Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raiders of the Lost Ark/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 June 2021 [1].

Raiders of the Lost Ark edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1981 action-adventure film Raiders of the Lost Ark (a.k.a. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark). Though not my favourite film in the series it's the most important one, not just for the film series itself but for its influence on films that followed, it's massive success, and somehow George Lucas was making this and The Empire Strikes Back simultaneously. Questionable talent that he may have become, the man was a genius at his peak. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from theJoebro64 edit

Gonna leave some comments soon. I may make slight edits while I go through, as I think it'll be easier than just leaving comments on minor points. JOEBRO64 13:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks TheJoebro64 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!
Yo, TheJoebro64, pinging you bro. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nudge. I've read the article fully and don't see really anything to nitpick. My only issue was a minor quirk in the Writing section; the "they" in "They agreed to use 'Jones' instead" refers to Spielberg, Kasdan, and Lucas all, correct? I think it should be clarified because it's the start of a new paragraph. Otherwise I don't think I need to hold this up much longer so I'm throwing in a support. JOEBRO64 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, thanks TheJoebro64!! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 👨x🐱 edit

Excited to review this. BTW, given the comments you've received on your previous, if you'd like to review other featured articles in the review, I would strongly encourage it. I'm planning some film FA nominations in the future, although I don't have any right now.

Initial comments and lead
  • I'll start out by saying every citation here is from reliable sources and formatted perfectly from a skimthrough, so that's a good sign.
  • Poster doesn't have WP:ALT description.
  • "While the pair had ideas for notable scenes in the film" Clarify. Are we meaning concepts for scenes that would be known years after release, or scenes that are the most essential in progressing the plot?
  • An oddity I noticed with the locations listed. I get why La Rochelle and Tunisia were there because they were filmed the most prominently judging by the filming section, and I get Hawaii because even though it was filmed there for one scene, it was filmed in several areas of the state for the scene. However, I don't know why the entire state of California is listed. Only one scene used only one location of California, a University. Additionally, by that logic, shouldn't England also be listed since it was also used for one scene in location of the country, Rickmansworth?

More comments coming soon to a theater near you. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added an ALT caption for the poster. I changed the lead part to setpieces and stunts. The gist of it from my research is they had an idea like "Oh let's have a big boulder chase Indy" and it was Kasdan's job to get Indy in front of the boulder and then NOT in front of the boulder, if that helps understanding. England is technically mentioned but not in an on location capacity so I've reworded and took out California. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HumanxAnthro, did you see my response? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse the delayed reactions yet again. A result of juggling everything at once. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • This section two major issues
    • One, even though it's well under 700 words, it still feels like a list of scenes in order instead of a concise summary.
    • Two, while I understand sentence length variation is importance and it's fine to have short sentences here and there, I feel this section has too many of them and the prose is choppy in some spots.
Cast
  • Looks good, character descriptions keep true to sources cited. On a side note, however, can I just it's weird that the Variety source refers to Rene by the actor's name?
  • Ref 11 does give character names and actors for Musgrove of Eaton, but doesn't specify they have those positions for the U.S. Army.
  • I do, however, need to state that Ref 10, cited first in this section, is url= linked to a BBC article different from what I expected. The archiveurl link at least is correct, but not the url= link.
  • What is the Bantu Wind? This is the first section it is brought up.

👨x🐱 (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a few short sentences by integrating them into larger ones. As for the plot itself, as you say it's well under the word limit, I've refined and refined it down to it's bare bones, but I do not believe anything there is unnecessary. It's a constantly moving story that switches locations frequently, and every element mentioned is relevant to a different part of the story. It's as tight a summary of the key elements as you could ask for. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthro, god catch on ref 10, I've fixed that and the other issues. I've added some additional references for the US army guys, it's bizarrely difficult to find sources on the "Top Men" guys. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging HumanxAnthro. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Production section in general
  • Some multi-cites are not in increasing numerical order. "[16][20][21][13]" "[20][21][13][22]" 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That simply comes from invoking previously used citations (and evidently not the same order they were first used within the article). I don't see a problem with this as long as they support the attributed text. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were in order but as I've had to tweak things, they've fallen out of order. It's fine, I'll fix it. Thanks both. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly ping @ HumanxAnthro because they're as beautiful, fleeting, and uncatchable as the wind. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conception
  • Sorry this is taking so long, because checking if the citations correctly cite the info is taking a long time because the sources are so long to read. Anyone, it looks mostly good, but I'm skeptical about the following:
    • "In 1975, Lucas discussed his serial film idea with his friend Philip Kaufman. The pair worked on a script for two weeks." Source state they "worked on the story for two weeks". The story and screenplay are too different things from what I understand.
    • "In May 1977, Lucas vacationed in Hawaii to avoid the potential failure of the theatrical debut of Star Wars." "Potential failure"? The sources do state the meeting took place the day after the premiere and admits they were anticipating Star Wars' first-day performance, but that doesn't indicate it had the potential to fail. Am I missing something

👨x🐱 (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HumanxAnthro, I've changed the wording a little, I definitely recall reading something about its potential failure but I may have misread it from "not sure if it would suceed" or something along those lines, so I've just changed it closer to the reference which is he was avoiding the hype of the opening, good or bad. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually scratch that, I found a source and added it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update (5/27/21)
  • Just to keep myself active in this discussion, I will say the prose is looking great in the production sections overall. Again, it's just that there's so many sources to spotcheck and they're so long that it's taking a while. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, Darkwarrior knows what he's doing, so Support. I'm joking. This is just such a long article... If someone wants to check certain parts of the article to quicken up the process, please feel free to. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you read SNUGGUMS comments, they also went pretty in depth HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS edit

Are you by any chance hoping to get this featured on the main page for its 40th anniversary in June? Either way, here are some comments:

More to come later. From a glance at the prose, I'll say now that "notable" from "notable scenes" is inappropriate POV and editiorializing, and that you could link to Indiana Jones (character) in the "Cast" section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I might be cutting it close but I'd like to get it there for its anniversary. I didn't anticipate Die Hard's FA taking so long (thanks for your help with that). I have enough 80s films setup now that I'm set for 40th anniversaries to appear on the front page until 2024 if I can get this one done (Got to get Ghostbusters up to FA). Too late for The Empire Strikes Back sadly but of the ones I've done it's the one I'm least interested in so I put it off until last.
  • I've replaced the Karen Allen one with one with a clearer author. I assume if its on Wikimedia it's already been verified but this doesn't appear to be the case very often in reality.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the Raiders March file. It was already in the article but I admit I wasn't in a rush to remove it because these 80s film scores are boss and I love listening to them. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see your point on the trailer but I just thought it was an interesting aspect to see HOW the trailer was marketed to people at the time. It's 40 years old so I don't think it's too promotional, but I feel it's justified. Normally I'd include an image of the theater it premiered in but it doesn't appear to have had a standard big time premiere anywhere notable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Indiana Jones Spectacular image is attributed to Cybjorg, and doing a reverse image search it only seems to come up at Fan Wikias that have sourced it from here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna stick up for the Sean Connery image as similar to the Jeremy Irons image in Die Hard, in that he is mentioned in the text accompanying the section and it's relevant to that, even if its 60% decorative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, also Indiana Jones character is linked in the plot section, that's why it's not in the Cast. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the linking. File:Karen Allen (8707577445).jpg is definitely a better choice for Allen since I could verify its copyright status. As for the "Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular" pic, it's too bad Cybjorg hasn't edited since 2018 or we could ask that user for clarification. You're better off replacing it with something else or having no pic of it at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS edit

Resolved
  • Starting two consecutive sentences with "it" like you've done in the lead's third paragraph feels repetitive
  • "that includes three more films"..... are you only saying this instead of "four" because the fifth film hasn't been released yet?
  • The use of "affair" (both in "Plot" and "Casting") makes it sound like Indy and/or Marion were unfaithful to other partners during their first entanglement (which I don't recall being the case but maybe I'm forgetting something here when it's been a long time since I last watched the movie). You could simply say "relationship" instead.
  • "An imam deciphers the medallion for Jones; one side bears a warning against disturbing the Ark, the other the correct measurements for the "staff of Ra", an item used to locate the Ark" is quite a mouthful! I'd split it into separate sentences by turning the semi-colon into a period.
  • The plot's last paragraph is rather short with only two sentences. Super tiny paragraphs like that are discouraged because they make the flow of text feel choppy.
  • From "Conception", "Development and pre-production", "Post-production", and "Special effects", I'd avoid having two sentences in a row begin with "Lucas", and there's a similar issue with "Spielberg" under "Writing"
  • Within "Casting", remove the colon from "Those considered for the role included"
  • The use of "Ironically" from "Ironically, the actors' strike of 1980" is inappropriate editorializing
  • Not sure what you mean by "hold their own" from "who could hold their own against their male counterparts"
  • "after his wife's grandmother"..... grandmother-in-law
  • "because the pay was better"..... it offered more money
  • For "Filming", I think you can guess my thoughts on opening two straight sentences with "the", and its last paragraph should be merged to expanded to avoid looking so stubby
  • "Post-production lasted a few months"..... can you be more precise on whether this was 3, 4, or 5?
  • Three consecutive sentences starting with "he" under "Music" is even worse than the prior concerns of two in a row.
  • From "Stunts", the term "several" is an ambiguous word that's best avoided whenever more specific descriptions can be used, its first paragraph should be expanded/merged, and too many sentences from its second paragraph start with "the"
  • "Allen was reportedly so scared"..... any confirmation or denial on this?
  • It should be obvious by now what I'd do with the fourth paragraph's use of "the" to begin sentences in "Stunts"
  • "Visuals and sound" has a bit of repetition with "Slocombe" openers
  • Expectations on Superman II don't seem very relevant here, and neither do the other 1981 films predicted to earn the most money that year
  • Wanna guess what's wrong with the first paragraph of "Critical response"?
  • "Several reviewers noted the film's PG rating"..... I'd use "asserted" or "believed" instead of "noted", and see my previous comments on "several"
  • Spell out Videocassette recorder for "Home media". Don't just assume all readers will know what "VCR" stands for, though it's fine include that abbreviation right next to it in parantheticals.
  • Link the first instance of VHS, and it looks like you forgot a comma after its mention within "Like the VHS it was a success".
  • Another misuse of a colon for the overly short first paragraph of "Other media", and almost every sentence of its second paragraph starts with "The" or "A".
  • "There is irony in the Nazis attempting to use a Jewish artifact to subjugate the world"..... see my prior comments on using "ironically"
  • Wanna guess how the third paragraph from "Cinematic homage and nostalgia" could be improved?
  • Under "Legacy", it feels like puffery to say "significant and lasting impact" when you could simply say "lasting impact" or "major impact"
  • Don't italicize Rotten Tomatoes from "Modern reception", and try not to have back-to-back "In *year*" sentences (this is how literally each one from the fourth paragraph starts!)
  • "Several publications have ranked it as one of the greatest films of all time, including:"..... do I have to spell it out again?
  • "A 2013 episode"..... "A 2014 essay"..... see where I'm going? You could at least mention the Esquire writer by name.
  • The last paragraph from "Prequel, sequels and adaptations" could use some elaboration
  • Remove the italics from "Creative Bloq", "Cinephelia & Beyond", "Syfy", and "Collider"
  • How trustworthy are "Moviefone", "Screen Rant", "SuperHeroHype", "TravelPulse", and "The Ringer"?
  • "Slashfilm" → "/Film'
  • Ref#194 has a stray comma in its title
  • Capitialize the W for Wired (magazine)

While this definitely needs some work to become FA-material, instinct tells me you can spruce it up enough within a reasonable time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I've hit all your points. As for the website reliability, can I just say how much I hate Infinite Scroll stopping you getting to the bottom of a webpage. MovieFone has an About Us page and it's a long standing company, it's been around forever and reliability is the foundation it was built on. TravelPulse is owned by a big company as well and has a named page of editors and senior staff. ScreenRant has robust pages about About Us, Press Kit, and Fact Checking Policy. It does allow for contributors but you have to link to previously published works. The Ringer is another major website owned by Spotify, and they are currently hiring a new Fact Checker. SuperHeroHype is owned by Mandatory (formerly CraveOnline) which in turn is owned by Evolve Media. It's a big fish but the site itself doesn't have much in the way of policy. Given the thing it is sourced, I can easily replace this one if necessary. RE: The Superman and other films stuff, it's context for the year and what Jones is competing with. I used it to similar effect on Ghostbusters II to show how it was expected to beat those films and didn't. Here it's showing Superman II et al. were expected to do well and Jones wasn't, which is relevant later in the BO section when we get into discussing Raiders's phenomenal success, and Superman II is also brought up in the themes section, so I think for the size of the content, it provides much needed context and setup for later references. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking better. I did a bit of copyediting myself here, and have no qualms with File:Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular! (8187488890).jpg. Getting into the last section, it wouldn't hurt to add some bits on how novels, comic books, and video games expand on stories of Dr. Jones et al. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will take a look tonight/tomorrow, feeling pretty wrecked today. Thanks for your input Snuggums it's much appreciated. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SNUGGUMS, I've added an expanded segment on this touching on the notable legendary items and quests he is involved in in novel/comic/game form. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following sufficient improvements, I'm happy to give my support! You're also welcome for that and the assessments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from A. Parrot edit

  • Drive-by comment from A. Parrot. The article is certainly comprehensive—approaching it from an Egyptological viewpoint, I certainly appreciate the thematic analysis—but it may actually be too much so. I know the article was trimmed somewhat in response to Sandy's peer review, but it's still at 11,593 words. As much as size limits tend to be ignored these days, I feel like the level of detail here may tax even a fairly determined reader, and there's a lot that doesn't feel entirely on-topic. For instance, while the gist of the "context" section is certainly relevant, there's no reason why we need details about which movies were projected to do best that season. Similarly, the section on accolades doesn't need to list the nominees that Raiders lost to (many FAs on Oscar-nominated films don't do that, and if readers really want to know, they can click on the article for the Oscars that year). A. Parrot (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Parrot, thanks for your comments. I understand your perspective, but I will say that personally I regularly read these articles top the bottom with ease, particularly Groundhog Day and Ghostbusters II, which are of comparable length, Groundhog Day in particular because it's just a fascinating read, if I do say so myself. I don't think length is the issue as much as fluff and I agree, and as you say I have culled it quite a bit since the peer review. I can remove the award winners, I just felt this was a natural way of linking to more overlooked articles, since even as an 80s child I have never heard of some of them and would otherwise never come across the articles, which in turn may lead to the improvement of those articles. However, I'm not bound to that and can remove them if you prefer. The context section I feel is more important because it's setting the stage for what is expected to do well versus Raiders, which is kind of a meh on pre-release. Mainly it establishes that superheroics and comedy are the ones meant to do well. This is something I thought worked really well on Ghostbusters II which is the alternate, that Ghostbusters II is meant to do well and it ended up not doing so. I think especially with older films like this, where the history isn't just "and then we sent everything to the CGI department", and where it's history is occurring over multiple decades, it will veer on the longer side to do it justice. Anyway, let me know what you think A. Parrot Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point about box office expectations can be made more succinctly. When an article exceeds 10,000 words, I think it's advisable to start summarizing instead of detailing wherever possible. A. Parrot (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed it down a little, I know that HumanxAnthro is good at this stuff as well so it will likely come up in his review. As with the Die Hard review however, I will mention the themes section is 1,100 words and supplemental to the topic of the film itself, but a requirement of this level, and so it is difficult to cut 1,100 words to compensate for that section. Thanks for your input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a frequent FA reviewer, I can tell you a lot of experienced reviewers get pretty strict with making sure there's context or background for everything, to the point of comicality and violating 4 of the FA criteria at points. I think, however, context sections are useful in plenty of instances, box office sections included, especially since major studio films get released in these economic contexts and are possibly affected by them. I have to say that where DarkwarriorBlake's Box Office sections go too far is bringing up the grosses of other films on the weeks the main subject debuted or ran.👨x🐱 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's VERY tight, but I've bought it down to exactly 10,000 words not including the themes section, so that's 10000 words relating to the film itself, and I trimmed some of the BO section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • All sources appear to be of high quality.
  • Works cited:
    • Use single quotes inside the double quotes
    • I would add the editor to Excavating Indiana Jones: Essays on the Films and Franchise
  • Further reading:
    • Why is Ballantine Books linked twice but not the third time?
  • Spot checks:
    • fn 82, 106, 108, 121, 152, 203 - all good
    • fn 76: Can you re-check this? The table in the source doesn't seem to be right to me.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

You know the drill....

  • Not a fan of "has grown in esteem" but honestly can't think of an alternative (so not a deal-breaker as such).
  • I'd add that Tanis is in Egypt as a bit obscure otherwise.
  • Lucas wanted to fund Raiders of the Ark himself, but lacked the necessary money - "necessary" unnecessary..actually why not, "Lucas wanted to fund Raiders of the Ark himself, but lacked the funds"?

Overall comprehensive and well-written. Is on the long side but the light subject matter and diversity of material makes it easy reading, so I can let that slide. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done all of them Casliber, thanks for taking the time to read this! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
okay all good, a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: No disrespect at all, but your suggestion introduces a repetitive element ("fund...funds"). How about "capital"—or even back to money!—for the second one? ——Serial 12:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect taken and well-spotted (dang, how'd I miss that...) - I think "money" is fine (or moolah/dosh/readies/greenbacks...). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

Per Cas Liber; all my concerns have been attended to, including any I might have had regarding my own spelling. ——Serial 12:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark/archive2&oldid=1028855807"