Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Getaway (1972 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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2017.

The Getaway (1972 film)

 * Nominator(s): Blue  sphere  05:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is The Getaway, a crime movie which is about two lovers (and ruthless outlaws) on the run; a classic film! I am nominating this for the FA status because, having just passed the GA status fairly recently and copy edited from one of the experts at GOCE, I believe the article is now comprehensive, complete, free from grammar issues, and what I believe should be an interesting read for people who are curious to know about the movie. This is my first FA nomination so hopefully everything goes well. Any comments from regulars here will truly be appreciated, so have at it! Blue sphere  05:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not certain if the screenshot in the "Critical reception" subsection is really that necessary. Only one reviewer made note of this scene so using an image that emphasize it may qualify as giving that review undue weight in comparison to the others in the same subsection. Also, the reviewer that discussed the scene seems to have referenced it more as a part of a joke than actual commentary/criticism.
 * In the same subsection, you start off with "During its premiere, The Getaway got a negative reception from critics", but the second paragraph contains positive reviews of the film. Would it be more fair to say that it received a "mixed" reception, or are you trying to say that the film received more positive attention during retrospective reviews? This needs to be clarified.
 * I am not certain about the placement of the images in the "Cast" section as it awkwardly cuts between multiple sections. Maybe it would be better to relocate this to the "Development" subsection or the "Casting" subsection instead.
 * When you include the name of another film (i.e. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Last Picture Show, Junior Bonner, What's Up, Doc?, etc.), make sure to include the year in which it was released. A majority of these titles appear in the "Development" subsection and the "Casting" subsection.
 * Please specify what you mean by "$30,000 ($171,800 today)". I am assuming you are talking about the adjustments according to inflation, but this should be specified.
 * Thanks for responding to this nomination early. I believe I've addressed these concerns you raised. How do you reckon it looks now? Blue  sphere  10:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Great work with the article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at it though; hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Freikorp

 * "During production, McQueen and MacGraw began an affair." I think you should merge this with the following sentence for better reading flow. I.e "began an affair, and McQueen and Peckinpah were involved ..."
 * Done


 * The third paragraph of the lead is too short. Perhaps a specific review quote from a notable reviewer could be mentioned here. You should definitely mention that it was the second highest grossing film of the year, as a gross of $36 million in itself does not convey to the reader overwhelming success by today's standards. A brief mention of the reception of the remake would also be of interest.
 * Done


 * The terms 'minions' and 'thugs' in the plot strike me as a bit colloquial, but I won't oppose over this.
 * I changed 'minions' to 'henchmen'


 * 'Shifty' seems like a redundant way to describe a con man.
 * Removed


 * I've never seen references for the cast section in a featured article. I don't think it's necessary. Having the same reference used for each person is a bit of an eyesore to be honest.
 * Removed


 * Can you give a time frame for Steve McQueen being encouraging by his publicist to become a film producer?
 * Added


 * "He was recently separated and free" she said, "and I was scared of my overwhelming attraction to him." - Can you indicate when MacGraw made this statement? Same issue with "I looked at what I had done in it..." and "The director recalled one such incident". When did he recall it?
 * No time frame indicated from where I got that first MacGraw quote. But the others I was able to find.


 * I'm guessing you couldn't find any information on the film's budget? Such information would be very interesting to know.
 * I've added it in the infobox


 * "It grossed $36,734,619 in the US alone." This statement raises questions of where else the film was released. Was it released worldwide? Can you find any indication at all of its success internationally?
 * I think this was released exclusively in the US. I can't find reports that this was released in other territories.


 * Can you find any coverage of the reception of the home media releases or any special features these releases contained?
 * Added


 * "Baldwin has later referred to it as a "bomb"." Specifying what year he referred to it as such would be better than saying 'has later'.
 * Added

Well done overall. It shouldn't take too much effort before I am able to support this. Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've addressed the concerns you raised.  Blue  sphere  12:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Supporting. Freikorp (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Panagiotis Zois

 * Lead section
 * Maybe you could add that while the initial reviews were negative, contemporary ones have been more positive.
 * Added


 * Plot
 * Saying "in prison in Texas" doesn't sound that good. Could you replace it with an alternative like "in a Texas prison".
 * Fixed


 * Did Rudy and the veterinarian's wife have sex consentually or did he rape her?
 * Consensual (and adulterous)


 * Is "screaming Fran" really necessary?
 * Removed


 * Casting
 * Reepeating the word "or" twice in close proximity to one another. Write instead "with Angie Dickson and Dyan Cannon as".
 * Fixed


 * "Peckinpah got along famously with Bright and cast him as the train station con man instead" also needs to be rewritten. Maybe something along the lines of "Due to his friendship with Bright, Peckinpah cast him as the con man."
 * Fixed


 * Remake
 * This might just be my opinion but "its bland and equally contrived retreading of the original" feels kind of unprofessional. Could you rewrite it somehow?
 * Rewrote


 * , all concerns addressed. Blue  sphere  13:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * *One thing I noticed, the way the "Plot" section begins. Does the film offer any more info on who Carter is and why he's in prison? PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , the movie does not provide a backstory on who Doc is other than a robber, which I already mention in the lead. However, I've added in the plot that he is sentenced 10 years for armed robbery. Blue  sphere  03:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, now that my comments have been adressed I can support this article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Reference 1 has no access date. Not an issue, really, because it seems the AFI film template isn't compatible with the |accessdate= value. I'm not all that familiar with movie pages: is it usual to have the AFI film template instead of a simple cite web one?
 * There were two references – 39 and 40 – which had no archiveURL's; I sorted this out myself.
 * I've gone through each and every reference, and everything on the article is attributable to its cited source. All the sources seem reliable, and consistent formatting is used throughout.
 * Also, no copyright violation to be found: Earwig's tool flagged the movie's IMBD bio page for possible copyvio, but those are represented in the article as direct quotations, so no problem there.
 * Source review passed Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, from what you've said above, you've checked that the cited sources support what's being said in the article -- did you also happen to check that the article contains no copying or close paraphrasing of the sources? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I used Earwig's tool to check for copyvio. There was none. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Performing a source review also requires spot-checking for close paraphrasing of content, not just merely checking on whether the source is reliable and uses consistent inline citations. If it helps, you may go to this link and perform another pass for copyvio check. A colleague gave them to me during the GAR and that's where I got most of the content - it's entitled Steve McQueen: Portrait of an American Rebel by Marshall Terrill. The other book sources were previews from Google Books; I could give 'em to you upon request. Online sources  shouldn't be difficult for the spotcheck. Best, Slightlymad (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're familiar with what copyvio detector does, right? It compares the text in the article with the text of all of the online references, and then checks elsewhere. I mentioned above what the two suspected violations were—how they're presented as block quotes in the article; although I did neglect to mention that it flagged the descriptions of two YouTube videos for "possible violation", but it appears that the text there was copied directly from the Wikipedia article, and not the other way around. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, I went ahead and managed to check all five of the offline book sources too. Thanks for posting the one above (was the only one not on Google Books). The other four are only used sparingly on the article, so there was no issue with previewing: I'm satisfied there's no copyright violation there. I randomly checked eight of the Terrill references too. All are adequately rephrased, the closest to possible copyvio is ref 19: "Shooting began on February 7, 1972, in Huntsville, Texas. The first few scenes were shot in the local penitentiary ["Huntsville Penitentiary" named in following paragraph] [...] The others in the scene were real-life convicts in the prison." which appears on the article as: "Principal photography commenced on February 7, 1972, in Huntsville, Texas. Peckinpah shot the opening prison scenes at the Huntsville Penitentiary, with McQueen surrounded by actual convicts." Everything has been paraphrased in a similar manner. Like I said before, source review passed ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Earwig does not check for copyvios in sources retrieved offline (i.e. any type of publications), so obviously there won't be any issues flagged in those cases. Slightlymad (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review
All images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * File:The Getaway 1972 poster.jpg: License and use seem fine for me, has the edit war been settled?
 * File:Sam Peckinpah.JPG: Use seems fine for me, license probably as well. Imma note that the fact that it's derived from another file should probably be marked with the dedicated "extracted" template, rather than to use the "source" parameter.
 * File:Steve McQueen 1959.jpg: License and use seem fine for me. Imma note that the fact that it's derived from another file should probably be marked with the dedicated "extracted" template, rather than to use the "source" parameter.
 * File:Ali MacGraw - 1972.jpg: Use seems fine for me, license probably as well.
 * , I've added the extracted template where it's appropriate; and yea I believe the edit war in the poster had simmered down, considering the fact that that was two months ago. :) Blue  sphere  04:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

 * I saw this needed more opinions, as a first time nomination, and since I watched the film relatively recently, I'll take a look, and add comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "an African-American boy whom Doc had rebuked earlier for squirting him with a water gun" Is it really important to mention in a plot-summary that the boy is African American? Not to be politically correct, but I just don't see the point. If it had significance to the plot, it might have made sense, but since it doesn't, you could just as well state the ethnicity of every other character. ✅
 * "pay the cowboy $30,000 (equivalent to $170,000 in 2016)" Again, I'm not sure why the exact modern amount is necessary to the plot. Even saying "a large amount of money" would be enough. This is even more conspicuous because you don't give modern-day conversions for any other amounts mentioned throughout the article. ✅
 * "The Getaway did fare better with contemporary reviewers." What is meant by contemporary here? It seems you mean retrospective reviewers or such, I'd think a contemporary reviewer would be someone who reviewed it upon its release. ✅
 * You call Beynon a "politician" in the intro, but "businessman" in the plot summary. Could be consistent. ✅
 * "—the only nomination the film has received." Only stated in intro, which should not have unique information. ✅
 * "exclusively in the United States." Likewise. ✅
 * The remake is given way too much undue weight in the intro, you're almost repeating everything from the article body. Just saying it was made but got negative reviews is enough. It has its own article, after all.✅
 * , these are tentatively resolved. Can you take a look at it now? Slightlymad (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Changes look good, one last thing: "Special features contain audio commentary by Peckinpah's biographers and" Should be "include" audio commentary. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC) ✅
 * Support - everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.