Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Mummy (1999 film)

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 00:14, 12 April 2008.

[edit] The Mummy (1999 film)

If you're bored of me throwing video game FACs at you... here's an article about a B-grade film for you to chew on! Be savage and merciless! (I ran through it twice for copyediting, but doubtless there are still issues... but I can't see them.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments (Thank you for NOT putting up another video game FAC... I for one appreciate some variety...)

Link tool shows no problems with the links, and I didn't find any either. Sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support comprehensive and well-referenced article, but Reception lacks the awards (maybe I'll put them myself) and maybe an image on Plot or Development could help. igordebraga ≠ 22:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll look for one featuring the Mummy himself, since he's not featured in the cast. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Neutral—I went to one section and fixed a number of little things. Prose needs massaging, and fails the requirement for professional formatting in its overlinking.

• Lots of good links, so why dilute them with a linked "American". Who on earth would need to follow it? Same for common words such as "corpse" and "Earth" and "prison", etc.
• "the movie eventually transformed into a blockbuster adventure film"—"transformed" is awkward here, for two reasons.
• "grossed a total of $43 million in 3,210 theaters"—do we need "a total of" (repeated in the very next sentence, too)?
• Em dash wrongly spaced.
• "is serving as a captain in a unit of the French Foreign Legion who have voluntarily journeyed"—Is "have" right here? Maybe ", which has"? Remove "stored"?
• "unbeknownst"—It's not Shakespeare: "unknown".

And so on ... TONY (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the overlinking, fixed the spacing and redundancy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Uses IMDb. Ultra! 16:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• First line must state what type of film it is: horror, action etc.
• Legacy contains many unsourced lines. Ultra! 16:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've sourced, more of the challengeable statements, added the genre, and removed the IMDb link. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why all pics on right side? Track list is pointless in a film article. And expand the making greatly using the refs below. Ultra! 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead para 2 overuses "film". Remove US flag. Ultra! 15:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The track listing has been removed, the paragraph has been reworded and the flag removed. Several of the references below have been added. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Noting that Ultra! has been notified on his talk page, and I am waiting for him to respond. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Ultra! 17:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: Criterion three concerns:
  • Image:The mummy awakens99.jpg and Image:Mummymovie1.jpg have no “purpose” explanations and seem to fail to significantly enhance our understanding (WP:NFCC#8) or constitute minimal usage (NFCC#3A). If an article is satisfying “brilliant prose”, there is no need for an image to illustrate plot. Similarly, there is no need to use a non-free image to illustrate the cast when all actors depicted are still living (free versions could be obtained – NFCC#1).
  • Image:Goldsmithmummy.jpg – The license tag explicitly says use is allowed “solely to illustrate the audio recording in question”. This is an article about the film, not the soundtrack. How does seeing the soundtrack significantly increase our knowledge of the film (NFCC#8)? Further, image is redundant to Image:The mummy.jpg, with the only meaningful differences being text indicating the former is a soundtrack and identifying the composer. This information could easily be included in the prose, without the need for a non-free image (NFCC#3A). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the soundtrack image and will touch up the fair use rationales, but I think you are being overly tight on image requirements. By that token, 99% of film articles would have no images for plot or for cast, and yet they do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Usage of images in other articles is not relevant here; we’re evaluating The Mummy, not Dinosaurs or Spartans (Bogey, by the way, is PD). Please explain how the two movie scene images satisfy WP:NFCC#1, #3 and #8. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

<Moved non-Mummy question to talk page>

I'm okay with the one image remaining, as there are no doubt certain aspects of the film's cinematography being displayed, which makes it more than a mere cast shot. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: First of all, I applaud the usage of print sources in this film article. In addition, a lot of structure and content are already in place. However, I think that there are still some improvements that could be made to the article, as written below. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I share Elcobbola's concerns about the usage of the non-free images. The film can provide hundreds or thousands of screen shots to implement into the article, but per WP:NFC, there must be significance demonstrated. The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to use secondary sources that directly comment on an aspect of the shot -- either how it is framed, or something contained in the shot that is likely not available with free images. The article has two non-free images showing Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz in scenes that could be as unimportant as the rest of the scenes not shown. Both actors have free images on their biographical articles, so unless there is relevant commentary on their specific appearance (attire, prosthetics, etc), the images don't add anything. The same argument goes for the soundtrack cover, especially when it just repeats the look of the theatrical poster. If the soundtrack is notable enough to be a sub-article, then perhaps the soundtrack cover would be appropriate. However, I doubt that this particular film soundtrack will have much more detail at the present.
• To continue from above, one non-free image that I think could definitely be used in the article is a frontal shot of the mummy under the "Special effects" section (by the way, "effects" needs to be all lowercase). The existing shot in the Plot section would not suffice since we only see the mummy's backside. I would recommend looking at Fight Club (personal example) to see how significant screen shots can be incorporated.
• Another issue is to fix quotations per WP:PUNC. If only a fragment of the quote is being used, punctuation should go outside. Here's one example: The actor understood that his character "doesn't take himself too seriously, otherwise the audience can't go on that journey with him." Either re-format to have the whole quote available, or move the punctuation outside of the end quotation mark. This needs to be fixed throughout the article.
• I also agree with Ultraviolet scissor flame about the usage of IMDb for the awards. You should be able to cite each award by finding their respective websites (which usually has archived wins and nominations) or print sources that recognize the wins.
• The "Legacy" section should be titled differently because all of the ensuing media are still under the same rights. People didn't see The Mummy and get inspired to put forth their own interpretations. It's basically turned into a franchise.
• Lastly, for now, I think that there could still be additional resources implemented into this film article. Here is a list of a few I found available:

• I may be able to help you find some of the print sources to implement. Let me know if you're interested, and I can provide some content for the article. A couple of final thoughts -- I don't think that the track listing adds anything encyclopedic to the article. If someone is interested in getting the soundtrack, many online stores will have the track listing. Also, is it at all possible to provide any non-American reviews of the film -- British or Australian? It could increase the scope of critical reception. Let me know if you have any questions, and best of luck!

I've added in a few of the sources you put above, thanks for finding them. I think I've addressed all your concerns except the non-American ones- I was looking for at least a British review, but I haven't found any so far. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a review from the British Film Institute here, [1]. The BFI is a reliable source (and has a Royal Charter), [2] GrahamColm^Talk 17:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I found a few typos,[3], please check that I haven't introduced any errors. GrahamColm^Talk 15:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support for an FA class article about a not-so-good movie, (IMHO). A well written and a well sourced contribution. Well done, David. GrahamColm^Talk 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Dweller

• Lead looks at least 1 parag light for an article of this length, if not 2. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded it a paragraph. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is there such a word in American English as "novelized"? It's horrid to my delicate Anglo ear (eye) but I acknowledge that it's been a few hundred years since us Brits could get away with telling you lot how to do things.

Fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wikilink locations and date in lead
• Something awry in sentence "The visual effects..." Try replacing "and" with "who"?
• "palace guards—If" - caps?

More to follow, as I find 'em. --Dweller (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've addressed both the date issues in refs and the above issues. I've gone through and removed a couple links. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: there are some missing accessdates on websources, on a quick glance I saw some WP:OVERLINKing of common words like Earth and soul, and some missing links on dates, per WP:MOSDATE. Please check through again; will await further review from Dweller. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support – The following is a review of the article in question, made by a layman during its reading. I have no experience in FACs, and I have made sure not to read the above comments before writing this; the review's focus is purely that of reading experience (and neutrality). My main line of work is copy-editing, but this has no place here; there were only a few minor errors in the article, which I have fixed myself.
  • The intro is gripping, and manages to capture the reader's interest, providing all the basic information about the film as well as giving interesting facts, like the Egyptian dialogues and the hardships of production.
  • The Plot section is short enough to retain the reader's interest, still managing to adequately set up the context of the film and not to leave any major part of the story out. It gives less weight to the later parts of the film, which are more action-packed.
  • The Cast section gives a brief overview of each character without excessive repetition from the plot summary, as well as casting information of interest for three of the basic characters. It is a necessary part of a film article, but in this case it is not a burden and successfully gets the reader across to the second important section (Production), while giving them a little more knowledge about the characters.
  • The Production section initially describes succinctly yet clearly the complex evolution process of the film's concept, moves on to recount the extraordinary hardships of shooting and describe the huge, expensive sets, and ends with the special effects, which were clearly important for the film and often involved innovative techniques. All three sub-sections are of equal length, and the entire section is not too large in comparison to the rest of the article—it serves to show that the film in question was unique for several different reasons, and this establishes its notability in addition to its box-office success.
  • The Soundtrack section is rather short, as it should be; it gives an idea about what the music is like, and the paragraph about its reception is neutral and gives an overall comparison with the rest of the composer's work. There is an invisible track listing there, but I do not believe it should be added to the article, as it would expand the section unreasonably.
  • The Reception section typically starts with the revenue figures, which show its popularity without any peacock terms. The second paragraph gives reviews reflecting the overall impression of the film; although the third paragraph is more critical of the film, the award nominations of the fourth one restore balance within the section. The reviews are diverse in terms of content and style, and other reviews covering similar points are simply mentioned; most major sources are included.
  • The Adaptation section is of a reasonable length, and serves as the end of the article, indicating a sense of continuation as far as the sequels are concerned. The image here is well-placed, also anchoring the article's end.
  • The "appendix" sections are limited to a bare minimum, which, in my opinion, is a good thing; especially the absence of a See also section removes the risk of irrelevant links.
  • Overall, I am satisfied with the style of the prose, the length of the article and the relative lengths of its sections, and the type and order of the sections. The article's structure is simple and sequential. It retains the reader's interest throughout, without over-analysing anything, but maintaining a connection of the subject with the world, instead of isolating it. In my opinion, this is an interesting and encyclopaedic article about a popular film, and a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Furthermore, I find it hard that this article could be improved much more, which is another reason for it becoming Featured. Personally, I like liking an article about a film I like, and I hope to see this more often.
  • Observations
    • Is there any specific reason why the characters' names are not linked in the plot? They are linked in the Cast section, but, although I do not find it much of a concern, it does seems strange to me that the links are missing from the plot summary, given that there are such articles. In addition, the plot summary is not over-linked, so the two extra links would not constitute a burden.
    • I understand that it is hard to find non-copyrighted images for films, but three images barely sustain a featured article of this size. For most of the page, only text is seen. I therefore characterise the usage of images in this article "adequate".
  • Note: As I have said, I have not read the above comments. If you find that one of my concerns repeats a point which has already been made, please point me to the answer to it so that no repetition will be necessitated. Waltham, The Duke of 04:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.