[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ghostbusters II/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2020 [1].

Ghostbusters II

edit
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1989 film Ghostbusters II. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

edit
My comments

(DISCLAIMER:I intend to take WikiCup points from this review.) Unfortunately, I do not believe I can do anything but oppose this nomination at this time. It appears you had a bit of a spat with Laser brain the first time this was at FAC about incorporation of sources regarding the themes of the film; while I wasn't one to comment on the sources as I didn't see any from a cursory GSearch and would have procrastinated a deeper search, I looked further in that FAC and saw that Josh Milburn provided you with sources to that effect, which you appeared to rebuff and have not added. Given that those appear to be high-quality sources, I must oppose and suggest withdrawal of this FAC to work on their incorporation. (I messed that up incredibly, see below.) On an unrelated note, there should be NBSPs between such figures as "$215.4 million", etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: I'm glad you agree with Laser brain and I that scholarly sources need to be incorporated, but I do note that of the four sources I identified in the previous FAC, three are now cited several times in the article, as is a scholarly book identified by Aoba47. (One of the four sources I identified isn't cited; perhaps Darkwarriorblake couldn't get hold of it, or perhaps the contents weren't useful.) Am I misunderstanding your reason for opposition? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went through every source given and included every one that had any relevant information. There's a giant section called "Thematic analysis" now in the article. If a source wasn't used it was mainly because Ghostbusters II was literally only mentioned in regards to the main topic of discussion and otherwise not analysed. I'd suggest reading it before opposing it. Thanks for your review. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is extremely embarrassing. I had looked through the sources in the source code and it appears that the one I selected for checking is the one that didn't appear. Consider my oppose suspended for a further look and accept my apologies for any offense you might have taken from the above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my real review (I still intend to take WikiCup points):

  • As said above, there should be NBSPs for such figures as "$215.4 million", etc.
  • on the Manhattan borough's Second Avenue I believe "on Second Avenue" is sufficient given that we already know that filming was in NYC. If there's doubt to the borough just say "on Manhattan's Second Avenue".
  • "Los Angeles, California" should just be "Los Angeles" per the MoS
  • 100,000 gallons of slime should include a conversion to metric; ditto to any other units that don't currently have one.
  • I agree with TheJoebro64 in not using "contemporary" to mean "present-day"; in art it usually means the opposite, "at the time", and indeed "contemporaneous" is used in the article to that effect. Use "retrospective", "present-day", "modern", or other words as needed. Better yet, consider rewording them to be more temporally specific per MOS:CURRENT, but I don't think that's needed. Any material likely to become dated should, however, be marked with {{As of}} templates.
  • I have to disagree with TheJoebro64 on not including the "many variations" of the script. Even if it is common knowledge that movie scripts change a lot in their lifetimes (which it might not be), the radical changes of the script detailed in the section warrants special note of it.
  • A lot of the images have empty alt texts; this needs to be fixed for accessibility purposes.

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks okay to me now. Support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheJoebro64

edit

Imma skip the plot, since I've never seen the Ghostbusters movies (beyond the first ten minutes of this one), but I'll try to do a thorough prose review. I might be slow over the weekend because I'm busy but I'll make time. JOEBRO64 20:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Whole lotta comments
  • "As with the first film, Aykroyd and Ramis collaborated on the script, which went through many variations." The fact that it went through many variations should be obvious even if it's not stated. It's common knowledge that film scripts go through many drafts.
  • "... large sections of the film were scrapped after poorly received test screenings." I could be incorrect, but should there be a hyphen in "poorly received"? Again, if you don't agree just ignore this, but I think a hyphen could be added since the "-ly" adverb is part of a larger compound adjective.
  • "... family-friendly. The performances of ..." There's nothing in particular wrong here, but I think these two sentences could benefit from a better transition. Maybe something across the lines of "... family-friendly, although the performances of..."
  • "... making it the eighth-highest-grossing film of the year." Link to 1989_in_film#Highest-grossing_films?
  • "Although some contemporary retrospective audiences appreciated the film..." I know you're talking about contemporary as in the present here, but I think "retrospective" is better because it's more clear that you're referring to modern-day audiences.

More soon. JOEBRO64 20:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done all except the first. I understand what you're saying but there are script variations and then effectively a completely different film. Some films don't have much script turmoil at all but there are significant differences between what was originally proposed versus what we got. Also watch both films soon Joe, jeez. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the massive success of Ghostbusters, a sequel was considered an inevitability inevitable even though that the film had been developed as a stand-alone project." Just some copyediting that could help
  • "Columbia had experienced a long series of box-office failures since Ghostbusters,[ref] and Ghostbusters II was seen as the best way of reversing their fortunes."
  • "... with filming scheduled for Summer 1988 in anticipation of a mid-1989 release." "Summer" should be replaced per MOS:SEASONS

More later today JOEBRO64 12:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He wanted to eschew New York City, set the film overseas, and provide a contrast..." I'm a huge fan of the Oxford comma, but it's fine if you aren't.
  • "He chose to avoid making movies films until he returned for Scrooged." Just for some formality.
  • "... was restricted because of the visit of leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the Soviet Union." I just think this flows nicer
  • "Freezing temperatures combined with the liquid slime made the actors very uncomfortable." "Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very'; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." - Mark Twain
  • "Filming officially concluded on March 7, 1989." I don't think anyone will assume it was unofficial.
  • Link to test screening at the beginning of the post-production section
  • Perhaps link to Independence Day (United States) at "Ghostbusters II had been scheduled for release on the July 4th holiday weekend..."? I know it isn't just celebrated in the US (my parents went to Ireland for their honeymoon and they say that for some inexplicable reason they celebrate it there) but some readers who aren't familiar with America may not recognize its significance.
  • "The film's final battle with Vigo was removed and replaced, and the way that Vigo was to exit the painting to confront the Ghostbusters changed completely." Missing conjunction?

JOEBRO64 02:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I like that Mark Twain quote. I put "July 4th Independence Day holiday weekend", I don't know if that's too unwieldy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wanted to hire Bobby Brown, who had had a recent..."
  • "Food coloring was added; the colors included green (to match Slimer) and blue." I think this would just read better with parentheses.
  • "The film required approximately 100,000 US gallons (380,000 litres)..." I'm just bolding because I'm pretty sure this article is written in American English (aka a real man's English), but "litres" is British English.
  • "Dane revised the designs of the proton pack weapons, the ghost trap;, and also revised the Ectomobile, which became the Ectomobile 1A."
  • "... makes it the eighth-highest-grossing film worldwide of 1989..." Same as I said before in the lede
  • "Ghostbusters II received generally negative reviews on release." "Upon release" or "on release" is redundant 99% of the time
  • "He noted that MacNicol and Moranis were the highlights of the film..." Incorrect use of "note". "Note" should only be used when stating an objective fact. For example, "He noted it was raining" is OK, but "He noted the film was good" is not.
  • "He also noted that Murray's normally comedic indifference seemed to be lacking commitment." Again with "note".
  • "... genuine human warmth, which he Thomas felt did not work." Clarification
  • "... and the addition of an infant to add novelty..." The two "add"s in such close proximity is a bit distracting, I think you can just chop off the second without losing any meaning
  • "... of the original, and singled out MacNicol's performance."
  • "The reviewer noted that Murray is central to the film because of his ad-libbed dialog." Another "note"

Almost there. Should be done by the weekend. JOEBRO64 23:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hard to find other words than "said". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!

Just finished reading and there wasn't really anything significant that stood out to me. Consider this my declaration of support. Now I just need to go watch the movies. JOEBRO64 20:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indrian

edit

Support. I did an extensive review of the prose in the last FAC and worked closely with Darkwarriorblake over several weeks to make improvements, so this is not a drive-by support. I am glad to see this back again and that a good compromise appears to have been reached on the disagreements in round one. I am satisfied that my concerns were addressed in the previous FAC, and I am happy to support. Indrian (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Indrian. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

Oppose. I've only looked at the critical response section and I think this is not yet at FA quality. Almost the entire section is structured as a bullet list of opinions converted to prose. This is the "A said B" problem (see WP:RECEPTION). I think this can be fixed fairly easily (WP:RECEPTION has some worked examples): there has to be some sense in reading the commentary that it has been organized for the purposes of the article, usually by grouping reviews with related opinions together and then wordsmithing to avoid simply listing each opinion. Once that's fixed I'll be happy to strike the oppose and will look at the rest of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the entire section Mike Christie, please let me know what you think. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement, though I think some prose tweaks could still be made. I've struck the oppose and will try to find time today to read through today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hola Mike_Christie, gentle ping reminder. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through now; I'll make notes as I go through. Please revert any copyedits I make that you don't agree with.

  • After this, the film was rushed into production, with filming scheduled for summer 1988 in anticipation of a mid-1989 release. Months of negotiations followed the lunch with Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis to negotiate a minimal salary in exchange for a percentage of the box office profits. A couple of things here.
  • The pair wanted negative emotions to have consequences and found humor in New York City having to be nice or face destruction, though at this point they did know what form the destructor would take. Presumably this should be "...did not know..."? And "destructor" is a bit clumsy; can we just make it "...what form that would take"?
  • Suggest changing the section title "Cast and crew" to "Cast"; there's nothing about crew in there, is there?
  • Reitman began working on Ghostbusters II almost immediately after concluding directing his comedy film Twins (1988). That "(1988)" is ugly and seems unnecesary. And can we rephrase to avoid "...ing ...ing"?
  • realized there were issues with the film that had to be changed: wordy; can we cut this to something like "realized changes would be needed"? Or even cut the sentence completely? It doesn't say anything not covered by the following sentences, though it does serve as a topic sentence for the paragraph.
  • Medjuck said the test screenings identified that audiences liked the film but felt: suggest "The test screenings made it clear that audiences liked the film but felt" -- the citation will tell the reader who said this, if they care; it's not useful information in this sentence.
  • the audiences were not aware of the concepts of positive and negative slime: this makes it sound as though these are real concepts. Perhaps "the audiences did not realize that the slime in the film could be either positive or negative"?
  • The ghost train was added to add a sense of an unseen force trying to keep the Ghostbusters away. The scene was filmed at the Tunnel night club in New York. These are from two sources, but it would flow more smoothly to make it something like "The ghost train scene, which was filmed at the Tunnel night club in New York, was added to give a sense of an unseen force trying to keep the Ghostbusters away." (Regardless of how you rephrase it, please get rid of "added to add".)
  • The film's final battle with Vigo was removed and replaced, and the way that Vigo was to exit the painting to confront the Ghostbusters changed completely. Suggest: "The film's final battle with Vigo was reshot, and the way that Vigo left the painting to confront the Ghostbusters changed completely."
  • Editor Sheldon Kahn was responsible for the idea of the "Five Years Later" opening credit at the start of the film. This seems out of place at the end of the Post-production section; was it added as a late idea? Is it even worth mentioning?
  • Afterman offered Brown's music label, MCA Records, the lucrative rights to the soundtrack in exchange for Brown's participation: much too closely paraphrased from the source, which is: "Afterman went to MCA Records, Brown’s label, with an offer: MCA could have the lucrative rights to the Ghostbusters II soundtrack if Brown agreed to participate".
  • That made me take a closer look at sourcing for that paragraph, and I have a couple more concerns:
    • Aiming to replicate the success of the original, soundtrack producer Peter Afterman wanted to hire Bobby Brown, who was at the peak of his popularity following a succession of hit songs: several minor things wrong here. The source can't say he was at his peak -- it's a contemporary source and from 2020 that statement implicitly refers to his whole career. I'm perfectly willing to believe it's true, but it can't be sourced by a 1989 article.
      Got rid of "peak". I might try to find a 1989 source later but it isn't vital. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, this sentence, which precedes the one I just quoted above, doesn't stand on any additional sourcing -- the sentence above starting "Afterman went to..." supports both the sentences in the article. It's not exactly wrong as it is but I see no reason why we should expand into two sentences with no additional information.
      I'm gonna be honest, I'm a bit confused with this one. Can you elaborate? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then we have "Brown agreed on the condition he would receive a cameo in the film"; he got a cameo but the source only says he asked for a role -- perhaps he asked for more than a cameo.
      Changed to "role" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "cameo" the right word for the music video appearances? A music video is so short that it seems unnecessary to draw the distinction. If this is common practice, though, that's fine.
      I don't know if it's common practice, I just consider random appearances by non primary performers to be cameos, but I've changed the word to "appearances by". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ray Parker, Jr. helped write an updated version of his hit song "Ghostbusters", which was co-written and performed by hip hop group Run-DMC. Again some unnecessary duplication; we don't need both "helped write" and "co-written". And was the co-writer Run-DMC? The source doesn't seem to explicitly say so, unless I'm missing something.
      The Collider source says co-written by parker and performed by RunDMC. Run DMC were writers on it, I'll try to find a clearer source. Changed "help write" to "develop". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come; looks OK so far. a bit concerned by that last paragraph. The sourcing is not completely wrong, but it feels imprecise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to pick a couple more sentences and random and take a look at the sourcing.

  • The concept for both the painting and physical form of the central villain Vigo went through many changes, including a plan to transform him into a large monstrosity.
    • The first clause is sourced to this, which says "The whole Vigo concept went through various design changes" and then adds some details. This is a bit too closely paraphrased, and as above I don't think is very precise -- the concept for the painting did not go through design changes. If you mean that at one point Vigo was supposed to emerge from the painting, that's not clear.
  • The second part comes from page 45 of this pdf, but I don't see clear support there for this. There's a discussion of elaborate makeup and horrendous drawings, and the concept was toned down, but not of a "large monstrosity". I don't think it's fair to say that "the concept for both the painting and physical form of the central villain Vigo went through many changes", is close to "The whole Vigo concept went through various design changes.", it's a basic fact, you couldn't say it many other ways but the two sentences are wildly different. I removed mention of the painting, I personally consider mention of him moving out of the painting to be discussion relating to the painting, but it is discussed further down so nothing is lost. The second source needed an additional page number, but it says separately in the last paragraph "monstrous" and "huge", it is of course paraphrased because otherwise there are issues with too close paraphrasing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue was the quantity of films being released close together and unexpected successes that meant films were staying in theaters longer than anticipated. By only mid-July, some theaters were alternating Ghostbusters II and The Karate Kid III on the same screen because of their diminishing returns to play Batman and Lethal Weapon 2 on other screens.
    • This is sourced to this. I see more imprecision here; it wasn't the overall quantity of films being released that was the issue, it was the unexpected successes.
      I think reading the source that both quantity and success is established there, they don't literally use the word "quantity", but the opening in particular discusses the "glut" of films, that films are open, other studios want them to open but there's no space, Peter Pan causing James Bond to delay, "crunch", and the latter paragraph states that the summer season is barely over and there's this huge list of films incoming. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why "only" mid-July? That's not in the source, and I don't see other dates in the discussion in our articles that make it apparent why we should say "only".
      The article was written in mid-July and mentions Lethal Weapon 2, which was only released on July 7. The "only" is because this was just under a month of release later it was flailing despite being a follow up to this huge blockbuster. I can remove the "only" if it is an issue though.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "diminishing returns" is supported in the source, but you can't say "some theaters" -- the article is talking about one small market; I think one cineplex, in fact.
      Changed to one theater. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Weak oppose. I'm sorry to oppose here, because I think there's been a good-faith effort to use relevant sources, and I think there's a lot of good material here. I'm opposing because looking at these last three examples makes me concerned that some sources are imprecisely represented in the article. I think the fix will not require major changes to the text, but it will require some tedious work to review each source's use and to be sure it's been accurately used. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you will give it another chance Mike Christie, you have to remember that it's been copy edited about three times since I wrote it, meaning can get lost sometimes from what I originally wrote, but the examples you're finding should be few and far between. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to weak oppose as none of what I found was terrible -- I just don't think it's our best work. I certainly have sympathy for the effects of multiple copyeditors on source-text integrity; I've seen that problem many times and it is hard to manage.
We had a COVID-19 case at one of the offices I work in so I'm having to deal with setting up scores of people to work from home, which is just to say I don't know how available I'll be to review this again. To be honest I would like to get another opinion from someone with a lot of FAC experience. David Fuchs, would you mind taking a look? If David has time to look, and if his spot checks find nothing similar to what I'm complaining about, I'd be willing to strike the oppose, and I would then try to go through again and, I hope, support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can try and take a look tomorrow or Thursday. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went through statements attributed to current refs 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, Eisenberg 1989 (refs 23, 76, 79), Mccabe 2016 (refs 19, 20, 24), 25, 81, 89, 156, and 166.

  • Text: Then-Columbia Pictures executive David Puttnam was blamed for Ghostbusters II's lengthy production, though director Ivan Reitman said it was more the fault of the reluctant cast and crew. does not appear to be adequately cited to 4 (seems to barely discuss II at all, and doesn't go into the production or mention Puttnam.) Likewise, it doesn't mention needing buy-in from the principals for As co-creators, Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis all had control over the franchise, and their unanimous approval was required to proceed.
  • Text: Principal photography began on November 28, 1988, in New York City. does not appear cited to 6 and the additional reference 11 doesn't support the specific November 28 date either.
  • Ref 79 points to page 8 of the Cinefex article, which is just a photo spread and has no text.
    • Changed to 6-8, numbering oversight.
  • Ref 19 points to page 60 but most of the content is on page 61.
  • Ref 89/90 asser Ghostbusters II opened on 2410 theaters compared to the original's 1339. The Box Office Mojo source gives the 2410 figure, but the LA Times article only says Although the sequel played on 1,073 more screens . While normally I wouldn't have an issue with performing that subtraction, 2410-1073 = 1337, not 1339 as asserted.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, David Fuchs? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear David's comments on what he found. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Uninvolved comment) @Mike Christie: For the record, because you've used a bolded oppose three times, the software is reading that as thee individual opposes; it doesn't recognise striking them through  :) So at the moment the nom page says theer are "5 supports/3 opposes", whereas it's ("only") "5 supports/1 oppose". Not a comment on your oppose, btw, just a commment on the mechanics. ——SN54129 13:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the note. I think I’ll leave the bolding as it is; there are other problems with the nominations viewer anyway, and I know the coords will read through, and I think it’s probably easier for them to see my various changes of mind if they’re bolded. Darkwarriorblake, I’m striking my oppose. What David found was real but minor and that increases my confidence there is not a pervasive problem here. I can’t in good conscience support without reading through again, and I can’t commit to doing that in a reasonable time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NowIsntItTime

edit
  • In the lead's third paragraph is this quote: Critics responded unfavorably to what they perceived as largely a copy of the original and a softening of its cynical, dark humor to be more family-friendly. although the performances of Peter MacNicol and Moranis were repeatedly singled out for praise. There is a period between "family-friendly" and "although" instead of a comma.
  • Raymond Stantz owns an occult bookstore and works alongside Winston Zeddemore as unpopular children's entertainers. Does Zeddemore and Stantz both own the bookstore, or just Stantz? Elaborate further.
Changed to "Raymond Stantz owns an occult bookstore and works a side job alongside Winston Zeddemore as unpopular children's entertainers. " Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vigo orders Janosz to bring him a child to possess, allowing him to live again and rule the world. How does possessing a child = being able to rule the world? Or does he want to rule the world and inhabit a kid's body while he's at it? This sentence is incredibly confusing on its own. Please include the main idea of Oscar (I think that's the kid's name) into the plot to better explain this feat.
I changed it to this "Vigo orders Janosz to bring him a child to possess, allowing him to escape the confines of his painting and live again to conquer the world. Because of his infatuation with Dana, Janosz chooses Oscar." Any better? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] Aykroyd's niece Karen Humber portrays a schoolchild, and director Ivan Reitman's children Jason and Catherine portray, respectively, the rude child at the opening birthday party and a girl with a puppy that is part of Egon's experiments is the girl or the puppy part of Egon's experiments?
I removed the bit about the puppy, couldn't think how to reword it, as she is the subject not the puppy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else in the article looks good besides these issues that stuck out to me. Interesting article too. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 23:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting film, the failure despite everything working for it allows for a much more interesting backstory than the unmitigated success of the original. Thanks for taking the time to review it NowIsntItTime Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome; you addressed the issues. Support. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 22:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

edit

I came here from my FAC on Cyclone Chapala. Hopefully me reviewing this will get you to review one of the other four tropical cyclone related articles up for FAC (just not mine)

  • Something is up in the infobox when it says "Characters

by Dan Aykroyd Harold Ramis"

Removed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the sequel to the highest-grossing comedy film, Ghostbusters II was expected to dominate the box office but the film earned $215.4 million during its theatrical run compared with the original's $282.2 million, making it the eighth-highest-grossing film of the year." - it's a long sentence. Could you split it up into two?
Changed to "As the sequel to the then-highest-grossing comedy film of all time, Ghostbusters II was expected to dominate the box office. Instead, the film earned $215.4 million during its theatrical run compared with the original's $282.2 million, making it the eighth-highest-grossing film of the year."
  • "In the courtroom, the slime sample reacts to the judge's angry outburst, releasing the ghosts of two brothers he sentenced to death." - this could be clearer
Any better- "In the courtroom, the slime sample is presented as evidence. It responds physically to judge Wexler's angry tirade against the Ghostbusters and then explodes, summoning the ghosts of two brothers he sentenced to death.? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Learning of Hardemeyer's actions" - this would be stronger if this paragraph was combined with the previous one
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ghostbusters abseil through the ceiling" - I'm not familiar w that verb, and so might other users
Changed to "rappel" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A chorus of "Auld Lang Syne" sung by the gathered crowds outside neutralizes the slime, weakening Vigo and forcing him to return to the painting and free the Ghostbusters." - this would be better as two sentences, it feels rushed
Changed to " The collective crowds gathered outside begin singing a chorus of "Auld Lang Syne", and their positivity weakens Vigo. He is forced to return to the painting and the Ghostbusters are freed." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the cast photo under "Cast", I have two issues. "Stars of the film include (l–r) Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson, Harold Ramis, and Rick Moranis." - first, perhaps you should indicate which row, so we're not left to assume that it's clockwise. Also, you end with a period, even though it's not a sentence
I added (top row) and (bottom row). Is that what you mean? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Puttnam had publicly criticized Murray for allegedly taking from Hollywood without giving back." - I don't get this
The most direct quote is “an actor who makes millions off movies but gives nothing back to his art. He’s a taker.” It's not explicit in what he didn't give back, though I assume he means the disappearing for ages at a time and no really being into promotion. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Others suggested Ghostbusters was part of former Columbia executive Frank Price's legacy" - who?
Removed the others part. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In particular, David Puttnam, who became chairman of Columbia Pictures in June 1986,[7] was reported to have been removed from his job for alienating Murray and his talent agent Michael Ovitz." - this feels like it should go after "In September 1987, Puttnam left Columbia and was replaced as its president by Dawn Steel."
Reworked the section for this Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By May 1987, Aykroyd and Ramis had been working for over a year" - so I expected something in the "Development" section to mention something in 1986 about when the sequel was being conceived/given the go-ahead. If Aykroyd and Ramis started in May 1986, I don't get why you start by focusing so much on David Puttnam becoming chairman a month later. Like, did Reitman get signed on as director around this time? I don't really know how the whole Hollywood business works. Just an observation
There isn't much information that I can find regarding pre-Puttnam. Guy McElwain was producer between 1983 and 1986 but he just had a long succession of flops, there's no mention of Ghostbusters II under him. The information I can find seems to suggest that the Aykroyd just started writing, similar to how he wrote Ghostbusters III in the 1990s despite there not being a film in production, but the film itself wasn't going ahead because Murray was not participating. I did search for info re: McElwain and Ghostbusters previously but I will take another look if I can clarify the timescales better. EDIT: Reading the source, it seems like most other films, where someone writes a script hoping to get it turned into a film. Aykroyd/Reitman were working on a script, though by May the same time, Reitman was surprised that Puttnam said they were starting production in November, when he hadn't even heard production was starting. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Max von Sydow provided the voice of Vigo the Carpathian." - you also have a period ending this, even though it's not a sentence
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soundtrack producer Peter Afterman wanted to hire Bobby Brown who had, had a recent succession of hit songs." - what?
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hudson was filmed against a blue screen so he would appear in the river; his motion in the river had to be animated by hand against the river's natural movements." - you mentioned in the previous sentence three actors falling into the river, but only one here, why?
Only Hudson is present in the particular shot being discussed. I've elaborated this point a bit. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " which was too small to let the Ghostbusters peer out" - is this relevant?
It just establishes scale between the real thing and the larger-than-life copy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Five remotely controlled baby strollers were used to create the "possessed" stroller" - why the quotes
Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on its gross and an average increase in ticket price of 22% since Ghostbusters' release, an estimated 2 million more people went to see the film. " - that weekend, or overall?
Added "opening" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MacNicol's performance was consistently praised for his performance." - redundant
Good eye, removed.
  • "Financially, Ghostbusters II was a relative success but it failed to meet studio expectations as a sequel to the highest-grossing comedy of all time, and despite being predicted to outperform its rival films before its release it failed to do so." - that's a lot for a sentence starting a section, and I suggest splitting it up
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is demonstrated during the courtroom scene, when the executed Scoleri brothers' return to wreak havoc, demonstrating a failure of the legal system. " - you use "demonstrated/ing" twice in the sentence. Also, the Scoleri brothers came back from the dead. If you consider it thematically a failure of the legal system, I suggest you state who specifically compares these concepts.
  • "Others have analyzed the slime as a symbol of pollution." - see above, re: attribution. You can say who the "Others" are
  • "defining it outside the atypical American stereotype of purity." - I feel like "outside" and "atypical" cancel each other out. "atypical American stereotype" seems like an odd construct
  • "In 2009, Den of Geek listed it as one of the 25 best blockbuster sequels of all time"- what did it rank?
Changed. They've changed their site design but I'd swear they were unranked before. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ghostbusters: The Return (2004) was the first in a planned series of sequel novels before the publisher went out of business.' - is it worth adding the publisher?
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All in all it's a decent article. I hope my comments aren't too troublesome. I also hope you consider reviewing another tropical cyclone article (there are four on FAC that aren't mine and could use an outsiders' review). Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this Hurricanehink. I am looking to go through your notes tomorrow. I'm also off next week so I'll be happy to look at one of the articles you mentioned. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink I've addressed most of your issues. I'm going to be a little longer with the comments re: Puttnam as it will require a greater restructuring of that section since other things feed out of it. BRB Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies so far! Lemme know how the restructuring works out. Sorry to be picky on that front, but I think the article will be even stronger with that extra bit of clarity. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink, I've addressed the last few issues raised. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support the article. Thanks for your edits, research, and hard work! I hope you consider reviewing one of the five other tropical cyclone articles that aren't mine (yes, there's one more than when I first left my comment five days ago). Cheers Darkwarriorblake ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2020 (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/Ghostbusters_II/archive2&oldid=951003011"