Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/GoldenEye/archive3

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 01:59, 24 July 2007.

GoldenEye

previous FAC

This article meets all the requirements since the previous FAC. Vikrant Phadkay 15:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As shown here, many of the previous problems brought up in the previous FAC are yet to be fully amended, and I wouldn't expect the article to have improved enough for FA status since the last FAC just 50 days ago - • The Giant Puffin • 08:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Image:006 Alec Trevelyan.jpg needs a fair-use rationale for this use. Image:Kleinman titlecredits.jpg has a fair-use rationale that doesn't specify which use it applies to, and needs to have a unique rationale for each use. Image:007Ouromov.jpg has no fair-use rationale for any of its uses. Image:Goldeneye comic cover.jpg isn't really the subject of significant commentary in the article and should probably be removed per WP:NFCC #8. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have corrected all that was needed in these images. Vikrant Phadkay 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (delist) I am opposing this article for the following reasons. I am suggesting that it be delisted because I believe that the editors need more than two or three weeks to resolve the following issues.

(1a) - While I do not expect "brilliant" prose in wikipedia articles (that is very difficult to achieve), I do expect that the prose will be grammatically correct, professional and easy to read. That is not the case yet with this article. The editors need to have someone come in and work with them who hasn't contributed to the article (fresh eyes). Some of the problems include: wordy sentences, dangling modifiers, poor diction and a tendency to write list-y sections rather than coherent, flowing sections.
(1b) - The article is not comprehensive. This is the most serious problem with it. The article is supposed to cover all aspects of the film, but it has very little discussion of the film's themes (relegated to the "Reception" section) and none on the film's cinematic style (e.g. cinematography). An analysis of the artistic elements of the film, except for the sound, is missing from the article.
(1c) - The missing "Themes" and "Cinematic style" sections should be written using the peer-reviewed work of film scholars. There is plenty of material available on Goldeneye. Currently, the article does not "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" on this topic. Here are some examples that I found in a five-minute google scholar search. It would appear that the editors did not really engage in any serious research for this article:

Jeremy Black's The Politics of James Bond: From Fleming's Novels to the Big Screen
James Chapman's License to Thrill
Judith Halberstam's Female Masculinity
Christoph Lindner's The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader
Thomas J. Price's "The Changing Image of the Soviets in the Bond Saga: From Bond-Villains to "Acceptable Role Partners"" The Journal of Popular Culture 26 (1), 17–38.

(2b) - I found it slightly odd that the "Production" section came before the "Plot" section. Is there a reason for this?
(3) - Eskog has already outlined the problems with the images.
(4) - The cast list takes up a lot of the article and the reader learns very little from it. Is there any way to shrink or remove this section?

I urge the editors to do some research, revise and copy edit the article, take it to peer review and then resubmit it to FAC in a few months. Awadewit | talk 15:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article would have been submitted to Peer Review before the previous FAC, but due to the huge backlog there, any submission is likely to go unnoticed - • The Giant Puffin • 16:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I am still working actively here. Vikrant Phadkay 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is not yet ready for FA status. Several of the main concerns from the previous FAC have not yet been met. The article does not discuss any of the film's themes, such as the collapse of the USSR, beyond a brief paragraph. This sort of thing needs its own section, especially as GoldenEye was the first Bond film for 6 years, during which several important events happened and times changed. There is also a general lack of scholarly sources, a list of which provided above by Awadewit is probably just the tip of the iceberg. The vehicle and gadgets section also needs further improvement, as some of it has no real life context at all. The paragraphs about the BMW Z3 and Omega watch are fine, as they describe the real life information. There also needs to be more mention of the film's cinematic style, and the artistic aspects (beyond the soundtrack) of the film. - • The Giant Puffin • 19:42, 20 July 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.