Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/300 (film)

Add links
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 promoted 16:19, 3 August 2007.

300 (film)[edit]

This article on the movie 300 is ready for FA status. Just a side note the images that are used in this article all have proper fair use rationale. You can look at the article's talk page for that. Mercenary2k 07:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The lead section and Plot and Cast sections don't need references? --Kaypoh 09:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LEAD indicates that citations are not required in the lead section, though there is an ongoing discussion about that matter on that policy's talk page. The reference for the Plot section is the film itself, and it's accepted across FA-class film articles that referencing is not required, as long as the Plot section meets WP:MOSFILMS#Plot criteria. The Cast section is also similarly evident and based on the credits of the same film. Like the Plot section, referencing is not required (unless there is a serious dispute about who portrayed who, such as in an experimental film). I hope that clarifies things. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A little more copy-editting needed.
  • "numerically-superior enemy" - when the first word of a two-word modifier ends in ly, hyphenate only if the ly word can be used alone with the noun
 Done Removed the hyphen
  • "The remaining Spartans are killed in the hail of arrows, with Leonidas finally falling..." - the "with" is ungrammatical. It's best to use a semicolon instead, ie. "The remaining Spartans are killed in the hail of arrows; Leonidas finally fell..."
 Done Added semi-colon
  • "...was released on March 6, 2007, with the special edition containing..." - ungrammatical "with"
 Done Removed with
  • "...have been particularly critical, with film critic Robby Eksiel saying..." - ungrammatical "with"
 Done Removed with
  • "...a battle against Eastern centralism and collective serfdom which opposed.." - a comma is needed before "which"
 Done Added comma
  • "Outside of current political parallels, some critics have raised more general questions..." - "of" and "some" are redundant
 Done Removed of
  • "but it was not a democracy. [76]" - remove the space before the ref.
 Done Removed space
  • "On July 9, 2007 it was reported..." - 2007 should be linked. Epbr123 12:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 2007 is linked
  • Comment What are "DVD release" and "TV Broadcast" doing in "reaction"? Shouldn't they be in some sort of "Future release" or "Post-theatrical releases" section? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Moved the DVD Release and TV broadcast to marketing section
    • And upon further inspection it seems that the plot summary implies Leonidas went to meet Xerxes after fighting the Immortals. It might also be good to replace "later" in the final sentence with "after the second day of fighting" or something. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Done. Sentence has been re-written. Mercenary2k 18:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support.Comment No apparent problems with article, but the new "Release" section put in place of "Reaction" doesn't really say that much about the film's release. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its covering all aspects of the release. From the release date, the box office numbers, the reviews and the controversy generated by the movie. Mercenary2k 00:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about merging the "release" information into the "Marketing" section and rename the new section "Promotion and release"? It seems to be a somewhat more fitting place for the limited commentary on the release and somehow leaving the article without an explicitly titled "Reaction" section seems...a touch off. I'll probably support this anyway, but I want to know if something like that could be done. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Moved the release into marketing and renamed it promotion and release and re-named the release section into reception section. So Can I count on your support? :) Mercenary2k 02:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to reinstate the TV airing information...okay Support.--Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the article is really in-depth, and very neutral. The production could be expanded, but that can easily be done soon with the DVD. Alientraveller 16:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't we wait until the DVD comes out to nominate it then? Sheep81 06:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - The lead needs work. It's kind of weak. It needs to be more of a summary of the entire article. The "Awards" section doesn't need it's own subsection if that's all the awards it was nominated for. Production needs to be expanded. The DVD will be out, so the sources will be readily available. It seems "Historical Inaccuracies" and "Controversy" should be last, and in their own sections, maybe even under one section together but under separate sub headings. That's it for now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it out? Well, it's not avaliable to me yet. Alientraveller 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope..lol, I miss read "July 31" for "June 31". My bad. Adjusted my wording. Even more reason that may be a premature FAC.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So a Movie article cannot be considered FA until the DVD has come out? Mercenary2k 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, unless the film itself is decades old and just hasn't made its way onto the DVD plane (which isn't the case for modern day movies), then no. DVDs nowadays usually come with tons of special features that contain a lot of encyclopedic material. Part of FA requirement is comprehensiveness. If a source, which may contain potentially major additions to an article, is not yet released (but there are obvious plans for its release [e.g. this will be out in 6 days]) then you cannot possibly say you've looked over all possible avenues of sources. Obviously you couldn't look at every source that exists, but we know there is a DVD; we live in a time where these DVDs contain an exhaustive amount of information most of the time..especially with these bigger films; we cannot say that the article is comprehensive if a potentially major source has not been officially released. No one will touch an FAC for a film that is still in the theaters, because it hasn't had a chance to make any lasting mark (whether critically or commercially). Technically, the DVD release is still part of the "release" of the film. Also, you might not consider a film "ready" for FAC until you can say that it hasn't garnered any awards. What Award ceremonies have come to pass since the release of the film that the film could have been considered for? MTV Movie Awards? They aren't that significant. I would be willing to bet the movie would be up for Academy Awards in at least the visual effects field. It hasn't had time to sit and stew properly, in my personal opinion. The DVD may turn up nothing useful, we don't know yet, but that's a bridge to cross when it's released. Considering the limited production information in the article, I have to say "we should wait".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article lacks any mention of a significant criticism of the film, best outlined by Dan Savage in his nationally syndicated column, that the film was homophobic. Big strapping,red-blooded straight men who fuck their gorgeous wives before heading off to fight the fetish gear-wearing deviants. While it does mention the commentary that the Spartans were masculine and the Persians "androgynous", it glances over the underlying conclusion. VanTucky (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That has already been discussed to death in this article's talk pages and a general consensus was reached that it was not needed for this article. And for that reason your oppose is not valid. Mercenary2k 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you're overstepping your bounds. The nominator does not under any circumstances decide whose opinion is valid and whose isnt'. Second, if a clear consensus has been reached on this issue, please provide a direct link the discussion in question. Simply calling "consensus reached" is not proof of such. Lastly, even if that discussion reached a consensus, if new, outside editors are bringing it up as a violation of FA-criteria, the issue should be re-addressed not summarily dismissed. And some politeness might help too. VanTucky (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Savage's column was discussed here. Primary objection to inclusion: Savage is neither a professional historian, nor a film critic, but rather a sex advice columnist, and therefore in the present context fails notability requirements. In any case, I fail to see which of the FA criteria this comment addresses. Perhaps 1d, neutrality, but to achieve NPOV it is not necessary that an article detail every point of view. To become "significant," a criticism should probably have been expressed by more than one commentator. --Javits2000 11:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the article lacks information on the worldwide impact of this film. The Iranian reaction deserves more than one paragraph, and the reviews, promotion and box office section are overwhelmingly US-centric. The article uses far, far too many quotations. At least some of these have been cherry-picked to present the film in a positive light, for example, the Paul Cartledge quotes suggest that he liked the film with few reservations, when his view is more nuanced.--Nydas(Talk) 09:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the suggestion is, once again, that the article is not neutral? It seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I'm not sure by which algebra one would determine that the "Iranian reaction deserves more than one paragraph"; more useful would be to point out aspects of that reaction which are not covered in the article, if there are any. Similarly, the suggestion that Cartledge's remarks have been "cherry-picked" is a bald assertion without any substantiation; as it stands, the account of his reaction seems to me to balance praise & blame. Better to point out what has been ommitted (if anything). Presumably every response addressed in the article is more "nuanced" than can be expressed in a summary; this is why references are provided, to allow interested readers to track down fuller accounts.--Javits2000 11:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the article goes into considerably more detail about what writers in American magazines think than what the Iranians (including the President) think. We only learn that Ahmadinejad 'denounced' the film, we hear nothing of his reasoning. Other Iranians are not mentioned, except in vague terms like 'various officials'. At the very least, I would outline the views of Ahmadinejad's cultural adviser (Javad Shangari) and an archeologist (Hamed Vahdati Nasab) who organised an online petition against the film.
Paul Cartledge says in his Guardian article that he enjoyed the film, but it had no pretence of veracity. The article simply says he enjoyed it, omitting this crucial qualifier. An ordinary reader might get the impression that a historian enjoying a film means it's reasonably accurate. Generally speaking, the he-says-she-says format of the historical accuracy section makes it muddled and slanted. Why do uncontroversial facts like Sparta having slaves or pederasty need to be phrased in the form 'X states'?
In addition to this, the problems of the US-centric box office, production and reviews sections remain.--Nydas(Talk) 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The detailed plot summary, while typical of Wikipedia, is not representative of the best of Wikipedia. The opening para. doesn't encapsulate the article yet. Have any themes been detected in discussion of the film in print? --Wetman 01:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly do you see wrong with the plot summary? What aspect(s) does the lead section presently not reference? What sort of "Themes" are you talking about and how do would you want them included in the article? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 07:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He means themes in the academic sense, something akin to these academic studies found at my subpage (just to provide an idea). I personally believe it's too early for academic studies of 300 to be available now because one would have to go to the theater constantly to study the film, as opposed to owning the DVD and studying that with the pause/rewind/fast-forward features. I could be wrong, though... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are going to be any academic studies on 300. All furor over 300 has died down and all the academics have already voiced their opinion and their opinions are already covered in this article. Don't see why the release of a DVD is going to re-ignite Academic debate over 300. So this is an unfair critique of this article.Mercenary2k 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Most academic criticism doesn't come till well after a film is released, when ample time has taken place for people to actually review a movie and critic. Academic scholars are just that, part of academics. They aren't paid film reviewers who have tons of time to go see lots of films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
I agree that the film is likely to attract some attention from film-studies scholars, cultural historians, etc. (And although none will ever admit it, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a view will use this article as a first stop for sources on the contemporary reaction.) It will be important to track this literature once it emerges, but nothing has come to my attention as of yet. --Javits2000 11:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the article is rather well-written, and I can speak from personal experience that the neutrality of the article has been a very difficult thing to attain. As the blowback internationally was confined to a small group of people and for a small time, referencing it in a single paragraph seems more than appropriate; the controversy has died down to less than a murmur since the film's release. Were it more enduring, more might be called for. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iranians are not a small group of people. You can bet that if The Passion of the Christ was featured, there'd be more than a paragraph and a half describing the Jewish reaction.--Nydas(Talk) 18:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the assumption that all Iranians responded, en bloc, to the film in the same fashion? But this is hardly the case, no more than "the Jews" did to the Passion of the Christ. --Javits2000 18:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just semantics. Would you agree that the reaction of certain Jewish groups would get more than a paragraph and a half in a featured Passion article?--Nydas(Talk) 18:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, having now looked at the Passion article, I find its coverage of the various controversies long-winded, and would advocate editing for brevity should the article be nominated for FA. --Javits2000 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Iranians are a small group of people, in the scope of the world population (67 million versus 4 billion), and their reaction was short-lived. AS well, I think it's insulting to insinuate that we would give preferential treatment to one ethnic/religious group over another other. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, almost any group of people is small. How long does their reaction have to go on to warrant more than 1.5 paragraphs? I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but the US/UK bias of Wikipedia is well known. In this case, the controversy section details the views of several named American film critics in detail, whilst the Iranian reaction is played down. You can tell there's more to be written here by the sheer density of sources. It is often the case that sources outside of the developed world are hard to find, but in this case they are plentiful. Your accusations of racism have no place here, I was merely making a comparison. The fact that a featured Passion article would contain a lot of information about the reaction of some Jewish groups is good, the more the better.--Nydas(Talk) 18:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, whatever. If the US/UK "bias" is so "well-known", perhaps your evangelizing efforts might be better utilized somewhere else, say Village Pump. Making your little stand here is only disruptive. You accused people of shutting out comment of Iranian dissent, which was minimal both in number and length of time, and then compounded the matter by suggesting that we might have iven preferential treatment to Jewish sentiments. You are damend by your own words. Like I said, take your soapbox elsewhere, please.
How is a head of state calling the film 'psychological warfare' minimal? Is it more or less minimal than the views of the film critic of the Philadelphia Daily News? Instead of using inflammatory language, please address my points, particularly the lack of worldwide box office coverage.--Nydas(Talk) 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reaction of the Iranian government were noted in the article. I am sorry if you feeling my calling you to account for your indefensible accusations 'inflammatory'. Apart from that, I am not goign to address this anymore. Take your soapbox elsewhere. I am not feeding you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's noted in the article, but not covered in sufficient depth. I have posted a comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Have I done something wrong?--Nydas(Talk) 20:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Alientraveller; also, I wouldn't have put this up for FAC before the DVD release since it will almost certainly help improve the article. But I don't really think that that precludes this from possibly being featured. Cliff smith 03:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article meets all four FA criteria; written in an encyclopedic and consistent tone, remarkably comprehensive coverage of all aspects of production, release, and reception; extensive verification; NPOV acheived through a long and exceedingly thorough process of negotiation (cf. the talk archives); stability also hard-won; logical and consistent style; well-considered use of images (cf. again relevant talk archives); suitable length for the significance and complicated nature of the subject. As for the DVD release; of course, it will be extremely interesting to see if additional encyclopedic information is presented there; but the current account of production is synthetic & based on a wide variety of contemporary sources, which is arguably better than regurgitating the "official" account of the production presented by the studio. --Javits2000 11:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • The prose could be better improved. Sentences like "Producer Gianni Nunnari was planning a film about the Battle of Thermopylae, but director Michael Mann was already planning a film based on the book Gates of Fire, about the battle." could be better written. And then some choppy prose as well: "Director Zack Snyder, who already attempted to make a film based on Miller's novel before making his debut with the remake of Dawn of the Dead,[4] was hired to direct in June 2004.[5] He hired screenwriter Kurt Johnstad to rewrite Gordon's script for production.[5] Frank Miller hired on the project as executive producer and consultant.[6]". And then this one: "Snyder photocopied panels from the comic book, from which he planned the preceding and succeeding shots. "It was a fun process for me... to have a frame as a goal to get to," said Snyder.[8] Like the comic book, the adaptation also used the character Dilios as a narrator. Snyder used this narrative technique to show the audience that the surreal "Frank Miller world" of 300 was related from a subjective perspective. By utilizing Dilios' gift of storytelling, Snyder is able to introduce fantasy elements into the film, explaining that "Dilios is a guy who knows how not to wreck a good story with truth."[9] Snyder also added the sub-plot in which Queen Gorgo attempts to rally support for her husband.[10]" And choppy again: "At Comic-Con International in July 2006, the 300 panel aired a promotional trailer of the film, which was positively received.[41] The trailer was then leaked to the Internet.[42] Warner Bros. released the official trailer for 300 on October 4, 2006.[43] This trailer found its way to Apple.com in the fall of 2006 where it received considerable exposure."
  • These series of citations are really ugly IMO: "a particularly noble page in their history."[97][98][99] Various Iranian officials condemned the film.[100][101][102][103] The Iranian Academy of the Arts submitted a formal complaint against the movie to UNESCO, labelling it an attack on the historical identity of Iran.[104][105] The Iranian mission to the U.N. protested the film in a press release,[106] and Iranian embassies protested its screening in France, Thailand, Turkey and Uzbekistan.[107][108][109][110]" There are ways to merge them.
 Done I fixed up the prose as you recommended. Take a look at it and tell me if you are satisfied with it. The citations, I am not really sure how to merge 3 or 4 citations into 1 citation. The reason that there are so many is because it gives Iranian, European and American news coverage about Iran's reaction to the movie. If you know of a way to merge these citations then please tell me and I will do it. Mercenary2k 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these stacked citations are a problem, but I'm also not sure how to fix it. In the case of the last series, at least (107-110) each citation references a specific embassy protest. In the other cases, the attempt was to present the "official" Iranian response in a concise fashion while allowing readers the possibility to track down various reports -- a sort of compromise between too-expansive / redundant converage & short shrift. Like many compromises, it's none too elegant. --Javits2000 12:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Sandy's method in Tourette syndrome could be helpful with the citations.--Yannismarou 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides these issues the analysis looks to me fine, and the intro adequate. I am a weak supporter, waiting for further improvements.--Yannismarou 14:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though some sentences are tagged with 3 or 4 notes, the referencing on the page is properly formatted. But it's understandable why some sentences have multiple notes. Like these:

Various critics, historians, journalists, and officials of the Iranian government including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad[88] have denounced the film.[89][90][91]
Various Iranian officials condemned the film.[100][101][102][103]
The Iranian mission to the U.N. protested the film in a press release,[106] and Iranian embassies protested its screening in France, Thailand, Turkey and Uzbekistan.[107][108][109][110]

  • Each of these sentences refer to multiple things, like various people in the Iranian gov't: each note refers to a different official; and each embassy that protested has its own note. Now in the last sentence, the notes should be next to the specific nation whose embassy protested. That would clear up the end of the sentence. The issue of crowded sentence ends aside, the referencing here is fine. Cliff smith 22:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/300_(film)&oldid=149074574"