Talk:Dune (2021 film)

BoxOfficeMojo gross

The figure given for the UK re-release at BoxOfficeMojo[1] is $28,322,437. The figure for the original UK release is $28,804,796.

Clearly it is impossible for the film to have grossed almost the same amount as the original release on a limited re-release. Hopefully this will be corrected on the site at some point. Barry Wom (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I see a ref for the gross data from TheNumbers has been added. I've commented out the BoxOfficeMojo ref for now, as the figures given there are confusing. Barry Wom (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Barry Wom: Box Office Mojo has a pattern of double counting grosses with rereleases. For more info on why and how, see Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 19#Double Counting. In this case, it looks like the UK box office was counted twice. They have corrected the gross for Dune, which is correctly listed as $406 million. I have corrected the gross in the article and commented out The Numbers for now. ~ Rajan51 (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Atreides#RfC on the infobox image has an RfC

Talk:Paul Atreides#RfC on the infobox image has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dune (2021 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dcdiehardfan (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 03:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: Although someone could conceivably make the claim that this nomination should be quick-failed for not meeting the stability criterion, I took a look at the last 18 days of edits in case this claim might arise. Based on that limited time frame, I believe the article is stable. While there have been a lot of edits recently, the majority were extremely minor. With that said, unless anything else crops up, I will go ahead and start the review.Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Note to my note: I am aware of the recent requested move discussion. Reviewing that discussion does not change my mind regarding stability. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas Thanks a lot for the review, much appreciated, and I'm glad to see you again. I went ahead and addressed all the concerns below to the best of my abilities. Feel free to let me know if there are any outstanding issues. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

Resolved

• No problems found on first read. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• Lead could be considered too short, although this is subjective. A brief glance tells me the lead is somewhat thin, with the second paragraph missing some information that is instead mentioned in the third paragraph in reference to awards instead (such as costume design, etc.) This may be perfectly fine, but I will come back to this later in case I notice something else after a second read-through. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I was wondering what you think should be added. I summarized the core of the Production Process in the second para, as I think that was the norm I tend to see on film articles. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't got there just yet, but I did notice that both times I read this "ambition" I felt something was off. It was well received by critics and audiences with praise for Villeneuve's direction, screenplay, the visual effects, ambition, costume design, Hans Zimmer's musical score, cinematography, and faithfulness to the source material. I understand that critics might have said it was ambitious, but there's no category or award for that, so it feels out of place to see it here. Am I just off base with this? I wonder if the same could be said for "faithfulness to the source material", as it's my understanding that there's no such thing as a faithful adaptation in the film industry, it's a myth of sorts. For a book to work on screen, many things must be changed. Several screenwriters are famous for talking about how a faithful adaptation is impossible, as they are entirely different mediums. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand "ambition" and removed it as it's too nebulous and instead chose the word "scope" to convey how large-scale the adaptation is; I felt "ambition" was a good word as it accurately paraphrased contents from the review. However I think you might misunderstand the "faithfulness" part. The faithfulness wasn't intended to mean that it was 100% faithful, but that it was praised for the amount of elements it managed to retain. That was the big takeaway, that critics were impressed by how faithful it managed to be. I'll go ahead and reword it right now so it better conveys that. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That works for me. I will be a bit slow with this review, as I'm dealing with major arthritis and can barely type now, but I will do as much as I can do when I can. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas I'm very sorry to hear that and I hope you're feeling well. Feel free to take your time and don't feel pressured to rush. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Dune was a box office success, grossing $406 million on a $165 million budget, making it the tenth-highest-grossing film of 2021

• This statement is not stable and was just changed by another editor. I don't understand why box office stats from 2021 would still be in flux or why it wasn't accurate. I'm also wondering why this is only in the lead and not the rest of the article. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas I looked, and I think the reason why the figure has been changed is because the original is because BOM and The Numbers reported diff figures, with BOM reporting $406M here [2] and The Numbers reporting $431M here (theatrical only) [3]. I'm frankly unsure of what to do. I'll do some further research to see if I can explain this discrepancy, perhaps it could be due to the subsequent theatrical releases. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No big deal. Just plant a flag and come back to it when we can. I have another issue in post that I'm adding now. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I went ahead and am doing in-depth analysis. I'm looking at the two sources and I'm seeing like trite discrepancies across domestic figs by like a buck or so. However, the sources were in agreement that the Domestic BO as of Apr 7, 2022 was exactly $108,327,830: [4] [5]. The Numbers then logged BO totals from Feb 9 - 11, 2024, which increased the total to $109,987,830. Will definitely later follow up to address the discrepancy between the $297.1M international BO fig from BOM and $321.1M fig from The Numbers. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas Responding to this, I'm going ahead and looking at the discrepancies between the international BOs: [6] and [7]. Just as a side note, the editor already added as a comment that the Numbers fig was inaccurate, hence the sudden pivot to BOM, which I honestly think is beneficial since this is playing it safe by taking the lower of the estimates. I'm looking through a diffs, the big things are they include data not in the other (ie TN has no data for Iceland while BOM does, Brazil not being on BOM, Serbia & Montenegro not being on BOM, etc), they report various totals based on different daily intake (ig substantial based on a week-to-week data compilation and also because TN logged data of re-releases internationally more than BOM did. Either way, I'm going to look to other sources like Variety, THR, Deadline etc to see if they peg a neat BO figure for Dune 1. It's also a bit weird since Collider and Forbes used $431-2M fig here: [8], [9], [10], while THR and Variety used $402M: [11], [12], [13]. Even another Collider and Forbes article uses $402M: [14], [15]. So weird...and I'll reiterate that I believe it's best to take the lower figure. I'm not sure how best to proceed, is there a WP for resolving these types of situations? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The principle of good enough should suffice. When I run into problems like this, I just add the most relevant and accurate information I can find with an accompanying explanatory footnote. If the sources and data conflict, I also note that problem in the footnote. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. I was initially thinking about changing the range to $403-432M and putting two sources, but that makes reporting the Dune BO in other articles weird, so I just went the lower one. I would definitely try to note that in a footnote if possible, so I will try to find a source that says that Dune BO reporting is in conflict so that way it's not WP:OR and let you know what I find. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Do what you think is best. This same issue came up a while ago on another film article. The editor found that some sources weren’t taking into account the same box office numbers. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Plot

Resolved

• No problems found on first read. Summary is well written and concise. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Cast

Resolved

• No problems found on first read, although it did take me a moment to realize what was meant by "filmbooks". I wonder if this should be clarified for the general reader not familiar with the Dune-verse. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Provided clarification -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Production

Background

• Following the publication of Frank Herbert's novel Dune in 1965, it was identified for potential film prospects and the rights to adapt the novel to film have been held by several producers since 1971. Attempts to make an adaptation based on the book were considered to be "unfilmable" due to its breadth of content.

  The wording here is a bit choppy. The first sentence reads like two mushed together. "Following the publication of Frank Herbert's novel Dune in 1965, it was identified for potential film prospects. Since 1971, several producers have held the rights to adapt the novel to film." I still don't like the wording of "identified for potential film prospects" as it sounds like a bad paraphrase. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done I tried to reword that paraphrase too as I also agree it's a bit poorly worded, let me know your thoughts. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• David Lynch's Dune, produced by Raffaella De Laurentiis in 1984, was intended as a three-hour film but was cut to 137 minutes; it was poorly received and Lynch himself ended up disowning it.[10][12][13][14]

  Do you need four citations here? If you truly do, use the bullet method, such that citation 10 appears, but 12, 13, and 14 are bulleted within the link to 10. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

   Comment: Reduced the middle two ones as they simply were just two individual reviews about the film, I think the other sources better corroborate Lynch's disowning and poor reception Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  (Viriditas' suggestion sounds like a good one to me, but we should be clear to any lurkers or others unfamiliar with the GA process that reference formatting is explicitly outside the bounds of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Format them however you want, so long as the reviewer can figure out which source is being cited for which material in the article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing Thanks for letting me know. I'll still definitely try to address the claims to the best of my ability because it's for the betterment of the article and I think is just good editor practices in general. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• A live-action miniseries produced by Rubinstein and directed by John Harrison, Frank Herbert's Dune, aired on the Sci Fi Channel in 2000

• That's fine, but I think it reads slightly better to write instead: "Frank Herbert's Dune, a live-action miniseries produced by Rubinstein and directed by John Harrison, aired on the Sci Fi Channel in 2000". Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Some reviewers criticized the miniseries for lacking the spectacle afforded to a feature film production, as well as for staying too faithful to the book and being dragged down by exposition

• Is "dragged down" the right wording here? Do you mean bogged down? Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done I think "bogged down" reads better Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Development

• I made some copyedits.[16] Please review as necessary. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

   Comment: I think they're great, I provided additional clarification on "to the table" and left most of the other parts intact. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Writing

• I made a few copyedits,[17] but this section still needs work. Please give it another look. Viriditas (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still unclear what is meant by "the current draft covered the first half of Dune". Does that refer to Dune: Part One or something else? A lot of the prose here is clunky and reads like there were too many cooks in the kitchen. If you could go through this entire section and rewrite it as necessary, that would be great. Viriditas (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed It just simply meant that the film's script covered the first half of the events in the novel, I made that clarification. I also went ahead and edited some of the prose to make it more clear and added a bit more content regarding Roth's involvement, feel free to check it out. I tried to make the writing style more consistent, but definitely let me know if there are places where it is not so. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Spaihts stated the team reduced the depiction of Arab influences used in the novel for the film as "Today the Arab world is with us … If you were to build a kind of Arab future on Arrakis in a novel starting today, you would need to invent more and borrow less".

• I would recommend revisiting this source and trying to paraphrase instead of partially quoting, if possible. It's an important point that the reader needs a bit more clarity on to get it. I'm fully aware of this subject and even I didn't get what was trying to be said here. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I went ahead and trimmed it and rephrased it, feel free if it makes sense. The thesis of that quote was, from my understanding, the idea that Spaihts thinks the Arab world is essentially properly integrated into the world culture, and creating Dune in a modern, globalized society would essentially mean creating more things in order to highlight the Arab elements rather than simply just organically adapt it. Definitely give me feedback if I need more clarity. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• In adapting the book for a contemporary audience, Villeneuve wanted to reflect on realities that have happened since that time related to contemporary over-exploitation of the Earth

• I would go back to the source on this. This reads like a bad paraphrase. Viriditas (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Tried to improve the clarity here and clarify those components came from the book's themes Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• The inclusion of film books was adapted from the book, with Villeneuve wanting it to convey Paul's "appetite for learning" and his desire to learn about the Arrakis and Fremen culture

• As I said previously when this was brought up, please very briefly explain to the reader what "film books" are. In the film, they appear as educational holographic videos coming from a portable projector, but you might be able to find a better description. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• He wanted to depict the Baron as a complex antagonist rather than as a caricature, feeling the novel presented him as being the latter, and took inspiration from Colonel Kurtz.

• No idea who "He" refers to here. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Meant to refer to Villeneuve, clarified Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Casting

• According to Duncan-Brewster, Villeneuve felt it was necessary to capture the essence of the character from the book, but was not necessary to remain consistent with all other facets, and thus opted for this change.

• Although Earwig highlights the term "capture the essence" as an issue here, looking at the sources, it doesn't actually come from the cited source exactly, but from another source (possibly a coincidence). I would just revisit this entire sentence and rephrase it. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• I made some copyedits to the casting section.[18] Please review. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Y Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Design

• The team's early mood boards for the visual language of the film consisted of a variety of images, including ziggurat architecture from Mesopotamia, Egyptian references, bunkers from World War II, brutalist architecture from Brazil and the Soviet Union

• Earwig notes that this is taken in whole and in part from this source. Please rewrite it. Also please note the unusual use of multiple sources when it only refers to one source. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Apologies, my intention was for all the refs to substantiate that entire para, I tried to better allocate the refs. I also revised the wording as I initially wasn't sure how to do so when curating the content. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Post-production

• The sand ripples created by the worms were inspired by Jaws (1975).

• While this makes perfect sense to me, we want to write for a general audience, as well as people in the future. This means writing in such a way that describes an idea or concept, very briefly, for people who may not be familiar with it. You and I are both familiar with what it means when you write the sand ripples were inspired by Jaws, but I'm concerned others might not be, so in that regard, simply briefly explain what the connection between the sand ripples and the movement of sharks entails. For me, it's all about anticipation, excitement, and fear. One of the scariest things about Jaws is not seeing the shark, for example. So go back to the sources and see if it sheds more light on the connection between the depiction of the worms and the sharks in the two films. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Agreed, clarified by stating that they specifically took inspiration by using visual cues to implicitly indicate presence Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Lambert created the visual effects for the shields by combining past and future frames after experimenting with a clip from Seven Samurai (1954)

• Same thing as above with Jaws. Try to explain the direct connection with Seven Samurai, as I didn't get it from the text. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed The main thing was that they were experimenting with action clips from Seven Samurai, this is clarified Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Animation supervisor Robyn Luckham helped create the scene as the team didn't know much about mo-cap.

  Avoid MOS:CONTRACTIONS. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• See MOS:PARA. Consider breaking up the third paragraph into two for readability. It's quite large at about 373 words, or 2262 characters. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

   Done I broke it up into two paras, the first ab the action stuff and the second ab the other miscellaneous elements, in addition to doing a CE trim. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Marketing

• Vanity Fair published a two-part extensive first-look report on Dune by April 14, 2020.

• I don't think we need an exact date here. Just say, "In April 2020, Vanity Fair published a two-part, extensive first-look report on Dune." Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Empire's October 2020 issue's cover story included an in-depth look at the film and interviews with cast and crew, providing additional first looks ahead of the film's trailer release

• "Empire provided additional first looks in October ahead of the film's trailer release." We are already talking about 2020 in the previous sentence. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• A teaser trailer was released on September 9, 2020, featuring a remix of the Pink Floyd song "Eclipse" (1973) combined with Zimmer's score.

• Again, we are already talking about 2020, so no need to keep repeating that. "A teaser trailer was released on September 9 featuring a remix of the Pink Floyd song "Eclipse" (1973) combined with Zimmer's score." Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Release

Theatrical and screening

• Dune was originally scheduled to be released on November 20, 2020, but was pushed back to December 18, 2020.

• I don't see why this requires three cites when the first cite supports it. Please take a look at the use of multiple citations in this article and either remove them or bundle them. It just doesn't make sense to me and looks like older citations from older versions. Viriditas (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed I removed the duplicate Deadline ref, the THR ref corroborates its OG release date of Nov 2020 while the other Deadline ref corroborates the release, so there's 2 refs. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• It also screened at the Toronto International Film Festival with an IMAX premiere screening at the Ontario Place Cinesphere on September 11, 2021.

• @Dcdiehardfan: Looking at the use of multiple sources here, I don't see a need for 158.[19] It already duplicates material in 157. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Removed Not usually a fan of Twitter refs, so I removed it. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Jason Momoa tested positive for COVID-19 after attending the film's London premiere on October 15, 2021.

• Again, there doesn't seem to be a reason this needs two separate citations. Pick one. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Choose People mag ref -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• In addition, it was the most rented title from Redbox kiosks for three weeks as well.

• You could bundle this so that only one cite appears. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Picked the Ghostbusters one since it directly states top disc rental the previous three weeks, Warner Bros. Home Entertainment’s Dune ... -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Over a month before the domestic North American release date, the film had a staggered theatrical release schedule in most international markets that do not have HBO Max, beginning on September 15, including France, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland.[146][147][148]

• Does this need three sources, two of which aren't exactly reliable? The first source (146) has a list of release dates. Not sure if any of these sources support the idea of "in most international markets that do not have HBO Max". See if you can improve the source-text integrity here. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done I revised the prose, and replaced the sources with much better quality ones, removed the HBO Max. Feel free to make any other suggestions as necessary. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Reception

Critical response

• Meanwhile, Ali Karjoo-Ravary, an Assistant Professor of Islamic Studies at Bucknell University, was concerned with unintentional reinforcements of negative stereotypes and mishandling of cultural elements, going on to scrutinize flaws in Herbert's novel.[218][219]

  I have a few things to say about this, namely that we should stick with Karjoo-Ravary's criticisms about the film, which are many, instead of just the novel. But, I do wonder why you have citation 219 here.[20] Perhaps this was a mistake or a misplaced ref? Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Removed Ref 219, I think mistakenly placed by another editor, and I revised the content to more specifically address the MENA casting thing rather than it being vague. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Analysis

• @Dcdiehardfan: Please address the problems in this section. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Viriditas I resolved the tags by citing specific parts of the film, definitely feel free to suggest feedback as I think the prose is a bit raw. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  One way to start is to review the context and framing of film analysis. It might open some doors for you. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I find this section (which was only recently added) a bit confusing. It is mainly about the differences between the film and the book (both in script and visual portrayal), and if so, should the title be amended to clarify that? Aszx5000 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, because it is still part of film analysis, if you read the article I linked to above. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Film analysis feels like a very generic term. Shouldn't the title be something more like The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King#Comparison to the source material, which might clarify to the reader what type of film analysis is being discussed? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Analysis" refers to all the subtopics in film analysis. One reason to keep it generic is if there are multiple types of analyses. If you think the current section only focuses on one type, then changing it to reflect that type might be acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Viriditas I looked at the article. I think some of the stuff definitely escaped my head, but I'll go ahead and address this later if I can. For now, I'll focus on the other issues and get to this later. @Aszx5000 I'm also a bit confused about the abruptness of the section, but believe it does do analysis as it really moreso comments on the depiction of Fremen in the film independently, with occasional comparisons to the source material. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  For me, the important questions to keep in mind are the following: Does the prose flow? Is the material accessible to a general audience who might not be familiar with the topic? Does it maintain interest? Is there a logical, linear, narrative continuity from the first paragraph to the last in such a way that it tells a story and keeps the reader wanting to know more? Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Future

• Using "future" as a heading is time-sensitive and will quickly go out of date. Please choose a different heading that can stand the test of time. The easiest way forward is something like "Sequels", but there other options available, such as "Sequels and spin-offs", etc. Given the overall length of this article, I don't think sub-sections are needed, as without them, it would amount to four paragraphs. I will make the changes just to give you an idea what it looks like and you can make the necessary edits or reverts in response. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Edits for review.[21] Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Please check to see if the excessive use of multiple citations is needed or if it is a relic of older versions. If they are needed, consider using the bullet method. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

   Comment: I agree with the rename as "Future" tends to be the designation for future franchise instalments before the film's release, but hasn't been updated since release. I went ahead and trimmed some citations, but I'm not sure what you mean by excessive use of multiple citations as there are only 7 instances of sentences having 2 citations. For some cases, 2 are needed to corroborate 2 separate facts in the sentence, but I'll go ahead and use the bullet format for the Reprising Role, although do you think the bullet method is worth it for all the 2 citation ones? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Having worked with you before, I trust your judgment on this. My main concern was whether we were dealing with vestiges of earlier versions that used old citations that were no longer needed. My secondary concern was whether we needed three or more in the first place. Stylistically, if citations can be bundled, great, if not, no big deal. The takeaway is that the presence of multiple citations is sometimes a red flag for other problems, but not always. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I am a bit confused by what you mean by vestiges of earlier versions, are you referring to sources that restate information from another source or something along those lines? I'll definitely be on the lookout for those, and I'll look for places where I can bundle citations together. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Vestiges of earlier versions" refers to issues that you previously noticed, such as when you wrote "removed Ref 219, I think mistakenly placed by another editor". Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead to body ratio is out of sync per MOS:LEADLENGTH (see next point)

   The lead is 339 words, and ProseSize claims 9,499 words for the whole article at the moment. In case it's useful, I gathered some of the numbers for the recent discussions about MOS:LEADLENGTH (we have decided that word/sentence counts make more sense than paragraph counts), and this does not seem completely unreasonable. It's 3.5%, which is short percentage-wise, but the percentages generally decline as article length increases (the range is approximately 10% to less than 5%). I'd estimate that a Featured Article of similar length would probably have 300–550 words in the lead (NB: based on a small sample size, as few FAs seem to exceed about 8,000 words). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

   @WhatamIdoing I see. So do you recommend I leave the Lede as is for now until Viriditas provides additional feedback or try to trim its size now to make future editing easier? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

   The lead is well within the normal size for FAs. If you were trying to make the lead:body ratio more average, then I think that shortening the body of the article would be more effective.

   That said, sometimes "average" doesn't serve a given article very well. If you have achieved this length and nothing important has been left out the lead, then you've done the right thing! Don't go adding in minor points or re-writing sentences to be needlessly wordy just to make it "average". The part of MOS:LEADLENGTH I'd particularly encourage you to pay attention to is this:

   "Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words."

   This lead is almost dead center in those ranges: three paragraphs, 14 sentences, and 339 words. There's nothing broken about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

   Article is currently 9,711 words, which raises red flags about Wikipedia:Article size, however, this is subjective per WP:TOOBIG

   Background prose may need some work. See review up above.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig is very unhappy, returning a 49.7% hit rate. Looking over the report, I see several issues. I will note them up above in the relevant sections.

 Comment: Attempted to pre-empt this by rephrasing stuff. Current score now at 37.5%. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No issues at the moment.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No neutrality issues at present.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   See my extended note about stability in my pre-review comments at the top of this page.

   Apparently, the stability did not last long.

   Returning to stable.

   I am one step away from failing this review due to the stability criterion. If active editors cannot maintain a stable version, then I cannot proceed with the review.

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images look good, although I notice that of the eight stars featured in the poster, only six have images in the article. Just something that stood out to me.

5. Overall: I'm putting this article on hold in the hopes that stability returns due to recent edits. I will continue to finish the review during that time. Update: Looks like my intuition was correct. I think I've given enough chances for this article to stabilize and it has not happened. Recent rewrites to the plot section and the addition of an analysis section out of the blue by two different editors who rarely edit has forced me to fail this. Highly trafficked articles that change day to day are not good candidates for good article nominations. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plot section rewrite

@Dcdiehardfan: I reverted this drive-by rewrite of the plot section.[22] I am trying to finish up a GA review and I cannot review an article that changes drastically day to day. Further, the hidden text says not to do this and the user removed that text. Please review their changes and update if necessary. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've failed the GAN. I don't think this should have been nominated since there's no way to review an article that hasn't stabilized to a single version. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I am the editor responsible. Apologies for complicating a frustrating, time-consuming GA review process. This reversion seems to be a careless byproduct of that process, and I hope it will be undone with due review of my edit (not by myself); it comes across as an undue effort to preserve stability which stands somewhat at odds with WP:BOLD, not taking into account whether or not the edit genuinely improves the article, and I have never seen such a thing following previous edits of a similar nature. It is not an actual content dispute that can be resolved as a content dispute.

I did not inappropriately remove an invisible comment, as claimed with "the hidden text says not to do [a rewrite of the plot section] and the user removed that text". I found that two copies of the invisible comment ("This wording was agreed upon on the talk page. Please do not change without consensus.") were enclosing as if brackets two words, "distant future", and took this to refer to those two words in conjunction with the AI discussion on the talk page. Perhaps wrongly, I thought this interpretation of the ambiguously worded invisible comment was so intuitive that the second copy of it was superfluous, and so I removed only that copy. It is false to suggest that my edit either deleted the invisible comment or defied it, given its ambiguity. After that, I improved the quality of the plot summary's writing (minor edits), which did need doing, and also remedied a couple of glaring omissions while avoiding bloat. I worked non-destructively and with due reference to (lack of well-defined) consensus and disputes on the talk page. There has been no "drive-by" recklessness or disruptive activity here, and minimal bold ("drastically" done) editing.

This talk page thread fails to assume good faith and is disrespectful, especially given its supplementation with sarcastic comments left on my user talk page, and it flouts WP:OWN with the overly literal, unintuitive interpretation that the invisible comment applies to the entire plot summary, given no evidence that I can see. I am very sorry if there is a convention here that I am unaware of, and, again, I hope my contribution can be vetted seriously, with the insignificant hidden metric that is the article's stability no longer a point of contention. I will engage constructively with or disengage from any real content disputes. PurpleQuaver (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing failing AGF, disrespectful, or sarcastic in anything I wrote here or on your talk page. Since you are somewhat new as you claim, let me give you a bit of advice: focus on the content, not on the personalities. I would also recommend teaming up with User:Dcdiehardfan as fellow collaborators, since you can easily get this to GA status in half the time by working together. And if you're committed to article improvement, you could probably skip the GA process altogether and go to FA. Good luck going forward, as this will likely be my last ever edit to this article. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The changes to the plot were not an improvement and had some poor sentence phrasing and the introduction of unnecessary detail (to an already complicated plot). I would have also reverted them as well. I would encourage Viriditas to rethink and return to the GA as there has been a lot of good work tidying up the article and I don't think it is far from GA standard imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000 I would also say the Plot edits by @PurpleQuaver definitely jumped the gun but I think some of the changes were for the better. I'm a bit sad that it was PurpleQuaver's edits kinda decked the Stability in the GAR, but I understand that they probably weren't aware and it was a genuine mistake on their part. Either way, I think another reason why the article was highly trafficked and very actively edited during the timeframe of the GAR was due to the release of Dune: Part Two. I'm looking at the page views, and the engagement has since then decreased. I think the prose could definitely use some trims however, especially in the Lead. I do agree we are pretty close, but what I think should be done for now is to probably wait for at least a month or two, see if the article is more stable, and then maybe go for a renom soon. I also welcome PurpleQuaver to provide their suggestions and just let bygones be bygones and not drag the GAR thing out any further; what's done is done atp. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

MOS:PLOTBLOAT 'Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.' Jontel (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Notification of infobox image change proposal at Lady Jessica

Hi, I'm notifying editors who may he interested in participating in the discussion at Talk:Lady_Jessica#Proposed_infobox_image_change. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 17:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)