Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Night of the Living Dead

Night of the Living Dead
Self-nomination This is an article about a an important horror film from the late 1960s and its influence. Much of this article was plot and unsourced trivia; it is now comprehensive and well sourced. This article has a peer review and the issues raised there have been addressed. I'm sure there are still some wrinkles that need ironing, thanks in advance for your input. Dmoon1 03:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note on size: The article's prose is only around 34 kb; please see the note on the talk page for further details. Dmoon1 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Support (noting I've made a few minor contributions myself). I've watched this article improve immensely over the last few weeks. I think the whole article could use a combing over by a good copyeditor for consistency of language and its prose could probably be tightened up to shave a couple KB off its length, which is why I'm qualifying my support a bit. Otherwise, it's an exceptionally well-referenced article about an important film, well-illustrated, free of POV, free of fancruft. - dharmabum 07:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks; please see the note on the talk page about the size; it's only around 34 kb. Dmoon1 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I miscommunicated in my comments; it isn't an objection based on the page size limits, but that the prose could just use a bit of tightening. I'm striking out the part about the KB as I can now see it makes it look like my objection is based on a loose WP guideline rather than in the interest of journalistic efficiency of language. - dharmabum 22:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty snappy. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dmoon1 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I commit my strong support to this article, and I feel it matches all the criteria for a featured article, and indeed is better than most of the featured articles. As for its length, I cannot stress this enough, all featured articles I've come across exceed the 30kb limit and I feel its always a weak reason to object to an article gaining featured status, though it's something that frequently comes up. LuciferMorgan 10:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * Overall size is 53KB, prose size is 30KB. Sandy 11:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please put Notes before References. I am not clear on the copyright status on the images, since the tags ask for more specific tags:  can anyone comment ?  Sandy 11:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The film is in the public domain due to a screw-up: see Night of the Living Dead. User:Angr 12:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my question was about the Wiki tags, which I don't understand well. Why do the tags on the pictures say, Please verify that the reason given above is valid!  Note: if there is a specific licence tag for the reason supplied here, please use it.  Don't those need to be explained? It's a Wiki question, not a general copyright question ...  Sandy 17:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Screenshots from the original film are in the public domain, but there is not specific licensing tag for PD films. I will add a statement to the images similar to a fair use statement. Dmoon1 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The notes were originally before the references, someone changed it. I have just changed it back. Dmoon1 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good! Sandy 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising these issues; glad they were addressed. Dmoon1 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Everything you really need to know on the topic is included in the article, it is well-written and follows a good structure. Briancollins 15:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dmoon1 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: article looks great, articles about popular culture are an important aspect of any encyclopedia. - Tutmosis  17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dmoon1 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. This is an excellent article. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dmoon1 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Image:Boscosyrup.jpg is almost certainly not a promotional image. It wasn't created for a press kit.  I don't dispute that this image could be Fair use, but the template needs to be changed.  Otherwise, everything looks very good.  Jkelly 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. When I first tagged the image I wasn't sure which licensing tag to use so I slapped the promotional tag on it. I have changed the tag to . This should properly cover the work. Dmoon1 18:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing it. I am quite impressed with this article.  I notice that we don't seem to have a copy of the film in .ogg format.  Is there some reason other than that nobodyt has bothered to do it?  Jkelly 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know why we don't have a copy of the film in commons or someplace. My past attempts at downloading content like sound in .ogg format have not been very successful (my computer just doesn't seem to like .ogg). Dmoon1 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can do it myself. Jkelly 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks; would you have any objections to using the B&W picture of Romero? I prefer it to the more recent picture of him simply because it is from the same time that he directed the film. I would rather have no picture at all than the current one, even though it is free. Dmoon1 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it isn't important enough to show what Romero looks like to have a freely-reusable image there, it certainly isn't important enough to have an unfreely-licensed image with a claim of "fair use" there. Jkelly 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okey-dokey. It's not a big deal. A long time ago I tried to find one of Romero on the set (which would be more relevant to the article) but couldn't. Your rationale makes sense. Dmoon1 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support My only comment would be the phrase "Ben's torch accidentally..." in the plot section. Ben's torch isn't conscious and can't do anything accidentally.  Perhaps Ben accidentally started the fire?  Anyway, ROTS is slightly longer, so I wouldn't worry about the lenghth.  Quality article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. I fixed this phrase. Dmoon1 04:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Wonderful article. I remember when I went here last year and this article was so small but now it is worthy for a FA status. Kudos to the nominator for his hard work on editing. -ScotchMB 23:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dmoon1 04:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: References need to be organized better.
 * 1) reference 1 and 4 can be safely removed from the lead. 2)The full reference for: "Assault of the Killer B's: Interviews with 20 Cult Film Actresses" should be in the "References section". This way #21 can be shortformed like #40.  In fact, you can blend the footnotes 21,14 and 40,64 together once you've done this.  3) Do the same thing with Higashi's reference.  (Note: Of course, these footnote #'s will all change when the changes are made). --P-Chan 14:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also never place materials in the reference sections that you are not using as references! You seem to have blanketed the entire article with references and I can find very few, if any, holes.  (That's excellent).  That said, there are 14 entries in the "Other References" section.  Where do all of these references correspond to in the article?  If there are not needed, you can turn some of them into a "Further reading" section. --P-Chan 15:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input here and in the peer review. I combined references where relevant; some do not warrant combining. The reference section of this article is formatted the same way as the other featured articles I have written. "Notes" section includes material directly quoted or paraphrased in the article, "other references" includes relevant material that was not directly used in the article, like a bibliography. I see no reason to re-format the references without a better justification than differences in personal preference. Thanks again. Dmoon1 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Other references" includes relevant material that is not directly used in the article? What do you mean by that?--P-Chan 16:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Material that was consulted and used in the writing of the article, but not directly quoted from. It's the same thing as a bibliography. Dmoon1 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Good work on the article! -- Underneath-it-All 21:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dmoon1 02:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object—2a etc. I was going to just "comment", but then I uncovered too many things that need fixing. On the whole, it's a good article, so please attend to the whole text soon.
 * Please go through it and weed out the redundancies. For example: "Reviewers at the time criticized the film's graphic contents"—The context clearly provides some of this information, so we don't want it to be spelt out. Remove "at the time" and "film's". You can probably remove "As of 2006"; another remake would be a major turn, and would warrant updating the article anyway, wouldn't it?
 * "The film constitutes the first in a tetralogy"—Yuck. Use "is" or "was".
 * Why link "guerilla" in "guerrilla-style" if it doesn't explain the cinematic meaning of the term?
 * Telling us that Ben was an African-American at the top, without explaining why this is worth mentioning until way down, is inappropriate—makes it sound as though race is important per se. Either explain the relevance on the spot, or don't mention his race until you do.
 * In a similar vein: "curtailed the ability of Image Ten to hire a retinue of well-known actors and actresses"—Nowadays, we're quite happy not to make the gender distinction: just "actors" will do. "A retinue of" is redundant.
 * "Twenty-three-year-old"—Avoid the quadruple bypass by placing this not at the start of the sentence, but before her name: "Commercial and stage actOR, 23-year-old Judith O'Dea, was cast" Tony 02:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony. I've attended to these examples and will go over the rest of the article tonight. Most of the prose problems were fixed earlier with your valuable How to satisfy Criterion 2a. Thanks again. Dmoon1 02:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redundancies were weeded out the over the past few days along with some mediocre prose. Another editor made minor copy-edits as well. Please let me know what else you think needs to be addressed. Dmoon1 05:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - Important film; excellent article. (Ibaranoff24 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Thanks for the support and fixing up some of the images. Dmoon1 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 *  Object Abstain. What's the deal with the spoiler warning? What is the reader supposed to make of it, stop reading the article? Why should we feature something we warn the reader about? I'll support if the whole warning is removed, as is appropriate for an encyclopedic article that aspires to be of high quality. Shanes 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - the spoiler warning is appropriate. Wouldn't want people who haven't seen the film to read the ending, now would we? (Ibaranoff24 20:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC))
 * I think this is a discussion to have here or here, not at FAC; this guideline is in dispute, but it is still a guideline and this objection verges on WP:POINT, IMHO. Dmoon1 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about the spoiler tagging done in this article. Does it cover only the Plot section, or is the warning meant to cover all the rest of the article. What does the editors deem safe to read? Sometimes I see an end_spoiler tag being placed where the editors believe that there are no more spoilers below it. First I thought the editors here just wanted to spare the readers for that end_tag and that the warning was just covering the Plot section (as surprising as it might be that the plot section contains the plot). But I believe there are quite a few spoilers further down, so maybe the tag covers all the rest of the article and that readers who don't want to get anything "spoiled" shouldn't read more than the intro. Is that the case here? Shanes 00:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the case. There is information about the plot scattered throughout the article, so it would be dishonest to place an "end spoiler" tag at the end of the plot section when there is more plot information further down in the article. This is one of the problems with the spoiler tags and between you and me (and whoever else reads this), I don't care for them at all. I think they are rather silly. If you were to read an article in an academic film journal or even Entertainment Weekly, there would not be a spoiler warning on the front cover. If you don't want to know about the contents of the movie, then don't look at the article (that's my opinion). I just slap those things on film articles I write because it is expected. However, I still contend that FAC is not the place to debate this issue. Dmoon1 01:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in that, and I also agree that I was making too much of a point by opposing based on the tag only. I withdraw my object vote. Shanes 01:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Dmoon1 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)