Talk:Jurassic Park/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lost World Help

Any help on the Lost World article would be appreciated. I did some modifications to make it match Jurassic Park as much as possible, since that's an FA. I think with an expanded production section, it could be a contender for GA. ColdFusion650 13:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any of the DVDs?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
No. ColdFusion650 13:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Don Shay and Jody Duncan, who wrote the making-of book for Jurassic Park, also wrote one for the sequel, so try tracking that down. Alientraveller 13:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll check the DVDs that I have to see if they have any type of commentary or special features that would assist you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured Cast and Dinosaurs

The section on the featured cast and dinosaurs seems like it shouldn't be there. It just seems superfluous and out of place. I wanted to get some more opinions on that to make sure, though. The current formatting is incredibly wasteful, with the all the gray boxes, and the setup makes no sense, with the dinosaur names appearing twice on each line. I'll put the stuff below for review. ColdFusion650 22:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Character Film
Jurassic Park The Lost World: Jurassic Park Jurassic Park III
Dr. Alan Grant Sam Neill   Sam Neill
Dr. Ellie Sattler Laura Dern   Laura Dern
Dr. Ian Malcolm Jeff Goldblum  
John Hammond Richard Attenborough  
Alexis "Lex" Murphy Ariana Richards  
Tim Murphy Joseph Mazzello  
Dennis Nedry Wayne Knight  
Ray Arnold Samuel L. Jackson  
Robert Muldoon Bob Peck  
Donald Gennaro Martin Ferrero  
Dr. Sarah Harding   Julianne Moore  
Roland Tembo   Pete Postlethwaite  

Jurassic Park The Lost World: Jurassic Park Jurassic Park III
Tyrannosaurus Rex
Gallimimus Ceratosaurus
Dilophosaurus Compsognathus
Pachycephalosaurus Spinosaurus
Mamenchisaurus Ankylosaurus


Well, my initial intention was to just list the main characters for each film, and link to a "List of Jurassic Park films cast members" (or whatever the actual name is) page that lists them all. The actual page is full of in-universe content, and not what a list should be. It should be reminiscent of List of Harry Potter films cast members, which is a featured list, and what I was going for with this list. I didn't do the dinosaur thing. 12:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My main problem was with the dinosaur section. As I said, it lists the names twice on each line. I'll put the cast section back, but the dinosaurs need some major reworking if they want to stay. ColdFusion650 13:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The think the issue with the dinosaurs was because it treated them as "actors" by putting them in that left-side column.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
How is it now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It's better. It just seems like there should be a way to do it without having all of the gray area. It seems like a waste to have so much area blocked off for nothing. But this will work. ColdFusion650 13:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I compacted the table by filling the blank spots with dinosaurs that would fit. What do you think? ColdFusion650 13:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Brachiasaurus only there twice? Was it not in the first film? I thought that was what ate from the tree at the beginning and then met Grant and the children in the tree?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was. Whoever set up the table goofed. I fixed it on the main page and here. What do you think of the compacted version? ColdFusion650 14:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should have two different dinosaurs in one field. It's kind of confusing. Maybe there shouldn't be a table at all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not. ColdFusion650 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Gallimimus was in JP3, but it's listed as such on the page. Someone mind giving me a pic or telling me the scene? -- (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic Park IV

I propose to merge Jurassic Park IV to this broader Jurassic Park article because while verifiable speculation exists, there is no clear sign that actual production will take place anytime soon. The project has lingered in development hell since 2002, and has not shown any attributable sign of being fast-tracked to production. It seems inappropriate to establish an individual film article for this film that is not certain to be made, and I am proposing a similar treatment here as what took place with Spider-Man 4 -- a content placement at Spider-Man film series#Future. Please state your support or opposition here to reach a consensus for the merge. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - When the movie starts filming and we can start expanding the topic, I think it would be wise to split. Right now, it's mere speculation on what is going to happen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - All we know now is who's not involved. If anything, that points at no movie. Merge it. ColdFusion650 20:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. Alientraveller 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Against - Jurassic Park IV is a confirmed movie on its own, therefore keep it's own page --EclipseSSD 17:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing confirms that it will be made. Read the available, well-cited content -- there's no indication of actual production, just talk about it. Per WP:CFORK, it's on the franchise article. When there is an actual director set, a cast hired, and a production start date arranged, then it can be recreated. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Sorry, you're right, there's not enough information available on the film at this time. --EclipseSSD 18:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, we have every intent to make sure it becomes a film article when actual production takes place. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Works for me. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

JPIV Casting

Blood-Disgusting is reporting that official casting has begun on Jurassic Park IV. The information isn't verifiable, but it's got one editor attempting to recreate Jurassic Park IV as an article already. If any further efforts take place, editors should be informed of WP:NF and WP:V. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Article is written in clear, understandable language. Could use some minor syntax edits to the Lead, but this is not a sticking point.
2. Factually accurate?: Cites (26) sources, using good formatting. Do all the cites utilize WP:CIT ? If not, they should, before your next step in quality review. Also, some of the subsections are missing cites. I know that most of these are exempt, because they are merely brief bits summarizing the prior films. But there are some portions, like Jurassic Park, which contains uncited production info. As the article Jurassic Park (film) is a WP:FA, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was taken directly from there. But please provide cites in the article to these types of production sections.
3. Broad in coverage?: Very thorough. I especially appreciated your tasteful usage of all of the various tables.
4. Neutral point of view?: Article appears to be written in a neutral manner, yes.
5. Article stability? No problems in the edit history going back a month, but a month ago, looks like there was some trouble over what to include in the lead. As this is not an issue at this time, and there is some great civil discourse on the talk page, this is not a fail point. However, please do keep an eye on this in the future.
6. Images?: One image, of the DVD box, with a fair use rationale given. However, the rationale could be expanded a bit more on the image page. Again, not a failing point, but please address it moving forward. If you could find one or two free-use images to add to the article, perhaps of a couple of the actors, that would do nicely as well.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Overall, a job well done, feel free to message my talk page with any questions. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

A-Class film article

After looking at the peer-review and A-Class criteria and solely fixing most of the problems, I believe that Jurassic Park franchise is ready for A-Class. Contact me on my talk page if you would like to address a problem. Limetolime (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Far from an A-Class article; see below.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Article quality diminished?

Since its listing as a Good Article in November 2007, material has been added to this article without adequate sourcing. Does this affect its standing as GA? The Development/Books and Video Games sections are missing citations for a significant amount of their material. Also, should the Dinosaurs' list be sourced? The average person would be hard-pressed to correctly identify every dinosaur depicted in the films. In the Development section there's no mention of efforts to accurately portray the creatures, so how do we even know that every animal depicted in the films has a real-life analog? I admit I haven't encountered this specific problem in fiction articles before, so I'm uncertain whether the Dinosaurs section is original research or not. It seems to me, however, given the popularity and technical breakthroughs of the films that some expert must have been interested enough in writing a treatment of the palaeontologic accuracy of the franchise. I'll do some searching.

Given that, it seems this article needs some effort to improve sourcing or it risks delisting as GA. Let's get to work.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Article is a complete mess. Counted three sections which dealt with which dinosaurs were in what film. Why do we need different sections telling us the same thing? What does the species of dinosaur have to do with the box office performance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Still Waiting

JurassicPark 4 ?--Streona (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)