Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jurassic Park (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Jurassic Park (film)

Self-nomination. I've been referencing like crazy and cleaning an article that used to be in pretty bad shape, with trivia, an overlong plot, an obsession with differences from the book and a parodies list. I also have to hand it to Hal Raglan for the reviews section. This article is GA and I think it is worthy of FA with almost 100 references. All images have fair use rationales so don't worry. Alientraveller 19:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article is overcited. When you have consecutive statements cited to the same source, it's not necessary to repeat the inline citation for every piece of every sentence. Can you try to consolidate some of the citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. Verifiability would apply to page citations. As it is, I have used the 'abc' style format for information found on the same pages. Alientraveller 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you mean. I'm reviewing the articles as I type and I don't notice what you are referring to. If you are talking about using 1 book and citing different information on different pages, well I've seen plenty of FA articles that use this type of citation. What's said about writing on page 176 might not have anything to do with special effects. If someone wanted to verify just the effects information, it's more appropriate (IMO) to send them directly to the page they need, instead of requiring them to read the entire book. If this isn't what you are referring to then I apologize, and maybe you could provide some more clarity (if I'm misdirected) so that I may better understand what you are talking about while I review the article myself. Bignole 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what she means. For example, ref #3 is pg. 71 and ref #4 is pg. 74-5. Now, ref #24 is pg. 73. Maybe it would be better to cover a wider page range, or even attribute to the book's chapters/sections instead of specific pages. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. I won't be able to cite chapters given the book is simply three sections on pre-prod/production/post-prod but I'll try to make a little more sectiony then. Alientraveller 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I might be able to see that for that instance, but that's iffy. Reference #24 is about the changes to the characters in the script, while the other two about the actors preparations for their roles. They are connected, but they aren't, if you know what I mean. The script details are between the two actor references. Maybe we could make reference #3 be pages 71,74-75.? That would keep the same type of information together. Bignole

I gave it a go for pages 144-6, given it's all about the soundtrack. Alientraveller 20:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers in books do need individual citations, but yes, you can often combine page ranges to minimize the overciting. Also, I was referring to some websource info, that doesn't require page nos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC) More: it can also be a matter of text organization; it may be possible to combine phrases differently to avoid over-peppering the text with citations. And, some statements are cited that don't seem to need citation; for example—The three week shoot[10] ... why does the three week specifically have to be cited, and if it does, can it be at the end of the sentence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I consolidated quite a few repeat refs (three consecutive sentences—not likely to be challenged—ref'd to same source). Why does this need three references? film wrapped twelve days ahead of schedule on November 30,[33][10][34] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I combined a few. As for three citations regarding the shoot's quick end, it was quite a major thing and I tried to verify a little bit more than just a press-kit book. Alientraveller 11:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Do we need the information about Goldblum and Dern being involved romantically? I know it's funny since their characters showed "interest", but does it pertain to the film really? Also, was Nedly an "architect", I thought he was a computer engineer or maybe a software engineer? Bignole 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A prosy term for what Nedry did: he built those computer programs. Is it wrong to note whenever a couple met on a film set or is it just because Goldblum and Dern didn't last? Alientraveller 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that is why i think "software engineer" is probably better, but I guess it's preference because i can't remember if it's said exactly what his position is in the film. As for Dern and Goldblum, I don't think it's new to have two actors start a relationship after meeting in a film, or not to last afterwards. Bignole

I agree. It isn't really noteworthy, except for perhaps in the actors' individual articles.Arcayne 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it per both your suggestions as trivial. Alientraveller 20:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think that while the article is strong in terms of content, there are numerous copy-editing issues that should be resolved.

• Plot needs to explain in the first sentence where the incident took place, so you may want to re-word it to include Isla Nublar in it somehow.

I mentioned Isla Nublar. Alientraveller 10:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cast has an awkward mix of in-universe and out-of-universe context. Is there a way that these can be separated? It seems inconsistent, especially with some entries having information about the actors while others don't.

I noticed V for Vendetta does the same. Alientraveller 10:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that as well. Could some of it be ported over to Production instead? Pre-production is still part of production; preparing for roles is part of that process. Arcayne 21:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Attenborough sentence about him not acting since The Human Factor -- can it be rephrased to say something without the negative connotation, such as, "First acting role since so-and-so"?

I hope my rephrase isn't too harsh on Attenborough, given he was making Gandhi after The Human Factor. Alientraveller 10:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cameron Thor should be identified more clearly. "He bribes Nedry" isn't enough to stand alone. Might need to treat Dockworker the same way as well.

I extended about Dogson. Alientraveller 10:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Production has this first sentence: "Michael Crichton conceived a screenplay about a boy who recreates a dinosaur: following this, he wrestled with his fascination with dinosaurs and cloning until he was writing the novel Jurassic Park." Not only is this unnecessarily long, it feels rather awkward to read.

I axed it into two. Alientraveller 10:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Quotes need to be re-visited. The rule of thumb is that if you're quoting in full, it goes like this: He said, "It was a difficult project." The other way, which seems improper to me, is: He said that "it was a difficult project". Quoting this way, the punctuation would go outside. I don't know if that's explained very clearly, but here's an example: ...complaining that "They [the dinosaurs] have no way of doing that!" could be re-structured as: ...complaining, "They [the dinosaurs] have no way of doing that!" There are some instances where this needs to be fixed.
• "On September 11, while filming, the eye of Hurricane Iniki passed directly over Kauaʻi, but fortunately for the crew they only lost one day of shooting." Could be re-worded to be more direct.

Done. Alientraveller 10:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Release says, "With $65 million, the marketing campaign for Jurassic Park was huge yet shrouded in secrecy." Is this amount what the studio provided for the marketing campaign? It could be re-worded to tie the amount directly to marketing.

Done. Alientraveller 10:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Reaction says, "The film went on to become the most financially successful film of all time." I know that it's mentioned later that Titanic takes its place, but can it be re-worded to be more contemporary? Say something like, "The film temporarily held the number one spot in the worldwide box office."

"Yet released" sound better? Alientraveller 10:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a diff, showing at one way to resolve the issue. Arcayne 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• These are the major issues that I spotted so far. I might do some copy-editing myself. One minor issue I noticed throughout the article is the usage of pronouns. For example, in Reaction, the fourth paragraph says, "Since the film's release it has become very popular." The word "it" should re-defined so it's ultimately clear what the word is referring to. For example, it may work better to say, "The film has become very popular since its release." We immediately know what the "it" is tied to. There are numerous instances of these in the article. Here's one more example from Production: "This is visible as Nedry talks to the dockworker, which is in fact a recorded video file as shown by the progress bar." Does "this" refer to "scenes", "animations", or "computers" (from the previous sentence)? The Nedry sentence should specify which subject it is to flow smoother. Otherwise, like I've said, excellent content. The prose just needs more copy-editing. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit, as well as combining references.

• Comment I'm surprised that the review written by Stephen Jay Gould (reprinted in Dinosaur in a Haystack) isn't mentioned. In it he discusses how the interesting message of the book is dumbed down and lost. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The review is in his essay Dinomania, helpfully printed here. Choice quotes Unfortunately, the plot line for the human actors reduces to pap and romantic drivel of the worst kind, the very antithesis of the book's grappling with serious themes. It is so ironic, but I fear that mammon and the perception (false I hope) of the need to dumbdown for mass audiences have brought us to this impasse of utter inconsistency and We feel this loss most in the reconstruction of the mathematician Ian Malcolm as the antithesis of his character in the book. He still presents himself as a devotee of chaos theory ("a chaotician"), but he no longer uses its argument (as previously documented in this article) to formulate his criticism of the park. Instead, he is given the oldest diatribe, the most hackneyed and predictable staple of every Hollywood monster film since Frankenstein: man (again I prefer the old gender-biased term for such an archaic line) must not disturb the proper and given course of nature; man must not tinker in God's realm. Its a great article, and a weighty review from one of the greats of paleontology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks very much. I'll try to incorporate it into the reaction, or at least use as a cite for most dinosaurs existing in the Cretaceous. Alientraveller 11:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)