Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halloween II (film)

Halloween II (film)

Self-Nomination: This article is about the sequel to the film Halloween which was promoted to featured status earlier this month; I am the primary author of both articles. I am nominating this page because I believe it meets the criteria of a Featured Article. It is comprehensive, well-referenced, and supporting images are properly tagged with fair use rationales. Although everything brought up in the peer review was addressed, I'm sure there are still some minor things that could be changed. Dmoon1 21:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very well-written article. --Myles Long 22:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dmoon1 08:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and comments on the peer review. Dmoon1 08:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... "casted"? Is that correct? Jkelly 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to MS Word spellcheck it's not, so I changed it to cast. Anything else? Dmoon1 23:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. article needs another thorough copyedit from an outside source:

~~e.g "is the last film in the Halloween series written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill" suggests "the halloween series is written by jc and dh, and this is the last one" which is not what u mean.~~

How's this: "While other films in the Halloween series follow, this is the last one written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill." ? Dmoon1 01:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~"large supporters of the film " - what does it mean, "large"?~~

Changed "large supporters" to "invested heavily". Dmoon1 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~another poor sentence: "They considered setting the sequel a few years after Halloween and in a high-rise apartment building in which Laurie Strode lived".~~

Clarified this sentence, I think. Dmoon1 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now reads like this: "Hill mentions in a 1981 interview with Fangoria magazine that the finished film differs somewhat from initial drafts of the screenplay. She explains how she and Carpenter had originally considered setting the sequel a few years after the events of Halloween. Also, they planned to have Myers track Laurie Strode to a high-rise apartment building in which she is a resident." Dmoon1 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~get rid of "Also, " and it will be fine.~~

Done. Dmoon1 02:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"~~tampered Halloween candy" - cant use "tampered" like that - should be "tampered with" or something.~~

Changed "tampered" to "tainted". Dmoon1 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~the words "Halloween II" appear too often! dont have to say "in halloween II" everywhere, the article is about H2 so we already know the context!~~

Reduced the number of times "Halloween II" appears in the article. Dmoon1 01:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took out a few more Halloween IIs; the majority are now located within quotes. Dmoon1 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~avoid 1 and 2 sentence pgraphs (merge them where possible).~~

Merged the a couple of the smaller paragraphs, mainly VHS/DVD and novelization paragraphs. Dmoon1 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is a 1-sentence pgraph in the "music" section BUT merging it would create a 1-pgraph section, so no good. is there any possible way of expanding the music section into 2 pgraphs by adding some more info somehow?

Found a couple of comments by critics about the song's role in the film; now has its own paragraph. Dmoon1 02:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did nick castle not return? "casting" section is basically a prose list, would be good to break it up with some comments from the actors about how they went about playing their roles, learning their lines etc, or from the casters about why they chose who they did.

Reorganized "Casting" sub-section; added more meat to this section; quotes from Warlock, Shoop, Rosenthal, and Castle (about Lance Guest).

please expand the stuff about rosenthal-carpenter friction. carpenter made a remark about H2 being "as scary as an episode of quincy", direct quotes like that one from both parties about their disagreement will be very interesting.

~~I tried to find some quotes earlier and couldn't, but I'll look some more. Dmoon1 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Found Carpenter interview with Twilight Zone Magazine where he makes that statement and incorporated it into article. ~~Still looking for a good Rosenthal interview.~~ Dmoon1 06:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted comment made by Rosenthal about Carpenter "ruining" the film. Dmoon1 13:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~the advertising part doesnt really fit in "reception" section. maybe better before the boxoffice results.~~

Moved advertising information as suggested above. Dmoon1 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~i will put the timeout review (a positive one) on the talk page later on, please incorporate some of its comments in the article.~~

Done. Dmoon1 13:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"~~Halloween II Murders" is an excellent section btw - but change the heading to "Halloween II murders".~~

Deleted "The" and italicized "Halloween II", lower-cased "murders". Dmoon1 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think his point with that one was the capitalization of Murders- capitalization is discouraged in headers, and I nearly changed it when I was looking at it- but judging from the rest of the text "Halloween II Murders" is used as some kind of label or title, in which case Wikipedia has no choice but to capitalize it. Personally I'd leave in "The". CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to change murder to lowercase, since other titles of incidents throughout Wikipedia or lowercased, e.g., September 11, 2001 attacks. I removed "The" because the Manual of Style says that headers should not begin with "The" (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Headings).Dmoon1 13:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~and change "Comic Book continuity" to "Comic book continuity".~~ Zzzzz 00:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed template. Dmoon1 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I broke up Zzzzz's comments for easier editing (hope you don't mind). I'll address as many as possible very soon (I'm in the middle of writing a final exam now). Dmoon1 00:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've tried to address almost all of these objections. Anything else? Dmoon1 20:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful and thorough critique. Dmoon1 08:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a sob and a frown: Everything Care Bears Movie II could have had! I'll look at the Halloween page for further inspiration and, starting tomorrow, I'll begin trying to get a green plus on CBMII. --Slgrandson 04:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot! Dmoon1 08:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query—The logic of this is unclear: 'grossing only $25.5 million at the box office in the United States despite its $2.5 million budget.'
- Response: The complete sentence says: "Still, Halloween II was not as successful as the original, grossing only $25.5 million at the box office in the United States despite its $2.5 million budget." It is to show that even though the film had a much larger budget than the original, it did not do as well in the box office. The original Halloween was filmed on a budget of $325,000 and grossed $47 million at the American box office. Perhaps this should be clarified in the introduction? It's mentioned further down in the article. Dmoon1 09:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is that screenshot in the plot watermarked or something (that black square in the bottom left)?Cvene64 13:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The screenshot is promotional material, so I changed the license and summary. Thanks for pointing that out. Dmoon1 14:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super Saiyan Support good movie + good article - Malomeat 03:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Dmoon1 04:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well done, good job. ALKIVAR™ 00:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Dmoon1 08:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a good film article. Nice work. Cvene64 04:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. Dmoon1 08:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object -- This article is far too long, given the depth of the subject matter. It could be edited to be much more concise, and should be no more than half its current length. -- Gnetwerker 07:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't very helpful, do have any particular examples of where the article could me more concise? Dmoon1 08:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is currently 37K, shorter than many FAs that come in at over 40 (Xenu, Rush (band)); to say it should be 18.5K is an arbitrary measurement. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent film article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. Dmoon1 19:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]