Talk:The Muppets' Wizard of Oz/Archive 2

Next Muppet Project

I will be posting information on the next Muppet film here. Please check back for more info! Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Untitled Muppet Project (2010) at IMDb

Reception - last paragraph

In reading the last paragraph of the Reception section, I wonder if it should be completely reworded or removed? It opens with, "Major critics were split on whether ABC's decision to base the film's plot on the original novel and not the 1939 film was ultimately a good one." It then goes on to say, "In many ways, elements from The Muppets' Wizard of Oz follow the elements of the original book more closely than those of the 1939 film", which is just a restatement of the first sentence. Similarly, the remaining four or five sentences just list similarities/differences between the telefilm, 1939 film, and the novel, as if trying to prove that ABC based the telefilm on the novel – which was already stated and sourced in the first sentence. The paragraph's purpose therefore seems vague or self-referential. If the first sentence is the thesis or topic sentence, then it should be supported by the balance of the sentences in the paragraph; however those sentences only seem to be saying that the novel is the telefilm's primary source. Should this paragraph be removed or is there some other intent that should be worded more clearly?

Also, there is a problem with references (which is cropping up throughout the article): the cited sources do not always support the article copy. For example, the first sentence which alludes to ABC's decision to base the plot on the novel rather than the 1939 film, stating that "critics were split" on the move, has three cites. One source is a blog of some sort and therefore not a reliable source. The second source says nothing about a preference or assessment about the adaptation's source. The final source, a Variety article also makes no reference to critics being split, or, alternatively, siding with one source work or the other. This is not the only instance of mismatches between cites and copy in the article, which concerns me about an article that has been listed as GA. It appears all of the sources should be vetted.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

More sources issues

The first paragraph of the Production section makes the statement, "... the Muppets were re-introduced to the public by way of low-key marketing and guest appearances on such shows as Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,7 Good Morning America,8 and America's Funniest Home Videos9 hoping for a successful turn in the ratings by the time a new telefilm hits the air", cited to three sources. Although the source appears to be a blog, the author seems to qualify as a reliable source. However, none of the three sources supports the characterizations that: (1) the Muppets were being "re-introduced to the public"; (2) the appearances were part of a "low-key marketing" effort; and (3) the production company was "hoping for a successful turn in the ratings by the time a new telefilm hits the air".

Consequently, I trimmed the copy to reflect what actually appears in the sources. Additionally, since the Extreme Makeover segment never references the movie, that has been removed as well. If I'm missing something, maybe the original contributor can steer me in the right direction.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible original research?

This is troublesome. The next paragraph in the Production section states, "Before production began, ABC teamed with Fox Television Studios, Touchstone Television and the Muppets Holding Company to produce The Muppets' Wizard of Oz.6 During pre-production, ABC made several changes to the film that differ from the original novel. One such change was the re-titling from The Muppets' Wonderful Wizard of Oz to The Muppets' Wizard of Oz.29" First, some clarification is needed: the NYT article does mention all three studios as working together on the telefilm, but there is no reference at all to when the three came together, so we can't say "Before production began...". The final studio combination is not necessarily what a production began with. More significantly, the assertion that, "ABC made several changes ... re-titling from The Muppets' Wonderful Wizard of Oz to The Muppets' Wizard of Oz" is not supported by the two references unless an editor is comparing the two sources, which is original research. One source is a "transcript" of a trailer for the telefilm that apparently shows an original title of The Muppets' Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The other source references the film's "final" title as The Muppets' Wizard of Oz. Neither uses a credible source to draw the conclusion that the title must have been changed. However, a WP editor can't make that connection, no matter how "obvious" it may be. Additionally, the sources do not support "several changes" being made.

It's possible that during the long process of editing that original contributions and sources were inadvertently changed or deleted, resulting in this disconnect between article and citations. However, no matter why this has happened, it's apparent every citation in the article should be checked to ensure it is accurately reflected in the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the recommendations above. After making a lot of changes, it's always a good idea to check sources again to ensure that they still support the text. I would also like to add that I don't believe Image:Ashanti.jpg meets fair use criteria and should therefore be removed. Somno (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The image and the identified sources problems — plus the unidentified source issues — may raise a difficulty with the article's GA status.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the image. I'd prefer to wait for the primary editor's response to the suggestions above before taking it to Good Article Review - might be unnecessary. On another note, I question the addition of the "Future developments" section - I don't think it has anything to do with this movie. Somno (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Somno, is your concern that it's questionable as to whether the image is absolutely necessary for "critical commentary on the film", thus not fulfilling the fair use requirement?
Jim Dunning | talk 15:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the image shows anything of note, except perhaps that Ashanti's taller than the Muppets! :) As it doesn't contribute to understanding of the film, it doesn't meet criterion number 8 of the non-free content criteria. Somno (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime's comments

WOW! I really didn't think it was in that bad shape. It's been fixed, (I'm pretty sure), and I hope it can stay as a GA. I've listed what I've done here:

• Production: This section has been cut down a good amount, and I understand all of the concerns. In regards to the Extreme Makeover: Home Edition bit, I've personally seen the episode, and YES, the film is mentioned.
• Music: These were easy fixes that should have been done a while ago, as each of the unsourced statements are written on the soundtrack. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, however—

• You are not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, so another source is needed for the Extreme Makeover content to remain.

I've removed it. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Also, twice in one of the FAC reviews it was recommended that the ratings certificates box be removed since it is considered indiscriminate info. You stated it had been removed, but now it reappears. Additionally, it is generally agreed that film ratings should not be included since there is no context. For example, you click on the "U" rating and all you get is information about the letter U, nothing about what the designation means (or why it's significant to the movie) Afterall, a kids' film is going to get a "general audience" rating; on the other hand, it would be noteworthy if one of the countries gave it an R or X rating.

True, but the U rating is not to be clicked on. When you click on the country name, then it leads you to the film rating system for that country. I've removed the box again, and It will stay this way.Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 02:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Similarly, flag icons are to be avoided per Film Style Guidelines.

Removed. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 02:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the sources to support the assertion of a "low key marketing" campaign. What reliable source stated it was low key?

A lot of commercials, mainly Pizza Hut, have used the muppets to publicise their product, and in return publiise the film. "These pops were made for poppin..." Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 02:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But where is the credible source that characterized this approach as "low key"?
Jim Dunning | talk 03:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "low-key" term.Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• The analysis that there was a title change is synthesis unless a reliable source can be found to support the statement. Also, where's the source saying that "ABC made several changes to the film" from the novel? Actually, the DVD review at Ultimatedisney could support it, but that statement oversimplifies the adaptation process and leaves out potentially valuable material. This is also a missed opportunity in the Reception section since the same review provides more interesting information than the "Ultimate Disney's review found that the extended version of the film did more harm than good" statement.
• In the FAC review you said the Future developments section would be removed as recommended, but it returned. After it was deleted by me with the Edit Summary explaining its content has no relevance to the telefilm. You re-added it with no explanation. How is it directly relevant?

It explains that because The Muppets' Wizard of Oz was finally considered a "bad" movie, people began to wonder whether or not another Muppet film would be made. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a better location for that would be under Reception rather than creating a whole section about other film projects.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The "future developments" section has been merged. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• In the Promotional material section it's stated that the dolls are "dressed in their costumes from the film" and the "Flower Show promotion featured reproductions of the ... set designs". However, the sources mention nothing about the costumes or the displays being the same as what was depicted in the film.

I might have said this before, but the pictures are the source, it's nothing in the text. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 02:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

However, there's nothing in the pictures or accompanying text that states that those are replicas of the costumes worn in the film or that the displays are replicas of the actual film sets.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless you would like me to site a picture or the film, I don't there's a way to cite it. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk 01:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• The statement in Production that Ashanti replied "to production issues" (whatever that means – does it mean questions about production issues?) is unsupported. While your statement may be a good guess as to what prompted her statement, it is only a guess. You explicitly create the impression that the interviewer asked specifically about "production issues" when, for all we know, Ashanti may have volunteered to the reporter, "You know what the most valuable thing I learned from this experience was?"

Rewritten. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• And this will fall into the category of "it's so obvious," but no matter how obvious it may seem, it needs someone other than a WP editor to make the connection. I think we need a reliable source that credibly interprets that "Hit the Bricks this May"" is referring to the Yellow Brick Road. I may be too much of a stickler to WP:Verifiability here, but if we don't cite it I think it creates a slippery slope (especially when the number of copy/source disconnects that already plague this article are considered).

Removed. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Mislabeled and incomplete citations are still a problem (as initially noted more than once in the FAC reviews). The impression that the toughpigs.com cites have been hidden as a result of concerns about that site's reliability is created as many of them fail to include mention of the publisher. Other refs continue to be incomplete – failure to mention Amazon.com, missing authors' names, missing article dates, missing publishers, missing or incorrect article titles, etc.

Fixing. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk 02:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• The statement in Distribution that the film was not shown in any theaters other than at Tribeca needs to be sourced.

Removed. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• The first two sentences in Music could use some clarification: they appear to contradict each other. Would it be correct to just say Giacchino teamed up with the others to write the five songs?

Fixed. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Differences section is unnecessary. Per Films Guidelines it should be merged with the similar information already in Production.

I have gladly merged it into Priduction, it REALLY needed more info! Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I still don't see where the assertion "Ashanti gave numerous interviews" is supported in a source. I'm sure she did, but is it verifiable?

Reworded. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk 03:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)