Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tank Girl (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2015.

Tank Girl (film)

 * Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 1995 science fiction action comedy film. Truly one of a kind; people either love it or don't get it at all. I've loved it since the first time I watched it as a child. Freikorp (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Freikorp, is this a WikiCup entry? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes :) Freikorp (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah good point, I added four more reviews. Better? (Haha yeah you either love it or hate it, you don't find many people sitting on the fence about this one lol)Freikorp (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel like the critical reception section is too short. It needs to be expanded. (By the way, I hated the movie, though that's just me.) ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 19:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any more information on the box office performance? If not, I think you should merge the section with another. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 12:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Found a tiny bit more info, specifically what it grossed in its opening weekend, but it wasn't much. I've merged it with above section. There's plenty of sources that give the box office results a line or two of comment, saying it "tanked at the box office' or something similar etc, do you think I should add a sentence like that or just leave it as the raw facts? Freikorp (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose that works. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 13:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Let me know if you have any other comments. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as the box office performance is concerned, it's a small problem that only the US gross is listed. The IMDb gives a figure for the worldwide gross, and while I know we can't cite that page it does at least tell us that the information is out there somewhere. Fortunately, Variety has something I don't think would be synthesis to include if carefully worded. I think we can use that, plus the remaining tidbits from Box Office Mojo, to at give a narrative to the theatrical run in terms other than, "it was released, made x, bombed." Try something along the lines of this, which foregrounds the important part (it bombed) before going into the fine detail (such as it is) for those so inclined:
 * All with cites in the appropriate places, of course. Steve  T • C 20:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks so much for your comments and finding that source . I've added that reference to the infobox and changed the gross revenue there to be "Approx $6 million". If you have any further comments i'd love to hear them. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks so much for your comments and finding that source . I've added that reference to the infobox and changed the gross revenue there to be "Approx $6 million". If you have any further comments i'd love to hear them. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, just pinging you both here one final time to see if you have any further comments or concerns. Freikorp (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Cliftonian. Have capped all my input below. Well done Freikorp. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  11:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Tank_girl_poster.jpg should explicitly identify the copyright holder
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Tank_Girl_open_casting.jpg: if this image is to be included, it should have a more extensive FUR - "how casting for the film was sought" can easily be expressed in text. We'll also need to know the copyright holder, and original publication details would be very helpful.
 * Added as much justification as I could think of. Let me know if it's not enough, or if you could think of further justification. The add features both the logo's for MGM and United Artists, so I have mentioned that copyright for the image would belong to one, or both, of these companies. Original publications details are unknown but I have narrowed it down as much as I can. I can have a look through microfilm next chance I get, and see if I can find the exact date, if that will help keep the image. Freikorp (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Tank_Girl_film_tank.jpg also needs a more extensive FUR, as the current one does not identify the purpose of use beyond "informational"; it too should explicitly identify copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, though let me know if this one needs more. Freikorp (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me know if this addresses your concerns. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Better, but I think the tank could say a bit more - why is it important for the reader to see the modifications? (Connect it to what is being said in the article). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've specified in the description that the modifications are "outlandish". I could go into further detail but I think it's clear from the image that these are not the modifications that would typically be made to a tank. :) Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Bollyjeff
Soundtrack section:
 * No need for a review table with only one entry.
 * Removed. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources for most of the additional soundtrack songs?
 * Do you think I can just cite the film's credits for this? I dare-say that's the only place the information would be. The Shaft theme is currently cited to the director's commentary. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you can. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  00:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold on i'll get to this, just want to make sure each song actually appears in the credits first. Freikorp (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Credits verify each song. I've added the event time as 1:42:35, when the first one is verified, though the others gradually become verified over the next 60 seconds or so. Freikorp (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Production section:
 * Four duplicate links found in second paragraph.
 * Removed. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources:
 * Refs 62 and 63 are identical.
 * Fixed. Unfortunately ref 63 gives no page number in the google books preview, so I don't know what page the information appears on, though I can certainly link to it. Freikorp (talk)


 * Ref 67 Who interviewed her? When? Audio, video, print?
 * Specified it was during her interview that appeared on the Blu-ray release. Whoever interviewed her is not actually specified (or even heard). The questions appear in text on the screen then Petty simply replies. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please then cite the bluray and which special feature using 'cite media' and at what time it occurs during the feature using |time= . BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  00:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The blu-ray was already cited, though i've formatted the reference to specifically say it is the blu-ray. I didn't bother adding times for any of the featurette sources. I no longer have access to the Blu-ray, so I can't add the time of the specific quote in the interview, though I deliberately left them out even when I had access to it. For starters it meant I would have had to reformat the same references several times to quote different times in a featurette, as opposed to just citing it once for all quotes from an interview. Plus I wan't asked to do so at my last sci-fi FAC (Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within) so I didn't think it was a necessity. Plus the featurette is only a few minutes long and if anyone feels the need to verify it i'm sure they'd be interested in watching the whole interview, rather than just skipping forward to that particular bit. Freikorp (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, its fine now. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  12:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Why no link to the Wynne book? According to Open Library (and Amazon) it was published on May 4 1995.
 * Thanks for getting the exact date, i've added that to the article. There's no google books link because unlike the other books there is no preview available. Would you like me to link to this anyway? Freikorp (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, so its consistent with the others. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Peter Milligan wrote an adaptation comic in 1995,[61] and a novelization of the film by Martin Millar was published in 1996.[62]" Could these be listed as book citations under a 'Further reading' section? Also can the citations in this sentence be given via Open Library, instead of commercial site Amazon? BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed the citation to Open Library. Further reading section coming soon. Freikorp (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Further reading section added. Freikorp (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Why aren't 63 and 64 listed in the bib like other books instead of inline?
 * No reason. Done now though. As previously mentioned 64 unfortunately doesn't have a page number though the url links to the exact spot in the book. Freikorp (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Lead seems too short to me. There is nothing about Themes and too little about Production and Legacy. It should summarize the whole article better.
 * Still not addressed. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  23:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed this one, i've addressed it now though. Have a look now and tell me what you think. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Themes: "In her 2006 book The Modern Amazons: Warrior Women On-Screen". Italicize all book titles.
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "as shown her repeated emasculation of Kesslee". Shown by her? Her who?
 * Yes, by her, fixed. Freikorp (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * " The studio was unhappy with the choice of Hardwicke, who was relatively unknown at the time, over more experienced designers; Talalay had to meet with producers to persuade them to allow Hardwicke to work on the project" Perhaps: The studio was unhappy with the choice of Hardwicke over more experienced designers. Talalay had to meet with producers to persuade them to allow Hardwicke, who was relatively unknown at the time, to work on the project.
 * Changed, thanks. Freikorp (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "skeptical that the open casting was a publicity stunt" Skeptical that it was a stunt. Don't think so.
 * I'm not seeing the problem here. What do you want me to change it to? Freikorp (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As evidenced by the above finds in just a couple of paragraphs, this article needs a copy edit before I can support it, sorry. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The article has had a fair bit of a copyedit in the last couple days, can you take another look at it? Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Even the lead is still not good enough:
 * ", originally published in Deadline magazine". The comic or the film? Perhaps remove the preceding comma and insert "that was" to fix this.
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "antiheroine" appears nowhere else in the article.
 * Antiheroine doesn't appear, but " anti-hero" does appear as a direct quote. I'll change it to "antihero". Freikorp (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that I would say "Winston's studio insisted on being given the project", especially in the lead. What, did they threaten them somehow?
 * Reworded. Freikorp (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "it has been cited as...". Weasle words. By who?
 * I actually used to have an example of who said it in the body, though another FAC reviewer removed it. I agree with the removal, however, as I don't think it adds anything to the article to say which author said this and the book in which they said it in. This fact that it is said to have a cult following is very well cited in the body, and it's hardly an outrageous claim. Freikorp (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep annoying you but any chance you can have another look at the lead and my responses now? Freikorp (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Initial screening and box office - "as well as Rebecca De Mornay, Lauren Tom, Brendan Fraser and Jason Simmons." Why is this significant?
 * Well it gives a good idea of the kind/class of celebrities who thought this was a premiere was worth attending. If you disagree let me know. Freikorp (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Tank Girl "sank like a stone at the box office"" - Unattributed POV quote.
 * One of the other FAC reviewers encouraged me to add that quote. Freikorp (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Go figure. These kinds of quotes should be attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - There is just too much wrong here, and I still have not even read the whole article yet. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  12:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I must say that's not very helpful. I've made an attempt to address each concern you've raised or explain why I disagree with you, and now you're opposing without giving me anything specific to fix. As per the guidelines, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." You're not giving me anything to address here. Freikorp (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This has turned into an extensive peer review. The article should be in better shape before coming to FAC, sorry. I am opposing primarily based on Featured article criteria 1a. It is just not as good as other FAs that I have seen. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

 * Query: Jet thrusters, working jet thrusters, were actually added to the tank prop? This seems incredible. &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 23:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What's in the article is pretty much what the 'Making of' book said - jet thrusters were added as the tank was required to travel faster. However the book only said it in passing, and nothing is mentioned in the director's commentary about it. After reading the Making of book first I was surprised to not hear anything about jet thrusters in the director's commentary, especially as the director lamented how slow the tank was without saying adding anything about thrusters. I'm now thinking this information should be removed unless a second source is found. Freikorp (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Mixed date styles, e.g. "Retrieved February 9, 2015." and "Retrieved 9 February 2015." The second style seems far more common, so probably should stick with that one. Don't forget nonbreaking spaces between month and date. Hang on... why do I see Use mdy dates? &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 00:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed all to 'Retrieved 9 February 2015' style . Looks like a novice editor slipped in the mdy date tag for some unexplained reason and I never noticed the addition . I've changed that now, since there was no basis or justification for it's addition. Freikorp (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Are we using BritEng or AmerEng? I see a lot of the former but also "favorably"&bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 00:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I intended to use British English, though I obviously slipped up a couple times. Freikorp (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sometimes sources have two authors but the cite lists only the first one (e.g., Mathijs 2007, p. 9.) &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 03:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Freikorp (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a boilerplate for the organization of film articles? It... seems to me that "Themes" should be lower in the article (?), but I won't insist.
 * WP:MOSFILM palces 'Themes' directly after 'Cast', but in this articles case 'Cast' has been merged with 'Plot'. Freikorp (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder why "Alan Martin and Jamie Hewlett have since spoken poorly" is in the legacy section? Perhaps that is the correct section, and I am not insisting on a change, but to me at least it seems slightly mismatched.&bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 04:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm I suppose that information could be moved to critical reception; that's the only other place it would fit in. I'll wait for a third opinion on the matter. Anyway please let me know if you have any further comments or concerns. Freikorp (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Lingzhi, this FAC is at the bottom of the older nominations list and a decision will likely be made very soon so i'm just pinging you here one last time to see if you have any final comments. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Support With one minor nit pick
 * Shouldn't numbers less than ten be represented with words?
 * Yes normally they should be, though there are a couple exceptions. Can you point out where this number(s) is so I can take a look at it? Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Home media" section.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(Mind reviewing this?) Thanks--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- sorry but this has been under way more than six weeks and we still don't have consensus to promote; while Bollyjeff's objection is indeed a general one regarding prose quality, scanning the article myself I feel that a copyedit by an uninvolved editor wouldn't go astray, and that should take place outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.