Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halloween III: Season of the Witch

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Halloween III: Season of the Witch

edit

Nomination: This article is about the sequel to the film Halloween which was promoted to featured status last month. The primary author, Dmoon1 is also the primary author of the Halloween and Halloween II (also an FA) articles. I am nominating this page because I believe it meets the criteria of a Featured Article. It is comprehensive, well-referenced, and supporting images are properly tagged with fair use rationales. In my opinion, it exemplifies a high-quality article. --Myles Long 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent work! - Tutmosis 02:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Dmoon1 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the article is much better than the movie. RyanGerbil10 02:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does anyone else think the actors in brakets should be removed from the intro? It kind of disrupts the flow for me. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed up the lead paragraph in the intro. Dmoon1 03:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. There's a few other things that caught my eye: (1) From "Plot", "After Challis is captured...." a passive sentence. Captured by who? (2) "When the Silver Shamrock television commercial airs on Halloween night, the chip will activate, causing wearers' heads to dissolve and spew forth insects and snakes, killing them." This sentence is weird. Heads will dissolve, but is it the heads or the masks or the chip that will spew forth insects and snakes? Killing who? The children or the insects or the snakes? (3) From "Production", "(the film, however, does contain a brief nod to its predecessors by including a few short scenes from Halloween in a television commercial that advertises the airing of the film for that upcoming holiday)." Maybe lose the brackets, and move the sentence down to the other section that lists references to the earlier films, as it is later established this isn't the only reference. And maybe make it clear the commercial mentioned is a story within a story? (4) From Writing, ""The main story had to do with deception, psychological shocks rather than physical ones."" This quote stands on its own as a sentence in the article, which I don't think you can do. Context? I think I heard in university, a sentence should stand on its own. (5) "While much of the plot remained the same, the alterations displeased him"- Kneale or De Laurentiis? (6) Definition of a pod movie? (7) From the intro, "movie-goers were unhappy about the absence of Myers"- reference? This is also something that appears in the intro only and is not expanded upon in the main text. (8) From "Reception", "The tagline of the film (The Night No One Comes Home) referenced the original Halloween's tagline, The Night HE Came Home!." It's not immediately clear to me why this is in Reception and what it has to do with the rest of the paragraph, which is about the poster. Other than these things, it's another nice-looking, comprehensive article. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed these issues. Dmoon1 04:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote: While it is a good article, it simply isn't a notable movie. It only has a mere 3.5/10 on imdb. Aside from which, do we really need more than two Halloween movies to become featured articles? If this keeps up, we'll have to waste 8 featured article slots on the series. --SeizureDog 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not valid, actionable objections. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exploding whale and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xenu, where it is clearly established it is the article content, not the topics or their notability, that is being examined here. Even if you feel too many Halloween articles would be featured, there's nothing the authors of this article can do to fix this article accordingly. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, you do not have much of a precedent of highly similar articles, such as sequels, getting featured multiple times. If it was just the notability I would be fine with it, but there are plenty of groups with many high quality articles that should not get featured over and over. I assume that you seem to plan on making each of the Halloween movie articles up to the same quality, but can you really argue that all eight movies should get featured status? Even if they are excellent, featured articles are meant to showcase the best there is to offer, but it also is meant to inform. And having virtually the same thing over and over isn't informative. --SeizureDog 03:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we argure all eight movies should get featured status? In the ideal fantasy Wikipedia, all articles would be featured quality! Why should we have limits saying a number of articles must remain at stub level or stay in a cleanup category? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CanadianCaesar is right on the ball here. If the article is notable enough for Wikipedia, it can be a featured article. End of discussion.--Sean Black (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry everyone, I think I've been confused. I thought featured articles were articles that made the front page, as in, the articles of the day. I didn't know they could also just be stored away in that little list without making it to the front. The whole term "featured" is really misleading. I retract my vote and all comments.--SeizureDog 03:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I hate horror movies but this is quite a good article. Everyking 10:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Dmoon1 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good article Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 18:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Dmoon1 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Cultural and film historians, on the other hand, have read significance into the film's plot" - when don't these people read significance into film plots? Bwithh 21:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't the rest of the sentence, "...linking it to critiques of large corporations and American consumerism," give the sentence some purpose beyond what you suggest it does? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but the rest of the sentence also highlights the redundancy of saying the historians have "on the other hand, read significance into the film's plot". There's nothing special about reading significance into something in this context. I was criticizing that meaning of that particular part of the sentence, which is why I focussed on that first part only. Bwithh 16:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. If the article were to ignore these people's criticisms or observations, it would not be comprehensive. Dmoon1 22:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I give my support to this article, and feel the fact the first two films in the series are featured articles has no relevance. Information given is different on each, concentrating on the production, casting and so on of the film in each individual article. Put in more references and I think it should be featured. LuciferMorgan 22:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. What a load of tripe this film appears to be; fortunately, it fails 2a. Sorry to be rude below, but this is not "compelling, even brilliant" prose.
    • "Additionally, the majority of critics gave the film negative reviews."—What's "additionally" doing here? Every sentence is additional to the previous text. Get rid of it and it will be stronger. "the majority of"—is that code for "most"? Why use one word when three will do. There's another instance of this further down that is not just flabby, as here, but ungrammatical.
    • "who also produced the first two films"—again, every sentence is an "also". Weed out that word unless it's really necessary; it weakens your text.
    • "imbedded"—what's that?
    • "killing the wearers' and causing their heads to dissolve and spew forth insects and snakes"—why the apostrophe? Wearers' what? Given that this text is on the informal end of the encyclopedic register (which is quite OK), the word "forth" is little out of kilter.
    • "and rescues someone whom he believes to be Ellie." Believe it or not, this is ungrammatical—"who" is correct, or better still, remove it altogether.
    • "get involved"—"become" would be nicer.

I won't look any further until it's properly copy-edited, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Don't just fix these examples, which I took at random to demonstrate the kind of editing that is required. Let us know when that has been done. Tony 03:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While your opinion of the film is of little interest, thanks for your suggestions. These examples have been corrected, plus others like them throughout that I caught. I, however, have seen too much of this text and it's all starting to look the same. Most of the above cited examples were the result of poor editing on my part. If anyone else cares to further pick minor nits, please do so and they will be addressed immediately if possible. Dmoon1 07:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you need to actively recruit a few WPs to do it; that's what the community is there for. A few hours' work is required. Tony 07:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I printed a copy of the article and marked it up since errors and mistakes seem more obvious on paper than on screen for some reason and made several more minor changes along the same lines as your examples listed above. This article has already been copy-edited by at least three other people prior to being listed here, so I really don't know who else to ask since all of these people have copy-edited or produced featured articles themselves. Your comment about the article lacking "compelling, even brilliant" prose is very unhelpful since this is such a subjective statement. I looked at some of the articles on the FAC list that you support as sort of a guide, but I saw nothing particularly "compelling" or "even brilliant" about the writing in these articles. Nauru, for instance, is full of passive voice and the word also appears four times . . . twice in one paragraph. Minor errors and typos in the Halloween III article have now been weeded out considerably since you posted your first comment, and I offer my thanks with the utmost sincerity for this, but your objection is now unactionable without you giving more specific examples besides. Dmoon1 09:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is still actionable, of course. I'll provide more examples if you wish, but they only serve to show that the article, thus far, fails Criterion 2a; i.e., they're not a compendium or how-to-fix-it prescription (otherwise I may as well edit the whole thing myself, which reviewers are under no obligation to do). I can only suggest that you cast your net more widely on WP among those who you can see are good editors (or reviewers here) and those who have contributed to similar articles. You'd do everyone a favour by networking with the right people, so that future FACs in this field can benefit. Otherwise, it will be hard to satisfy the requirements. There are a few techniques that might help: reading each sentence aloud is often helpful, particularly regarding commas; leave it for a few days, then print out again and scrutinise; go through every word asking whether it can be removed without damaging the meaning; and try editing the sentences in reverse order. Tony 12:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, article uses seven copyrighted images, far more than the "limited number" needed for identification. Two are particularly problematic: Image:Carpenter Howarth.jpg is tagged {{Promotional}}, but there's no evidence it's actually a promo photo, and given the informal nature of the photograph, it seems unlikely; and Image:HalloweenIII Fangoria.jpg is tagged {{magazinecover}}, making it fair use in an article about the magazine, but not in an article about a movie. Angr (t • c) 00:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object should probably have gone to peer review first, but anyway... i did some copyediting before, but there were some bits i couldnt fix:
this sentence is confusing: " Other guests of the hotel included shop owners, Marge Guttman (Garn Stephens), and the Kupfer family: Buddy (Ralph Strait), Betty (Jadeen Barbor) and their son "Little" Buddy (Bradley Schacter). " who are the shop owners? "
killing the wearers and causing their heads to dissolve" - so the heads dissolving doesnt kill them?
incorrect fact: "pod" does NOT mean "point of divergence". just means "pod" as in people grown in pods. so dont link to "point of divergence".
pgraphs 3,4,5 of "reception" are nothing to do with reception - should go in their own "merchandising" section.
left-shift the first kupfer family picture.
regarding the content, there should be expanded info in the following areas: (a) more on the nigel kneale dispute situation, with quotes from all parties involved. how did the finished product differ from the original screenplay? did kneale in fact sue? what were carpenter's feelings on the changes? hill? wallace? akkad? yablans? any more from kneale? (b) more on this "anthology" idea. more quotes about what their intended plans were for the series, and why they felt myers was a dead duck. and a little about why they brought him back for H4, and why carpenter & hill left the series after this one. (c) go into a bit more detail on the critiques of large corporations and American consumerism. (d) the role of Dean Cundey is vital here - he was DP on H1 and H2 so provides a visual style to match the previous entries, but nothing about him and no quotes from him? he's as important as carpenter/hill to the first 3 films, and was singled out for praise by time out. Zzzzz 13:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to address your first 5 points. I've clarified the two sentences, I think. I delinked "point of divergence" (should this link to Pod People or Invasion of the Body Snatchers instead?). I created a "merchandising" section, as per your suggestion. Also, I left-shifted the image you mentioned. As I'm not familiar with the majority of sources used, I don't feel that I can address your other concerns adequately, but perhaps Dmoon1 would be willing to do so when/if he returns from his wikibreak. Regardless, I still feel that this is a fine article, worthy of recognition. --Myles Long 23:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Halloween_III:_Season_of_the_Witch&oldid=1138462176"