Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment/2008/Failed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Failed[edit]

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.

Failed - tabled for too long without further action or review. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Macedonian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film[edit]

This list is currently too short to pass at WP:FLC, so I'd like to get it to A-class as a form of recognition. I realize that we haven't had lists before for WP:FILM, but I know other projects (namely WP:VG from the top of my head) accept lists at A-class review. Again, as this list cannot pass FLC period, A-class is basically as far as it can go. Cheers, sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly have no objections supporting, I'm not convinced that this isn't FL-able. One comment on the FLC does not a judgement make. Surely a six-entry list is sufficient, if done appropriately. (And of course, there's no reason why it won't continue to grow naturally over time.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relative minimum of ten entries has been discussed at length at WT:FLC (see Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 3#Size of lists, Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 3#Nominations of lists with small scopes, and Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 2#Length), and is probably not going to change in the future. The big question is whether a small list can be representative of Wikipedia's "best work". The list can be comprehensive, sourced, well-written, and stable, but there comes a line in which we have to consider whether this is our "best work" that we want to be showcasing. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Support. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Milčo Mančevski is wikilinked twice in the table. With the present sorname template, I didn't know how best it needs to be handled. You might want to unlink one. Mspraveen (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the overlinking is bad, but I don't think there's a way to use the sortname template without having a link present. sephiroth bcr (converse) 17:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - in light of the recent reversal of the Indonesian FLC, and since it was only mentioned briefly in this article's last FLC, I think that this stands a reasonable chance at still attaining FL-status. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I only submitted the Indonesian submission list because it had more than ten items. The Macedonian list would still not pass at FLC. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask about the three redlinks for the Macedonian directors. Have you tried to start articles on these individuals? If not, do you need help on that front? Ecoleetage (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically don't start articles on the directors because I am unaware of whether they are notable or not. If you wish to start articles on them, feel free to do so. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

Rang De Basanti[edit]

Considered a highly influential film in the Indian society, this article underwent a successful GA nomination recently. Thereafter I've made a lot of edits to increase its comprehensiveness. However, I would vastly gain from insights provided by external experienced editors. After considering and implementing your valuable comments and suggestions, I would like to make its best pitch at FAC. Thanking you in advance! Mspraveen (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:I'd suggest that you move this review to A-class review instead, since this is already at GA. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. Please excuse me for my ignorance, but I hope taking it to the A-class review doesn't limit it to being an A-class article alone. Instead I was hoping, with the constructive criticism of the article, to take it to FAC. Mspraveen (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
No, they aren't mutually exclusive - it's just the next step between GA and FA. Peer review is for sub-GA articles. You can find the instructions on how to do this at the link I placed above. See you there? :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very minor point for editing purposes, since aircraft are integral to the plot, all uses of the word "plane" are usually deprecated and the word: "aircraft" is substituted because the "plane" is derived from "planing tool" as well as being a colloquialism of "aeroplane" and "airplane." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Bzuk, for your edits to improve it further! :) Mspraveen (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PC78[edit]

I'll get the ball rolling with this one... :)

  • Film poster. Per guidelines at MOS:FILM, the film poster image should be reduced to a width of 300px.
Though I've added a width parameter in the infobox, I don't quite see much change in the width. I don't know if that is normal. Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant the actual image itself, not as it is used in the infobox. It's a simple enough task, though, so I'll take care of it myself. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Mspraveen (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox. The Indian flag in the infobox is rather unnecessary, and should be removed. Would it be appropriate to link "UTV Motion Pictures" to UTV Software Communications?
I've removed the Indian flag - I think that it shouldn't be here as well. Thanks for pointing that out :) And yes, I've linked "UTV Motion Pictures" to UTV Software Communications. Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead. The paragraph beginning "Based on accounts taken from..." is confusing. It's not immediately apparent that this is a recap of the plot. On first reading it appears as if the film itself is based on diary entries.
Oops, that's why I like a second opinion! I've reworded the paragraph now. I hope it is okay now. Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cast: This section is somewhat redundant, as actor names are given in parenthesis in the plot summary; alternatively, you could remove the actor names from the plot section.
Removed the redundant cast section now. Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Film quote. How is the quote in the "Production" section relevant? How is the screenshot essential in the reader's understanding of the quote? If retained, the screenshot should also be cropped and reduced in size.
I need advise here. Let me explain: The quote is depicted because 1) the dialogues brought the writer an award nomination 2) it is one central theme of the movie that summarizes the transformation of the youngsters. The screenshot, captured at the time of the quote delivery, provides information on the key cast. This screenshot may be removed as it is non-free. Already two effective (poster and a visual collage on the social influence) ones are used. However because of the mentioned reasons, I hope the quote can be retained. Thoughts? Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless that quote itself has been discussed in external sources, then you might reasonably pick any line of dialogue from the script as an example. The article says little about the writer beyond mentioning the award nomination, and I think the themes of the film are already adequately covered. Personally I would remove it, but hopefully you will get some opinions from other people. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I do appreciate your thoughts here. Maybe we decide on its fate after a few more opinions. Mspraveen (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casting. Sentence beginning "After the auditioning, she was flown to Mumbai..." – who is the article referring to here? I assume it's Patten, but the previous sentence mentions two actresses, so it isn't clear.
Removed the ambiguity now. Thanks for pointing that out! Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soundtrack. I'm not sure what to advise here, because this is something currently being debated by project members at WT:FILM. However, why is a seperate article required for what is essentially just an infobox and tracklisting? (And incidentally, what makes the India Project regard such a brief article as Start-Class?)
I come from India WP and it was purely oversight that caused me to wrongly assess the soundtrack article as "Start". I've corrected the mistake now. Now I could have added the tracks in the music section, but I felt that would appear silly because presently, the music subsection falls within the Production section. I didn't/couldn't think of any further ideas to have it within the article. Help on this would be appreciated too! Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best leave it for now. As I say, project members are currently discussing the issue of soundtracks in film articles, so it remains to be seen what (if anything) will be decided. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll wait until there is any consensus on this matter. Mspraveen (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links. The BBC review is cited in the article, so an additional link here is not necessary.
Removed it now. Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the most immediate things I noticed, besides a few copyediting issues. But on the whole it's a very thorough and well-written article. PC78 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments :) Mspraveen (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be nice if you can also spot areas that need copyediting. :) Thanks for your assistance! Mspraveen (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nehrams2020[edit]

This article was really interesting to read and is well-sourced throughout. I have listed multiple suggestions below (don't be overwhelmed, the majority are very simple fixes) and will be happy to take another look once they are addressed. If you have any questions about these, just place a comment underneath them. Good job so far, I believe the article is close to A-class. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Made on a budget of Rs. 25 crores..." I think that because this is the English Wikipedia, it may be beneficial to convert this to also dollars or Euros, since dollars are also mentioned in the article. Also the dollars should be converted to crores as well. I don't know the exact policy on this, but if you can find something that disallows it, then ignore this suggestion. If not, be sure to fix the other occurrences within the article.
I used crores primarily because the sources are based from India and crore is common usage here. Secondly, the usage of USD was again as the source and the context (earnings in USA) require usage in USD. I tried browsing the WP:FILMS and WP:MOS but couldn't gather much. Maybe Girolamo pitches in here. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm curious on what should be done here. I just think it would be less confusing for a reader who reads the whole article and have to bounce back and forth between two different currencies. But then you also have to take inflation into effect and I'm sure other factors. I'd definitely like to hear the opinion of other reviewers as well on this so that we can implement it into our MOS guidelines. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They gradually begin to realize that their own lives are not very different from the characters they portray on the screen and that the same state of affairs that once plagued the revolutionaries continues to torment the present generation." Why is there a reference after this statement? Plot sections don't usually need sources unless, say, this particular statement is open to interpretation.
I would need some help here too. For the first time in my film-related articles, I realized that an external source's text aptly summarized a particular phase in the plot. I could not come up with any better sentence structure to explain that. So I decided to use the sentence directly from the source and cite it. Is this to be avoided? Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is word for word from the source, then I'd say something like "Critic stated that the plot shifted to the characters "gradually beginning to realize...". However if it is just a plot summary in the cite then I'd recommend taking another stab at it and trying again to rewrite the statement yourself. Give it a few tries, I'm sure you can come up with something. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I rewrote the same trying as much as possible not to change the essence of the previous sentence. I hope this would be acceptable. Mspraveen (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is killed when his fighter crashes." Should this be changed to "are killed when the flight lieutenant's fighter crashes"? I'm not sure who was flying the plane.
Changed to Ajay Singh Rathod (Madhavan), who is Sonia's fiancé and also a Flight Lieutenant in the Indian Air Force, is killed when his fighter crashes. I hope this makes it clear. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought that there were two characters. I either read it to fast or wasn't paying attention. Either way, it reads clearer as you have it set up now. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the production section change "(as Paint it Yellow) and Hindi.[8];" to "(as Paint it Yellow) and Hindi;[8]"
 Done Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As PC78 focused on the quote above, I too have some concerns about it. From what I can tell the quote infobox is only used in articles actually covering the movie quote, so I don't think that it is relevant to include here. If the screenshot is just showing the actors speaking the line, then it is not really that relevant for inclusion in the article (unless a notable source specifically commented on how the line was stated for example and the image illustrated that). In any case Image:DJ Karan RDB.jpg needs to be reduced in size with one of its dimensions not exceeding 300px (consider trimming the widescreen bars as well). If this line was very significant then I'd see no problem in mentioning it in the article, but as it is set up now, I don't think it to be necessary.
Since this seems to be of some concern, I've removed the infobox. As I said in reply to PC78, the quote depicted is the central theme of the plot. Since the quote was in Hindi, I am not able to secure a reliable source which commentates on it. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mehra said that despite Khan being a acclaimed actor" "an acclaimed actor"
 Done Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Madhavan, a well-known Tamil cinema actor, played the role of a fighter aircraft pilot, and thought that it was amazing to work with Aamir." If the word "amazing" was specifically used, then put quotations marks around it and add the inline citation directly after it. Otherwise, this may be seen as POV.
 Done Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other films in this article all have the year directly after them, but there are a few that don't. I'd recommend making it uniform throughout by adding the years to those that are missing them.
 Done for most, but for the films used in the Release section. I felt the use of year release to be redundant because these films that were co-nominated with Rang De Basanti were anyways from the same year as that of the film. Please correct me if I am mistaken here in its usage. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aamir Khan, with his useful knowledge of Hindi and Urdu," I don't think "useful" is needed here.
 Done removed Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After expectations of its box-office success from the media" The hyphen is not needed for box office, unless that is common for English used in India. If so, then ignore this comment.
 Done removed Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd recommend adding another wikilink for MiG-21 in either the production section or the release section.
 Done in the Release section Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the filmmakers had obtained No-Objection-Certificate..." I'm not familiar with this certificate, and it's possible others may not know about it is as well. Consider adding a brief description of what it is.
 Done I created a new stub article for this terminology. I hope that this will reduce the text size of this film article. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2006, it premiered in France with the Lyon Asiexpo Film Festival,[55] the Wisconsin Film Festival,[56] and the Morocco-based International Film Festival of Marrakech." The serial comma is used in this sentence. Since it is not used throughout the rest of the article, this occurrence should be removed so that the article is uniform throughout.
 Done removed serial comma Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Out of the Rs. 10 crore (100 million) marketing campaign, Rs. 2 crore (20 million)..." If this is in dollars, be sure to add the sign right before 100 million and 20 million.
 Done Everything is in Rupees. I've removed crores now and just have the currency in million. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The soundtrack, first released commercially in early December 2005, met with good success." "Good success" seems redundant, consider rewording.
 Done removed "good" Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since Rahman's last musical success, Saathiya, was back in 2002, there were high from the media." I don't understand the last half of this sentence.
Oh well, User:Epbr123 has been lending me a good hand with copy editing this article. The sentence actually says: "Since Rahman's last musical success, Saathiya, was back in 2002, there were high expectations from the soundtrack in the media." - The word "expectations" got deleted accidentally. It is fixed now. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was reportedly voted as the "Song of the year" for 2006..." "Song of the Year"; "but also two tracks were to be considered for an Academy Award nomination.", reword to "but two tracks were also considered for an Academy Award nomination."
 Done reworded as per your suggestion Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Besides these, the producers joined hands..." Consider rewording "joined hands".
 Done reworded to "collaborated" Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In India, The Hindu reported that with..." "The Hindu" should be italicized.
 Done Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The DVD release broke sales records: sales was the highest selling title of its time, selling more than 70,000 copies in six months time." Reword to "The DVD release sold more than 70,000 copies in six months time, and as a result, the film was the highest selling title of its time. Also, add a wikilink for VCD in the next sentence.
 Done Thanks for the suggestion. Fixed it the wikilink as well. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Rediff.com reviewer, while appreciating the music, cinematography, dialogues and art direction, thought that films like this can easily get into "preachiness"; this did not happen and Mehra could get his message across well." Reword to "A Rediff.com reviewer, while appreciating the music, cinematography, dialogues and art direction, wrote that films like Rang De Basanti can easily get into "preachiness", but believed Mehra got his message across while avoiding this."
 Done reworded as per your suggestion. Thanks again. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The review from the BBC gave it a five star rating..." Is this five out of five?
 Done The sentence now says: "The review from the BBC gave it the highest possible five star rating ...". I hope this is alright and is not POV. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite these qualms and Mehra's belief that his film didn't stand..." "didn't -> did not" This also occurs a few sentences later, make sure to fix that one as well.
 Done fixed both Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice use of "qualms" by the way. I need to start using that word in the articles I write... --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Music composer, A. R. Rahman performed several concerts..." Remove the comma.
 Done Fixed this Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Besides this, it was nominated for the" Reword to "The film was also nominated for..."
 Done Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Thanks so much for the detailed review. I sincerely appreciate you taking out time in doing so. Should you have any concerns in my response, please feel free to let me know. Thanks once again. Mspraveen (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, you did an excellent job in addressing the issues I raised. I'm sorry for leaving so many suggestions that are very simple fixes, but I do so so that editors can further improve their writing and catch these issues in the future (Plus, I think it makes me look like I did a more comprehensive review!). Anyway, good work, and keep working on the other issues. Once a few more editors have looked over the remaining issues and have done their copyedits, I'll take a final look to support it. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you once again. Well, I prefer longer reviews because at least that is a good way for preparing the article for the rigor of FAC :) The article has been copy edited by User:Epbr123 and I think it is in a better shape with the help of PC78 and your reviews. Any further reviews are welcome. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm archiving this due to little/no movement in several months. It can always be renominated if the original nominator feels it it now ready. Steve T • C 09:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

Withdrawn due to gaining FL-class. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indonesian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film[edit]

Another list not long enough to pass FLC. Do note that this is the only other list I have at the moment that I want to send through A-class review. Not trying to flood the process :p sephiroth bcr (converse) 00:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem the list or anything (or the other one currently nominated), but am just wondering if A-class applies to lists or not? I haven't seen it myself in other projects and I guess it makes sense if we can't get it to FAC. Just wanted to know the rationale before we begin passing too many lists. If so, I'll take a look to help with the review. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A-class does apply to lists. It's simply not commonly utilized because lists tend to go straight to FLC. As an example, List of Final Fantasy media is an A-class list within the scope of WP:VG. sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case, I have no problem with the nomination. Besides the multiple red links, I think the article meets the criteria, so I Support it being assessed as A-class. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, with the added submissions (over ten items) and the general source I found, this can now go to FLC (nominated here). The Macedonian list can go to A-class for not being long enough though. sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this list is now a FL, this nomination can effectively be considered moot. Can someone archive this? As I'm unfamiliar with the archiving process :p — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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)

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Her physical eye. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 20:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
I've fixed most of the requests! Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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.
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.

Failed - tabled for too long without review. PC78 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz[edit]

Previous A-class review (23:17, 31 May 2008)

I want to try again and reach A-class status. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 19:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment/2008/Failed&oldid=393123222"