Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz/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 15:47, 5 April 2008.

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz[edit]

Self-Nominated by Limetolime

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have worked very hard and I am sure that the article meets FA status. After working solely on the article for a very long time, I have brung it from a stub to GA class article. Although the article may seen short, it should be seen as A LOT, since telefilms usually don't have as much info about them on the internet as feature films do. The article meets all of the criteria and I have worked the article to the best of my ability. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 14:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Personal preference, but can we arrange the references into two columns?
  • -CANNOT - I have found no way to do so.
If you use the {{reflist}} template at the bottom to generate your references list, you can use {{reflist|2}} to sort it into two columns. Replace 2 with 3 and you get three columns, but three is usually too many for small monitors. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • -REMOVED
  • -RELIABLE - It is being used by many major sites as a reliable source, so it can be used on Wikipedia.
  • -RELIABLE - Tough Pigs is licensed to use these images.
  • Current ref 17 has formatting issues.
  • -FIXED
  • -RELIABLE - It gets its statements from reliable areas, there just all collected here.
  • -RELIABLE
  • -GOOD - The site can be referenced either way.
  • -RELIABLE - It has been recognized everywhere, INCLUDING Wikipedia, as it has its own page (see below).
  • -RELIABLE
  • -RELIABLE - True, but it takes its sources from referenced sites.
Links (except for the one above) checked out. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the sources highlighted above don't appear, on the surface, to be reliable, and the nominator hasn't explained (in terms of WP:V and WP:SELFPUB) what makes them reliable. Please don't ask us to just take your word for it; we need reasoning per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB. That another article uses them isn't a valid determinant of reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Did the film have a producer? Because one isn't mentioned in the infobox.
      • -DONE
    • Tom Martin should be linked in the lead as well.
      • -DONE
    • As you have a cast section, there is no need to include who played which role in the plot.
      • -DONE
    • Per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, usually a box of ratings for a film is not included, unless they were a matter of significant controversy or interest. In this case they do not appear to be, so I suggest removing it.
      • -KEEP, I would like to keep this, as having a sourced, complete ratings box should be of help to people.
    • In Production, link Digital Spy.
      • -DONE
    • Image:DorothyOz.jpg and Image:CowardlyLion.jpg don't seem to give much critical commentary and only appear to serve as decoration, thus not complying with fair use policies. Both characters are shown in the poster, so they are not really needed. Perhaps you could use the free-use image of Ashanti?
      • -FIXED
    • Some overlinking in the cast section: Miss Piggy is linked four times, only the first link is needed. Wizard of Oz is linked three times. Wicked Witch of the West is linked twice, as is Extended version.
      • -DONE
    • More overlinking in the soundtrack section: Kermit is linked four times, Ashanti is linked three times. The Muppets is linked twice, as is Miss Piggy.
      • -DONE
    • In Reception, Michael Giacchino needs to be linked.
      • -DONE

Aside from these things, for a tele-film it's a really good page. Well done so far. Gran2 15:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed everything to bring this article to FA status.Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 18:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The decorative character images are still there. I think you may have misunderstood what I said, whatever rationale you give them, the images do not satisfy fair use laws because they do not provide any critical commentary. Both characters are shown in the poster and do not need to be shown again later on. A free-use image of Ashanti will work just as well. And the ratings box is just indiscriminate information as there was nothing notable about the film's ratings. Gran2 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the character images, but I would still like to keep the ratings box. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 00:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Thanks for fixing my concerns. However, further inspection of the article and other users comments mean I'm going to oppose for now. Don't get disheartened, the current article is still good, but it does need a good copy-edit. Also I'm concerned about some of the references. The professional review you use for the soundtrack is from Answers.com, a mirror site which copies content from other sites, mainly from here. If you look at the bottom of the linked page it's just a copy of the All Music Guide page, so you should use the link from them instead. Ref 47 is the Imdb user comments; I do not think that this can be counted as a reliable source. They may still be others as well. Keep up the good work though, but like I say, I have to oppose for now. Gran2 07:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to give a another full review, but you need to correct all of the source titles (as someone else has said I think). For example: ref 47 is not titled "Keith Allen review" as the article currently states, it is actually titled "The Muppets' Wizard of Oz (2005)". You need to go through and check/change every ref to make sure that the title used in the article is actually the one used in the source. Also, "Michael Giacchino, an Academy Award-nominated composer known for his work on a previous Muppet production" - this is probably just me being picky, but Michael Giacchino is probably best known for his work with Brad Bird and J.J. Abrams and not for a Muppets score. I would change "known for his work" to something like "who had worked". Anyway, I'll try and get some more stuff later. Gran2 10:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The prose is poor, below are some of many examples:
    • first aired occurs four times in one paragraph. How about "broadcast" or even "shown".?
      • -FIXED
    • and both are swept with the tornado across a vast distance - by the tornado?
      • -FIXED
    • When Dorothy gets out of the wreckage in the trailer ?
      • -FIXED
    • The group goes through a lot of difficulties along the yellow brick road, but they do reach the Emerald City - They encounter many problems on the yellow brick road before reaching the Emerald City?
      • -FIXED
    • After meeting the Wizard separately ??
      • -FIXED
    • While her friends assume this will result in the granting of their wishes, and so does Dorothy. ???
      • -FIXED
    • But after her wish is granted, she realizes what she really wanted in the Land of Oz, to go back home. - ? "realizes that" - "was to return home"?
      • -FIXED
    • She does this, and reconciles with her family. - and is reconciled with her family?
      • -FIXED
    • in hopes for a successful turn in the ratings - hoping for?
      • -FIXED
    • Many other reviewers felt that trying to appeal the film to a wider audience .. -??
      • -FIXED
    • Users, on the other hand - ? Users ??
      • -FIXED

And, many more examples. I would not like to see this article anywhere near the Main Page. How on earth did it achieve GA? GrahamColmTalk 22:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS. These are just some examples; there are more. Please ask someone new to the article to review it. GrahamColmTalk 22:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-read the whole article and have fixed it to the best of my ability. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 00:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has changed significantly since GA status. The article evolving is a good thing, but many of the issues brought up above were either brought up in the GA review, or have occurred since the GA review. Somno (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all that was stated above, please leave more examples to help make the article better. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 00:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, prose is rather ordinary, but my major concern is its comprehensiveness, looks like it could use more "reception" info. Also, plot summary needs more cleanup, should be split into multiple paragraphs (at least two) and you have Wicked Witch of the East linked twice in the same paragraph. The plot section I think has the biggest prose problems. The Dominator (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FIXED: Plot clean-up, section split, unlinking. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 13:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I still have to oppose. The "reception" section needs major expansion and the prose just isn't featured quality yet, examples:
    • "At the film's Rotten Tomatoes listing, 29% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on seven reviews." Doesn't make sense, gave reviews based on the reviews themselves???
      • -Fixed - I changed the sentense to "..gave the film positive response, based on seven reviews."
    • "In many ways, The Muppets' Wizard of Oz follows more closely to the original book than the 1939 film." follows more closely?
      • -Fixed - Changed to "In many ways, elements from The Muppets' Wizard of Oz follow closer to the original book than elements of the 1939 film."
    • "A Kansas teenager looking to leave her home in search of becoming a star." Real clumsy sentence.
      • -Fixed - Chnaged to "A Kansas teenager dreaming of leaving her home and becoming a singer."
    • "After a small discussion", perhaps a short discussion is better?
      • -Fixed - Changed to "After a short discussion".
    • Also, the last paragraph of the lead has no refs, which is OK since the lead doesn't need to be reffed if something reappears later, this creates inconsistency. I would suggest not referencing the lead at all, instead save the refs for later in the article.
      • -Will keep, thanks.
There are other issues and I still think the article needs some expansion, defintely GA not yet a FA. The Dominator (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • This article is in need of a thorough copy-edit. Just to take one example, in the third paragraph of the lead section, the film is broadcast at the film festival, yet shown on ABC. Perhaps I don't understand the nature of that particular film festival, but shouldn't those verbs be reversed? There are many more example of wording being imprecise, unclear or unusual. The article could benefit from some fresh eyes (from a native speaker of English, perhaps?).
    • FIXED
      • That one specific sentence is fixed. I would suggest that you get someone who hasn't worked on the article to copy-edit it. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be both an introduction and a concise overview of the article. The lead of this article is more of an intro, omitting any mention, for example, of the critical reception. Also, if it's typical of a Muppet film production, music is an important part, yet that this film is a musical (right?) is never mentioned.
    • FIXED
  • As briefly addressed by a previous reviewer, there's quite a lot of over linking. The lead in particular suffers because of it.
    • FIXED
  • Comprehensiveness concerns:
    • "Production" section: A comparative look at several other film FAs shows a pretty typical level of coverage that this article lacks. Sections typically included like "Writing", "Direction", and "Music" are missing and the article suffers from it. A "Music" section in particular—beyond just a soundtrack listing—ought to be included for a Muppet movie.
      • ADDED
    • Cast section: No mention of the voice actors in the film?
      • ADDED
    • Reception: The number of viewers is mentioned, but no rating (i.e. Neilsen) info? Did it win its time slot? Was it in the top ten shows? Was it dead last?
      • ADDED
    • Distribution: Was it shown in theaters anywhere else worldwide? Was it shown or released simultaneously worldwide? Any home video sales or rental ranking info?
      • ADDED
  • There are significant problems with the referencing. I found it absolutely amazing that so many references were entitled either "The Muppets' Wizard of Oz (insert some characteristic)" or "(characteristic of) The Muppets' Wizard of Oz". A spot check of the first four shows that none of the titles provided in the references match the titles on the pages that load. Further, three of the four provide a clearly identifiable publish date which is not provided in the reference listing in the article. These problems are in addition to the reliability issues brought up by a previous reviewer.
    • FIXED
      • Not "FIXED" at all, really. For the specific examples I mentioned, there are still no publication dates, and they appear to be the only ones changed at all. A spot check of others suggests that perhaps most, if not all, of the references are misnamed. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must agree with the previous reviewer's comments about the list on the film's ratings. Other feature film articles that I looked at do not contain any ratings information. Here they seem to be indiscriminate info. In a similar vein, the price of the merchandising tie in is superfluous unless it was a source of controversy or unusual in some way (which it does not appear from the article).
  • REMOVED

I'm not averse to reviewing the article again after significant changes. — Bellhalla (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after all of these comments, it's hard to satisfy everyone's wishes all at the same time. I'll try my best, but some extra help could GREATLY help me. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 12:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose: Image:Ozcd.jpg violates WP:NFCC#3A, as it is identical in all material ways to Image:Woz-poster001sm.png. Now a moot point, but several of the assertions in the FUR are patently false, as this image is not low resolution (also required per NFCC#3B), the image is not used “in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art” (article’s meager “soundtrack” prose does not constitute “critical commentary”) and the image is not “placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work”. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to oppose. Image:Ozcd.jpg and Image:Tv the muppet show bein green gone.png both violate WP:NFCC#3A, which states “Multiple [FU images] are not used if one will suffice”. The former is materially identical to the poster and the latter merely depicts Kermit, a character clearly visible on the poster and not necessary to facilitate understanding. Additional, now moot issues, offered to articulate totality of issues include: CD image is not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and does not have a complete rationale (WP:RAT). Kermit image does not have a rationale for this article (NFCC#10C). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of changes necessary to The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

  • Major expansion on "Reception"
    • -DOING
  • More info on production and release
    • -DOING - Will try and find more info.
  • As it is a musical, more info on the music would be desirable
    • -DOING
  • Cast section doesn't cite sources and seems to talk about mostly characters rather than casting as the name suggests
  • "In many ways, elements from The Muppets' Wizard of Oz follow closer to the original book than elements of the 1939 film." Says who? Is this original research? Also, the wording is still strange. Perhaps "follow the book more closely" is better?
  • Copyedit badly needed. The Dominator (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Pursue" was misspelled in the article multiple times, this suggests that the article has not received thorough review previous to the nomination, try at least running it through a basic spellcheck.
    • In the production section the words "the film" are repeated, I suggest using "movie" or a pronoun once in a while otherwise reword it sounds very repetitive
  • Oppose, sorry. These sources do not seem to meet the standards of WP:RS and WP:V: muppetcentral.com, toughpigs.com, ultimatedisney.com, moviemusic.com, thefutoncritic.com, muppetnewsflash.com, 7mpictures.com, and imdb.com. Also, "Ashanti: answers critics & doubters" is from Ebony, not FindArticles; the latter simply hosts a copy of it. The reference should reflect this. — Dulcem (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Limetolime's statement

After all of the work that I have done to the article and I'm STILL only geting opposes, I'm writing out everything I have to say about each section: Intro: The intro DOES meet all of the Wikipedia standards, as it gives a summarized view of EVRYTHING that is in the article, including cast and crew, production, release, music, and reception. Plot: I don't understand what all of the fuss is about. I have run this thorugh a spell check and tried my best to re-write it and split it into multiple parts. But I STILL get complaints that it doesn't follow Wikipedia's prose standards. How? It's well written, has no spelling mistakes, and gives a full summarized view of the film. Production" I am always being told that this section needs to be expanded. How can I? It is a telefilm, and telefilms do not have as many production statements about them as feature films do. I have put as much info as I could about the film here, and I'm sorry, but I don't know how I can expand it. Music: Yes, the film IS a musical and I am working on this section as you read this. But, there aren't many statements out there about the film's music history, and what I have there is pretty much it. Cast & characters: This section is supposed to describe the characters and what they do in the film, and it does this well. The section is spellchecked and everything, and very extensive. How am I supposed to cite sources here? I would have to find the script and cite every sentence in that section. Distribution: I am not as angry here as I thought I would be, but again, this is a telefilm, and we're lucky it had any distribution at all. Reception: This section CANNOT be expanded any more, as I have stated everything in review as I can, unless you want me to go international. References: SIGH. Everyone is saying that there are many problems with this section, regarding WP:RS and WP:V, which I understand. But, how is Tough Pigs a bad source? It shows screenshots of videos and television shows, and I mean come on, it's not like these images are doctored. As I have stated above, the Muppet websites are simply compliation sites, where statements from PRESS RELEASES are gathered in a trusty, reliable place. The other sites are pretty much the same thing, just in different places. How can they be wrong? For example, the soundtrack sites. These statements are TAKEN directly from the album, so how are they unreliable?

Whew. I feel better, know that I got all of that out. Please give me DIRECT examples of problems in the future, so they will be easier to do. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cast section doesn't need sources because it only says what happens in the film so you're technically citing that. Small issues there "Jeffrey Tambor as The Wizard: The Wizard of Oz." Begging for more info, all of the other ones have at least something. Also the bit about Tarantino, it isn't clear what character he's playing, it sounds like he played himself from the context, needs to be clarified. I still think that Reception needs expansion, I understand completely that it is a TV movie and I never expect it to have as much info as a regular movie, but did you ever see a film FA, their Reception sections are as large as this entire article, so it needs some more info, I'm sure more people reviewed it. The Dominator (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure about the policy but I'm pretty sure you can't cite "received public praise" with IMDb. In fact, you should avoid citing IMDb at all unless you are citing a claim about IMDb or I also use it to ref that a film exists (even then you can cite the film itself). I suggest getting a copy-edit and then renominating. Sorry, I can't give my support yet. The Dominator (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to explain why some of these citations are unreliable.

  • http://www.muppetcentral.com/news/2004/031604.shtml this story is from Variety. Rather than cite a third party hosting of it, go to the Variety site and get the original. The muppet central site isn't a press release, (it lacks the usual blather at the bottom), it looks more like a rephrasing of a story in Variety, but we can't be sure what might have been changed. Better to cite the original.
CHANGED - Thank you very much for posting this, it helps a ton! Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the tough pigs stuff, you'd be better off citing the original episode, etc. than relying on a third party site.
  • http://www.muppetcentral.com/news/2005/033105.shtml is not a press release also, it's a story run by the muppet central site. To determine the reliablity 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 reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated.
  • Same deal as above for http://www.ultimatedisney.com/muppetsoz.html. You aren't just quoting this for the review (in which I probably wouldn't have questioned it) but for information like having Dorothy be African-American (this can be sourced to the film itself) and who was considered for the part of Dorothy before Ashanti was chosen. The information on stuff added to the extended DVD can be sourced to this site as well as things that reference the review scoring or that the reviewer thought that the extra scenes in the extended DVD did more harm than good.
  • With this http://www.soundtrack.net/albums/database/?id=3757 rather than use a third party site, just cite the soundtrack directly.
  • With http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a16790/kelly-osbourne-to-visit-muppets-oz.html, just because it has its own wikipedia page doesn't mean it is automatically reliable. Yes, it helps some, but just like we don't cite Wikipedia for stuff in Wikipedia, you can't rely on the fact that a site has an article in Wikipedia to make it reliable. It may have an article because it's unreliable, or it may have not been prodded yet.
  • With http://www.muppetnewsflash.com/2005/05/76-million-visit-oz-with-muppets.html .. Blogs are rarely considered reliable. The only way I'd consider it reliable is if it gave its sources.
Hopefully this helps explain a bit about why some of the sources are being questioned. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 5 April 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/The_Muppets%27_Wizard_of_Oz/archive1&oldid=1136095246"