Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Little Miss Sunshine/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 04:18, 5 September 2008 [1].

Little Miss Sunshine[edit]

Nominator(s): Nehrams2020 (talk)


After reaching GA status in February and A-class status from WP:FILMS earlier this month, I would like to make my first attempt at an FA with this article. The article is well-sourced, comprehensive, and up-to-date. I'm ready for the additional fixes that I'm sure will be required, and would appreciate any and all feedback. I will try to address any issues as quickly as possible. Thanks for taking a look and happy reviewing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, Could more be said about the themes or style (pace/tone) of the movie? There is a gem in the "The pageant" section: It's about being out of place, it's about not knowing where you're going to end up... and this review provides more analysis [2]. Many reviews typically touch upon these elements. --maclean 07:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I just went through and added several quotes from Arndt (the film's writer) about the themes of the film along with several reviewers reflecting on the themes of the film. Although there could be a central section covering the themes, I think that where I just placed the quotes in their respective sections provides for a better transition to each section while also expressing the themes relating to each topic. If you think it should be expanded/corrected, let me know and I'll work on it further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I was never aware of this, but thanks for pointing it out. I'll do my best to start fixing those today. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there was only one occurrence, and it was being used for a journal article. I have replaced it with the Template:Cite journal. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is a blog, it has an interview directly with the directors of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing multiple statements in the article, including several in the casting section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't determine any other mention of the blog in other sources, but I believe the direct personal interview to be reliable. This is the only location where the interview is located, likely since the author is the one who conducted the interview. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have some trouble proving that some of these sites are reliable sources. What you need is a bona fide other reliable source (such as a newspaper) that quotes them or out-and-out declares them reliable. For example, an interview in The Evening Class blog is quoted in the San Francisco Bay Guardian here. That might cut it, but if you could find others it'd go a long way to helping this FAC. Steve T • C 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site to me wouldn't normally be reliable for anything else besides the production notes they host. The production notes were provided by Fox Searchlight, and this site merely hosts it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look at this site, and in its Copyrights, Notices and General Information section, it states "This site contains movie-related information compiled by Visual Hollywood as well as links to reviews on external sites that are not affiliated with Visual Hollywood in any way. The information compiled by Visual Hollywood as well as the links to reviews are provided "as is" with no warranty, express or implied, for their accuracy or reliability." The site looks like it copied the production notes (these are usually provided in press kits and are posted on various sites word-for-word). Would something like this work better? It goes directly to a PDF file of the production notes. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On that pdf, I'd like to know more about the site hosting it. We need to be careful of linking to copyright violations also. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a copyvio; the document was made freely available. As for the hosting site, www.terrassa.cat is the official website of the municipal government of the Spanish city of Terrassa. What the hell they're doing hosting that document, I have no idea. Steve T • C 20:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it is a educational site (in Spanish), but I can't determine too much more beyond that. I found the exact same production notes on several other websites and they are probably just as reliable as Visual Hollywood or this site. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. If someone who speaks Spanish can verify it's an educational site, it'd work fine as a reliable source. If it's verified as such, I'd put a small note (Spanish educational site from the city of Terrassa) somewhere in the note to help readers out. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added this link yesterday, and the site includes video interviews with a variety of people. The link for the citation links to an hour-long interview with the writer which is used for several cites throughout the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site was used in numerous articles in just the last week, and the site's organizers can be found here. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one I'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This other reviewer hasn't a problem with the content from this site (at least, this particular video). The writer is blatantly identifiable on the video; common sense should apply here. Steve T • C 20:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site is hosted by the San Francisco Film Society, and has an interview directly with the writer of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing multiple statements in the article, including several in the production section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site was used in numerous articles in just the last week, and the site uses IndieWire in contributing to its news stories. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article from this site documents the major acquisition deals at the Sundance Film Festival prior to and in the year of LMS's release. If this still isn't considered reliable, I can try to find another one to replace it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site's about us page lists the festivals it is partnered with along with various press releases about the site. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another one to leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this one, couldn't really determine if it was reliable or not. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a site about various movie coverage, and used it since it had an interview with the actors related to their experiences while filming within the van. Several of the sourced statements in the production section are from this interview and couldn't be found elsewhere. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Rotten Tomatoes, the author writes only for MovieWeb and is used for citing several reviews for the site. The interview is only available on this website and I could not find it published elsewhere. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an interview, but there is always the concern that interviews might be slanted and/or distorted, which is why interviews done by large newspapers/etc. are preferred. Personally, I lean towards unreliable, but I'm a bit more strict about interview reliability than most folks on Wikipedia, so I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site has an interview directly with two of the actors of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing a statement in the production section. If this is not determined to be reliable, I can remove it, as the DVD commentary source right before it states the same thing. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes uses this website for a source for its reviews. I've looked for the location of the interview elsewhere, but the author only writes for movieweb and posted the personal interview there. I also found one newspaper source that used the site for a reference here. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline, but the walesonline probably makes it acceptable, barely. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site has an interview with the directors of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing a statement in the pageant section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the site being used as a source in several newspaper stories but only for the reviews the site posts. I am using this site for a source as it is the only location of a personal interview of one of the authors with the directors. According to Rotten Tomatoes, the author has written for Empire magazine and has other reviews with other celebrities. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline but probably okay given the nature of the information being sourced. (Production details don't need to meet a BLP type standard). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site has an interview with the directors of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing a statement in the pageant section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes uses this website for a source for its reviews and interviews. I've looked for the location of the interview elsewhere, but I believe the author only writes for movie-vault and posted the personal interview there. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards not on this one, without any other supporting information that the author is used elsewhere or other sources use this site as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it and reworded the statement it sourced. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site is similar to Box Office Mojo and has comprehensive coverage of box office receipts and DVD sales. It is used here to cite the DVD sales figures. On the site, it says it got the figures from "...estimates based on studio figures, publicly available data, and private research on retail sales carried out by Nash Information Services." --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found the site being used as a source in several newspapers including this and this, along with the "About Us" page saying the research used for determining its box office/DVD figures is "used by many independent producers, investment companies, web sites and entertainment companies." --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is a blog it is the most comprehensive list I have found so far for the list of awards of the film. If it is deemed not reliable, I can start looking for other sites that cover the awards. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced at least half of the previous citations used for this site, but can't find any other reliable sites for the other awards, except for the main page for the film at Fox Searchlight found here. Would this be a better replacement? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fox site is fine. Yes, it's a primary source, but this isn't contentious information here, just awards. Any that you can list directly from the awards site would be better done so, but for anything you can't find, the fox site works fine. Let me know when you replace them and I'll strike this one. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All occurrences of this blog have been replaced with the Fox site. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed this was a newspaper service, but looking at our own article on the site, it appears that individual people write guides on various topics. It also states: "The content is written by a network of over 700 journalists, called Guides, who have some experience in their particular fields." Would you consider this to be reliable, if the author is a journalist who likely has experience in film award coverage? I've sourced the same author four times throughout the article (including the three links below this one). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On About.com see this discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this bio for Rebecca Murray ascertain her position as a reliable author? She belongs to several professional journalism/critics' associations and is an approved critic for Rotten Tomatoes, a reliable source used within the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see a listing for Rebecca Murray that wasn't her bio on About.com. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced all occurrences of Murray's articles with more reliable sources. Please take a look and make sure they are alright. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can find a more reliable source to replace this one. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Vancouver Film Critics Circle doesn't have their own webpage, there aren't too many reliable sources covering its nominees/winners. The only other source I could find was the main page for the film at Fox Searchlight found here. Would this be a better replacement? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, the fox site is fine. Let me know when you replace it so I can strike. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have used the Fox site to replace any occurrences. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 10, (McCabe, Kathy) isn't it America Online?
Wow, nice catch, I corrected it. Must have typed it due to force of habit. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is for a local newspaper. Looking at its press room page it states that "Newsblaze draws from articles and press releases from the United Nations, NATO, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Iraqi government, environmental groups and other organizations." I didn't find anything on the site stating it was just a local newspaper. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you using this source for again? (I'm old and my brain forgets things...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is being used in the "Filming" subsection of the Production section to cite that nine theaters were used to premiere the film at the festival. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that .. I think we're okay with going with it. Just be aware that if anyone challenges that oh-so-uncontentious information, you probably want a better source to back it up. I doubt it gets challenged though. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the MOS, all capitals shouldn't be used in link titles.
I believe I fixed all of the occurrences. Let me know if I missed one. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, I appreciate you taking the time. I'll work on removing the source I consider unreliable, but please let me know if my arguments for the others need further explanation or aren't good enough. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to determine the reliability of each site and placed my rationale for each site above. Please let me know for each one if the rationale is insufficient or requires more information. For the Alternate Film Guide blog site, I've done my best to replace its citations with more reliable sources, but still have 3-4 occurrences left that I can't find more reliable sources for. I'll keep looking, but let me know if the Fox Searchlight site mentioned above is sufficient. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

Image concerns have been met. Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:LittleMissSunshineCast.jpg - This fair use rationale claims that "The image has been published outside of Wikipedia, including the above source", but it lists no source and the image is self-made. Perhaps this part of the rationale should be removed?
Removed the line. What happened was that I initially had used a screenshot I found on another site, but I replaced it with a screenshot I made myself, and forgot to remove it. Good job catching that. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:LittleMissSunshinePageant.jpg - This image has a tag that says the image comes from a press kit, which includes the statement: "This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media." - Are we sure that this Flickr image came from such a source?
Looking at the image, and comparing it the film, there is no exact screenshot that duplicates this image, so it must be from a press kit (or some similar source). This is the only image I found like this, and I watched the pageant scene several times looking for this exact scene but different angles are used. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this explanation could be added to the rationale to make that clear? Awadewit (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to add a statement to the rationale, please take a look and let me know if it should be reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:LittleMissSunshinesoundtrack.jpg - As the CD cover is identical to the movie poster, I am unconvinced we need yet another fair use image. The article could simply say that the two images are identical - we don't need a visual image to show that.
We had a discussion about this at WP:FILMS which wasn't totally decisive on removing album covers (I argued that it wasn't worth it to create small stub soundtrack articles just to have a separate image.). However, I have removed the image and deleted it for now. If there is objection to readding it, I'll undelete it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments were helpful! Awadewit (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these issues. I should have caught the first one. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from this, I don't see what use the image in the Volkswagen T2 Microbus section has. It basically shows what the cast look like, when driving a van, and the critical commentary supplied in the caption is that they filmed at different angles in different vans. Ideally you'd have an image that contains different angles/vans so the reader can compare. Just having one image doesn't really do much. —Giggy 11:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the entire movie with them in the van and this is the only screenshot of an angle that shows all of the characters. There are other various angles but they include at most four of the characters. I wanted to have another angle instead of through the windshield but there were no other alternatives. The quote in the VW section by the writer speaks about how he choose this particular type of vehicle due to its angles that could be used, including through the front windshield. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That explanation is fine, thanks. —Giggy 03:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check repetition and overlinking of Sundance Film Festival (Ctrl+F is your friend).
I removed all of the links except the occurrence in the infobox and the one in the lead. Ctrl+F is one of my favorite things of Firefox. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and later expanded to a wider release starting on August 18, 2006" - a worldwide release? Or am I confused by the terminology?
The film was initially released in a limited release which means fewer theaters (allowing the studios to test the waters of the marketability of the film), and after it had high earnings in the limited theaters, it had a wider release of more theaters. It could potentially include more foreign theaters as well but generally refers to more theaters in the U.S. in this case. Do you think that needs to be embellished more or should it remain as is? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's very little discussion of critical reception (as distinct from awards or $) in the lead. I dunno how movie articles always work, but on album articles (not too different...) this is a necessity.
Looking at a sample of WP:FILMS' featured articles, most don't go too much into the critical reviews. They generally mention if the reviews were positive/mixed. I had initially included the ratings at Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic but at the project's A-class review was suggested to remove those. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally disagree with this but won't stand in the way of how things are generally done. —Giggy 03:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When choosing the role of Richard Hoover, Dayton and Faris stated that they had initially settled on Greg Kinnear and went through several actresses before deciding on Australian actress Toni Collette for Sheryl Hoover." - starts off talking about one character, ends up talking about the other
I split this into two sentences, let me know if it should be reworded further. I think I had combined them both so that I didn't need to use two cites. No big deal. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Casting directors Davis and Baddely traveled to every English-speaking country to search for the actress to portray Olive Hoover, and the directors finally chose actress Abigail Breslin through an audition when she was six." - Every English-speaking country? That's a lot of countries. Also, fix repetition of "directors". Also, what makes this blog reliable? (Sorry if this is repeated.)
In the source it states "...they launched a worldwide search and they had representatives in every English-speaking country, in New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, all over America, Canada, South Africa. We looked everywhere." They may be speaking figuratively, so in that case, should I put quotes around "every English-speaking country" or instead list the above countries to provide a better example? I explained above that I thought the blog to be reliable as it is a direct interview with the directors and is not printed elsewhere. It is used to cite various statements throughout the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would quote it; they are almost certainly talking figuratively. —Giggy 03:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added quotation marks to it and moved the inline citation from the end of the sentence to directly after the quote. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's from taking the lead and a section at random. Still needs some prose work. —Giggy 11:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. With your copyediting skills, you can definitely help me fix the other sections as well. Let me know if you need further explanations on the issues above. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking much better after a bit more work, and I'm happy to support. —Giggy 07:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The 'Table of Contents' lists "Wins" and "Nominations" but nothing happens when I click on them because they are in the hidden text. Would it be alright to change them from sub-headings to bolded text (like this ====Wins==== to ;Wins) so they won't show up in the TOC? --maclean 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch. I changed it as you suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could we incorporate the themes into its own section? Most of the work is already done with the sources gathered, just need to consolidate it into a section. This is something that is now expected in novel-related articles, and films (as pieces of fiction) should soon follow. I can certainly help with writing and providing more resources that highlight themes (or story elements). --maclean 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that while the WP:MOSFILM allows for a themes section, it is not necessarily a formal requirement - particularly with newer works which may not have enough in-depth critical studies to cite. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, I think it would be best to keep each statement discussing the themes individually included to the relating section. However, if there is more support for incorporating it into a single section, I won't fight it. Whatever we think to be best for covering the article is fine by me. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's been nice to see this article as it's been developing over the past few months. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking another look and I appreciate you helping me improve it during the A-class review. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Just a few issues suggestions nitpicks:
    • Lead section: Mixed tenses. e.g. "Little Miss Sunshine is... it was... it starred..."—suggest present tense for all save the mention of Michael Arndt's writing of the screenplay. Some redundant words: "The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on January 20, 2006, and its distribution rights were bought by Fox Searchlight Pictures for reportedly one of the biggest deals ever made in the history of the Sundance Film Festival." The second mention of the festival could be referred to as just that (i.e. "the festival"). As you're not claiming it to be the biggest deal, the use of "reportedly" is probably unnecessary. Either "ever" or "in the history of" is redundant. "...total international box office gross receipts" is a little unwieldly, could you lose "total" and "receipts" while keeping the meaning intact (i.e. "an international box office gross of...")? Overlinking of actors' names in third paragraph.
I've made the suggested changes, please let me know if I missed anything. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Infobox: Probably unnecessary to include citations for budget and box office grosses as they're cited prominently in the article body.
Removed citations. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plot section: Some overlinking of common terms (e.g. suicide, homosexual). Oh, and "is a homosexual Proust teacher" could be read in several ways. For purely selfish reasons, I'm not going to read much beyond the first paragraph of the section, but a quick glance reveals that the general comment about overlinking still applies (yellow?).
Could you elaborate on ""is a homosexual Proust teacher" could be read in several ways"? I've removed multiple wikilinks throughout the plot.
Certainly. While I'd assume most would read it as "a homosexual who is a teacher of Proust's works", the ambiguity renders the possibility of that being read as "a teacher of homosexual Proust". Hmm. Maybe I'm nitpicking. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Casting" section: "...for the character of Sheryl Hoover, they went through several actresses..." should perhaps be reworded slightly to avoid certain, ah, sexual connotations the use of the phrase "went through" has in some UK regional English variations. Redundancies and overlinking: The second use of "casting directors" (it's mentioned barely two sentences above). Overlinking of Steve Carell. Inappropriate use of easter egg piped link to Michael Scott (The Office) (you might get around that one by including the preceding "the" inside the link).
Wow, that didn't even cross my mind, but I could see what you mean. I've replaced it with "considered". Removed casting directors, removed link, and included "the" in the wikilink for further clarification. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Script" section: suggest rename of section to something more appropriate, as it concerns some of the post-script development of the film too. The last paragraph focussing on the post-Sundance deal is out of place in the section. Would this be more appropriate as a lead into the "Release" section? Suggest replacing second mention of the festival in this paragraph with, er, "the festival".
Does "Script and development" work? I moved the paragraph to the release section and titled it "Sundance Film Festival" (unless you think "Premiere" would be a better title?). I also reworded the statement about the festival deal. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Filming" section: "...was shot... in sequential order..." doesn't convey what I assume you mean (that the scenes were shot in the order they fell in the script). Needs expanding slightly.
I reworded, let me know if it needs further clarification. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. I've attempted a quick reword myself, as the change pretty much said the same thing using more words. Feel free to tweak. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Volkswagen T2 Microbus" section: "Five different VW Microbuses were used for the family car as some were modified for various filming techniques. Three of the vans had engines, and the two without were mounted on trailers for various scenes." The use of "different" is redundant, as is "for various scenes". Maybe replace the first "various" with "different" and replace "various angles" with merely "angles" (the plural covers it). "...that writer Arndt experienced in a childhood trip..."—"on a childhood trip", or maybe "during"? Perhaps lose the mention of Mission Impossible; the meaning and joke is clear without it.
I believe that I've made the changes as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
W00t. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Pageant" section: the "too" in "too excessive" is redundant.
Reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is going well. :) Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Release" section: Generally speaking, I'm not too keen on the film ratings infobox; it seems a bit indiscriminate to list everything there, when anyone can go to the IMDb for the same information, but I'd not oppose on its inclusion alone. As previously mentioned, I also suggest moving the Sundance paragraph to here, and perhaps you could move the mention of the United States up to the first sentence in the "Box office" section.
It seems several WP:FILMS members don't like the ratings box, and if there is further opposition, I'll remove it. I've moved the Sundance paragraph to the Release section. Could you clarify what you mean about moving the mention of the United States? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes. The section doesn't mention that these details relate to the film's release in the United States until the third sentence. It's sort of presumptuous, I guess, to assume readers will know when skipping to the section that it was released in the U.S. first (even if that's almost a given with an American film). The ratings infobox I'm not going to oppose for; at the moment it's a personal preference thing that isn't enshrined in the MOSFILM guideline. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it just to be safe. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Steve T • C 00:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Box office" section: "Little Miss Sunshine remained in the list of top ten films measuring domestic box office performance until its 11th week of release." I'm just not sure that sentence makes much sense. Is there a word missing near that "measuring"? Maybe replace "overseas" with "internationally" or similar, to avoid a US-centric voice?
I've reworded it a bit, please take another look. I also reworded "overseas" (I had initially used it to avoid the redundancy of the "internationally" in the prior sentence.). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That bit still reads oddly. Try removing that whole "when measuring" bit and reword, see how it parses: "Little Miss Sunshine entered the list of top ten highest grossing American films in its third week of release. It remained in the top ten until the eleventh week, when it dropped to eleventh place." The duplicate "eleventh" is unfortunate, but screw it, them's the facts. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried again, and split it into two sentences as you suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. Steve T • C 00:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Critical reception" section: It might be worth expanding slightly upon Rotten Tomatoes' and Metacritic's methods; I think the uninitiated reader would have to follow the links to avoid confusion as to what "92% positive" means. See Hancock (film)#Reception for an example. There's also some mixing of tenses ("X called the film... Y writes that it...") and while not mandatory by any means, I'd like to see a comment or two from non-American critics to help cover the "comprehensiveness" requirement of this FAC.
Erik had referred me to this article for rewording this statement during the A-class review, and I think I have modified it further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that explains it better. I won't oppose for the non-American critics bit. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added them, sorry I overlooked that statement the first time. I added a positive review from BBC News and a negative one from the Globe and Mail. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Awards and nominations" section: Suggest rewording "for 'Best Screenplay' for Arndt" to something less clunky. And is there anything that needs to be considered with the use of the "hidden" section? As opposed to an online navigation aid at the bottom of an article page, this contains bona fide article content, and as such should perhaps be permanently visible. This is especially relevant if you consider that articles are supposed to be hard copy-friendly. Again, I'm happy to go with precedent on this one should my concerns not be shared by others.
Reworded, please take another look. I can't find anything directly opposing the hidden section but if someone knows of a policy stating it can't be included then I'll rework it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine, pending any clarification on hidden sections. I can't see it being a problem; the minor awards information is supplementary at best, so is maybe better unrevealed. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Academy Awards' producers controversy" section: What's that apostrophe doing?
My mistake, I misinterpreted how it read. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Score and soundtrack" section: "The soundtrack reached number 42 on the "Top Independent Albums" and 24 on "Top Soundtracks" in 2006."—which country? The section itself could perhaps do with another quick copy edit; it doesn't quite flow as well as the rest of the article (e.g. "Super Freak"... was introduced during post-production by a suggestion from the music supervisor.")
Added U.S. I moved some of the sentences around, let me know how it looks. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, that last bit reads much better. Cheers, Steve T • C 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely done, this is an article I genuinely enjoyed reading. All the best, Steve T • C 11:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how different things are seen by different editors. Thanks for taking a look, I'll get to working on these later today (should probably get some sleep first). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a very long list of issues with Reliable sources above; how are editors supporting the article when WP:V policy hasn't yet been cleared? For a film of this stature, there should be better sources than about.com for awards, and there is still a long list of other outstanding issues on sources such as blogs. Were any academic sources or databases consulted? Please resolve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking your time to take a look. I have been working on replacing the majority of the sources deemed unreliable, and the article has improved because of it. I did search academic sources/databases through my university but didn't find too much beyond what is already included in the article. If you are able to find any further sources, I'd appreciate it. If possible could you weigh in on the discussion above about the reliable sources, it appears Ealdgyth would like a second opinion on some of them. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - David Fuchs
    • Grammar
      • "Edwin dies from a heroin overdose during the family's stay at a motel; they smuggle the body out of a hospital and take it illegally to California because they are in a hurry and a hospital administrator refuses to let them temporarily leave it behind." run-ons like this need to be fixed.
I modified the second paragraph a bit in the plot section, please take another look and let me know if it reads better. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...and is about a family's road trip to a children's beauty pageant, with a large portion of the film focusing on the family vehicle, a Volkswagen T2 Microbus." the film doesn't focus on the VW, much of it revolves around actions while they are driving in it.
Reworded to "...with a large portion of the film focusing on the events related to the family vehicle..." --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Volkswagen T2 Microbus" beside MoS image issue (should not be left-aligned under level three heading), seems to suffer from advertising-type content (not to mention the paragraph doesn't explain what "the vehicle" is.)
I moved the image to the right (I thought it was a better balance to alternate the two images). Could you specify what the advertising-type content is (I think mentioning the numerous mechanical issues with the car would have the opposite effect!)? I now briefly mentioned the vehicle type in the opening sentence. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you recommend that I remove the cast line (they can visit the image's page to see that as well) to reduce the caption's length? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Image:LittleMissSunshinePageant.jpg - I'm not sure if the rationale for this one is really that strong. The content is being commented upon in the text, which is good, but do we really need a picture to show us a padded suit?
The image is for not only illustrating the padded suit of the character in relation to the professional pageant girls but also examples of the costumes that had been provided by the contestants' parents for inclusion within the film. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the article, I appreciate it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In re to above: the grammar is still going to need work, I'll point out examples later when I have time for a more thorough review. I'll leave the pageant image up to others to decide, as for the caption I think either the camera angle thing needs to be axed or shortened, or the cast removed. It's your choice. What I mean by "advertisement" is there's what seems like an inordinate amount of material on the specific car. Is the fact its a VW really so important that it must be mentioned by full name in the lead? Do we need the full title as a heading? Oh, by the way, to keep things less fragmented, can you respond to all my stuff in block and not between lines, so I can keep track of what you say easier? Thanks :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've just been replying between the lines for all of the other reviewers and figured that was common practice or preferred. I've removed the cast line from the image, and renamed some of the occurrences of the VW bus to "van". I think it is important to mention it in the lead since it is an important part of the film, almost a character in itself. If you can think of a better name for the heading, I think it could be changed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Little_Miss_Sunshine/archive1&oldid=1078802562"