Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zodiac (film)

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 promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

---

Zodiac (film)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think that a lot of hard work has gone into it and is ready to be promoted. This is a highly regarded film that came out in 2007 and considered by many film critics to be one of the best of the year. J.D. (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- I think there are going to be people who don't like some parts of the article (I'm not going to elaborate since I am supporting) but I don't care, it's a great read and very informative. Manderiko (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Loved the movie and this is a great overview. I do have several questions, however: the "Promotion" section is only one sentence long. Is there a way to flesh it out or integrate it somewhere else? It is an interesting note to make, so I wouldn't suggest removing it entirely. Also, some of the links in the "Further Reading" (btw, incorrect caps on second word) section seem superfluous. The Esquire interview, for example, seems to have more to do with the director than his film; are these truly necessary? Perhaps the more relevant links can be used for references? María (habla conmigo) 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. I merged the Promotion subsection into the Reception section as it kinda pertains to that. I have also slimmed down the "Further reading" section and fixed the caps on the second word. Thanks. --J.D. (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- The plot section reads awkwardly; there are verb tense problems and it's presented almost like a documentary about the Zodiac killer's actions, which the movie definitely is not. The development of the main character from timid cartoonist to amateur detective isn't really there. The Zodiac murder specifics seem to take precedence over giving the reader a sense of the character development and the direction of the plot. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that what the section needs is simply to be longer, though it there is a little room to play with. But I think a rewrite might be in order, with fewer fine details about the murders, and more about the main characters and the thrust of the story. --Melty girl (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the oomments. I've started reworking the plot a little. I've added more about the individual characters and Graysmith's investigation. I think that information about the killings is important as it does play a crucial role in the film but you're right, it shouldn't overwhelm everything else. --J.D. (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed dead links. --J.D. (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Some of it looks quite good, but it needs work. Can you fix the stubby paras in "Principal photography" and the like? Side-by-side caption: no dot. MOS says to use logical punctuation at the end of quotes. I see ref [13] SIX times in a row, sentence after sentence. Boring. Disturbs the look by intruding and spacing out the lines; ration the ref numbers so any intelligent reader gets a feel for what you paraphrasing or supporting from outside. Tony (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC) MOS: en dashes for ranges, please. Long snakes like "At first, Fincher only wanted 15-20 minutes of score and for it to be all solo piano based but as Shire worked on it and incorporated textures of a Charles Ives piece called, “The Unanswered Question” and some Conversation-based cues, he found that he had 37 minutes of original music." "Some" is often redundant. "solo-piano-based", but nicer as "based on s p". Comma before "but". "a box office total of $83,264,441 worldwide"—better say "US" the first time, esp. since it's an international context. Are you sure it's ... 441 and not 442? It's just too precise for this context. "More than US$83 million". And it's not logical: "it has performed slightly better in other parts of the world with a box office total of $83,264,441 worldwide" ... does that figure exclude the US or include it? Tony (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I've implemented all of the changes you've made above. --J.D. (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But have you dealt with these types of issues, and others, in the rest of the text? My comments raised samples only. Tony (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Very well-written, (quite rare for articles on recent films, etc.) and well sourced. I can see why it passed as a good article. I loved this film when I first saw it, so the article does it it excellent justice. This article for FA? Sure, why not! (SUDUSER)₈₅ 03:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Notes: What is the difference between Further reading and External links? Why is there a "Note" stuck on to the bottom of the article? (Note: The Director's Cut is 162 minutes, which makes it about four to five minutes longer than the theatrical version (not 8 minutes longer). Can't that be worked into the prose? Bringing ... bringing? (It has performed better in other parts of the world with a box office total with $51 million bringing its worldwide total to $83 million, bringing the film above its $75-million budget.) It looks like the text could use another massage; would Melty girl be willing to help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to be able to make time to do a careful review of this article. I'm sorry to say that I still haven't managed to do so; that is why I haven't opposed or supported. We'll see how the week goes.--Melty girl (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Read through it, and the writing is almost there, but more copyediting is needed (I did some along the way). Here are some examples of some problems:
  • "Because of Graysmith's inexperience and lowly status at the paper, he is not taken seriously by Avery and others..." Who are "others"?
  • "When he is able to crack one of the codes, Avery begins sharing information with him." This contradicts the previous statement, which proclaims that Graysmith is excluded from knowing about the codes.
  • "Fincher found that there was a lot of speculation..." This sentence takes the paragraph in an abrupt new direction. I was thinking we'd find out more about Gerald McMenamin. Instead, this sentence seems like it should have appeared earlier in the paragraph.
  • "Working with digital cameras allowed him..." Very long sentence that features two awkward "and"s and a violation of verb parallelization in "eliminating".
  • "Not all of the cast was happy with Fincher’s exacting ways and perfectionism, with some scenes requiring upwards of 70 takes, as Gyllenhaal was frustrated by the director’s methods:" Very awkward.
  • What's up with the last "note" about the director's cut? BuddingJournalist 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the comments. I have made all of the changes you've outline above. --J.D. (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can you fix the MOS breaches? (1) Downey caption—no period, please. (2) En dashes for all ranges (incl. dates) in references and notes. (3) Period after closing quotes when the quotation starts within a WP sentence. (4) Spaced ellipsis dots. Tony (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. I've made these changes to the article. --J.D. (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The fair use rationales for non-free images need a lot of work. At the moment, most of them are too vague e.g. "Displays screenshot image of film in question." If you're really just wanting a screenshot, why do you need so many? If each image is meant to illustrate a particular important point which hasn't already been illustrated by another image, you need to explain things further. Papa November (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.