Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Witchfinder General (film)

Witchfinder General (film)
Self-nomination. I wrote the vast majority of the article, and greatly expanded it from the merest stub. Of course, I think the article is interesting and comprehensive, fully referenced and well-illustrated with fair use images/explanations. The article is currently a Good Article and has gone through a Peer Review which, sadly, provided extremely skimpy results. Please provide any advice as to how to improve the article, or support it as a Featured Article if you think its great as is. Be honest (or brutal) if you think any major changes are required. Thanks!Hal Raglan 02:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Although I have suggested some expansion possibilities, as it stands, the article is well-written, sourced and interesting.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In partial response to your suggestions, I have expanded the "Production" section somewhat to include details on the writing of the screenplay, although I have not broken it down into subsections.  Also, thanks for catching the incorrect use of "breath" instead of "breadth".  Good eye!--Hal Raglan 04:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support This seems to be a comprehensive, well-written article. Another great article by Hal Raglan! Dmoon1 17:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Dmoon1 and Fuhghettaboutit. --Myles Long 17:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I can't think of anything to improve. Critical reaction in particular is used effectively and extensively to make several points, so you did an especially good job there. One small note: I noticed that you use several references more than once, but only on some of these do the footnotes link to the same entry. Would you mind fixing these until the format is consistent? Great article.--Dark Kubrick 02:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take a look at the references and see if I can figure out what the problem might be.Hal Raglan 14:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * References fixed!--Hal Raglan 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Dark Kubrick Trashking 21:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The artile should definately have a cast section and a section telling what awards and how well its box office revenue (not just "it was a box office success"...). There is definately a lot of things that can be done to further expand the article. Cbrown1023 03:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks for deciding to voice your opinion.  Let me address your concerns one by one:
 * 1) "The artile should definately have a cast section" - You brought this up on the article's talk page, and I already responded. Since I can only assume you did not read my reply, I will repeat myself here.  For the record, I feel this is strictly a personal preference on your part, and therefore is not a reason to oppose this article becoming a Featured Article.  Please read any of the following film FAs:  The first three Halloween titles, Jaws, Night of the Living Dead, Summer of '42, Gremlins, November, and my own Tenebrae.  Note that none of them have a cast section.  IMDB.com can be easily referenced for cast/full production crew details; links to that site are generally provided in just about every wikipedia film entry I've seen.  Since that info can be accessed via IMDB, I personally feel that cast sections simply fill up space with a listing of names, space that can and should be devoted to concise but informative details regarding the production history, critical reaction, and legacy/influence of a particular film.   However, if others agree with you and insist that a cast section be  inserted into the article, I will do so.
 * After looking at a few other film FAs, including Blade Runner, V for Vendetta, and Casablanca, as well as the Star Wars films, I noticed that they all have cast sections.  Although I still think they are a waste of space, other people don't seem to agree, so I've inserted a cast section into the article.--Hal Raglan 16:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) "A section telling what awards the film won" - Er, well, the film won no awards.  Therefore, this is an irrelevant criticism, and, again, no reason to oppose the article becoming a Featured Article.
 * 3) "A section detailing how well its box office revenue [sic]" - At the risk of appearing rude...did you actually read the Witchfinder General article? While the introduction itself does state the film was a box office success without elaboration, if you continue to read further into the article, in the "Response" section you'll note a sourced reference to the film having grossed "$1.5 million" in the U.S.  And the "Influence" section has two sourced references describing that the film was a  financial success.  Please keep in mind that the film was a lowbudget drive-in release from nearly 40 years ago,  from a midrange, now defunct distributor, and so online references with precise detailed theatre revenue figures are not available, and probably never were. I'm not sure how many people would agree with you that such detailed info is required.  I think three separate, reliable sources, indicating that the film was a modest financial success, are more than sufficient.
 * 4) "There is definately a lot of things that can be done to further expand the article" - I always try to respond to helpful suggestions on how to improve an article. But this last comment is so vague, and therefore unactionable, that I'm afraid I can't possibly respond at all.  Please take a look at any of the other FA nominations on this page, and note the many fully detailed comments provided by other editors.  If you can let me know of any further concerns you may have that would actually improve the article, please do let me know.  Thanks!--Hal Raglan 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support and a cast section isn't really needed in the article as it's more or less repeated info and would make the article more listy which is discouraged, it would be nice to find out the box office revenue though. Jaranda wat's sup 03:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You are now the second person to ask for more detailed box office info regarding this film.  As my response to Cbrown1023 above notes, precise box office details regarding the success of this low budget American International Pictures horror film are not as easily accessible as the figures for, say, The Godfather or Star Wars.  However, I did find two sources, both offering two completely different box office dollar amounts for the movie.  The reference included in the article mentions a "$1.5 million" final tally as the U.S. box office gross; this is sourced to Steve Biodrowski's extremely well researched Cinefantastique magazine "Making Of" article devoted to the film.  The other source for box office info I found was Benjamin Halligan's Michael Reeves book, which claimed the film made "$10 million" in the U.S. This seems to be a hugely inflated figure; if true, that would have made it the 11th most popular film of 1968 (according to the Variety figures of top box office hits for that year, available in Michael Gebert's informative book, The Encyclopedia of Movie Awards), well ahead of The Green Berets and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.  Of the two, I decided to go with the more realistic-seeming box office figure.  But I will add a brief parenthetical reference to Halligan's claim in the article.--Hal Raglan 05:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hal: is it possible, given the startling difference in the sales estimates, that the ten million figure includes video sales or the like over time?--Fuhghettaboutit 21:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Halligan claims the film made $10 million in the U.S. during its "first run". The last two films in the Variety list of top 12 earners for 1968 are The Green Berets ($8.7 million) and 2001: A Space Odyssey ($8.5 million).  Gelbert's book indicates that AIP's biggest hit of the year was Wild in the Streets, which made $4 million.   I believe it was the Cinefantastique article that described Witchfinder's financial success as "par for the course for one of these things", implying that it was a run of the mill modest hit, nothing spectacular.  For it to have made $10 million in 1968 would have made it one of the top earning movies of the year, and that doesn't seem possible.  Until I can find something more definitive, I'll keep the article as is with both figures referenced.--Hal Raglan 00:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)