Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cars (film)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cars (film)

The article states its sources, and is written well. There are several images to intestify the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KdogDS (talk • contribs) 10:21, June 24, 2006.

  • Oppose I don't feel it's ready. The plot section is too long; this should be a synopsis, not a retelling of the story. The grid with the characters is a bit long; does an encyclopedia need a listing of every cameo in this film? There are also several one sentence paragraphs throught the article. (Full disclosure: I helped create the Critical Response section and formatted many of the refs before this article was nominated.) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose:

Too early as this article looks underdeveloped. A peer review or going through a GA would have really helped here in giving this article a push. Here are some of particulars.

  • This article needs a section regarding either the background, production,or development, etc. By moving from Plot, straight to the Critical Reception then to the secondary sections at the end... makes this article look a little empty.
  • 2 pictures of the same Cars Logo, is redundent, and neither may even be necessary. What encyclopedic value do they have?
  • Eliminate Crew Section (Mix into the Infobox if you haven't done that already).
  • Needs a good old fashion copyedit run (Do this after the major structural changes).
  • I like how you matched the cars with the cast, but only keep notable cast members from the film in that section. (Don't list everyone).
  • If that's all there is to say for the Soundtrack section, I'd just cut that section out.
  • And watch out for trivia overkill, as the later part of the article seems rather thin. Can you merge Route 66 and Morales with other parts of the article?
  • Keep everything nice and referenced. It keeps things from turning into original research

Those are the major ones that jump out at me. If anything is not clear, feel free to ask questions. With all that said though, at only 15 days after the film's release, this article is pretty good. You guys did a great job.--P-Chan 16:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Way too early for this article. I agree with P-Chan that a peer review would be a great step. I personally think there's too much trivia, and it's poorly organized. It needs to be incorporated better into the prose of the article, with some of it perhaps being broken off into another article (such as, just as an example, Film references in Cars). The Morals section, as well, seems out of place; it seems vaguely POV to come out and say "This is what the film teaches"; those elements could be better off incorporated into the plot summary or something similar. Powers 18:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. a film currently on general release therefore inherently non-stable. wait until at least the dvd release to get a sense of perspective on it. Zzzzz 00:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: As much as I loved seeing it two weeks ago, and as much as I'd like to see it featured, this is definitely not the time to get it featured. It won't even stand a chance at WP:GAC (it's also there right now). Speaking of the latter, why not go look at the page about The Care Bears Movie for ideas? --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for the following reasons:
  1. The article requires a copy-edit as some of the prose is not "brilliant".
  2. There are not enough references to satisfy the verifiability guideline. Additionally, the quotes do not have sources.
  3. There is no information about its production and the studio techniques featured to create the film.
  4. Images do not have proper licensing information.
  5. The trivia sections should be merged with the rest of the article appropriately.
  6. The first paragraph of the article is a run-on sentence; also, is there need — or is it actually notable — to indicate that it will be released the same day as Superman in the United Kingdom?
—Eternal Equinox | talk 20:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Good film, article not ready for FA (per Zzzzz). --DanielNuyu 00:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The film is enjoyable, but the prose in this article is far from brilliant and there are far too many NPOV statements.—BassBone (my talk · my contributions) 07:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [[1]] and [[2]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs) .
    • Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Powers 13:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all oppose reasons. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)