Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trading Places/archive1

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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2020 [1].

Trading Places

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1983 comedy film Trading Places starring Eddie Murphy (in only his second film at the beginning of his career explosion), a pre-Ghostbusters Dan Aykroyd and pre-"The Body" Jamie Lee Curtis. It's one of those comedies that has lasted with me and is enjoyable to put on now and again, and it even gave me an appreciation for classical music. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alexandra

I have not seen this movie; hopefully this will prove to be an asset in reviewing the article, as it should be understandable to general audiences and not just fans.

  • Please add brief, descriptive alt text for all images, to aid readers with visual impairments.
  • Paynter and Campbell are only mentioned once (in the infobox), without any sourcing.
  • Harris conceived the outline for Trading Places in the early 1980s after encountering two unpleasant, wealthy brothers - while it doesn't exactly seem like a controversial opinion, I'd avoid describing them as objectively "unpleasant" in Wikipedia's voice, rather than in Harris'
  • Unsure about the way "The Muppets" is handled in the casting section: if it refers to the group of characters, I would expect "the" to be written in lowercase, but if it's about the creative work, I would expect the title to be written in italics.
  • Landis disliked the working title,[2] but favorably compared it to older screwball comedies: minor issue here, "it" seems to incorrectly refer back to the title rather than to the script.
  • the main updates were the swearing and nudity - this phrasing makes it ambiguous to readers unfamiliar with film history whether these elements were increased or de-emphasized compared to the 1930s films.
  • Curtis' used a mix of German attire - this apostrophe seems unintentional.
  • During an intermission, Bellamy said that Trading Places was his 99th film; Ameche said it was his 100th. Murphy informed Landis that "between the three of us we've made 201 films!" - Murphy is being pretty funny here, but I don't know how relevant for an encyclopedia this anecdote actually is.

I'm obviously not able to comment on the plot summary's accuracy, and I have not done a source review, but outside of those aspects and the issues I listed, this looks good. Please @ me when you have addressed my issues or if you have any questions/comments, and I will take another look.--AlexandraIDV 13:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Alexandra IDV. I have done all of your issues bar one. I can understand your point on the anecdote. My view as a film fan is that it is an interesting behind-the-scenes anecdote between two legends of their time nearing the end of their game and Eddie Murphy at the beginning of what WAS a promising career. It's just fun, as you say, and I feel like it's the kind of thing that would be lost to time without us preserving it. I'm happy to look at maybe another way it can be introduced if you want, but I'd very much like to keep it in the article if possible. Especially as there doesn't really seem to be much behind-the-scenes info available for this film. Also if you ever get the chance I would recommend it, it's a classic 80s comedy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I added alt text for one image that you had missed, feel free to tweak it. Regarding the anecdote - I see where you are coming from, and agree that it would be nice to be able to preserve it. I won't oppose on grounds of this, but I do think we could/should be introducing the anecdote in a better way. Maybe one could go at it from an angle of describing the mood between the actors at the shoot and how they bantered during intermissions?--AlexandraIDV 16:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandra IDV, I've made a small tweak here, I'm not 100% on it though. It's difficult to retain the spirit of the source and not also duplicate it. If you get a chance I'd appreciate your input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an improvement, and reading the source I agree with you.--AlexandraIDV 22:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose (and image alt text) - the issues I brought up have all been resolved.--AlexandraIDV 22:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions need editing for grammar
  • File:Trading_Places.jpg: source link is dead, and FUR is missing some of the necessary components
  • File:Ralph_Bellamy_still.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Don_Ameche_1964.JPG
  • File:Edward_VI_of_England_c_1545_(drawn_1899).jpg: date appears incorrect, need "reasonable evidence" of the creator's anonymity, and what's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've replaced the links in the first three images and improved the FUR for the poster. I've replaced the Edward VI image completely. I have taken a look at the grammar of the captions and run it through Grammarly but nothing significant stands out. Can you elaborate? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now.....loved the film when it came out and also showed my kids years later...

  • Overall reads well down to release (I am not the most thorough of prose-readers so others might pick up more issues), then some filmspeak creeps in...
  • Paramount Studios opted to position Trading Places' release at the start of summer - erk, why not simpler "Paramount Studios opted to release Trading Places at the start of summer"
  • While sequels were expected to do well having the advantage of a built-in audience, Trading Places was predicted to be successful based on its [star] cast - would drop the "star" here - let facts speak for themselves...
  • Ebert said that what could have been stereotypical characters were elevated by the actors and the writing. He continued that Murphy and Aykroyd made a "perfect" team - multiple short sentences here a bit choppy to read. I'd change this to "Ebert said that what could have been stereotypical characters were elevated by the actors and the writing, adding that Murphy and Aykroyd made a "perfect" team"
  • Canby said that Murphy demonstrated that he was the most successful comedian in the last decade - there should be a "why" in here?
  • Avoid a single sentence para, like at the start of the Contemporary reception section.

Otherwise looking on track....

Done Casliber, thanks for taking the time to review it, it's been nearly a month since the last input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Coemgenus

  • Excellent article about one of my own favorite movies.
  • "Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla." is an good bit of understatement, very nice.
  • These sentences are kind of muddled: "The Curtis Institute of Music is the exterior of the Heritage Club, seen adjacent to Rittenhouse Park in the film's opening. The park at Rittenhouse Square is the location where Murphy's character, pretending to be crippled, is introduced." I would say something more like "Murphy's character, pretending to be crippled, is introduced in Rittenhouse Square. The nearby Curtis Institute of Music, shown as the exterior of the Heritage Club, is seen in the film's opening."
  • That aside, I'm happy to support. Good luck. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your positive feedback Coemgenus. I have implemented the sentence change you suggested. And yes, I felt that phrasing for Beaks was a bit more tasteful. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spotchecks not done
  • Sorry for the delay, I'm not sure how I forgot about this one, just some minor comments below:
  • If the original article title is in all caps, it should be transferred to title-case, not all caps, this applies to refs 18, 20, 21, 92
  • ref 82 needs something like publisher, website or work
  • Generally retrieval dates aren't needed for books, if you want to keep them you should add one for Budd
  • be consistent about linking publishers or not
  • The page numbers for Anderson in the works cited don't make sense – it's not in the range of those actually cited in the article.
  • page number for Budd in the works cited should be "p."
  • Carolyn Anderson should be introduced in the text when their name is mentioned (e.g. "Author Carolyn Anderson noted that films often feature..."
  • I don't see any reliability issues. Aza24 (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aza24, thanks for taking the time to review this. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um unless I'm missing something, I don't see any changes in the references? Aza24 (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Aza24 I reverted the wrong version you can see changes here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah no worries, looks good now. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Homeostasis07

Will hopefully be able to get around to this within 72 hours. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. I've read the first 5 sections of the article, and could find nothing much to complain about aside from my minor suggested copy-edits below. It's been a very well-written article so far, and I genuinely don't expect to find much to complain about in subsequent sections. I was hoping to review all the article this evening, but am afraid I have to stop here. Will continue this tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Landis also cast Curtis, against the intent of the studio, Paramount Pictures. Curtis was famous mainly for her roles in horror films, which were looked down upon at the time. → "Landis also cast Curtis, against the intent of the studio, Paramount Pictures; she was famous mainly for her roles in horror films, which were looked down upon at the time." The two sentences relate to one another, so I think a semicolon would make the text flow a bit easier here.

Plot

  • Valentine and Winthorpe
    Margin call
    . Anyways... I thought this sentence was confusing at first, so I'd suggest changing to the above.

Writing and development

  • who were regularly engaged in a competitive rivalry and betting. → who regularly engaged in competitive rivalry and betting.
Done. Yes, the ending is discussed a few times in the rest of the article for being confusing. There is a section later on that attempts to more clearly explain what happened. Thanks for taking the time to review! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filming

  • The New York Times reported that while for years the Corrections Department had failed to deliver prisoners on time for trials and arraignments... → Remove "while"
  • The lack of windows gives the appearance the floor is situated below ground, → Strange change of tense, change to "gave the appearance the floor was"

Critical reception

  • but the film lacked the same morality tale that often espoused that money is not important. → but the film lacked the same morality tale the genre often espoused that money is not important.
  • People said that the ending was perfectly presented, but Arnold considered it to be confusing and reliant on the audience's knowledge that the "heroes" were being heroic to compensate for a lack of clarity in their actions. → You forgot to include the People reference here. You just have the Arnold one at the end of this sentence.

Performance analysis and aftermath

  • Bart believed its success had triggered a negative trend that had resulted in him receiving numerous film pitches... → some unnecessary verbiage here; you can remove both instances of "had"

Thematic analysis

  • Gillian White and Bourree Lam argue that because the film identifies money as the most valuable entity, this in turn means that Ophelia is only valuable as a prostitute because she is financially intelligent.
^ This sentence is sourced to a piece written by Stephen Schiff, and I couldn't find anything along those lines in the White/Lam's Atlantic source, so change Gillian White and Bourree Lam to Stephen Schiff (since he's not linked elsewhere). And reading what the source says, I'd remove "as a prostitute" here. The source makes that point in relation to the film glorifying the role money plays in our society, and that the character, as a whole, "is worthy of our affections only if she's a financial sophisticate salting away her earnings in tax-free bonds", as opposed to referring to the character's profession.

Found nothing to complain about in the Cast, Casting, Home media, Acolades, Legacy and Contemporary reception sections. As mentioned earlier, I found some of the language used in 'Plot' a bit confusing at first, but after reading the latter 'Ending explained' section, I found 'Plot' a much easier read second time around. I wouldn't suggest anymore changes there. Otherwise, I thought this was a brilliant article prose-wise, and will be happy to support once the above has been sorted out. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Homeostasis07, thanks for your continued review. Thanks for noticing the Thematic analysis issue. I have used the wrong reference there. I have replaced it with the correct one so the information should be valid now. The line about the prison filming. I might be wrong but removing while doesn't seem to work? "The New York Times reported that for years the Corrections Department had failed to deliver prisoners on time for trials and arraignments, they moved nearly 300 prisoners through the 12th-floor in one day". Seems like removing the "while" necessitates a "but"? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about rephrasing to this: The New York Times reported that for several years the Corrections Department had failed to deliver prisoners on time for trials and arraignments. Despite this, they processed nearly 300 prisoners through the 12th-floor in a single day in order to facilitate filming. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made the change Homeostasis07. I think I was a bit confused because I read the source as them moving the prisoners through so they could see the cast, but it seems more like it was explicitly for filming. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the changes you've made to the article, so am happy to support now. Good luck with the rest of the nomination. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:04, 2 November 2020 (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/Trading_Places/archive1&oldid=987272363"