Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

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 21:04, 31 July 2007.

[edit] E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

previous FAC

Nom restarted (old nom) Raul654 16:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. I was so close. Alientraveller 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - per my reasoning in the previous FAC. Gran² 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting Gran2's comments so that it is easy to read them: "I personally feel that this article is as comprehensive as it needs to be. I wouldn't have supported it at the start of its FAC, but the recent changes to the structure and cutting back of FU images is good in my mind. I learnt a lot from this article, particularly because I knew next to nothing about the film, having only seen it once. But there you are, a very fine article in my book. Awadewit | talk 03:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Object

• 1a - "the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" - While I feel that is very difficult to achieve "brilliant" writing on wikipedia (too many editors, too many restrictions on the prose style), I do feel that a "professional standard" is achievable. That has not yet been reached here; please find a good copy editor who has not worked on this article to review it.
• 1b and 1c - ""Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge." - The article does not use the most reliable sources. In the "Themes" section (which I am happy to see has been added), for example, the editors have ignored all of the film criticism written by scholars on this film. Thus the variety of interpretations of the film, the explanations of the film's meaning and a history of its iconographic status in American society are lost.
• 1d - There is a slight POV in this article. Statements such as The film is a reflection of Steven Spielberg's childhood are POV. That is one interpretation of the film. There are others that are just as valid. Spielberg should not be given priority here (see intentional fallacy).
• 2d - "consistently formatted inline citations" - The footnotes are not consistently cited. Awadewit | talk 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I tried looking up other sources, including one Bignole sent to me, but it was sheer rubbish. Nonetheless, I'll try to expand the themes section. But your POV accusation is bizzare, and I'll ignore it. Alientraveller 09:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am not sure why you are saying that all of the film criticism on E.T. is "rubbish." By the way, editors do not get choose what to include and what to ignore in such a broad fashion. The whole point of WP:NPOV and WP:ATT is that articles must represent the published opinions on the matter, not the editors' opinions. Therefore the editors must try to sort through the criticism and find the general points of agreement as well as any important interpretations. Awadewit | talk 10:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• When I meant rubbish, I meant poorly written. I didn't get it at all: so therefore I am unable to refine the point and incorporate it. Alientraveller 10:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. You decided not to include any film criticism by scholars because you thought their writing was bad or because you didn't understand it? The quality of the writing is immaterial; whatever articles and books published by film scholars that exist should be the basis of particular parts of the article, such as the "Themes" section since such work represents the consensus of scholars on the topic. If you didn't understand it, you need to ask someone else to read it and add the appropriate material into the article. Lack of comprehension is also not a sufficient reason for excluding such a wide body of work. Awadewit | talk 10:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't include because I cannot understand it. It's that simple a problem. Alientraveller 11:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Have you posted messages asking for help on the WikiProject Film site or asked other editors to help out? Awadewit | talk 02:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The POV objection is anything but bizarre. The article should not privilege Steven Spielberg's interpretation of his own film. Statements such as the one I quoted do just that. Taking some time to delve into film criticism as a discipline would help you understand why that is such a flawed method. I tried to explain the problems with such a method before, but to no avail; perhaps others can do better than I. Awadewit | talk 10:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well it's his film, he's telling the story. Indeed, we should try to incorporate other views, but we should put fringe views over Spielberg. Do you plan to do any work on the article by the way? Alientraveller 10:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please read intentional fallacy, as I suggested. The discipline of film criticism, whose practitioners are the experts that this article should rely on, do not agree with you regarding the importance of Spielberg's interpretation. I am not advocating including "fringe" interpretations. I am advocating including scholarly interpretations. The methods of film scholars need to be respected in this article, if it is to be an FA, because they are the experts in this field. Whether or not you agree with their methods is irrelevant - the article cannot reflect the editors' desires or opinions. It must reflect the published work on the topic. I cannot repeat this enough. It doesn't matter if you radically disagree with what the sources say, you must still include and explain it because that is what reliable experts have said. Here is an example. I study eighteenth-century children's literature and I have very specific opinions about certain texts and authors that are radically different from the published material (for example, I feel that religion is central to the Mary Wollstonecraft's Original Stories from Real Life), but I cannot refuse to include what those other scholars have said on the text, even if I think they are wrong, because they are published and I am not (yet). Only when my articles have been published, can I challenge those other interpretations. If you really want to say in any film article that the filmmaker's opinions should be given more weight than any other person's, you are going to have to publish something on that, because that is not the current state of the scholarship. I hope that explanation is clear. Awadewit | talk 10:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• I do not plan on doing any work on the article. As I have repeatedly said, I do not feel that reviewers, especially at FAC, are bound to edit articles that they feel do not meet the criteria. If that were the case, none of us would do anything else. We review what people bring to us. Oftentimes the separation between reviewer and editor is beneficial. Reviewers have more distance from the article and can evaluate it more dispassionately and objectively. Awadewit | talk 10:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment At the moment, I have to agree with Awadewit. The article really does need a tip-to-toe, serious copyedit. I've done a little tonight and I'll pitch in some more tomorrow, but some more help would definitely be appreciated. I won't pretend to love this movie, but it is extremely significant and deserves an FA level article. A good effort has been made already, but/and a good deal of work remains to be done.—DocKino 05:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Alientraveller 09:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I stumbled on the article accidentally and was amazed this wasn't an FA already. Re the criticism of the film being an interpretation of Spielberg's childhood, surely this could be rectified by rewording the article to state that Spielberg created the film with his childhood experiences in mind - it's a minor problem at any rate. Johnleemk | Talk 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, the Spielberg problem can partly be rectified that way, but not entirely. You seem to be missing the point the article is missing substantial research. It has only two interpretations of the film and none of the material in that section is based on "expert testimony", you might say. Please look at the sources - there is no scholarship there whatsoever. Awadewit | talk 13:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I was mistaken about the breadth of the sourcing; the nominator has clearly not covered the scholarship out there as brought up in your original opposing comment. (And I am aghast that people think "these sources aren't online" is a good enough excuse not to cite them.) I think this is still a fine article, but clearly insufficiently comprehensive. I wouldn't mind seeing it pass, since I'm of the laxer old school when it comes to FAs, but this is an article I can't support. It's a great article, but it could be so much better. Johnleemk | Talk 02:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support - As far as I can tell, the issues raised above have been sufficiently addressed. It felt a little long, but it's only 35 KB. BenB4 13:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the issues haven't been addressed. I just looked backed at the "Themes" section. There are still only two interpretations. The Spielberg childhood bit and the Christian bit. As the primary editor has admitted that he cannot understand scholarly film criticism, we have a problem. I hope he is looking for someone to help him out, because I know that those two interpretations aren't the only two, nor do they represent the "mainstream" opinion among scholars (the experts we are supposed to be relying on). I could tell this from my quick survey of the articles while digging up research on the previous go-around for this FAC. Awadewit | talk 13:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not your right to just tramp over someone else's opinion. Either way, that's all I've found under WP:V. At least there's no fringe views. Alientraveller 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "tramping" over other people's opinions. I'm simply saying that if the two reviewers above would take the time to check the scholarship like I did, or stop to carefully consider what is in the article, they would realize that this article is incomplete. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link or citation for the scholarly criticism you mention? BenB4 21:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is click on the "old nom" link to see that discussion. Awadewit | talk 21:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well we now have tolerance as another theme, if you were wondering. But I look forward to finding more reliable sources. Until then, I don't think you should go around telling people "what" they should think. Alientraveller 08:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You still seem to be missing the fundamental point, though, which is that the "Themes" section should be primarily based on research into film criticism. The tolerance theme is sourced to the producer on the DVD. There is already plenty of material on the page about what the filmmakers thought the film was about. While that is important, it is not the end all, be all of interpretation. The article is still missing the expert's interpretations. Awadewit | talk 09:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean viewers' interpretations? Well unlike say, The Prestige, which is meant to be up to the viewer's interpretation, the filmmakers clearly state their intent, and anything else could be fringey. Rest assured, the Christ-figure stuff is there, which is an important interpretation of the film. More stuff will be added, but for now, the section is fine: adding quotes for the sake of it isn't necessary. Alientraveller 09:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't mean viewers' interpretations. As I have said over and over again, I am talking about film scholars. Their views are not "fringe" necessarily. The editors of this article are responsible for finding the most common scholarly interpretations of this film. Just because the filmmakers state their intent, doesn't mean that that intent is conveyed or that that meaning is the only one. Please read intentional fallacy again. The Christian interpretation should be sourced to a peer-reviewed publication, meaning a legitimate version of it would have been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. You have not cited it from any such place - you have cited it from a book on E.T. citing a pamphlet. I am not asking you to add quotes for the sake of it - I am asking you to do real research. Awadewit | talk 10:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It flows perfectly fine, and film scholars are viewers. Anyway, I have little access to such editorials, and the one I read amounted to nothing really. But rest assured, Bignole will be adding some soon. Alientraveller 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not about flow. It is about basing the article on the best available sources. You have not done that. Wikipedia policy, rightly says, that its articles will primarily be based on secondary sources written by experts (in this case academics). This section, in particular, is based on primary sources (the filmmakers themselves). Please read this explanation of sources. Just two other bits of information, articles published by scholars are not "editorials" (editorials are opinion pieces published in newspapers) and I have a hard time understanding how you can say that the article you read "amounted to nothing" when you admitted you could not understand it. I am happy that Bignole is helping you out. I look forward to seeing the article improved. Awadewit | talk 10:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) If it helps, think of this as a novel instead. The article covers the author's interpretation of the work, some casual readers' interpretations, and very little literary criticism. If there were no scholarly work on E.T., that would be one thing, but film scholars have written about it, and given their own interpretations of it, and the article does not fully reflect this. Johnleemk | Talk 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Johnleemk's objections. I don't have time to work on the article, but a few good sources I found in a jstor search are The Look Back in "E.T.", by Ilsa J. Bick, Cinema Journal 1992; Enter Textuality: Echoes from the Extra-Terrestrial, by Thomas A. Sebeok, Poetics Today 1985; Of Living Machines and Living-Machines: Blade Runner and the Terminal Genre, by William Fisher, New Literary History 1988. Calliopejen1 08:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that sucks considering I can't enter that database. Alientraveller 10:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But the articles are still available in major public libraries and university research libraries. Awadewit | talk 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't have access to a university. Alientraveller 11:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost all major public universities (such as state universities) allow the public to use their resources. Most private universities will do so, if you explain your research interests. Awadewit | talk 11:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Where do you live? Things might be different this side of the Atlantic. Alientraveller 12:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Which side are you on? I am on the American side. As far as I know, though, British public and university libraries have become much more open in the past few decades. Awadewit | talk 12:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well not as I'm concerned. The Harrow libraries I am member of don't really offer much beyond books and language learning materials. The Internet is my main resource. But Bignole has told me to take my mind off this article. As I'm concerned, it's FA, and savage it as you wish, but I care not for one little section where I have to find books and visit universities for a general purpose encyclopedia. Good day, and until then, I hope to find more people to help out. Maybe including you, so you can put your keyboard where your keyboard... No wait that won't work... Alientraveller 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is always interlibrary loan. If you don't want to do research, perhaps you should find something else to do on wikipedia. Writing articles requires "finding books" and "going to libraries", I'm afraid. What do you think the Encyclopedia Brittanica's articles are, exactly? They are articles written by scholars who have spent years "reading books" and "going to libraries". In order to replicate their articles or do better, we must be willing to undertake the same research. Awadewit | talk 06:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• From the themes section: "Universal Studios appealed directly to the Christian market, with a poster reminiscent of Michelangelo's Creation of Adam and a logo reading "Peace"." Do you have a source for this? I agree that the poster looks like that but it's nowhere near obvious enough to stand on its own merits. Calliopejen1 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Alientraveller 15:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Lots of information and nicely written. Avala 16:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—Reluctant neutral. 1a, but it's nearly there. Get someone fresh to run through. It was too easy to pick up little glitches at random.
  • "$10.5 million"—MOSNUM says don't link it this way. And why make us hit the dollar link to find that you mean US dollars? Who needs it linked? Just "US$10.5 million", please, and subsequently just $XX, unlinked.
  • "E.T.."—English-speakers never double the dots at the end of a sentence. Right back to Fowler and beyond. One dot counts for both roles here.
  • "E.T. was an enormous box office hit"—Hits are enormous, aren't they, so remove the bloat word?
  • "The film was rereleased in 1985 and 2002, with altered special effects and additional scenes for the 2002 version." Repetition/redundancy (This is exposed in the lead.) "The film was rereleased in 1985, and in 2002 with altered special effects and additional scenes." Don't you think?
  • "to keep it hidden from their mother and the government"—very odd couple, mom and government.
  • "due in part to E.T. becoming intoxicated after drinking Coors beer at home and ..."—Ungrammatical noun plus gerund ("E.T. becoming"). Nominalise it: "due partly to E.T.'s intoxication from drinking Coors beer and ..."
  • dubs itself "E.T."—See MOS on "Words as words". I think this should be italic instead of quoted, whereas "phone home" is an actual quote of what the creature says in the film, yes?
  • "to get convincing emotional performances from his cast"—Get? Professional writing would avoid this dull thud. Try "achieve" or something else.
  • "A scene that Spielberg said triggered speculation as to whether the film was intentionally a religious parable." Believe it or not, this caption is just a nominal group (large noun). MOS says no period.

I'd like to see this one succeed. Tony 04:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, and further copyediting was done for the reception section. Alientraveller 08:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Last para under "Plot" needs a bit of attention: E.T. "dies" and "awakens"? Perhaps "dies/revives", or "appears to die/awakens". Also, E.T. is "it" throughout except in last two lines of this para where there are two "his" and two "he". (Unless I've missed a subtlety here?) PamD 09:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Asked to revisit this: here's what's been done since. It's improved.
  • "a gross of $11 million"—Nope, "grossing $11 ...". And am I being dumb, or do you need to say "in the first ?weekend", or some such time-phrase?
  • MOS says you must use en dashes for page ranges, not hyphens. ("25–41", not "25-41"). Please fix. I'm not entirely happy, and would be pleased for this to receive more sprucing. Guess I'll go to neutral. Tony 12:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Good article. I just have a few concerns and hope these can be adressed:
  • "The film was shot from September to December 1981 in California on a budget of US$10.5 million." According to the infobox this figure is only an estimate. If this is the case, then that sentence should also reflect it.
  • "Tamara De Treaux, another dwarf, and a boy born without legs took turns wearing the costume, depending on what scene was being filmed." Why "another" dwarf? She's the first dwarf mentioned in the article?
  • "Spielberg drew the story of E.T. from the divorce of his own parents" That's really been mentioned often enough.
  • "George Will was one of few to pan the film, feeling it spread subversive notions about childhood and science." Would it be possible to have just a few words elaborating on what he meant exactly?--Carabinieri 00:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support A great article for a great film Green Owl ^{Uh uh}

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.