Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/2008/Failed

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as not supported. Girolamo Savonarola (talk)

[edit] The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

I am nominating this article for A-class becasue it meets all the criteria and I want to get a few more tips before nominating it for featured article status again. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Congrats! It's a strong article, but I have a couple of points (mostly minor) -

• There's no need to link multiple times in one sentence to the same reference - a single ref at the end is sufficient.
• The parenthetical information in the infobox should not be italicized
• Why is retrieving the eye impossible?

Re-written

I should clarify - is the magic eye a actually her phsort of talisman, or is it her pysical eye? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Her physical eye. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd highly recommend deleting the quote box, especially since the content already exists in the article and is superfluous. It may also contravene some general style guidelines, IIRC.

Removed

• You might want to consider splitting the production section into Development for the pre-shooting material and Production for the shoot and post-production.

Split

Don't see it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Vancouver is in North America, last I checked...

 :) - Reworded

• Giacchino's previous awards are appropriate for his bio article, not this one.

Removed

Still in there. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is "Calling All Munchkins" in the film? I only wonder because it seems that all of the Oz tracks from the soundtrack appear at the start of the disc, and this track is sandwiched between them.

Yes - It is, but the film version is very short.

Why is it not mentioned at all in the article as a song from the film, then? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• The soundtrack might be better split to a separate article, especially as it is a compilation album with some tracks not exclusive to this project.

Sorry, I can't do it. There isn't any more reliably-sourced soundtrack information on the net, and a split would slimply be a waste of time. (No offense).

Fine, I'll withdraw that one. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• The retail price for the film is not exceptional enough to be a notable fact. You might also want to simplify a lot of the data for the various region releases by creating a table.

Table created, but I want to keep the retail info. (If that's okay.)

Don't see the table, but the prices are gone, which is my greater concern. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Promotional material may warrant its own section - as before, please drop the prices, as Wikipedia is not a store.

This is funny, Bzuk told me to merge it with distribution, go figure. Well, back to a sub-section.

If it's that pared down now, then I'd agree to keep it within Distribution. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Many of the review websites seem to fail WP:RS.

This has been discussed on the previous FA nominations, actually. It was decided that references for reviews were OK.

• Technicolor should be capitalized.

Done.

Good luck with further edits! I look forward to seeing the article continue to develop. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed most of the requests! Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the last reviewers had commented that this article is not yet ready for another review, and regretfully, I must concur especially in the area of "Reaction" as it is overlong, two or three opinions will suffice and as I indicated earlier, there may be need to continue to work on this as a project. The use of a number of fansites or blog-type reviewers is an area of debate anong reviewers and is normally not highly regarded as a means of substantiation. FWiW, I would caution that the article itself is comprehensive but perhaps too detailed for what amounts to a singular project and one that is generally considered a failure. Bzuk (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.