Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/When Harry Met Sally.../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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:08, 28 June 2008.

When Harry Met Sally...
Nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think a lot work has been put into this article so that it meets the standards of FA status. This is one of the most influential and important romantic comedies in American cinema. J.D. (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * http://people.boston.com/forums/artsentertainment/movies/general/?item=2087042 dead links
 * What makes http://www.dvdtalk.com/ a reliable source?
 * Likewise http://www.dvdactive.com/home/index.html?
 * Otherwise sources look okay, and web links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the dead link and replaced the two DVD links with a more reliable, established DVD site for the first one and a link from Entertainment Weekly with the second.--J.D. (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you replace the first with http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=2339? I'm not sure this is more reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Replaced with more reliable source.--J.D. (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment " phrase "high-maintenance"…” " appears? Gary King ( talk ) 15:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just curious, but what is wrong with this link? it goes to a definition of high maintenance. Do you think that maybe it is unnecessary and I should just remove it?--J.D. (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the link was broken and needed to be fixed. That's why it appeared as plain text. Gary King ( talk ) 17:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I gotcha. Thanks.--J.D. (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Object I just counted five paragraphs in a row with not one single ref. Lead has more on legacy than the legacy section, lead should be a summary. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 16:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Five paragraphs? Can you tell me where because I don't see it. The last paragraph in the lead section actually summarizes the film's Reception and Legacy and is not longer than the Legacy section which I have expanded a little.--J.D. (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I guess it's only 4 now, but of the 5 paras in "Plot", only one has a ref. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries in articles dedicated to works of fiction do not generally require citations; it's understood that the work itself is its source. I do not see this particular plot containing anything "up to interpretation" as it's pretty straight forward, so I do not believe refs are required. María ( habla  con migo ) 15:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with María here. Budding Journalist 06:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

indopug (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Split off the soundtrack into a separate article; no need to have a tracklisting/cover art included here. Stuff l;ike "In the movie's famous scene at the deli, Sally demonstrates how a woman can easily fool a man by a fake orgasm." should not be in the plot section; just a simple description of the plot please. The article looks rather bare; I have comprehensiveness concerns—is that all that has been written about the movie?
 * I've created a soundtrack article and removed the deli line from the summary. As for comprehensive issues... Yeah, it's tricky. There's not a lot of Production info available in print beyond what I already have in there. The DVD extras have additional bits but after awhile it degrades into trivial anecdotal info and I didn't want to bog down the article with that kind of stuff. What I would like to do is maybe find out more films that were influenced by it, beef up the Legacy subsection a bit.--J.D. (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * '"high-maintenance"[1] girlfriend and the "transitional person" ctrl + F tells me these terms aren't repeated in the prose. I'll read the entire article and comment in detail tomorrow. indopug (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting this. I've put something about it in the Legacy subsection as that seemed the most appropriate place.--J.D. (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments regarding images:
 * Image:WhenHarryMetSallyPoster.jpg is not low resolution (WP:NFCC#3B) and the rationale does not have all "necessary elements" (WP:RAT - e.g. replaceability). Rationale of "The image is significant because it was used to promoted [sic] a notable film" does not adequately/clearly articulate necessity or a significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#10C).
 * Fixed. Its 299 × 425 pixels now. indopug (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ...I'll make a tweak. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:WhenHarryMetSallyPoster.jpg is not low resolution (exceeds 0.1 megapixels). Image function appears redundant to poster image.  NFCC#3A requires minimal use.  Purpose of "significant in identifying the subject of the article, which is the film or film character itself" seems redundant to poster image.  Both serve as means of identifying the film.  Both depict the main actors from what is functionally the same angle.  Why are both needed? What significant understanding (NFCC#8) does this image contribute above and beyond what is provided by the poster?  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 18:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How about these instead for the Deli scene section? indopug (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not the strongest case in terms of NFCC#8 I've seen, but, yeah, I'll buy that. My vote would be for [2], but they all get the job done.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Just read the plot section only, and I was rather disappointed; I would think that this movie would lend itself easily to a sparkling summary, but the prose here was far from engaging. I'll try give a full review over the weekend (of course, if possible, try to spruce up the writing before then :)). For example, it would be easier on readers (and make for a more informative description of the movie) to introduce the mockumentary-style interviews at the beginning (as the film starts with one). Then at the end, it's easier to describe the final scene; no need to backtrack and describe what was happening earlier. This also preserves chronological flow. Budding Journalist 06:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, on a more trivial note, some of the works in the citations are un-italicized when they should be (The New York Times, Washington Times, etc.) I assume this is probably because these are mistakenly put under "publisher" instead of "work" in citation templates. Budding Journalist 06:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've italicized the periodicals.--J.D. (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment An excellent article, but I feel we could get a better picture for the deli scene section. If you want, I'll upload it a screenshot of Ryan faking it. Also, do you have any information on the film's shooting schedule? Alientraveller (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can snag a better pic than by all means, go for it. As for info on the film's shooting schedule, I haven't come across any but let me check the DVDs and see if any production notes mention it.--J.D. (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So which would be better: a screencap of Ryan in fake agony, or Rob Reiner's mum uttering the line "I'll have what she's having."? Alientraveller (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Howzabout we go with the Ryan screencap?--J.D. (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could the legacy section be expanded? Those two terms the movie made popular should be defined and expanded upon in that section too. I think critical reception should be split into two paragraphs for easier readability. "Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy": that should be an endash (–); same for other awards. The Brown Sugar ref does not support the claim that WHMS... influenced countless comedies. indopug (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * fixed the endash thing and added to Legacy section, citing more examples.--J.D. (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * I read the article and I'm having some difficulty with it. I admit, some of it may be me. First, the writing needs to be a bit more professional, particularly in the plot section. With an FA film article, I expect the subject to be somewhat groundbreaking, interpretive, or influential. However, the writing is very simplistic making the film seem simplistic. I went through and made some edits, but I think it would be helped if you explain what the characters learned from each encounter. For example, what was the point of the second encounter in the airplane, and the bookstore encounter? You address the issues of relationships in very general terms, but I think you need to be more specific. The film was quite popular and though I wouldn't put it on a top ten, I was entertained when it came out, I suppose. It did have a lot of heart in it, but I find that missing in the article. It would help if you describe their personalities when they meet, and how they change throughout the years. What attracts them to each other? Sally's quirky eating habits and Harry's...what was it? I can't remember, actually. The pivotal moment when they realize they're in love with each other has to be explained better. Otherwise it's stale.
 * I feel like you really need to make a strong case for the impact of the film on the American perception of romantic relationships. Here in the FAC announcement you state that it's "one of the most influential and important romantic comedies in American cinema", but the article neglects to make that point really powerfully. I think it should. Good luck. --Moni3 (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose The deli scene is an important scene in the movie, and the text does a wonderful job of describing it, how the fake orgasm scene came about, and to a lesser extent the impact on modern society. The image though is worthless. It is a fair use image. There needs to be a very, very good reason for it to be there. In this particular still from the movie, Harry and Sally are looking at each other, and nothing more. Sally's not faking the orgasm, nor is she being watched by all the patrons in the deli. The image adds nothing to the article. Plus, the fair use rationale on the image is weak at best, citing "identification" as the reason fair use of the image is allowed. Non-free_content says this use should be for critical commentary and discussion. The scene's discussed, but in the context of the fake orgasm. Otherwise, the scene is fairly meaningless. Note that an earlier scene from the movie where they are in a restaurant at the beginning of their road trip, is not even mentioned in the article. It is the fake orgasm that makes this scene important to the movie, and the screenshot does nothing to support that. Delete the image, replace it with one that clearly shows her in the throes of the fake orgasm, and preferably with other customers clearly staring at her, or just remove the image entirely. Also, expand this section and cover more about how this scene impacted society. It's received tons of airplay on radio stations, become a colloquialism, and more. Expound on that. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding commentary on the fake orgasm, I know from prior reading elsewhere that Meg Ryan faked an orgasm in front of her mother feeling that if she could do it in front of her mother, she could do it in front of a camera. Might be nice to find a cite for that and include it in the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.