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 by Karanacs 23:43, 10 August 2010 [1].

U2 3D[edit]

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone under two peer reviews and I have done everything possible to perfect the article since its creation over three years ago. I have taken the advice of every single editor who has helped me and implemented their suggestions and worked with both WikiProject Film and WikiProject U2 to ensure the success of this article. I have wanted to nominate this for over a year now, but wanted to wait until the last possible moment to ensure a successful nomination. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—~~The article contains a link to the dab page Anne Thompson.~~ All external links are working. Ucucha 18:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fixed –Dream out loud (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Could you move the setlist further down the article? It gets in the way of the flow of the prose. Is the list of band members useful here; it basically gives information of their names, which I doubt anybody reading this article wouldn't know. (If they don't they could always go to the U2 page linked in this article.) 114.143.169.165 (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it could be moved, but the reason I had it towards the top is so it's in the same section as the synopsis, which is equivalent to a non-documentary film article's plot section. I'm not against moving it and I see how you feel is messes up the flow of prose, but I'm not sure where it would be moved to. Any more specific suggestions would be helpful. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((doing)) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is this nominated for FT also? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U2 3D has been nominated for Featured Article by Dream out loud. U2 as a general topic was nominated for featured topic by Y2kcrazyjoker4, who I believe misunderstood what the specifics of that process were (ie. full topics rather than just the best articles as he assumed). The two nominations are unrelated apart from being about an aspect of U2. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments:
- If you're claiming File:U2 3D logo.png passes the requirements to be free to use, then there's not much compelling rationale to have the non-free File:U2 3D poster.jpg. Likewise, File:U2 3D layers.jpg and have rather weak rationales. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using everyone's advice, I have made major changes in the article - the first major changes in probably well over a year. I moved the setlist all the way to the very end before the references, and put the band members in a table (got the idea from Fight Club (film)). The image displaying the film's use of layers (File:U2 3D layers.jpg) has been deleted because I realized that the new video clip File:U2 3D Where the Streets Have No Name.ogg also displays the same effects. The video clip was moved to the "Editing" section replacing the deleted image with a new caption. I also updated rationales for the video and for File:U2 3D poster.jpg, explaining why the non-free image is necessary for the article, in addition to the free image File:U2 3D logo.png. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

~~One awkward tag to resolve.~~--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fixed –Dream out loud (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Why three different columns for Country, City and Venue in that Filmed concerts table? I think just one Venue column with "Estadio Azteca, Mexico City, Mexico" is enough. The flags are completely unnecessary, and I think the country, city links can go too. 114.143.172.245 (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—formatting and prose. Here are samples from the opening:

Overlinked (see WP:OVERLINK). I've removed some from the first half. In particular, common geographical names and repeat links. Please, don't dilute your valuable links, especially when some of them are technical. Don't link "US$", and MOSNUM says no US: it's the default currency.
WikiProject film (or was it TV) decided "3D" is just fine, now that the cinema industry uses it almost exclusively in film titles. The hyphen is awkward, and the article TITLE doesn't have it ...!!!
"The film consists almost entirely of concert footage, with political statements addressed during several songs." How does the second half of the sentence relate to the first? And please try to find alternatives to "with" as a clause connector, where possible.
Here's another awkward jostling of clauses: "Following the 1988 rockumentary, Rattle and Hum, U2 3D is the band's second feature film, and it was praised over its predecessor." I find the ideas jammed into single sentences without clear logic. Sit back, absorb the things you want to say, and put them into nice, logical sentences that flow and are of reasonable length. Punctuation and "and" are important variables. (Is "is" correct here?)
"The film also became the first ever live-action digital 3-D film, and created many other "firsts" in the history of cinema." Why "also"? Why "became" rather than "was"? Not sure I want to know about lots of "firsts" in the lead if you're not going to mention even one or two others.
"is displayed on screen featuring various religious symbols, and "Miss Sarajevo" where an excerpt from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is read aloud by a narrator." I don't understand the "where" ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 01:01, August 10, 2010

I don't see the need for an "Oppose" due to the above. It's not like the entire article needs to be rewritten, there just some rewording that needs to be done in a few places. As far as "3D" vs. "3-D", I chose the latter because of the formatting of 3-D film. Plus, it also distinguishes the name of the format from the name of the film. If a standardization was made to "3D" I don't understand why 3-D film would be formatted the way it is. Overlinking can be easily fixed, as it was already mentioned before, and I simply haven't gotten to it just yet. For everthing else, a simple copyedit could clear some things up, but an opposition is not yet necessary. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when it's been zipped up. I opposed because I felt the problems were not just on the surface. The article title for "3-D film" is a problem, but it can be piped. I can well imagine why the marketers would not allow the hyphen: it is much neater without: Avatar 3D, or Avatar 3-D?

Can you get someone who's unfamiliar with the text to go through it? This is a good way to network for future co-authors. You might explore the history pages of topic-related FAs to see who the word-nerds are. Tony (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a word nerd you need, I can probably fill that role. I haven't done a start-to-finish read of the article yet. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.