Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Rookie (1990 film)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:57, 20 February 2010 [1].

The Rookie (1990 film)

[edit]

The Rookie (1990 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Mike Tompsonn (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because... the article has been through a complete redo, and I believe it currently conforms to all the criterea for FA Status. The article contains the following merits:

  • Introduction is strong.
  • Main Image includes WP:ALT text.
  • Plot is in correct format and composition; while being concisely detailed by including all the main characters, but not being too overly detailed.
  • Production and Release sections feature thorough referenced content.
  • Article in general, is well-written. Its readable size is well within kb WP:SIZE requirements. It is grammatically correct with engaging content.
  • The References section is correctly punctuated with Dated info and No dead external links.
  • It has all the necessary External Links without going overboard turning it into a WP:LINKFARM.
  • It is completely Categorized correctly for Police Detective, Buddy Cop, and Los Angeles setting films etc...Mike Tompsonn (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. One dab link, to At the Movies. No dead external links. Please review WP:ALT#Verifiability; alt text should be verifiable for a non-expert who only looks at the image itself, so details that cannot be verified from the image alone should be omitted. Ucucha 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I would like to say I'm aware of that dab link. I already tried to fix it, and it doesn't work. The disambiguation page and the actual page to the film have the same internet address. I tried to fix it without success. That external website does not differentiate those links.Mike Tompsonn (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are talking about; there is a link to At the Movies in the article (in the second reference under "Critical reception", to be precise), and you can edit that link. I don't know which of the options on the disambiguation page is correct; you presumably do. Ucucha 23:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response No, I believe your mistaken. I think I understand what your saying, but it cannot be done. When you click on the At the Movies link, a page pops up that brings up two movies called the rookie. One from 2002 with dennis quaid and the other from 1990, which is this film. Now what I'm trying to say is, the internet address link for the correct film from 1990, is the same internet address link as that previous page with the two films. I already tried to see if it could be fixed, but it won't work. The website does not provide two seperate links to each of those movies. Oh by the way, as far as the ALT|Text is concerned, do you mean I'm supposed to delete the text which mentions the film credits and Starts December 7th etc... because its not entirely visible? I agree with you its a little hard to see. But if you look closely, you can see it. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about an internal link, aren't we? No, I am referring to the names of the names of the two people whose portraits are in the image (Pulovski and Ackerman, according to the image), and to text like "the title of the film" and "the names of the two lead actors". None of this can be verified from the image alone. Ucucha 23:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab fixed, I think. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will do my best to get this resolved. Thanks for being patient. Ok, yes. On the first issue, we ARE talking about an internal link. This is the external dab link: http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=6&subsec=the+rookie

Now, when you click on the link, the disambiguation page pops up. Now, WITHIN that page, if you click on the 'The Rookie 1990' film, check out your address bar. The internet link will not change. It will remain as the following: http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=6&subsec=the+rookie

Now, issue number 2, I'm going to need your assistance on fixing that text....lOl....Because I don't want to mess it up. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 fixed the dab issue with this edit. I'll have a look at the alt text. Ucucha 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, appreciate it. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 0:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Response Thanks for the Alt|Text. By the way, I'm sorry for the confusion. I understand now what you meant before when you said; internal link. You meant internally within WIKIPEDIA. Before I thought you meant internally with the AT THE MOVIES external website. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 0:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that may have been ambiguous. Alt text should be good now. But please note the other issues I mentioned above. This article is different in many respects from another film article currently at FAC, American Beauty (film), and that one probably rather has what is expected at FAC. Perhaps a peer review would be more appropriate at this time. Ucucha 00:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I will take that into account; but just commenting on one thing, as far as the IMDb references are concerned, there's only like maybe 5 links out of 32 references. And one of those I also partially referenced with a novel. So it's like 4 IMDb links out of 32. I realize its not the best source, but I worked with what I had. I included many books and a magazine plus external websites as part of my sources. And for instance, in the opening paragraph, I didn't reference the Box Office total, because its already done in the Release section. The Critical Reception and large portions of the Production sections are sourced. But I'll look over the article and see if I can make any minor improvements. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 0:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on 1a. Needs a copyedit. Here are some examples of prose issues that exist throughout the article: Sasata (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Eastwood plays a veteran police officer teamed up with a younger detective played by Sheen (otherwise known as the 'rookie' ), who is intent on taking down a German crime lord in downtown Los Angeles, after his original partner is killed in a shoot-out with a company of sophisticated criminals who collectively specialize in the theft of rare and exotic automobiles." These long run-on sentences are sprinkled throughout and need to be split into more digestible fragments.
  • "During an encounter with Strom and his men, who are loading a semi-trailer truck with stolen cars from a valet parking service, Powell is murdered, and Pulovski, despite efforts to catch the criminals on the highway, which results in multiple car crashes and pile-ups, loses them." Two clauses are sandwiched in between "... and Pulovski ... loses them." leading to temporal and spatial disconnect.
  • "However, Ackerman later notices Loco's car outside their door; a bizarre, light green-colored Lotus which he and Pulovski spotted earlier at a warehouse in which one of Strom's mechanics, Max (David Sherrill), was working on." Another disconnect, and improper semicolon usage.
  • "Strom falls onto a conveyor belt, as Pulovski climbs on, and to avenge Powell and end the homicide spree there, kills him." Per above.
  • "Coordination of the lighting aspects along with the capturing of all other photographic elements in the film were achieved by cinematographer Jack N. Green." "the capturing of" not grammatical. Why "lighting aspects" and not "lighting"? There must be a better way to say "were achieved".
  • quotes should not be introduced by semicolons
Response A portion of what your saying appears to be opinionated and the rest contradictory. There's no english rule that says you can't have a long sentence. I don't believe there is anything incorrect about that. If I was able to break up that first sentence as an example, I might. But I don't think thats possible or necessary. If you want, I can take out the word "aspects". But finding another word for "achieved"? Maybe there is a different word I could use, but what's the difference? There's nothing incorrect about using the word "achieved" to begin with. Oh and by the way, I just did a rough check and there is only somewhere between 4 to 7 sentences in the entire article that are slightly long. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 5:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

additional response I did end up fixing some of those long sentences to make it more readable; and did a cleanup of the semicolons. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Hey, nice first effort! I've been sort of following the development of this article as you researched and asked questions; I commend the amount of time you put into figuring out the "rules" here and getting this thing in motion. It ain't easy. Here are some general comments through the "Plot" section; I'll have to come back tomorrow to go through the rest of it.
  • Regarding the number of red links in the article: Are they likely to become articles? For some of them, like a stunt coordinator, I would say no. Those should probably be de-linked.
  • Some items are linked multiple times—as a general rule, you should link the first mention only. For example, Clint Eastwood is linked at least five times.
  • I feel that it's a bit overlinked overall, but this is subjective. Certain common terms like "casino" and "valet parking" really ought not be linked. See WP:LINK for some general advice on the subject.
  • From the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead, it's unclear whether Eastwood or Sheen is trying to take down the drug lord. Could you revise the sentence to make it clear? I could find out by reading the Plot section, but why force that exercise?
  • "commanding theatrics" Unsure what this alludes to.
  • "despite efforts to catch the criminals on the highway, which results in multiple car crashes and pile-ups" This seems ungrammatical... it's the "efforts" that "result", correct? So it should be "result" I think.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hello Andy. Thanks for your interest and help. All the corrections have been made. A few notes though; The "commading theatrics" generally refers to the high profile stunts, like when the mercedes flys out the window of the building. Or when the tractor trailer flips over with its automotive cargo on the highway. I could be more precise with that, but those details are already in the Production section. I don't want to add redundant info. As far as taking down the "crime lord", the movie itself doesn't even really clearly state the reason for them doing so. They basically just throw these characters in there to do it. I don't want to delve to deep into that one, making the Intro section oversized. I'm trying to keep it as concise as possible. Originally, there were also many other details that I included such as the deaths of Strom's operatives within the Plot section. But I later edited them out to keep that shorter in length too. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on prose, punctuation, clarity.... But I'm willing to support once the prose is fixed.

CommentsThis is a very good effort to engagingly present an action movie. It is undeniably difficult to do justice in words to the sequences of an action movie, to convey the sheer spectacle of crashes and fights, and not lose the reader in the process. You've made a good start here, and I encourage you to keep working with this article!
It is also an impressive first article, especially on a difficult assignment, so good job! A couple of points: While there is, to be sure, no rule against long sentences in English (I read the above comments), there is a fundamental practical matter of making sure what we write is intelligible. Thus, breaking sentences into digestible portions is important, as is making sure that you've actually said what you mean. I will put some examples on the article talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


RESPONSE Hi Ms. Auntieruth55. I've read what you've wrote here and what you posted on the talk page. Here is my response.
  • First of all, with the long sentences, I've made a great effort to clean it up. I broke down a whole bunch of them so as to make it easier to read through.
  • Now as far as what you've written on the talk page is concerned, I can't say that I entirely agree with almost anything you've posted up there. When you mentioned that initial part of the plot; I would say ok, maybe I can take out the term "willingly". Obviously, criminals to bad things willingly. But the rest of what your trying to do is reword a paragraph saying the same exact thing in a different way. Your new version of that paragraph sounds almost entirely as whats already printed there. Its as if you have a thesaurus by your side figuring out ways to say the same things using different words. And by the way, contradicting what you said, you mention Strom loads a trailer "with stolen cars". Well obviously, what else would a chop-shop operator fill a tractor trailer with? Brand new cars that he legally purchased? I'd also like to point out, the new wording you used is also incorrect for this section. The point of that sentence is not to inform the reader that Strom littered a highway with wrecked luxury vehicles. Thats completely unecessary detail. The point is to tell the reader that after a criminal pursuit, Strom got away. What your trying to do, makes little sense.
  • Next up, critical reception. The way I have it, is organized and the way you want it. The paragraph deals with the negative feedback and the next one deals with the positive reviews. Its very orderly. I don't see what the issue is.
  • As far as the stunts category, the beginning paragraphs deal with identifying the film crew and interviews with the actors. The last paragraphs deal with the hardware (namely the automobiles). I can look into consolidating it, but there's really no need.
  • As far as the Eastwood deal, when its written under his instruction; its meant to convey his directing of the film in relation to the actors working with him. I don't see any confusion.
  • Now as far as the details in the Plot are concerned, you appear to be way off. Its not necessary for me to list every minute iota detail in the film for this section. I left out numerous details on purpose, because its meant to be not overly detailed and concise as possible. I know there are a million other details in the film which are not printed here. I left them out intentionally. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 3:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Mike, thanks for your response. This article, while better than the January submission, is still in need of major work. I suggest you take it back to the project and get some assistance, especially since you don't apparently see any way of incorporating my comments, and those made by Andy. If you don't wish to ask for help at the Film Project, there are many well-done film articles and they can offer you a model. While this is a good start, it's not ready for FA yet, even if you have done a lot of work on it. An example might be Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, which is presently also an FA candidate.

Oppose reiterated based on (1) punctuation, (2) grammar and (3) prose issues, specifically, clarity and readability.
Withdraw based on readiness. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some content issues.
  1. the female-on-male rape scene, which attracted a lot of comment, is mentioned in the lead, briefly in the critical reception, but not in the plot summary, and it deserves greater coverage in the critique section.
  2. the release is mentioned in the lead, and there is a section called release, but it focuses on critical reception and the release of the DVD/video, not the movie itself.
  3. critical reception organization. I also think the critical reception section needs a better organization beyond listing the reviewers who were for and against, even if they are organized into two paragraphs. Most of the negative reception cited the lack of plot, and the sketchy character development, and most of the positive reception focused on the stunts and action sequences.
The article is considerably better than the previous version brought to FAC in January 2010. I've brought up the questions I have, some here, and the specific ones on the talk page, and the editor does not wish to address them. This needs to go back to the project for work; I might assess this as a B, but it is not ready for FA yet. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it should be withdrawn until you've resolved the issues with the article. I do realize you've dealt with some of the comments, but there are many problems with this article that should prevent it from reaching FA. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


NEW RESPONSE Hello. Well, I'd like to say "on the contrary". I instituted all of the corrections recommended by Andy, Mr Sasata and "One" of your corrections which you suggested. Perhaps you missed some of my previous responses in relation to Andy's comments. Now here is my response to your most recent comment.
  • I disagree with you 100% on the rape scene. It does not need to be mentioned. Its a detail that the reader need not be aware of to understand the storyline of the film. Same thing goes for the party scene for David's mother, and the burning down of the bar scene. They just make the plot Overly Detailed. If you never saw this film, everything you need to know about the plot is correctly inserted there in that paragraph.
  • The release part in the lead section of the first paragraph is just meant to enhance the content of that particular paragraph. Its inserted figuratively. Its not meant as a detailed play by play box office performance chart. That complaint is trivial at best. Now as far as the actual Release Section; whats the problem? There are 2 separate sub-sections. One that deals with the Box office performance and one that deals with the DVD and home video release. I failed to understand what that nitpick is about.
  • As far as the critical reception is concerned, take my word for it; there are not too many positive reviews surrounding the character development, acting or plot greatness. I researched dozens of sources, but most of the positive reviews Do seem to center around the production values of the film. I can't help out on that merit.
  • I do appreciate your comments and opinions. I didn't mean to be rude by implying that you don't know what your talking about. You have certain opinions, and I respect them completely. But I've seen countless FA Film articles that conform to similar standards. (Especially for the Plot section). The Plot section is complete, concise, precise and to the point. All irrelevant details should be omitted. The rape scene is not an integral part of the story. Its a minor detail of the story. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on comprehensiveness - the article does not have sections on the film's themes or style. See American Beauty (film) for the kinds of sections that are missing. While there might not be the same amount of material published on this film, you can use the film reviews to create these sections. Film reviewers discuss themes and style. Awadewit (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response Well I'm not sure if every FA Film article has those two sections. As far as being comprehensive, please be aware as you mentioned, the film does not have readily available information on the same level as Avatar or The Dark Night. Remember, this film came out almost 20 years ago. The internet didn't even exist at that time. I tried to reference as many books and other types of references like that to make the page complete. The critical reception section is fairly comprehensive. Also, a large article is always in need of trimming as you pointed out with American Beauty. Please view the following two examples of FA Articles which are similar in content to this article: Dog Day Afternoon, November...............Mike Tompsonn (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if other film FAs don't have those sections - they should. You will not convince me that this article is adequate by pointing to inadequate articles. Whether or not the internet existed, film reviews existed (I was alive, I read them) and those reviews covered central elements of film, like themes. An article on a film must cover the themes of the film to be comprehensive. Awadewit (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Newer Response Ok, well I have a few of things to say on that. First, if you notice the theme on this film, its what you would call a typical hollywood style no-brainer. There's a bunch of bad guys who do bad things and kill people and then, the good guys come in kill the bad guys. Numerous notable critics have basically alluded to this film in such a way. Roger Ebert in a sense almost called the film basically dumb. I don't believe this film warrants such an thought comprehensive section. Perhaps a more complex emotional movie like American Beauty does, but not this one. Now as far as taking some of it from the Reviews Section, I could, but maybe it would be sort of redundant in nature. The article is essentially neatly consolidated. And lastly, when you say Inadequate Articles, those two articles are FA Status. I didn't give you two amateur failure articles. Give this article a chance on its merits. Even a newer FA Article like Alien vs Predator is not that far off from this one. The opening paragraph, Plot section and Reviews are similar to this article. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All films have themes, even if those themes are boring or hackneyed in the eyes of the reviewer. That does not mean we should avoid talking about that in the article. I am not asking the article to be redundant - I am asking you to carefully sort out what the reviewers said about themes and style and place it in different sections, as is appropriate for a piece of art. Furthermore, just because something is featured does not mean it cannot be improved. Finally, I would like to point out that academics and film scholars have long ago dispensed with the distinction between "complex" and "simplistic" or "high culture" and "low culture" movies that you are espousing here. If we want Wikipedia to reflect how film is discussed in the best sources, we need to adopt their attitude. Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


RESPONSE lOl......Ok, I'll see what I can do. I'll try to tweak it. Can I just ask you one quick question? .......I worked hard on this article. What do you really think of it? Is it close to being a winner? Mike Tompsonn (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: 1 image, marked as Fair-use. It has all of the standard template jargon that is used wiki-wide for movie posters in the main infobox, so it's fine. --PresN 05:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I copy-edited the lead a little, but couldn't work out what this sentence was saying: "The film ... is also the last motion picture thus far, in which Eastwood plays the character of a police officer following the completion of the Dirty Harry film series during the 1980s." SlimVirgin TALK contribs 09:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response for SlimVirgin I ended up fixing that sentence. I took out the words thus far. I admit, it didn't sound correct earlier. It should be good now. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike. Perhaps it's just me, but I'm still not entirely sure what it says. Does it mean he hasn't played a cop since this one? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Answer Yes, thats exactly what it means. This was the last film in which he played the character of a police officer. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: The problem with this nomination is that the nominator has, it seems, too great an emotional commitment to his creation. This is evident from the overblown nom statement, but most particularly from the responses to reviewers (generally, outright rejection followed by grudging concessions). Instead of treating reviewers as enemies, why not harness their obvious goodwill as expressed on this page, and work with them to produce a quality featured article? Frankly, I don't think the article is close at this stage (I concur with AuntieRuth - at best a B). Its most obvious faults, still, are prose quality and lack of comprehensiveness. I don't believe that these can, or should, be remedied during the timescale of a FAC candidature, and I strongly advise withdrawal, followed by a detailed peer review before any subsequent renomination. Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response Haha haha Hah HA Hah HA...............Well, Mr. Boulton, thanks for being pro-active with the criticism. Let me give you my side of the story. This article is not My Creation in any way. Somebody else created it a long time ago. I just perfected it. I am a fan of the movie, but nothing more. I also never treated any of the reviewers as enemies. I applauded their comments and made all of their corrections willingly. Now as far as Auntieruth is concerned, I didn't agree with almost any of those suggestions and thoroughly explained my reasons. And as far as my overblown statement, it was proper. I felt it necessary to emphasize the article on its merits. Yeah, perhaps I could have just written down, "I'm nominating this article because it's good". But then I would have a whole bunch of people on my case for that statement alone. I think no matter how hard I try to improve this article, it'll never be satisfactory. You guys nitpick on everything under the sun. So I'll reiterate my Support for this article. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brian is right, though, Mike, that the writing needs to be improved. I agree with you about long sentences. I like them too. But the longer a sentence is, the greater the chance you'll lose the structure of it, and thereby lose your reader, so you need to be especially careful that the grammar is good and clear. I'd like to copy edit it, but I haven't seen the film and some of the sentences are not clear enough on their own. Just to take one example, "Pulovski tracks down a man working for Strom named Morales (Tony Plana), whom he forces to cooperate. Morales, under Pulovski's instructions, manages to plant a two-way radio inside Strom's house, but is murdered in the process due to Strom feeling pressured by the actions of one of his operatives named Little Felix (Paul Ben-Victor), who is also secretly working as an informant for Pulovski." Morales is murdered while planting the device because Strom feels pressured by the actions of someone else. He's not murdered because he's bugging the house. So why is he murdered? Is he murdered by Strom? And how does Little Felix fit in?

My advice is that you go through the article and try to read it as though (a) you've never read it before, and (b) you've never see the film. It's hard to do that, because it means you have to think yourself out of your own context (out of your own mind, as it were), but if you can manage it, you should end up with a clearer text. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response Hey.... Ok, let me explain. First, with the long sentences; you might have missed my earlier comments, but I corrected almost all of them. I broke down a whole bunch of sentences that were deemed too long. If I missed one, please let me know. Now as far as a copy-edit is concerned, that would sound great if you'd like to do that. I encourage you to rent the film for two reasons. Number one, to do the copy-edit; and Number 2, because its a good movie.....lOl......Now getting to the Plot section, believe it or not, I thoroughly explained that piece of information with Little Felix in the past. However, at some point I believe I deleted the info because I thought the Plot section was getting a little too Over-detailed. Since you bring this issue up, I will re-insert those details to help you and other readers understand how that sentence fits in with the rest of the story. Thanks Mike Tompsonn (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest withdrawal. Mike, your enthusiasm for improving this article is a pleasure to see (I'm sorry if that comes across as patronising—it's sincerely meant). However, I concur with other reviewers who believe it isn't ready. I think the problem you're seeing with comprehensiveness can be traced back to your comment that "The internet didn't even exist [when the film was made]". For this article, most of your sources have been retrieved through online searches. The sources that would make this article are almost certainly not going to be retrieved online; many will be newspaper articles, journal articles and maybe books that haven't been archived online at places like Google Books. Even for a 10-year-old film like the aforementioned American Beauty, I couldn't rely on Internet sources; in one case, I even had to write to the author of one of the articles I'm citing to see if he'd send me a copy (he did). If you're lucky, the DVD might have useful information, such as making-of featurettes, actor interviews, production notes or director commentary. If those exist, they wouldn't be enough for a comprehensive treatment, but might give you enough to take the article to GA (don't quote me on this; I'm less familiar with the GA criteria). In the meantime, I'm going to reiterate my previous advice: once you've expanded the article further, rather than bring it right back to FAC, it would be a good idea to go to the lower-pressure zone of Peer Review; if you drop a note at WT:FILM at the same time, inviting comments, I'm sure you'll get some constructive feedback. Should The Rookie instead appear again at FAC—which by design is more confrontational—you may land on different reviewers who might be less likely to offer as much support and advice as you've seen this time around. And I really don't want to see you become disenchanted with editing because of it. This is a fine first effort, but I wouldn't be doing the authors of the other potential-FAs here any justice if I lent my support. All the best, Steve T • C 11:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response .........lOl.....Hello Steve. I see you've picked the opportune time to make your comment. Well, first let me say that I don't think you would be doing an injustice by supporting this article. In its current state, its stands up pretty well on its own two legs. I made numerous changes cleaning it up and improving it in the last few days. I'm not sure if I have the resources or time to do more comprehensive research at a library. I'll need a collaborator to help me with that. I mentioned a different film before that I was looking at which achieved FA status not too long ago called Alien vs Predator. It was certified FA about 6 months ago and seems close to in composition and content to this article. And guess what, the Main Image for that film doesn't even include alt text! Did you support that article for FA Status? And if you did, do you regret it? Judging by the amount of time this article has been in the FA queue without getting deleted, says alot. This article even got a Grade B from a few experts that made comments here. .....lOl....We'll see what happens. I'm almost out of gas, but I think I have enough to make it to the station. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike. No, I didn't review Alien vs. Predator at the time. Alt text wasn't an FA requirement back then, but it shouldn't be too difficult to add it if you want to make the suggestion on the article's talk page. Looking at that article, it is light, only longer than this one by about 1000 words. However, although your reaction and box office bits cover the bases, AvP does give a more ... rounded treatment of the film's production than we see here—development, casting, design, etc. The production information for The Rookie consists of two paragraphs—one of which is uncited. You'll also note that even for AvP, a film released in 2004, the authors didn't rely on web sources alone. Still, it doesn't look like I'm going to dissuade you, so all I can do at this stage is wish you luck. All the best, Steve T • C 16:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response Thanks for the encouragement Steve. If this one is headed for the so-called woodshed, I guess I can't do much about. At least not in the appropriate time frame. But thanks for heads-up with the uncited section. Later tonight, I'll go over the DVD to produce a reference list for those sentences. By the way, the DVD does not contain any commentary or production stills as additions to the movie. I tried looking for that before. I just forgot to mention it in the previous response. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


NEW CHANGES I made some major changes on the page. I added some more references, and did a cleanup on the format of the links. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 5:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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/The_Rookie_(1990_film)/archive2&oldid=1138473480"