Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gremlins 2: The New Batch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Gremlins 2: The New Batch

Partial self-nomination. Gremlins has recently become an FA, and inspired by the success of the Halloween sequels, I thought, why not try Gremlins 2 too. Gremlins 2 is currently a good article. As with the first, I reorganized, expanded and referenced it. It's a weird movie though, and some of it might be tough to put into words. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, fits criteria, follows same layout as Gremlins article, easy to ready & understand. Good work! — Wackymacs 06:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Support for now, as the special effects section needs more referencing. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, the whole section is referenced with the footnote at the end; I just didn't want the same footnote at the end of each paragraph. I can see where you're coming from though, I'd want that stuff referenced if it wasn't. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Nonetheless, I would at least follow the style I used in the History section of Hopkins School, and cite at the end of each paragraph. Otherwise it really isn't clear. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, just makes it all clearer IMO. Also for that section (purely stylistic and minor), merging paragraphs would not be a bad thing (so you have fewer 1-2 sentence 'graphs). Staxringold talkcontribs
  • Comment: A whole paragraph to listing the major 1990 films and their box office grosses is overdoing it a little. Just saying it was #32 and maybe another point would be sufficient. --P-Chan 03:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I was wondering if that would be a problem. I liked how it was compared to similar films and sequels, but yes, that point may have been lost because there were so many. I've trimmed down a few less likely ones. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nice work. Cvene64 07:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Now Weak Support. The article seems to cover the content well, but I would fail it on point 2a, the quality of the English. I think going from GA to FA often requires a complete rewrite by someone who writes well. The style has a lot of short, choppy sentences that don't flow, and in other places the sentences are rather clumsy. For example:
Plot section:Although Billy was informed of the "rules" regarding mogwai, to never get Gizmo wet or to feed him after midnight, Gizmo was later exposed to water and multiplied.
Plot section:The gremlins are hit by the electricity and consequently melt away.
Plot section:This gives him with the ability to speak with a refined voice provided by Tony Randall. How does this hormone select Tony Randall as the speaker?
Special effects:In addition each one had a name, though these were used in the script and never actually spoken aloud in the film. They were Lenny and George, named for the principal characters in Of Mice and Men, whom they resemble in both appearance and demeanor. There was also Daffy, who displays manic behaviour, and the leader Mohawk, so named for the mohawk he sports.

I didn't look to hard to find these. None of them are terribly wrong, but all of them could be phrased more effectively. I would like to see the article completely rewritten in something closer to "brilliant prose" before it is approved for FA status. Walkerma 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Much of the English has been improved. It's still not perfect, IMHO, but I think it's now much better. Walkerma 07:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Tried to fix the rules sentence in the plot and the Tony Randall part. Other than that, I don't see what's wrong with it and you yourself admit it's not really wrong; it's subjective. BTW, I've been told by a lot of people that I'm someone who writes well. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've printed this off for a second time and am giving it another copyedit. I incorporated some of Walkerma's revisions, but I believe, reading this aloud, that it is flowing. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is my understanding that listing Taglines as they are in the intro is not popular and it is not done in any other film FA. If you think the taglines are notable (there a very few that are) they should be merged within the text of the article. Medvedenko 19:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The example I would tend to use for a tagline being notable enough to mention is The X Files (film), as the placement of the tagline really did lead a large group of peope to think it's called The X-Files: Fight the Future. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Picking a few movie FAs at random, none have the tagline. I removed it. I don't think I'll miss it, since the more memorable line "You didn't listen..." is mentioned in the description of the trailer. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, Well done article, but this sentence, "While there are more gremlins in Gremlins 2, in general this still took a long time to make possible, with the filming lasting five months" I think is very confusing and needs to be fixed. Medvedenko 18:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, everything looks great, ready for prime-time. 8-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I just noticed that this article goes nuts on the wikilinks. Fur, bat, water? These entries don't add much at all to the quality of the article and should be removed.--P-Chan 21:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • How about this [1] [2]? Wikilinks kept should obviously include people involved in making the film; other movies referenced by the film (should particularly help add context); 1990 in film (obviously, context); places. Also kept:
      • Cartoon, slapstick, parody, plot, wit, revenge, satire, emotion, meta-reference, etc.: All literary/artistic elements that should help to understand a piece of art or entertainment;
      • Cable television, genetics, frozen yogurt: three things identified (the third, albeit humourously) as phenomenons of the time that left marks on the movie (helps establish context);
      • Executive producer, character actor- again, relevent to the type of subject matter involved;
      • Puppetry, animation, stop motion- techinal aspects integral to the making of the film.
      • Video game, personal computer, action figure- nothing to do with the movie but important contextually, for the merchandise covered by the article. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I encourage you to improve the article further as there still seems to be minor issues with copyediting and choice of words, but it should be good to go. (I'll strike-out my objection) --P-Chan 06:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I printed it out again and made a few more adjustments. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work. --Myles Long 23:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Wikipedical 03:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just realized what the article needs. Clear pictures. There are only two pictures outside of the Poster, and they are kind of blurry. Are there high quality screenshots anywhere that could add value to this article? Also, note that Gizmo and that girl.. what's her name, aren't depicted in the article. Now the lack of good pictures won't ruin an FA, but it sure would be nice to have.--P-Chan 04:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an important movie and a quality article. ReverendG 16:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)