Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins/archive2

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 Karanacs 20:40, 25 August 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins/archive2

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it fully meets the featured article criteria. It failed its last FAC solely because of prose issues. The article has now been copyedited to correct the indicating issues and others found by the copy editor. Therefore, it should now meet that criteria. As noted in the last FAC, the article is currently a GA, and it is fully comprehensive, containing all relevant and available information found in reliable sources, and all content within the article is cited. The article properly follows the suggested structure from the Film MoS with only minor modifications, as is allowed, to account for the semi-documentary nature of the work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Image needs alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments language, writing: Very good. A few problems with wordiness. For example, while Yossarian steps aside and leaves the group. Yossarian leaves the group...? Some one holds the camera and holds the camera steady....that sort of thing. It's highly readable, with paced sentence structure. A few sentences might be a bit long (24-30 words) for the younger teens who might look for this, but they should be able to read them. There are also some verb disagreements: . Some of its scenes were shot at a wildlife park in the United Kingdom, while others are reenactments of events, created using camera tricks and trained film animals. Some events were shot...while others are (should be were)....etc.

*Content There are several things I like about this article. First, it covers the warts and all, the critique was fairly consistent after the film came out, especially regarding the young meercat that died of snakebite. This article covers the problems of filming wild animals, the simplistic script. It seems well sourced, not overly cited nor under cited, and not overly wikified, which I find distracting. Coverage is more than adequate,too, for the subject. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Yossarian "steps aside" is included to clarify that he did not fight/challenge Zaphod's taking over leadership, where one might normally expect him to have to be driven off he was the standing dominant male. It could be changed to Yossarian leaves the group without a fight, but I think the current one is a little better sounding. "Were/are" is accurate tense in this situation. The scenes "were shot" - an action that happened in the past. They "are reenactments" in a descriptive sense - they exist so they "are" reenactments. Beyond these two items, do you feel the article meets the featured article criteria? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Yossarian "steps aside" ...how about Zaphod joins the group to be her mate, as dominant male, unchallenged by Yossarian, who returns to life of the roving male. Yes, actually, I do think it meets, generally, the writing and especially the content criteria. I would make the verbs agree, although the "are" reenactments, they "were" reenactments for the purposes of the film, and they "are" only in the existential sense. If you follow my meaning there...clear as mud I expect, but...so I should say support  :) I'm a fan of the kids at the Manor, in case you hadn't guessed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• SUPPORT I like the way the editor dealt with the various critiques the movie raised, I've spot checked the sources, reviewed grammar and style, and it looks like a nicely written, interesting article. It meets, in my mind, the requirements for the Featured Article status, so I support it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. EDIT: Struck. Steve ^T • C Don't worry about that !vote too much; I don't think there's anything here that can't be cleared up. I suppose the first thing to comment on is the size; are you sure you've included everything you can? Take a look at these results to see if there's anything else to add; the first hit, for example, seems to include a little bit more about the impact Flower's death had on the production. The other main point I have concerns the lead paragraph; it doesn't make clear what The Story Begins is exactly. I guess what I'm looking for is some shorthand way of saying it's a dramatized (scripted) prequel to the events that occurred before the real life documentary series (that's what it is, right?) This only becomes clear in the second paragraph. On the writing, I recommend another quick pass to see what you can make more concise. Too many words to say something simple means the reader gets bogged down in a sentence that's already imparted its full meaning before getting to the end of it (you get the idea). Examples follow, along with other miscellaneous issues:

  Lead

  • "Shot over the span of two years"
  • "It documents the life of Flower, the former leader of a meerkat group known as the Whiskers, from her birth to her becoming the group's leader"—here, the information about Flower's leadership is presented twice. A little rejigging would make that unnecessary, e.g. "... to her becoming the leader of a meerkat group known as the Whiskers" while eliminating the first instance of the phrase.
  • "the film uses a full-sized featured film crew and features footage of untrained, unknown meerkat "actors" used to represent the meerkats in the story."—is there such thing as a "full size" feature film crew? There isn't enough context here; the crew of a major production would be much larger than that of an indie film. And should that be "featured film"? Not sure that "unknown" provides enough context to use it in the lead; unknown to whom?
  • "The film's narration received mix reviews"
  • "some reviewers criticized it for not offering anything new to viewers of the television series"—one reviewer.
  • "and noted that the film was not completely accurate"—attributed to "critics", when it was the view of one, the Friends of the Kalahari Meerkat Project.
  • "but the actual script was considered too simple for adult viewers"—considered by whom? Switching to the active voice would resolve this, but it still leaves the odd statement "too simple for adult viewers"—as if they wouldn't understand it.

  Production

  • "Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins is a prequel biography to the documentary Meerkat Manor series"—the last four words don't work in that order. Consider "documentary series".
  • "Caroline Hawkins wrote the script, basing it on the notes taken by Tim Clutton-Brock."—no indication who Tim Clutton-Brook is and why he's important.
  • "In a 'Making of' feature, Hawkins notes that"—probably unnecessary to say that it's in the "Making of".
  • "The film was directed by Chris Barker and Mike Slee, and Whoopi Goldberg, a known Meerkat Manor fan, provided the narration."—I think that would read more smoothly if you replaced "[comma] and" with a semi-colon, or split the statements entirely if you don't think there's enough of a link.
  • "For the film, a typically sized feature film crew was utilized,"—see the comments above about what constitutes "full size". Any reason why the less ornamental "used" wouldn't work just as well at the end there?
  • "with the crew working independently from the crew of the television series."—using "with" as a connector between two statements is a little clumsy, especially with the gerund. Consider a semi-colon (e.g. "... film crew was used; the crew worked independently from ...")
  • Hmm. Thinking about that last statement, could it read as if the television crew worked a little on the film too? (I assume they didn't.)
  • "Breaking from the series pure documentary format"—possessive apostrophe on "series".
  • "the film does not include any footage of the meerkats being depicted in the film"—the gerund means that should be "meerkats' being" (you wouldn't say "me being", but "my being"), but if you think that sounds odd, recast the sentence to avoid either. Not sure if "in the film" is necessary given the first words of the statement.
  • "Flower herself is depicted by"
  • "In order to create the scenes needed for the film, the camera crew sought out meerkats of the approximate age needed, then continuously filmed them until the meerkats they displayed the appropriate behaviors needed for the scene."—removing half the words seems not to compromise readers' understanding of the idea.
  • "the cinematographers had to be more careful in their movements to avoid scaring the animals."—more careful than what? It could also be rendered more concisely as: "the cinematographers had to move carefully to avoid scaring the animals."
  • "Though the park normally has flight restrictions, prohibiting low flying aircraft, the production crew was able to get permission to use a helicopter for low-filming flights for three days."—if low flying craft are the only types of flights the park restricts, this could be made more concise: "Though the park prohibits low-flying aircraft, the production crew got permission to film for three days from a low-flying helicopter." Even that could be made more concise, perhaps by doubling up on the use of "low-flying", eliminating one.
  • "They mounted a new kind of camera to the front underside of the helicopter that was capable of filming without being affected by the shaking of the helicopter."—makes it sound as if they used a helicopter, not a camera, that was capable of filming without being affected by the shaking of the helicopter.
  • "With the backlash Animal Planet received for allowing the meerkats to die from snakebites"—introduced without preamble. Is this something Animal Planet was criticised for in the TV series?
  • "They questioned whether viewers would understand that the meerkats were wild animals and so they could not interfere."—I know that non-interference is the established stance for wildlife documentarians, but do you think it's known to everyone who might read this? For some it might beg the question, "why couldn't they interfere?"
  • "Robin Smith, the film and series' main cinematographer, rode hanging partially hung partway out of the truck to hold on to the camera and hold it steady, giving the visual impression of a truck bearing down on a meerkat, without a meerkat actually being harmed."—the use of "giving the impression of", and the fact that you've already said that all the other meerkat deaths were re-enactments, makes the last statement implicit. Also, "truck bearing down" should use the possessive (see "meerkat's being" example, above) or be recast if the result sounds odd.
  • "due to Flower's death before the film was finished"—ambiguous, could mean within the plot of the film. Better to make it clear by saying "before filming completed" or similar.
  • "the ending of the film needed to be "bigger" than originally planned"—is there any indication what he means by "bigger"? Or does it simply refer to the addition of a coda?

  Distribution

  • "was first premiered"
  • Was "Wildscreen Festival Bristol" its official name that year, or should that be "in Bristol"?

  Reception

  • "Variety magazine's Ronnie Scheib"—probably OK to dispense with "magazine".
  • "felt the script itself was written more for kids"—redundant word; plus, do you think that "kids" is too informal a term?
  • "Both critics praised the film's cinematography and for maintaining the in-depth coverage of the meerkats that the television series is known for."—the syntax is off, around "and for maintaining", which doesn't attach to any of the preceding statements.
  • "felt the film was accessible to both newcomers to the series and current fans"
  • "Tribeca Film Festival reviewer Genna Terranova felt [lots of nice things]"—is there a neutrality question here, given this is a "review" by someone who works for the organisation that showed the film? Does the organisation's website contain any negative reviews of the films it screens?
• And that's all the weather. All the best, Steve ^T • C 22:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review! I think I've addressed everything except going through those Google UK sources (darn you Google News for not combining those in one search!) and the Tribeca Review. In quick scanning, I'm not seeing anything negative from them on any of their spotlight films (though I'd guess they wouldn't be spotlights if they disliked them ;-) ). I can see the neutrality issue, though, so it can be removed without much impact. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the Tribeca review and added some content from the new sources from that Google News link. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner, especially given your speedy response. Most of these issues seem to have been taken care of, so I've struck the oppose; I'll have another in-depth look tomorrow, but I've a feeling that all it will need is a minor prose massage (including to remedy a couple of tense inconsistencies I spotted). Nice work, Steve ^T • C 22:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I still think there's a bit of a problem over saying in the lead that "critics" praised the film for its cinematography, etc. Two critics praised the cinematography, and I'm not sure that's enough to go with the sweeping nature of that term. Similarly, that the narration "received mixed reviews" is cited to the same two critics. It's technically accurate, but do you think that what it implies is greater than what the "Reception" section actually says? Consider "mostly applauded, but some critics" to have the same concern. There's no pressure to alter it right away; a good solution might need a little contemplation first. If you do think of something, great; if not, I'll sleep on it and see if an idea presents itself tomorrow. Steve ^T • C 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think all of the reviewers praised the cinematography, I just didn't quote them all. I'll go back through all the reviews and double check. I really can't think of any other way to summarize its reception section, as required by lead, without repeating it though. Re your edit summary question - group is used in both the series and by the researchers, not "clan" so I have changed that back. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the "clan" vs. "group" thing—though someone should really take the makers to task on use of the appropriate term. :-) If most of the reviewers praised the cinematography, etc. that's fair enough, though that should probably be made clear in the article body. One last, very minor inconsistency in the lead for now then: the opening statement says the film was "created by" Animal Planet and Oxford Scientific Films, whereas the body merely says Oxford Scientific Films. Steve ^T • C 22:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, technically it was Discovery Films rather than Animal Planet itself, so fixed that. Did some more tweaking on the issue of the lead and the reception...how does that work? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope you don't mind, but to save time, I made some further tweaks myself instead of listing them here. See the intermediate edit summaries for the rationales behind each, and feel free to disagree with any I've made! There are only a few minor points I couldn't resolve during copy-editing:
  • "[She] chooses the Lazuli-roving male Yossarian as her mate."—what does "Lazuli-roving" mean?
  • "Viale kills the resulting pups and temporarily banishes Flower from the group."—the timeline is slightly unclear. The section immediately goes on to explain that Viale is killed on a road before Flower kills a snake and becomes leader. Did Flower returned before Viale's death, or only afterwards when she became leader?
  • "the cinematographers had to move carefully to avoid scaring the animals."—while technically correct, as a cinematographer can be used as a synonym for "camera operator", isn't the term more generally used to refer to the director of photography? It might be better to remove the ambiguity by using the more targeted "camera operators" or similar.
  • "With the backlash Animal Planet received"—does the Making of... documentary say whether this was a fan, critical or animal rights group backlash?
  • "During filming of the third series of Meerkat Manor in 2007, the real Flower was killed by a snake bite before filming was completed."—filming of the series or the film? If it's the series, then the statement is unnecessary, as the sentence already says "during filming". Actually, that brings up a good point: the article doesn't say when the film was shot; 2007 is implied, but not explicitly stated.
• I might take another look at the lead a bit later, but the above pretty much covers everything else I've spotted. All the best, Steve ^T • C 09:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoroughness! Its always amazing to me how what seems like a small wording change makes a big difference in how a sentence reads.  :) I did make two minor changes to those. The pup birth scenes were noted to be in color because in the series they have all been a kind of blue-gray scale (see its main article for a picture) due to their only being seen through underground cameras. In the film and by going to captive meerkats, they were able to shoot with normal cameras above ground in a birthing box or the like. I also changed the group name back to Friends of the Kalahari Meerkat Project. It is a separate legal entity (and they have gotten picky about it before), that is a sponsoring group of the researchers but should not be said to be the researchers. I tweaked the wording to make that clearer. For the questions above:

• "Lazuli-roving" = roving male from the Lazuli group. I've reworded it.
• Flower is allowed to return before Viale is killed, as I recall.
• Normally, yes, but AP has been using cinematographer to refer to all of its film crew, at least with the series. With the film having the larger crew, they may have used more general camera operators as well...rechecking one of the interviews, they do use cameraman as well, so that term should be fine to (or camera operator to be more politically correct :-) )
• It was all viewer/fan backlash. Critics seemed to scoff at the fans for being upset, and animal rights group have filed no complaints. :)
• Both She died in January 2007. The FKMP article notes the two year time, from 2006-2008, on the film.

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, the last concern I have is with the "Reception" section; having read a couple of the reviews, our representation of the coverage seems a little light. Scheib of Variety, for example, goes into a lot more detail than the section's two-line summary leads one to believe, and pays special regard to the way in which the film simplified the Project's research notes. Do you think there's scope for a minor expansion of the section? Steve ^T • C 11:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, it could be. I think I did such a short section there out of concern I'd give his review undue weight. Will work on that this evening if not sooner. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments - I am beginning a look-over now. I will change any minor straightforward fixes and note others below. Please revert any sentence I inadvertently change the meaning of. one hyphen thingy to fix but that is a no-brainer. Over the line.Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though the park normally prohibits low flying aircraft, the production crew was given permission to film for three days using a low-flying helicopter. - got low flying with and without connecting hyphens. I think our MOS suggests without...

While the majority of the meerkats filmed - normally I'd covert to the more succinct "While most of the meerkats filmed.." - but musing on whether that changes the meaning. ok, happy with explanation.

I am a little surprised that there was only little criticism of the contrived nature of the documentary mentioned - I would have thought this was more noteworthy...or does it acutally occur alot in these sort of documentaries? If so, this is an important piece of information worth including for context. Meh, if you've looked and it ain't there, then it ain't there I guess.

Overall, very nearly there. I am intrigued by any answers to the last point above and think this should pass this time round. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually surprised by it as well, though it may have received less due to the general series already being well known for being a soap opera-style documentary, so perhaps it was just considered part for the course for the franchise as a whole? For majority versus most, I'm inclined to stay with majority because the only fully tamed ones mentioned as being used were for the birthing scenes in the zoo, while there are probably few non-habituated ones left in the research area except newcomers and passers through. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Maybe a little shorter than the usual film article, nevertheless it seems comprehensive, with all the reliable sources mined. I've taken a look through the last FAC and the prose issues that were raised over there seem to have been fixed, in addition to the concerns I listed above. The only non-free image has an appropriate license and its rationale matches that of other poster or DVD covers in featured articles. If a free image of one of the filming locations could be sourced, that might useful—though not essential. Nice work, Steve ^T • C 08:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, there are no free ones because the research project is very strict about access to area outside of their own researchers, and it seems like even the students do not post pictures anywhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sourcing issues - Source "2" is this. Source "3" is this. Source "5" is this. Source "16" is this.

1. Source "2" does not verify this sentence except for the statement "two years" - "Meerkat Manor normally films episodes using a crew of only two or three people to avoid disturbing the meerkats; the film was shot over two years and employed a much larger crew".

2. Source "2" does not verify this statement - "The producers ultimately included the scene, but the meerkat's cries for help as it lay dying were edited out"

3. Source "2" does not verify this statement - "ensuring the meerkats were not deliberately put in danger"

4. Source "3" does not verify this statement - "Breaking from the series' pure documentary format, the film does not include footage of the project meerkats depicted in the story. Instead, wild meerkat "actors" represented Flower and her family; Flower was depicted by approximately eight female meerkats. The camera crew sought out appropriately aged meerkats for each scene, then filmed them until they behaved in ways the script required."

5. Source "5" does not verify this statement - "Whoopi Goldberg, a known Meerkat Manor fan"

6. Source "8", the SunTimes article, does not work.

7. Wiki - "While he found Goldberg's narration to be higher quality than in most documentaries of this type, he thought it grew monotonous as the film moved on."

7. Source differs factually - "Goldberg's narration, though a cut above the usual cutesy animal pic voiceover, pales after a while."

8. Source "16" does not verify this statement - "as of 2009, Animal Planet International has not announced an air date for the American-made Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins. "

9. The source ("16") is in French yet it was translated without marking it as a translation: "French critic Vincent Julé gave the film a rating of two out of five, stating that it was "boring and tedious" for fans of the series, and that he found its "fictionalization" of Flower's story to be regrettable"

9. A more appropriate translation of sans intérêt et ennuyeuse is "lacking interest and boring" or annoying. The source also mentions "Paul Newman's voice". Newman is not mentioned on the article at all, which means that the source is either wrong or it is talking about something else than the specific movie in question.

- Sources were spot checked and the above is an incomplete analysis. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 1 is clearly sourced from three sources. Other sources source that part of the statement. 2 & 3 fixed. 4 is also clearly sourced from three sources which together source entire statement. Will check 5, must be from another source and got moved around during CE. Don't understand 7? Will check rest later. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR:Synthesis says not to take information from two sources and merge it together. If a source only provides half of a statement, mark it appropriately or do not use it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no OR nor synthesis going on. OR does not say source a sentence from multiple sources. The sources are marked appropriately. Many of your other problems seem to be similar issues, which are not issues. The content is validly an dproperly sourced, nor is there any requirement at all to mark a foreign source as translated. Obviously it was translated to give an English sumamry. #8 isn't sourced to source 16, its just a statement and can be removed (proving a negative). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR Synthesis says that you cannot take two statements to say what a source does not say. In that sentence, the one source is cited but only covers half of the information. Therefore, it cannot be used as a citation for the whole sentence. If you have one source that says it all, then citing other sources is inappropriate. So either split the sentence up and cite each part separately or use only the source that covers all of the information. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT BEING USED AS A SOURCE FOR THE WHOLE SENTENCE! Putting all sources at the end of the sentence is common, allowed, and does NOT make it OR. Its the recommended way of dealing with multiple cites being used in a sentence and it is perfectly valid method, unless you plan on deleting every last FA out there which all do the same thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot put a source at the end of a sentence unless it covers a whole sentence. It is that simple. A source denotes that it covers -all- information that precedes it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can and no it does not. Stacked sources at the end of a sentence show that the whole sentence is sourced from those sources. This is basic readability and one of first things an artile is ping from in prepping for FA/FL: having refs in the middle of a sentence.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tightrope between plagiarism and straying from a source's meaning can be tricky, as number 7 above highlights, would someone consider the meaning unchanged from "pales" to "monotonous" in the context provided. I'd say it was pretty borderline and am inclined to let it pass. I am trying to think of an alternative without success. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of examples where we've had two references at the end of a sentence as we couldn't place them in the middle. If one has "Bird X has been recorded from location Y and Z" and a different ref for each. I have had this issue in several biology articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On the issues raised above:
  • Issues 1–5 on the face of it seem less about the accuracy the article in comparison to the sources, and more about perceived incorrect citation positions—and that's a completely legitimate concern, even if a lot of editors I know are happy to do it for enhanced readability. A swift resolution would be to simply move the citations adjacent to the facts being referenced. A less swift resolution would be to garner community consensus one way or the other on whether planting all the citations at the end of a sentence or paragraph is acceptable, but that's outside the scope of this page. In the meantime, it might be a good idea to at least try a couple of statements to see how it looks.
  • Issue 6, the deadlink to this piece shouldn't be an issue if the article also appeared in the Sun-Times' print edition; simply update the template accordingly.
  • Issue 7 concerns slightly inaccurate paraphrasing. The first part is generally OK, as "higher quality than in most documentaries of this type" seems an adequate paraphrase of "a cut above the usual cutesy animal pic voiceover" (though it might be worth changing "documentaries" to "films"). The second part, "Goldberg's narration ... grew monotonous as the film moved on", doesn't quite match the source's "Goldberg's narration ... pales after a while." As Casliber says, maybe it's borderline, but there are alternatives (diminished, made less of an impact, etc.)
  • Issue 8 is proving a negative, so maybe it just needs moving to make clear that it's not cited to that source. The better option would be to find a page somewhere that explicitly says this.
  • Issue 9, I agree that "uninteresting and boring" is a slightly better translation. However, the Paul Newman mention has tipped me off: this review is about a completely different film, The Meerkats, so it needs to be killed. Interestingly, it appears that The Weinstein Company may have bought The Story Begins simply to kill it to avoid competition for the Newman-narrated pic, so if a reliable source for that could be found, it might be something useful to include.
• Nothing here is irresolvable, IMO. Oh, and see if this article is of any use too; it has some interesting tidbits about the film's development. All the best, Steve ^T • C 10:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is community consensus re citations at the end. Was just discussed recently in one of the citing areas (I think the WP:CITE talk page, but would have to look to be sure and short on time). Its been tried before and it is ugly and reduces readability for no profit in terms of accuracy. Fixed #7 to use a direct quote instead. Removed #9 (and that is a rather interesting way to avoid competition...) #8 I've removed since a non-existent thing can not be sourced and the only place its been noted that it hasn't been announced is in fan forums. If the Sun Times one appeared in the print edition, I'm not aware of it, and unfortunately the link was not archived. *sigh* Will have to remove all that it cites or find replacements. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AnmaFinotera - my source reviews aren't going to have opposes connected to them. I am only analyzing the sources as they are. So, don't worry. Those like Steve can interpret if they think there is a problem enough to warrant an oppose or, if there aren't, to support. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found the Sun Times one in LexisNexis and it did indeed appear in the print version too, so I've fixed that citation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: A very good article with only the most minor of issues for me.
  • Is there any way you could get another picture in there? It's not a major concern, and you've probably already looked, but I think it would be effective towards the end of the article.
  • In Reception: Does Common Sense Media need to be wiki-linked in the text? As a publisher parameter too, for ref 22, I would consider linking CSM to its home page (Common Sense Media) appropriate.
  • In Reception: "calling it a "captivating journey" that did not avoid depicting the harsh realities of the meerkats' lives". Personally the text outside of quotes feels as if it should be in them, due to the way it's worded. I'm trying to think of an alternative. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I linked CSM because I wasn't sure if it might be notable enough to eventually have its own article, but for now I've removed the links. I changed the sentence to make it a quote to avoid it being too close a paraphrase. The only available pictures would be non-free ones, which could not really be justified by the text as no one really critically analyzed any particular scene. Could maybe throw in a shot from the making of, but none of the techniques were very innovative.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Okay thought something similar might be the case for images. My small issues have been resolved, so I give my support for an excellent article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Meta-comment: The length of the nomination page here suggests that this was underprepared. And it's on the short side, too, which makes me wonder whether it hasn't been completely rewritten using scarce reviewer time. Tony (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe it was underprepared at all. It is already a GA, and this is its second FAC. After the first, which only pointed grammar issues, the article was worked on and a copyeditor went through it as well. None of the concerns above came up in the first review, and obviously despite the CE, there were still some minor grammar problems. A very simple diff shows that the article has NOT been "completely rewritten". The only semi-major rewrites were to the lead, the removal of one sourced statement as it was felt to not meet FAC requirements and not to be neutral, and the addition of one call out quote in light of reviewer concerns. It was not "underprepared" and its length can not be helped. There is not that much out there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Plot summaries do not require references - the film itself is the reference. Lead reworded to reduce use of film. Not sure what other words there are - film/it/movie/Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins - four options there is going to be some repetition. Links to AP and MM added. Hyphens added. Region 1 DVD is an accurate label - it is a type of DVD. Minor wording tweaks done. Left coda, but linked it. Link to Cinema Audio Society Awards added (weird that the awards have an article but not CAS itself). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job; I could find no other issues, so I'm supporting this article. Congratulations. Mm40 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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