Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Nightmare Before Christmas/archive1

The Nightmare Before Christmas

A great article with lots of information on The Nightmare Before Christmas and covers all the topics with a great layout and lots of usefull information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oogie13oogie (talk • contribs) (Self-nomination)

• Object: No references whatsoever, unsourced POV/original research (for instance, on how fans feel about hot topic clothes), multiple redundant links ("Tim Burton" and "Jack Skellington", for example, but there are many others). Kafziel 14:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• The Hot Topic section is adressing the the contreversy between some of the fans and in no way is POV as it just meerly states how some fans feel on both sides and does not take a stand, just states the facts.

If you don't have a source for it, it's unsourced POV. I'm a fan of the movie, and I'm not goth, and I've never felt any kind of controversy, or anger at people buying shirts at Hot Topic. If you have, that's your POV. Kafziel 14:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• The article does not say all fans, it just says some. That is not POV and it is a very valid debate in the Burton and Nightmare Community. This is also echoed in topics on the Tim Burton Collective and Halloweentown.org message boards. Again it does'nt say all original fans or take sides, justs states some facts thatg people who are active in the fan community would be aware of.

If this "debate" is notable enough to be included in wikipedia, then there should be legitimate, non-pov third-party sources documenting it (i.e., not blogs). If there aren't, then it's just opinion and original research. As a side note, the article doesn't even say exactly what the debate is - that goth kids shouldn't wear Jack Skellington shirts? That Hot Topic shouldn't sell Tim Burton steering wheel covers? That goths aren't true fans and that only true fans are ever allowed to buy movie merchandise? What's the controversy here? This sounds like a geeky version of the "true skaters versus posers" controversy I'm always dealing with in the skateboarding article. Kafziel 15:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• More comments

1. In the "Trading card game" section: "Sometime in 2005..." Sometime? Someone is going to need to do a little bit more research and find the correct date. Also, this section makes no sense to anyone not familiar with these games; what is a starter set? What is a tournament kit? Actually, the card section should probably be removed completely; there's not a separate section for every other kind of merchandising they've done.

2. In "External links" section: "Tim Burton fansite with a great message board fan community". This probably shouldn't be on here at all, but the description is definitely POV. Who says it's great?

3. Video game sections read like advertisements or Gamepro reviews (which is really the same thing).

4. Is there a source for the claim that NB4C is "one of the most sucessful franchises ever in terms of selling merchandise"?

5. Grammar issues, like "the two are in risk of their lives," or "For the past five years, the Disneyland and Tokyo Disneyland in California and Japan..."

This article really should have had a peer review before being put up for FAC. Kafziel 14:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Short lead, no references. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object. "In recent years, however, the film has grown wildly popular and entered the mainstream as a holiday classic" is just one example of the many weasel phrases in this unreferenced article. Please add some, go through Peer Review and then come back to FAC. Batmanand | Talk 17:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object:
  • The article should also have a critical reaction and box office section.
  • The Technical data section should be integrated into the infobox.
  • The plot summary section could be more detailed, and have some screenshots.
  • Overall, I'd suggest going over some recent film FAs (ie. November (film)) to see what it takes to get FA status.--Fallout boy 17:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object agree with all previous objections. Also - most of the article is to do with the movie plot, closely followed by its subsequent merchandising. Take this away and there is very little left. No discussion of the making of the film, influences, music - the fact that it's a stop action horror musical is one of the most unique aspects of the film and yet this doesn't get a mention. Huge omissions in content. Please look at other featured article films, and send this to peer review. It's a fairly good start but has a long way to go. Rossrs 13:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object- Just a small thing, the article can use a Endspoiler after the end of the synopsis. The lead and trading card game stuff should be increased, and the article needs references and inline citations. AndyZ 22:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comments and suggestions. I can see now that the nomination was deffinetly premature but I will use the information you gave me to try and improve the article then send it over to peer editing. Oogie13oogie 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)