Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prometheus (2012 film)/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Colm 11:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC).

Prometheus (2012 film)
Featured_article_candidates/Prometheus_%28film%29/archive1


 * Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this again for featured article because the thing that laid its child in my chest cavity told me to. I am told it read the article on Prometheus and decided I would make a fertile breeding ground for a hyper efficient article editing machine that bleeds text. On a personal level I have been working on the article for several months, taking it from a relative bare space to what is today: a thorough document on the film Prometheus that covers every major topic on an interesting and long in development project by the master Ridley Scott. I have been helped to this end by many other impregnated users including but not limited to User:IllaZilla, User:Polisher of Cobwebs and User:Flax5 plus a thorough copy edit by User:Baffle gab1978 to bring it to the shining standard of alien infestation that it is today. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)''


 * Support Comments reading through now.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC) on prose and comprehensiveness - I've seen this develop over time and I think it fulfils criteria now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A mutated Fifield attacks the Prometheus's hangar bay and kills several crew members before he is killed. - generally try to avoid repeating words, I was musing on changing one of these to "dispatch", "murder" or some other verb. I'd also add the adjective "monstrous" to Fifield here to convey that he's so big and scary in this bit.....


 * I was musing in the plot section on one key point to add - before David infects Holloway with the liquid he asks him how far he'd be prepared to go (?) - in my mind this was clarifying that somehow David feels Holloway would acquiesce in the name of knowledge (??) - obviously it's not spelt out but it adds a layer of ambiguity as by not mentioning it maybe gives the wrong impression of David's motives (??)


 * The plot is possibly too economical with words (agree it is very tight, which is a good thing overall) - I'd maybe mention the visuals of the opening being in a rocky desolate place next to a huge waterfall, and the planet they land on as mountainous and barren - the plot as is gives nothing for the reader to visualise at all.


 *  The central prominent theme concerns the Titan Prometheus.. - I don't think we need both adjectives here....

Other than these nitpicks, looking pretty polished and promotable prose- and comprehensiveness-wise.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, I have made some minor changes to attempt to address these issues as seen here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support Casliber! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

An exhaustive account which looks as if it fulfills the criteria. I have a few questions around the referencing:
 * Support with comments

Pre-production Visual effects Critical reception I didn't see any prose issues upon my first read, but I will take another spin over the next few days. --  Cassianto Talk   22:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you use reference [93] consecutively?
 * It is usual to finish a paragraph with an inline citation?
 * Ah, I see you have fixed this
 * Paragraphs should finish with a cite "Reviews frequently praised both the film's visual aesthetic and design, and Fassbender's performance as the android David received almost universal acclaim. However the plot drew a mixed response from critics, who criticized plot elements that remained unresolved or were predictable, tempered by appreciation for the action and horror set-pieces." -- this paragraph could do with a reference at the end of the paragraph. --  Cassianto Talk   22:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I addressed your first issue here but I'm a little unclear on the 2nd and 3rd problem. Do you mean that the paragraph ends without a cite directly afterwards like here (attempt to address issue 2)? If so, the third issue re: the critical reception, the final sentence is a brief summary of the the overall content of that section, but is not itself sourced. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I added a source to the last paragraph. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support Cassianto! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support amazing article on a divisive movie (that I still liked). Wonder if Alien (1979 film) can get there some day. igordebraga ≠ 22:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Igordebraga! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Excellent quality film article, with clear evidence of going the extra mile to ensure an article of the very highest quality. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 16:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you TaerkastUA! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a note here that the article has been moved to Prometheus (2012 film). Jafeluv (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments - first, let me say that I am reviewing this because of the hilarious nomination statement. :-)
 * Plot summary - isn't it a bit long?
 * An IP bloated it out and I thought i had undone it but for some reason it didn't take fully, the FAC presented plot is there now and 726 words, which is 26 words over the limit but it has been boiled down to its most important components while necessitating some explanation given it's sci-fi nature and things that cannot be explained in simple terms using real things/creatures/events.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Cast - you could consider reorganizing it (slightly) like Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, so it looks better.
 * I made a small change, but other than that it seems like a personal stylistic preference, and the bullet style is the one I prefer. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Themes - frankly, it looks like a high school essay, with each theme treated as its own separate bubble. Where's the overarching prose? Where are the transitions between topics? Following the models of other film FAs may help you here (e.g. Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), Changeling or not even having the word "theme", Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure what you mean here, I had used Conan as a template when writing it and it seems fairly similar so I must be missing something. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Looked over the article. looks great. Comprehensive and well sourced. -- JDC808  ♫  04:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks JDC808 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, from Steve  T • C. EDIT: Struck at 22:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC). I haven't read the whole article yet; I've jumped from section to section, and I've mainly liked what I've read so far. I have some content issues/questions that I think would need to be cleared up before this passes. Sorry if this seems disjointed; I'm listing in the order I see things:
 * "Viral campaign"—I don't think that File:Prometheus Viral 3 - David.jpg has a strong enough rationale for inclusion, per the non-free content criteria. Even as intended, "to display the extensive viral campaign created by Fox for Prometheus to blend the aspects of the film with the real world", the image shows nothing that needs further illustration beyond the text of the section in which it resides. It's undoubtedly better to see an advert than have a description, but it's not necessary for proper understanding of the text it supports. There needs to be specific commentary about aspects of the image; as it stands, it's just confirming the advert's existence and its basic premise, something text alone can do. See the detailed "purpose of use" sections of the rationales for File:Changeling closing sequence.png and File:Barton Fink pictures of women.jpg for examples where simple descriptions would struggle to get across the images' intent.
 * I disagree on the image, it shows the android, the viral campaign, the cross-marketing with Verizon, I think it conveys a lot of information about the type of campaign that was being run for the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that this image meets WP:NFCC #8. What we need to think about is in what ways it significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic and ways in which its omission be detrimental to that understanding; at present, I'm not seeing any. The image is fairly straightforward—an advert for David—which makes it hard to make a case for, especially given that Fassbender-as-David does not undergo radical physical transformation (and without even considering that there is free image of the actor immediately following this one in the article). Consider the intent of the supporting text—to explain to the reader that a fictional advert for the android "David 8" (Fassbender) appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The image merely illustrates this text; it does not add significant value to our understanding of it. Nor does the text itself comment upon aspects of the image, which at present is merely acting as confirmation of its existence. If you want to make the case instead that this image is representative of "the type of campaign that was being run for this film", then there needs to be explicit commentary from secondary sources to this effect. As it stands, the link is tenuous. And I don't want to come across as nitpicky for the sake of it, but I think you might run into similar problems with File:Prometheus_spacecraft.jpg, the "purpose of use" for which is especially weak (though more easily bolstered). Again, I recommend that you look at the fair-use rationales from other [recent-ish] film-related FAs—I think you'll better be able to see where these fall short. Steve  T • C
 * I replaced the image with external links to the three viral videos that gained much coverage and are the focus of the section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems a shame to simply remove the image rather than come up with a way of bolstering its application (or replace it with a more suitable still from the imaginative marketing), but it's your choice. Consider the objection dealt with. Steve  T • C
 * Less pressing, perhaps, but I'm not sure the "Box office" section provides the necessary context of the film's performance. There are facts and figures—but nothing that indicates how its haul, either in North America or worldwide, was considered. Did it meet the studio's expectations? Was its performance considered good/disappointing/flat? I'm positive there were plenty of articles from around the time of release and afterwards that provided this level of commentary. As it stands, "the second largest opening for a film directed by Scott ... the third largest second-place opening, the ninth largest opening for a prequel, and the tenth largest for an R-rated film" is meaningless for understanding of its broader performance, especially for those reading a year or two down the line.
 * I think I've fixed this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed you have! I hope you don't mind, but I tweaked the ordering of the first paragraph a little. I'm still not entirely sure the section as a whole presents the information in a logical order, but this is more of a nitpick than a serious concern. Steve  T • C
 * I don't know what to tell you, it's presented as a summary and then a breakdown of North America and other regions. Despite making money it didn't set the world on fire and set no records or made waves financially so the sections cover everything of note. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. I didn't mean that the section doesn't cover information that it should, just that the order of that information may not be optimum. I've had another read, and it may actually be the preceding section—"Pre-release"—that throws it off. This section sets up the narrative flow of the theatrical release, building anticipation in the last paragraph to the opening weekend with the reader unaware of how the film will perform. It actually does a good job of making the reader want to find out what happened next. That the "Box office" section abandons the narrative for a more straightforward summary/detail presentation is a little bit of a shame. Might there be a way of presenting the information in a way that retains the flow? Consider this more of a suggestion than an objection. :-) Steve  T • C
 * The summary at the beginning of the "Critical reception" section is good, particularly the critics' consensus scores and CinemaScore poll rating—up to this point the information is well presented and understandable. But it stumbles towards the end of the first paragraph with the statement that "Reviews frequently praised both the film's visual aesthetic and design, and Fassbender's performance as the android David received almost universal acclaim. However the plot drew a mixed response from critics, who criticized plot elements that remained unresolved or were predictable, tempered by appreciation for the action and horror set-pieces." This is information cited not to a retrospective summary of the critical consensus of the time, but to just three independent reviews, i.e. technically, it is the editor's interpretation of the critical consensus, even if such a consensus likely existed. For those who didn't take note of the reviews, the statement is not possible to verify through the citations given. It should be cited to a source that comments upon the reviews, not the reviews themselves. If it seems like I'm being picky on this point, consider that the almost universally reviled Battlefield Earth received three positive reviews from 126, according to Rotten Tomatoes; it would be an easy task to selectively pick comments from those three reviews to craft a statement the equal of the one presented here.
 * I just removed it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, itseems a bit of a shame to simply remove the information rather than try to bolster it, but it's up to you. Steve  T • C
 * I re-added it with different sourcing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's about it for now. If I get a chance I'll read some more of the article later. All the best, Steve  T • C 21:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 21:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC) update. Will take a look through shortly to re-consider the "oppose" vote. Steve  T • C
 * I've struck my opposition. If I get a chance before the end to look at the large parts of the article I merely skimmed, I will. If not, good luck. Steve  T • C 22:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate's comment Did I miss an image review? Graham Colm (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Image review
 * File:Prometheusposterfixed.jpg - Fix dab link, otherwise this will fail the NFCC
 * File:Noomi Rapace at 'Prometheus' film premiere in London (7).jpg looks fine
 * File:Charlize Theron WonderCon 2012.jpg is fine (Skidmore is awesome, by the way)
 * File:Damon Lindelof by Gage Skidmore.jpg looks fine
 * File:Idris Elba.jpg needs a link to a page showing that Luke Ford was the one who actually took the image, otherwise this may be a copyvio
 * File:Iceland Dettifoss 1972-4.jpg is fine.
 * File:Prometheus spacecraft.jpg needs a dab. Not sure how strong the contextual significance is. Also, why is the thumbnail so small?
 * File:Wright of Derby, The Orrery.jpg is almost certainly PD, but the painter's year of death is good for a claim of PD-100. Also, an information box would be helpful.
 * File:Ridley Scott, Charlize Theron & Michael Fassbender by Gage Skidmore.jpg is fine
 * File:Michael Fassbender by Gage Skidmore.jpg is fine.


 * Looks pretty good, mostly small issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have some jobs to do but then I will take care of these, frankly I hate the Spaceship one, I didn't add it and I don't see what purpose it serves, I think an image of one of the alien creatures would be of more use to enlightening a reader, so I will look into that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed the minor things but I don't know what you mean by infobox for the PD work. I also replaced the spaceship with File:Prometheus - Trilobite Adult.jpg. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - improved 1 FUR and removed the external video links, all have been disabled due to copyright problems. GermanJoe (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good spot, gonna find some alternative. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Image here needs to be smaller. Perhaps something close to 300px at its largest side. Also, File:Idris Elba.jpg and its crop File:Idris Elba 2007 Cropped.jpg still need a link to the image as it appears on the website to ensure that it was Luke Ford who took the image; the OTRS ticket is only for images taken by him. I'll take care of the painting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what you mean with the IDris Elba thing, I didn't upload the original but it has a link on there to lukeford.net directly to the image, and I added that same link to the cropped version, and the permissions state images from "lukeford.net". I shrank Trilobite, though the last time I read the guidelines, it being 350 or less on any side and not commercial replicable was acceptable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 350 maximum would be okay, as we're looking for 100k pixels as calculated at WP:Image resolution. You'd have to look for the image on Lukeford.net, which in that case would point to this. It says here that Luke took the image himself, so it should be fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how those links are any different than the link present that takes you to the photo on ford's site, but I've just spammed the image with every link. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The second one ("I just...") confirms that it was Ford who took the image and not a third-party who has not released the images under a free license; the first is a link to the image proper in context.
 * Images are okay from my review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate's comment - Minor problems with the prose remain. Please try to recast these fused participles:
 * "Scott wanted the film to end with Shaw announcing that she is still searching for definitive answers."
 * "he was unwilling to deal with the studio attempting to influence the potential sequel." Graham Colm (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to read up on fused participles because I have no idea what they are, but this stuff is confusing. How about...
 * "Scott wanted the film to end with Shaw's declaration that she is still searching for definitive answers."
 * "he was unwilling to deal with the studio's attempts to influence the potential sequel." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Better, thank you. Graham Colm (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.