that). For example, just because we have an image of Heath Ledger, shouldn't mean that we can't use an image of him as the Joker or of John Travolta and his character in Battlefield Earth (sorry for bringing up the bad film). If there were free alternatives of Downey and Cruise on set in their make-up, I'd be happy to use those, but none are available (I wasn't as fortunate as with the article on Borat). If I didn't believe that the screenshots provided a better understanding of the actors' transformation, I wouldn't have used them. But because these limited images provide a better representation in visual form of the text that details the changes that were used, I believe they are helpful to the reader and qualify for fair use. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the two images of them out-of-character in the montage fail WP:NFCC#1. You need free images for that. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to the images on the left? Those images are free (see File:Robert Downey Jr-2008.JPG and File:TomCruiseDec08MTVwatch.jpg). I specifically got the author's permission to release the Tom Cruise image under a free license for use in this comparison. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case they are being used in violation of their license conditions (no link to license and derivative work not released under same license). To illustrate what you're trying to do, use {{multiple image}} with the fair use images separate from the free ones. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I used a different template, and split the images into two separate frames. Thanks for clarifying how to address this, I had tried to find other images that had used a free and non-free comparison, but couldn't find any to help with formatting. Let me know if there are any further issues with the images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, no further issues with images. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Everything seems about right here. I trust there are no glaring issues. ceranthor 13:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking time to review the article. I don't believe there are any glaring issues, but if there are, they'll be dealt with quickly. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Links fine. Current refs:

  • There is one link that needs disambiguating. Check the toolbox.
  • Ref 39 is missing a publisher, i.e. the website.
  • Ref 45 needs a page number preferably.
  • Ref 83 is "Metacritic".

RB88 (T) 20:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dab link has been fixed. 39's publisher's name has been expanded and 83 has been corrected. For 45, I had initially used an online source until the link went dead. I don't have access to the magazine itself to determine the page number(s) of the article. Let me know if you notice anything else. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be OK. I had a look at what's cited to it and I'm confident it can be used without a page number. RB88 (T) 23:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Prose seems to be acceptable quality (to me, anyhow) and there are no gaps in coverage; everything is appropriately cited. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Some queries below on my read-through. if the can be fixed (or noted the information is unavailable in the last). Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When their fed-up writer.. - not sure that I am happy with "fed-up" here, maybe "frustrated" or something similar is a better adjective.
Changed as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..but Grossman instead curses out the gang - ditto, odd verb construction.
Modified wording. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dialogue for unscripted portions of the storyboard was developed on set by the actors or was improvised - I am intrigued to know how much was unscripted - is there any information on this?
I'll have to revisit the commentary. I believe that there was a well-established script, but various scenes were improvised or modified by the actors. I'm currently away from home right now until Sunday, but will look into it further when I get the chance and modify the article accordingly. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support That is a huge list of References, can't help wondering if perhaps some of them are redundant. Have you considered using Reference groups so that for example all the DVD Commentary references could be grouped together? I believe that would make the section easier to parse (err more readable) and therefore more useful. There of course be other ways to make the References section a little less overhwhelming. -- Horkana (talk) 02:09, 3 November 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/Tropic_Thunder/archive1&oldid=1138474219"