Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scream (film)/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:10, 18 August 2011.

Scream (film)

 * Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be an exceptional article on the subject. It is comprehensive on the topic, detailed, contains no NFC apart from the infobox poster and one image in the casting section which I believe to be important and for which I have added a rationale. The article contains media where appropriate, is well-written (prose having been checked by peer review, guild of copyeditors and GA process) and references are filled, complete and uniform. I have spent weeks/months researching the topic and believe it to be the best that it can be at the moment short of new information being uncovered. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose on sourcing at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC) In general, reference formatting needs to be cleaned up and made consistent, and sources need to be assessed for quality and reliability. Looking briefly at the article text, I also see some Manual of Style issues (including overlinking and hyphen/dash problems). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Should include time references for audio/video sources, particularly when citing very specific material like direct quotes
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This?
 * FN 9: formatting. Check for other malformatted refs
 * When a source is English-language, you don't need to specify the language
 * Web sources need publishers and retrieval dates
 * That makes the second reference reliable.
 * |This may make your fourth cite reliable. Scroll down the page beyond the user comments are several press comments regarding the site.  USA Today has some articles sourcing them. http://www.usatoday.com/search/results?q=seeing-stars.com&p=1
 * Deleted the IMDb source and replaced, I overlooked it when developing the article from what it previously was.
 * Working on the other two refs.
 * Removed the English language thing
 * I believe I caught all the references lacking a publisher and accessdate now. Had a lot of help from User:MikeAllen & little help from GrappleX (Just making sure they gets due credit)
 * Removed what I believe to be overlinking. Everything that is left I believe to be useful to the reader.  Tried to be very strict on repeat links.
 * I can't see what is wrong with ref 9, can you be more specific?
 * Comment If I am meant to include time sources does that mean I am meant to repeat the same source multiple times with only a time-code difference? Also means I have to rewatch 12 hours plus of content -__- Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Further Comments: Not sure what to say about musicfromthemovies.com, its the website of a magazine that has seen print, written by this guy  and while no article exists on here for the site, a quick search for musicfromthemovies.com has a lot of articles here sourcing his work.  I don't know what it takes to ascertain how reliable he is though.
 * have outright replaced the film-in-america source. Leaves only musicfromthemovies.com I think.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Regarding the times for the commentary and other audio/video sources, you can see an example of a featured article that has these by looking at Over There (Fringe). I know going through a load of sources again just to find the times is a pain, but from having to do this myself on another article I can see why it's necessary. The sources in a featured article need to be watertight and if you can't prove where you found this information (by making it as easy to find as possible for anyone who wants to find it) then it doesn't really belong on the article. Good luck with the article. Coolug (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.