Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Die Hard/archive1

Die Hard

 * Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 1988 action film Die Hard, considered one of the greatest action films ever made, it made a star out of Bruce Willis and launched a franchise of sadly diminishing results. Still, the original holds up for giving us a vulnerable action star and charismatic uber villain Hans Gruber, played by the late, great Alan Rickman. One of the best OSTs as well IMO. This one means a lot to me as it is one of my favourite films and one of the few films me and my dad both liked and could watch together, plus it is nearly Xmas, seems the perfect time to finally elevate this article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass

 * Closer is a tabloid. What makes it a high-quality RS?
 * For Looper.com, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270. Not much discussion there, but it's not promising.
 * What makes /Film a high-quality RS?
 * What makes Film School Rejects an okay source?
 * Ref 37 is missing the publisher. Also, I can't tell if this is an AMC staff post or an AMC blog.  If it's an AMC blog, it's probably dubious
 * Filmtracks.com appears to be self-published
 * Why are we citing an advertisement in Variety? Advertisements send off red flags of probable bias that may be strong enough to effect reliability
 * For bmi.com and afi.com, instead of giving the website as the publisher, use the spelled-out name of the organization publishing it.
 * What makes highdefdigest.com an high-quality RS?
 * Instead of loc.gov as the publisher, use Library of Congress
 * We need page number(s) for the Schneider book
 * Ref 129 use The Guardian, not TheGuardian.com
 * Ref 136 is missing the publisher
 * Ref 136 is an unreliable source per WP:FORBESCON - Forbes is okay if its not a contributor piece, but that's marked as a contributor piece
 * " "Elf #6 Greatest xmas film of all time" - Wrong title
 * See this. There's no strong consensus that Screen Rant is even an RS, so it's certainly not a high-quality RS.  It's used multiple times.
 * I have strong doubts that comicbook.com is a high-quality RS
 * WP:VG/RS lists Den of Geek as an RS, but there's a difference between RS and high-quality RS. It's used a lot, so I'd like some good reasoning as to what makes it more than just barely reliable.
 * What makes DVD Talk a high-quality RS?

Overall, I'm having doubts that the best overall sources are used. None of these are really scholarly sources, while scholarly sources have given these attention. See, , , etc. I'm not particularly comfortable with the fact that this article relies heavily on blogs and pop culture sites, but doesn't use much scholarly stuff. Source checks not done yet. I don't feel like this is a particularly prepared nomination, with the errors in titles and missing publishers and formatting issues and missing page numbers. I'm going to walk back the oppose I slapped on this for now, but I'm having some issues with the sourcing in this one. Hog Farm Bacon 23:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Spot checks
 * "Thorp was inspired to write Nothing Lasts Forever after watching the disaster film The Towering Inferno (1974)" - Source says Tellingly, he experienced the dream on the very night he saw the 1974 disaster film The Towering Inferno - Is this really directly saying there's inspiration?
 * "His finished screenplay was delivered on a Friday in June 1987. It was greenlit by Saturday, in part because 20th Century Fox needed a big summer film for 1988" - Checks out
 * "De Souza used blueprints of Fox Plaza to help him lay out the story and character locations within the building" - Source doesn't mention Fox Plaza by name, but it seems to be implied
 * "The under construction Fox Plaza offered both; only four or five stories were occupied at the time" - The source makes it clear that four or five is Jan de Bont's estimate, maybe needs a little attribution?
 * "This figure makes it the tenth-highest-grossing film worldwide of 1988 behind Big ($151 million), Cocktail ($171 million), A Fish Called Wanda ($177 million), Rambo III ($189 million), Twins ($216 million), Crocodile Dundee II ($239 million), Coming to America ($288 million), Who Framed Roger Rabbit ($329 million) and Rain Man ($354 million)" - Seems like maybe the citations should be attached to the sentence as well, not just relegated to a footnote
 * "The enduring popularity of Die Hard led to a wide variety of merchandise produced for fans including: clothing; Funko Pops" - Checks out
 * "and unranked by Esquire - Checks out

Overall, I don't really have any significant concerns to faithfulness to the sources, but I am quite concerned about the quality and choice of sources used. Hog Farm Bacon 02:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Still Working
 * Closer is a tabloid. What makes it a high-quality RS?
 * It is owned by Bauer Media Group which is a major conglomerate, it is international, it has an editorial team and the author of the article has a page on the site detailing their relevant work and education history. For the content of the article, I do believe it is reliable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For Looper.com, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270. Not much discussion there, but it's not promising.
 * Replaced this with a Maxim source i was able to find Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes /Film a high-quality RS?
 * According to the sources in the sites SlashFilm, it has won several awards for its content from sites we would consider reliable, it has an About page which details the notable people and other reliable sites that have referenced /Film and it is recognized by Rotten Tomatoes for review purposes also . I don't have any concerns about the site being reliable for the information it is sourcing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes Film School Rejects an okay source?
 * It is referenced by reliable sources like The New York Times, the LA Times, CNN, etc and has also been awarded by reliable sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref 37 is missing the publisher. Also, I can't tell if this is an AMC staff post or an AMC blog.  If it's an AMC blog, it's probably dubious
 * A blog on their website is surely their blog? Either way I've replaced it with a JSTOR reference. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Filmtracks.com appears to be self-published
 * It is self published, but like SlashFilm, it is also widely recognised and respected, despite its terrible website design. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are we citing an advertisement in Variety? Advertisements send off red flags of probable bias that may be strong enough to effect reliability
 * Replaced Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For bmi.com and afi.com, instead of giving the website as the publisher, use the spelled-out name of the organization publishing it.
 * Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes highdefdigest.com an high-quality RS?
 * Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of loc.gov as the publisher, use Library of Congress
 * Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We need page number(s) for the Schneider book
 * It's an e-Book, there aren't any page numbers. I've added the chapter. I can guestimate the page number by counting pages but it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the chapter's fine under those circumstances. We just need more than just the whole book. Hog Farm Bacon 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref 129 use The Guardian, not TheGuardian.com
 * Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref 136 is missing the publisher
 * Ref 136 is an unreliable source per WP:FORBESCON - Forbes is okay if its not a contributor piece, but that's marked as a contributor piece
 * Per both above re:136, removed it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * " "Elf #6 Greatest xmas film of all time" - Wrong title
 * Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See this. There's no strong consensus that Screen Rant is even an RS, so it's certainly not a high-quality RS.  It's used multiple times.
 * Maybe things have changed since those discussions because ScreenRant has a Fact Checking Policy, a corrections policy, an ethics policy, an Ownership, Funding, and Advertising policy, a full editorial staff, and a press kit. It's not a rinky dink publication by any means. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have strong doubts that comicbook.com is a high-quality RS
 * Replaced with the AV Club. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:VG/RS lists Den of Geek as an RS, but there's a difference between RS and high-quality RS. It's used a lot, so I'd like some good reasoning as to what makes it more than just barely reliable.
 * It is a speciality website and an expert in the topic. It is referenced by and used by what we would consider reliable sources like The A.V. Club and the Telegraph, the New york Times, Radio Times, etc, it is involved with a legitimate publisher in Dennis Publishing, and I passed a source review with it for Trading Places just 2 weeks ago when it was spotchecked by Aoba47 who does regular checks for FAs, and apart from the Hart Bochner interview, it's not used for any contestable information. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes DVD Talk a high-quality RS?
 * I think this is reliable, but I've replaced it with a BBC source. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "This figure makes it the tenth-highest-grossing film worldwide of 1988 behind Big ($151 million), Cocktail ($171 million), A Fish Called Wanda ($177 million), Rambo III ($189 million), Twins ($216 million), Crocodile Dundee II ($239 million), Coming to America ($288 million), Who Framed Roger Rabbit ($329 million) and Rain Man ($354 million)" - Seems like maybe the citations should be attached to the sentence as well, not just relegated to a footnote
 * Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thorp was inspired to write Nothing Lasts Forever after watching the disaster film The Towering Inferno (1974)" - Source says Tellingly, he experienced the dream on the very night he saw the 1974 disaster film The Towering Inferno - Is this really directly saying there's inspiration?
 * Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "The under construction Fox Plaza offered both; only four or five stories were occupied at the time" - The source makes it clear that four or five is Jan de Bont's estimate, maybe needs a little attribution?
 * Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the comments below this part, it is an object of popular culture, so it makes sense that popular culture websites are going to cover it and are going to be used. I do not believe in using documents to source an article that the majority of people cannot access, i.e. JSTOR. Anything in the article should be easily checkable by anyone, not just the haves. I do not believe that popular culture websites, by default, are not reliable, though if information is particularly contested, a secondary source can be used. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ping feedback. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - I've got no issue with the use of pop culture websites, and I don't think they're inherently unreliable, but I'd like to see at least one or two scholarly in there. You can access JSTOR through WP:LIBRARY, and EBSCO as well.  I'd recommend using the Wikipedia Library.  It's free, available to most editors, and it's helped me out a lot - I'm from a rural area with iffy local libraries, so that's where I get a lot of scholarly sources. I'll give this another formatting check, but this is getting fairly close for sourcing. Hog Farm Bacon 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have had a look at the library but I will check again and see if I can find anything useful. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to tentatively opppose on sourcing per below.  I can help try to get you copies of sources through WP:LIBRARY or possibly my university (if applicable).  I just don't think this is quite up to the comprehensiveness standards.  I hope there's no hard feelings about this.  I don't like opposing at FAC, but it's not quite ready at this point. Hog Farm Bacon 18:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking my oppose due to the new sources. I'll give it another formatting look soon. Hog Farm Bacon 16:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll be giving a second run-through on formatting.
 * Second round


 * Use of Title Case vs Sentence case in the reference titles is inconsistent. Compare "They're making a Die Hard board game" vs "The Undying Influence of Die Hard".  Pick one method and stick with it
 * Ref 122 to Ayers 2008 is flagging a no target error. The Ayers 2017 in the sources should be Ayers 2008, per the date of the journal article.
 * Not seeing where the Durnford ref in the works cited is used
 * In the long citation for the Shivers ref, you give the relevant page range as 12-15, but then you cite page 16
 * I feel like the note should probably have a citation

Almost there on getting everything correct with the sourcing. Hog Farm Bacon 15:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Shivers and Durnford were in the same magazine, I'd accidentally reused Shivers instead of switching to Durnford for page 16. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "It is considered one of the better Die Hard sequels.[171]" - needs attribution to the specific source, as the cited source does not indicate an overall consensus, instead is just the work of a single writer who does not mention if there's a consensus on this. Hog Farm Bacon 18:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just removed it, I could add a few sources saying the same, but it would still be opinion, it's generally top 3 of 5 films, which is like a B or a C. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain
Oppose on 1b and 1c based on a tentative library search. Here is a list of scholarly sources I found through Gale General OneFile. These should be consulted to determine what and how much can be written about the theme of the "hero archetype" present in this film, comparisons to other similar characters and actors, etc. I wouldn't consider this article comprehensive or fully researched until such time: It does appear that the film and Willis' character have been written about in academic journals, so I'd recommend a thorough consultation using JSTOR and EBSCO as well. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Boon, Kevin Alexander. "Heroes, metanarratives, and the paradox of masculinity in contemporary Western culture." The Journal of Men's Studies, vol. 13, no. 3, 2005, p. 301+. Gale General OneFile. Accessed 16 Nov. 2020.
 * Ayers, Drew. "Bodies, bullets, and bad guys: elements of the hardbody film." Film Criticism, vol. 32, no. 3, 2008, p. 41+. Gale General OneFile. Accessed 16 Nov. 2020.
 * Gallagher, Mark. "Masculinity in translation: Jackie Chan's transcultural star text." Velvet Light Trap, 1997, p. 23+. Gale General OneFile. Accessed 16 Nov. 2020.
 * Done. Ping  Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looking promising on first readthrough. I'm striking my 1b and 1c opposition at this time and will do a more in-depth reading. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, have you had a chance to take a look yet? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies but I haven't had a chance to type up any notes. It looks promising and I don't anticipate any showstopper type of feedback. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi sorry to harass but like Hans Gruber hanging from Nakatomi Plaza by a wrist watch being unclasped by John McClane, time is running out. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs
Forthcoming, but is there a reason the article has been under indefinite pending changes protection for the past two years? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know but I would guess it is because people often try to change the genre in the lead to Christmas film to be clever. No other part is really changed by other users. My version has a section explaining the CHristmas aspect in the Legacy part, so there's no excuse for it now apart from trolls. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Desperate for work, Stuart was offered the job of adapting Thorp's novel into a screenplay." He was offered the job because he was desperate for work?
 * "McTiernan and De Souza made alterations to the script throughout filming, including adding and changing scenes, and altering the ending"—kind of clunky to repeat "alter" twice in the same sentence.
 * For the lead, I don't think you need ranges for budgets and grosses, just give us the rough numbers ($140M?) and focus on the ranges later (the budget itself doesn't seem so important to be mentioned in the lead versus other production details.)

-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I find myself agreeing with HJ Mitchell that the prose isn't quite there yet throughout. Take it from me, a guy who loves semicolons, they were a bit overused, as are excessive commas creating run-on sentences. Also an issue is that there's a lot of admirable efforts to pack information into a sentence that ultimately leads to less clear prose and makes it harder to read since I ended up stumbling on points.
 * I definitely think most of the henchmen should get their names struck and their fates elided. There's just too many names to keep track of, if you aren't familiar with the film it implies an importance that isn't there in the text, and makes it harder to follow.
 * Examples of chonky sentences: Willis, who was known mainly for his TV work, was eventually chosen and paid $5 million for the role, an unheard-of figure at the time that attracted considerable controversy towards the film prior to its release.—I'm left with questions about what was the controversy (was it the choice of Willis, was it the money, this wasn't a controversy afterward?)
 * McClane offers him a gun, and, when Gruber attempts to shoot him, he finds the gun to be empty.—the final "he" is unclear that it's Gruber, since you just said "him" right before it referring to McClane.
 * I think in general you can axe all the "then-X" markers throughout. Especially when a time frame is understood, you don't really need it.
 * The first two paragraphs of the critical reception feel like grab-bag critical quotes, not anything organized by any principle.
 * Likewise there are several places where a single critic's opinion is given the imprimatur of total summation by their placement in the text.
 * The final paragraph doesn't seem to have any cohesion either. How do Schwarzenegger and the Catholic Church connect?
 * Checked current refs 10, 11, 24, 29, 35, 39, 42, 44, 58, 72, 85, 88, 101.
 * 24 doesn't mention the Willis casting anecdote.
 * 58 doesn't mention the confetti used for the fall effect being shot out of a cannon.
 * 44 doesn't mention the lens and shooting frame rate; this appears to belong to ref 58.
 * 88 doesn't mention anything about the rental performance of the film.
 * I don't think the fair use rationale for File:Die Hard 1988 Rickman Stunt.jpg is that strong, in that you can't really see what's going on so its utility is pretty minimal.

Forthcoming, but is there a reason the article has been under indefinite pending changes protection for the past two years? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know but I would guess it is because people often try to change the genre in the lead to Christmas film to be clever. No other part is really changed by other users. My version has a section explaining the CHristmas aspect in the Legacy part, so there's no excuse for it now apart from trolls. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Desperate for work, Stuart was offered the job of adapting Thorp's novel into a screenplay." He was offered the job because he was desperate for work?
 * Re-wrote Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "McTiernan and De Souza made alterations to the script throughout filming, including adding and changing scenes, and altering the ending"—kind of clunky to repeat "alter" twice in the same sentence.
 * Re-wrote Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For the lead, I don't think you need ranges for budgets and grosses, just give us the rough numbers ($140M?) and focus on the ranges later (the budget itself doesn't seem so important to be mentioned in the lead versus other production details.)
 * I've removed the gross range, the budget is standard for a lead in my experience. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I find myself agreeing with HJ Mitchell that the prose isn't quite there yet throughout. Take it from me, a guy who loves semicolons, they were a bit overused, as are excessive commas creating run-on sentences. Also an issue is that there's a lot of admirable efforts to pack information into a sentence that ultimately leads to less clear prose and makes it harder to read since I ended up stumbling on points.
 * I removed most of the semi-colons yesterday prior to your comments. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I definitely think most of the henchmen should get their names struck and their fates elided. There's just too many names to keep track of, if you aren't familiar with the film it implies an importance that isn't there in the text, and makes it harder to follow.
 * Similarly, I rewrote the plot yesterday, prior to your comments. Their names were removed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Examples of chonky sentences: Willis, who was known mainly for his TV work, was eventually chosen and paid $5 million for the role, an unheard-of figure at the time that attracted considerable controversy towards the film prior to its release.—I'm left with questions about what was the controversy (was it the choice of Willis, was it the money, this wasn't a controversy afterward?)
 * I've changed the sentence though it has required more text to elaborate. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * McClane offers him a gun, and, when Gruber attempts to shoot him, he finds the gun to be empty.—the final "he" is unclear that it's Gruber, since you just said "him" right before it referring to McClane.
 * I have changed the text. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think in general you can axe all the "then-X" markers throughout. Especially when a time frame is understood, you don't really need it.
 * I don't think this is universal. McTiernan's then-girlfriend could be his now wife or still girlfriend or they're completely separated like 6 months later. I've removed two or three of them, though I'm dubious about it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The first two paragraphs of the critical reception feel like grab-bag critical quotes, not anything organized by any principle.
 * They are comments I interpreted as critical response to the entire film, while I go into specifics below. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Likewise there are several places where a single critic's opinion is given the imprimatur of total summation by their placement in the text.
 * I need more clarity on what you mean here. A critics opinion is their opinion and I've put their opinions in there. If I summarise at the start of the sentence, I use multiple sources, so maybe this isn't what you are talking about. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The final paragraph doesn't seem to have any cohesion either. How do Schwarzenegger and the Catholic Church connect?
 * It's just a final paragraph for things that don't fit anywhere else. I just thought it was an interesting anecdote because Schwarzenegger was likely going to be McClane if he hadn't turned it down, and Davi is a member of the cast. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Checked current refs 10, 11, 24, 29, 35, 39, 42, 44, 58, 72, 85, 88, 101.
 * 24 doesn't mention the Willis casting anecdote.
 * It is there, it is in the archived version but not the live version for some reason. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 58 doesn't mention the confetti used for the fall effect being shot out of a cannon.
 * Replacing with "falling" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 44 doesn't mention the lens and shooting frame rate; this appears to belong to ref 58.
 * Its both. The ref is in the next sentence. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 88 doesn't mention anything about the rental performance of the film.
 * Fixed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the fair use rationale for File:Die Hard 1988 Rickman Stunt.jpg is that strong, in that you can't really see what's going on so its utility is pretty minimal.
 * The tiny version isn't going to do anything, the full size one looks fine to me. But I have replaced it with a closer one. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, are you waiting for time to take a further look at the other comments or waiting for action from myself? Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note
This is coming up to four weeks since it was nominated and has yet to attract a support. I shall add it to Urgents, but it needs several detailed reviews over the next two weeks if it is not to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "'Tis Christmas it's the time of miracles." But yes, please add to the urgents and don't close it too soon. Comments are positive, I just need more of them. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears there are three ongoing reviews, but feel free to ping me for a review if one of them stalls for good. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , courtesy copy to : nearly five weeks in and no supports, or even completed reviews. Normally I would be timing this out. If any of you are likely to complete a review over the next week or so I would be grateful if you could so indicate. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hiya Gog- this has been on my list for a while-- I've been meaning to get around to it, but I'm intending to re-watch the movie first (totally just to review it better, not because I want to watch it :P) and then comment, and I just have had a struggle finding the time. I can promise comments from me by this time next sunday at the latest. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm planning on getting to this after the holiday. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is in its eighth week and still has no supports. It seems - correct me if I am wrong - that has dropped out; that  will continue to review "after the holiday"; that  is waiting for "Harry, Funk and David's comments" to be resolved; that  is waiting for the Harry's issues to be resolved; and that Harry, while reporting "progress", feels that both the plot and lead sections need work and comments "David has raised some good points above and I'd like to see them resolved before I do a full review".
 * So, can any of you persuade me that this nomination is likely to achieve a consensus to promote in the near future? Because from where I am sitting it seems that a lot of good work has been done, but that this may best be continued off-FAC pending a resubmission which will hopefully run more smoothly. Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear why all the reviewers are waiting for each other. It's not a junction. You can continue moving forwards regardless of what other people are doing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to continue my review soon, but it can be demotivating to do a full review just for an article to be archived right after (has happened quite a few times), so I was waiting to see what would happen. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do believe that we're making progress and I'm happy to remain involved for as long as that remains so, whether at FAC or not. Nonetheless, there is more work to do (I don't believe my concerns have been fully addressed, not all of David's have, and I haven't thoroughly reviewed the second half of the article yet). It might be worth archiving to give it a better chance with a new FAC at the top of the list once all the outstanding comments have been addressed. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The plot has been trimmed significantly, to its detriment for someone unfamiliar with the film. I have done as you asked. I have also removed the semi-colons and the only thing I haven't done is make the lede summary longer because I believe it to be unnecessary and a sufficient overview of the setup. Anything more would be going into twists or plot developments, which is not the purpose of the lede. I have addressed your concerns as stated. Unless you are prepared to read the rest of the article and continue your feedback, you should be courteous enough to strike your oppose and exit the discussion rather than hold it up. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Darkwarriorblake: you have already been warned. Reading that I came very close to immediately archiving this nomination on the grounds that a nominator with your apparent attitude towards reviewers who are giving up their free time to try to get this article up to standard doesn't deserve to have it left open. Please reread what Ealdgyth wrote below and please take it to heart. You are not going to get this article to FA standard by alienating the people trying to help you. I am away from Wikipedia for 24 hours. When I get back others who have made contributions to this discussion may have made clear where they stand and I shall decide whether there is any merit in keeping this nomination open. They don't owe you a "Support", they owe you their honest opinions. That can be difficult, but when you receive it it behoves you to be grateful. Petulance is unlikely to make any of them feel more charitable. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unwatching. My oppose stands. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 08:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Given current time constraints with an upcoming arbitration case, I don't think I'm going to be able to do the line edits necessary to put myself in the support column within the timeframe of the FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone, this review has gone on long enough; work on improvements to the article -- in concert with any of the reviewers who want to be involved -- should be done outside FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891
I've seen the movie-- it's been a while and I'm not encumbered by background knowledge Actual review forthcoming Eddie891 Talk Work 02:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Skipping plot & Characters for now-- will come back to it
 * I'm concerned that while you have cited a few excerpts from Die Hard: The Ultimate Visual History, the book itself doesn't seem to have been incorporated
 * Hi, thanks for your time. The Ultimate Visual History is mentioned in the Merchandise section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In light of Harry, Funk and David's comments, which bring up some valid points, I think I'll wait to comment in more detail so as to not overwhelm you. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Funk

 * I'll have a look soon, I recently watched a documentary about the making of the movie on Netflix, and it is a few days before Christmas, so would be a missed opportunity if this was archived before I could review it... FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Blue-collar and Ronald Reagan appear to be duplinked.
 * Since subjects of images should preferably face the text, the photo of John McTiernan should probably be right aligned.
 * "On Christmas Eve 1988" I don't remember, but does the film really state the year? And is it relevant in a plot summary?
 * "(equivalent to $1.38 billion in 2019)" Is this really relevant in a plot summary about a fictional event?
 * " McClane throws some C-4 down an elevator shaft. The explosion kills the pair, ending the assault." I think this would flow better as a single sentence. Oddly broken up now.
 * Thank you for reviewing this . I'll replace the Mctiernan pic with a face on one that is available on Wikimedia. I just need to do it at home so I can crop it. I've changed the rest. The $1.38 billion, I get a lot of FA where I am told I need to convert things i.e. measurements, and I personally find the figure interesting as it gives me a context for how much that value means in todays money so I think it would be of benefit to a casual reader. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Replaced the image FunkMonk Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "he disaster film The Towering Inferno (1974)" Why not just "he disaster 1974 film", since you use that style for other films mentioned?
 * "a permanent two-thirds hearing loss in his left ear from his stunt work for the film" Which stunt?
 * "He was let go early to elicit a genuine look" Earlier? May convey it better, but depends on what the source says.
 * "is a recreation of the Nakatomi rooftop that is destroyed" What does this mean, that it shows it after being destroyed, or that the miniature was destroyed? Could be worded less ambiguously.
 * "an American Indian stuntman" What is meant by this, a native American or an East Indian? if the former, might be better to say Native American?
 * I see that's what the source says, quoting the actor, so perhaps put it in citation marks? FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The "A monument to the working class" seems very vaguely related to the subject. If you want decorative photos, why not some that are more relevant of locations, people mentioned in the section, or similar?
 * Done. I can't really think of a better image to use that is relevant to that section. The Working Class aspect was one of the more interesting takes on it. I'm open to suggestions. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an image of Odysseus kicking ass, as this is directly referred to in the text (unlike the statue)? FunkMonk (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "ever-increasing depiction of increasingly" Seems like redundancies, what does the source say?
 * "The earliest known release of Die Hard on DVD" This makes it sound like it's the first sighting of some mythological being. Surely the first DVD release is known and not ucnertain? So why not just say "Die Hard was first released on DVD" or similar?
 * Roman Catholic Church could be linked.
 * Most of the Thematic analysis section is written as fact, when it is all interpretation by various writers, it appears. It would probably be best to give in-text attribution for these claims, especially the more outlandish ones. Who called him "Christ-like", for example?
 * Perhaps this free recreation of the film's logo could be used? For example under Release?
 * "Instead, positive reviews and the limited release had made it a "must-see" film." The critical reception section almost makes it seem like it got overwhelmingly negative reviews? Is something missing? Or that mainly critique has been focused on when summarising it?
 * There are many other cases of years for films given in parenthesis, not a big deal, but would be nice if it was consistent.
 * Hi, I've addressed most of these. I will take a look at the theme attributions as this will take a little longer. I have replaced the image with something closer to "Odysseus kicking ass"! The review section and the "strong reviews" part, the reviews are positive generally about the film and Rickman, and mixed on Willis. When reading the reviews they are generally positive but don't give you any detail to adapt since they then tend to focus on criticizing the genre in general for becoming mindless and loud. For example, Canby's review says "appeal to audiences who require a constant stream of explosions and loud noises, calling it the "perfect movie for our time". He described it as an intense but fleeting experience akin to "snorting pure oxygen", which is technically a good review because audiences did want that and did respond to it, but he's writing it like he's too good for it. I get that the year in parentheses does change, but it tends to be contextual. If I'm describing the film, i.e. "the 1984 supernatural comedy" versus just namedropping a film like "Ghostbusters (1984)". I can change it to the former throughout as the genre I think is important for some films that are less known. Just let me know. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Changes look good, ping me when you've done the theme attributions, then I'll have a closer look at that section... FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "It was also massively influential on filmmaking.[16][122] It redefined the action film genre." Could this maybe become one sentence? Seems a bit staccato-like now with these very short sentences after each other, which are basically related anyway.
 * I have made some changes to the Themes section and altered the above sentences. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking good to me so far. I think I'll continue the review once the discussion below is somehow resolved. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Harry
Oppose. Prose in the lead is choppy with lots of short sentences in quick succession and over-use of semicolons. Lead does not adequately summarise the plot, which is in fact barely mentioned. Then the plot section is far too detailed (not so much a summary as a scene-by-scene run through) and again suffers from choppy prose and excess semicolons. The prose gets better further down but I'm not convinced it's written in an encyclopaedic tone or to a professional standard throughout. I haven't scrutinised it line by line below the cast section. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How am I meant to address any of this? Semi-colons are allowed. The summary of the plot in the lead is a sufficient overview of what the film is about. What else could I possibly mention? The plot is within the word limit of WP:FILMPLOT and addresses important events as it is in every other film article on Wikipedia. This is like complaining that the article is about Die Hard. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How you can address it is not up to me. When a reviewer raises a concern at FA, it is for the nominator to resolve or else seek a ruling from a coordinator that the concern is unactionable or lacks a basis in the criteria. In my experience, such rulings are few and far between, and "professional standard" is the very first criterion. Semicolons are allowed, but I feel that seventy of them in 11,000 words is excessive and hampers readability. I disagree that Die Hard follows New York City police detective John McClane (Willis) who is caught up in a terrorist takeover of a Los Angeles skyscraper while visiting his estranged wife is an adequate summary for the lead. The plot section is actually 706 words, right at the top of the 400–700 words recommended by WP:FILMPLOT and, as I say, consists not of a summary of the most important events, but a scene-by-scene run-down. Have a look at this edit for the sort of thing I mean. That was a fairly trivial copy edit but took out 70-odd words and improved the flow, and that's just from three small paragraphs. Finally, I don't see that this is at all like complaining about the subject matter. It happens to be one of my favourite films and I'm excited to see it at FAC, but FAC is (to quote a current discussion on WT:FAC) "an intentionally difficult process", intended to produce the very best content Wikipedia has to offer. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The plot summary close to word limits. Just maybe shortened below that while maintaining what it has on it since it has better description on how events like that happens, not with what you're doing. It's not an improvement in the encyclopedic tone of description of the plot summary. Film article has in the lead sections have shorten plot summaries, which is a sufficient overview of what the article is about. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at a random sample of film FAs and most had around twice the length of plot description in the lead. The lead cannot be an adequate summary of the article if a section that accounts for nearly 10% of the prose is summarised in about 25 words. The plot section is excessively long and detailed and it does not flow well. I made a sample edit showing some of the details that could be pared back and ways to make it flow better (for example, not listing every single villain, cutting some of the less important details, combining short sentences even if it meant not strictly following the chronology of the film—which is explicitly allowed by MOS:PLOT and MOS:FILM). I'm not advocating any particular change, just offering potential solutions to help satisfy WP:FA? 1a, 2/2a, and 4, because the nominator asked "how am I meant to address any of this?" and I thought an example might help. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead plot description would be entirely individual to each article. There is nothing more to say than a cop is caught in a skyscraper with terrorists and his wife. That is the crux of the plot. That is literally why there is a section describing how "Die Hard in a [insert location]" is a shorthand. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have expressed concern about the plot with this article well before this FA, as there is far too much weight given on naming all the "bad guys" in the film when really only about 4 need to be named (Hans, Theo, Karl and Tony); the rest, while they may be named in the script and credits and briefly called out, are all effectively interchangeable characters with minimal characterization or plot relevance to the story. From a WP:WAF standpoint, the emphasis on naming and tracking all their fates is very poor, and while I've argued in the past on the talk page to change this, I've not gained traction then. But as it's been raised for the FAC, I'll take a stand that it is a poor summary with the names all included and that the attempt that HJ Mitchell had done earlier (just now) which removed most of that flowed much better. --M asem (t) 22:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Masem, been up for nomination for a month and you don't come over here to contribute and stop it being de-listed, but finally come over to help block it. Thumbs up buddy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's uncalled for. Please strike it. Nobody is trying to block the article from being promoted. The purpose of FAC, per the instructions, is to "generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria" (emphasis original), which is what I have been attempting to do, and Masem is offering support to my concerns because opposing an FAC can be a lonely business. Hostility and sarcasm will not get you the input you need for the FAC to pass and will only discourage reviewers. Working with, rather than against, reviewers might just get the article its star. Pinging in case they wish to weigh in. HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  22:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've worked with every editor above. None of them whacked an oppose on their first comment by saying there were too many semicolons for their liking. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There, trimmed the plot, removed a bunch of semi-colons. The lead summary is sufficient for the overview of the plot. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting that I've seen this. The work so far is definitely taking the article in the right direction (in my opinion at least) but I feel there's more that could be done to improve the plot section. I still feel it contains too much detail and is too wordy in places. I made an example edit of the sort of tightening that it could benefit from. I'll leave the discussion of the lead for now. Also noting that David ahs raised some good points above and I'd like to see them resolved before I do a full review. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's have less comments on other editors and more working together towards seeing whether the article is of FA standard or not. We shouldn't have to discuss what the nominator or the reviewers are doing (or what other nominators or reviewers have done in the past). We should concentrate on the improvement of the article. I know it's stressful to have an oppose placed, but it's not a reason to start commenting on the reviewers themselves - confine the discussion to the comments made. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)