Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Shawshank Redemption/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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2018 [1].

The Shawshank Redemption

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much like it's central character, after over 20 years of being imprisoned in sub-GA status, The Shawshank Redemption has acquired a rock hammer (me) to dig a tunnel to GAdom, and now we just need a Red to help us escape, crawl through a tunnel of shit (FA nomination process) and come out clean on the other side as a Featured article. Which one of you will be Red to this article's Andy? Which of you will be Warden Norton only to be overcome by hope? TL;DR, think this article is pretty good, would appreciate input. Thanks in advance. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed, but I strongly suggest you go through the references before someone reviews them, as there are quite a few formatting errors and inconsistencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, I've taken a quick look and I've addressed what I can find. Was there anything specific you noticed or is there a tool to help point things out? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly speaking, there are issues with the use of |publisher= vs |work=/|newspaper= - publications like the Los Angeles Times should use the latter. Also, should use a timecode to specify where we can find specific facts cited to a video, and citations to multiple pages should use pp. rather than p. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will have a look after work. The publisher v work thing never seems to be consistently applied across articles, since sometimes I have no issue on FA noms and sometimes I do. With the references being websites and publishers routinely changing, I considered the paper to be the publisher of the information, but I can fix these. I thought all time codes were present but I'll take a look at these to. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria:, I've tried to address the issues. After reading through Template: Cite web, I learned that the preference is to use the "website" parameter and that "publisher" becomes largely redundant when doing that. It seemed to make more sense since they are websites being cited so I've changed them over. Hopefully that is the right thing to do. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's considerably better, although a few things have moved that shouldn't have (a good check is to see if the article about the source italicizes it - if no, the citations probably shouldn't). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken another pass Nikkimaria, it's quite hard. Like I switched Rotten Tomatoes from "website" to "work" but that still italicizes it, but reading template: web cite, the publisher would be fandango not Rotten Tomatoes, so there's no field I could use to not italicize it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to comment that with this article on my watch list (and having contributed to it before), DWB has done an amazing job over the last few months elevating it from its prior state to bring it here. I'm not saying its flawless (see other comments), but I'm pretty confident this meets the key FAC aspects, and should more help be needed, I'll try to throw my hat in. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919

Initial comments after skimming and doing some minor copy edits:

  • Why is some of the cast bullet listed, while the rest are listed in paragraph form?
  • The Music subsection contains two paragraphs and an image that are marked out as hidden comments. Why?
  • "Andy's incarceration between 1946 and 1966 (1947 and 1975 in the novel), largely overlaps with Nixon's presidency which ended in disgrace." The 1946-66 range doesn't overlap Nixon's presidency at all; 1947-75 overlaps it completely, but that is the novel, not the subject of this article.
  • "Despite its poor box office returns, The Shawshank Redemption opened to generally positive reviews." The mention of "poor box office" is repetitive since it is mentioned multiple times in the previous section. Also, most reviews are released before box office returns are known, so positive reviews do not happen "despite" the box office.
  • I spotted various phrasings that seem odd for an encyclopedia article; for example: "earning a spell", "the like of which", "male-centric".

Will attempt a more thorough reading/review later. --RL0919 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The bulleted cast are the people billing as starring roles per the poster and infobox. The rest are in paragraph form to avoid a long list of minor roles.
  • That was information present in the article before I started work on it but couldn't find a source for it, I've removed it.
  • If I change it to partially and mention the novel largely overlaps would that make a difference? It's from a book on the film, and it's suggesting a basis for the character of Warden Norton, so i think it's inclusion in some form would be useful, but I get what you're saying.
  • thanks for the advice, I've rewrote this.
  • I've tried to rectify the ones you've noted let me know if you find any more. I think "male-centric" is a reasonable word though? Could change to male-orientated maybe.
  • Thanks for taking the time to review this. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Ref 3: content behind paywall, therefore needs subscription template
  • Ref 21: The source article is from The Observer, not The Guardian
  • Refs 33 and 45 appear to be identical
  • Ref 93: There's no need to replicate the capitals, which look shouty and out-of-place here.
  • Ref 121: Ref shows a different title from the source.

Otherwise, sources seem thoroughly prepared, consistently formatted, and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Brian. I've added the subscription template for Ref 3, removed duplicate reference 45, sorted the CAPS on ref 93 and deadurl'd ref 121, seems they replaced it with a more up to date version. For Ref 21, it says the Observer but when I click the Observe link it brings me to the Guardian website with the Observer as a subsection. Searching the review brings me back to the original link, so I don't know if it should remain the Guardian or the Guardian would be the publisher and The Observer would be the work. Any advice? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you use "work= The Observer" rather than "website= The Guardian", you'll get the necessary italicisation without disturbing anything else. This could be done generally for all those cases where the original source was a newspaper or journal. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Display name 99

FYI: I hardly do any edits to film-related articles.Idon't watch a lot of movies, but I've always enjoyed this one. Overall, the article looks pretty good. Display name 99 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Frank Medrano plays Fat Ass, one of Andy's fellow new inmates who is beaten to death by Hadley..." beaten to death? I just watched the scene again. Hadley beats him severely, and tells one of the guards to "take that tub of shit down to the infirmary." I watched his chest and could see that, even after the beating stopped, he was still breathing. Are you sure about this? Display name 99 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Andy's incarceration between 1946 and 1966 (1947 and 1975 in the novel), occurs alongside Nixon's presidency which ended in disgrace." Nixon was president from 1969 to 1974. I can't say I see the correlation. Display name 99 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The scene featured Freeman throwing and catching a baseball with another inmate throughout it." I suggest combining this sentence with the one before it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to provide your feedback. As for your points:
  • He dies in the infirmary from his injuries, it's mentioned in the diner scene the following day. Unless you mean that he didn't die there and then from the beatings?
  • The line is drawing a comparison between Nixon and Norton, but you're the second person to bring this up so I've just removed it.
  • Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AmericanAir88

  • In "Legacy" Why is "As of 2017..." before the 2013 late August statement. Wouldn't it be better to end a section talking about the present? AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well written. Heres your ticket to Zihuatanejo.

Comments from Aoba47

  • For the first sentence of the lead, I would include the year in which King’s novella was released.
  • I am little confused by the following sentence “As of 2017, the film is still broadcast regularly, and is popular in several countries, with audience members and celebrities citing its themes.”, specifically the “with audience members and celebrities citing its themes”. Citing the themes as what? How do these two groups cite the themes?
  • I would include ALT text for the images. The infobox one and the ones in the body of the article.
  • I would include the year in which King’s novella The Body was released.
  • I think that it would be more beneficial to move the images of Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman to the “Casting” subsection as that is where the actors are discussed the most. This part is up to personal preference to so feel free to disagree, as it is just a suggestion.
  • For this part (When Robbins was cast he insisted), please add a comma after “cast”.
  • For this part (behind sex-comedy Exit to Eden ($3 million), and just ahead of Quiz Show ($2.1 million), which was in its fifth week at the cinemas.), I would add a short descriptive phrase in front of “Quiz Show” just to be consistent within the sentence.
  • For this sentence (The film closed in late November 1994, after 10 weeks with an approximate total gross of $16 million.), I would replace “The film” with “The Shawshank Redemption” as you have mentioned two other films in the previous sentence.
  • For this part (by its tenth anniversary in 2004 he was still earning six-figure residual payments), add a comma after “2004”.
  • For the “Lasting reception” subsection, is there any particular reason for the separation of the second and third paragraphs?
  • How is the “Lasting reception” subsection different from the “Legacy” section? Couldn’t the information from the subsection be merged into the section?
  • Could you expand on this part (The film was adapted into a 2015 stage play in the United Kingdom.), such as who wrote the play, the actors that originated the role, and its critical reception/commercial performance?

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful start to the new year. Aoba47 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done by AmericanAir88, thanks!
  • I've tried to reword it, think it was changed slightly in a copy edit it.
  • Done
  • Done by AmericanAir88
  • I added an image of Brown there, I would like to have an image there of Gunton ideally since there is a lot of discussion relating to him there but can't find a free image. I prefer the Cast Pics where they are now as it kills a lot of white space and quickly identifies the key players.
  • That is understandable. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done by AmericanAir88
  • Done
  • Done by AmericanAir88
  • Done
  • Done
  • Removed. After researching it, the play is based on the original story not the film
  • That is interesting. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your time reviewing this! 23:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing all of my points. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

  • Can you find a wikilink for "Christian mysticism". Sounds like Voodoo.
  • Wikilink "The Last Supper" (not to the fresco).

Other than that, I don't see much fault with the article, Darkwarriorblake. I support this article's promotion. In my humble and honest opinion, it is the best film of the 1990s. Please do take the time to review my FAC. Let me know if you wish to do so. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks SSven. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:06, 8 January 2018 (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/The_Shawshank_Redemption/archive1&oldid=1077421850"