Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saving Private Ryan/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 May 2023 [1].

Saving Private Ryan[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1998 war film Saving Private Ryan, a highly influential film about a troop of soldiers tasked with recovering a single man and the last surviving son of the Ryan family, James Ryan, and getting him out of World War II alive. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Image review[edit]

  • File:Niland_brothers.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Matt_Damon_TIFF_2015.jpg: the source link includes a ND license, and the photo ID link for NASA is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I removed the tag from the Matt Damon one as I searched the site and it appears to have been removed. I wouldn't know where to find the original release date of the Niland brothers image but I know it's prior to 1945 since three of them were dead by that point.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On Damon, now we're left with a problem: the NASA tag states their stuff is not copyrighted unless noted, and now our only source link asserts copyright (the ND license). On Niland: that supports that the image was created before 1945, but the given tagging is based on publication. If we can't demonstrate a publication from that era, we can't use that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Morning Nikkimaria, so I have replaced the Matt Damon pic with File:Matt Damon 2014 3.jpg and I have found this page here with a newspaper clipping using the image of the Nilands. Is that any good? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That gets us halfway there - it demonstrates this was probably published in the 40s. But any idea what that publication is? We'd need to confirm lack of copyright renewal for the current tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So searching the article title on newspapers.com via our library gives me this, which probably won't load for you unless you go through the library. This was printed in The Buffalo News, June 9, 1944 . Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. So if you can add that information to the image description page, this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial# emerges from pill box[edit]

Saw this the other day as it happens, so count me in. The main question is, without having read the article yet, whether it's true that the opening scene is what most people remember of it.... SN54129 12:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serial Number 54129, sorry was that not a rhetorical question? The opening scene is definitely the most memorable part, probably followed by what happens to Miller. IMO anyway, the sources only talk about the opening scene. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Serial Number 54129, now would be a good time to leave the pill box and storm the opening sequence. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: If you mean now would be a good opportunity not to get TOTALLY TROLLED at FAC, then I heartily agree. Let me look at it tomorrow; just spent 2 hours trying to get a doctor's appt (I.e: no), so I think Glenlivet calls. SN54129 17:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to reviewing this! Although I don't foresee any major problems, will probably focus on the thematics rather than plot, production etc. Cinematography kicks ass man. SN54129 19:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gave Hanks the script and he was immediately interested" - suggest "script, who was"
  • Also "and with with Gordon" etc
  • MOS:LQ seems inconsistently applied (e,g, "give the character a "much harder edge."")
    More tomorrow! SN54129 17:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to send Tom Hanks and a band of rag tag soldiers out searching for private Serial Number 54129. Hope all is well! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 11:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many many apologies, Darkwarriorblake, I had so much on my plate over the last couple of weeks and then got dragged off on vacation. But here we are, again. Let's do this thing. SN54129 17:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first para of 'Development' we are told the two shared a personal interest in WWII, while in the second, that "Spielberg had a lifelong interest in WWII". I wonder if it needf be mentioned twice? Perhaps merghe the first mention into the second. Just a thought.
  • Could you clarify the Gordon quote? It's a bit unclear what he means. Is it as in, "I'll see your Arnie/Willis and raise you Hanks and Spielberg", kind of thing?
  • "With Spielberg involved, DreamWorks Pictures, which he co-founded, became involved": repetition of 'involved'; could you say, "with Spielberg on board', for example?
  • The Levinsohn quote needs an immediate reference, even if it is to the same ref you use seven words later. Irritating, I know.
  • You've got some chunkas quotes in there, esp from Speilberg. Per WP:QUOTE, "For quotations longer than 40 words, use the HTML tag <blockquote>like this around quoted material </blockquote> or the template {{Quote}}, which has optional parameters to include citations. Both of these methods set text apart from non-quoted material."
  • Is "Hell on Earth" a quote?
  • "arrive on Normandy beach": arrive on Normandy beaches generally, but specifically, as you say, Omaha Beach.
  • Repetition of "historical facts"; suggest, "to parse the reality of events with original ideas".
  • Perhaps link boot camp.
  • "adjacent to Blackwater, County Wexford": adjacent to Blackwater, also in Wexford
  • What did Speilberg ear, as he had the same pay agreement as Hanks?
  • How comes "some reviewers" who criticised are unnamed but are counterbalanced by one positive reviewer, Kamiya?
  • Link Everyman.
  • The 'Accolades' section is damnably dull, but not much you can do about that.
  • The "unashamedly" C4 quote is effectively duplicated; the second occasion could probably be lost with a tweak.
  • "serving as a permanent reminder of the sacrifices made exclusively by the United States". H'mm, I think the rest of the world wants to say have a word  :) can this be either turned into a direct quote or rephrased? Wikipedia probably shouldn't say in its own voice that X country's sacrifices were greater than those of Y country.
  • Perhaps link PTSD.
  • Suggest moving the preservation into the NFR into the 'Awards' etc section; I think it fits better there than at the end of a morally critical paragraph.
  • Why no mention of Altman's film?
  • Why "a series of Medal of Honor games" and not "a series of Medal of Honor games"?
  • I've never seen the footnote to "Attributed to multiple references" before; very clever. What say you, @FAC coordinators: (out of curiosity—I might use it myself!!!)
  • Thanks for this; great article. Things to emphasise are perhaps MOS:LQ (punctuation always outside the quote marks (".) except when part of more than one sentence ("Lorem. Ipsum.") and the chunky quotes that need blocking/indenting. Nice work, though, with a very strong themes and analysis slant. Apologies again for the delay in getting out my shell hole  :) SN54129 17:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Although it is possible to use efn to say which content is supported by which refs, to me this isn't great style unless necessary as it can end up repeating content in both the article and the footnote. I personally prefer citation unbundling (ie. This sentence is supported by a ref(fn1) and another ref (fn2) ) or bundling (ie. <ref>list of refs</ref>). However that is just my personal opinion and any of them are suitable for use on FAs. (t · c) buidhe 19:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Serial Number 54129, I believe I have addressed all of your points HERE bar three. PTSD is linked in the casting section already, although it is in a list so it is appropriate to add a duplicate link in the body text? I'm not sure if there is a policy relating to it.
  • I'm gonna be honest, I'm not sure who Altman is but I'm happy to add it. I found Robert Altman but he didn't seem to have any post-Ryan war films.
  • An aside relating to the critical reception section, everyone is different, some people prefer I generalized and Kamiya tended to be the lone dissenting opinion to the general consensus on various points so he probably appears overrepresented, but I've tried to directly name a few more critics.
  • Hell on Earth is a quote, it's by Hanks in the Empire reference.
  • "Could you clarify the Gordon quote? It's a bit unclear what he means. Is it as in, "I'll see your Arnie/Willis and raise you Hanks and Spielberg", kind of thing?" so yes this is how I read it, Schwarzenegger and Willis in 1998 are still big time lead actors but Ryan has secured the biggest director AND one of the biggest actors. However, I've looked at it a few times and I'm unsure how to reword it so I am open to suggestions. I had the same problem when I first added the quote as I would prefer it to be clearer, and I could remove it but I think it's important to note how big a deal it was to secure Hanks and Spielberg to the project at the time.
  • The EFN thing is clever, I didn't invent it but it is really useful. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a suggestion for the Gordon quote:
    “When Gordon met with Paramount executives, he suggested that they move forward with Saving Private Ryan with the involvement of Spielberg and Hanks instead of the projects with Willis and Schwarzenegger.”
    Also, could I add a picture of Janusz Kaminski in the article? He’s essential to the film’s success. Hdog1996 (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Serial Number 54129, friendly ping. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for holding you up for so long Darkwarriorblake—so much health and domestic stuff has blown up in the last couple of weeks, I took my eye off the ball, Wiki-wise. Anyway, I'm happy with the changes made and the counterpoints given, so I am happy to support this article's promotion. It's a good article in the academic tradition. SN54129 10:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help Serial Number 54129 Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved
  • If you can find out for certain what the total budget was (instead of giving a range), then I'd go with a specific number.
  • "The cast includes"..... I'd recommend "Other cast members" or "The cast also include" or something like that when we've already mentioned Tom Hanks and Matt Damon who are also part of the cast, contrary to what the current phrasing suggests.
  • By "most involved scene", do you mean the one used most for filming?
  • "Despite concerns about releasing a serious war drama in a season normally reserved for escapist entertainment" is a trivial concern you can safely scrap; just focus more on the actual results
  • "had an important impact on" → "impacted"
  • "three of four brothers"..... we should add "Ryan" in there to better establish a family connection
  • The plot section should make a distinction between James Francis Ryan (the one being sought) and James Frederick Ryan (who he got temporarily mixed up with) as the middle name discrepancy was how John Miller and his crew realize they initially went after the wrong guy
  • Try to avoid having super-short paragraphs with just one or two sentences as that makes the flow of text feel choppy
  • Under "Cast", you should adjust "Saving Private Ryan's cast includes" per my earlier comments for cast listings within the lead
  • Using "Frank" for "Frank performed rewrites" is confusing when Frank Darabont and Scott Frank are both being discussed shortly beforehand
  • It seems like "found this a 'a mentally demoralizing experience' because the cast started together" has an extra "a". One of them should be deleted.
  • The entire "Context" subsection is superfluous, and most of it focuses on other irrelevant films. Speculation over how much this movie would earn also isn't nearly as important as the official gross.
  • Don't presume all readers will know what publications the critics are writing for; we should name more of these than just Salon.com (which I'm not fully sure is trustworthy)
  • "Best Director (Spielberg) and Best Actor (Hanks) at the Empire Awards ." has a stray space before the period
  • "Best Casting (Casting Society of America, Denise Chamian)" is missing a comma between the ending parenthetical and its accompanying citation
  • The New York Observer needs italics for "While the Observer found the German characters" (and should use the paper's full name)
  • "now considered one of the greatest war films ever made"..... see WP:RELTIME
  • "anchored by another winning performance" should have "anchored" start with an upper-case "A"
  • "Notes" are a separate entity from "References" and thus shouldn't be lumped under the same heading as them

Once these get fixed, you should be up to par. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done these, I'm sure we've had this discussion about Context sections on a previous FA but I do disagree on them being superfluous, I find them quite interesting and it sets up expectations vs reality which i think, especially for films 20, 30, or 40 years ago, helps establish what the films were competing against, provides natural internal links to these films, and helps us understand where things predicted to do well failed and things thought to be limited end up overperforming. I have, however, trimmed it down a bit. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following the compromise of a trim and all other points being addressed, I give my support to the nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SNUGGUMS! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 08:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a slightly trimmed version of the Context section you could use.
Studios were optimistic about the upcoming 100 film releases in theatrical summer of 1998 after Deep Impact became a surprise box office success. The summer had fewer sequels and more films that targeted older audiences. The action films Godzilla and Armageddon were predicted to dominate the theaters, but other films with modest budgets were expected to perform well, including Small Soldiers, Small Soldiers, The Negotiator, The Parent Trap, and There's Something About Mary. Along with The Horse Whisperer and The Truman Show, Saving Private Ryan was highly anticipated but analysis suggested the film faced commercial limitations because of its long runtime and its violent content. DreamWorks' marketing chief Terry Press said it was risky to release a serious drama in the summer, a time generally reserved for family and escapist entertainment. Spielberg had low expectations for the film as he felt it was too violent to attract broad audiences. Hdog1996 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

The infobox image is missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox am I missing something? The infobox has an alt field that is filled in. Did you mean the infobox? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was added by Vaughan J. Heartfox (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: You are correct. I added the alt text. Some parts of the alt text was added by Darkwarriorblake. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 22:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

Non expert prose review.

  • and went on to win many prizes -- perhaps accolades is a more suitable word
  • and a third thought dead -- presumed dead
  • Spielberg said he wanted to reflect the courage -- perhaps present or display or showcase
  • arrive On Normandy beach -- should “on” be in lowercase?
  • Suggest linking monochromatically to Black and white for those unfamiliar with filming approaches
  • the 7 mi (11 km) long … 1 km (0.62 mi) segment -- should be consistent in both instances
  • and at a cost of $12 million.[26][47][12][40][20][14][47][38] -- This could be a case of citation overkill with up to 8 sources to support this sentence. This is not source review, but perhaps consider citation bundling or only use the source(s) the support this or a similar style of attributing multiple reference via efn.
  • with squibs and explosives -- worth linking squib to its article
  • additional content, including behind-the-scenes -- suggest linking behind-the-scenes
  • In the critical response section, perhaps merge the lead and only sentence to the second para

Those are my comments. A well-written article about one of my favorites and one of the first war films I've seen in my youth. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14, done. Chompy Ace 09:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Looping Darkwarriorblake (nominator) on this with regards to Chompy's revisions. Also, if either have spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Pseud 14 and Chompy Ace, I've had a few things on recently and wasn't able to give this immediate attention. Pseud I will take a look at your article as it's short and I'm lazy. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

I'll try to get to this over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 03:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at reliability/formatting first, and then do spot checks.

  • What makes Hi-Def Digest high-quality RS?
  • Formatting looks reasonable
  • I made a quick scan on JSTOR and Project MUSE and the coverage used here seems to be representative (although I suspect that this article will need revisited at some point in the next 10 years to make sure that the academic coverage used is still representative).

Will do spot-checks later. Hog Farm Talk 16:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was sure I'd defended this site before but I cannot find it in my previous FAC reviews. Hi-Def digest does have an About Page with permanent staff that includes hte writer of the source used in this article. It is a speciality knowledge website owned by Internet Brands and is being used to source non-controversial content related to it's particular speciality. I do not know if that is sufficient(?) but I'm pretty choosy about my references and I don't have any doubts about the reliability of the site when used in context of home media. Thanks for taking the time to review the sources so far Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds reasonable - just wanted to check on that sources. Will start spot checks. Hog Farm Talk 21:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checked five refs, no issues noted. Hog Farm Talk 22:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Limited comments from Nick-D[edit]

I'll focus on the military history aspects here:

  • "incurring major losses against the artillery and mortar fire of the entrenched German forces" - the focus is actually on the devastating machine gun fire. To be pedantic, the Germans are depicted as fighting from fortifications (e.g. concrete bunkers) more than entrenchments.
  • "where the 101st Airborne might be" - the division (a large force of around 10,000 soldiers) was responsible for a large area, and wouldn't have been concentrated in a town
  • The para that starts with 'Many World War II veterans described Saving Private Ryan' should be tweaked to note that this is largely in reference to the Omaha Beach sequence at the start of the film. As the next para notes, the depiction of the war in the remainder of the film was much more generic.
  • "Total Film and some non U.S. veterans were critical of the lack of other Allied forces throughout the film" - the BBC story says that the concern was the absence of British personnel in the Omaha Beach sequence only. Total Film's criticism is ill-informed: the American and British sectors were quite separate during this stage of the campaign, and it would have been woefully inaccurate to have depicted any non-American Allied personnel within the beachhead. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the definition of entrenched as holding a heavily fortified position, not a literal trench, but I have changed it to "heavily fortified"
  • There is no town mentioned in relation to the 101st airborne, it just says a rallying point
  • Changed
  • *shrugs* they are entitled to complain about what they want? I am not a historian but researching this article alone the boats they went on were apparently piloted by British crew. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - On criterion FA criterion 1a. I have taken the liberty of making a few minor grammatical changes, I hope you didn't mind. Graham Beards (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could "Works cited" be in alphabetical order of author's surname please. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Gog the Mild? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Saving_Private_Ryan/archive1&oldid=1153726739"