Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial/archive1

< 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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [1].

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

edit
Notified: User talk:HAL333, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction

Review section

edit

Issues were raised under WP:FARGIVEN back in 2021 and largely seem unaddressed. Main concerns are citation style and source integrity.

  • Lack of sourcing in "Cast" section.
  • "Accolades" table is extremely huge and indiscriminate, and laden with [citation needed] tags.
  • Unreferenced sections in "20th anniversary version".
  • Inconsistent ref formatting:
    • Reference 14 (Den of Geek) is missing publisher
    • Reference 16 (Production notes DVD booklet) is incomplete, and I'm not sure if it's usable as a source
    • Reference 28 (The Reunion DVD) is incomplete, and I'm not sure if it's usable as a source
    • Reference 37 (Inside the Actors Studio) is incomplete
    • Reference 45 (Billboard) is incomplete
    • Reference 52 (The New Yorker) needs a page number
    • Lots of other sources are horribly formatted: missing publishers, inconsistent formatting with other sources, etc. To keep this from being an overly tedious list, I'm not going to include every last one.
  • What makes the following references reliable sources?
    • Reference 24 (Rediscover the 80s)
    • Reference 36 (Movie Locations)
    • Reference 81 (an advertisement)
    • Reference 84 (ET Kuwahara); citation is also incomplete
  • Reference 177 (Golden News) is a permanent dead link.

I checked mostly for sourcing issues, so I haven't done much digging on prose quality.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC I believe that it could rely much more on high-quality books: as it is, specific page numbers are not really given for book citations. There are, for instance, 8 unique references that refer to the page range 323–38. There are also some serious issues with weight and balance. For instance, the "Short film sequel" (which is just an Xfinity ad) is given a lengthy four paragaphs. The prose is rough in many places, especially the accolades section, which is effectively an unreadable stream of consciousness: compare that section to the FA The Dark Knight's. I also believe it to not be comprehensive: for instance, it doesn't mention the Michael Jackson tie-in song "Someone in the Dark" and the ensuing legal fiasco with the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial soundtrack album. ~ HAL333 00:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The book reference request is likely to require more time than what is typically allotted for the FAR stage. I agree that more precision is probably preferred, but I'm not so sure that's a requirement to maintain FA status. As for prose, I hope to address that, but that too will be a challenge. There are some NPOV concerns for sure.
    Pinging Darkwarriorblake, who guided The Dark Knight and a few film articles to FA status in the past couple years to see if he is able to assist. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Not sure this one's as bad as it may seem on the surface.
  1. The Cast section should be fine for credited roles per MOS:FILMCAST, as long as the descriptions are very basic. It will need citations for non-credited roles.
  2. The Accolades table is likely UNDUE for its length. The one at The Fifth Element#Accolades is about as long as they get for FAs before they get moved to their own list article. Saving Private Ryan#Accolades doesn't even have one. It was a recent addition at E.T., added by HM2021 in this 2022 edit, so perhaps that editor has a comment, but I suggest moving it to the talk page for now or removing altogether (it can always be retrieved from history).
  3. 20th Anniversary section: Should be able to compare this to the promoted version of the article and weed out unnecessary details quickly, especially anything we can't find sources for.
  4. Inconsistent refs: I haven't evaluated these, but I'm sure we can take some time to repair/remove these as needed. There may be some active WP:FILM members willing to jump in and help.
  5. Prose: That's my specialty. I can find some time over the next week to clean this up.
Some good information has been added over the years, but I think if we use the promoted version as a reference and compare it to the current revision, we should be able to get this article back in order within a reasonable amount of time. If not, then we look at moving to FARC. I don't think we need to abruptly decide that just yet, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

I don't believe this is beyond salvaging, reference issue can be fixed fairly easily.

  • The plot needs trimming. I am willing to look at this though I'll have to rewatch the film as I haven't seen it since I was probably 5.
  • The image of Kennedy needs removing, the caption underneath it is claiming something not sourced in the article and, frankly, an image of the writer, Melissa Mathison, should be there over a producer.
  • Definitely in need of overall uplifting to modern standards.

I don't think it's a trainwreck, and if the issue was raised previously I understand complaints that it wasn't actioned, so I would suggest agreeing a reasonable timescale to rectify the issues or demote it. I recommend this as it's easier to uplift it and fix issues now, than it is to re-nominate it and take up reviewer time. I wouldbe willing to give GoneIn60 the time to do what needs doing if they are willingm with help from others where possible. I would be willing to help though my time wouldbe more limited. The film is 42 years old now as well so there will be a load of 40th anniversary retrospectives to draw on. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dwb! I'll have some time to fix references, clean up prose, and remove unsourced junk (that I can't find sources for). I'll get started in the next day or two. Perhaps between the two of us, we can get it back to decent form, but as for adding newer content that's been published in the past decade or so and getting it back to the highest possible standard, not sure we'll have enough time to accomplish that, as I too will be slightly limited on time. This isn't a film I've watched since the early 2000s with my kids.
Guess we can make an attempt and see where that lands us. Appreciate your help either way! GoneIn60 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2024 (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/E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial/archive1&oldid=1253622573"