Wikipedia:Featured article review/Casablanca (film)/archive2
- 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 kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC) [1].
Casablanca (film)[edit]
- Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film
Review section[edit]
I am nominating this featured article for review because it contains unreferenced content and the structure seems problematic - some sections could be merged ("Rumors", "Errors and inaccuracies", both sound like renamed trivia sections), while the expected 'significance and impact' section is entirely missing. Further, while prose quality is not my forte, I detect editorializing (ex. "Particularly notable is the "duel of the songs" between Strasser and Laszlo at Rick's cafe" - particularly notable according to whom?), and 'Quotations' section seems like a wikiquote-artifact. There are also expected minor problems with inconsistent citation styles and at least two books donn't cite page range (Eco (1986) and Eco (1994)). Last week I reported those problems to Talk:Casablanca_(film)#Not_up_to_modern_FA_standards, pinging editors who are still active and who formerly participated at FA-related discussions for this article. Since nobody even so much as replied there, I am forced to escalate to here, since it seems unlikely anyone is interested in fixing those problems. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section[edit]
- Issues raised in the review section include structure, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017*** (UTC)
- Keep. FARC section open for nearly two months with no substantive delist comments. DrKay (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of lame bureaucratic rationale is that? I listed, in details, the problems. If nobody refutes my comments, the default should be delist. -Your logic is like saying 'despite one user reporting blatant hoax/vandalism, since nobody else cared to comment, we will keep it'. -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Being rude weakens your argument. The unreferenced content was removed or cited. The structure was changed. "Particularly notable" was removed. There is insufficient justification for a delist. DrKay (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I see some of the issues were addressed, through nobody has ever mentioned doing on talk (nor here, obviously). Well, if there will be no other comments, I guess we can put it on backburner for another few years. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Being rude weakens your argument. The unreferenced content was removed or cited. The structure was changed. "Particularly notable" was removed. There is insufficient justification for a delist. DrKay (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of lame bureaucratic rationale is that? I listed, in details, the problems. If nobody refutes my comments, the default should be delist. -Your logic is like saying 'despite one user reporting blatant hoax/vandalism, since nobody else cared to comment, we will keep it'. -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The complaints above don't appear to be that bad or are already fixed. "Structure" in particular is a stylistic preference usually; there's lots of way to construct a good article. Referencing is the biggest reason to potentially strike FA status, and it doesn't seem that the article is particularly below par for its references. SnowFire (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My comment to your objections (see 'Talk' for Casablanca):
Let me respond to your points in order. 1) Thank you for the citations. You're right - as good Wikipedians we must cite reliable sources WP:RS; 2) I changed 'notable' to 'memorable' to conform to the description in the citation; 3) Those quotes are significant in view of the fact that they are on the AFI list of 100 most memorable film quotations, as cited in the article; only Casablanca has six quotations on the list; 4) The 'Rumors' heading has been changed to 'Anecdotes and Inaccuracies' to conform to your objection to the heading title; however, the 'trivia' that you object to has been a lasting legacy of this most important film; 5) The 'impact and significance' section that you say is missing is described in the sections 'Lasting Influence', 'Influence on Later Works' and 'Interpretation' sections. These sections (5.2, 5.3 & 6) are in order.
There has been much commentary about the film throughout the more than seven decades since its production. For clarity, precision, succinctness and readability I, for one, believe it is necessary to subdivide these discussions. After all, Casablanca is a movie which has greatly influenced the cinema ever since its release. And the haphazard way in which the screenplay was written makes it that much more remarkable. In fact, I think I'll see it again (for the 112th time - lol). American In Brazil (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, 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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.