Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Special effect/archive1

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

Special effect[edit]

I nominated this article because of the fact that I was able to use this information in a research paper. The information was exceptionally accurate, I found no flaws in its description of the developmental history. Also, the links to special effect artists were extremely helpful; some of them I would not have heard of otherwise.

--I Mac- U Mac? 18:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no footnotes, long lists. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object Simple grammatical errors. Lack of inline citations (footnotes aren't necessary though...and it looks like there is one Harvard inline ref). Long lists (the special effects artists section duplicates Category:Special effects people). Refer to peer review. Gzkn 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OBJECT. No need to repeat CanadianCaesar and Gzkn. —ExplorerCDT 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:WIAFA. -- Kicking222 13:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The article is not nearly comprehensive enough. Special effects are the mythmakers of our time, and the article contains only a rather brief history and some information on animation; nothing about the perception by the general public and their effect on (pop) culture. The list of landmark movies gives the impression that special effects weren't actually relevant until the 60s and that no proper development was made until sometime in the early 90s. Classics like A Trip to the Moon (mentioned briefly in prose, but not named or linked), Metropolis and Jason and the Argonauts are left out and major special effects pioneers like Ray Harryhausen and Stan Winston aren't even mentioned. That the third remake of King Kong is listed rather than the original pretty much sums up the bias towards recent films (as in the last two decades) . / Peter ^Isotalo 16:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object I don't see one footnote anywhere in the article. —ShadowHalo 10:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If converted into prose the "Visual special effects techniques in rough order of invention" list would be a welcome addition to the article. Or possibly if merged into "developmental history". There seems a great potential for duplication in those two sections. I have to agree with Peter - although picking who to mention is subjective, but some important contributors to the field are missing. Mark83 00:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.