Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alien Nation (film)/archive1

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 by Karanacs 16:24, 12 January 2010 [1].

Alien Nation (film) edit

Nominator(s): Peetric (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because its a cult Sci-fi classic which spawned a number of TV Movie sequels plus a popular TV Series. I believe the article is well written, has an appropriate structure and is concise with info for its length. It appears to meet the requirements. Peetric (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Peetric, this is unlikely to pass as it stands, due to such issues as the lack of a proper lede, and problems with sourcing. Have you looked at the Featured Articles about movies at WP:FA? We are not really set up here to educate you in getting the article into shape to be a FA. Can I suggest you take it to WP:PR instead?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree that it needs quite a bit of work. Also, the lead image needs alt text; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not that this might not make an excellent FA at some point, but it falls far short of the mark as it stands now. Unsourced sections, references lacking needed data for WP:V and an underdeveloped lead. Strongly suggest taking the above advice. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE Hi....ok, well I tried to lengthen and develop that introduction along with some other sections. I will continue to try to work out those issues. But that WP:ALT text; I'm not sure how to apply that tag!! ... lOl ... Can someone help on that??? Peetric - 20:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eubuildes is the man when it comes to the mysteries of ALT text. Perhaps ask him on his talk page? Also, are you sure you wouldn't rather go to Peer Review? That is more set up to give detailed feedback on a continuing basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think there's a shot it could make the cut without Peer Review. As far as the Alt Text is concerned, maybe I'll do that. Or perhaps Mr. Eubuildes will come back and view this page again for responses. Peetric - 22:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdraw by an odd name—I disagree that "it could make the cut without Peer Review". It seems fairly well-organized, but is weak on content.

Two dab links. Replace them with more specific article links to avoid confusing readers.
No dead external links—good. Add titles to the links, though—if they're dead, their titles, authors, and publishers will give us an idea of their provenance and reliability.
IMDb is not very reliable—replace whenever possible. Capitalize it consistently, too ("iMDB"?).
Avoid original research. The "See also" links are better off in the article, where they can be explained. As they are, I had to think about whether someone was relating the film to the other subjects by their own metric, instead of those of sources.
Dates are consistent Month Day, Year style—good. Try to find a specific date for that Siskel review though ("circa 1988" seems a bit too new to lack a full date).
- Speaking of Siskel, avoid "The late". (Do we call the philosopher "The late Plato"?) Siskel gave the review, whether he died later or not; we can check the article to see if he died, and whether he has is not relevant for this article because he lived to review the film.

For expansion ideas, consider listening to DVD commentary (if available), reading longer SF film articles like Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and consulting WikiProject Films and WikiProject Science Fiction. Google Books has some full-view references that mention the film. Primary sources are acceptable for a few facts when other sources are not available. --an odd name 22:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I've just made and improved on many of those issues, and corrected them in the article. I will continue working on it, by trying to watch the DVD commentary for more insight. Appreciate it. Peetric - 23:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdraw Peetric, well done for being proactive and trying to improve this, but this is not the process you want for extensive advice. Go to PR for that. Here, articles should be nearly perfect when they arrive for editors to tweak to near-complete perfection. RB88 (T) 01:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

: RESPONSE ........lOl.......I really think the article has been tweaked to near perfection. Its like trying to squeeze a glass of orange juice from an orange peel. This article certainly doesn't contain rich content like say a movie such as Avatar, but its pretty concise for what it has. The movie is 22 years old, and distinct info on it is hard to come by. I won't be surprised if this article makes it to being "Featured". Peetric - 2:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Peetric, while I agree that it is easier to do a more recent movie than an older one, we don't lower the standards for older ones. You've already picked up three opposes, and I did not oppose because I don't want to bite the newbies, and you've said that you probably won't make major changes. This isn't going to pass. When it is archived, I really suggest that you take it to peer review or ask for help at the films wikiproject.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Single copyrighted poster used as identifying shot; fair use rationale could be refined to state why this poster should be the one instead of another. Furthermore, copyright owners are not identified although refered to. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, strongly suggest withdrawal: Although Peetric has added an amount of content to the article,[2] it might not not be substantial enough to overwhelmingly make him the most significant contributor. Have the other major contributors been contacted (although seeing the state of the article before Peetric touched it, it might not matter.)? Nonetheless, the article lists only 10 references: 3 of which are IMDb (major no-no in most cases), 1 from Box-Office Mojo, and the rest reviews. It ignores the literature out there (see this Google search) that could help to flesh out the background, conception, themes, and criticisms/commentaries on this film. Needless to say, this fails WP:WIAFA 1(b) & 1(c)—comprehensiveness and well-researched. Furthermore, sources are missing for several sentences/paragraphs, again failing 1(c). Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This article has quite a few problems, even without extra information out there. It ignores MOS:FILM, WP:SLASH, and several sections including Plot, Box Office, here are not sourced. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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