Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The FP/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 promoted by Ian Rose 19:16, 25 July 2014.

The FP

 * Nominator(s):  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about The FP, a very inexpensive, largely unknown film that is a personal favourite of mine. The film focuses on gangs that fight using a Dance Dance Revolution knock-off, so that should set the tone for you. I've been working on this article consistently since February, and I believe it has reached FA level. The article is well-sourced, featuring many direct interviews with the filmmakers and the featurettes/commentary from the film itself. The information included is all-encompassing, noting many opinions of both the filmmakers and their critics, as well as a large amount of facts about the film. Hopefully you think it's worthy of FA status as well!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Erik (addressed)
Support. Even though this is a quirky little film, the article is well sourced, as well as being well-written, without any paraphrasing issues. The images are all free or have fair use rationales. The article is comprehensive, going into detail without straying into trivia; its tone is neutral, and the edit history shows the article's stability. The lead is a very well written summary of the article which follows, and the structure is appropriate, following the guidelines of the film project, as per WP:MOSFILM. Every item which needs to be cited, is. The editor has gone to great lengths to provide the article with appropriate pictures, and the article's length is also appropriate. User:Corvoe has done an excellent job. Onel5969 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support as meeting the FA criteria. The topic at the time of nomination was comprehensive and well-researched. I copy-edited some of the article body to clarify some sentences and asked the nominator to review some confusing passages, which are now addressed. The article is stable, and a concern of neutrality was addressed as stated above. Beyond that, the article satisfies the style guidelines (the general ones as well as MOS:FILM), and the free media used in this article is especially welcome for an article on a copyrighted work. Length is also appropriate. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from 1ST7 (addressed)
Support. Now that the above concerns have all been addressed, I believe this article meets the FA criteria and support its promotion. --1ST7 (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from 97198 (addressed)
Support All of the above changes have been made. Overall, it's a clearly written, thorough and well-referenced article, and IMO one that fulfils the FA criteria. Well done. 97198 (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Baffle gab1978 (talk)
Just a note to tell reviewers that this article is currently undergoing a requested GOCE copy-edit by yours truly. Therefore it shouldn't be reviewed for FA status until the copy-edit is finished because the text will be subject to changes. Perhaps the reviewer(s) would consider putting the review on hold until then. The request is here. I'll inform the requester Corvoe on his/her talk page and I'll leave a note in my final edit summary when I'm finished. I'll also drop a note here if I remember. Hopefully this will be done by Tuesday night (UTC). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Gotta admit, I wasn't the c/e to start any time soon, so I felt fairly safe in nominating it :P I'm okay with putting it on hold. I suppose I could just ping everyone back here for another look through.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  20:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it might be a good idea to inform the reviewers (or just post a note here); comments above will likely be rendered obsolete by the c/e. Once it's listed on the GOCE requests page, a requested c/e can happen at any time, especially during drives and blitzes, but we usually do them within two months. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I probably should've removed it before nominating this, haha. Oh well. Thank you for the copy-editing! It's looking good.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  02:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've now finished the copy-edit earlier than I expected; feel free to continue the FA Review. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "done" template, since WP:FAC advises against those kinds of templates (they mess with the archives). I just don't want you think I'm vandalizing your posts. Also, thank you so much! The article reads a lot better now, you've done a fantastic job! I'll be pinging everyone back to ask for their reassessment now.


 * ,, , , Baffle gab1978 has finished the c/e of this article. Some of you may have issues with new phrasings or things being unclear. If you wouldn't mind taking another pass at the article and reaffirming your votes, or posting new comments for improvement, it would be very much obliged. Thank you to everyone!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  04:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. I will take a look tomorrow. Just got home from being out of town, so I'll be resting today. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed the copy-editing changes here and have no issues with it. My support still stands. And I will have to keep the mdash use in mind! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the changes. Onel5969 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As am I -- the changes look great. 97198 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I also reaffirm my support for the article's promotion. --1ST7 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Note regarding image and paraphrase review
Note Have I missed the source review (for formatting and reliability in particular)? Graham Colm (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Negative. No one has done a source review or an image review, at least not on this page.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  17:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I had a note to myself about this one and thought I'd left a message here or at WT:FAC but in fact I hadn't. Yes, still needs source and image reviews and really should have a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing as I believe this is the nominator's first FAC (is that correct?). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did the source review regarding citations. I do not feel qualified as of yet to do the source review regarding images.  The citation source review revealed no close paraphrasing issues.  Onel5969 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries! And yes, this is in fact my first FAC. I completely forgot about that, my mistake! Thank you, by the way.  Corvoe   (speak to me)  01:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies, Onel5969, didn't realise you'd looked over sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, thank you. could we trouble you for a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:The_FP.jpg: source link is dead and FUR should be more expansive
 * File:Sean_Whalen_in_the_FP.png: FUR should be more expansive. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I've updated The_FP.jpg with a more expansive FUR; I accidentally included the Wikipedia URL at the end of it, but overall, it doesn't need a direct source as all of them would be the same licensing. I also added a considerably more expansive FUR to the image of Sean Whalen. Please tell me if there's anything else you think I should do.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  03:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Corvoe, thanks; the poster looks fine now. I'd still like the "purpose" portion of the Whalen FUR to do more to justify it: it works really well in the Costume section, but "to illustrate the subject" doesn't explain that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure how to change that. That's the default wording of the template, if I'm not mistaken. I can copy over the template's raw formatting and expand that, I suppose.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Figured it out, it was a parameter I just didn't have active. I think the purpose of use reads better now.  Corvoe  (be heard) 16:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * "United States" is rather broad for publication location - possible to add city?
 * FN15: publisher/distributor?
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed the publication location (since Drafthouse Films is based in Austin, I'm making a safe assumption). I watched the short film again, and it opens with "The Machine presents" so I'm assuming that's the publisher. As for the CHUD source, the site itself isn't the most reliable and on its own fails WP:QUESTIONABLE, as it blatantly says that it relies on rumour and personal opinion. However, the interviewer, Iain Stasukevich (who works for American Cinematographer as he mentions) is. I mean, worst case scenario, we can remove that section, but I think Stasukevich's reliability trumps the site's lack of it. I could also be grossly misreading WP:RS and if that's the case, I'll try to find another source that includes the information.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I think that explanation makes sense - if the author is an expert we can treat it as an acceptable self-published source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to hear! Thank you for both reviews, you've been a huge help!  Sock  (previously Corvoe ) (be heard) 17:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


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