Talk:Tucker: The Man and His Dream

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Tucker: The Man and His Dream has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
August 18, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Chicago (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Plot description[edit]

The description of the plot sounds more like a one-sided speech; needs expansion and "neutralization."

Done and added some production info. Count Ringworm 14:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Still requires work on this and other sections, including adding reviews and reception. No references are stated. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Tuckerposter.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Tuckerposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing changes[edit]

Please see: [1] as this may become a new revision as the errors in the templates are very hard to fix. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Seems fine to me. Wildroot (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tucker: The Man and His Dream/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking against quick-fail criteria. On to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • I have made some copy-edits, but attention is needed to the following:
    Plot: ...causes Karatz to resign who was convicted of bank fraud, explaining that the SEC would use it against Tucker. is completely ungrammatical and makes no sense.
    On his final date of his trial,... We still have ...causes Karatz to resign who was once convicted of bank fraud. This makes no sense at all. Green tickY
  • See revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC).
  1. Production: Director Francis Ford Coppola conceived the idea to make a film .... to?
    ... which resulted into Bernstein already writing one song.' already?
    ...Capra disagreed with Coppola concerning the characterization of Tucker as a dreamer, whom Capra thought was a failure. Ungrammatical.
    Although Coppola explained that he overall enjoyed the final result of the film and his relationship with Lucas... Ungrammatical. Green tickY
  • Actually, not an entirely accurate statement based on a re-reading of the reference source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC).
  1. Although providing major additions in rewriting the Schulman and Seidler scripts, Coppola's work was uncredited when...' Ungrammatical.
    Distributors were also cautious to work with Lucas after... Ungrammatical.
    Lucas and Coppola each own two Tuckers, irreverently called the "Tin Goose". Nonsensical, what does this mean? All four cars are called the Tin Goose? Its a generic nickname? What? - Clarify please.
    Despite helming his "labor of love," Coppola was insistent that Tucker... would be his last Hollywood project,... ungrammatical. Green tickY
  • See changes made in sentence structuring; most of the final statement is derived from a source and encompasses a quote. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC).
  1. Historical accuracy: Coppola was adamant to include... to?
    The preeminent judges of the film were the legion of Tucker owners and collectors... POV phrasing.
    Overall the prose is very poor, I recommend a comprehensive re-write and copy-edit to bring it up to Good Article status. Please pay especial attention to the Plot section which should be shortened and simplified. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Some remaining issues. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Green tickY
  • Please be specific, the section has been "pruned." FwiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC).
  1. b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • I fixed a couple of redirects, all online references check. I assume Good Faith for print sources.
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    • Query on one phrase in prose section above.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    • OK, it comes dow to the prose which simply isn't good enough at the moment. I'm putting the article on hold for seven days so that it can be fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Please take another look as there things that were missed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, this is fine now. I printed it out and completely re-read it. Thanks for your hard work. The prose is readable now, although further copy-editing may be neccessary to achieve Featured Article status if that is what you wish to do. Congratulations you have a good article.
Thanks for the review. I believe the concerns have been addressed now, but you should check to see. Wildroot (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: I thought I might pop in to mention that according to WP:WTUT the cast listing should not be in tables as it's to simple of a list. It should be changed to a bullet format. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the use of lists vs tables is not established and the above comment is fallacious, although for the purposes of the GA review, the change can remain. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC).

Removed "never able to realize his dream" - rationale[edit]

I just made an edit from the plot synopsis that indicated that Tucker was never able to realize his dream. This is incorrect... here's a snippit from the transcript of the film:

"The Tucker Motor Company's dead. They'll never be."

"...It's the idea that counts, Abe... and the dream".

Anyway, just wanted to give a little context. Linuxbeak (The cake is a lie!) 02:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The dream was to have a car in production that rivaled the success of the Big Three automobile manufacturers. Tucker's valiant efforts were to be abortive and his company never realized its potential. FWiW, BRD. Discussion needs to continue. Bzuk (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC).

Uncredited Cast Member Details Not Accurate/Complete[edit]

In the DVD version (Paramount Widescreen DVD collection) which I viewed yesterday, Dean Stockwell (as Howard Hughes) WAS credited as a member of the cast. Therefore this article as written would appear to be incorrect.

On the other hand, the article is somewhat incomplete in that it left out the detail that Lloyd Bridges was uncredited, at least in the DVD version I saw. (See also IMDB list of credits at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096316/fullcredits ) Msn1947 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Change noted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC).