Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Casino Royale (2006 film)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Casino Royale (2006 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 not promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

Casino Royale (2006 film) edit

There were some problems with this nom. It had a great many supports, but I'm restarting it (Old nom) Raul654 21:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - First on the list, "Credit sequence". This does not need its own subsection. There's barely enough info as is, and it's pretty much talking about effects. "Special effects" should be re-titled "Effects", and "Credit sequence" should be placed in with that information. The same goes for "Vehicles and gadgets". This film is a land mark for the series because it's lacking this stuff. We should find information that says "WHY" it wasn't included, and then put that in the "Production" section. There isn't that much there, and this isn't something is probably going to be able to even remotely handle being it's own subsection (let alone the full section it is now), so it can be placed in the lead paragraph of the "Production" section. I'll limit my critique, to this, since every time I make any suggestions they are generally ignored.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the Bond movie title sequences have been one of the most consistent items to carry from movie to move, I think that a section about the credit sequence could warrant a subsection. Slavlin 21:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. It's one minor thing about the film, that only diehard Bond fans would actually care about. We might as well have a trivia section. Friday the 13th had a specific title sequence for the first several films, but was later change. It's apart of the opening credits. There isn't a section in Halloween III about the difference in title sequences, since the first two had the same type of opening with the gradual closing in on the pumpkin. It's something minor. Otherwise, we might as well have an entire section devoted to the removal of Q and Moneypenny. Or, a section about how this is a reboot of the franchise, starting from the beginning, yet M is played by the same woman from the last Bond films. It's minor, has more to do with the effects going into the opening credits (and less to do with the actual change of them).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second concern is the "user ratings" in the Reception section. This has already been discussed on the WikiProject Film page, and all user ratings should be avoided. This includes IMDb and RottenTomatoes. Online polls not only lack reliable random polling (as the only people voting are the same ones that vote on every poll), don't get enough votes to provide a reliably sized sample, but we cannot verify that there isn't any vote stacking going on. It isn't hard to just change computers to vote again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've taken care of two of the things I mentioned, we'll see if someone has issues with that. I'm still waiting for someone to address the importance of the "vehicles and gadgets" list, especially when this film should be notable in that area for not having any gadgets. We don't list cars in other FA articles. The vehicles and alien life forces are a staple of Star Wars, just as much as vehicles and gadgets are of Bond, but you don't see those pages filled with a list of new creatures in each film (or what speeders and emperial walkers were used). Find information about the director not wanting to use any of those gadgets and lose the list.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Its a very well done piece, not anything really in particular to fix. Great job to those involved; I'm highly impressed. User:RideABicycle/Signature 00:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm concerned that people are not actually reading this article and are just skimming it over. In the least, I would expect more "Conditional Oppose", like Erik, on the grounds that there are 2 citation tags in the article. This requires a bit of actual reading. I'm not trying to downplay your decision RideABike, but, this has been an on going issue in this FAC (and probably one of the reasons why it was started over).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm supposed to put in my two cents, and you are telling me I'm wrong. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure its at least somewhat skewed to expect a particular opinion. Maybe you should outline what acceptable responses are; then people wont accidentally support any articles around here. User:RideABicycle/Signature 01:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Wow, someone who takes 18 days to get angry over nothing. Amazing. Oh, and that part about accidentally supporting articles, hilarious. You should e-mail Sinbad. ColdFusion650 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Oppose - There are still passages marked with a lack of citation that need to be addressed. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The opening sequence subsection has been verified. Cliff smith 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regard to the gunbarrel sequence, the last handful of sentences are personal observations that do not have any attribution to them -- am I supposed to watch all the Bond films to find out that Casino Royale really is the first to do so-and-so? I've also added further citation-needed tags, especially for the ends of paragraphs. Also, my previous citation-needed tag for the Chinese redubbing was removed without the problem being addressed; I've re-added it. If this article wants to meet FA status, then all pertinent information should be cited. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It turns out that the things that were uncited about the special effects were just lacking proper citation from a source which was already here: the documentary "James Bond: For Real". I fixed the ref and applied it where it was needed. Cliff smith 03:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The {{citation needed}} tag at the end of the first paragraph in "Effects" is unnecessary—the statement about things like Bond music and the catch phrase not appearing until near the end of the film needs no reference. It's similar to making a statement about the plot, which would need no reference either.
    Cliff smith 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Other than the first sentence, the rest of the observations are based on comparing this film with all the other films. Is a reader expected to take that information for granted, needing to view all the 007 films to verify it? If no attributable source can be found mentioning it (indicating it's probably not important), then it's trivial and can be removed. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If such observations are trivial, which they appear to be, then remove them. You're right. Cliff smith 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both. I don't know why I added it at the end, I wasn't paying attention (if I did add it, I can't remember). Technically, it's "verifiable", but it really is trivial, unless we can find an attributable source citing why the director chose to push it to the end. Otherwise, it's just observable trivia. The problem with most of the "differences from other Bond films" type of information is that it relies on the "tell" instead of the "show" of encyclopedic writing. It's just "this is this, and it's different than that", instead of "this is this, because....".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping that once such trivia is removed that the article will be a bit smaller, so that criterion 4 would be better satisfied, since apparently the article needs trimming. If anything could be condensed, perhaps the effects section. Cliff smith 23:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik removed that one portion that was kind of trivial. I wonder what the article would look like if we removed all observable facts (e.g. anything that is basically a comparison of the Bond films, and lists of the vehicles and gadgets, as that is really just comparing what this film has to what the other films had). Also, I think the actual article is only about 40-45kb long (b/c you are only supposed to count the prose inforamation, and the edit page counts every character including HTML code).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There's not enough info in any section to warrant a spinoff article anyway. Just because it suggests smaller articles should be created doesn't mean that such a thing needs to happen. Cliff smith 00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion 4. The article needs trimming - please read WP:SUMMARY. LuciferMorgan 01:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think one of the easiest ways for that is to remove the soundtrack information completely. It isn't that important to the article, and we can provide a link at the top to the actual article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well "Vehicles and gadgets" is unnecessary trivia and could be removed. LuciferMorgan 11:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried that suggestion, and the response is "it's a staple of the Bond franchise, and on all the other Bond articles (even the ones that once were FA). I made a suggestion at the top about what to do with that section, because right now I don't see encyclopedic content in it; I just see a list.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is a separate list of gadgets, why don't we just make a link to said list? Cliff smith 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does your opposition refer to (what do you think needs summarization)? Cliff smith 00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the article fully in awhile so it may be there, but it isn't, then what I'm referring to is that if editors really want that "vehicles and gadget" informatin (it isn't not worthy of its own full section) then they need information from the director/writers, and whatnot, that discuss why that stuff wasn't included. Don't just list all the cars and little gizmos that Bond used, that's irrelevant in an encyclopedia, but talk about why it was decided to go against the tradition of Bond having lots of cool toys.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continue to oppose based on use of Internet Movie Database in the references (1c). It claims no responsibility for its material. Commanderbond.net appears to have been reduced, but should also go completely as an unofficial site. Marskell 12:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your assistance in the removal of said refs and replacing them with reliable ones would be appreciated. Cliff smith 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I replaced the last remaining IMDB ref. Cliff smith 23:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Im still not at all sure about this whole "gadgets before plot" nonsence. It just doesnt seem right. Having a section about vehicles and gadgets in a film placed before the plot of the film (which could do with a bit of extending) is even discussed seems illogical. I would happily support if this policy was changed. There are also a couple of tags that are holding it back, but those can be fixed relatively easily. - • The Giant Puffin • 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The change has been made. Now let's see if whoever moved it above plot in the first place starts pitching a fit. ColdFusion650 12:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to see this is fixed - • The Giant Puffin • 09:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since any problems with refs are in the process of being corrected. I agree that the gadgets should come after plot, though this is a rather minor aspect of this article.
    Cliff smith 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The fair-use rationale for the Craig photo under casting is pretty flimsy. Calliopejen1 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continued Oppose, 1c, reliability of sources — same reasons as old nom, not corrected. There are still several items sourced to IMDb.com (although labeled as studio briefing), and a LOT of the article is still sourced to commanderbond.net. Others sources which don't appear to rise to the level of WP:RS include Ernie Els official website, and superherohype.com. Wikilinking also needs attention; common words like "critics" and "suave" are wikilinked (see WP:CONTEXT). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have an issue with the uncited nature of the Cameos section. If these people's cameos are listed in the film's credits, but it can be referenced as such. However, there have been cases where there were unlisted cameos. Just giving the names does not help, especially with cameos of actors who appeared in previous 007 films decades ago. There should be attributable sources that reinforce these cameos, because it's not always convincing enough to look at a picture, then watch the film for the cameo's appearance. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subsection of Cameos seems fairly trivial to me. Cliff smith 02:54, 9 May 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/Casino_Royale_(2006_film)/archive1&oldid=1144723752"