Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evita (1996 film)/archive1

< 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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2017 [1].

Evita (1996 film)

edit
Nominator(s): FrankRizzo (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...the 1996 film depicting the life of Eva Perón, from her beginnings, rise to power and death at the age of 33. FrankRizzo (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

edit

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "June 21, 1978": See WP:MOS. Here (and elsewhere), a comma is needed afterwards if there's no other punctuation there.
  • "they are upset": About?
  • "Lader taught Madonna how to sing using her diaphragm rather than just her throat, allowing her to project her voice in a much more cohesive manner.": I'm dubious that this was the first time she heard about singing from the diaphragm, and I think readers will need clarification even if it's true.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chrishonduras

edit

Comments I think even though the film received according to review aggregation websites an average of mixed reviews, the protagonism of Madonna has had attracted an universal acclaim. There is some yesterday and today sources like this: 1 and 2. So, one of the most important things in an article is to be neutral, and there is not something to treat it lightly, specially when some source claims that Madonna "popularised" Argentinian politics. So, my request is to mention in the lead and critical response section, this specification about her acting (as they do in other articles, like Suicide Squad with "Robbie and Leto's performances"). Thanks Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 05:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from SNUGGUMS

edit

Here's an image review:

There thankfully are no glaring concerns that I can find. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Stone caption has thankfully been trimmed. Let me know when the other concerns are addressed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some updates: I replaced File:Evita color.jpg since I could not find any details regarding the original author. I could remove the image File:Alan Parker (Director), London, 2012.jpg if the file source is a concern. FrankRizzo (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Eva Perón Retrato Oficial.jpg definitely was a good substitute to include as all publication details are known. As for the Alan Parker image, it would probably be best to remove if no other file source can be found. Feel free to also replace it with another image of him with a more accessible file source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS:, OTRS is an extremely reliable way of accepting content in Wikipedia. File:Alan Parker (Director), London, 2012.jpg has actually been verified by an admin or a trusted reviewer in Commons, hence the OTRS tag is added. —IB [ Poke ] 03:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, scratch my previous comment about removing the Alan Parker pic; it can stay. I'm still not sure if the Casa Rosada Buenos Aires photo has much (if any) benefit, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS:, it was I who had added it. My reason was that the Casa was an important portion for the filming of this movie, and there's much written about how they obtained permission, key sequences like Eva's "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" etc all being shot there, as well as a poignant locale all through out the film. Hence, unlike picture of any other filming location, I thought that the Casa would actually aid reader's understanding of the article and they would benefit in knowing how the Casa looked like. I'm ambivalent towards its keeping or removal, you can suggest either but just wanted to let you know my reasoning for adding the image. —IB [ Poke ] 05:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK that helps. Seeing no further issues in the article, I now can gladly support for FA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snuggums, can I clarify: is your support for the article overall or purely from an image perspective? Tks/cheers, 11:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's both as I couldn't find any further concerns outside of image comments Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from FrB.TG

edit

Source review for formatting and reliability (concerns addressed)

  • Ref 8 lacks publisher.
  • There are instances of WP:SHOUTING in titles of source 9, 11.
  • Every publisher should be (or that is practiced here, well almost) linked to its respective page at the time of its first occurrence (e.g. Newsweek should not be linked further in ref 13 and The Independent should be linked in ref 40). These two are just examples so go through each source to spot the other inconsistencies.
  • Ref 19 - same case as 8.
  • I don't understand the purpose of Nixon in ref 20.
  • Ref 61 has no publisher.
  • Ref 68 - "Weekend Box Office Results for January 17–20, 1997 – Box Office Mojo" - the name of the website can go. Same with ref 92.
  • The publisher of ref 93 should be called Golden Globe Awards. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Abovementioned concerns regarding sources have been addressed as per my previoua edit to the article. FrankRizzo (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

edit

I was originally going to just tweak a word or two but then decided to do a more somewhat more extensive copyedit, so will recuse from coord duties now. Pls let me know if I've inadvertently altered any meaning. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing

  • FN9a,b,c -- source supports article text in all cases, rephrased appropriately
  • FN9d -- source supports article text but:
    • Source: "Russell and Stigwood at first focused on the eight "Evitas" then appearing in stage productions worldwide"
    • Article: "Russell and Stigwood first focused on the eight lead actresses from the musical's worldwide stage productions" -- bit close for my liking
  • FN12g -- source supports article text but:
    • Source: "whereby she would be paid for her commitment of time whether the film was shot or not"
    • Article: "whereby she would be paid for her commitment of time whether the film was shot or not"
  • FN13a -- source supports article text although be nice if we could find an alternative to repeating "elaborate gown"
  • FN13b -- I don't know that the source explicitly supports "impressed with her determination" but it certainly supports simply "impressed"
  • FN13c,f -- source supports article text in both cases, rephrased appropriately

Based on the above, I think the sources generally support the article text but you'll need walk through it checking for other instances of close paraphrasing or indeed copying of the sources; let me know when done and I'll take another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks a lot @Ian Rose:, I will do another spotcheck and reference verification and maybe use Earwig's tool to prune out any Copyvios. —IB [ Poke ] 16:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hoping my previous contributions to the article have helped, @IndianBio:. I have been making edits to cut down on close paraphrases and using Earwig's tool to shorten Copyvios. My only concern is that Earwig's tool is indicating CopyVios from this website, which appears to have copied and pasted details from Wikipedia. Would it possible to exclude the website from Earwig's tool? FrankRizzo (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @FrankRizzo2006: that's okay, editors and reviewers can see that a website called Madonnaglam.com has obviously copy pasted it from Wikipedia itself, so no worries there. @Ian Rose: would you be kind enough to take another look into the article now? —IB [ Poke ] 07:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Returning...

  • I've checked over the changes (mostly quote-cutting) since I last edited, tweaked a few things. One query...
    • Under Music and soundtrack', we say "Rice declined to change the song, but rewrote it five to six times" -- I haven't been able to check the source so I have to ask: how did Rice rewrite the song multiple times without changing it?
  • Following up on the source spotcheck...
    • FN05b -- source supports article text but:
      • Source: "didn't want to do back-to-back musicals"
      • Article: "did not want to make back-to-back musicals" -- I'd suggest just use his exact words from the source and quote 'em...
    • FN05e -- source supports article text but:
      • Source: "my script—which called for 146 changes to the original score and lyrics"
      • Article: "The script called for 146 changes to the original score and lyrics"
    • FN10b -- perhaps my search facility isn't firing on all cylinders but I couldn't find mention of Nixon anywhere...

Sorry but I have to oppose now -- the first three spotchecks I've made after the initial one are problematic; it just doesn't look to me as though the article has been inspected to reduce instances of close paraphrasing as I recommended. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok since I have done with all the spotchecks now I can respond to you @Ian Rose:. Your spotchecks found some of the close paraphrases which I have changed all through out the article, as well as eliminating some content which did not stick to source. Coming to FN10b, no the Nixon part was not there. It is in FN19 with the quote "Both of those Stone projects – Evita with New Regency and Cinergi at Hollywood Pictures and Noriega with New Regency at Warner Bros. – fell apart over budget and casting last year. But, the source said, Nixon is really at the center of this." I have completely brushed through the whole article now and I am very much confident now that it has every thing in place. Let me know your thoughts. Just one thing, there are a couple of places where it was impossible to change the wording, so I have rather made them as quotes to the original source. —IB [ Poke ] 14:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, back again. A lot of changes since my last visit, and not all for the better prose-wise in my opinion, so I've copyedited again. Spotchecking once more:
  • Wasn't entirely happy with FN5k so modified the article text slightly, but not a showstopper.
  • FN35a, FN38, FN76 and FN87 all checked out okay.
Given these latest results, I'm about ready to withdraw my oppose once the outstanding point from my first check is addressed. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Ian Rose: thanks for your comments. FrankRizzo has responded to the first point. See if the article is fine for procedural action now. —IB [ Poke ] 04:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, oppose struck. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

edit

Looks good, not finding much to complain about...

In January 1996, Madonna travelled to Buenos Aires to research Eva's life, and met with several people who knew her before her passing - "passing" sounds lame here, I would say "death", or "several people who had known her ( ± during her lifetime)"
Is it worth discussing how elements of the plot differ from history (i.e what is fact and what is fictional? This is what I always wanna know when watching a biopic..)?

Otherwise a good read and nothing else to complain about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp

edit
  • "Evita is a 1996 American musical drama film based on Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical of the same name." But the Development section specifically says Parker decided not to base the film on the musical, but rather was inspired by the concept album.
  • "In response to the controversy surrounding the film, the production held a press conference in Buenos Aires on February 6, 1996." I haven't looked at your source, but is there info available about what specifically was talked about at the press conference, and whether it had any degree of success in allaying the Argentinian public's concerns?
  • "In the United States and Canada, it was the 32nd highest-grossing film of 1996[69] and the sixth highest-grossing PG-rated film of that year.[70] Worldwide, it was the twenty-third highest-grossing film of the year." But the main duration of its release was in 1997. That seems like the year that would be most relevant for box office rankings.
  • Is ref #59 a reliable source? I haven't looked at any of the other sources, but happened to stumble on that one, and it gives me concern. Moisejp (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch about source #59. I have removed it as the SF Examiner itself was able to source it. I will allow FrankRizzo to respond to the rest of the queries you have @Moisejp:. —IB [ Poke ] 05:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say that besides the issues above, I think the article is very good. If you can resolve or address these, I expect to support. Moisejp (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Moisejp:, In response to your comments: I could rewrite the lead summary to something along the lines of "Evita is a 1996 American musical drama film based on the 1976 concept album of the same name produced by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber, which inspired a 1978 musical." Yes, the film's release duration was in 1997, though I couldn't find specific sources to help me convey the box office rankings of that year.FrankRizzo (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "which also inspired a 1978 musical"? Would that work for you?
  • If it was me, I would consider just taking out the 1996 rankings because they seem to give undue influence on its short 1996 run in the absence of data on its much longer 1997 run. But if you disagree, it's not a deal breaker for me. Moisejp (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks good. I'm happy to support now. Moisejp (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: As we have an oppose on close paraphrasing, this will not be promoted until the issues have been addressed or we have a consensus that this is no longer an issue. I would recommend that any new reviewers concentrate on this issue rather than on prose or content. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Sarastro1:, me and FrankRizzo is checking the article and will revert back once done so that it can be checked by Ian. —IB [ Poke ] 04:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How are we progressing here? If nothing is happening I'm afraid, with an oppose on close paraphrasing, this will be archived. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging FrankRizzo2006 in case he hasn't already seen this notice Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarastro1, please give me till this weekend time and I will finish the prose issues. If after that you see anything glaring, please go ahead and archive it as desired. —IB [ Poke ] 10:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I'm working on the spotcheck issues now. —IB [ Poke ] 05:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1:, finished the spotchecking now. Waiting for Ian's response. —IB [ Poke ] 14:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-checks – Since there was a request for more input in this regard, I decided to look at some of the sources and compare them to the article. This is what I found:

  • Reference 10 (Newsweek) and 11 (New York Times): From the first cite to the Newsweek source, I see no mention of RSO Films, or that it is Stigwood's production company, and the NYT article doesn't mention it either. The second cite to the Newsweek article supports the relevant sentence, and there's no close paraphrasing in either source.
  • Reference 16 (Los Angeles Times): Minor point, but I don't see anything about Cinergi being an independent studio.
  • Reference 24 (Manila Standard): This supports the fact that Banderas was involved when Stone was directing; there's another source here that I didn't review, and I'll assume that this covers the rest of this bit. For the second usage, it supports the fact being cited, but please note that Google News put up a bad date. The bar on top of the page says it's dated July 1, but a look at the newspaper reveals that the paper was published on July 5. That will need to be fixed, although the content is adequately supported with no paraphrasing concerns.
  • Reference 75 (New York Daily News): This says reviews were mixed, although it seems to be saying in that general and doesn't mention anything about "mainstream" critics. I suppose that's what they meant, however, as they probably wouldn't have been referring to non-mainstream critics.
  • Reference 78 (Hartford Courant): The quotation from this source is supported just fine.
  • Reference 86 (New York Times): All of the information cited to this source is adequately supported; the quote appears as one would expect, and the non-quoted bits have no close paraphrasing.

So there are a couple of issues from this batch that should be looked at, although I saw no close paraphrasing concerns at all. I'll leave it up to the coordinators to decide whether they're satisfied with the work that has been done since Ian's oppose. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:43, 3 June 2017 (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/Evita_(1996_film)/archive1&oldid=1140156206"