Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alien (film)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by User:SandyGeorgia 03:59, 13 October 2008 [1].

Alien (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): IllaZilla (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria. I spent months re-writing the article in my userspace more or less from scratch, doing tons of referencing and bringing it to what I felt was a fine state of readiness before moving it back into the mainspace. Other editors then contributed tweaks and revisions, and the article passed GA very easily with only 1 or 2 minor corrections needed. At this time I can think of no further improvements that could be made, and so I believe it is ready to be reviewed for Featured Article status and am willing to make any suggested improvements resulting from the review. I am strongly committed to bringing this article to FA status. IllaZilla (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest you re-examine image usage with respect to WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Image:Alien at the Egyptian Theater, 1979.jpg, Image:Alien-The Facehugger.png, Image:Alien (1979) - Alien egg.jpg, Image:Alien model filming.jpg, and Image:Alien (1979) - main cast.jpg at the very least are not necessary IMO. Giggy (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I trimmed some of the images, including a couple of the ones mentioned here and a couple of others that are not. Image:Alien at the Egyptian Theater, 1979.jpg and Image:Alien (1979) - Alien egg.jpg are gone, as well as Image:Chris Foss Pyramid Book of Alien.JPG and Image:Alien (1979) - cocoon scene.jpg. Upon reflection I didn't think these were really necessary to illustrate the concepts being described. This brings the article down to 9 non-free images, including the one in the infobox. The inherent problem is that since this is a 30-year-old film there are no free images available to use. However I think that each of the remaining images used is in compliance with NFCC. The concept art is the subject of specific critical commentary, so that's justified, as are the chestburster, facehugger, and alien as their designs are specifically discussed in the special effects & creature design section. The space jockey set and nostromo model are also specifically discussed and the images are necessary to illustrate the techniques used in filming. The only one I could really see there being an issue with is the cast picture. I've seen a precedent for this type of image use in other FA film articles such as Jurassic Park (film), Battlefield Earth (film), Blade Runner, and The Mummy (1999 film), to name a few. In this case I feel the image is rather strongly justified because the "Casting" section specifically discusses how the ages and sexes (and in the case of Yaphet Kotto, his race) added to the look, feel, and effectiveness of the film. Since there are no other images of any of the cast members anywhere in the article, this single image illustrates these points rather well. Of course, if you still think that further trimming is necessary then I will do what I can to comply. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am uncomfotable with the quantity of images, but having said that, those that are used are well integrated in the text, are used to illustrate points that could not be easily described with text alone, the usage seems consistant with WP:NFCC, and by extension featured article criteria three. The quantity of non-free content seems to push us away from the m:mission of producing a free encylopedia, but then this is en.wikipedia Fasach Nua (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.comingsoon.net/
      • Changed to a citation from the American film institute itself, which is the original source of the information: [2] --IllaZilla (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.gadgetmadness.com/archives/20070402-buy_the_1979_original_alien_suit_by_hr_giger.php
      • I added a cite to the actual auction site [3], however the gadgetmadness cite is still useful because it reprints the accompanying press release as well as reporting the final selling price. For the qualifactions of Gadgetmadness itself, see [4]. Seems reliable enough for this basic factual information (reprinting of a press release and a final selling price). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you not have a reliable source for the final price? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.futuremovies.co.uk/review.asp?ID=111
      • I arrived at this one via Rotten Tomatoes, which is widely recognized and used on Wikipedia as a reliable source for movie reviews. The reviewer and his reviews are listed on RT, which collects and aggregates reviews by professional film critics. This site, the original magazine which published the review, is a better source to use (also I was unable to load the RT page of the same review [5]). RT also lists Future Movies UK amongst its published sources of reviews [6] so it appears reliable. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you just using this for a review score/quote? If so, as long as you attribute it in the text to the site/reviewer, you should be fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://twgnews.com/2008/08/15/character-biography-ridley/
      • I agree on this one, but another editor insisted on having it in the article. I've removed it. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.aintitcool.com/
      • I normally try to avoid this site myself (mostly because I don't like their layout) but in this case what's being cited is an interview with James Cameron [7], and a film site interviewing a celebrated director is certainly a good source. It has direct quotes from Cameron in it. It is also used as a citation in Alien vs. Predator (film) and was accepted as reliable in that article's FA review (I participated in bringing that article to FA so I can attest that the reference was present at the time of the review and was not added later). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out less well known abbreviations such as TWG, etc. in the references.
    • Fixed as that reference has been removed. The only other I see which might have this issue are h2g2, which I added BBC in front of since it is run by the BBC and appears on a BBC site, and IGN but in that case IGN is the full name of the company (it used to be an abbreviation for something but the full name is no longer used; IGN is the official registered full name of the company). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am concerned over the reliability of h2g2. As far as I can tell, it is a reflection of Wikipedia (but for registered members who can be anyone). Their "Edited Article" can probably be equated to our "Featured Articles", but that still makes me wonder just how good their peer review is. We cannot assume that editorial oversight is provided by BBC or of equivalent standard as "Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced." is stated on each page of their public online collaborated encyclopaedia. We do not know Ged's expertise in films nor the sources he used for his entry. Furthermore, I doubt we can refer to an attempted encyclopaedic entry as a "review". Jappalang (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem, I removed it. I don't recall how I arrived at it; probably through Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic - those were my primary hunting grounds when searching for reviews. I was under the impression that h2g2 was some sort of special subsection of the BBC and had oversight from them, and since it appeared on either RT or MC I felt it was probably reliable. But since it seems questionable at best I just pulled it. I just thought the quote wrapped up that section rather well, but it's not essential. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, the article uses three different quotation styles (blockquote, quote boxes and pull quotes), and has left-aligned images under third-level headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I wasn't aware that there was a substantive difference between block quotes and pull quotes; I just though pull quotes looked better because of the decorative quotation marks. However after checking WP:MOSQUOTE I see the difference and have converted all pull quotes to block quotes. For the record, though, it didn't use 3 styles before, since it didn't have any block quotes (they were all in pull quote form). The quote boxes are for added emphasis & understanding but are not critical to the body paragraphs, so they are placed in quote boxes to the side. As far as I'm aware this is in line with MOS standards. I'm not aware of any standard or MOS that says there should not be left-aligned images under third-level headings. Could you point me to such a guideline so that I can take the proper approach to fixing them? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - The Impact and analysis section fails to mention anything about the numerous feminist interpretations of the movie. There is a lot of material out there about how Alien relates to feminism. Two places to start are the books Alien Woman: The Making of Lt. Ellen Ripley (especially the introduction and first chapter) and Alien Zone: Cultural Theory and Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema (especially the chapters "Feminism and Anxiety in Alien" and "Feminism, Humanism, and Science in Alien"). Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I honestly don't think this is a reason not to promote the article. There is nothing to prevent such material from being added if an interested editor has those sources and chooses to add them. The featured article criteria do require comprehensive coverage, "neglect[ing] no major facts or details" but the article has the facts and major details in spades. That it doesn't cover one particular angle of critical analysis of the film does not in any way detract from the content it does have. FA status obviously does not preclude further content from being written, and the article has plenty of legs to stand on as-is. Of course, now that you've pointed out those sources I'm intrigued and will probably track them down, but I don't think that possible future additions should be an impediment to promotion. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you not be willing to read this material and add information to the article with due weight? It would tie quite nicely into contrasting the film as a male rape fantasy. Alien was the first film where a physically strong woman was put into an action role. I think that's significant. --Moni3 (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We actually watched this film in my first Gender Studies class. Girl power! Even if it were just a few sentences, possibly using one of the sources that Kaldari already pointed out (there are quite a bit more), it would be an interesting addition to the article. María (habla conmigo) 12:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IllaZilla, this is actually a good piece of advice. The current article places a heavy emphasis on a primary source (that of the "making of" DVD feature), which is not surprising when one considers the main focus of the media and public on the fiction industry (more on box numbers and the content). Wikipedia policy, however, prefers to be mainly based on secondary sources (primary could be used to flesh out details but not overwhelm the article). Now, Alien Woman mentions things about the chestbuster that even the "making of" does not mention, such O'Bannon's letter about Giger's loss of focus (getting fixated on the concept of a mutated chicken) when designing the chestburster, the facehugger design, and such. These information can replace those primary references. It also specifically calls the insertion of the facehugger's proboscis into Hurt's mouth as an act of fellatio. This can replace the Future Movie reference, whose reliability is called into question above. Byers in Alien Zone discusses the theme of corporatism in the film (which is not mentioned in this article). The two books can help to improve this article in more than one way (by expanding thematic discussion and replacing questionable sources). Jappalang (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my stance to a "weak oppose". Honestly, the only reason I think it's important is that this movie is considered quite important in the world of feminist film criticism. There are only 4 or 5 movies that I would raise this objection for, and this is the only sci-fi one. Kaldari (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am totally willing to continue doing research and expanding some sections, even splitting them off if they can stand on their own, and I will certainly do some research on the feminst interpretations, but I don't think that the possibility of future content additions is an impediment to the article being advanced to FA. "Comprehensive coverage" does not equal "exhaustive coverage". In its defense the article uses just as much (if not more) sourcing from the David McIntee book, which is a secondary source as it is written by a third party independent of the subject, as it does from the "Beast Within" features. That said, I am absolutely going to do more investigation into the sources that you've provided, I just don't have the time at the moment. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per too many fair use images, as well as comprehensiveness concerns. The impact of Ripley is an important legacy of the film, so it should be mentioned in a substantial way. The critical reception (both positive and negative) is nonexistent. The lead is also too short. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The critical reception (both positive and negative) is nonexistent" ??? There is both a "Release and reception" section and an "Impact and analysis" section. Particularly there's the "Lasting critical praise" subsection. As for negative criticism, in all my searching for reviews I found only 1 that wasn't positive, and it was a fringe opinion that seemed way out of context (being from within the last few years). I'd really like you to clarify this statement further, because I strongly believe that saying that critical reception is "nonexistent" is completely untrue. For the fair use images, see the comments near the top of this nomination. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You need to do a better search, then, as I found numerous complaints in a quick search of contemporary newspapers- about the lack of intriguing dialogue, limited character roles for the more talented actors, and unfavorable comparisons to a similar styled monster, Jaws. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you possibly point me towards some of those sources to give me a jumping-off point? Links to article databases would be helpful, or just a general point in the right direction. I have university resources I can consult if necessary. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article is very close to FA standards, but the prose falls flat in places. Take, for example, this excerpt from the "Music" sections:
Scott did not like Goldsmith's original main title piece, however, so Goldsmith rewrote it as "the obvious thing: weird and strange, and which everybody loved."[61][58] Another source of tension was editor Terry Rawlings' choice to use pieces of Goldsmith's music from previous films, including a piece from Freud the Secret Passion, and to use a piece by Howard Hansen for the end credits.[61][58] Scott and Rawlings had also become attached to several of the musical cues they had used for the temporary score while editing the film, and re-edited some of Goldsmith's cues and re-scored several sequences to match these cues and even left the temporary score in place in some parts of the finished film.
The first sentence awkwardly joins two clauses with however. The second sentence is too lengthy. The third sentence suffers from both length and the poorly chosen phrases such as had also become attached. Majoreditor (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted several experienced copyeditors as well as the FA wikiproject to get some copyediting to deal with these issues. I've gone over Tony's guides and other "brilliant prose" how-tos, but I feel I'm too close to the text (being the primary contributor) to view it objectively and iron out the kinks. Hopefully the copyeditors can resolve these issues. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The plot section in the very least IMO needs references and wikilinks. At the moment it's OR. D.M.N. (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As with novels, plots usually don't need citations. They refer back to the subject. However, the plot section should say only what is witnessed on screen, and no interpretation or description other than what is able to be viewed. When using adjectives, it's best to remain low-key and dry. --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was recently (this morning) a massive plot creep by an IP, which has been reverted back to the more concise version. Let me know if the problem still exists. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now. D.M.N. (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Everything that needs citations has them. I think this is one of the best film articles out there, and it would be a shame to let it stay only a GA. Tezkag72 (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I did not read the article (yet) but there are two major issues that need to be fixed before more time is devoted to the more time-consuming parts of a FAC review. Firstly, for such a highly influential film, the lead is not "a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic" (WP:LEAD) and looks imbalanced (a two-sentence paragraph on director+actress+alien and a long paragraph about influence, but nothing on other actors, origin and set design etc.) - please have a look at other WP:FAs to get inspiration. Secondly, I am (still) not comfortable with the high number of non-free images. Image:Alien-The_Facehugger.png and Image:Alien-The Chestburster.png don't need to be shown in this main article at all since the hatnote already links to Alien (Alien franchise), where they are/can be shown for more detail on the creature. Image:Alien model filming.jpg and Image:Alien (1979) - space jockey.jpg look like general space-type-y elements and I believe that one is enough to get across the design of the film (but that may just be me). Both of these issues are comparible easy to fix, and I hope you will not be discouraged by this FAC and keep working on the article - we're all just trying to help to make this is a kick-ass wikipedia article. – sgeureka t•c 12:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Totally. I am too. All these comments are taken with open ears, I assure you. All suggestions and input are greatly appreciated. In retrospect I might have tried to advance it to A-class first, but I couldn't find the proper channels for doing so. And since it passed GA so easily I thought it was probably time to go to the next level. But definitely all of these suggestions are valid and will be worked on. Thanks very much. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can find instructions for the Film project's A-class review stage on WP:FILMR, should this FAC fail and you wish to pursue that first. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing notes: very fine start. Please sort the image, sourcing, prose and comprehensive issues prior to re-nomination. Also, sandwiching of text between images, see WP:MOS#Images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 13 October 2008 (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/Alien_(film)/archive1&oldid=1078785705"