# Talk:Fighting Tommy Riley

I just had a look at this because it was on GA Review, but won't review it because I'm already doing Skin & Bone.  But like that article, this one is also overwhelmed by its Plot summary and lacking any discussion of themes.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot plot summaries should be 400-700 words and this summary is approximately 700 words. I don't believe that a discussion of themes is required under the "broadness" standard of GA but I agree that they would be required for promotion to FA. Thank you for your feedback. Otto4711 (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the length, it does seem overlong and overdetailed to me as well. I hear you about the 700 words, but that has always seemed to me more justified in the case of epic-length movies with labyrinthine subplots that can't be done justice in any fewer words. This film is 116 minutes and appears to have a more straightforward plotline and single protagonist. Please  consider revisiting the length and seeing if it can be streamlined a bit — a detail removed here, redundant words or phrases there. Not having seen the film, I do not feel apt to the task of doing the editing, rather feeling that those who know the film's plot well can do the best job of tightening the synopsis. Lawikitejana (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the plot summary is stripped down. I could easily write a summary at least half again as long filling in subplots. If you have suggestions for such things as redundant words or other such issues, please suggest them. Otto4711 (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course, one could always write more plot summary.  This is the weakness of very many Wikipedia articles about films and books: they are all summary.  As I say, I think that here, too, the summary threatens to overwhelm was is, after all, a short article.  I've suggested cutting this down, and expanding other sections.  Good articles should differentiate themselves from the Wikipedia run of the mill.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The plot summary accounts for about 33% of the article. That strikes me as a reasonable percentage under the Good Article standards. Otto4711 (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I note you reverted two of my minor changes, both of which were grammar fixes.
1) "pair" takes the plural: the pair work, rather than works.  I know that US English treats collective nouns rather differently from British English, but here I don't think there's any disagreement.
2) If you're going to change the tense of "directs" back to "directed," than you should also change "stars" to "starred."  But this goes against conventions about writing about films (and books etc., for what it's worth.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Pair" denotes the two people working as a unit and per multiple grammar guides I have consulted it takes the singular: The pair works. The film continues to star (and will always star) the actors, but O'Flaherty is done directing so the sentence should be in the past tense. See for example the featured article Casablanca (film): The film was directed by Michael Curtiz and stars Humphrey Bogart as Rick Blaine and Ingrid Bergman as Ilsa Lund. Otto4711 (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe the usage with "pair" is a US/British thing.  It certainly sounds completely wrong to me, and I've been Americanized enough to be pretty much immune to most other Americanisms.  You might direct me to the multiple grammar guides.  All I can find on the net, at least, are multiple references to such constructions as "pair of scissors," which is hardly germane.
As for your justification of your shifts of tense, this seems sophistry to me.  But even if you want to stick to it, better not to have two such shifts within three sentences.  It's certainly unsettling.
More generally, I'd have thought you'd been around the Wikipedia block long enough to realize that simply reverting is almost always counter-productive.  Fix the problem some other way, if you wish, but fix it.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
But I don't see either of these things as problems in need of an alternate solution. If the grammar is wrong, fix the grammar. What other solution is there? Otto4711 (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That's what I did, if you recall.  You reverted.  So I took it to the talk page.  You still disagree, but aren't doing anything about it.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You know? If the tense on "the pair" is really causing you this much stress, change it. I don't care and have already invested far too much time in discussing it. "Directed" to "directs" however is simply wrong. Otto4711 (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No stress on my part.  I've fixed both issue.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the infobox image caption needed?
GA criterion 6b) says images should have appropriate captions. I don't think it hurts anything to have it.
Shrug; no big deal. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
"The part of Marty was originally to be played by Rod Steiger, but Steiger died in 2002, before filming could begin." - and then what happened? How did they recruit whoever ended up playing Marty?
No idea. I'll see what I can find out.
I'm not finding any sources that talk about the casting process. I find the detail about Steiger interesting but if including it without haveing information on his replacement is going to prevent promotion then I can take it out. Otto4711 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it's fine...the more info the merrier, but no punishment for not finding it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You need a ref (duplicated) for all the Variety quotes...and for all others. 1 ref per quote, basically.
"Strongly dissenting was the Village Voice: "Outrageously sentimental and retrograde" and in need of "serious vetting by [LGBT media watchdog organization] GLAAD."" - reads awkwardly...note that these were the comments about the film
Although I think it's silly to assume that readers won't be able to figure out that the quotes all come from the same place, I have put in separate references for each quote. I have also re-worded the Voice sentence.
Yeah, the "policy" is that if someone were to move stuff around in that section, it's good to know where the quotes come from in future. No a big deal, but yeah. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
In the EL section, should the official site go before IMDB?
Fixed.
Don't film articles usually have a character section?
I had a cast list but it was removed as "useless" with a reference to WP:EMBED. I can certainly put it back.
Aah, I won't contend that...wasn't aware of the guidelines related to film lists. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
And leave me a note when done...cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything addressed except the casting issue. Otto4711 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.
Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and the great GAC experience! Otto4711 (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fighting Tommy Riley. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425092228/http://www.idahofilmfestival.com/2005festival/films/fightingtommyriley.htm to http://www.idahofilmfestival.com/2005festival/films/fightingtommyriley.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411113839/http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0518%2Ctracking2%2C63624%2C20.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0518%2Ctracking2%2C63624%2C20.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 06:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)