# Talk:The Incredible Shrinking Man

"The film was reissued theatrically in 1964,[37] but otherwise was rarely shown on television and screened only occasionally at science fiction conventions.[3]"
Rarely? I saw it a number of times in the Cincinnati market on Channel 9 [WCPO] in the late 1970s-early 1980s; at one point it was shown twice about three weeks apart. So it was part of some package. Pinikadia 15:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

"The camera work and effects for the shrinking hero were considered remarkable and imaginative for their time."
Previously we had something stating that the FX were extremely well done.  I like that less than what we have now, which I still don't much like (it's unattributed).  Koyaanis Qatsi
Opinion, taken out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.16.144 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 

Is it a Remake or a Sequel. Change it soon actually fast now!! --Luke Vandelanotte (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no information on the film's production in this article. There should be some information on the film's production added to this article (special effects, and other production information).--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of Archie, but I don't think that's really important enough to be on the article - especially since I'm sure there have been more prominent references to this movie than that. (Though, if it WAS notable, than I would add to the article that there was also an Archie's Weird Mysteries episode called The Incredible Shrinking Teens, obviously based off this movie...) I'm going to go ahead and remove it. StoryMakerEchidna (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on The Incredible Shrinking Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120710115532/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/ap_en_mo/us_classic_films_glance;_ylt=Am9aCMfxzzsN4EY9F802IESs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNzcHU5NnU4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjMwL3VzX2NsYXNzaWNfZmlsbXNfZ2xhbmNlBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMTAEcG9zAzcEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawMyNW5ld3RpdGxlc2E- to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/ap_en_mo/us_classic_films_glance;_ylt=Am9aCMfxzzsN4EY9F802IESs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNzcHU5NnU4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjMwL3VzX2NsYXNzaWNfZmlsbXNfZ2xhbmNlBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMTAEcG9zAzcEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawMyNW5ld3RpdGxlc2E-
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have re-written the article to include production, a re-formatted lead and plot, updated sources and expanded the reception, release and aftermath on the film. There's probably some blips here and there that do not quite make sense, but I've tried to clear it up. I'll be happy to answer and questions about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Incredible Shrinking Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 23:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Sorry about the wait. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

No rush! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
April, Paul, and Raymond's involvement in the film is unsourced, as are William, Billy, and Orangey (mew)
Updated. I'm removing Orangey for now as this source says it might not have been Orangey? :( I'll add it back when this most important bit of cat acting is confirmed. I think the article survives without it though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
"On set photography" -> "On-set photography"
Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
"Arnold ordered about 100 condoms and placed them on a treadmill so they would drop in sequence." - No complaints, I just wanted to emphasize how funny a line this is out of context.
Indeed. The copy-editor said something similar earlier. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
"Universal's intended" -> "Universal intended"
Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Try to paraphrase more
I cut out some more of the quotes. I left some of the larger ones that I feel go into specific details that should be quoted. What do you think @Abryn:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
All good, great job! - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
That's about it. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas' edits to get the article to GA status introduced a lot of bizarre grammar and structure. I'm going to pick on just one example here to make the point:

The film felt was among the least re-released of his major films.
I don't know if "felt" is supposed to be the main verb here and "was" is out of place, or "felt" is a participle modifying "film" and "was" is the main verb, or what, but no matter how I try to parse the sentence, it doesn't make any sense, and I can't even guess what the author was trying to say.
And why should we care if someone felt that, or whatever it's trying to say, anyway? It's either a verifiable fact that it was among the least re-released, or it isn't.
And even if it's a verifiable fact, who cares? Obviously some of his films will be less re-released than others. Half of them have to be in the lower half. This is only a notable fact if there's some reason we'd expect this movie to be frequently re-released rather than rarely. Is it one of the most popular, or most profitable, or best, or …?
Also, why is the weasel word "among" there, when the actual cited source says "the", not "among the"?
Compare the previous version:

Warren noted that despite being "probably [Jack Arnold's] best movie" it was the least frequently revived of his major films.
This is in proper English. It tells us why it's interesting/notable (because it's his best movie). It tells us who thought that—Bill Warren, someone whose opinion is relevant here, for reasons the article made clear above. Also note that (as with the original source) there's no "among" weasel-wording, but instead the set is restricted to "his major films". Just as brief, and much clearer and stronger.
Unfortunately, you can't just go back to that without reverting all of Andrzejbanas's other changes, because there's no longer any mention of Bill Warren until much later in the article—and even then it doesn't actually tell us who he is or why we should care about his opinion. (Maybe the earlier version leaned too heavily on Warren's book, but if so, it's even worse that the new version leans just as heavily on the same source but disguises that it's doing so.)
And of course it's not just this one sentence anyway; that's just one offender among many.
So, I have no idea how to repair this. --157.131.202.156 (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If there are grammar issues, please feel free to go ahead and correct them. I'm not sure about the big deal with the among part you are referring to with the "among" part, is it about the least revived of his films? I believe the rest of the phrase clarifies this that its not screened or re-released on its own very much. If there are issues with the grammar or phrasing in the article, I would suggest correcting them as I can't really see what your specific focus is here to make this better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

is normally on a movie Aspidistra9812 (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)