Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hoodwinked!/archive2

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 by Ian Rose 23:13, 27 October 2012 [1].

Hoodwinked![edit]

Nominator(s): Jpcase (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodwinked! was a computer-animated film released by the Weinstein Company in 2005. Although it was only a moderate financial success and received mixed reviews from critics, it was notable for being one of the first computer-animated films to be completely independently produced. The film parodies Little Red Riding Hood, telling the story as a police investigation and drawing inspiration from the 1950 Japanese film Rashomon. I nominated it for Featured Article Status a couple of months ago and although most issues that had been raised were addressed, it was closed without any supports or opposes. I have worked on it a little more, and believe that it now meets criteria for Featured Article Status. --Jpcase (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I gave this article a fairly extensive review at its first nomination, so I'm reviewing the changes.

Why have you added "Squirrel" after occurrences of Twitchy? Twitchy should be enough. Why always Japeth the Goat?

Why "the character of" over and over? Boingo, Red, etc. should be able to stand on their own.

One paragraphs: Critical reception has been mixed. Next paragraph: Critical opinion of the film was mostly tepid. - Redundant

~~Still a little heavy on the quotes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to give this article another look. I have removed all occurences of "Squirrel" from after Twitchy's name, and all occurences of "the Goat" from after Japeth's name, except for in the cast listing since that is the name the character is credited with on IMDB. I have also removed all occurences of "the character of" except for in the sentence, "...Cory Edwards created the hyperactive character of Twitchy to serve as the Wolf’s foil", since I feel that the description of "hyperactive" is useful in helping readers understand how the character serves as a foil to the Wolf. I have removed the sentence describing critical opinion to the film as tepid.

Can you give some specific examples of quotes that should be cut or paraphrased? I have made an effort to paraphrase more of the quotes since the last nomination was closed, but personally, I feel that a well-sized sampling of quotes should not be a problem in the Reception section of an article. I have looked at some other Featured Articles of films, and several of them are largely comprised of quotes in the Reception section. Still, if you can point to some specific quotes that would be better paraphrased or cut, then I will try to work on them. --Jpcase (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That first paragraph of "production" is a good example. 90% quote. Edward's quote on expertise, the paragraph referring to Monsters Inc., a couple of the reception quotes could be cut down to the gist. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have paraphrased much of the first two paragraphs of the Production section, and cut the "Monsters Inc." quote. I'm not sure what the "expertise" quote is that you are referring to. I cut two quotes out of the Reception section and shortened another. If you still feel that the Reception section has too many quotes, please give me specific examples. --Jpcase (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"they weren’t specialists at the beginning of the project. There wasn’t a lighting team and an animation team and an animatic team. Everyone did everything. That isn’t always best, because you find out later that someone’s forté is lighting, but he’s been animating characters." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Jpcase (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but you should note that it was not objectively not ideal, but they found it not ideal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I've edited the sentence to clarify that. I wasn't sure how to best paraphrase this quote, so if you have any other suggestions, please let me know. --Jpcase (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and images per the above review and my review at the first nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article has basically been copy-edited and looked through by a dozen editors now, and after looking through its past FA nominations and how the article has evolved through time, I think it's as perfect as it could be. Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think that this article has been significantly improved since it's last FA nomination (I looked through the revision history). Per Bruce quote "It's as perfect as it could be" ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^Talk 00:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- sole image has an appropriate fair-use rationale but I'd also like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing; will probably take care of that myself if no-one beats me to it in the next day or two... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck

FN04 a/b/c/d: Okay
FN14 a/b/c/d/e: Okay
FN21 b/d: Okay

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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