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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:56, 25 April 2011 [1].

Manhunter (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 13:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(This is my first foray in FAC territory, so let me know if I've done anything wrong). I'm nominating this article for Featured status as, having worked on it extensively for the past while, I feel it meets all of the criteria. Whilst not a hugely important film, I feel that the article itself does a fine job of conveying all of the necessary information about it in the right amount of detail. Contemporary and modern sources have been used to put together an article which addresses the film objectively from different points of view, and gives a tremendous amount of information without being too heavily reliant on trivial information or cruft. I have kept the scope as wide as one article will allow without becoming too focused on any one aspect, and feel the subject is covered with a suitable broadness. The article has passed Good Article status within the past few weeks, and has been further expanded and improved in this time. It went through Peer Review before being nominated for GA, and all of the points raised at this time were addressed. After its promotion, it received an informal second review via its talk page from members of Wikiproject: Film, and any concerns raised in this were also fully addressed. As such, I feel the article is ready to be reviewed for FA, and if any concerns are raised during the review process, I am confident I will be able to address them with little delay. Thanks for any time you spend reviewing this article. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - reference formatting needs cleanup for consistency. Spotchecks not done.

Ref 1: retrieval date?
Compare ref 3 to ref 5 (for example) and note differences in formatting
What makes this a reliable source? This? This?
Ref 28: publisher?
Be consistent in what is italicized when, what date formatting is used, etc
Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed and replaced everything identified as unreliable, added retrevial date to Ref 1 and publisher to Ref 28 (was there, but I made a typo in the template), templated Ref 3 to match Ref 5. Have fixed any italics inconsistencies I've spotted, though let me know if I've missed any. GRAPPLE X 12:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Manhunter_michael_mann_film_poster.jpg - FUR needs work; it's written as if the image is a cover, when in fact it's a poster
File:Manhunter-colours.jpg - would it be possible to provide time references for these screencaps? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the poster, I took a look at the rationale for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and took the same approach to their poster, by cropping the logos out of it. FUR has been re-done to match the image. As for the second, times could be given but I would need to recreate the image to do so, noting the times as I did. I can do this tonight. GRAPPLE X 12:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice that before, but you cannot crop out copyrighted information like that. You can crop out people and show a closer version of the image you want because they have nothing to do with the image itself, but you cannot crop credits and copyrights from posters. Just like if an image had a watermark you cannot crop it out so you can use the image, because clearly the people displaying it did not want it reused. Posters need to be full scale. The problem with the FUR is that it is not addressing all 10 criteria in the rationale. These are all the criteria, which you can put in that rationale template you have. You need to make sure that criteria #8 is worded to fit this page, as that is the criteria of "why is it used here". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I must have misunerstood the rationale when I looked at other examples. I'll restore the poster to a full version then. Sorry about that. Have also added the criteria you've supplied. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 14:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Canada Hky (talk)

The prose could use some work. The tenses in particular. I'm not going to point out all the examples, but the "Pre-production" section is where I first noticed some issues.
Some inconsistency in how the characters are referred to. It seems like you started referring to characters/people by their full names at the first mention in each section? If so, in the "Themes" section, there is a stray "Dollarhyde". If this is your intention, please check for other instances. If you were intending to go all last names after first overall mention, then there is other cleanup needed.
Excellent image to show the use of colour. If the caption could identify the main characters in each portion, I think it would be helpful.
I am not sure if this has been previously discussed, but I would suggest that when referring to the film character, it should be spelled "Lecktor". "John Lithgow, Mandy Patinkin, and Brian Dennehy were all considered for the role of Hannibal Lecter (spelled "Lecktor" in the film)..." Canada Hky (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up the tenses to all be past tense for the production sections, for uniformity. Expanded that stray Dollarhyde to Francic Dollarhyde. Added a few lines to the image caption naming both characters and describing the tones used. And I've replaced the book spelling of Lecter with the film's Lecktor, but kept the pipe links. GRAPPLE X 03:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Citation numbers 16, 17, 36 and 46 use user edited iMDB as a reference. I don't believe that website is a reliable source as according to Wiki criterea. DeWaine (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to find replacements for 16 and 17. I've removed 36 as it was redundant to 35. 46 is just a list of crew for the film, Should a DVD or the like be cited for that instead? GRAPPLE X 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the DVD can't be used. The closing credits in the film display a scrolling image of the cast and crew, and the box cover artwork might also display some of that information too. As far as the release dates and awards; the DVD might also contain release date information. If it doesn't, then try to find an entertainment website thats not user-edited. Or try a novel. For the awards, try going to an offical website and search for a link to previous nominations and wins for other years in the past. DeWaine (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed to the DVD for Red Dragon's credits. The Manhunter DVD has no release information but I'll try sourcing that elsewhere. As for the awards, unfortunately the relevant festival has been retired and the website contains only a farewell message. Some scouring of French-language sites did turn up this though, thankfully. GRAPPLE X 21:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry. The prose is not polished to FA status, and the article requires copy-editing from top to bottom. There is redundancy, as in "in order to", wrong tenses, as in "walking as though she was blind" (subjunctive needed), short forms of words such as "ad" and "lab", and numerous colloquialisms ("knocking out"). The prose lacks logical flow, hence the need for "whilst", which is overused in the article. And, there are grammatical errors, such as "to explain of his past breakdown". The reader has to have seen the film to understand this sentence, "The pair return to Dollarhyde's home, where he watches film footage of his planned next victim with the oblivious Reba." Has Reba been filmed together with the next victim? This nomination is premature, eighty or so edits are not enough to elevate an article to FA standard. Graham Colm (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm working through a copy-edit now, although some of those colloquialisms (such as the "knocking out" you mentioned and some other of Petersen's phrases) are in direct sourced quotes, so there's no point in changing them. I got rid of any that I saw elsewhere though. I've also reworded the sentence about Graham explaining his breakdown to his son; and clarified the one about Dollarhyde and Reba watching videos. GRAPPLE X 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.