Talk:The FP

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleThe FP is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2014.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 15, 2014Good article nomineeListed
May 13, 2014Peer reviewNot reviewed
June 27, 2014Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
July 25, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 17, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that The FP is a film based around a Dance Dance Revolution style video game in which people die of a "187" after losing a dance-off?
Current status: Featured article

Feedback[edit]

Hi, Corvoe. Here is some feedback:

  1. The opening sentence in the lead section is pretty long. Maybe separate the "supporting performances" part into a second sentence?
  2. Some quotation marks' placements may need to be fixed per MOS:QUOTEMARKS.
  3. The SXSW premiere sentence can stand alone. For consistency, is there not a date for Cinefamily? Also, Fantasia Festival can be linked.
  4. You could move mention of Drafthouse's acquisition to "Box office" since it is directly related to the theatrical run. Also, in the lead section, you mentioned that it was the second film acquired, following Four Lions. Is this detail highlighted in a reference? If so, it should be in the article body too.
  5. The "Box office" section is too slim. I recommend restructuring the release-based information so there is a good balance to content. For example, you could have a "Release" section with all the film festival screenings and theatrical run information, then have a "Critical reception" section separate from it. They are only related in the sense that the reviews were published at the time of the film's release, but a review could be written at the time or later, so it's not a strong or necessary relationship.
  6. If you want, you can put in more theatrical run detail from Box Office Mojo, like how it went down to 8 theaters in the second weekend, and how long the whole run lasted.
  7. For "References", you can add "|30em" to the template. This will allow the references to be in columns, depending on the width of the reader's browser.
  8. You do not have to state the publisher in citation templates if the work itself is notable (blue-linked).
  9. The official site is sufficient; I believe that official social media websites are discouraged unless they are the only option available.
  10. Do you plan to add a "Plot" section? If not anytime soon, you could reference the official synopsis (if one exists) and paraphrase it in neutral language, or even just quote a review.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply to these in order:
  1. Fixed.
  2. Which ones exactly? I read through the MOS but I'm not sure I see any issues.
  3. Fixed, and the lack of a Cinefamily date was an oversight. Fantasia Festival was already linked in the section, didn't want to double link it.
  4. Done, and removed the Four Lions tidbit as there isn't a reference relating to it.
  5. I've been under the impression that standard practice was to have all reception underneath the release section. Not changing that yet, but will consider. Added to the box office section as well.
  6. Done.
  7. Done.
  8. Are you sure about that? I've always seen both works and publishers on every article I've edited, regardless of the work's notability. I've been wrong before, but I'm raising an eyebrow here.
  9. Removed Facebook.
  10. I do once I get ahold of the film. I haven't watched it yet, and I haven't found it anywhere nearby or for a cheap price. I've sourced the official synopsis from the Drafthouse website and reworded it to what I believe to be a sufficient level.
Thank you very much for all your help, Erik. You'll notice the two areas I was questioning are not exactly giant concerns, but any info on why/if I'm wrong is always nice so I don't make the mistake again. Thank you again! Corvoe (speak to me) 02:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Regarding quotation marks, let me do some copy-editing at some point to show examples. As for works and publishers, Template:Cite news#Publisher says publishers are not normally used for periodicals. Hope that helps. Otherwise, nice job! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and good to know. Will revise. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered taking this article to WP:DYK to qualify it for appearing in the DYK section of the Main Page? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: No, but I'd be interested to. Any ideas for a hook? I can't think of anything. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: Actually, would you be willing to nominate it? Considering that I didn't even know there was a DYK process prior to right now, I'm wildly untrained in the area. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can keep the hook simple and mention the inspiration by Dance Dance Revolution. That's probably the most interesting aspect of this topic. As for nominating, it appears that you will need to review another nomination in the process of posting yours. A quid pro quo process, if you will. I can help out if you have any trouble. You can start with instructions at Template talk:Did you know. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

187[edit]

I linked 187 to 187 (slang) since readers outside the US might be unaware of the slang meaning. The film is made and set in California so it's probably not a coincidence.

Roches (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The FP/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 00:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I'm going to give this a once over first, as I've just discovered these check lists for GA Review. Then I'll go section and section to offer more specific directions. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Overall good, but with a few areas where there are awkward constructions.
  • Needs one more copy edit pass, particularly check out the MOS on using ellipses in quotations.
  1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The lead is not a summary of the whole article, e.g. critical response, production. Too much plot summary. The layout is fine. Some folks might be offended at the line regarding fellatio, since it doesn't really add anything to plot discussion. The cast list is fine.
  • Reworked the lead to include information on filming, casting, and the pick up by Drafthouse Films. I think it reads much better now. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead much better now (I tweaked it just a bit). Question which bothered me before and I didn't write it down, you mention that it opened to positive reviews. Were they ALL positive. If not, you should change the wording to "mostly positive", it's a bit confusing between "early screenings", "the premiere" and it's release.
  • The way it's worded, I thought, was to illustrate that the early screenings were positive, as it's later clarified that "Upon its theatrical release, the film opened to mixed reviews." Every review I saw from either South by Southwest or Fantastic Fest was positive, so adding "generally" or something would be kind of presumptuous. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a bit of issue removed the fellatio bit, since the film literally ends with the camera panning up over it happening, but I've reworded it in a more mild manner. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • reads better now.
  1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    the ref section is well laid out with consistent formatting
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    well sourced for the most part, however, most of the sources are close to the project (other than reviews).
  • I'll continue to search for more outside sources. I'll further be adding production notes whenever I get my hands on them, which doesn't help my case, but alas. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    covers all the major aspects well
    B. Focused:
    article flows nicely and moves from section to section, each of which deals well the particular aspect of the film being covered.
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    didn't really see any indication of bias.
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    would be nice if other editors added to the article. definitely no edit wars.
  1. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    poster has fair use data; fp shot is free; not sure the fair use rationale for the other pic is a valid one. However, there are very few illustrations in the article overall.
  • This has been a serious obstacle. I've been searching high and low for any fair use images on Flickr and elsewhere, and have come up largely empty-handed. Most images of the filmmakers and premieres have been posted by Drafthouse Films, and they've claimed all rights reserved. Also, why is the screen cap of Sean Whalen questionable fair use? It's used for commentary and discussion on the film. Unless I'm taking that too literally, which there is a very good chance of. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added photos of James Remar and Tim League in context. The photo of Remar could move to where Whalen's photo is now, if you find the rationale to be unacceptable. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you change the FU rationale on Whalen? I think it works as an example of the costume.
  • Rationale now reads "Serving as an example of one of the main character's costumes, for use in the "costume design" section." Is that better? Corvoe (speak to me) 01:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest of the pictures work.
  1. B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    well captioned
  2. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Don't think it's ready for Good status yet, don't know how to resolve the image issue. But it's not far away.

Onel5969 (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transcribed from Onel5969's talk page archive[edit]

  • Just went over it again. Needs one more copy edit pass (left the note on the review page). Once that happens, I'll be happy to upgrade it to GA.Onel5969 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised it once more. I'm not entirely sure where the issue is with the one ellipsis I used. I took out the extra criticism of acting and costumes, just to get to the negative point. Do you think it should be restore? Other than that, I hope it's up to standard! Corvoe (speak to me) 02:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good. My comment about the ellipses, was not that you used them incorrectly, but according to MOS:ELLIPSIS, you didn't use them enough. I don't necessarily agree the MOS, but if that's the standard you might be judged over... I'm going to change one, to show you how I read the MOS. Let me know your thoughts. In the meantime, I'm moving it to GA status.Onel5969 (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see now. I'll work on that. Thank you so much for reviewing it! Corvoe (speak to me) 03:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA status[edit]

Why is this article categorised as a Good Article when it clearly failed its review here? Its reviewer, @Onel5969: closed the review with the remark, "Don't think it's ready for Good status yet, don't know how to resolve the image issue. But it's not far away." If this isn't resolved or there's no discussion in 24 hrs I'm going to boldly remove the GA category from the article. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978: That must look really confusing, poor planning on our behalf. The conversation was (more or less) moved to his talk page (now archived). We worked out more issues there, and he passed it himself. Sorry about that! Corvoe (speak to me) 20:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the conversation from his page to the GA review page. Corvoe (speak to me) 21:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying Corvoe; yes I did think it was rather odd. I'm happy the review was properly passed, thank you for moving the review text to the proper place. Hopefully it will avoid similar confusion in future. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Baffle gab1978: Sorry I haven't responded to your message, was a bit busy today. In the interim, I see you found where it was passed to GA status, and my apologies regarding where the conversation was, I'm still relatively new to this. And thanks for your copy edit work on the article. Onel5969 (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Baffle gab1978: Thank you for drawing attention to it. Also, thank you for the copy-editing! I wasn't entirely sure you were finished so I was going to wait until then. You've helped out a lot! Corvoe (speak to me) 00:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Article[edit]

This article is currently nominated for Today's Featured Article. To view the nomination page and leave your comments, click here. Thank you! Sock (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 13:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gas Station Demolished?[edit]

Under the photo of the old Texaco station it says that it's been demolished, but I live in Frazier Park and it's still there. It has a fence around it now and it's been painted beige. It's still unused, but still there.WertMooMoo (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WertMooMoo: Sorry for the late reply. That information was based on one of Jason Trost's statements in the commentary. I did some more digging and found that it is, in fact, still standing. Thank you for catching this! Sock (tock talk) 14:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Glad to help.WertMooMoo (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The FP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The FP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The FP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The FP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The FP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_FP&oldid=1207283740"