Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Batman Begins/archive2

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 not promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

[edit] Batman Begins

previous FAC

Very through Article on the movie Batman Begins. Article is now stable enough to be re-nominated for FA.Mercenary2k 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment A few nitpicks. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Is there any way to write the second paragraph of the plot so it doesn't start two consecutive sentences with "Realizing ___ is right..."?

Y Done One of the sentences no longer starts with Realizing

    • I saw two statements, "...ironically of Wayne Enterprises property" and "His use of fear toxin is an example of his sadistic nature.", that could qualify as POV unless there is a statement from the creators that that was their intent.

Y Done Removed both of them. Don't think they were necessary.

    • Shouldn't the plot summary find some way to explicitly mention that Wayne takes up the moniker of Batman during the drug bust?

Y Done Added it.

    • A mention of Crane being apprehended and then escaping in the plot might also be good.

Y Done Mentioned it.

    • Katie Holmes's Razzie should probably be separated from the other awards in some way (possibly brought to the end of the section) for people unclear on the negative nature of the award.

Y Done Made it clear what exactly a Razzie award is. Mercenary2k 10:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I would like to say that I am one of the original contributors to the article, so I am not sure if my recommendation to oppose would count (and I know a recommendation to keep wouldn't fly). The article is incomplete in several ways, in my opinion:
  • The Plot section has over 1,000 words. The section needs to be severely trimmed to around 600-700 words.
  • The images in the Plot section and the Cast section, per the application of fair use these days, do not have sufficient fair use rationale. The arguments for the images seem to be too subjective for FA status. I do believe that the Batmobile and Batsuit images are absolutely appropriate, though I am not sure about Gotham City, as no real detail is reflected with the corresponding description of the city.
  • The Filming subsection does not have a clear end to it. It tapers off with a series of mentions of filming locations.
  • The Reviews subsection is enormously underdeveloped. There is a serious violation of WP:NPOV here because there is no specific negative criticism about the film. The film was not universally well-received, so negative criticism needs to be reflected. In addition, the existing positive criticism in the subsection is vague and does not specify exactly what was liked about the film -- the strong acting, how the story unfolded, the real-world redefinition of Batman and his universe? The Reviews subsection basically needs to be fleshed out.
  • The lead section fails to cover any aspect of Production, and it should cover the Release section as well.
  • I also believe that there are prose issues to be dealt with if this article is to achieve FA status, but I think that the above issues should be handled before the article undergoes copy-editing.
I would consider this one of the weaker Good Articles, and I believe that the FAC process was too premature for the tasks that still need to be completed to expand and improve the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose It says the movie was well-recieved by most critics, but there is not one example of a negative/average review. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 13:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, ref. # 16 is from a fan page and should be REMOVED AND REPLACED. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I've removed the URL, but the Starlog article is correct. The URL just happens to be the only electronic copy of that article, and I imagine it was added to make verifiability easier. However, the direct copy of the article may constitute a copyright violation for that site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I too have worked on the article to a notable extent and can say that it is not ready. Mostly per Erik's comments above. However, I do not feel that the Plot section needs to be shortened. The Filmaker 01:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.