Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Die Hard/archive2

Die Hard

 * Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 1988 action film Die Hard starring Bruce Willis and the inimitable Alan Rickman. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose by Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.

This article is far too long. Looking at WP:LENGTH, if the level of detail present in "Production" or "Stunts" is desired then a separate article on each should be span off per WP:DETAIL. These sections could then be rewritten in a summary style to convey the message in each section in a more succinct, punchier and clearer way.

Regretfully, this issue causes me to believe that the article is not currently ready for FAC and that the work suggested above should be carried out off FAC and the article then resubmitted. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe an Oppose is fair, WP:LENGTH does not insist on splitting at all at it's current size, the stunts section is not long at all, and the production is within the scope of the topic and not sufficient to sustain its own article. It's also no bigger than other articles like Prometheus, Conan the Barbarian, Groundhog Day, and Ghostbusters II are all of comparable length. This also was not raised as an issue during the last FAC only a month ago. Thanks for your input anyway. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

could be rendered as something like "The development of Die Hard began in 1987. Screenwriter Jeb Stuart's agent Jeremy Zimmer contacted Lloyd Levin, the head of development at the Gordon Company." with little or no loss of useful information. Similarly "Capturing the stunt was difficult because Rickman was falling at a rate of 32 feet (9.8 m) per second, and it was impossible for a human operator to manually refocus the camera quickly enough to prevent the image from blurring as he fell away. Supervised by visual effects producer Richard Edlund, Boss Film Studios engineered an automated system that could relay information from an encoder on the camera to a computer that would instantly calculate the necessary change in focus and operate a motor on the camera's focus ring to make the change. A camera with a wide-angle lens shooting at 270 frames per second was used, creating footage that played 10 times slower than normal. Despite these innovations, the camera struggled to keep Rickman entirely in focus during his 1.5-second fall; the scene cuts away from Rickman as the usable footage runs out. A stuntman in a slow-fall rig was lowered from Fox Plaza to complete Gruber's fatal descent." could be summarised along the lines of "Capturing the stunt was difficult supervised by visual effects producer Richard Edlund, Boss Film Studios engineered an automated system to film it. Despite these innovations, the camera struggled to keep Rickman entirely in focus during his 1.5-second fall; the scene cuts away from Rickman as the usable footage runs out. A stuntman in a slow-fall rig was lowered from Fox Plaza to complete Gruber's fatal descent." and the result would, in my opinion, be more succinct, punchier and clearer. I obviously don't insist that I am correct, and other opinions may well be available. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, WP:TOOBIG merely suggests that "> 60 kB Probably should be divided ... > 50 kB May need to be divided". The article is currently 65 kB plus quotes, notes and cast list. There is, in my opinion also – to the extent that it is probably best treated as a separate point – a fair bit of scope for a more summary style and places where it does not "stay[ ] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" (FAC criterion 4). I have great admiration for the huge amount of work you have put into the article - clearly a labour of love - and consider it to broadly be in good shape, but I do not consider the style to be summary enough, and I consider the article too long.
 * Regarding the summary style point, by way of illustration, I consider that "The development of Die Hard began in 1987. Screenwriter Jeb Stuart was in dire financial straits and needed paying work. He had successfully pitched a script to Columbia Pictures with Robert Duvall set to star, but the project was abandoned, and a separate four-script contract at Walt Disney Pictures was not providing him with sufficient income. After submitting his first contracted script to Disney, Stuart had six weeks when he could complete work for another studio. His agent Jeremy Zimmer contacted Lloyd Levin, the head of development at the Gordon Company."
 * I will copy edit the article again, but I do not think it is in the best interests of the article to abandon notable details to fit a loose summary guideline. The article is not unwieldy and sections are neat and concise. The latter paragraph in particular excises any detail about what they actually accomplished with the stunt or why it was an accomplishment. It's also one of the more famous parts of the film, so I felt a more detailed explanation was useful. It is nearly 11pm here so I will do a thorough pass by tomorrow evening. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't feel a need to rush. Better to take your time. Maybe consult another editor or two. Whatever. Let's get the article as good as we can, even if it takes a little longer than we might like. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm just going to say that I don't think that this article is too long. A good chunk of kB is taken up by the references, and given that this is about one of the most popular and influential films of all time, I think it's sort of expected that it'd be a beefy article if it were truly complete. (As an aside, my most recent FA nom, Sonic the Hedgehog, passed even though it's sizably larger than this one.) JOE BRO  64  01:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ”one of the most popular and influential films of all time”????
 * Die Hard. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, neither one of the most popular, nor most influential films. A slight seasonal favorite, but it didn’t influence film-making or cinema in any way. (I make no comment on the suitability of this article for an FA star, this is just a comment on the over-blown description). 213.205.194.165 (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Try reading the article. It only influenced many action films that came after such that "Die Hard on/in a [insert location]" became a shorthand and it's still referenced in other media today. And that's just in the 4th paragraph. But hey, they can't all be as influential as Harry Potter or whatever you think constitutes quality. -_- Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thanks for making it personal. I did have some comments to add to improve the flow in a couple of places, but I’ll leave you to it. - 213.205.194.165 (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate, WP:Article size only refers to readable prose size, not including references. The prose length of Sonic article at 58 kb is 10% shorter than this article at 64kb. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But you also have to remember that over a 10th of the prose in Die Hard is the Themes section, which I don't personally like doing unless it's a film deep with meaning like Robocop or the Matrix, but is often brought up as a necessity for FAC so I include it. The stuff directly related to the film is well under 60KB. As such I am aiming to copy edit it down further, but I won't sacrifice the interesting details about the production of the film for interpretations of the film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Before you edit out details which you believe should be on Wikipedia somewhere, you may want to look at WP:DETAIL, especially the concept of inverted pyramids. You may not want to go that way, but it at worst give you an idea of where I am coming from, Wiki-policy wise. And I think that something along those lines is what is needed. "Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs" (emphasis added). Gog the Mild (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, the article has been trimmed to a low-end 60KB and under 10,000 words while still including a themes section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That was fast work. While 60kB and 10,000 words of readable prose - quite a bit more if the cast list, the quotes and the notes are included - is well into alarm bells ringing territory, I appreciate your taking the concern seriously, WP:TOOBIG has some flexibility in it and it is entirely possible that the article will shorten further during the FAC as there are requests to tighten the language up. So I am striking my oppose. I am pinging the reviewers who were kind enough to comment on this article during its last nomination, in the hope that they may repeat the favour. Once the article settles down after a few reviews, I will have another run through it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll continue where I left off soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL333
I agree with Gog that the article is too lengthy. Sections like "Critical response" are the main culprits imo. ~ HAL  333  20:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Really solid work. I enjoyed reading this article back in December after my obligatory seasonal Die Hard viewing. ~ HAL  333  19:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unable to avoid it in time, he was forced to drive into it at speed; it was empty. The "in time" bit can be removed.
 * He returned home to reconcile with his wife, and wrote 35 pages that night. As these are not two independent clauses, the comma should be removed.
 * Levin helped Stuart pitch his story to studio executives, including Gordon. Gordon soon left the meeting, telling Stuart to just go and write the script. Stuart finished his first draft six weeks later. I feel like these sentences could be combined and shortened.
 * You could link big summer film to Blockbuster (entertainment).
 * When Kamen first saw Die Hard, it was largely incomplete and he was unimpressed. Comma needed before "and". A complete restructure of this sentnce may be better.
 * a piece of James Horner's unused score for Aliens (1986) I watched Aliens recently and swore I heard the piece used in Die Hard. I know the source says otherwise, but I'm still a little confused. Not much you can do here I guess.
 * It seems a little strange to have two sentences in different sections about the his first shot being his jump from the roof.
 * Remove "then" from He was suspended on a raised platform and then dropped onto a blue screen airbag.
 * What is a "slow-fall rig"?
 * The sentence The vehicle was detonated during the scene, although the rockets fired by the terrorists were small explosives moving along a guidewire. is confusing. Was it accidentally detonated? Should a rocket of that size not have caused such an explosion?
 * If I understand it correctly, the sentences In the scene where McClane throws C4 down the elevator shaft to stop the assault, the effects team blew out every window on one floor of the building. They were unsure what was going to happen until they did the stunt. could be made more concise with a change liked In the scene where McClane throws C4 down the elevator shaft to stop the assault, the effects team unwittingly blew out every window on one floor of the building.
 * You could link Native American.
 * It's "Avco", not AVCO.
 * Since you link The Los Angeles Times in the body, you should also link The New York Times.
 * In the "Thematic analysis" section, shorten Roger Ebert to just Ebert.
 * As you already mentioned "John Rambo", just call him Rambo.
 * McClane's and Powell's --> McClane and Powell's
 * The A.V. Club noted that unlike many other 1980s films, Die Hard does not contain allusions to the Vietnam War. The film mocks the idea when one FBI agent remarks that their helicopter assault is reminiscent of the war; his partner responds that at the time he was only in middle school. I'm confused. Isn't the reference to Saigon an allusion?
 * Levin helped Stuart pitch his story to studio executives, including Gordon. Gordon soon left the meeting, telling Stuart to just go and write the script. Stuart finished his first draft six weeks later. I feel like these sentences could be combined and shortened.
 * I've reworded this a little as " In the middle of Stuart pitching his story, Gordon told him to just go and write it and left the meeting. Stuart finished his first draft six weeks later." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When Kamen first saw Die Hard, it was largely incomplete and he was unimpressed. Comma needed before "and". A complete restructure of this sentnce may be better.
 * Reworded as "Kamen initially saw a mostly incomplete version of Die Hard and was unimpressed." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * a piece of James Horner's unused score for Aliens (1986) I watched Aliens recently and swore I heard the piece used in Die Hard. I know the source says otherwise, but I'm still a little confused. Not much you can do here I guess.
 * If you ever read the Aliens article, Cameron basically chopped up Horner's score because he didn't like it. I think the scene you are talking about is where they are rescued from the colony as its about to explode? You hear like the first 2-3 seconds of the track you link, but I don't recall it being used significantly, while those first 50 seconds are definitely the ending to Die Hard without question. It's possible parts of that track are used throughout Aliens, but it would have been chopped up, and I can only really think of two scenes in the entire film where it would be used; them being picked up from the exploding colony, and ejecting the queen, and I don't think it's used for the queen. I think Cameron's chopping all the score up doesn't help because you will have a few seconds of pieces used in different places. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems a little strange to have two sentences in different sections about the his first shot being his jump from the roof.
 * I can see what you are saying. IMO, the first instance is interesting from a reader perspective when you get to filming, and I think it'd be a shame to omit it there, and the second instance is just really setup to talk about the stunt. I think rephrasing it would make it as long but maybe more...boring? I'm open to suggestions though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, it's not a big deal. ~ HAL  333  17:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What is a "slow-fall rig"?
 * Replaced with a "slow falling harness". Is that any clearer? I get the intent of the source but I don't know if there is an official name for the equipment that I could link to. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentence The vehicle was detonated during the scene, although the rockets fired by the terrorists were small explosives moving along a guidewire. is confusing. Was it accidentally detonated? Should a rocket of that size not have caused such an explosion?
 * I have reworded this a little to "Small explosives moving along a guidewire were disguised as the terrorist rockets, giving the appearance of them striking the vehicle." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The A.V. Club noted that unlike many other 1980s films, Die Hard does not contain allusions to the Vietnam War. The film mocks the idea when one FBI agent remarks that their helicopter assault is reminiscent of the war; his partner responds that at the time he was only in middle school. I'm confused. Isn't the reference to Saigon an allusion?
 * The source says " Die Hard is not about Vietnam, even in an oblique way. It even mocks the idea, as the FBI’s two doomed Agents Johnson approach Nakatomi Plaza in their helicopter. The elder of the two howls with delight: “Just like fucking Saigon, eh, slick?” His younger counterpart just rolls his eyes: “I was in junior high, dickhead." Allusions might not be the right word, it seems to be saying it is just not about Vietnam as many late 70s/80s films were. I will try to reword it. EDIT Changed allusions to allegory. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, now that makes sense. ~ HAL  333  17:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review this Hal. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The A.V. Club noted that unlike many other 1980s films, Die Hard does not contain allusions to the Vietnam War. The film mocks the idea when one FBI agent remarks that their helicopter assault is reminiscent of the war; his partner responds that at the time he was only in middle school. I'm confused. Isn't the reference to Saigon an allusion?
 * The source says " Die Hard is not about Vietnam, even in an oblique way. It even mocks the idea, as the FBI’s two doomed Agents Johnson approach Nakatomi Plaza in their helicopter. The elder of the two howls with delight: “Just like fucking Saigon, eh, slick?” His younger counterpart just rolls his eyes: “I was in junior high, dickhead." Allusions might not be the right word, it seems to be saying it is just not about Vietnam as many late 70s/80s films were. I will try to reword it. EDIT Changed allusions to allegory. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, now that makes sense. ~ HAL  333  17:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review this Hal. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The A.V. Club noted that unlike many other 1980s films, Die Hard does not contain allusions to the Vietnam War. The film mocks the idea when one FBI agent remarks that their helicopter assault is reminiscent of the war; his partner responds that at the time he was only in middle school. I'm confused. Isn't the reference to Saigon an allusion?
 * The source says " Die Hard is not about Vietnam, even in an oblique way. It even mocks the idea, as the FBI’s two doomed Agents Johnson approach Nakatomi Plaza in their helicopter. The elder of the two howls with delight: “Just like fucking Saigon, eh, slick?” His younger counterpart just rolls his eyes: “I was in junior high, dickhead." Allusions might not be the right word, it seems to be saying it is just not about Vietnam as many late 70s/80s films were. I will try to reword it. EDIT Changed allusions to allegory. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, now that makes sense. ~ HAL  333  17:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review this Hal. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The source says " Die Hard is not about Vietnam, even in an oblique way. It even mocks the idea, as the FBI’s two doomed Agents Johnson approach Nakatomi Plaza in their helicopter. The elder of the two howls with delight: “Just like fucking Saigon, eh, slick?” His younger counterpart just rolls his eyes: “I was in junior high, dickhead." Allusions might not be the right word, it seems to be saying it is just not about Vietnam as many late 70s/80s films were. I will try to reword it. EDIT Changed allusions to allegory. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, now that makes sense. ~ HAL  333  17:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review this Hal. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Happy to support. ~ HAL  333  17:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks !Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Funk

 * I must say I'm unsure about the length thing; I once reviewed Mayan civilization, which is a whole lot longer than this article, and at that FAC the length issue was also raised, but it passed anyway. On the other hand, that article is a lot broader in scope, with much more ground to cover, so it makes sense it would be longer (but maybe also that it could be split more easily than a narrow subject like this). We should of course be concise if we can, but on the other hand, Wikipedia is not paper, and we don't have to be too concerned about people having crappy Internet connections any more so they can't load long pages. So I think I'll skip that issue for now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think much of the first paragraph of Thematic analysis could still need in-text author attribution, as much of it is interpretation rather than fact.
 * " McClane is portrayed as physically but realistically masculine, conveying the idea of a "real man" who possesses independent, intrinsic strength.[113] This can be seen as a response to Reaganism—the political positions of United States president Ronald Reagan—promoting values of the American dream, self-reliance, initiative, and technological advancement.[114]" Here you link the opinions of two different critics as one opinion, which might be a bit problematic, since the reader would be led to believe it is the opinion of one critic.
 * "McClane reclaiming violently reclaiming his wife" Double reclaiming.
 * "These masculine traits are negative but are seen as more attractive and useful" Seen or shown as? And seen by who?
 * "The film can also be seen as xenophobic." Also a pretty strong statement that needs attribution.
 * "The complex layout of Nakatomi Plaza can be seen as analogous to the concealing jungles of Vietnam" that would be a second source making the connection to Vietnam, but you wouldn't know since only Empire is named.
 * You link Empire at second instead of first mention.
 * "Nakatomi Plaza at the Fox Studio Lot in Century City" Not sure what is meant by this caption. Wasn't Nakatomi Plaza the Fox bui8lding?
 * You say basically the same thing a couple of times about the film's legacy in different sections, could be consolidated. Legacy: "Die Hard is considered to have had a significant influence on filmmaking, and is now regarded as one of the greatest action films ever made." Cultural impact: "One of the most influential films of the 1980s, Die Hard served as the blueprint for action films that came after, especially throughout the 1990s." and "Die Hard is considered one of the greatest action films ever made."
 * I think the "Die Hard on/in a..." list is a bit excessive. We only need two or three examples to get the point.
 * "made the practical effects in films like Die Hard feel more dated" Who says they're dated? You state it as if it's a fact, when it is certainly debatable.
 * Do we really need to list 12 director's influenced by the film? Like, who cares what Paul W. S. Anderson is influenced by, to be honest?
 * "Willis reprised his role as McClane in the 1993 parody film Loaded Weapon 1." You could specify it was just a cameo.
 * "Contemporary reception" When I read this, I think contemporary with the movie. So it would probably be good to make it clearer you are talking about retrospective views.
 * Speaking of article length, I'm not sure why one (1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) out of who knows how many reviews and articles of the film needs to be quoted basically in full?
 * "In 2015, readers of Rolling Stone ranked it the number 10 action film of all time;[143] readers of Empire voted it number 20 in 2017.[144]" Why mention these under Cultural impact only to then mention even more lists in the next section? The lists should be dealt woith in the same section.
 * "his second and final time in the series" By this time it goes without saying it was his second film in the series, why not just say "his only other film in the series"?
 * Los Angeles could be linked in the intro.
 * Hi, thanks for your comments. I'm not ignoring them, just had some bad news this weekend and did not want to look at this page in case they were super negative comments, but these are things I can actually fix!! I will work through these today, thanks for your input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that, I think the article looks good, so I should be able to support once these are fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think I've addressed all of the above except the directors thing. I think it is notable to show them to show the breadth of its influence, even if it is Paul Anderson. I trimmed the 1000 Movies to See Before You Die quote down. I included it because the book is independently notable, and most other places that might list it don't tend to give quotes, or useful ones at least. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I still think the list of directors could be cut down to six or similar and still convey the same message, but I'll let others decide; if you have to trim more, that could be a good place to start. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I do not think the size should be an issue any further, articles much larger have passed FAC and it's well within guidelines. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - without going into the length issue (see my initial comment), I think the article looks good, it includes everything I was expecting, and is enjoyable to read. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from theJoebro64
Yippee-ki-yay, motherfu- uh, I mean, I support this article's promotion. Read it and couldn't find anything worth commenting upon, for there were no more words to conquer. JOE BRO  64  12:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Joebro. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Bonnie_Bedelia_1974.JPG: source link is dead
 * File:Walt_Disney_Studios_Alameda_Entrance.jpg: what's the copyright status of the arch?
 * File:RoyRogersperformingKBF.jpg: as per the Flickr tag, is a more specific copyright tag available?
 * File:Die_Hard_1988_-_Assault_on_the_Tower.ogg needs a more expansive purpose statement in the FUR
 * File:Die_Hard_1988_Rickman_Stunt.jpg needs a more expansive FUR generally
 * File:Die_Hard_logo.png: source link is broken
 * File:Lancrenon_Ulysse.jpg: what is the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Bonnie_Bedelia_1974.JPG: source link is dead
 * Replaced link with an archived version Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Die_Hard_logo.png: source link is broken
 * Replaced the link. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Lancrenon_Ulysse.jpg: what is the copyright status of the original work?
 * As far as I'm aware copyright is only artist's lifetime plus 70 years, and the work is 211 years old. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Should still include a tag for the original work. This isn't solely an "own work" as claimed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I've added the right tags. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * File:RoyRogersperformingKBF.jpg: as per the Flickr tag, is a more specific copyright tag available?
 * Added a new tag. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but that tag doesn't address why the image is believed to be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean? It's from the Orange County Archives Official Flickr and I've added the right tag. Are you asking me to delete the other tag? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The Permission field claims "No known copyright restrictions", ie the image is believed to be PD. I'm looking for why it's believed to be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added a Public Domain tag. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Most GLAM institutions have a mission to make knowledge available, but that doesn't automatically extend to making knowledge copyright-free. Do we know whether the institution in this case held copyright, or is their upload based on the belief that the copyright had already expired? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They're allowing its use but you have to give them attribution, so that would seem to indicate they take ownership of it. The website just says "The Archives is also home to a vast collection of historic photos and archival materials from affiliated government agencies, as well as the Knott’s Berry Farm Collection, the federal court record of the county’s 1994 bankruptcy, Orange County directories and many local historic newspapers and magazines," which again reads like the photo was taken in an official capacity. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Official capacity of who? Federal government works are typically PD by default, but that doesn't extend to works by other levels of government or other organizations. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The official capacity of the local government. I've just changed the image because I'm getting depressed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Die_Hard_1988_-_Assault_on_the_Tower.ogg needs a more expansive purpose statement in the FUR
 * Expanded the rationale. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Walt_Disney_Studios_Alameda_Entrance.jpg: what's the copyright status of the arch?
 * I have no idea how you would find this out, but it's an askew image of writing blending into shadows taken from a public space of a public fronting. There is this alternate older image (File:Waltdisneyco2.jpg) that doesn't include the Mickey Mouse ears if that helps. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if public, in the US 3D works other than buildings are not covered by freedom of panorama. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry are you saying the arch is copyrighted or the mouse or the font? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The design as a whole. If you believe it's too simple to warrant copyright protection that would need tagging as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK I've changed the image and added a bunch of tags. this seems to say that the US does have a FOP rule, but the copyright side of this place is beyond me so maybe I'm reading it wrong. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * US has freedom of panorama only for specifically buildings, not other 3D works. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've changed it to just a photo of a building. They need to be clearer on what constitutes a building because IMO a fence/border/entrance is part of the overall package. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Die_Hard_1988_Rickman_Stunt.jpg needs a more expansive FUR generally
 * Beefed up the FUR. Ping Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Still needs work. For example, the "replaceable" entry states the copyright owner, but doesn't directly address this criterion. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Added more. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ping Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ping Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ping Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from HumanxAnthro

 * I hate to do this to the works of the great DarkWarriorBlake, but so far I'm leaning Oppose. While the academic analysis I've read this article is interesting and cited with some good sources, it is missing so many just-as-high-quality-and-reliable academic analysis, putting it at odds with 1b of the FAC. All it took me was a Google Scholar search to find these:
 * Info from this piece mainly about the movie about white men's masculinity from Jump Cut is not cited and discussed anywhere.
 * This one discusses the film's use of emotion for the action-style directing
 * I found this academia article that discusses Die Hard within the context of the Reagan era. I'd give it a read.
 * This discusses Die Hard within the context of gender differences in the film industry
 * This has more about the film's masculinity, specifically in context with other 80s films.
 * This discusses the film in the context of 80s action films in general.
 * The visual style of Die Hard is discussed in this piece, as well as how it compares to more-realistic-looking 70s cop thrillers.
 * The Google Scholar search also gave me a page of a book that discussed Die Hard as an example of many other movies for... something, because if you click on the link, you go to a page you can't preview.
 * More about the film's context within the Reagan years here
 * The film is used as a primary example in this article relating to media communication.
 * More discussion of the film within the context of 80s action movies, specifically their spectable, here
 * More about the film's discussion of its masculinity themes, as well as the aesthetic of the movie's action genre, here
 * This discusses Die Hard as part of the context of a fear of Middle East obsession in the late 1980s. This is what appeared in the preview field of my search. "One departure from Hollywood's Middle East obsession at this time was John McTiernan's Die Hard (1988), the first in a series of terrorist-action films" I haven't read any other part of this source, but that alone indicates there's perhap some other interesting stuff not included in the article.
 * This one, which redirected me again to a unpreviewable page, is from a piece named "Action films: The serious, the ironic, the postmodern," and I think it's fair to assume that this movie (as well as the second and third ones) will be discussed for its action style.
 * I also got this result with the following preview text: "In Die Hard (John McTiernan, 1988) Elsaesser detects 'something for eve- rybody', the film cannily appealing to a range of interpretive communities frac- tured by race, class and gender" I definitely don't see anything about race in this movie.
 * More discussion of the film's portrayal of terrorism here.
 * This discusses the film's portrayal of the working class. In the article, I only see one mention of anything working-class-related: "In this sense, McClane can be seen as a modern, working-class Christ-like figure.[3]"
 * This discusses the movie within the context of violence in media in general. Made appropriate by the fact that R-rated action movies like this one have their violence as one of their most notable traits.
 * This discusses the character of Al Powell in the film and how he compares to other fictional black law-and-order characters like policemen and detectives. Preview line: "One memorable example is the character of Sergeant Al Powell (Reginald VelJohnson), who can barely perform as a cop but some- how rediscovers his masculinity as a result of assisting the white and invincible John McClane (Bruce Willis) in Die Hard ( John McTiernan, 1988"
 * The film's portrayal of web data here
 * This film gets discussed within the context of blockbusters released after 1977.
 * This discusses the film's portrayal of the hero in relation to the Christ-like character and other religious texts.
 * This discusses the movie within the typical conventions of 1980s Christmas films
 * This discusses the film in relation to how women react to entertainment.
 * This discusses Die Hard as a major example of pleasurable Hollywood aesthetics.
 * This discusses the film's portrayal of computer monitors.
 * More analysis on the film's Al Powell, which is also criticism of the character as an example of how racism, although not explicit, is still subtle-ly there in movies released after the civil rights era.
 * More discussion of masculinity in the film.
 * This discusses Die Hard as an example of the journey for a protagonist in a movie to fulfill his inner needs and desires
 * More discussion about the film here
 * More analysis of the film in this book about action movies
 * An interpretation of the film in relation to the concept strength in the United States
 * Another quibble. Why are "Stunts and designs" its own full section, when they look like they easily could just be two more subsections in the production section? 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The analysis section at the minute is a TENTH of the entire article in terms of words, and if I add more content to it it's going to become WP:UNDUE in terms of weight and negate the cuts done to satisfy file size. It is not reasonable to expect an article to cover every text ever written about it, and if the desire is for this content to be included, the section would become so big it would require its own article, Interpretations of Die Hard, which would be separate to, and irrelevant to the FA of this article. I would also argue that the topics of many of those links are covered. There is discussion about terrorists and an associated xenophobia in relation to foreign powers and Powell's importance to the narrative and the role of African Americans in general. Working class is covered, and referred alternately to as blue-collar, McClane's christ-like comparison, gender roles, American ingenuity and place in the world, Vietnam comparisons, etc. A lot of these links, looking at them briefly, are covered in the article and I would be adding them purely to double up on references. Looking at the one on WebData, it's nothing to do with them film except using it as an example of associations between McTiernan and the film. Similarly, this one "Ill Effects: The Media Violence Debate" mentions the film in passing but doesn't discuss it as far as I can see. Stunts/Designs has its own section because it is a separate part of the process and it stops the development section becoming too long and unwieldy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, actually, that makes sense. I'll retract my Oppose for now, although I do have yet to read the article in full depth. Although.... I do smell an article creation idea with these sources, amirite? :)
 * On a side note, if there are points brought up in the sources above that happen to match the points currently in the thematic analysis section, I would still cite them with the currently used cites as WP:Bundle cites to indicate they're widely-held interpretations instead of abstract perspectives each held by one-to-two random persons. After all, the article size limitations seem to only apply to prose length in this FA discussion, so yeah. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, since article length seems to be a recurring issue here, I would have a separate article for the interpretations, with the themes section in the main article being a shorter, concise summary of what would be found in it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will take a look again through the list and add appropriate ones to existing material. If there is something that can be added I will make efforts to squeeze them in as is. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Prose comments
 * Lead
 * The second lead para has no sense of leading the reader into it. It just abruptly goes to "Stuart was offered the job of adapting Thorp's novel into a screenplay in 1987." I think stating who greenlit him to do it would be the proper intro to this para, since the company/person started development by hiring him.
 * "The role of McClane was turned down by a host of the decade's top stars," Something about this just sounds non-encyclopedic and WP:EDITORIAL to me.
 * "Willis, who was known mainly for his television work, was paid $5 million for the role," Is "who was" necessary here? I think it's more concise without it
 * "the deal was seen as a poor investment"
 * "ostensibly because the marketing team determined that the setting was as important a character as McClane." I know this means marketers found the setting itself as essential as Willis, but creatively describing the setting as a character makes this non-encyclopedic.
 * I feel the positive (box office, academy awards, retrospective reviews) and less-positives (initial reviews, low box office expectations) should be organized together, starting with the mixed reviews and box office expectations followed by contrast words that lead into the positives. I think it flows better this way
 * No sentence on the thematic analysis, which like you said, makes up a tenth of this article?
 * Human, I've tackled this section I think, I will take a look at the rest but most of it will probably be done tomorrow. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Writing and development
 * Just did a spotcheck of a paragraph that cites ref 10:
 * (1) "Gordon told him to just go and write it" Could we paraphrase this better, since it sounds too close to the quote in the source text: "Look, you’re supposed to be pretty good. Just go write it."
 * (2) Wiki article says Stuart wrote draft in six weeks, but the Variety source gives a bit different time period: "Stuart finished his first draft in just five and a half weeks."
 * Done a pass on this Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Other media
 * "Die Hard Trilogy (1996), a popular game for the PlayStation, adapted the first three Die Hard films.[106][107]" I know this article isn't about the game, but could we have a summary about how the first film was ad- or, wait, would that be too much for the article size?
 * I think mentioning it was a third person shooter would take up more space than necessary. Again, I feel the "article size limit" is a bit arbitrary, I can make the article 100KB if I want to if I can justify it, but for the purpose of this nomination its been raised as an issue that the article was too good and comprehensive, so trimmed it is. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Aftermath and performance analysis
 * "In a year otherwise dominated by comedy films, Die Hard was seen as an anomaly among action films such as Rambo III and Red Heat, which failed to meet box office expectations.[13][85]" Two issues:
 * (1) How was Die Hard considered an anomaly among action films? There probably already is a separate section explaining this, but you probably should link to here so readers know where to go.
 * (2) I don't think the transition from discussing comedy to actions films is smooth and comfortable.
 * "which had had few successes" Why are there two hads?
 * "Young Guns" This needs a year.
 * RE: NUmbers 1 and 2, I'm not 100% what you mean. Maybe I've not worded it right? The sentence is saying that the box office was otherwise dominated by comedy films and the action films that year had all generally flopped, including big sequels like Rambo 3 or starring vehicles like Red Heat, so Die Hard was an anomaly in that it was the only action film to do really well. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I might understand what you mean now, I've rephrased it a little. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thematic analysis
 * "Darin Payne wrote that when men's role as the main household earner was threatened by more women joining the workforce, and blue-collar jobs were being lost to foreign countries, an American cowboy saves the day, rescuing his captured princess from a tower.[120]" This sentence not only sounds odd, but is confusing, especially given its change from a past to present tense in the middle. Is it saying that there were cowboys saving princesses from big corporation towers in real life during periods of economic decline? And what specific periods are we talking about? Or does it talk about a general fiction trend during real-life socioeconomic trends? Clarification is needed here.


 * Legacy
 * "He was failing, both personally and professionally, and serves as a vulnerable, identifiable hero who openly sobs, admits his fear of death," Why the tense change?
 * Changed "was" to "is", I think this addresses the issue. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Modern reception
 * "Several publications have listed it as one of the greatest action films of all time, including: number one by Empire,[152] IGN[145] and Entertainment Weekly;[146] number 10 by Timeout;[153] number 14 by The Guardian;[154] number 18 by Men's Health[155] and unranked by Complex,[156] Esquire[157] and The Standard.[158]" Multiple issues:
 * (1) In the prose, IGN and Time Out magazine are incorrectly presented without italicizations
 * (2) The specific location edition of the Time Out source isn't specified. The list is actually from Time Out New York
 * (3) Timeout --> Time Out, since that's the actual name
 * (4) Since this is the only time we see these work names in the prose, why are most of them, apart from IGN and Entertainment Weekly, not linked to the wiki articles about them?

More comments coming soon. I just did a random skim throughout this article, and these comments are what I noticed. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Refs
 * Notes
 * Rename "Notes" section to "Citations"
 * Ref 16, 29, 34, 62, 67, 68, and 151 I notice use a hyphen in their titles, which is not allowed per MOS:DASH. As Nikkimaria would say, "Check for others."
 * Ref 45. (1) BBFC is not a work. (2) You never format work or publisher names in URLs. You present the actual names. "bbfc.co.uk." --> BBFC
 * Ref 51. AllMusic is not a work, it's a publisher, so it should not be italicized
 * Are we sure Ref 62 is reliable?
 * Refs 73, 148, and 150. American Film Institute is not a work, so it should not be italicized.
 * Ref 82 Incorrectly uses URL name as work name, plus it's not a work. The name of the source should be presented as a publisher and as "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences," since oscars.org is the official site for it.
 * Ref 83 BMI is not a work, it's a publisher.
 * Ref 128 Library of Congress is a not a work, it's a publisher
 * Ref 135 BBC Online is not a work, it's a publisher.
 * What makes The New York Times a reliable source, because I've heard a bunch of Marxi– nah, just messing with ya :).
 * More comments have been added. More to come. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Excuse the delayed comments. I've had a nasty flu that has severely slowed down my ability to get things done on here 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think I've hit most of your concerns. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * More commentss (3/30/21)
 * Plot
 * Most of second paragraph follows a repetitive template: "[He did this] and [this other guy did that]." "[He gets killed] but [this other event happens]." There is no human flow in how the action is described. It feels like its listing events described in a few words "Tony, is sent after him," "McClane kills two terrorists," "McClane kills Tony," "McClane witnesses the murder," "Takagi refuses," but can't put in together in a way that feels concise and put together.
 * Speaking of which, I noticed the problems brought up by HJ Mitchell about the plot section having "choppy prose and excess semicolons," which he brought up in the previous FA discussion, are still there, although I've only noticed the semicolon thing in the beginning of the second para. I think the plot section summarizes all the points that need to be summarized per WP:FILMPLOT, but issues about choppiness definitely still need to be resolved.
 * I will, however, disagree with HJ Mitchell's criticism of the plot being a "scene-by-scene run-down." I know what it means, and if he was talking about a more down-tempo drama or horror movie where only the bigger plot points are essential and could be summarized, I could understand. But this is an intense action film where every small action affects the course of the plot, so I think having what HJ Mitchell is criticizing is needed for Die Hard's plot section. I think there are still points where it could feel less like that, like I example I provided above, but I don't think it should be devoid of that completely, especially for the climatic moments of the film. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Powell, having found nothing amiss, is leaving when McClane drops a body onto his car." So wait, he left after a body dropped on his police car? I don't think that's what happened.
 * "McClane catches Gruber checking explosives on the roof but he pretends he is an escaped hostage and McClane gives him a gun"
 * (1) Who is the "he" pretending to be a hostage?
 * (2) I think a comma is needed somewhere, but where I don't know. You make the call!
 * I've applied your changes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Development and writing
 * Can we specify "A project at Columbia Pictures had been abandoned" is talking about, in the Variety source's words, Stuart's "hot spec script" which landed him at Colombia. Given how it's currently framed, it feels like its vaguely talking about a random Colombia project Stuart wasn't involved in.
 * I've specified it was a script.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm confused about this interpretation of the variety source:
 * "Stuart had six weeks between contracted work so his agent Jeremy Zimmer contacted Lloyd Levin, the head of development at the Gordon Company, a producing arm of 20th Century Fox."
 * The source: "He was about to deliver his first Disney script, and that opened a six-week window where he could work for another studio. So Stuart’s agent put in a call to Lloyd Levin, the head of development for Lawrence “Larry” Gordon over at Twentieth Century Fox."
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about referring to it as The Gordon Company instead of Lawrence Gordon? The article specifies it is the Gordon Company in the next or second next paragraph. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The actual response to both quotes was below, which you've already responded. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the Variety source doesn't explain things much better. Did Disney allow him to work at another studio as a reward for delivering the script to Disney? I didn't know the first time I read the wiki article's version of this event that he was given six weeks by Disney, I assumed that meant he never gotten any contracts within those six weeks. Either way, both sentences leave certain things vague that makes reading the whole thing confusing.
 * I read it as he just had six weeks free before he had to start the next Disney script. It's not a specific time period he was given off, it was just time between contracted work when he had nothing to do. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Thorp had been inspired to write Nothing Lasts Forever by a dream he had after watching the 1974 disaster film The Towering Inferno." I would specify what that dream is, which the Variety cite does: "in which a man was being chased through a building by gun-wielding assailants." I think it really shows how the main premise of the film came to be.
 * Not sure what Frank Sinatra starring in the 1968 film of The Detective adds to the section. Seems more important that Fox already had rights to the book that Nothing Lasts Forever was a sequel of.
 * "Stuart began working 18-hour days at his office at Walt Disney Studios in Burbank. He became exhausted, which he said left him feeling "on edge"." Could this be presented more concisely as one sentence, something along the lines of, "Stuart began working 18-hour days at his office at Walt Disney Studios in Burbank, which made him near his breaking point."
 * "This helped him realize the film should be about a stubborn man who should have apologized to his wife before a catastrophe." ---> "From this, Stuart greenlit another theme of the story of a man making congruent with his wife before a catastrophe."
 * "Stuart also drew upon the marital problems of his peers to shape the McClanes' relationship." Give more specifics about this as the Variety article does. "Many of the writer’s friends were going through marital struggles. Some were divorcing. Some would vent to him about how their wives had changed back to their maiden names before their divorce was final. Stuart drew on their resentments in ways large and small, from McClane’s conflicted attitude toward his wife, Holly, to the anger he feels when he sees her maiden name, Gennaro, in the office-building directory."
 * I've done the rest, though I reworded the post box-crash wording, because I think "congruent" is not going to be a word most people understand, and I think it changes the meaning, from he SHOULD have apologized BEFORE everything happened, to its about him apologizing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Critical response
 * Certain bundle cites are not in proper increasing numerical order. For example, "[2][80][76][1]" should be "[1][2][76][80]" and "[78][76]" should be "[76][78]."
 * Only 9 contemporaneous reviews are represented, yet this major motion picture obviously had many more from reputable sources, particularly newspapers. BTW, you can access these articles for free and without registration by using the "Show Page [insert number here] article text (OCR)" feature at the bottom of these pages:
 * Dayton Daily News,
 * Philadelphia Daily News, which throws many significant claims at this film very quickly, such as Bruce Willis' best film and "State of the art cinematic action."
 * Poughkeepsie Journal
 * The Morning Call
 * The Journal News
 * Detroit Free Press
 * Tallahassee Democrat
 * The Republic
 * The Daily Tar Heel
 * Philadelphia Inquirer
 * The Salina Journal
 * Orlando Sentinel, which is a mixed review and also includes thematic analysis of power struggles between characters.
 * The Palm Beach Post
 * The Capital Times
 * The Vancouver Sun
 * Atlanta Constition
 * The Ithaca Journal
 * I'm looking through these, but the brief one at Philadelphia daily news that says its his best film to date, it was also his third film to date and the other two weren't well received, so I don't think that is a particularly notable claim. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, regarding the power struggles part, I did take notes on it but I'm not sure there's enough meat on it to make a point apart from there being power struggles. If you have a suggestion though I'm open to it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Other comments
 * Are we sure we have only one cite of "Die Hard: The Ultimate Visual History" that's about the first movie?
 * At the moment yes. I can't access it without buying it, and I've already had to spend £20 each on books for RoboCop and The Empire Strikes Back, so at the moment I'm not dropping any more money. Judging by exceprts used on websites about the book, I do not believe anything is missing from the article that it not sourced from elsewhere, except potentially the specific date filming ended instead of the month. But I'm not buying the book to find out. I might when I'm done with the Empire book and can sell it, but not right now. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * More comments (4/2/21)
 * Development and writing
 * "Stuart credits Levin for helping him to understand Nothing Lasts Forever" The "to" is unnecessary
 * Changed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this section falls apart in the last two paragraphs.
 * The first paragraph is about the vagueness of some of the novel and how its use of first-person perspective meant we'd only read about scenes the main character was involved in, but the only solution of the screenwriter presented is for the instances where the main character isn't around. It's also never addressed how the novel's negative tone impacted how the screenwriter adapted the book
 * Additionally, the second paragraph, in the middle, abruptly goes from novel adaptation to a disparate topic about the incorporation of Western stylings in the film.
 * I've separated the latter off and added some comments by Stuart about disliking the novel's tone and the aging hero. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Casting
 * "At the time, there was also a clear distinction between film and television actors, and though films like Ghostbusters (1984) had demonstrated that television stars could lead a blockbuster film, other television actors like Shelley Long and Bill Cosby had failed in their recent attempts to make the transition.[15][25]" I don't think this should all be a single sentence. I think have a ";" after "Actors," remove "And," and start another sentence with the "Though" part.
 * Changed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "Robert Duvall, Gene Hackman, and Laurence Fishburne were considered for the role." For what character
 * It follows discussion of Al Powell, but I have clarified further. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "Willis said, "They paid me what they thought I was worth for the film, and for them."" This sounds like something Captain Obvious would say. How does this add to the article?
 * It gives Willis' perspective on the controversy. IMO it speaks to his mindset and that he was non plussed by being paid that much. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Re-write
 * "McTiernan gave Willis time off to rest and tasked De Souza with adding new scenes"
 * It says early filming, but I've clarified further. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "He did not want to use terrorists as the villains, as he considered them to be "too mean"," Then how did terrorist characters remain in the final film?
 * This is explained in the same sentence." He did not want to use terrorists as the villains, as he considered them to be "too mean", and avoided focusing on the terrorists' politics in favor of making them thieves driven by monetary pursuits; he felt this would make it more suitable summer entertainment."


 * "There was a debate over whether to use "Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker" or "yippee-ti-yay, motherfucker".[11]" By whom, and how did they come to a final decision?
 * I have no idea, I'm not sure it's important? I've added that Willis endorsed the former, he doesn't specify who he discussed it with. I can take a reasonable guess but that's all it would be. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Filming
 * " Willis found acting in Die Hard different from previous experiences, as he was used to acting against another actor, but in Die Hard he is often alone, talking to himself or others via radio." I have a way to make this sentence. "Willis' acting in Die Hard differed from previous experiences in that he was often alone, not having any personal encounters with others."
 * Changed, but I retained the difficult aspect. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "The film's final cut runs for 132 minutes.[46]" Why is this in the filming section? It's abrupt and is not connected to anything else, not even the paragraph it's in. It's just tacked on at the end. We have an infobox giving the most essential details, including runtime, for a reason, because it's awkward to describe it in prose.
 * The complexities of inconsistent FAC rules, I was told that anything in the infobox must be sourced in the article. I've sourced the runtime in the infbox. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Context (Release)
 * I don't know who told you this, but they're wrong. You don't have to cite credits (except for instances where's someone uncredited) because they're always cited by the film itself, both in the actual movie and in its poster. The guidelines on film articles state this. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "The summer of 1988 was expected to be dominated by action and comedy films, although a broader range of films was released that year." Who expected this, and what factors made them expect so many comedy and action films?
 * That level of detail isn't covered, the source has them picking out several comedy and action films they expected to be at the top of the box office, the films are scheduled to come out so they already know the films exist, they're just predicting performances. I have added that it is film industry executives. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "were predicted to control the May box office and break opening weekend revenue records." Predicted by whom? Studios? Box office analysts? Journalists?
 * This is the same people as above. It seems awkward to keep name dropping them, the statement has been made and it's backed up by the source. This seems sufficient. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Box Office
 * A lot of what's in "Aftermath and performance analysis" should be in the "Context" and "Box office" subsections IMO.
 * The context section is pre-release so none of it belongs there, and the legacy for the crew is not relevant to the box office section. I have had to split this into box office and legacy.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More comments (4/3/21)
 * Reception
 * This section is well-written, but we're getting to a point where we're having 6 cites together, which means bundle cites are now necessary. Giving that you're using Harvard cites for the newspapers, I will use my reception section of Plok! as reference for how bundle Harvard cites.
 * Reduced the 4+ refs. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * More comments (Easter Day/2021)
 * Cultural impact
 * "Only one-quarter of Americans polled consider it to be a Christmas film." This is vague. Why are specifics given about the UK poll but not whatever American poll we're talking about here? Additionally, a American poll never surveys all of the nation's 327 million residents, so presenting this poll as an indicator of the opinion of all American citizens (even those that didn't see it) is inaccurate. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Modern reception
 * I gotta be honest. This subsection is lackluster. In addition to my nitpicks about publication names not being linked that I brought up above, actual critical opinions presented are lacking. While it presents a frequently-held modern opinion ("Die Hard is now considered one of the greatest action films ever made.[158][159][160]") it only does it in a sentence, and only a couple of other specific retrospective opinions are briefly discussed. Otherwise, 95% of this is just a list of rankings and numbers, which those rankings and accolades are essential, don't get me wrong, but the section is lame if its mostly this. You might as just make a table of these rankings without presenting it as prose. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've researched more detail on American opinions on the Xmas aspect and added more opening context modern reviews to the modern reception section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , are we good to go? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just one more thing. In paragraph four of the themes section, it's about the negative portrayal of women in the film, but its first sentence doesn't seem to connect with that topic. It looks like a general sentence about the type of protagonist he is, which doesn't seem to do anything with gender. Once this is fixed, Support. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Separated it off into its own paragraph ! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

 * When did filming conclude? The lead and body look incomplete without such detail.
 * "Willis, who was known mainly for his television work, was paid $5 million for the role, placing him among Hollywood's highest-paid actors; the deal was seen as a poor investment and attracted significant controversy prior to the film's release" is quite a mouthful! I'd split it into two sentences by replacing the semi-colon with a period.
 * Starting three consecutive sentences with "it" in the lead's fourth paragraph feels monotonous.
 * I'd spell out the NYPD and FBI acronyms (which should be linked upon first mention) like you have with LAPD. Don't simply assume all readers know what they're short for.
 * Are specific budget and gross numbers known? When possible, it's ideal to have those instead of ranges (especially for the latter).
 * The use of "notable" from "Die Hard 2 is notable for being the last film" is inappropriate POV
 * Contrary to what "although" from "Although considered a financial success" implies (pertaining to fifth installment), earnings have nothing to do with what critics and fans think of a movie
 * "'80s" from "closer to the '80s-style" should be "1980s" per MOS:DATE
 * Don't italicize Yahoo! Movies, ABC News, Start TV, Den of Geek, Filmtracks.com, AllMusic, Getty Images, The Numbers (website), American Film Institute, "Oscars.org" (which should read Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or Academy Awards), Broadcast Music, Inc., "Comingsoon.net" (which is supposed to be "Coming Soon"), BBC Online, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Digital Spy, Metacritic, Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, NPR, or Bloody Disgusting
 * Not sure whether "Creative Screenwriting", "The Daily Beast", "Film School Rejects", "Gizmodo", "Engadget", "VentureBeat", or "Thrillist" are trustworthy
 * "Vulture.com" should just read "Vulture"
 * "bbfc.co.uk" → British Board of Film Classification (and no italics)

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review this Snuggums, I will look at these in depth when I finish work. Per the italics part though, it automatically does that under the 'website=' field as part of cite web. It's not something I can control. There are separate templates for Rotten Tomatoes and BOM that remove the italics but that obviously doesn't work for them all. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can avoid the auto-italics by using the "publisher=" field within those references. SNUGGUMS (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 13:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done all of these bar the concerns about the trustworthiness of the sites. I replaced the Daily Beast one, even though I believe it is a perfectly acceptable source, but the rest are all reputable sites with plenty of independent coverage of them and/or owned by major companies. Creative Screenwriting is a major print magazine for screenwriters. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's looking better now. The lead still needs to mention when filming wrapped, though, and is "by early March 1988" your best guess? The American Film Institue writes that production "ended Feb or Mar 1988 in Los Angeles". I do realize that's ambiguous. However, unless you can find something more specific, we might have to include both months in order to avoid being too presumptuous. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look around, see if I can get someone to give me the AFI's source (I think Daily Variety) on the ResourceExchange. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've requested the source directly but I've changed the filming segment to late Feb/Early March, and I've added "took place between November 1987 and March 1988" to the lead for now . Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I just did a bit of copyediting and now am ready to support the nomination. Hopefully you can get more precise answers on filming details soon. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 12:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
Not a full review, but I looked at the reception section, and it suffers from the "A said B" problem -- see WP:RECEPTION. I won't oppose immediately but I think this needs work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an ideasuggestions what you're looking for as it's been rewritten a few times based on conflicting feedback so I don't want to go in the wrong direction. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RECEPTION gives a couple of worked examples, one of which involves eliminating "A said B", so you might find that worth looking at. The problem with "A said B" is that it is just a list, with the bullet points and line feeds removed.  I think a good way to look at it is to get rid of all the quotes and see what is left -- what are you telling the reader?  Then add quotes in to illustrate those points, making it clear that they are illustrative and  are not just being listed.  Listing quotes asks the reader to construct the narrative for themselves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose . I see there's been another support since I posted this comment, so just to be clear, I think the prose in the reception section fails 1a. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it, jeez, it's been a day. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean to nag -- I know it takes time. Just wanted to be clear to you and the coords. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, I've reorganized and rewritten it as best I can. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Much improved. I've struck the oppose but there's one sentence I think still needs work: "Kehr compared Die Hard to films such as Alien (1979) and RoboCop (1987), emulating a humorous and sentimental design that perfected the action genre, but lacking a personality of its own."  I think the subject of "emulating" is meant to be Die Hard, but the syntax doesn't work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, honestly that was bugging me too. I will rework it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Better; I tweaked it a bit more. I haven't read the whole article so I can't support but this sections looks OK now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Panini!
I'll have comments in the future. I'm going to busy this weekend so I'll be spending my time on my current projects, so please be patient! 16:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Panini. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirmation that I'll get to this tomorrow... P  anini 🥪 15:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

, alright! Starting off; I'll publish each section of my review individually so if you're present, you can work while I review. P anini 🥪 11:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "His finished draft was greenlit immediately by Fox, which was eager ..." "who" instead of "which" would make more sense here.
 * "... for a summer blockbuster for the following year ..." the second "for" here is redundant
 * "It created a franchise comprising the sequels Die Hard 2, Die Hard with a Vengeance, Live Free or Die Hard, and A Good Day to Die Hard, plus video games, comic books, toys, board games, clothing, and other merchandise." This sentence drags on a bit too long with too many examples. "... video games, comic books, toys, board games, clothing, and other merchandise" can be cut down to really one or two examples.


 * Plot
 * "... his weapon and his radio ..." The second his is redundant
 * "... Gruber sees a news report by reporter Richard Thornburg ..." "Report" is repeated twice here.
 * The last paragraph is simply a series of four very small sentences. Maybe try to combine them, and merge them with the paragraph above.


 * Development and writing
 * "Levin wanted to show it snowing there because that was unusual." -> "The concept, he considered, would give off an unusual aura."
 * "After an argument with his wife, he went for a drive and saw a box in his lane. Unable to avoid it, he was forced to drive into it at speed; it was empty." -> "After an argument with his wife, he went for a drive and saw a box in his lane; unable to avoid it, he was forced to drive over and discovered it to be empty."
 * Considering the word "marital" is right before, "... to shape McClane's marriage" can be changed to "... to shape McClane's relationship".
 * "... and becomes a better, but not a different person." -> "... and becomes a better, but not a different, person."


 * Casting
 * No, I did not get distracted during the review by clicking on Twins (1988 film) and Bill Cosby. It just took me a long time because I'm, er, thoroughly checking the, uh ...


 * Re-write
 * "... character beats for characters ..." Character is repeated twice here.
 * "Due to the addition of the Gruber/McClane meeting scene, a different scene in which McClane kills Theo was excised." The word scene is repeated, maybe "Due to the addition of the Gruber/McClane meeting scene, another in which McClane kills Theo was excised."
 * "McClane's catchphrase, "Yipee-ki-yay, mother******", was inspired by old cowboy lingo to emphasize his all-American character.[11] De Souza was inspired by cowboy actor Roy Rogers's own "Yippee-ki-yah, kids"." Similar sentences with similar words can be combined: "McClane's catchphrase, "Yipee-ki-yay, mother******", was inspired by old cowboy lingo and Roy Rogers's own "Yippee-ki-yah, kids" catchprhase to emphasize his all-American character.[11]

Jeez, this article is long. But continuing...


 * Filming
 * "Principal photography began in November 1987, and concluded by late February to early March 1988. The budget was approximately $25–$35 million." -> "Principal photography began in November 1987 and concluded by early March 1988 with an approximate $25–$35 million budget."
 * No other major problems with this section. Good Job!


 * Music
 * "Before hiring composer Michael Kamen, McTiernan knew one musical piece he wanted to include—Beethoven's 9th Symphony (commonly known as "Ode to Joy"), having heard it in Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (1971)." -> "Before hiring composer Michael Kamen, McTiernan knew he wanted to include Beethoven's 9th Symphony ("Ode to Joy"), having heard it in Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (1971)."

I'm not as nitpicky as other reviewers here at FAC, so for me, this is all I really have that stood out as out-of-the-ordinary. After these changes, I'm willing to change to support. P anini 🥪 13:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm also not watching this page so please ping me. Thank you. P anini 🥪 13:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks Panini! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. P  anini 🥪 22:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)