Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fritz the Cat (film)
- 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 promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.
The article is concise, well-written, well referenced, is not missing important information, excellent prose, focuses on a film with great importance in the history of animation, all of the images have fair use rationales. I worked on a great deal of the article, although many of the improvements have come from others. A lot of work has been done, and I think that it's good to go. (Ibaranoff24 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment — The article is currently listed at requests for proofreading. Any problems concerning copyediting should be cleared up. If this is your only objection, you can go ahead and vote "support." (Ibaranoff24 13:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]- Comment — The article has undergone copyediting by User:Galena11. (Ibaranoff24 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Support just skimmed through, didn't check any of the references or the usual stuff, but at a 10 minute read it looked quite good. I expect a lot from a film FA, such as plenty of context and encyclopedic coverage of the broader topics related to the film, not just a glorified plot summary, and this article seems to have all of that. --W.marsh 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
opposing for now Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”Max 06:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- *Support I like many of the Changes that have been made it is now looking like a FA article. I do find the Article a little bazaar, but not in a bad way just different, and that is what makes Wikipedia so great even the most far out Articles can Become FA with the right stuff. Max 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — "some" appears only twice, and its use in both instances is appropriate. (Ibaranoff24 13:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
OpposeSupport —The whole production section could be re-organized better. "Ralph Bakshi majored in cartooning at the High School of Art and Design. He learned his trade at the Terrytoons studio in New York City, where he spent ten years working on theatrical and television animation." Very awkward intro to the directing section, starting with a bio of Bakshi, goes off-topic please put it into context. The whole directing thing goes off topic and talks about Bakshi a little too much out of the context of the film on the whole. Also since writing is also about Bakshi whay have two sections? I would say rid the section of the sub-sections and just call it productions and go chronologically.Aaron Bowen 12:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment — The "directing" section discusses Bakshi in terms of being a director and in being an animator. The "writing" section discusses the screenwriting only. I reedited the "directing" section into two paragraphs, and made the kinds of cartoons Bakshi worked on before directing Fritz the Cat more clear, so that readers get a better sense of the fact that he was directing children's animation but wanted to make films for adults. (Ibaranoff24 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- That's not really the directing of this movie though, so I moved it to background. It works better there, since it provides context for the producers seeing potential for his plans to make animated films. I think the reader will still remember it when he or she gets to the directing section. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed to support per the work of Caesar, it reads much better now. Aaron Bowen 10:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really the directing of this movie though, so I moved it to background. It works better there, since it provides context for the producers seeing potential for his plans to make animated films. I think the reader will still remember it when he or she gets to the directing section. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — The "directing" section discusses Bakshi in terms of being a director and in being an animator. The "writing" section discusses the screenwriting only. I reedited the "directing" section into two paragraphs, and made the kinds of cartoons Bakshi worked on before directing Fritz the Cat more clear, so that readers get a better sense of the fact that he was directing children's animation but wanted to make films for adults. (Ibaranoff24 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Support I saw potential in this article while on wikibreak, and I think it's there. I did some restructuring, but the real-world material is fantastic. And just as good- no bloody cast list. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm going to support this article. Good work by the main editor.-- Zleitzen(talk) 15:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object -- the plot synopsis isn't written very well: it's very hard to follow and choppy. I suppose the film is a bit disjointed plot-wise, but still, I would like to see that section focus more on giving a clear overview than in summarizing every scene. Mangojuicetalk 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Well, unless you want to give a go at rewriting it, I don't see how it could possibly get any better than it already is. It's been worked on by several writers, and it's already gone through a copyedit. (Ibaranoff24 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- It goes into a lot of unnecessary detail. A few examples - skip the construction worker urinating, skip Fritz's lamenting quote (and BTW - is it really "wrecked"? "wretched" would make more sense), skip Fritz's silent comment, et cetera. It seems like a lot of moments are being described because in the movie, they were funny... but the humor is lost in writing it down. Also, the text is choppy: many short declarative sentences one on top of another with identical structure. It's also not comprehensive. The text focuses almost 100% on specific events, without covering any character development or emotional story. I found it really confusing: maybe that's because I haven't seen the movie, but for a featured article, that shouldn't be necessary. The rest of the text (outside the plot section) is better. (BTW, shouldn't this section be a "synopsis" section? It should aim to be more than a summary of the events, it should be a summary of the movie.) Mangojuicetalk 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to deal with some of the things you've mentioned. Are there any more problems that need to be addressed? (Ibaranoff24 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- (A couple of additional notes - the opening sequence, as pointed out by a few critics, is an example of how the filmmakers feel about hippies. And yes, "wrecked" is what's said in the film. The original comic by Crumb reads "racked.") (Ibaranoff24 20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I'd love to help more but it's difficult without seeing the movie. You addressed a couple specific poinst: I suppose it's better for that, but it's the style of this section I'm objecting to, I really think it should be redone, almost from scratch. Maybe it should just be a lot shorter: see for instance Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (film)#Plot, another movie in which the actual events aren't so essential. Mangojuicetalk 13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but that's not a featured article. I can't really write about the characters' development without getting into original research. The current revision evolved from a plot summary that was really bad (mistakes, over-describing the film, slang, etc.) - I tried to get it where it would only present a medium-sized summary of the film's story. I don't really think I could come up with something that's much better by going back and writing a new synopsis. I can't really get an idea of what you have in mind if you don't actually watch the film, and give me specific ideas on what to do with the synopsis, or rewriting it yourself. I really don't know what you want here. (Ibaranoff24 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- But its plot section is better written than this one. I did some web searches on the film and what I found never summarized the movie in as much depth as the writing in this article. But on the other hand, they were all much more clear about what they did say. And the choppy text remains a problem however the summary is written: that at least you should be able to fix. Here are a few examples of clearer but shorter synopses out there on the web: [1], [2]. Some summaries I read talk about Fritz trying to find himself or define himself: that's the kind of thing I was looking for when I said this wasn't complete. Mangojuicetalk 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to base the style and layout of the article on that of some cult films that have recently attained featured article status, but it was hard looking for a comparison, since all the previous featured cult film articles thus far have been horror films (Cannibal Holocaust, Night of the Living Dead, Halloween). But all of these have much longer and more detailed (or perhaps equally detailed) plot summaries. (Ibaranoff24 21:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Also, I don't think the film is really about Fritz trying to "define himself" or "find himself"; the character, as the Netflix description states "embraces every new experience that crosses his path" - he's all about living for the sex, drugs, and cheap thrills. (Ibaranoff24 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I tried to base the style and layout of the article on that of some cult films that have recently attained featured article status, but it was hard looking for a comparison, since all the previous featured cult film articles thus far have been horror films (Cannibal Holocaust, Night of the Living Dead, Halloween). But all of these have much longer and more detailed (or perhaps equally detailed) plot summaries. (Ibaranoff24 21:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- But its plot section is better written than this one. I did some web searches on the film and what I found never summarized the movie in as much depth as the writing in this article. But on the other hand, they were all much more clear about what they did say. And the choppy text remains a problem however the summary is written: that at least you should be able to fix. Here are a few examples of clearer but shorter synopses out there on the web: [1], [2]. Some summaries I read talk about Fritz trying to find himself or define himself: that's the kind of thing I was looking for when I said this wasn't complete. Mangojuicetalk 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but that's not a featured article. I can't really write about the characters' development without getting into original research. The current revision evolved from a plot summary that was really bad (mistakes, over-describing the film, slang, etc.) - I tried to get it where it would only present a medium-sized summary of the film's story. I don't really think I could come up with something that's much better by going back and writing a new synopsis. I can't really get an idea of what you have in mind if you don't actually watch the film, and give me specific ideas on what to do with the synopsis, or rewriting it yourself. I really don't know what you want here. (Ibaranoff24 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I'd love to help more but it's difficult without seeing the movie. You addressed a couple specific poinst: I suppose it's better for that, but it's the style of this section I'm objecting to, I really think it should be redone, almost from scratch. Maybe it should just be a lot shorter: see for instance Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (film)#Plot, another movie in which the actual events aren't so essential. Mangojuicetalk 13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It goes into a lot of unnecessary detail. A few examples - skip the construction worker urinating, skip Fritz's lamenting quote (and BTW - is it really "wrecked"? "wretched" would make more sense), skip Fritz's silent comment, et cetera. It seems like a lot of moments are being described because in the movie, they were funny... but the humor is lost in writing it down. Also, the text is choppy: many short declarative sentences one on top of another with identical structure. It's also not comprehensive. The text focuses almost 100% on specific events, without covering any character development or emotional story. I found it really confusing: maybe that's because I haven't seen the movie, but for a featured article, that shouldn't be necessary. The rest of the text (outside the plot section) is better. (BTW, shouldn't this section be a "synopsis" section? It should aim to be more than a summary of the events, it should be a summary of the movie.) Mangojuicetalk 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Well, unless you want to give a go at rewriting it, I don't see how it could possibly get any better than it already is. It's been worked on by several writers, and it's already gone through a copyedit. (Ibaranoff24 18:53, 17 April 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.