Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ghostbusters II/archive1

Ghostbusters II

 * Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Ghostbusters II the sequel to the comedy film icon Ghostbusters. The sequel took years to be brought to life and it's creation was both rapid and tumultuous. The resulting film arguably killed the franchise, but damned if it isn't an interesting read! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is an image copyright review by Stifle.
 * There are no copyright issues. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

 * I would recommend adding ALT text to the poster image in the infobox.
 * The word "hit" sounds too informal to me in this part "Its soundtrack single, "On Our Own" by Bobby Brown, was a hit.". I would either say that it was commercially successful or briefly mention its chart performance to support this assessment instead. I have a similar concern about the use of "hit" in the body of the article.
 * For this part "Repeated attempts to develop a further sequel ended following Ramis's death", I do not think "further" is necessary.
 * Reference 12 seems to be used twice for this sentence: "In April 1987, Puttnam announced that Ghostbusters II would go into production in November that year without having informed Reitman, who had not yet reviewed the unfinished script."
 * For the caption for the "fairy ring" image, I do not believe "fairy" should be capitalized.
 * There are a few instances where I think image captions should have a period since they are complete sentences. These are for the image in the "Cast" section, the Dennis Muren image, the Peter MacNicol image, the Ivan Reitman image, and the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House image. Apologies for being super nitpicky with these image captions.
 * For this part "The Statue of Liberty in New York City was a prominent feature in the film's finale.", I do not think "in New York City" is necessary as I think most people would know where the statue is located.
 * Any reason why the characters are not linked in the "Plot" section? Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe this sentence (After the massive success of Ghostbusters, a sequel was considered an inevitability although that film had been developed as a conclusive, stand-alone project.) is the first time the original film is named in the body of the article. I would recommend wikilinking it.
 * I have two questions about this sentence (The pair wanted to convey a message about the consequences of negative human emotions, settling on the idea of supernatural slime amassing beneath large cities as a result, which empowered malevolent spirits.). After reading the "Writing" subsection, I read the message as being more focused on negative human emotions particularly in cities rather than negative human emotions in general. I was wondering if there could be a way to better represent that? I also have a question about the "amassing beneath large cities" part. I have not seen this film (I have only seen the original and portions of the reboot, but I would rather forget that one lol), but does this film show supernatural slime amassing under cities other than just New York City? After reading the plot summary, it seems like it was localized to just New York, but I just wanted some clarification. Apologies for the long message on a single sentence.
 * For this sentence (Ray Parker, Jr. helped write an updated version of his hit song "Ghostbusters", which was co-written and performed by Hip hop group Run-DMC.), I am not sure if the hip hop music wikilink should encompass the entire phrase hip hop group. I think it would be better to limit it to just the hip hop part as the target article is about the musical genre and not about groups in that genre. I also do not think hip needs to be capitalized.
 * I have a question about the "baby stroller" wikilink in this part (Five remotely controlled baby strollers were used). Since strollers are first mentioned in this part of the "Plot" section (She turns to the Ghostbusters for help after Oscar's stroller rolls), shouldn't the wikilink be moved up there instead?
 * I have a few comments about this sentence: (Brown's song "On Our Own" was a number-one hit on the Billboard Hot 100 R&B / Hip hop music charts for one week in early August 1989 before being replaced by Batman's own hit song "Batdance" by Prince.). I do not believe the "Hot 100" should be in italics as I believe it should only be the Billboard part. I would rephrase this part (was a number-one hit on the Billboard Hot 100 R&B / Hip hop music charts) to (was a number-one hit on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs music chart) to be more accurate as it was not a number-one hit on the general Billboard Hot 100. I would instead move that wikilink to the next sentence by rephrasing this part ("On Our Own" peaked at number two on the top 100 songs) as ("On Our Own" peaked at number two on the Billboard Hot 100 chart) instead.
 * For this part ( "On Our Own" spent 20 weeks on the charts.), I would clarify that you mean on the Billboard Hot 100 chart specifically as those are the citations being used. Given the previous sentence, I think you can specify this just by doing a minor adjustment to say ("On Our Own" spent 20 weeks on the chart.). I think it is an important distinction as you are not saying that it spent this amount of time on the Hot R&B/Hip-hop Songs chart (at least to the best of my understanding so feel free to correct me if I am wrong here).
 * Would a wikilink to Christmas season be helpful for this part (To take advantage of the Christmas season)?
 * I would add information about how the film was released on DVD. The home media section jumps from VHS directly to Blu-ray without mentioning the DVD release.
 * After doing some Google-ing, I found out that this film was released on LaserDisc. I would include that in the article.
 * I have a question about the Den of Geek sentence in the "Lasting reception" subsection. The article's prose uses Den of Geek while the citation uses DenofGeek.com. Is there any reason for this?
 * I have a question about these two sentences: (Others have defended the film as being as good as or better than Ghostbusters.) and (Some have said the plot of Ghostbusters II is arguably better executed than that of the first film, with multiple threads coming together in a "seamless" third act with a positive ending that works better with modern audiences.). The "Others" and "Some" word choices make me think that multiple reviewers have commented on this aspect of the film's reception, but I only see one citation/critic (i.e. the DigitalSpy.com citation) being used to support this.
 * This part (Discussion about a sequel took place during filming of Ghosbusters II) has a typo in the film's title.

Wonderful work with this article! I am not the best FAC reviewer, but I hope that my comments were at least somewhat helpful. Hats off to you for working on an article about such a well-known work, as I imagine that it is quite tricky/challenging to assemble and balance everything out. I have always worked on far more obscure subject matter (mainly because I am weird and enjoy doing the research on those kinds of things), so I definitely have respect for you for this. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope you are having an excellent day and/or night so far! I will have to check this film out sometime in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly review this article Aoba47. To your points:
 * Done
 * Done
 * Done
 * Done
 * Done
 * Done
 * Done
 * I didn't link the characters in the plot section because they're then linked in the cast section. I can swap it around if you prefer, I just don't agree with linking in BOTH plot and cast.
 * Done
 * I've rewrote the sentence about the slime. Their intent writing the plot was to basically represent negative emotions in places like New York and Los Angeles (which at the time, there's a reason New York was the subject of post apocalyptic stories). The film itself only features slime under New York (though if you play the 2009 video game, it's shown that the slime was specifically in New York for a particular purpose)
 * Done
 * Done
 * Done
 * Done
 * Done
 * NOT DONE YET - The home video stuff is a real struggle. You can google and find mentions of Laserdisc and DVD, but finding a reliable source I can include in the article is another matter. As GBII was not as big as Ghostbusters, it doesnt seem to get as much coverage. Bear with me on this one, I'm trying to find something I can use for the DVD/Laserdisc
 * Same as above
 * The Denofgeek.com is just confusion, every time I bring an article to FA reviewers always have a different standard they want applying to the references (literally, it's always a different thing because on the next article I employ what I was told on the last, and then at FA am told it is wrong). I think I did denofgeek.com because there wasn't a specific article at the time, or possible because at the Den of Geek article, the title isn't italicized. It's all very inconsistent, but I've changed it to Den of Geek.
 * Working, I should be able to find more sources for this.
 * Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok I've reworded the Legacy section a little and added a few more sources, let me know if that works for you. The Laserdisc version, I've spent about 4 hours on and off googling and I can't find a reliable source with a release date. Wikis are the best I've come across. I don't think this is something I can complete with the available sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the responses to my comments. Your point about linking only the "Cast" section makes sense to me as it does prevent over-linking. I can understand your confusion about the source consistency as I had similar experiences in the past. I will leave that up to whoever does the source review as I am sure they would be more qualified to discuss that point than myself. It was just something that caught my eye while reading the article so I just wanted to bring it to your attention. There is a stray citation in the "Lasting reception" subsection, but that should be an easy fix. I have also tried to look for a Laserdisc source, but the closest thing I found was a mention in a LaserDisc ad in an old newspaper so that probably would not work. I should not be surprised since that format was never very successful in comparison to VHS. Once the point about the stray citation is resolved, I will be more than happy to suport this for promotion. Wonderful work! Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did find this WorldCat source (1) about a Laserdisc release for the PAL region, but I am uncertain if it would be usable here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be of any use as it isn't the American version. I know for definite that it was released in 1989 alongside the VHS and Betamax, but I just can't find any mention of it outside of fan wikis. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is what I assumed, but I just wanted to check with you first. Since here does not appear to be any reliable coverage on this particular aspect of its release, then it is understandable why it would be absent from the article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my super late response. I only have one last comment/concern. There is a stray citation in the "Lasting reception" section. For some reason, I thought I already pointed that out in my review, but it must have been an unsaved edit or got lost in the shuffle somehow. Apologies again for that. I cannot really comment on the coverage/comprehensive issues raised below, but I am focusing primarily on the prose already in the article for my review (as I think that is really the only thing I am qualified to do). Once this point is addressed, I will support this based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I took care of the one you meant. Thanks for noticing it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this. I support this based on the prose. Again, I cannot really comment about the coverage and sources, but I believe the prose meets the FAC criteria. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Comments from Laser brain
A lot of film FAs I've seen have a Themes section—can you explain why this article doesn't have a discussion of Themes? I did a lazy library search just now and found lots of references to this film in academic journals, including writing about the "beneath NYC" theme and its associated influences and cinematography. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would imagine not every film is deep enough to require a thematic analysis. The subtext behind the slime is detailed in the article by the writers. Like the Ghostbusters FAC, if you have direct references you can guide me to I'm happy to read them, but I haven't come across anything on Google. I've done themes sections on films before but they're directly related to interpretations of things in the film, not abstract interpretations unrelated to the film which is all I found with the original Ghostbusters. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, looks like academic work on themes has been done, so it's necessary to explore and include to be comprehensive. Research should be done outside of FAC, with the help of a librarian if need be so you can reference the proper film journals. Googling is complimentary to a library search, but it's not comprehensive. I'm afraid I must oppose on 1b and 1c and recommend withdrawal so the appropriate research can be performed. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What about the article do you feel is not well-researched and comprehensive, absent some university thesis on how ghosts can be seen as immigrants, written using the wrong character names? I've expanded this from 1666 words to over 10000 and it uses 173 different sources from the web, magazines and journals. I've done the research, I've done the work. If you want me to write a fluff paragraph about themes, direct me to the sources, because google scholar shows nothing either. Expecting someone to go to a librarian to research an article, when they've already given hours of their time to the project is an unrealistic and unfair expectation and its a moving of goalposts because theme sections are not demanded on every film FAC I've ever put forward. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 01:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The snark isn't necessary or constructive. My job as a reviewer isn't to do the research for you. Library research is necessary for any topic on which scholarly work has been done, period. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So my job is to do all the work, and your job is to do nothing and say I've not done enough. So much for Wikipedia being a collaborative effort. Just withdraw it, I've spent over a month of my time on this article and I won't be able to find those sources and I'm not going library to library looking for random documents on how Tina thinks Slimer represents the bleak chaos inherent to the universe. I've already done more than enough. Thank you for your valuable input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 01:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for intruding on this discussion. I find a "Themes" section to be the most difficult part of an article to write. I agree that not all film articles require this type of section, simply because some films do not attract this level of academic discourse, but there does seem to be some analysis on this film. For instance, this book has an interesting discussion on how fatherhood is represented in the film. I have never put a film article through the FAC process, but I just wanted to try and help somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with user Laser Brain on this specific point. Ghostbusters received solid scholarly attention, but Ghostbusters II were largely ignored. The reason for that was in the mixed reception of the sequel, which discouraged attention of the scholars. User:Laser brain, if you are aware of a specific reference to this film in academic journals, please, gives us some links or titles here. My google scholar search only gives me hits for the 1st film. Which library did you search? Can you be more specific? Without these specifics, it sounds like you are just inventing flaws and omissions without giving ways or solutions to solve them.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I used a search tool provided by my academic institution that searches several databases. Given the responses and bad-faith accusations I've received here, I'm not inclined to participate further. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems a particularly spurious objection that I hope does not invalidate this article’s acceptance if the rest of the material is up to snuff. Not every movie is significant thematically and an academic or two happening to discuss a movie does not a thematic section make.  If there are well-cited academic theories regarding this movie that are widely disseminated in academia then yeah, that should go in.  No one has provided evidence of this.  We have a glut of PhD students, post docs, and young professors operating within a “publish or perish” academic culture that demands original thought, so many niche topics end up receiving a study.  Does not make any of it important on its face. Indrian (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've stricken my opposition so it doesn't hold up the nomination. As I said, I found a number of promising academic sources and I'm perfectly capable of filtering out inappropriate or peripheral sources. I'm aware of how to do library research. I can't work in the environment created by the nominator here, so I'm declining further involvement/help. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by 3E1I5S8B9RF7
A great article, with a lot more info about the sequel than I ever found on the Internet. I was surprised that User:Darkwarriorblake managed to find such a wealth of data. All the articles usually focus on the first Ghostbusters film, leaving this sequel in the dark, up until this point. I have no major objection worth mentioning in the article, it is comprehensive, neutral, stable and informative, enough to meet the criteria for a FA, in my humble opinion.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I actually found the second film more interesting to work on. THe first is a perfect storm of everyone just having fun and refining Aykroyd's wacky ideas but there's no real conflict behind it, it just worked and was a success, while the second film was a perfect storm of the opposite, noone having fun, reshoots and conflicts between the cast and crew. Plus the design behind it has more information available, and it being released in the Summer of Batman. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Indrian
Its an interesting article, but I think it still has a few prose problems. I'll start with the first part of the article through the "development" section. I will add more as these get addressed. Indrian (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Set five years after the first film, the Ghostbusters have been sued" - Mismatch between the introductory clause and the subject. The clause refers to the movie, yet the sentence is about the titular characters.
 * Please see link below for changes -DWB


 * " The pair wanted to convey a message about the consequences of negative human emotions in large cities, settling on the idea of supernatural slime amassing beneath New York City as a result, which empowered malevolent spirits" - This sentence does not really explain how supernatural slime below New York links with the idea of negative emotions. I know we want to keep the lead from getting too complicated, but a tweak may be good here.
 * Please see link below for changes -DWB


 * Should Gozer be linked somewhere in the text? He does have an entry on a Ghostbusters characters page.
 * Good catch, thanks. - DWB


 * "Raymond Stantz owns an occult bookstore and works as a children's entertainer alongside Winston Zeddemore, Egon Spengler works in a laboratory experimenting with human emotions and Peter Venkman hosts a television show about psychics." - Run-on sentence.
 * Please see link below for changes -DWB


 * "with her now ex-husband" - I think now is redundant here.
 * Done, I think I was worried it would be confusing because she has got married and divorced between films, so the marriage didn't exist in the previous film. - DWB


 * "that film had been developed as a conclusive, stand-alone project" - I am not sure "conclusive" is really the word you are looking for here. I think you can probably just eliminate the word and go with "had been developed as a stand-alone project."
 * Done - DWB


 * "was reported to have been removed from his job" - That is a lot of "to be" conjugations in a small space. I think this can be more simply rendered.  Also, I think the entire sentence gets lost within itself. Perhaps deal with the Murray and Ovitz issues in their own sentences rather than mashing them together?
 * Please see link below for changes -DWB


 * "Puttnam favored smaller films over big-budget blockbusters, greenlighting several foreign-language films by European directors and stating that he was making films for the "world market", and smaller budget films like the critically acclaimed war film Hope and Glory (1987) and the comedy film Bloodhounds of Broadway (1989)." - I think this sentence should be reworked. We talk about smaller films, then European films and the world market, and then go back to smaller films.  I am thinking two sentences: "Puttnam favored smaller films such as the critically acclaimed war film Hope and Glory (1987) and the comedy film Bloodhounds of Broadway (1989) over big-budget blockbusters. He also greenlit several foreign-language films by European directors because he preferred making films for the "world market."  You don't have to use that language exactly, but it gives an idea of what I see as the issue.
 * Please see link below for changes -DWB


 * "Reitman later said the delay in development was not Puttnam's fault and that executives above Puttnam at Columbia's New York branch had attempted to work around him to progress the project" - I guess I am not sure what is going on here. It starts with Reitman saying Puttnam was not the problem, but then goes on to describe how Puttnam's superiors tried to work around him, which implies an issue.  So did Reitman say Puttnam was a problem or not?  Maybe it should say that Puttnam was not the biggest problem?
 * The media reported as Puttnam being the problem and he was in part due to the aforementioned opposition to big blockbuster films. Reitman's statement is that other Columbia execs attempted to work around Puttnam because they believed he was the driving issue, but Reitman defended Puttnam by saying there were other issues also in play. The other execs definitely believed that Puttnam was a big issue because he had also upset Murray and Ovitz, but the way I read the source was that even if he hadn't made the relationship with Murray more difficult (as Murray was already difficult to work with), that the film wouldn't have gotten off the ground any earlier. Basically, I might not be summarising it well here but if you think it is still unclear let me know and I can try to rework it more. - DWB
 * Right, all of that makes sense. I think the problem here is that we are missing a qualifier that explains his superiors were wrong to try to end run him.  As written, the article implies that even with the bigger issues, an end run around Puttnam was also necessary, which seems to contradict Reitman's premise. After reading the source, I would perhaps suggest changing some language so it reads something like: "executives above Puttnam at Columbia's New York branch had attempted to work around him because they thought he was holding up the project, but they discovered they could not get the production moving even after sidelining him."  I think that captures what the article is saying.


 * "As co-creators, Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis all had control over the franchise, requiring unanimous approval to proceed" - incorrect wording, as "requiring" does not have a concept to latch on to. Perhaps change to "As co-creators, Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis all had control over the franchise, and their unanimous approval was required to proceed."
 * Done - DWB


 * "was replaced as its president by Dawn Steel, the first woman to hold such a high-level role in the industry" - That she was the first woman in the role is interesting, but does her gender have anything to do with the history ofGhostbusters II? If not, this should be removed.
 * I can see your point and you can read into the gender politics of it since she was positioned and then removed under hostile circumstances about 2 years later (That's not mentioned in the article because while there are sources saying Ghostbusters II might have been to blame for that, it's not as clear cut), I think it's a notable item that one of the most successful women in the industry was tied to getting the film in motion. I think it's worth including as it's only a small piece of text but I'm willing to discuss it. - DWB
 * Its a topic worthy of discussion for sure, but I am not sure the Ghostbusters II article is the place for it. I am not going to withhold support of the article over something so small and somewhat subjective, but I do feel it comes across as a little random to mention it here.


 * "their most profitable film in 1988, greenlit during the Puttnam regime, had earned only $14 million" - The entire paragraph is about how getting Ghostbusters II into production was an overriding policy goal in 1987, so using a 1988 film as an example in the middle of the paragraph comes across as a non sequiter.
 * Fair point, this was difficult because it's a good example of what Puttnam was producing, but it's also the only source I could find specifically tying a film to his regime. The issue is he started in 1986 and was fired by 1987, and the films he greenlit, due to production times, didn't start showing up until around 1988. Things like Me and Him and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen for example. I think it is important to establish how bad Columbia was doing in what was the dawn of the Blockbuster but I'm going to try and find a source that names a 1987 film so bear with me. -DWB
 * Actually I just removed the part about the $14 million. It's a nice piece of trivia but I can't make it work there. - DWB


 * "After this, the film was rushed into production for a mid-1989 release, aiming to start filming in Summer 1988." - That last phrase about filming is awkwardly tacked on. Perhaps "After this, the film was rushed into production, with filming scheduled for Summer 1988 in anticipation of a mid-1989 release."
 * Done - DWB
 * Hi, thanks for taking the time to review this. I've addressed most of your issues at this link here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, did you receive my ping? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. Thanks for addressing things.  I will continue the review in the very near future. Indrian (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Continuing on from where I left off with the writing section:


 * Aykroyd decided he wanted to counter the first film's move skywards, ending atop a skyscraper, by making a subterranean threat." Maybe connect this to material earlier in the paragraph: "He wanted to eschew New York City, set the film overseas, and provide a contrast to the first movie's climax atop a skyscraper by developing a subterranean threat." Its a little subjective, but I think the whole paragraph flows better that way.
 * "while still allowing them to explore beneath the city" - A bit of a quibble, but as written, this wording implies that in the original Scottish draft they were still going to explore underneath New York City specifically as opposed to going underground generally.
 * "As with Ghostbusters, Ramis partnered with Aykroyd to refine the script" - Again, this is really, really quibbly, but since the first draft was written by Aykroyd, would it not be more accurate to state that Aykroyd partnered with Ramis? As written, it implies that Ramis was doing the majority of the writing and Aykroyd was offering suggestions for refinement. If that is actually the way it was, then we need some kind of transition to note that shift.
 * "Ramis had conceived separately from the film a horror film concept about an infant who possessed adult agility and focus. He rejected the horror aspects but it inspired him to create the character Oscar." - These sentences are clunky and a little disjointed. Perhaps instead: "Ramis suggested the story focus on a baby because he had previously developed a horror film concept centered on an infant who possessed adult agility and focus. This inspired him to create the character Oscar."
 * "Ramis wanted to show that the Ghostbusters had not thrived following their victory in the previous film; he considered this to be a more original concept." - A more original concept than what?
 * Thanks Indrian. I've done all but the last one as I'm a little confused. In the source he just says its a more original concept than their victory having made them into heroes and them staying that way between films. Instead they're failures all doing back up jobs. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the missing piece then. Add to the end of the sentence "than remaining heroes" or something similar.  Just to make the comparison clear without need for inference. Indrian (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Next round:


 * The paragraph on Peter MacNicol feels disjointed. There should be a lead sentence introducing him rather than just moving straight to the accent, and it feels like the next few sentences are in the reverse order of how they should really go.  In my mind, first comes the decision to make the character Carpathian despite it not being called for in the script, then comes the inspirations for the specific accent.
 * The last sentence of the last paragraph of the cast and crew section feels tacked on, as the whole paragraph is about other cast members up to that point. Is there anyway to flesh out some info on the crew to allow that to stand as its own paragraph?
 * "Medjuck noted that characters are often seen smoking in Ghostbusters but a societal change in the intervening years meant this was no longer acceptable; Ghostbusters II does not depict any smoking." - This sentence should absolutely stay somewhere as its a fascinating anecdote on changing society, but it just does not fit where it is, as its the only paragraph in the sentence that is not specifically about filming in Los Angeles. It comes across as a non sequitur.
 * "Following test screenings, it was realized there were issues with the film that had to be changed." - Passive voice. Who realized it.  The director, the producers, anyone with two brain cells to rub together?  Whoever it was, make them the subject.

We're getting there. I appreciate all your hard work. Indrian (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Here is a link to the latest changes. I've tried to move some of the content around per your request, I agree they were non-sequiturs but likewise I struggled to find an appropriate place for them. The test screenings note, I changed to the principal crew. One source is talking to Reitman, one talks to Medjuck who addresses the situation as "we" which could include Michael Gross as well but it doesn't specify, I didn't think it was appropriate to put "Reitman and Medjuck". I'm going to have a look for info on the crew to see if I can expand it but this was a thinner area this time around because they were just returning so there wasn't much interest in it appears. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I forgot to ping you but the changes are above. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry to pester you, I understand it's a busy season. Do you think you will be able to look at this further or are you too busy? Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Time does get away sometimes during this time of the year. I'll have another round up shortly. Indrian (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, things are going pretty smoothly in the next few sections. I have made a few small grammatical changes myself, leaving just a small number of issues:


 * "Editor Sheldon Kahn was responsible for the idea of the "Five Years Later" opening credit at the start of the film." - Nothing wrong with including this fact somewhere, but its a complete non sequiter where it appears now.
 * The "Design" section seems mislabeled, as that implies there will be info on production design, set decoration, costumes, etc. but this is mostly just special effects. Also, it feels like a topic sentence may be needed, as just starting with the story of Edelman's company being replaced by ILM just feels off.  As this is a major section heading, we should open with something that summarizes the entire idea of the section briefly.
 * "The slime-possessed fur coat was achieved using four coats with parts controlled with servo motors. ILM considered using live animals for the segment but abandoned the idea." - Another non-sequiter since the entire paragraph is about Slimer save for this sentence.
 * "Ghostbusters II was originally scheduled for release in July 1989 but less than three months before release, it was postponed to June to avoid direct competition with Batman" - So the definition of "postpone" is to "cause or arrange for (something) to take place at a time later than that first scheduled." So we need a different word here.
 * "Approximately 2.8 million units of a promotional noisemaker toy called the "Ghostblaster", which was released across 3,100 outlets of the fast-food restaurant Hardee's, were recalled in June 1989 because of reports children were ingesting its small batteries." - Another non-sequiter that really has nothing to do with the topic of the section. If this stays in, it should be incorporated somehow into the merchandising section below.
 * I think the paragraph on the chart performance of the soundtrack songs should probably be moved. It just feels like the whole section is giving an interesting and cogent analysis of what went wrong with the movie, and the soundtrack stuff is just tacked on at the end.

That's it. Once these issues have been addressed, I should be ready to support. Indrian (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again . I've addressed most of your issues here. I admit, I'm really struggling with the Sheldon Kahn one. I agree on its placement but I am having difficulty thinking where else it could go. It's a minor thing I know but it allows me to mention him in the article, and the abrupt "5 years later" is an interesting factoid to tie to a member of the crew outside the cast and Reitman. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber
Looking good - I have read this through and it reads well. The chronology is a bit laboured in the Production section but that reflects the fascinating and frustrating process of its development.


 * I note that the reviews flip from past to present tense (I reverted myself when I realised that - was that intentional?). I suspect it'd be better all past tense unless tehre is a specific reason for this.


 * Alot of themes get discussed in chronology, so i don't know what else theme-wise has not been covered. I will take a look (I have a university account so can get fulltexts) and return.

Overall though first impressions are that it looks good prose-wise and is fairly comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it but my general experience has been that it should be wrote about in present tense because it still 'is' and we only generally talk about real people/events in a historical sense. Some errors might have slipped through. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I went through the reception section and changed it all to past tense. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Has this article had a MOS review? On a VERY quick glance, there is an EMDASH that should be an ENDASH in the lead ($30—40 million), an incorrectly placed citation (folklore to fairies or witches—[21] ... citations go after punctuation except for dashes), and there should be NBSPs between instances of Ghostbusters and II ... this is a quick glance only, suggesting a more thorough MOS check should be done by someone who has the time. In the lead, "The film spawned a series of merchandise ..." is awkward ... can a film spawn, much less merchandise? Further, considering the indications above that a thorough literature review has not been conducted, it is necessary to Oppose until that is done. It seems that Cas has indicated he will look into that. Please ping me if that happens, and a MOS review is done ... who doesn't love the Ghostbusters !!! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose from JM
Oppose. I do not want to start fights, but... I think the conversation with Laser brain above is worrying. Harrying of opposers is obviously a problem (whether it's a reason to oppose is an open question) but the apparent hostility towards the idea of incorporating academic analysis or seeking out scholarly sources is surprising for someone who chooses encyclopedia-writing as a hobby. It seems that Laser brain, Aoba, and I are all seeing potentially useful/interesting sources to add, but it doesn't seem like the nominator has any interest in drawing from them. As the nominator asked for example sources and may have missed any identified above, here are four further suggestions as examples. Normally, I think this would just be a question about where the nominator had looked, but given the conversation above, this is an oppose with specific examples of scholarly sources that may be worth incorporating. I am happy to withdraw my oppose if the nominator takes a look at these sources and incorporates them/explains why they should not be incorporated (and I/others may be able to help with access), but I will not be withdrawing my oppose in response to badgering. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Baker, Janice (2016). Sentient Relics: Museums and Cinematic Affect. London: Routledge. (There's a whole section about the film in chapter 4; analyses Ghostbusters II but not Ghostbusters.)
 * 2) Van Riper, A. Bowdoin (2016). "'Who you gonna call?': The supernatural and service economy in the Ghostbusters films". In: The Laughing Dead: The Horror-Comedy Film from Bride of Frankenstein to Zombieland, edited by Cynthia J. Miller and A. Bowdoin Van Riper. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. (Analyses the two films together.)
 * 3) Clark, Zoila (2015). "Immigrants as aliens in the Ghostbusters films". Australasian Journal of Popular Culture 4 (1): 29-42. (Ditto.)
 * 4) Corcos, Christine Alice (1997). "'Who ya gonna c(s)ite?' Ghostbusters and the environmental regulation debate". Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law 13 (1): 231-272. (Primarily about the first film, but devotes a section to the second.)


 * I agree with J Milburn, and as there have been no edits to the article for ten days, believe the FAC should be archived so it can be re-worked and brought back when ready. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Eye roll emoji*. Oh, I didn't edit it on Christmas Day? I'm sorry I have three kids to look after . Even the government takes two weeks off ffs. I am collecting sources, I've put in a request at the ResourceExchange and I'm trying to fashion 'something' interesting out of this interpretive drivel I'm being asked to read, written by people who can't even get the character names right. Maybe consider the time of year before wasting the last 2 months of my life spent appeasing people. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you pinged me, I'd like to let you know that I watchlist FACs I comment on, so you need not ping me. I am going to ignore the rest of your aggression, but something about flies honey and vinegar comes to mind.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The 'honey' is the five months of free work done trying to elevate any article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure everyone who's contributed to this review is doing it for free, and several of them spend months at a time improving articles too -- neither you nor anyone else is being forced to do it. Anyway, I think this nom has been open long enough and, given the concerns still being raised at this stage, and the attitude shown towards those concerns, I don't see this gaining consensus for promotion anytime soon. I suggest continuing to work on the sourcing, preferably with further input from JM and Ealdgyth (and ideally Laser brain) if they're willing, before considering a re-nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth
Taking off my FAC coord hat here to do a source review.
 * What makes the following high quality reliable sources?
 * https://filmschoolrejects.com/ (more than one article used)
 * https://www.looper.com/134015/the-untold-truth-of-ghostbusters/
 * https://www.denofgeek.com/ (more than one article used)
 * http://beyondthemarquee.com (more than one article used)
 * https://www.expedia.co.uk/explore/ghostbusters-the-ultimate-film-location-guide
 * https://www.mentalfloss.com (more than one article used)
 * https://www.stereogum.com/1885140/something-weird-indeed-the-music-of-ghostbusters/franchises/sounding-board/
 * https://www.filmtracks.com/composers/edelman.shtml
 * https://www.tested.com/art/movies/524482-putting-together-ghostbusters-special-effects/
 * https://www.inverse.com/article/18012-ghostbusters-2016-ghostbusters-ii-sequel-haters-sexism-critics-tarnish
 * https://www.timeout.com/london/film/ghostbusters-ii
 * https://www.allmovie.com/movie/ghostbusters-ii-v19672/releases
 * https://www.allmusic.com/album/ghostbusters-ii-mw0000653760/releases
 * https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-controversial-history-of-letterboxing-for-movies-on-your-tv
 * https://screenrant.com/best-moments-ghostbusters-history/
 * Per MOS:ACCESS - we don't use semicolons to make fake headers like in the Bibilography.
 * Per MOS:BIB, we should avoid using "Bibliography" as a section header, that link has some good suggestions on alternatives.
 * I echo the need to at least check out the sources listed by JM.
 * I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
 * That's it for now. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Some helpful advice on how to respond to queries in a source review is at User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * https://filmschoolrejects.com/ (more than one article used) - see Film School Rejects, a well sourced article about a site featured on other news sites
 * https://www.looper.com/134015/the-untold-truth-of-ghostbusters/ - see Looper.com, a well sourced article about this site that has big investors like Mark Cuban
 * https://www.denofgeek.com/ (more than one article used) - see Den of Geek, a well sourced article about this site
 * http://beyondthemarquee.com (more than one article used) - It is interviews with actual film crew with video evidence, there's no evidence of impropriety or misleading information. It's not a huge outlet but the recorded evidence of their interview is on the same page.
 * https://www.expedia.co.uk/explore/ghostbusters-the-ultimate-film-location-guide - It's Expedia.
 * https://www.mentalfloss.com (more than one article used) - see Mental Floss, a well sourced article about this site
 * https://www.stereogum.com/1885140/something-weird-indeed-the-music-of-ghostbusters/franchises/sounding-board/ - see Stereogum, an article about this site that features mentions by NME
 * https://www.filmtracks.com/composers/edelman.shtml - see Filmtracks.com, well sourced article
 * https://www.tested.com/art/movies/524482-putting-together-ghostbusters-special-effects/ - see Whiskey Media, big company that owns it
 * https://www.inverse.com/article/18012-ghostbusters-2016-ghostbusters-ii-sequel-haters-sexism-critics-tarnish - see Inverse (website), founded by Dave Nemetz
 * https://www.timeout.com/london/film/ghostbusters-ii - see Time Out (magazine), it's Time Out magazine.
 * https://www.allmovie.com/movie/ghostbusters-ii-v19672/releases - see AllMovie, online database, not user edited as far as I can see nor being used to source contentious information
 * https://www.allmusic.com/album/ghostbusters-ii-mw0000653760/releases - see AllMusic, same as above
 * https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-controversial-history-of-letterboxing-for-movies-on-your-tv - see Atlas Obscura, founded by David Plotz
 * https://screenrant.com/best-moments-ghostbusters-history/ - see Screen Rant, sourced and mentioned by outlets like Variety, and not being used to source anything contentious or extreme Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I actually did read our wikipedia articles on the sites I queried. They did not make me think they were enough to match the criteria, which is "high quality". For example - Film School Rejects explicitly states that it is "Film School Rejects is an American blog devoted to movie reviews, interviews, film industry news, and feature commentary". This does not make me think they are high quality - blogs are basically self-published. When using self-published stuff - we need to follow WP:SPS. Expedia is great for finding travel bargins, but that doesn't mean they are a high-quality reliable source for movie articles. Now, can we accept that I did in fact look at the wikipedia articles and start trying to show how all of these sources meet the FA criteria? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are they unreliable? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * after edit conflict, Darkwarriorblake, just to save you both time before Ealdgyth gets back to review this, and particularly on those with more than one article from the same site, you have to take care to look at each author on each source. In many cases that I checked, they are not on the list of staff at the site, so it is important for you to give an indication to Ealdgyth in some cases about what makes the individual authors reliable.  On some of the sites, they indicate who is staff, but the authors aren't there.  It is also helpful to link to any "About us" page from the sites that address their editorial policies, fact checking, etc.  Hang in there, and keep going, but you cannot cite a Wikipedia article to indicate reliability.  Give WP:RS a careful read about things that you do need to look for and provide.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's a few more pages that may help you provide information to determine reliability: Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches
 * Guidance on source reviewing at FAC

If it's not the reference formatting, or multiple reliable sites citing the sites in question, it's now that the authors haven't been individually vetted.


 * https://filmschoolrejects.com/ (more than one article used) - I deleted the less important reference, the other is listing things from the commentary on the DVD and is written by this guy who is listed as an associate editor and has a blue checkmark
 * https://www.looper.com/134015/the-untold-truth-of-ghostbusters/ - written by Amanda June Bell who has written for Entertainment Weekly and TV Guide as well, and has a fancy blue Twitter checkmark
 * https://www.denofgeek.com/ (more than one article used) - https://www.denofgeek.com/authors/simon-brew / https://www.denofgeek.com/authors/seb-patrick /https://www.denofgeek.com/us/authors/david-crow / https://www.denofgeek.com/us/content/about-us / they are backed by a media company
 * http://beyondthemarquee.com (more than one article used) - http://beyondthemarquee.com/839
 * https://www.expedia.co.uk/explore/ghostbusters-the-ultimate-film-location-guide - this guy https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-crudge-a0392047/?originalSubdomain=uk, he was working on contract for Expedia.
 * https://www.mentalfloss.com (more than one article used) - https://www.mentalfloss.com/authors/50443/Jake-Rossen / https://www.mentalfloss.com/authors/12222/Erin-McCarthy / https://www.mentalfloss.com/about-us
 * https://www.stereogum.com/1885140/something-weird-indeed-the-music-of-ghostbusters/franchises/sounding-board/ - https://www.stereogum.com/about/ / they are backed by a media company
 * https://www.filmtracks.com/composers/edelman.shtml - https://www.filmtracks.com/about/
 * https://www.tested.com/art/movies/524482-putting-together-ghostbusters-special-effects/ - https://www.tested.com/about/
 * https://www.inverse.com/article/18012-ghostbusters-2016-ghostbusters-ii-sequel-haters-sexism-critics-tarnish - https://www.inverse.com/about/team / https://www.inverse.com/user/15-sean-hutchinson
 * https://www.timeout.com/london/film/ghostbusters-ii - again it's timeout, it's a huge magazine, but https://www.timeout.com/about/editorial-guidelines
 * https://www.allmovie.com/movie/ghostbusters-ii-v19672/releases - https://www.allmovie.com/about
 * https://www.allmusic.com/album/ghostbusters-ii-mw0000653760/releases - https://www.allmusic.com/faq/topic/idea
 * https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-controversial-history-of-letterboxing-for-movies-on-your-tv - https://www.atlasobscura.com/about / https://www.atlasobscura.com/users/erniesmith?view=articles
 * https://screenrant.com/best-moments-ghostbusters-history/ - https://screenrant.com/author/mmcg/ / https://screenrant.com/about/


 * Film school rejects - whether Twitter gives some user a blue checkmark or not does not have any bearing on whether they are a high quality reliable source in Wikipedia terms.
 * Den of Geek - https://www.denofgeek.com/us/content/about-us well, that just says they are backed by their OWN media company - the "Den of Geek World Limited" and "Deen of Geek US" are kinda a giveaway that it's their own company.
 * Beyond the Marquee - well, they are actively soliciting people to join them on their about page - that's not a good sign of a high quality source here.
 * Expedia - so ... he's not an expert in the subject matter (which is films)
 * MentalFloss - doesn't show any sort of reason on their about page to see that they are a high quality source ... nor does a listing of the articles on Mental Floss by the authors help in that regard.
 * Stereogum - "Stereogum is the world’s greatest music blog, founded in 2002." and I'm not seeing anywhere that they are backed by a media company.
 * Filmtracks - seems to be a one person operation - "It is solely owned and operated by veteran writer and webmaster Christian Clemmensen"
 * Inverse - this one at least has a reasonably size editorial team - but we're still not seeing how it's reliable - looks an awful lot like a fluffy listicle site to me.
 * TimeOut - okay, it's a free tourism magazine ... what makes that a good source for a film article?
 * AllMovie - well, that about page tells me nothing about their editorial policies or editorial team...and from their FAQ "Tivo prides themselves on accuracy, so please include your information source in your submission. Please do not contact AllMovie about the status of data corrections; we don't control which data is corrected or how long it takes to apply corrections..." that's not very encouraging.
 * AllMusic - from their FAQ on corrections "Factual information about credits, birthdates and birthplaces, charts, album covers, sound clips and music videos are on the end of our data provider, TiVo." and "Please do not contact AllMusic about the status of data corrections; we don't control which data is corrected or how long it takes to apply corrections..."
 * AtlasObscura - well, the about page is really pretty but has very little about editorial policies or anything like that. And the author page just lists the articles they've written for AtlasObscura, which doesn't mean much for establishing their subject matter expertise (and it doesn't appear they are a film expert from the titles of those articles)
 * ScreenRant - again, nothing about the editorial policies. And the author's page doesn't exactly show he's writing for big names either.
 * Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're just being difficult tbh. If those sources are not valid sources for this content then good luck ever bringing the majority of film articles, especially older ones to FA. These are all major sources and not blogs, I have deliberately not included information in this article, even when interesting if it came from a blog or other questionable source. You're seriously holding it up over TimeOut. Time fucking Out? "Expedia - so ... he's not an expert in the subject matter (which is films)" - it's sourcing locations. You've been deliberately obstructionist, making reasons up to hold this up and I want that on record here. Due diligence was done, but whatever, I assume this was just an attempt to derail this FA so congrats. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolute joke. You can all start doing this work yourselves. So it'll never get done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)