Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dr. No (film)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:07, 6 September 2011 [1].

Dr. No (film)[edit]

Featured article candidates/Dr. No (film)/archive1

Nominator(s): SchroCat (^ • @) 11:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC), igordebraga ≠ 18:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it concerns the first film in series of James Bond films and is therefore an important moment in world cinema. It is also a high quality article that I believe meets the FA criteria. SchroCat (^ • @) 11:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random sentence as I was adjusting section headings for WP:MSH-- I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say:

Cary Grant was initially chosen for the role, but was not selected due to his commitment of only one feature film.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should include both authors for shortened citations to Pfeiffer 1998 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is Caplen 2009 or 2010? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No citations to Jütting 2007 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you cite websites using base URL, website name or publisher (ex. BBC.co.uk vs BBC News vs BBC News) Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in what is italicized when Done (I think!) If there are any that have been overlooked, please let me know if there are any specific examples, thanks. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source that require subscription/registration should be notated as such Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Use a consistent date formatting Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FN 13: retrieval date?
- It's part of template, can't add accessdate.
Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mix templated and untemplated citations, as this causes formatting inconsistencies Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Screenonline or ScreenOnline? Check for internal consistency Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether or not you provide publishers for magazines Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FN 65: page(s)? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ranges should consistently use endashes, not hyphens Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Mi6-HQ.com#Media_Association
Titles for FNs 72 and 74? Done - igordebraga ≠ 22:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page(s) for FNs 78-80? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FN 87: Premiere Magazine should be italicized Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FN 88: missing something? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FN 94, 106: why the duplication? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FN 95-96: why is BBC News wikilinked here when it wasn't in the preceding citations? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FN 110: newspaper name should be italicized Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Date for Ultimate Editions? Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on Featured Article Criteria #3. Can you elaborate on how File:Bond, James Bond.ogg ~~and File:Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder crop.jpg~~ meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria? It seems to me that ~~both~~ it fails at the first hurdle. These aren't complex scenes or compositions, and are easily replaceable by simple text descriptions of their contents. Unfortunately, the presence of the files does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", nor would their omission "be detrimental to that understanding" (as set out in the criteria). Note: I'm not saying that's ideal—obviously, seeing the files is better than merely reading about them—but given the strict criteria set out at the aforementioned link, you need a lot more justification than what we currently have, which seems rather cursory. If it helps, an example from my own back catalogue is the rationale for File:American Beauty gymnasium.ogv, which IMO has a quite solid purpose of use (as opposed to "This is an iconic moment in cinema"). With that file, the key was nailing the emotional intent of the scene, something difficult to convey to the reader using words alone. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Multimedia#Examples for some other approaches. I'm not sure if there's a different clip from Dr. No that you could include along those lines, but that's what you need to look for if you want to include non-free video. All the best, Steve ^T • C 20:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC). Edited 20:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC) by Steve ^T • C[reply]

The page for the second one shows it isn't fair use, but public domain (taken from the trailer). The other, we'll take a look. igordebraga ≠ 20:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the video clip, I'm not sure how it breaches WP:NFCC, to be honest. There are ten criteria and the clip passes all ten. In terms of the Contextual significance point, the video is used alongside the text that refers to its importance in world cinema. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the image; I assumed without looking at its summary page that it was a still from the film, not the trailer. As for the video, the question you need to ask is whether it is needed to adequately convey its purpose of use, namely to illustrate "an iconic moment in cinema". That iconic moment is merely the first "Bond, James Bond" introduction, and for that I just dont think the clip is needed to understand what the text is referring to, failing WP:NFCC#8. It's showing something that needs no further illustration, and does not help to visualise what could need better explanation. Though I'm no lawyer, I guess there's probably a fair-use claim under US law for the clip's use. However, the important thing to recognise here is that in its stated aim to not just be a free encyclopedia, but a free content one, Wikipedia's fair-use requirements are far, far stricter than those of US copyright law. Feel free to ask at the relevant talk pages, and if you want a second opinion, Jappalang has an excellent grasp of site policies on non-free content; I'm sure there are others who would be willing to weigh in. However, I'm pretty certain that precedent on the use of these sorts of files is not on your side. Steve ^T • C 20:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question asked on Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Bond.2C_James_Bond.ogg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk • contribs)

Update: discussion has been ongoing at the aforementioned content review page, and further opinions are welcomed. Even if I don't respond, either here or on my talk, assume I'm busy IRL, but I'll keep these pages watchlisted and update my "oppose" as necessary should my mind be changed (it's been known). Steve ^T • C 21:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have stated my case on the review page that not only should this file be kept, but that is a very, very, very easy keep and that the argument against it essentially ignores the rationale of our NFC policy. I should add that my observations there about an inappropriate—and, yes, anti-policy—bureaucratic approach do not refer to Steve's carefully considered comments (which, nonetheless and fatally, ignore the purpose of our NFC policy) but to an earlier statement by another party in the thread, which invokes a specific policy criterion without any evident regard for the ruling principles it is meant to support.—DCGeist (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm concerned that the article is not comprehensive and well-researched. Even as a famous film, the existing content is much less than in Featured Articles about other films. The "Bibliography" section is a bit misleading because in most cases a book may be referenced just once. If only one page is being referenced, then it should be listed in only the "References" section. The point of a section like "Bibliography" is to avoid repeating the same information for a publication that is being referenced multiple times. For example, the Chapman book Licence to Thrill only references page 253. Yet in the book itself, there is a 40-page chapter about Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and Goldfinger. The article does not reference any of these pages, only a later one that is outside the chapter. I'm wondering such references were fully accessed; not all pages can be seen online. What was the research process for this topic? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source I found: Baron, Cynthia (January 1994). "Doctor No: Bonding Britishness to Racial Sovereignty". Spectator. 14 (2): 69–81. ISSN 1051-0230. The article "Uses DR NO to give examples of how the Bond series' represents British identity. With especial regard to sexual and colonial politics." That is the kind of research I feel like the article is missing. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, Thanks for your comments. I think they ostensibly break down into two points:

1) Bibliography: "The point of a section like "Bibliography" is to avoid repeating the same information for a publication that is being referenced multiple times." Could you please point to the section of the MOS where it says that is the case? All I could see was this, which does not seem to support your point, referring as it does to "Contents: A bulleted list, usually ordered chronologically, of the works created by the subject of the article." (My italics)

2) Chapman etc: Dr. No is ostensibly dealt with on Pps 57-72 of Chapman, but the book is either thin on anything original that isn’t in the other sources used, or falls into the same category as Baron: the intellectual masturbation to which all academics are prone (and I speak as an academic myself). There are no overt themes in either the book or the film that were placed there by Fleming or Broccoli/Saltzman that have not already been brought out. Baron does not identify underlying themes within the film and draw them out for all to see: she tries to force her own theories onto the matrix of the film, trying to prove a point when one was not there to be proven. You are right that not all pages of the Chapman can be seen online, but the hard copy I have is well-thumbed and has been closely studied, I can assure you. In terms of the general number of references, more could have been added, no doubt, but simply to add additional sources in place of others to beef up a reading list is little short of intellectual flummery or peacockery. The list that is there is covers all the main aspects of the film and it main themes perfectly adequately. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The layout link is for listing the subject's written publications. Reading WP:CITESHORT, though, I suppose there's nothing explicit about what to do with publications referenced once or multiple times. I guess it seems excessive to require two clicks to get to the reference that is cited once? I can understand two clicks when the reference is cited multiple times, otherwise we would repeat the citation template too many times. I think that listing references that are cited multiple times help show what sources look at the film in depth.

For the film's themes, are you saying that you intend to include only themes supported by the filmmakers? I'm trying to discern what you mean by, "There are no overt themes in either the book or the film that were placed there by Fleming or Broccoli/Saltzman that have not already been brought out." I had something in mind like what is at American Beauty (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm… I see where you are coming from with American Beauty, but Dr. No really isn't the same type of film at all. It was written as a spy-thriller / adventure story, very much in the mould of John Buchan's The Thirty-Nine Steps, or any of the Bulldog Drummond stories. It was filmed in much the same way – keeping to the rather simplistic plot with no extraneous themes, but doing it all rather well. Rather than comparing Dr. No with the rather excellent article on American Beauty, have a look at another FA-rated article that is a little closer to the Dr. No-mark: Casino Royale: no themes, no interpretations, no analysis and all because the film doesn't actually need them. American Beauty needs an explanation to it because it works on so many complex and intriguing layers (which are missed by so many people!) but Dr. No doesn't because it is a simple story, well told and subsequently well made into a film.

In relation to the Bibliography, I come from an academic background and, as far as I work, everything is listed there as the sole point of reference to the work. If it were up to me entirely I'd also include details of the newspaper articles, DVDs and webpages accessed too! I went over the MOS and could only find scant information about what should and should not be included there. I think this is one of the areas where WP should have a much tighter policy surrounding use – something they could easily adopt from the university world, I'm sure. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because the article is not comprehensive and not neutral in its exclusion of film analysis. After the conversation above, I have to disagree with the decision to exclude sources like Chapman and Baron. Both of them appear to be authoritative figures in their fields. Baron has this resume and list of publications, and Chapman is James Chapman, a media historian. Yet what they wrote about Dr. No is considered "intellectual masturbation" by the primary contributor. I'm opposing because I am concerned what other analyses were excluded. I disagree that because the film is simple, the article should be too. MOS:FILM – Themes says, "Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated, regardless of whether their presence is the conscious intent of the producer, writer, or director." In short, I do not see the reason for dismissing analysis that is not associated with the filmmakers' intent. Lastly, Casino Royale (2006 film) is a poor example of a Featured Article; it was promoted not even a year after the film's release. Today, I can see in WorldCat.org and Google Scholar Search that there is now analysis of that film, so the Wikipedia article may need to undergo review. Dr. No has been out for much longer. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Erik: you are, of course, entitled to your opinion and if you wish to start re-classifying articles to back up your argument, then you are free so to do. To be "not neutral in its exclusion of film analysis" is an interesting point, however, and one I must pick you up on. I have not excluded Chapman: he has already been quoted within the article and I have the highest respect for him, but what he has written about Dr. No is rather thin - more an extended narrative than anything else. (His work improves on the later or 'bigger' films, however). I think you will also find a number of other sources in there which adequately cover the analysis requirement, including Lindner, Black, Lisanti, Caplen and others. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the primary writer of the Casino Royale (2006 film) article Erik, the fact that it was promoted less than year after release and is somehow a poor example because of it is wrong. Yes, I agree it needs updating with book sources. But you have such a harsh approach towards articles and images its hardly surprising you have targetted it....♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily call out Casino Royale as a poor example of a featured article; what's there is good. What I would say is that less than one year after the film's release may have been a little soon for it to be a featured article, seeing as it was almost certain to attract more scholarly analysis, as Erik has indeed now identified. But this is a grey area when it comes to articles on newer films (relevant literature versus available literature), and so I certainly won't begrudge your taking that article to FAC. However, Dr. No is a much older film that has already attracted analysis from bona fide experts in the field. In that regard, it seems as if the nominator is excluding their viewpoints merely because he either disagrees with them, or because their analyses go against what he believes to be the filmmakers' intent. However, many mainstream schools of thought posit no need for an identified author, or at least devalue the maker's influence when reading meaning into the work of art; "to give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text" after all. So, like Erik, I lean on the side of including further analysis; not to introduce intellectual flummery, but to ensure the article is a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". All the best, Steve ^T • C 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very interesting. Perhaps you could talk me through The Mummy (1999 film), Alien vs. Predator (film), The Cat and the Canary (1927 film), Jurassic Park (film), The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film), Richard III (1955 film) and to a lesser extent Battlefield Earth (film) and Casablanca (film) all of which have less analysis than in included in Dr. No and all of which are also FA-rated articles. Dr. No does have analysis in there, as I've mentioned before: and more than a number of other FA articles. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, while "other stuff exists", a lot of these articles went through the featured article candidate process around four years ago. Not to mention that they can always undergo review; Jaws (film) and V for Vendetta (film) did, for example. The bar has been raised, so the recency of the FAC process is part of it. For Casablanca, here is the FAC page in 2004. Editors do not go out of their way to pursue the FAR process (I think YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) is the only diligent one for films, or at least was), since it's usually a negative experience. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld, I think it is too premature to put a Wikipedia article about a film not even a year old through the featured article candidate process. If it succeeds in becoming a Featured Article, then my experience is that it is just not kept up with the sources that can come up. After a few years, certain films (iconic ones, Best Picture winners) will have an abundance of retrospective, analytical coverage should be incorporated into their articles, otherwise the articles cannot continue to claim to be comprehensive. SchroCat brought it up for comparison, and I responded about it. Featured articles are supposed to be the best Wikipedia has to offer. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Prose is inadequate. While I have and will continue to defend the inclusion of the "Bond, James Bond" clip, this article is evidently not FA-ready as yet on the basis of our first criterion. It was actually brought to FAC with "Ursula Undress" in it...and yes, it's still there. Sorry, but that's very, very bad. In the same section, we find "6 million" and "seven million"...in the very same sentence. And, again in the same section, we have this: "It has been claimed that the use of the bikini in Dr. No led to 'the biggest impact on the history of the bikini'"—major tin-ear territory (of the bikini...of the bikini...of the bikini...). (Hint: How about simply cutting "the use of the bikini in" and attributing the claim.) By no means is the article badly written and its deficiencies are readily rectifiable—with a good top-down copyedit.—DCGeist (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: it is bad (or was, as it's now changed) but it's been there through writing, GA review, peer review and the first part of FA review and you're the first person to spot it and mention it! The rather clunky bikini section has been partially re-written (although it's difficult to write about "the bikini" without frequent use of the words), but it should read more freely now. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.