Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Boondock Saints

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:34, 4 May 2009 [1].

The Boondock Saints edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WP:FILMS, Wiki alf, KnowledgeOfSelf

An overly-long plot comprises most of the article, and is convoluted and hard to follow. 1b/c concerns: the article relies exclusively on web sites, some with questionable reliability, and has a rather poor development and release sections. MoS quibbles include over-reliance on blocked quotes stacked on each other. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you post this FAR. I haven't really looked at the page, beyond that horribly, ridiculously long plot. What I did was, I went back to the original FA and copied the plot that was there and pasted that into the current page. I cannot vouch for the writing of that plot beyond the fact that it is considerably shorter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bignole's revert to the plot at the time of the original Featured Article nomination is a good start. Also, since the sequel is in post-production, I imagine a separate article could be created to separate what amounts to a pretty ugly "Sequel" section from the main topic. "Cast" section could do without the wikitable since it's simpler to do a simple list for information in just two columns. (Frees it up for any real-world context that could be added about each actor and their role, too!) Production, release, and reception sections also leave a lot to be desired in terms of style and content... definitely below Good Article standards. As far as Featured Articles go, this is pretty embarrassing. I'll check film databases to see if there are any usable references in print that reflects the need to rework content in a big way. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm kinda busy on my own articles, but if someone thinks they will have time I can check LexisNexis for newspaper reviews to beef up the reception section. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wish I had LexisNexis, but I'll try other sources. The more I look at this page the more I see problems that could not get fixed in time to save this article's FA status. It's severely lacking in a lot of areas.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to LexisNexis, so can also check if someone is willing to use the sources found. I've pulled eight reliable sources so far, some on the sequel (more than enough RS to split, I think), some production stuff, reviews of overnight, review of the film, and one academic paper discussing the film's themes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd saw the article also suffers from a serious excess of broken out quotes. Goes against the general article guidelines, and makes for really distracting reading. The lead doesn't appear to really summarize the article, from its length, content, and excessive number of citations. I don't see how the DVD cover meets WP:NONFREE as it does not significantly increase one's understanding of the topic, nor is the cover discussed at all. Agree that the Rotten Tomatoes ratings should be removed, and the reception section should be easily fleshed out with critical commentary. I'd saw drop the Cast section all together, since its already incorporated into the plot. Per WP:MOSFILM, if its in the plot and no actual casting information is available, doesn't need it. Also second sequel either being split to its own article, or seriously trimmed. A lot of what is there is pretty irrelevant trivia. IMDB changing its status can't even be sourced to an RS, the posting of various YouTube videos doesn't require a paragraph, and it is organized almost like a timeline. I also see a few unsourced statements that need axing or sourcing throughout. All that said, I suspect that with some dedicated work, this could retain FA before the FAR period is up.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I worked on the article a little bit today. I created the sequel's article Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day and exported the "Sequel" section's content there. I rendered the "Cast" section into a simple list and cleaned up the link farm in the "External links" section. I uploaded a new version of the poster for a better file name and to have the white border trimmed. Film infobox was replaced by a cleaner version, and I applied best practices in filling out the new one (such as XML coding). I also provided some development background to "Production", though I passed over a lot of details about Duffy himself. If anyone wants to work on his article, the first few citations are pretty biographical (since it was a big deal for someone like him to be contracted despite no experience). I feel like I have only begun to scratch the surface, though... it seems clear at this point that no serious research was done with this article. There is likely more information locked up in newspapers and magazine articles. If various editors want to collaborate to rescue this Featured Article, I'd be happy to participate. Otherwise, though, I am not too eager to work on this topic on my own and would rather pursue demotion if no group work will take place. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one isn't ready for the main page. I may help out if I can. It's been a while since I watched this movie. I'm initially reluctant to see this as a main page article but I see that there are lots of weird ones on the main page already. The Wurdulak (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not being proposed for the main page, is it? I would hope not... —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Featured Articles do not necessarily have to appear on the main page. Because an article is a Featured Article, it can qualify to appear on the main page, but it may not happen. See the requests page... I think that if someone requested it for the main page, it would not find much support at all. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this work is to enable the article to retain its featured article status. See WP:FA to learn more about what a featured article is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Featured Articles are not necessarily written to be displayed on the main page, though I am sure that is a primary goal in writing them. Articles with this status are identified as such throughout Wikipedia and within the related WikiProjects, and they have gold stars to show readers that the article is at the highest quality. Here, we're reviewing to see if this Featured Article is still (or has ever been) at this quality. It does not seem to be the case right now, but if major improvements are made within the time frame of the review, the article can maintain its status and possibly be placed on the main page. I'm just not sure how much interest there is to rescue this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm disturbed by the article about Final Fantasy. Is anyone working on an important article? The Wurdulak (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're getting off-topic here in relation to this review. I'll start a discussion on your talk page and will be happy to answer any questions you may have. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation is addressed by R.J:

Yet Smith and Montana also try to finger Harvey Weinstein as the agent of Duffy's destruction, pulling in Washington Post reporter Sharon Waxman to theorize that Duffy's soured relationship with the Miramax honcho scared distributors away from The Boondock Saints. That's a plausible theory, but Smith and Montana never acknowledge the equally plausible explanation given by Duffy on the DVD, that the Columbine High School massacre, which took place three weeks before the Cannes festival, created a backlash against hyperviolent action movies. Most baffling of all is an incident recorded at the Palm Springs International Film Festival: standing outside a restaurant, Duffy is nearly hit by a car that has jumped the curb, and an intertitle reports, "Troy fled his apartment and armed himself." Weinstein may have a long history of personal vendettas, but surely he has better things to do than dispatch an assassin to Palm Springs to finish off a two-bit director. As this movie proves, Duffy is more than capable of finishing himself off.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/archives/2004/1104/041119.html

When I saw the documentary Overnight I thought it was hard to believe that the Weinstein brothers were out to get Duffy. The Wurdalak (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is citation quality and MOS. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean exactly? The Wurdalak (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not use the best sources available to verify the information in the article. Also, the article does not comply with the Manual of Style. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, concerns unmet and article unfixed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as it stands, due to poor quality of writing and references. Other reviewers should note that, on the plus side, the plot summary has been drastically shortened, material on the sequel moved to another article and repetition removed. Lots more to do, though. 4u1e (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deslist despite the plot's shrinking, there are many concerns that haven't been addressed with this one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist since article is unfortunately not the finest that Wikipedia has to offer. There are Good Articles that are better than this one, and I'm surprised that this article made it to Featured Article in the first place. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:57, 23 April 2009 (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_review/The_Boondock_Saints&oldid=1087824530"