Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RoboCop/archive1

RoboCop

 * Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is about RoboCop, the 1987 science fiction action film directed by Paul Verhoeven, known for its excessive violence, prescient themes and concepts, the catchphrase "Dead or alive, you're coming with me," and that time RoboCop shot a guy in the ****. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Image review - pass

 * Images (and audio) seem fine with appropriate licences and captions, but the poster needs an alt text.  Gerald WL  12:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome, and that's a pass for image. I'll post a full prose comment on this later.  Gerald WL  13:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis
As hard of a cinephile as I am, I must admit I've never seen this movie. Hopefully one day; I've been a longtime Basil fan and I'm really curious as to his work here.  Gerald WL 


 * Hi, just letting you know Mike has supported now. Thanks for your help. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support :)  Gerald WL  13:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
Just looking at the critical reception section, I thought I would have a go at copyediting one or two of the paragraphs, but I want to be sure I understand how you've structured that section. In the paragraph starting "Some saw Robocop as a self-aware comic book film..." I see some comments about the direction, and about style, and humour, and scale. The first sentence doesn't seem to really summarize that very well -- what did you intend to be the topic of that paragraph? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the gist of the first two paragraphs is just overall sentiments about the film as a whole, so I'm not sure if the opening sentence is a mission statement in and of itself, it's been a while since I wrote it . Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that. Then the next paragraph is the actors; then the violence; then the satire.  I'll see if I can come up with some copyedit suggestions on that basis. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have put a paragraph in a sandbox that I'd like you to take a look at. I decided to try to write a paragraph based on the comments about violence in the reviews, without re-reading your paragraph, in order to try to get an independent approach. I think your paragraph on the violence makes a good selection of quotes, and has a definite sequence that it looks like I partly matched: first the reviewers who find the violence is redeemed by comedy, then the more critical reviews. The main thing I don't like about your paragraph is that it feels listy, which is extraordinarily difficult to avoid in these sections. I am certainly not suggesting you should substitute all, or even any, of my version into the article, but I do think it reads more smoothly, and I'd like to know what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems fine except for the Time magazine retrospective because the section is strictly contemporary reviews, and the Shane reference seems kind of random. Also one of the reviews references McKenna, an LA Times reviewer, but then makes separate reference to just a "The LA times review", so without the references it's difficult to know where the content has specifically come from for me to integrate it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree on the Time magazine retrospective and Shane, but I wasn't suggesting you use this (though if you want to use any part of it I can easily give you the cites). What I'm saying is that the reception section as you have it is listy, and doesn't flow as well as I think it should, and the paragraph I wrote was an attempt to show you what I mean, rather than give you a vague "do it better".  Pinging  and, who have both spent a lot of time thinking about how to write reception sections; I'd like their opinions in case I'm overreaching here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No that's fine. TBH I wish there was a Guild of Copy Editors Specifically for Critical Reception sections because they're my weakest part, especially with older films where the reviews tend to barely mention the film itself and just waffle on about random stuff. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To my eyes, both versions of the violence paragraph are missing some sense of common themes. Were there camps of opinion on ultraviolence as a stylistic choice? Who moralized the choice? What did reviewers find agreeable or disagreeable about its presentation? I.e., if two reviewers found its over-the-top violence to be comical, simply state that and the reasons why. The allusions to Charlie Chaplin and Bambi are lost on me as the general audience because I'm reading to understand how critics considered the role of ultraviolence in the film, not to be impressed by their rhetorical and referential flourishes. Complicating this point, I'd ask whether a major stylistic theme belongs in the Reception or the Thematic analysis (I don't know). The sandbox revision clusters the paragraph's topics a little neater but the ultimate test is having someone unfamiliar with the article (like me or an acquaintance) read the paragraph and not be lost as to why these individual reviewer opinions strung together in the paragraph are meant to impart as a whole. (edit conflict) re: random waffling, I think that tends to make the job even easier! Ignore the waffling and stick to their limited points of substance, which might be none at all. :) (not watching, please  if needed)  czar  14:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * do you have any top shelf examples of such sections for reference? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought Why Marx Was Right was a good recent example of grouping by topic czar  20:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, what about something like:

Many reviewers discussed the film's violent content. Ebert and Wilmington found the violence to be so excessive that it became deliberately comical, with Ebert writing that ED-209 killing an executive subverted audience expectations of a seemingly serious science-fiction film, making them uncertain what type of film they are watching. Wilmington believed the violent scenes succeeded at creating experiences of sadism and poignancy simultaneously. Other reviewers were more critical, including Kehr and Walter Goodman who believed the satire and critiques of corporate corruption were excuses to indulge in violent visuals. Graham found the violence had a "brooding agonized quality... as if Verhoeven were both appalled and fascinated" by it, and Sterritt said critical praise for the "nasty" film demonstrated a preference for "style over substance".
 * If I'm missing something I apologize, if I'm honest the original, MC's version, and the Marx version I don't see a great deal of difference between them. As I said, Crit Reception sections are the hardest and my least favourite part. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Czar and I were making different points. I think he felt neither you nor I made it clear what the camps of opinion were among the reviewers, though to be honest I'm not sure I agree with him; I've read every linked review a couple of times and I think the selections you and I each made are defensible.  My intended point was different: I was looking at the writing style, not the content.  Read the last four sentences of the current article version out loud.  Doesn't that sound just like a list to you?  I think the writing should be more fluid than that, and that's what I tried to illustrate in the sandbox.  I wrote WP:RECEPTION, which I know I've pestered you with in at least one previous FAC, and I tried to put what I know about writing these sections in that essay -- vary length, vary rhythm, try to avoid consecutive sentences with a similar structure.  These are mechanical things to try but they do help.  I really like your Guild of Copy Editors Specifically for Critical Reception sections and I am going to post a note at GOCE talk asking if there would be any interest in a subgroup of GOCE editors who take on reception sections.  Re your revised paragraph: yes, it definitely flows a bit better, but I would try to find a way to avoid the identically structured last two sentences.  I would also take advantage of Ebert being mentioned in two consecutive sentences to join those into a longer sentence, again to help flow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the above a bit. Yes reception sections are the worst because, from my experience, it's as subjective as comedy. Some sections pass without concern and others not and as mentioned above, and commented on by Czar, the older reviews, where the critics seemed to be like weird little rockstars, such that they now have their own Wikipedia articles (how many can say that today?), tended to wax poetic about things unrelated to the actual content of the film, making very little content I can actually draw on, making it seem brief and stunted. I don't mind your version apart from the aforementioned Shane reference and it potentially just being a bit long. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, I'd like to carry this conversation on on the article talk page, and see if I can suggest a copyedit of the whole section. Then we can come back here once that's settled rather than taking up FAC space.  It might take a few days; I am travelling from Thursday through Sunday and don't know how much time I will have until early next week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say that I think your rewritten paragraph above is great, . It does a good job of connecting related themes within the topic without delving into original research. I might invert or rearrange within some sentences, but that's just for stylistic variety, not content. czar  00:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree -- I hadn't reread or commented since you made the last tweaks; like Czar I might change something if I wrote it myself, but this is absolutely fine. Would you have a go at a similar rewrite of the other paragraphs in that section? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I'll move it into a sandbox and have a go then link you guys to it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok and, Yay or Nay?. I might have overdone it tbh. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

That's much improved, in my opinion. As before I can see some things I might do differently but this flows much better. If Czar agrees, I'd say move this in to the article. Then I owe you a review of the whole article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks great! Drop it in and I'll make some copy edits. One stylistic comment: When the reviewer is unknown, I don't think it's worth also mentioning their name. (Or alternatively, it's only worth saying the reviewer's name when they are independently notable.) I.e., the review is more likely to be referenced by our readers as "the WaPo review" than "Kempley's review" because a minor/unlinked name is a fleeting detail for a reader to hold in their head between paragraphs whereas the publication's name is almost always linked and comes with an associated history. czar  01:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's in SITU, thank you. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Review
Starting a fresh section for the review. That's everything; generally looks in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "As well as being inspired by comic books and his personal experience with corporate culture, Neumeier was influenced to kill off his main character early on by the psychological horror film Psycho (1960), whose heroine was killed in the first act. Neumeier wanted to satirize 1980s business culture, noting the increasing aggression of American financial services in response to growing Japanese influence and that a popular book on Wall Street was The Book of Five Rings, a 17th-century text discussing how to kill more effectively. He also believed that Detroit's declining automobile industry was due to increased bureaucracy." I think the "inspired by comic books" and "influenced to kill off his main character" points are unconnected to the corporate culture comments. How about "Neumeier was influenced to kill off his main character early on by the psychological horror film Psycho (1960), whose heroine was killed in the first act.  Inspired by comic books and his personal experience with corporate culture,  Neumeier wanted to satirize 1980s business culture, noting the increasing aggression of American financial services in response to growing Japanese influence and that a popular book on Wall Street was The Book of Five Rings, a 17th-century text discussing how to kill more effectively. He also believed that Detroit's declining automobile industry was due to increased bureaucracy."?
 * "Detroit was dismissed because it had many low, featureless, and indistinct buildings": how can a building be indistinct?
 * "Weller was to be referred to only as "Murphy" or "Robo" and Smith was hesitant to speak to him as a result. However, they developed a friendship, and the rule was ignored": I don't see this in the cited source. I see it in the Esquire article, but there it's "they said this guy wants you to call him", not third person, and it seems it turned out not to be accurate anyway.  If the Esquire article is your source for this it's so vague I think it should be dropped.
 * Surely Murphy's death was not done as a "pick-up shot"?
 * "efficient way to gain sympathy for Murphy as his personality was not well established": I think we could just make it "efficient way to quickly gain sympathy for Murphy."
 * I don't think we should list all thirteen movies that ranked ahead of it in box office, or even any of them. A link to an article on the year in movies would be OK, if we have such an article.
 * "The extended violent content removed from the theatrical release": since the UK release did not cut this material, shouldn't we make this "from the US theatrical release"?
 * The first paragraph of the "Corporate power" section has a bit of the "A said B" problem that you've fixed in the reception section. Can you take another crack at this paragraph?
 * "Another central theme centers on defining what is humanity": can we avoid "central...centers"? Perhaps just "Another central theme is the question of what is humanity".
 * "a man between death": between death and what?
 * "Unlike many films of its time, the central character is not a...": needs rephrasing -- as it stands this says the central character is a film.
 * The status of the statue in Detroit is described as of 2020 but a quick Google will find several updates that could be included.
 * There's some overlap between the "Post-release: Other media" section and the "Sequels and adaptations" section; can we reduce it? Or combine the sections?
 * , I've done most of these if you want to take a look. The only thing I'm a little confused about is your last point about the sequel section. I can't really see any overlap outside of the first line of the sequel mentioning the comics/video games, etc so I've removed that line. Other than that the only overlap I can see is the mention of one of the animated series in both sections, though it is mentioned in "Other media" in relation to an action figure line, and given more detail in the sequels section. Oh and Murphy's death was done in post production, I can change it from pick up shot but my understanding was that pick up shots are post production filming. It's basically tied into the schedule overrun and the suit taking up so much time, and that scene is very special effects heavy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Support. Your changes look fine; the rework of the "Corporate power" is a huge improvement. The overlap you removed was all I was noticing, and the explanation of Murphy's death being a post-production shot is fine; it's just my unfamiliarity with the terminology. Nice work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Pamzeis
Markin' my spot :) Pamzeis (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't know if you're free to begin your review but Mike Christie and Geraldo have finished up now. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay... will leave comments in two or three days... hopefully. Pamzeis (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Geraldo"-- damn I'm flattered. That's what my friends dub me when joking.  Gerald  WL  13:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry XD, It's the Waldo immediately afterward that confuses me, I used to call my cousins Lune and Jen instead of June and Len. Namelexia. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's try not to screw this up ;) Still more to come... Pamzeis (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "project: RoboCop. ... RoboCop, a powerful and heavily-armored cyborg with no memory of his former life." — why can't it be explained what RoboCop is at the first mention of its/their name...?
 * "The first draft of the script, titled RoboCop: The Future of Law Enforcement, was given to industry friends and associates." — any sources discussing when?
 * "The connection between Clarence Boddicker and Dick Jones was not in the first script; it was added at Orion's suggestion." — I'm a bit iffy on this bit. I think it would be pretty obvious that the part was not in the first script if it was done at Orion's suggestion, because Orion was not involved with the first script (I think, I forgot everything I read five minutes ago...)
 * "Kaplan left to direct Project X" — had he already signed on? This wording suggests so, but the article makes no mention of it, only that he was offered the job or he offered to direct
 * "Verhoeven is said to have looked at the first page and rejected the script as awful, stalling the project." — are there sources that contradicted this or something? If not, can the "is said to have" part be dropped?
 * "Being not fluent in" — awkward...
 * "The low salary he required was in his favor, as was his body control from martial arts training and marathon running, and his fan base in the science fiction genre, following his performance in The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984)." — I don't get this. What does body control and his fan base have to do with a low salary?
 * "Cinematographer Jost Vacano previously" — MOS:SOB?
 * "on location in Dallas" — huh? I thought the film was set in Detroit?
 * I think it flows better this way in terms of plot. In the film we don't know what RoboCop is until we see it, it's just a project that Morton mentions, and stating what RoboCop is alongside Murphy becoming RoboCop makes it clear what he has become. To me anyway.
 * I don't have a specific month but I've added early 1985.
 * He led the project at that point and was offered the director role and he was involved up to the point he left. I've added an extra source though that seemed a bit clearer.
 * Done
 * Done
 * Maybe you misread this or it might be worded badly. It's saying that because he was a cheap hire that worked in his favour, but they also liked he had good body control which was important to the role, and he brought with him an existing fanbase from his last film meaning he wasn't a complete unknown and had some drawing power. Is it confusingly worded? I can try to rewrite it.
 * Done
 * It is set in Detroit but it's filmed in Dallas.
 * Done for now Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , sorry to bother you, any more notes to add? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry! I've got a bit on my plate at the moment, but more comments will hopefully come tomorrow... (but no promises!) Pamzeis (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Continuing...
 * Before I forget, cast lists should not have full stops at the end unless accompanied by (a) full sentence(s) per MOS:FILMCAST
 * Ref order in note k should be fixed
 * "explode in a predictable way" — any way that "predictable" can be elaborated?
 * "A mold of Weller's face was made" — a tad awkward...
 * I get what you mean by "fabricated" in #Special effects, but given the more common (and negative) usage, could this be substituted with another word?
 * "Verhoeven recalled how one reviewer was confused by the jarring in-film ad breaks and complained the projectionist had used the wrong film reel." — what relevance does this have to the film's marketing? It seems rather trivial to me
 * "depicting unchecked greed and callous disregard alongside witty criticisms of subjects including game shows and military culture." — ...uhh, what? I genuinely have no idea what this means
 * The first paragraph of #Critical reassessment is mostly not about critics' assessment.
 * Also... reassessment? The reception seems mostly the same from reading the article...
 * According to the Deus Ex article, Human Revolution is a prequel, but this article refers to it as a sequel
 * I don't see anything in the body supporting that RoboCop Returns ignores the other entries in the series as stated in the lead
 * "behind Crocodile Dundee ($53.6 million), La Bamba ($54.2 million), comedy film and Dragnet ($57.4 million)." — any reason these four films are mentioned specifically?
 * "million between them" — also awkward-ish
 * "older audiences (those aged over 25), who had been ignored by the teenage-centric films of previous years" — how do teen films ignore people...?

OK, think that's it from me! Hopefully, you don't mind the out-of-order comments, because I read the article out-of-order. Great article, but definitely not a film I'm interested in seeing as violence is not my cup of tea. Pamzeis (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, and a few more comments: titles of works like RoboCop should be italicised in citations per MOS:CONFORMTITLE; and citation capitalisation should be consistent per MOS:SMALLCAPS. Pamzeis (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK I think I've addressed everything except for the list of films in the BO section. I just like to list the next or preceding five to show the type of competition it was against as if you weren't around them you might not know what other films were out and running against it (and even if you were you probably forgot), plus it gives an organic way to create interior links to other interesting articles. And yes it's very gory, it's a philosophically interesting film but even the cut down version has some gore in it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, nothing else to say (oh, wait, that was something else). Pamzeis (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - pass
Spot-checks not included.
 * Source 59 should be marked as dead since the main link is not working. While we're at it, what makes Dallas Film Commission a high-quality, reliable source?
 * Source 71, 119 - British Board of Film Classification does not need to be in italics.
 * Source 159, 160 - what makes Hi-Def Digest a high-quality, reliable source?
 * Source 189, 190, 254 - why are only these three's titles italicized? FrB.TG (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Dallas Film Commission is the official Dallas department for liaising with and promoting filming in Dallas so it's an educated entity being used to cite non-controversial information.
 * Done
 * Hi-Def digest does have an "About Us" with an editorial team, and is owned by InternetBrands which is a billion dollar company. Like the Dallas Commission, it's a specialist website being used to cite information within their speciality that is non-controversial.
 * Fixed as best I can, the Cite Rotten Tomatoes and Cite Metacritic templates automatically italicize the website names. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My question regarding the italics was based on the sources' title, not the publishers'. For some reason these three have been picked. I thought it was because it had the film in the title but there were many others with the film's name in it and they were not italicized. I suggest removing the italics from these three as well. FrB.TG (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, well htat's something unfortunately built into the citation template, but I've replaced them with standard Cite Web ones. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you to, , , , and Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)