Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alien vs. Predator (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 18:31, 7 February 2008.

Alien vs. Predator (film)

Check external links

The first of many Alien related articles to come here.. This article has been completely re-written from this, has had a peer review, an extensive GA review, and has been copyedited by several users, full copy-edit and redundancy removal. I have done my best to ensure FA quality and am open to constructive criticism. Thanks. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No description of either AVP movie would be complete without discussing the terrible, terrible lighting of both films. This was mentioned in a number of reviews. Raul654 (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lighting is mentioned as one of the the main criticisms the first review paragraph, I will however add a sentence or two for the negative paragraph mentioning the lighting. M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article looks very nice and is very informative. I never knew much about movie production but this article is sooo much more informative than originally. M3tal H3ad is very prolific with his work, knows what he is doing, and fine sanded this article —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems good enough to pass (specially considering how the article was before). igordebraga ≠ 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support very strong article, and I look forward to M3tal H3ad's work on other Alien articles. Alientraveller (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent article, although I do have one concern: Isn't this movie a cross-over of the Predator and Alien franchises; if so, shouldn't this be explicitly mentioned in the lead? indopug (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please check on the Fair Use issues here; it's not an area I'm familiar with, and there are several Fair Use images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fair use rationale for the movie poster in the infobox seems valid (Image:Avpmovie.jpg), as it represents and identifies the subject of the article, although some editors argue that "identification" is not a strong fair use rationale. The rationale for the two copyrighted images in the article text seems valid since they are the subject of critical commentary (both Image:Alien vs. Predator (film) Predator gods.jpg and Image:AVPmoviefilming.PNG). However, the fair use rationales for all three have a blank or incorrectly completed "Portion used" field. Further, the use of images containing watermarks, as is the case for Image:AVPmoviefilming.PNG, is not ideal at all. --Laser brain (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The image usage seems appropriate and relevant to the text with appropriate captions. The only problems are the "portion used" sections which need to be completed (should be easy enough) and an effort should be made to find a replacement shot for Image:AVPmoviefilming.PNG that is not watermarked. On a somewhat side note, Image:Alien vs. Predator (film) Predator gods.jpg is used in a second article and needs a separate non-free rationale for that article. Pagra shtak 18:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the portion "Movie screen shot" and "production screen shot", although I'm not sure if it's correct - the FU page doesn't describe it well. Regarding the watermark, i looked but couldn't find one without it, unless a picture can be taken using the DVD but i can't with Media Player and it will be really shoddy quality. The template states "This may indicate the copyright status of the image, which may make it inappropriate for Wikipedia use." - we know the copyright holder is Fox for all the images, and the appropriate license is added. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal, can you work with Laser or Pagrashtak to see if it's good now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a query for Pagrashtak regarding the "potion" field of the template for clarification. I'll be sure to get back to you. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the instructions leave a bit to be desired, but the "portion" field is used to describe what portion you used of the entire copyrighted work. So, for the case of a screen shot, the portion would be "One frame from the film" or similar. If the production photo came from a larger collection of photos, say so, and so on. Hope that makes sense. --Laser brain (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for clarifying. I added the appropriate information to the portion although i am still a bit doubtful if it is satisfactory. Regarding the image being used on a page without a separate FUR, i removed it as the page already has 6-7 copyrighted photos, and it did not have critical commentary. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information is correct. Thanks for your attention to the matter!--Laser brain (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent article, properly sourced, well written, very thorough - great work! Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.