Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lara Croft/archive2

Add links
Source: 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 16:56, 25 April 2011 [1].

Lara Croft

Lara Croft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Guyinblack25 talk 22:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying again for FA. The article has only expanded a little since the FAC. The new content is primarily about new titles related to the series. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Image review

Responses:
Hope that addresses your concerns. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
FYI- I added File:Neneh Cherry 2008.jpg, a free image, to the article at the top of the "Development history" section. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
New image appears unproblematic. As to the star, I believe it does qualify as artwork and thus as eligible for copyright protection, so should be hosted locally. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the star image for now. I'd like to get a second opinion on whether or not it belongs on Commons. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to get it moved. So if it can be avoided, I'd like to. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized, etc
  • Newspaper and magazine names should be italicized
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • Formatting for refs 60, 65? In general, reference formatting needs to be more consistent
  • Date for refs 78, 85, 86 and similar?
  • Guardian or The Guardian?
  • Be consistent in how editions and editors are notated, whether you provide locations for publishers, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responses:
  • Can you elaborate on the wikilinks?
  • Unfortunately, the inconsistent formatting of the magazine and newspaper names is because the {{Cite book}} and {{Cite web}} templates format the publisher parameter differently. Some of the references are from a print source and others are from a online source, resulting in a mix of the two.
  • I believe I fixed the author names. Let me know if I missed one.
  • Added the date
  • Fixed to "The Guardian"
  • This is similar to the template problem above. The template adds in the "ed." part. I believe that the templates format the references in accordance with our manual of style. So I'm inclined to keep using them. But I'm not sure how to deal with the issues you brought up. This sounds like a recurring complaint with the Cite web template.
(Guyinblack25 talk 20:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • For example, you wikilink "IGN" in ref 11, but not in ref1 or in subsequent refs. In contrast, GameStop is linked on every occurrence.
  • Why are you using cite book in this case? Cite news or cite journal is probably a better option
  • The template adds the "ed." part, but you add for example "18" vs "2nd". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responses:
  • I see now. How about I only link the first instance?
  • Whoops, you're right. It is {{Cite journal}} and Cite web. Sorry for the confusion
  • Thanks for the clarification. I fixed the edition part to "18th".
(Guyinblack25 talk 21:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Nikki- Do you prefer that I wikilink only the first instance of a publisher in the references or every single one? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Overall the info seems good, but the organization seems rather odd to me. Basically, I take issue with the appearances section, which seems unnecessary and disruptive to flow. The video game appearances are already covered in the development history section, which also provides evolutionary information on the character, while I do not think it makes sense to discuss spin-off appearances before establishing the character and how she came into being in the first place. I'm not ready to call it a flaw just yet, but I am curious as to the logic here. Indrian (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logic was that some basic information about the character and the franchise she stars in is necessary for comprehensiveness as well as context for the rest of the article. That section was originally further down the article, but I found myself duplicating content; introducing it with proper context in "Development history" and then explaining it in "Appearances" along with some of the introductory and context info again. By moving it up, I was able to trim the article.
However, I admit that this is not perfect, and share your view on the spin-offs. But I feel that I gained more by placing it before the development content. One idea I've toyed around with was moving about half of the film adaptation content to a new sub section in "Development history" to discuss actor portrayal. That would trim the "Appearances" section and consolidate history content. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comments. I'll add comments here as I go through the article; it might take me several days to get through it, but I'll try to get it done by the weekend.

  • I notice that you use "Lara Croft" throughout, instead of abbreviating to "Croft", as I would have expected. Is there a style guide at work here? Any reason not to use "Croft"?
  • "Other appearances include video game sequels, printed adaptations, a series of animated short films, feature films (portrayed by Angelina Jolie), and merchandise related to the series": I'd prefer to see something like "the character has also appeared in"; the current formulation is jarring to me because an appearance is not a video game sequel.
  • A link to reboot (fiction) would be helpful for readers not familiat with the concept.
  • "after poor reception to the 2003 sequel": not quite ordinary usage of "reception", to my ear -- should be more like "after the 2003 sequel was received poorly" or something along those lines.
  • "and altered her physical proportions and capabilities to interact with game environments": how about "altered her physical proportions, and gave her additional ways of interacting with game environments" (assuming it was an addition). As it stands it's easy to read this incorrectly, so that "physical" attaches to "capabilities" as well as "proportions".
  • "meteorite fragments that imbue supernatural powers to humans": wrong direct object of imbue, I think; shouldn't this be "that imbue humans with supernatural powers"? "Endow" might be better than "imbue".
  • "an ancient warrior that works with Lara Croft": should this be "who works with"?
  • I found the first few sentences of "In film adaptations" confusing. I think the problem is a combination of two things: the films are not named and dated till several sentences in, and the backstory changes predate those of Legend, which is mentioned before the dates of the films. I think the sequence should be something like: "Lara Croft has been portrayed in two feature films by Academy Award-winning actress Angelina Jolie. The first, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, was released in 2001, and was the first depiction of Lara Croft to change the backstory from the version in the early games. In the films, Lara Croft's mother died in a plane crash and her father disappeared in Cambodia; in the games, both parents are alive. This backstory was adopted in 2006 in Legend." Not very polished, but the sequence is clearer to someone who is unfamiliar with the history.
  • A separate issue: can the mention of Paramount's acquisition of rights be moved to the top, in chronological sequence? I don't insist that everything be in chronological order but I think it's a natural ordering and there ought to be a reason to vary from it. How about "Paramount Pictures acquired the film rights for Tomb Raider in 1998, and ultimately produced two feature films in which Lara Croft was portrayed by ..."? In fact, everything from "Paramount acquired" to the end of the paragraph logically belongs at the start of the paragraph, doesn't it? And then you could cut the first sentence from the next paragraph, making it "Jolie had not been a fan ...", since you would have named her in the middle of the first paragraph, not right at the start. If none of this is making sense, I can post a draft rewrite on the talk page if you like.
  • "West did not anticipate Jolie doing her own stunts, and was surprised along with stunt coordinator Simon Crane at her performance ability": I don't this perfectly reflects the sources you cite. West says he didn't cast her with the expectation that she'd do the stunts, but she became willing to do them and then trained to do them; and Crane admired her for her gusto but there's no indication he was surprised. How about "West had not anticipated that Jolie would do her own stunts, and was impressed, as was stunt coordinator Simon Crane, by the effort she put into them."?
  • Shouldn't "Pandora's Box" have a lower-case "b"?
  • You mention Levin re the second film; you name him as a producer for the first film, but don't tell the reader his involvement with the second film.
  • "Despite the second film's poor reception, Paramount remained open to releasing a third one. By 2007, Jolie was still optioned to play the character in another sequel. The actress, however, had commented in 2004 that she had no intention of reprising the role again" This is a bit fragmented; how about "Despite the second film's poor reception, Paramount remained open to releasing another Lara Croft movie. Jolie was still optioned to play the character in a third film as late as 2007, though she had commented in 2004 that she had no intention of reprising the role again." That also gets rid of a "however"; you have two "however"s within a couple of lines in that paragraph.
  • "Back-story" is sometimes hyphenated and sometimes not.
  • "Eidos's desire to coincide release with the 2003 Tomb Raider film": how about "Eidos's desire to time the game's launch to coincide with the release of"?
  • I think you should explain to the reader that Crystal Dynamics is a subsidiary of Eidos.
  • Is there a suitable wikilink for "character controls" or "character control schemes"?
  • "Crystal Dynamics updated the character model to add more realism, but retained its caricatured design": I don't follow this; can you clarify?
  • Is there a suitable wikilink for "mechanic"? It seems to be a specialized term.
  • Suggested rewrite of last three sentences of the second para of "Developer switch": "The design changes were retained for the next Lara Croft game, Tomb Raider: Anniversary, a remake of the first game. In Tomb Raider: Anniversary the designers aimed to portray Lara Croft with more emotional depth, focusing on the character's desire to achieve the end goal of the game, culminating in killing one of the antagonists. The designers used the death to evoke guilt in Lara Croft afterward and illustrate that shooting a person should be a difficult choice."

More as I have time. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike- I've addressed some of your comments in the article, and will make further edits and respond to your questions hopefully today. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Responses:
  • I used "Lara Croft" because I was unsure if I should refer to a fictional character the same way as a real person. My first drafts of the article stuck with "Lara Croft" and "the character" until a couple editors added some pronouns. If you don't see a problem with "Croft" for most of the article, I'll gladly change it.
    I don't see a problem, and I think it would really help vary sentence rhythm. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applied your suggestion about appearances in the lead
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked reboot in the lead and the first instance in the main article
  • OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applied your suggestion about poor reception in the lead
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applied your suggestion about proportions and capabilities in the lead
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched from "imbue" to "endow"
    I tweaked this a bit more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched from "ancient warrior that" to "ancient warrior who"
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I applied your suggestion about the film backstory. But I switched to "This backstory" to "A similar backstory" because I'm not sure if the developers drew directly from the film and there a still differences between the newer games and films.
  • In regard to your suggestion about reorganizing the film content, I made a suggest to Indrian above that is somewhat related. One idea I've toyed around with was moving about half of the film adaptation content to a new sub section in "Development history" to discuss actor portrayal. If not a subsection, then maybe a separate section depending on the size. That would trim the "Appearances" section to just information about the film plots and consolidate history content. Any thoughts?
    I don't think that much surgery is necessary. I'll have a go at a draft rewrite of this para on the article talk page and we can see how that looks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applied your suggestion about West's comments
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch "Pandora's Box" to Pandora's box"
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "Producer" before Levin's name in the third paragraph
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applied your suggestion about Jolie's third reprisal
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Backstory" is now used throughout the article.
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applied your suggestion about the Angel of Darkness's release with the second film
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a mention that Crystal Dynamics and Core Designs are subsidiaries of Eidos.
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unaware of a suitable link for "character controls". It is a type of game mechanic were players input commands to control an avatar. I haven't seen a Wikipedia article about that specific topic.
    How about a redlink? Seems like something an article could be built around. Or would it just be part of the game mechanics article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lara Croft had a caricatured look when she debuted: big chest, big hips, tiny waist, cartoonish face, etc. When Crystal Dynamics took over, they moved towards a more photo-realistic look. The character still had caricatured elements though, especially the face. How about "Crystal Dynamics updated the character model to add more realism, but retained caricatured elements."
    I think the problem is not necessarily with this sentence; it's that there was no prior reference to the fact that the character initially looked caricatured. If you say earlier on that her design was rather caricaturish (or stylized, or cartoonish, or simple, or whatever the sources will support) you can make a reference to it here and it should work fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone else wikilinked mechanic with game mechanics.
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Anniversary content, how about this?
    "Crystal Dynamics retained the design changes for the next game, Tomb Raider: Anniversary, a remake of the first game. The designers aimed to aimed to portray Lara Croft with more emotional depth, and focused on the character's desire to achieve the end goal of the game, culminating in killing one of the antagonists. The developers used the death to evoke guilt in Lara Croft afterward and illustrate that shooting a person should be a difficult choice."
    Yes, that's better; I went ahead and used your version in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. They really tightened up the article. Let me know if you have any more. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I will try to go through the rest of the article tomorrow or over the weekend, and will redraft the para mentioned above on the talk page. Glad you like the comments; it's a pleasure to work on good articles -- I remember reviewing Marble Madness some time ago and I enjoyed that too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the extra comments.
  • I'll shorten a few "Lara Croft"s to "Croft" for variance.
  • No need to draft a paragraph for the films. I agree with your changes and will implement them. I just thought I'd run an alternative by you first.
    That looks good; I've struck the comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if "character control would be the best term. That's just a descriptive phrase that came to mind while I wrote that section. Also, I don't think there's much sourcing out there for a separate article, so imagine it would be covered in either game mechanics or gameplay.
    OK; I'll strike it. Not a big deal, just an idea. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see about adding in "caricature" somewhere though. Not sure how or where exactly. I use to have an image of her first appearance in the article, but that was removed during the last FAC. :-\
    Hmm. That's a pity; if there's something that can clearly illustrate a sourced comment comparing the two images then I think you have a decent fair use case. The main point is to add in something to allow the later reference, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Guyinblack25 talk 15:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

More comments.

  • "interaction with the press, especially those in Europe, resulted in less clothing depicted in promotional images": this is a very odd statement -- can you clarify? Does it mean that the press reaction to images with more clothing was negative?
  • "Ian Livingstone, Eidos's product acquisition director, commented that the company declines most merchandising proposals. He stated that Eidos primarily focuses on game development and views such promotion outside video games as exposure for the character": the second sentence seems to be a non-sequitur, or even to contradict the first -- wouldn't they want exposure?
  • "Lara Croft's likeness has been a model for merchandise": This is a topic sentence for the paragraph but it doesn't quite work, because not everything mentioned depends on her likeness. How about: "Much other Lara Croft merchandise has been produced."?
  • The next sentence has "first to do so" unnecessarily separated from the noun it modifies; how about "The first action figures were produced by Toy Biz, based on the video game version of the character."
  • Generally it might be good to add dates for these product releases if you have them.
  • "Core Design sought an injunction against the magazine to protect the character's image": per the reference they were granted the injunction, so how about "Core Design were granted an injunction against the magazine to protect the character's image; Playboy was ordered to place stickers on the cover of the issue to conceal the reference to Tomb Raider".
  • You say Alison Carroll is the current model, but then you say that Crystal Dynamics has discontinued use of models, which seems inconsistent.
  • In the Cultural impact section you start with her overall cultural impact, and follow with reception and then a section on Croft as a sex symbol. This is a minor point but the overall impact seems a more natural way to end the article, and it might be good to move that to the end.
  • However, the whole cultural impact section troubles me. Correct me if this impression is wrong, but it looks to me as if you've done the research to find many different comments about Croft and her cultural impact and reception, but you don't have a source that summarizes all of this. Hence when you assemble all the material into a single section it's not easy to find a way to structure it without original synthesis. The result is that you have long sequences of comments which are directly attributed to their authors, and which generally seem relevant, but which feel disconnected and listy. I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm going to post at WT:FAC and see if I can get some feedback on this point.
  • I also think some general copyediting is necessary, but I will try to find time to do that myself.

-- Incidentally, I'm fine with you interspersing your replies in with my comments, if you'd prefer to do that -- might be a little easier to follow threads that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I actually have a rationale for the image choice. Of all the pictures of Carroll as Miss Croft, the one in the article is one of the few without a large poster in the background (I figured the artwork would be incidental, but didn't want to take any chances). It is also a vertical picture, which fit well with the other model photos. After applying the first two criteria, this was the only one with her posing in character; the others look to be pictures of her being interviewed.
Others I considered are:
I'm open to suggestions (particular about the cropping of the 2008 festival photos) and am happy to discussion the decisions made in the article, which I actually put a lot of thought into. I understand the concern of such a picture being a distraction, but the character's sex appeal (and even boobs) is mentioned in the article. So as silly as it comes across as I type this, such a picture seems to fit with the topic. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Hmmm ... I think you're right, the current picture does fit with the sex appeal discussion. Works for me, as the alternatives aren't as good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's wrong with cropping the first 2008 festival photo to remove the photographer; cutting a bit of the gun isn't a big problem IMO. I really like that 2008 pic. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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/Lara_Croft/archive2&oldid=425868994"