Jump to content

Talk:Dazed and Confused (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Credits

[edit]

As far as I'm aware, the guidelines say "top billed actors" if there are none on the poster block. There are no opening credits for the film so those mentioned in the infobox are those whose names and characters appear in photos at the end. IMDB (no great source I know) has a lot more actors credited so who is to say who should go into the infobox and who shouldn't? I agree it looks top heavy but half of those that have been removed have articles of their own. Quentin X (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest, then, that no actors be listed in the infobox. Instead, a note to see the cast can be added, as has been done in other places. A long list of actors, some of whom are not notable, is not helpful. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Will get onto that. Quentin X (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Glad we were able to agree and avoid a pointless edit war. I'm too tired for such nonsense these days. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm the same. Quentin X (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dazed and Confused (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cast member

[edit]

forgot Rene Zellweger. 98.20.70.16 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't forgotten, she was deleted by a previous IP's edit without any explanation. I've re-added her. Not sure why you didn't fix it yourself though? DonIago (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dazed and Confused (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Lbal (talk · contribs) 22:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Yoshiman6464 (talk . contribs) I will plan to review this article; section by section; citation by citation. I'll send you a review within a week. 20:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshiman6464: any updates? This review appears to be abandoned. Skyshiftertalk 17:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter: There are. I’m going through the reception section. My apologies for the delay; I was busy with personal things. Expect a review by Wednesday. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 18:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

My apologies for the MASSIVE delay; I got busy with family and work in the past month. Anyways, I went through the article. It is VERY close to being a good article. However, there are some issues with the article that prevent this article from being good.

1. Well written?

a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


2. Verifiable with no original research:

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

  • Bibliography is needed for this article, especially with the book "Alright, Alright, Alright: The Oral History of Richard Linklater's Dazed and Confused". See the Back to the Future article for a good example of that.

b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

c. it contains no original research

  • Parts of the article cites some unreliable sources, the two biggest ones are the Daily Beast article (per WP:DAILYBEAST; in which the article cites different sources.)
    • For example, for the casting of Renee Zellweger, it cites a list from Daily Beast - which itself cites a 2013 article from People Magazine
      • "Then: At just 23, the Texas native had a super-quick, uncredited cameo as "girl in blue pickup truck," seen funneling a beer through a bong at a nighttime party."
      • There is no mention of this line —> "She auditioned for the role of Darla, which eventually went to Parker Posey"
  • Also, IMDB is not a reliable source - especially in the "Filming" section. Many of the filming locations cite IMDB, which is a site that anyone can edit. For example "Shooting began on July 13, 1992" cites IMDB; “Bedichek Middle School in Austin was used as the location for the film's fictional Robert E. Lee High School, while Everette L. Williams Elementary in nearby Georgetown stood in for Williams Middle School” - Cites IMDB. Try to use better sources if possible.
  • Finally, for the Home Video section, the VHS release needs a better source than FamilyVideo.com. If you have access to Newspapers.org (via the Wikipedia Library), there are potential resources for that home video release.

d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.


3.Broad in its coverage:

a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic

  • The article has sections that aren't detailed. The Casting and Post-Production sections are big examples. The casting needs some commentary for its casting, while the "Post-Production" section needs some extra details. The article posted on Cinephilia Beyond has Richard Linklater's commentary regarding the film's post-production.
  • "There are no daily or weekly deadlines, but Sandra sets goals for us and we tend to get everything done"
  • "When they cut the music budget just before production started, they all assured me the studio routinely puts up additional money for music in the post-production phase, especially if music is a major element of the movie. Absolutely, no one would argue that music isn’t perhaps, the major element of the movie."

b.it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

  • Word count is summary is 690 words, which is perfect for Wikipedia's 400-700 word limit.


4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.


5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute


6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

a.media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

  • The only non-Free images are the film's poster.

b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

  • My only nitpick is that there are too many car images, and there could be another image in its reception section. But it's more minor than the rest.


Overall, you are close to having a good article. But this article needs more details. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 20:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshiman6464 Thank you! I will do my best to get the article improved! The review was very helpful. Lbal (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lbal: You are almost done. You have two more things.
1). You should add information to the "Casting" section. Check out the other featured film articles such as Back to the Future, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and The Thing. Also, check out MOS:FILMCAST
2). The "Alright Alright" citations need to be more consistent. Half are "Maerz, Melissa (2020). Alright, Alright, Alright: The Oral History of Richard Linklater's Dazed and Confused. HarperCollins. pp. 1–65." and the other half is "Maerz 2020, pp. 248-251". I prefer to see the second half, considering that we alright have a citation in the Bibliography section. After that, then the article is a good article to me. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 03:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, will get it done soon. Lbal (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it looks great. The article is now a good article. Don't worry too much about the casting; it's an ensemble cast after all. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 02:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoshiman6464 Awesome, thank you so much! Glad to have my first good article! Lbal (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 17:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Source: Maerz, Melissa (2020). Alright, Alright, Alright: The Oral History of Richard Linklater's Dazed and Confused. HarperCollins. pp. 313-324
  • ALT1: ... that Richard Linklater's original concept for Dazed and Confused took place entirely within a car as its characters listened to ZZ Top? Source: Spitz, Marc (December 26, 2013). "An Oral History of Dazed and Confused". Maxim. Archived from the original on April 28, 2017. Retrieved May 7, 2017.
  • Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by Lbal (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Lbal (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • I like the first DYK idea, especially how the studio forced a protest to bring attention to the movie. It's also reasonably sourced. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 14:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approved ALT0, ALT1: Article is new enough (nominated the day it became a GA), long enough, well-cited to reliable sources, presentable, and with no policy issues detected (a relatively high Earwig score due to quotes from interviews, reviews, and soundtrack lists). QPQ waived. Hooks are formatted, of good length, cited in article and interesting (verified source for ALT1, AGF for offline source for ALT0). Good work! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We may want to remove the extra links in ALT1 - lately we have had discussions about the extra blue links stealing views from the main article. Lightburst (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dazed_and_Confused_(film)&oldid=1231015175"