Talk:Facing the Giants

Untitled

Movie just played tonight (with Spanish subtitles) here in Limo, Peru. Much "cheering the team on" during the movie. Also, many in tears at the poignant moments. Received enthusiastic applause at the end from a crowd of about 900. Forget the "professional" critics - most of whom seem to bathe in pickle juice - this movie received a tremendous reception here in Lima. Pastorpete 05:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Peter Wollensack

NPOV?

I just heard about this movie the other day and came to Wikipedia to see what it was about. The article seems to praise the movie, glossing over or negating criticism and focusing on it's unexpected bos office draw and several positive reviews it recieved. A little further exploration showed that this is not accurate at all. I've now seen the movie and it was just bad. Really really really bad. Now I realize this isn't the place to express my opinion, but the vast majority of reviews for it are very negative. If 90% of reviewers gave the movie bad reviews, shouldn't the section on reviews include mostly negative reviews? I added the link to rotten tomatoes but I think more could be done with this section. JIJAWM 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Note...as of today June 17,2012 the film has a mid level rating of 6 out of 10 on IMDB (6,691 had rated it). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805526/.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Amazon has 699 user reviews (as of June 17)and the movie averages 4 1/2 stars out of 5 stars. http://www.amazon.com/Facing-Giants-Alex-Kendrick/product-reviews/B000KLQUS0 Fandango as of June 17, 2012 shows that the movie is liked by fans but disliked by critics. (As of June 17, 2012 610 user reviews were posted--almost all positive. Conversely, most critics disliked this movie) http://www.fandango.com/facingthegiants_95445/criticreviews It is reasonable to mention the negative critical reviews, but many, many film in Hollywood history have been first panned by critics but loved by the paying public. Unless one accepts critical reviews as "the last word" on a film's quality, the public acceptance of a film should be also duly noted.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination History

Fourth nomination

All suggestions implemented from Third nomination, below. Kghusker 06:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Although not an FA article, it is still very good article (GA) and I have passed...

This article passed its good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: yes, although some parts may be a little confusing (I've removed/changed them)

2. Factually accurate?: lots of references

3. Broad in coverage?: wide range of points

4. Neutral point of view?: neutral, although I don't like some of you words like "happyily ever after" and "true-underdog" story, consider changing/removing those are adding citations for them

5. Article stability? yes

6. Images?: Fair use rationales and thorough use of images

Thanks for your work. Cbrown1023 talk 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Per the edit notes in the history... from Wiktionary:

also-ran (plural also-rans) 1. A person or animal who competed in a race but did not win. 2. Figuratively, a loser; one soon to be forgotten.

Kghusker 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Third nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Not bad, but could use some tweaking - especially gramatically. The director should be referred to by his last name only, and not "Mr. Kendrick." This portion: "read a recent survey where it was reported that films have become more influential in society than churches. He and his staff have gotten busy creating movies reflecting their values." does not belong in a lead section (read the purpose of the lead section in WP:LEAD) or anywhere in the article since it has nothing to do with the movie. You might want to move it to the director's biography page. The sentence "and challenge his players," should be challenges. In the sentence "a kicker hoping to play soccer" take out "a kicker" since the article then describes how he became the kicker, which is confusing for the reader (it was for me) since we think he is already a kicker. The phrase "although his school's only sport is football" should be preceded by a dash, or in parentheses. In the sentence: "the needed ride to Mr. Prater's office" who is Mr. Prater? The boy's father? It is better to just call him the boy's father, or clarify that "Mr. Prater" is whomever he is. "Brooke Taylor's (Shannen Fields) wrestling with supporting her husband while facing continual disappointment in childbearing supplies poignant and comedic moments." This is a run-on sentence that needs punctuation, and maybe a re-write. In the sentence "goals were to produce" is should be "goal was" since it is only followed by one indepent clause. The rest of the sentence should read (to follow grammatic parallelism) "to produce a family friendly movie that could be affordably shot in Albany, fun to watch, impactful to viewers, and glorifying to God." "Director of Photography" should be all lowercase. In the heading "Box Office," office should be lowercase. In the sentence "Only 3 films in the top 10 released" three and ten should be spelled out, as should twelth, later on in the sentence. The "Critics" section should be called either "Reviews" or "Critical response." Also in this section it would be better to be more specific. The paragraph can start of by saying "Many critics said yada, yada, yada..." But then it should say "For example, John Doe said..." and then the statement be referenced. That paragraph has three solid references, which is great, but they should be divided up into three footnotes (instead of one) and it would be better if they were quoted. In "drew, 10 times" ten needs to be spelled out.

2. Factually accurate?: Good references, but needs more. The "Rating controversy" section needs much more referencing.

3. Broad in coverage?: Nicely cover so far, but I believe it is missing a few critical sections, or some existing sections need expansion. The lead section needs expansion. This sentence "The film uses many Christian pop songs from groups such as Third Day, Casting Crowns, and others." needs to start a new section on the films soundtrack. Also the "References" section should come before "External links." There should also probably be a "Promotion" section, showing how the movie was advertised.

4. Neutral point of view?: Mmmm, some problems here. This statement "especially enjoyable in contrast to stereotypical black/white strife in Dixie" is totally POV. It's enjoyable to whom? Some people might hate that part of the movie. You either have to show how the movie was trying to contrast their relationship with other black/white relationships, or remove it altogether.

5. Article stability? Stability is strong. No reversions or edit wars.

6. Images?: Image:Facing the giants.jpg is lacking source information. The images Image:Facing the giants2.jpg and Image:Facing the giants3.jpg are lacking fair use rationales. The web page listed there is not where the photo came from.

I downloaded the photos from the web sites listed, and now understand "fair use rationale" needs to be attached in addition to the licensing blurb. Kghusker 02:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Second nomination

I'm sorry, this article has definately improved, but it still does not have enough content for a GA nomination. Please check out Category:GA-Class film articles, Category:A-Class film articles, and Category:FA-Class film articles to see other ways to improve the article.

Many of the sections should be expanded, you are giving the bare minimum for an article. An example of expansion is in Plot and in Reception, reception needs to include Critical reaction and you can expand the info on Box office (you can discuss opening weekend gross and budget here). Thank you for your work so far on the article, Cbrown1023 20:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I failed this article based partially on this, and I'll add taht the screenshots are unlikely to fall into the fair use restrictions that WP has. Good luck! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to point out:

"It is a classic underdog story about American football, with twists and turns through an evangelical christian worldview. Mr. Kendrick, who is a church pastor when not creating films, read a recent survey where it was reported that films have become more influential in society than churches. He and his staff have gotten busy creating movies reflecting their values."

Sounds like an advertisement. Consider rewording. --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 21:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First nomination

As this is an article about a film, you should check out the information at WikiProject Films' style guide.

Mainly, this article needs...

• a Production section (that can include Background/History)
• a Reception section

The plot section could also be expanded and more pictures could be added.

Come back when these criteria are met. Cbrown1023 22:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Two other comments that will be of use for GA standards :

• Removing the trivia section (and render it inside already present sections).
• Populating the reference section is important as only 1 ref is limited. Lincher 00:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

DVD Inconsistent?

I remember watching this movie and saw the segment with then-WALB sports director Kevin McDermond on the state championship. I remembered seeing the logo for NBC's NASCAR coverage.

The funny thing was, not too long ago, I watched it with the commentary; but when it got to that scene, the logo appeared to have been removed.

Is it just something I imagined or what is it?

WAVY 10 01:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I saw the deleted scenes section on the DVD and that's where the logo was. WAVY 10 16:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Article status

I hate to do this, especially since it appears getting this to be passed as a GA has been a task, but upon further review of the article, I have a few issues with is, some of which would typically keep the article from GA status. I'm mentioning my issues here in hopes that someone can take care of these issues.

• The biggest problem with the article is alot of POV prose, most notably in the Reviews and Rating controversy. Sentences like "Some critics, perhaps disparagingly, complained that characters confronting problems from an evangelical Christian worldview belonged in Sunday School rather than portrayed in film, as if to say a film could not be well made or entertain with such a worldview." and "yet some reviewers hint that Hollywood often doesn't do as well." should be changed to a more neutral tone.
• The plot section also has some prose problems. Instead of going into all the sub-plots, I'd recommend a much more straight-foward "this happened then this happened." The thing is, the plot section should ideally by in-universe. Also, the later part of the section, the big quote and the last paragraph don't fit with the rest of the section. I'd recommend giving that stuff a subsection of some sort. Also, there are a few more POV issues here too: "This supplies both poignant and comedic moments."
• "Events and situations work themselves out" huh? Please expand.
• The lead section is way to short. See WP:Lead for more info.
• The formatting of the in-line citations are inconsistent with usual style and even with each other. I would recommend using citation templates, though using these are not a GA requirement. Consistency and proper attribution, however, are required, and the templates help do alot of that work for you.
• There are a bit too many External links. See WP:EL for more info.

Hopefully somebody can come to the rescue of this article, and hopefully the above doesn't sound like too much work. Otherwise, I'll nominate the article for Good Article review in a few days. Drewcifer 05:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above, I've nominated this article for Good Article review. Contributors and original reviewers alike are welcome to contribute to the discussion concerning this article's GA status. Drewcifer 04:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It was removed per this discussion. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Facing the giants.jpg

Image:Facing the giants.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) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Facing the giants2.jpg

Image:Facing the giants2.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) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Facing the giants3.jpg

Image:Facing the giants3.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) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RECEPTION section

Here we have stats concerning the poor critics' reception of this movie. But regarding the audience (users) we have only the unsourced generic opinion that it was generally well received by Christian audiences.

Suggestion: Bookend the critics' stats with actual stats from Amazon user reviews(which had several hundred users' reviews) which were mostly favorable.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:USERGENERATED which explains why Wikipedia does not use those kinds of unreliable sources. -- 109.77.206.203 (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Plot section

Admittedly, the current plot summary of 150 is short and could be improved. The MOS for films WP:FILMPLOT gives a range of 400-700 words as the ideal. That said, the recent edit-warring to make it over 1,700 words is not the answer. Any rational discussion on improving it without going overboard is welcome. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I solicited outside input from the film project: [1]. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, as a member of WP Film, thought I would pop in and say hey. Film plots do have to be between 400 to 700 words in length to prevent pointless dribble (that's not a technical term ;)). It can be tempting to highlight every single awesome moment, but unfortunately we can't.

May I suggest one of the following?

• The content is restored and a excessive length tag is placed for another editor (Or the yourselves) trim it down to size. We are a voluntary team and we may not always have the time.
• The content is placed here and it is edited and trimmed by editors until everyone is happy.

I for one would much prefer the first option. As long as it is done quickly. I would do the trimming, but having not seen the movie I wouldn't know where to begin. -- MisterShiney ✉ 14:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have seen the movie and would be willing to trim, however I suspect that the other editor wouldn't accept anything I said. My guess is that the second option would be a better one. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As long as you build on what the previous editor has done, I do not see a justified reason as to why you can't trim it down. I am happy to supervise the changes/differences, as would other editors. At the end of the day, articles are always evolving every day and it is only natural that someone makes a change and another editor changes the change and then someone changes the change of the change. Perhaps reverting the whole thing was a bit over the top, but I, for one can see why you did it. But we must remember not to bite the new guys by slapping them with an unfamiliar policy. I do it all the time and have to be checked. -- MisterShiney ✉ 14:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I get what you're saying. To be honest, I kind of ignore WP:BITE when they come to your talk page and start calling you a jackass for following policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't blame you to be honest. But in the words of Cool Runnings...Rise Above it man. Words cant hurt choo. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WHAT other movie was Created approximately durring the 1990's that had a bit of Christ perspective on a true story about a Father who makes it into the NFL?

What other Movie was created approximately in the 1990's that had a Christian perspective about a Father who gets drafted to the NFL over the age of 45.? Achenines1028 (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)