Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raiders of the Lost Ark/archive2
- 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].
- Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
Support from theJoebro64
editGonna 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Changed, thanks TheJoebro64!! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yo, TheJoebro64, pinging you bro. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's fine, thanks TheJoebro64 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!
Comments from 👨x🐱
editExcited 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)
- 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)
- Hi HumanxAnthro, did you see my response? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Excuse the delayed reactions yet again. A result of juggling everything at once. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi HumanxAnthro, did you see my response? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Pinging HumanxAnthro. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Done HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Actually scratch that, I found a source and added it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Pinging HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
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)- If you read SNUGGUMS comments, they also went pretty in depth HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Media review from SNUGGUMS
editAre 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:
- File:Raiders of the Lost Ark Theatrical Poster.jpg has an appropriate FUR
- Since there's no evidence suggesting otherwise, I'll assume good faith that File:Harrison Ford by Gage Skidmore 3.jpg, File:Steven Spielberg by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg, File:Philip Kaufman 03.jpg, File:Lawrence Kasdan by Gage Skidmore.jpg, File:Frank Marshall Deauville 2012.jpg, File:Sahara close to Tozeur (Tunisia).jpg, File:Disneyindytruck1.jpg, File:Ark of covenant replica.jpg. File:Paul Freeman.jpg, File:Richard Edlund 1 (2).jpg (an extract from File:Richard EDLUND 1.jpg), are the uploaders' own works as claimed
- I'm unsure what to say about the licensing for File:Karenallen17 cropped.jpg. It isn't clear whether the file you derived this from (File:KarenAllen17.jpg) is something the original poster took on their own or got from elsewhere. File:Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular.jpg has a similar ambiguity.
- No copyright concerns with File:George Walton Lucas.jpg, File:Tom Selleck at PaleyFest 2014.jpg. File:Elstree Studios - geograph.org.uk - 1184042 (cropped).jpg, File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-P049500, Berlin, Aufmarsch der SA in Spandau.jpg, File:Indy and Marion.jpg. Just maybe remove the italics from years in some captions.
- What benefit does File:John Williams The Raiders' March from Raiders of the Lost Ark.ogg provide aside from serving as an ear-treat for fans? Don't get me wrong; I very much enjoy the theme song myself, just not seeing how it meets WP:NFCC#8.
- Are trailers really appropriate to include as external links? It comes off as promotional.
- Even though it seems to be a free upload, File:Sean Connery (1983).jpg feels decorative here and would be better for the Last Crusade article since that's when we're introduced to Henry Jones Sr.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Other comments from SNUGGUMS
editResolved
|
---|
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)
|
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Hi Hawkeye7, thanks for your input. I've addressed the points raised except the last. Could you clarify what you want me to check? Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Seems to have been a problem loading at archive.org. Working now. Struck issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Hawkeye7, thanks for your input. I've addressed the points raised except the last. Could you clarify what you want me to check? Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Support from Cas Liber
editYou 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)
- Done all of them Casliber, thanks for taking the time to read this! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- okay all good, a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- okay all good, a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Support
editPer 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)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.