Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battlefield Earth (film)/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC) [1].
Battlefield Earth (film)[edit]
- Notified: Prioryman, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Science Fiction, 2021-03-17
Review section[edit]
While you were still learning how to SPELL YOUR NAME, I was being trained.... to review featured articles!
— Terl from Battlefield Earth
Another FA promotion from more than 10 years ago, a time of lower standards for the FA criteria. The article, mainly, is way too incomplete to meet the criteria; its production section has little-to-none about the actual production, just the Scientology relations in its development, when the making of its special effects, design, filming, scoring and so on has garnered features in science fiction magazines, special features in home media releases, and several retrospective sources in Newsweek, Vice, The Independent, and more not cited here (the DVD commentary is only cited one). Additionally, the film has not kept up with retrospective opinion and analysis, the reception section is a quotefarm with little attempt at opinion consolidation, and citations are incomplete in at least one field or another, with its two prominent book sources cited with too broad page ranges and no specific page numbers. Also, we have a random Youtuber's account as a source for Ref 66. The article needs significant improvement to deserve its golden star. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
several retrospective sources in Newsweek, Vice, The Independent, and more not cited here
-- any chance of links? I might be interested in taking a crack at this, but no guarantees, and some jumping-off points would be good. I've read more than a bit on this film in my day. Vaticidalprophet 02:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]- I've linked these in the talk page of Battlefield Earth's article. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, screw it, here are the links of unused sources
- There are five interviews in the Blu-Ray showcasing separately its directing, music composition, set and costume designs, script writing, and miniatures.
- Cinefantastique
- Starlog
- Starlog again
- Starlog
- The costume designer's involvement is discussed in an Starlog interview with him
- Science Fiction Age
- Vice
- The Independent
- Newsweek
- Film Courage
👨x🐱 (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll go through them sometime. I might also be able to think of more not listed here. Unsure whether these will all be usable at the FA level (I'm just dipping a toe into it, and FAC source reviews look terrifying), but will see what's good. Vaticidalprophet 21:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Chuckled at this line out of the Independent:
Battlefield Earth is currently unavailable to stream anywhere in the UK
. Aside from that amusingly reversed boilerplate, the Independent retrospective looks just a rehash of the Vice one. The Vice one is excellent, but I've seen Vice be criticised at the FA level -- thoughts? Vaticidalprophet 07:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]- I see zero reason for Vice to be questioned 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I've seen FAC source reviewers dislike it. Hopefully @Nikkimaria and @Ealdgyth won't be offended by a ping -- is this something that you-as-source-reviewers would accept in getting a FAR back to standard? Vaticidalprophet 03:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is listed as no-consensus at WP:RSP, there would need to be a rationale as to how it would meet the higher bar of high-quality for FA. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I've seen FAC source reviewers dislike it. Hopefully @Nikkimaria and @Ealdgyth won't be offended by a ping -- is this something that you-as-source-reviewers would accept in getting a FAR back to standard? Vaticidalprophet 03:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I see zero reason for Vice to be questioned 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Chuckled at this line out of the Independent:
- Thanks, I'll go through them sometime. I might also be able to think of more not listed here. Unsure whether these will all be usable at the FA level (I'm just dipping a toe into it, and FAC source reviews look terrifying), but will see what's good. Vaticidalprophet 21:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, extremely limited engagement/progress, moving to FARC does not preclude further work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, not a whole lot done, a lot more to do. Hog Farm Talk 13:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC no major edits since notice was placed on talk page, and there's lots to improve. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section[edit]
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, most issues raised have not been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist issues have not been addressed, no significant edits since its move to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - agree with above that there's some comprehensiveness issues here, especially from a retrospective angle. Hog Farm Talk 00:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above. Link20XX (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.