Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard III (1955 film)/archive1

Richard III (1955 film)[edit]

(peer review is still open, but let's be honest, aside from the initial info, there's not much more than can be said)

Article that I have raised from a stub myself: The information is extensive, tells all that you need to know about the film, there is honestly not much more that can be added to the article, this pretty much sums it up. .... 07:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - lacking in depth. Sections such as "Adapting the play" (5 sentences), "Music" (3 sentences) and "Criticism" (2 sentences) are too brief, and the article as a whole is very slim. The writing style throughout consists of groups of short choppy sentences. The "Academy Awards" table is pointless. One nomination does not require a table and "Olivier's Oscar nominated turn as Richard secured his fifth nomination in the category" - is an example of careless writing style. He was not nominated twice for the same role with one Oscar nomination leading to another, though this is what the sentence literally says. Rossrs 13:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object The criticism section is 2 sentences (as mentioned above) and contains weasel words and no citations. Lacks in depth as said above too, but the criticism section really jumped out at me. --W.marsh 13:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object for the following reasons:

This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).

There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Academy Awards, Criticism, Music is/are a bit short.

There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.

Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. Several images are missing fair use rationales.

As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]

Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.

There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
- It is often considered to be the definitive film version of Richard III
- is/are weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.

AndyZ _t 20:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the useful constructive critisism. I must say, a failing FAC is much more informative than a peer review. But keep the comments and objections coming, because I do hope one day to get this to FA. As you might see, from the History section, I've made quite a contribution to this page. Oh, and the sentence about the "Fifth Nomination in the category" is actually correct, if you read it properly, when I say category, I am reffering to Best Actor..... 10:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's not correct. Either avoid using "nominated/nomination" twice, or change "secured". It's no big deal, but it's grammatically incorrect. An "Oscar nominated turn" does not "secure" a "nomination". It makes no sense. Rossrs 12:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you're talking about. You should've just said that I mentioned Oscar Nomination twice. .... 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a little better now, I think. In terms of the depth complaint, there is not a whole lot of information on this film available. As to the reception, and critisism, there are not that many reviews on the film. Due to it's date and obscurity, getting this article to be a whole lot longer may be very difficult. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 08:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Nom due to the fact that I have improved and repaired all points raised by both peer-review and objections. If anyone else has complaints, I'd like to hear them. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 09:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object as per above notes that the article isn't nearly in-depth enough to be of featured article status. Further Comment: have a look at the Ran (film) article for a great example of a featured article on a classic epic film. -Alexthe5th 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at least many of the original points have been cleared up. As for depth, as I stated before, that is going to be very difficult, but we may well just get there. And as for Ran, though both films are adaptations of Shakespeare, I don't think you could find two more different films. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]