Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)


 * 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 16:57, 28 June 2007.

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)
Self nomination. This article has been through the peer review process and was promoted to Good Article status in February of 2007. Since that time I have considerably tweaked and expanded the article to such an extent that I believe it may be at the FA-level. Put it to the vote or make any suggestions here that you think may improve the article. Thanks.-Hal Raglan 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Great article. Succinct and to the point, yet comprehensive, well-written, and informative. Two minor quibbles: some words are wikilinked when they don't need to be (rather common terms like "lunatic" and "brother-in-law" in the lead, which I fixed), and the references to the issues of Video Watchdog Magazine need the dates of publication, if they are available. Otherwise, great work. WesleyDodds 09:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate your comments.  I've added the dates for the two referenced Video Watchdog issues.-Hal Raglan 13:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support great article--Candyfan 16:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Everything looks to be in order. &mdash;imaek 22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Nothing's missing, it's well put together.--Digipatd 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What is all of that bolding? Is the Film Project advising that?  Pls see WP:MOSBOLD.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When you write "all of that bolding", are you referring to the title of the article and the cast listing? Those are the only examples that I can see in the article.  For the bolding utilized in the cast listing, the "Cast and crew information" section of the WikiProject Films' Style guidelines supports the format used here: "Pertinent casting information might also be included in this section (or in production), and only then should bolding be used to make the credits stand out from the additional information."-Hal Raglan 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Naïve comment - Most similar articles I've seen contain a spoiler warning before the plot summary. I don't know whether it would be appropriate here but just wondered whether you'd considered it. Verisimilus  T  17:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not really a naive comment at all. Many articles on wikipedia do seem to contain spoiler tags. However, according to wikipedia's spoiler policy, "it is unusual for scholarly reference works (of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be) to warn for spoilers when discussing fictional works. If they do, they often avoid terms such as 'spoiler'. Because of this, spoiler warnings should generally be avoided." The general consensus appears to be that if an article on a fictional work contains a synopsis section, the reader should simply assume that plot details (i.e., "spoilers") are included.-Hal Raglan 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Verisimilus  T  20:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.