Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U2 3D/archive2


 * 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 Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011.

U2 3D

 * Nominator(s): – Dream out loud (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this as a featured article because I feel as if it meets all the criteria, and has been thoroughly researched and edited. Its previous FAC failed due to needed copyediting; however, users from Guild of Copy Editors have worked on the article since then, as well as members of WikiProject U2 to ensure that this article is up to the needed standard for a featured article. – Dream out loud (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Restart, previous nom. I cannot make any sense of this FAC at all; nominators and reviewers, please do not strike commentary other than your own.  Images cleared by Fasach Nua, sources and copyvio reviews still needed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs, 1 dead external link- this is 403 forbidden. -- Pres N  21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Citation fixed (archive link added). – Dream out loud (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - TGabunia (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support (though it should be noted that I have made minor contributions to the article in the past). I've watched the article for several years, and it has only become better and better with each tweak that Dream out loud has tirelessly made. I can't see any criterion that it may fail, or be considered questionable against, and I have looked long and hard; through this FAC and the previous, A-class review, and the GAN. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Prose need work. From the first two paras of the lead:
 *  3-D concert film featuring rock band U2 performing during the Vertigo Tour in 2006 - of performances of the rock band U2 during their 2006...
 * including tracks from the Vertigo Tour's supporting album - I thought tours support albums, not the other way around.
 * The film's concert footage also includes pol - remove 'also'
 * was the first ever live-action digital 3-D film - remove 'ever'
 * was created to experiment  - yikes
 * film technology pioneered by film producer Steve Schklair. After considering filming American football games in 3-D, the company decided to create a concert fil - the word 'film' is used x 4 times
 * but eventually decided - rm eventually
 *  seven concerts in various cities in Latin America, and two concerts in Australia. - and two in Australia
 *  with up to eighteen 3-D cameras at once  - simultaneous

I can see a lot of great effort has been put in, but it needs a little polish yet. Ceoil 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a few changes based on your suggestions, although there were a couple I didn't understand. I don't see what's wrong with "was created to experiment" (seems perfectly fine), as does the opening sentence.  It seems as if you wanted me to reword it as U2 3D is a 2008 3-D concert film of performances of the rock band U2 during their Vertigo Tour in 2006.  Saying its a "film of performances" makes it seem as if its a montage of random clips thrown together, which it isn't.  I did edit the lead somewhat recently, as well as the box office info, but not many other changes have been made in the past several months since the Guild of Copy Editors worked on the article, so there shouldn't really be any other issues. – Dream out loud  (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A visit by the Guild of Copy Editors, long ago, isn't a guarantee of anything. The prose are stiff and repetitive. I'm offering examples from the first two paras only, and from that think there is a long way to go yet. Ceoil 02:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done a copyedit of the entire article. Hopefully, that should address some of your concerns. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 13:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Status, Dream out loud? This is stalled after a restart—I see some movement but not much. Still needs source review, spot-check for copyvio, etc. Has Ceoil been pinged to revisit comments? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've 'pinged' Ceoil (I like that word. 'Pinged'.), and Dream out loud left notices at WP:FILM and WP:ROCK asking for feedback. I will look around and try to find some editors experienced in source reviews and copyvio checks to see if they have the time to give the article a look over. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit: has agreed to do a source check when he has time in the next few days. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Doing it now Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: I am not particular familiar with media sources, but as far as I can see, most of these look good. Here are a few mainly formatting points I picked up.
 * Ref 7: "ScribeMedia.org" is a web source, not a print medium, and should not be italicised. Same applies in ref 26 (RTE) and perhaps others - please check
 * Ref 16: Why is JoBlo.com a high quality reliable source
 * Ref 33: I was unable to reach this page - can someone else check it out?
 * Ref 58: Who actually publishes this blog? I see National Geographic's name on it, but do they actually publish it? (also 67 et al)
 * Ref 65: Copyright held by The Spokesman-Review; is this the same as "7"?

Not spotchecked yet. Will do so when the above issues are cleared. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I found one other apart from refs 7 and 26 that I fixed, but there may be more as I'm not too familiar with the article. For ref 33 do you mean that you can't access the webpage or you can't find the info? I can see it, but no page has it's own url. To get to the info you have to click 2) Fushion 3D at the bottom and scroll through the five pages presented. National Geographic is the publisher of the U2 3D blog in all of the refs.Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 16: I don't see why JoBlo.com is not a reliable source. It's a movie critic website that employs professional writers (as opposed to user contributors) and is run by the JoBlo Media company.
 * Ref 33: Because it's a Flash website, it can't be sourced directly. Melicans explained above how to get to the information. This page lists all the text from the Flash site in a PHP file but it's pretty messy to read.  That page could be sourced alternatively but I thought the site itself would be better.
 * Ref 58, et al: This is published by National Geographic. It's a subdomain of U23Dmovie.com, which is published by National Geographic and appears in the site's search engine.
 * Ref 65: 7 is a webzine by The Spokesman-Review, which is published by the Cowles Publishing Company, therefore I listed that company as the publisher for the webzine as well.
 * Hope this clears up any concerns. – Dream out loud (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources concerns addresses, and spotchecks revealed no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per my comments at the last FAC. A very good article.  wacky wace  21:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Now I see no issues-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Leaning support, mostly on prose and MoS issues, with a few comments:
 * "the album in support of the tour" - isn't it the other way around?
 * Citation needed tag needs to be dealt with
 * Why "Jon and Peter Shapiro" but " David Modell and Jon Modell"?
 * "The Modells' prior involvement with U2" - what prior involvement?
 * "the film was edited incorporating dissolves of at least four frames between shots" - phrasing
 * "the latter which said..." - grammar, and it's not entirely clear whether this refers to Spokesman's Review or Disney
 * Was the version shown at Cannes 55 or 56 minutes?
 * American or British English? You use both "favored" and "favourably"
 * There's a bit of overlinking going on - common terms need not be linked, and terms should not be linked more than once or twice. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most issues were addressed. The Modell's "prior involvement with U2" is mentioned in the next sentence if you keep reading.  I couldn't find any common terms that were linked and didn't need to be, and all repeated links I found are in comply with WP:REPEATLINK. – Dream out loud  (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to reword the "prior involvement" paragraph, as it's a bit hard to follow. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just read through the whole paragraph a few times and it seems pretty straightforward to me. Can you be more specific on what's "hard to follow" exactly? – Dream out loud  (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done a copyedit of the opening sentence. Hopefully that resolves any confusion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 01:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, primarily because I still don't think the prose is up to the mark throughout:
 * Copy-edit for repetitive word usage. I did a highlight-all for the word "film", and see that it's been used 19 times in the lead alone. After the lead, the word continues to be used once every sentence (on average).
 * A number of sentences have excessive redundant wording and/or detail. Some examples, though this needs auditing throughout:
 * "Ultimately, 14 songs were selected for the final cut, including one song shown during [for] the film's closing credits."
 * "U2 toured Latin America on the fourth leg of the Vertigo Tour in February and March 2006, with eight shows in five cities, all of which would be shot for the film [were filmed], except the first show in Monterrey, Mexico."
 * "Owens sought to have only [wanted] 14–15 songs out of 26 appear in the final cut, most of which would be considered [are] among U2's most popular songs tracks." (in fact, this and the first example sentence could be merged.)


 * Watch out for overlinking—Buenos Aires (and other cities), religious symbols, closing credits, motion sickness, eye strain, cuts, shots, film screening—I see many of these are linked multiple times; I doubt even once is necessary for some. A lot of technical film-terms have been linked throughout; I wonder if these are useful, as most people are understand their basic concept (for eg: title sequence, distributor, computer-generated imagery).
 * Excessive detail, especially in the Distribution section:
 * Do "nine of the final film's 14 songs" all need to be named? Do the names of the software that "converted from 2-D to 3-D using several software programs" help the general reader? If anything, I believe these lists detract from the article, make for difficult reading.
 * "Prior to the screening, U2 performed..." don't see what this sentence has to do with anything.

A good job has been done so far building a comprehensive, well-structured article. However, it has now gone too far to the other side, and seems excessively detailed to me. A big pair of scissors to the article's more trivial content and some copy-editing is what is needed.—indopug (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of Screenings is excrutiangly dull, I don't see . Not every last bit of information about U2 3D's release needs to be included here. Almost every major film is shown at a number of Festivals and theatres; there is no reason each showing needs to be mentioned.
 * "U2 3D achieved many "firsts" in cinema history"—haven't all (most of?) these firsts already been mentioned in the article? Why do we need to read about them again?
 * I've started working on addressing these concerns. The specific sentences you mentioned as needing copyedits have been addressed. I've gone through the entire article and probably halved the instances that the word "film" is used. I've cut down on overlinking as best as I could (before you posted your comments, I had eliminated repeat links). I've tried to remove more common terms, but I left a few of the links you had suggested, since they seem relevant (e.g. motion sickness, some technical terms). The sentence about them performing at Cannes is completely relevant, although the way it was phrased, it wasn't explicit the band were at Cannes for the screening to actually perform. The cinematic firsts have been taken out of the paragraph in the Legacy section about sprinkled throughout the article if they weren't previously already. There's still a few things to work on to address your remaining concerns, which I'll try to do in the next few days. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 19:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support great work. igordebraga ≠ 23:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Status in indopug's feedback? Where is the nominator on this? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the lack of recent comments. I am doing a copyedit now based on above suggestions.  I had a feeling for a while that there was too much detail in the article, but Indopug was the first to have made any mention of it, so I left everything in there until now.  I will give a follow up comment later this evening following my edits. – Dream out loud  (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Y2kcrazyjoker has done a great job addressing the above concerns. Like I said earlier, I had a feeling that I may have been too detailed with the article, but not until now (over 2 months into the 2nd FAC) has anyone made any mention of it.  I removed a decent amount of information, cutting the article size by over 5kb.  I read through it about four times tonight and I think I got rid of just about everything that may not be entirely relevant. – Dream out loud  (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll read the article again soon and strike my concerns.—indopug (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you start marking the issues you had with the article as addressed or still pending? Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 18:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All of my specific comments have been addressed, but I haven't struck my oppose because I retain two general concerns—redundant prose (as my recent copy-editing should testify) and excessive details. Examples for the latter:
 * Second para of Background—why the specifics about the giant LED display?
 * Final para of Background—don't need four long sentences to, essentially, say "the filming was shifted to the outdoor stadiums of Latin America as U2 were certain that audiences there would respond far more enthusiastically". Bono's statements about Ireland and their absence from Latin America seem excessive. And pretentious.
 * First para of Editing—three consecutive sentences mention "14 songs". Cut some detail and club it all into one sentence? Also, the bits about the film's opening and closing songs being selected so despite never actually doing so in concert isn't in the source cited. This makes the information kind of trivial...
 * "110 microphones were used to record the concert audio, which included microphones placed on the main stage and around the two B-stages to record the band, and microphones placed throughout the venue to record the audience"—no idea how to improve it though.—indopug (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've addressed these specific examples, but I don't think that the LED display paragraph needs to be cut down. There's not much detail about the LED display so much as its pertinent background information about the Modells' meeting and collaborating with the band and their creative partners, and how it led to everyone eventually agreeing to work on U2 3D. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 21:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyediting is making lots of improvements, so thanks to everyone who's helped out with that. I've read through it tons of times and done all the copyediting I can do, since it can be hard to improve upon your own writing.  As far as the sentence about the microphones, I rewrote that tons of times before saving the article.  I know it does sound a little wordy but I really couldn't figure out a better way to word it.  It was originally two sentences but I merged it into one.  Should it be cut back into two?  I don't know. Other than that, I think all other issues have been addressed. – Dream out loud  (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I need to go off-wiki for a while, so I've struck my oppose. Although it's improved, I'm not supporting 'cause the prose and level of detail isn't perfect yet. If you could coax an independent copy-editor to look at this, then nothing like it. Final comments:
 * "agreed to the project mainly as a technological experiment rather than a profit-making venture."—as somebody who's very sceptical of U2 and Bono's holier-than-thou antics, I'd be much more comfortable if this were a direct quote, in the article body at least, instead of being presented as fact ('cause, how could we possibly objectively know their real motives?).
 * A few "the band"s could be changed to the more succinct "U2" to reduce repetition.
 * The microphone sentence: yeah, fuck it.
 * I think you missed my comment above about the opening and closing songs . . . Also the info is redundant to the setlist.
 * Thanks for the article, by the way. I really enjoyed reading it (even though I'm no U2 fan), and learnt a lot about the technical aspects of 3D film-making. Well done,—indopug (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I took care of replacing "the band" with "U2" - one of the simple things in the article that I never realized. As far as U2 making the film as an experiment rather than for profit, I don't exactly see how quoting the source directly would be different.  Owens said in the interview  "U2             is not doing this for profit reasons.             They are completely doing this because they want to be on the            forefront of what they think is the future of film technology." I know you are skeptical of U2 and their actions, but I don't think that warrants the need for a direct quote.  Also, in response to mentioning the opening and closing songs - their purpose is not to show the reader what the opening and closing songs were (which would be redundant since it's listed in the "Synopsis" and "Setlist" sections already), but rather it is to show that the songs that open and close the film are not the same songs that opened and closed the actual concerts.  It further shows how when choosing the songs, Owens decided to go with songs other than the actual set opener and closers.  Otherwise I think everything has been addressed.  Thank you again for your help and enjoy your break. – Dream out loud  (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I took care of replacing "the band" with "U2" - one of the simple things in the article that I never realized. As far as U2 making the film as an experiment rather than for profit, I don't exactly see how quoting the source directly would be different.  Owens said in the interview  "U2             is not doing this for profit reasons.             They are completely doing this because they want to be on the            forefront of what they think is the future of film technology." I know you are skeptical of U2 and their actions, but I don't think that warrants the need for a direct quote.  Also, in response to mentioning the opening and closing songs - their purpose is not to show the reader what the opening and closing songs were (which would be redundant since it's listed in the "Synopsis" and "Setlist" sections already), but rather it is to show that the songs that open and close the film are not the same songs that opened and closed the actual concerts.  It further shows how when choosing the songs, Owens decided to go with songs other than the actual set opener and closers.  Otherwise I think everything has been addressed.  Thank you again for your help and enjoy your break. – Dream out loud  (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


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