# Talk:Tucker: The Man and His Dream

The description of the plot sounds more like a one-sided speech; needs expansion and "neutralization."

Done and added some production info. Count Ringworm 14:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Still requires work on this and other sections, including adding reviews and reception. No references are stated. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

Image:Tuckerposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see: [1] as this may become a new revision as the errors in the templates are very hard to fix. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Seems fine to me. Wildroot (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tucker: The Man and His Dream/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking against quick-fail criteria. On to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): 
I have made some copy-edits, but attention is needed to the following:
Plot: ...causes Karatz to resign who was convicted of bank fraud, explaining that the SEC would use it against Tucker. is completely ungrammatical and makes no sense.
On his final date of his trial,... We still have ...causes Karatz to resign who was once convicted of bank fraud. This makes no sense at all. Y
See revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC).
Production: Director Francis Ford Coppola conceived the idea to make a film .... to?
... which resulted into Bernstein already writing one song.' already?
...Capra disagreed with Coppola concerning the characterization of Tucker as a dreamer, whom Capra thought was a failure. Ungrammatical.
Although Coppola explained that he overall enjoyed the final result of the film and his relationship with Lucas... Ungrammatical. Y
Actually, not an entirely accurate statement based on a re-reading of the reference source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC).
Although providing major additions in rewriting the Schulman and Seidler scripts, Coppola's work was uncredited when...' Ungrammatical.
Distributors were also cautious to work with Lucas after... Ungrammatical.
Lucas and Coppola each own two Tuckers, irreverently called the "Tin Goose". Nonsensical, what does this mean? All four cars are called the Tin Goose?  Its a generic nickname? What? - Clarify please.
Despite helming his "labor of love," Coppola was insistent that Tucker... would be his last Hollywood project,... ungrammatical. Y
See changes made in sentence structuring; most of the final statement is derived from a source and encompasses a quote. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC).
Historical accuracy: Coppola was adamant to include... to?
The preeminent judges of the film were the legion of Tucker owners and collectors... POV phrasing.
Overall the prose is very poor, I recommend a comprehensive re-write and copy-edit to bring it up to Good Article status. Please pay especial attention to the Plot section which should be shortened and simplified. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Some remaining issues. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Y
Please be specific, the section has been "pruned." FwiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC).
b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): 
I fixed a couple of redirects, all online references check. I assume Good Faith for print sources.
b (citations to reliable sources): 

c (OR): 

It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects): 

b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Query on one phrase in prose section above.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): 

b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
OK, it comes dow to the prose which simply isn't good enough at the moment.  I'm putting the article on hold for seven days so that it can be fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Please take another look as there things that were missed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, this is fine now. I printed it out and completely re-read it. Thanks for your hard work.  The prose is readable now, although further copy-editing  may be neccessary to achieve Featured Article status if that is what you wish to do. Congratulations you have a good article.

Thanks for the review. I believe the concerns have been addressed now, but you should check to see. Wildroot (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: I thought I might pop in to mention that according to WP:WTUT the cast listing should not be in tables as it's to simple of a list. It should be changed to a bullet format. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the use of lists vs tables is not established and the above comment is fallacious, although for the purposes of the GA review, the change can remain. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC).

I just made an edit from the plot synopsis that indicated that Tucker was never able to realize his dream. This is incorrect... here's a snippit from the transcript of the film:
"The Tucker Motor Company's dead. They'll never be."
"...It's the idea that counts, Abe... and the dream".
Anyway, just wanted to give a little context. Linuxbeak (The cake is a lie!) 02:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The dream was to have a car in production that rivaled the success of the Big Three automobile manufacturers. Tucker's valiant efforts were to be abortive and his company never realized its potential. FWiW, BRD. Discussion needs to continue. Bzuk (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC).

In the DVD version (Paramount Widescreen DVD collection) which I viewed yesterday, Dean Stockwell (as Howard Hughes) WAS credited as a member of the cast. Therefore this article as written would appear to be incorrect.
On the other hand, the article is somewhat incomplete in that it left out the detail that Lloyd Bridges was uncredited, at least in the DVD version I saw.  (See also IMDB list of credits at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096316/fullcredits ) Msn1947 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Change noted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Tucker: The Man and His Dream. 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/20090727010130/http://www.filmsound.org/beggs/index.htm to http://www.filmsound.org/beggs/index.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129122559/http://tuckerclub.org/html/movieinfo.html to http://www.tuckerclub.org/html/movieinfo.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921143432/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091215201729/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/category_year/593 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/category_year/593
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tuckerclub.org/html/movieinfo.htmlAn
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) 21:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The article says that in the movie PT was supported by his large extended family.  Is this so?  Or was it basically his nuclear family of procreation?  The only support for the claim lists members of his nuclear family.  Some of the people in the movie might have been members of his extended family, but I didn't notice any-one supporting him who fit that description in my casual viewing of the movie. Kdammers (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

it would be nice if there were a section on how close the movie sticks to reality.  The Wikipedia article on PT gives a number of facts that are contrary to what was shownin the movie. Kdammers (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)