Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/But I'm a Cheerleader
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 promoted 03:02, 26 November 2007.
But I'm a Cheerleader[edit]
(Self nomination) I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it fulfils the FA criteria. BelovedFreak 17:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposemany small, isolated paragraphs. Why should there be an "adaptions" section? Perspicacite 09:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just put that separate because it's a different topic from the rest of it. Have you a suggestion as to where it would look better? What about the other paragraphs you mention? I know some of them are quite short, but which ones do you mean are isolated? Would it be better if I removed some subheadings? --BelovedFreak 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The last paragraphs in Casting, Rating and Distribution, Box office and audience reaction (which is two-sentences long), and the sections Awards, Music, and Adaptations are too short. Perspicacite 18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying. Would you advise merging the short paragraphs in Casting, Rating & Box Office with the paragraphs above? I have looked at many other film Featured Articles whilst writing this one and several others seem to have short paragraphs too. (see Blade Runner, Dog Day Afternoon, Kung Fu Hustle and Casablanca. As for the other three sections, I'm really not sure that there is any more information to go in them. --BelovedFreak 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments
- The lead is distinctly clunky (not helped by repetition of "reparative therapy camp"). Perhaps recasting the lead so that each paragraph deals with a separate aspect of the film might help. That might improve flow too.
- I've reworded a bit of it, there is no longer that repitition. I will have another go at the whole lead.
- Isn't a major point of the film that she is latently lesbian but only realises it when she goes into therapy to fix it? If so, it would help if this were in the lead. [RD]
- I've added a sentence about that.
- Quotations should use logical punctuation.
- I'm not sure what that means.
- Punctuation goes after the quote mark if the quoted statement is part of the thrust of the entire sentence. (See WP:PUNC) for examples. I have in fact done them now :) [RD]
- Thanks.
- Too much stuff in quotes. Are they for emphasis, paraphrase, or to indicate direct quotation?
- Direct quotation, mostly. You're right, I hadn't realised how many quotation marks I'd used. I have started removing them but not sure if I've gone too far. I'm a little uncertain about some aspects of punctuation. Would you recommend that I take this to the League of Copyeditors?
- With no disrespect to you, yes. It's always a good idea to have other eyes running critically over copy. [RD]
- I've requested a copyedit with the League of Copyeditors.
- Every quotation needs a citation.
- I can't see any missing now, please let me know if there are any outstanding.
- I've added a good few {{cite}} tags. Not all will need cites. If dialog comes from the soundtrack, consider saying so. If you're using some of the other quotes for emphasis, consider using italics instead. [RD]
- These have, I believe, all been dealt with. I added a cite to the DVD where necessary, removed some more quotes. At least two of the ones you mentioned were cited at the end of the sentence, the reference being for the whole sentence.
- Rather inwards-focused on the movie, I thought. What did the press say about it? It must have attracted sensible review from the gay press... This might give it some of the encyclopedic gravitas that is missing at the moment.
- I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I've put everything I could find in. Sections follow the manual of style for films and many of them are inevitably inward looking. I've mentioned some reviews from the gay press in the "Reception" section. I didn't find that they were really very different from the mainstream press reviews which is why I didn't separate them. Do you have any further suggestions for this?
- Fraid not. I was thinking that the gay press might have gone into more depth and could perhaps provide some meatier material. [RD]
- --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object I'd also like to see some inclusion of reaction from the gay press, you might try searching from the publications included in Category:LGBT magazines (especially the British, American and Canadian subcats, for obvious reasons). If this can be completed, I'd be happy to support promotion.fixed, so Support VanTucky Talk 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am working on this. There is an Advocate review which I will add to the article. Other than that I can't find any more at the moment but I will keep looking. --BelovedFreak 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm not familiar with this film, but this article seems like you have all angles covered. I do agree with VanTucky, it would be good to include reaction from gay press, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have done a comprehensive search for sources already. Good stuff.Legalbeaver 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Legalbeaver. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment, on a topic that seems to recur over at WikiProject Films. The "Cast" section here is actually about the characters and their place in the plot, not the cast. Therefore, I'd suggest renaming it "Cast and characters" or even "Characters," since there's nothing about the actors who comprise the cast except their names. This would more accurately label the content of the section, and is the simplest fix. Beyond that, if you refer to WikiProject Films' Style guidelines, you'll see that the style of this section goes against the project's format. I'll let you refer to the full guidelines rather than reiterating them, but I will quote the final sentence: "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further 'in-universe' that really belongs in the plot summary." I don't think that the project's style guidelines are binding WP policy, so I am not going to oppose this admirable article on that basis. Still, I do think the section in question should at least be renamed, if not moved up behind the "Plot" section from which it more naturally flows. --Melty girl (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I have renamed the section as you suggested. I have tried to avoid using this section as a repository for in-universe info, as the style guidelines suggest but would be willing to cut it down further if necessary. The info I have put about the characters was intended to be along the lines of "a short summary of the importance and role of the character in the film would be necessary" (WP:MOSFILM), info which I didn't think important enough to the plot to be in that section, but important enough to each minor character to be included in the article. (There is some real world info, with regard to Cathy Moriarty, and the characters of Larry & Lloyd.) I put the cast section below the casting paragraph, thinking that was it's most natural position, but I think you are right and have moved it to below the plot. Anyway, I'll keep reading the article & style guidelines and perhaps make some more tweaks. --BelovedFreak 19:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- looks good to me. --Melty girl (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.