Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/? (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 promoted by Ian Rose 06:01, 18 August 2012 [1].

? (film)

Featured article candidates/? (film)/archive1

Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is an accurate and well-written overview of a (quite honestly) interesting film. It has undergone a GA review by MathewTownsend, a PR by Mark Arsten, and a copyedit by Accedie. I have received permission to nominate "at my convenience" (i.e., before the 2-week period) from delegate Ian Rose (diff) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments moved to talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alright, between my peer review and subsequent read of the article I think this meets the featured article criteria, in addition to having had one of the most creative DYK hooks in the project's history :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) I still smile at it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - A few prose concerns:
- "After undergoing numerous hardships and the deaths of several family members in religious violence, they are able to reconcile and live in harmony" - they are able to reconcile and live in harmony seems a bit strained; could this be worded better?
  - How's this?
- "To ensure harmony, Sun uses special utensils for the preparation of pork..." - harmony with what? That might need to be clearer.
  - How's this?
- I'm not sure I like the use of "ne'er-do-well"; could you find a better word (though that might just be personal taste - see what you think)?
  - This might be a bit more standard
- Towards the end of the third paragraph in the plot section, you start two consecutive sentences with the word meanwhile. Could you vary this?
  - I removed the first "meanwhile"
- "Fearing that the theme of pluralism would be taken as a "battle cry", some investors abandoned their commitments" - are there any specific cases that you could name here?
  - Doesn't say in the source
- You mention the NU a few times, without telling us what the letters stand for.
  - It's in the lead; I've doubled it lower down.

You've done a great job; most of what I could find were small prose concerns. Let me know when you've dealt with those issues, and I'll take another look. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Replies above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That all seems good; I can now support. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for looking at this! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- images are unproblematic; valid FUR for poster plus image licensed under Creative Commons. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been addressed; listed here. GRAPPLE X 05:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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