Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)/archive1

The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)[edit]

Self-nomination. I helped make this article what it is today. Back in August, there wasn't a whole lot in the article, and the article contained some very inaccurate facts about the movie. I would love to see the article for this classic animated movie get the featured article treatment. I feel that it definitely deserves it. (Ibaranoff24 05:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 05:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. I am curious about the images. What type of limit is there for screen captures? and does the limit differ for article size? Also, are screen captures considered fair use only if the image (scene) is talked about? This is not a criticism, just general questions. Forever young 06:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clearly, a lot of work went into the article but there are issues. First, the plot section is too long, and retells the story rather than describing it. Sentences like "Long ago, in the early years of the Second Age, the great Elven-smiths forged Rings of Power — Nine for mortal Men, Seven for the Dwarf-lords, and three for the tall Elf-kings." sound like you're trying to captivate the reader's imagination. That's not the right role for an encyclopedia article. It should be an article about the movie and the focus should not be on the plot itself. The section can be there, but should be shortened and meant as background. A more appropriate tone would be "The film illustrates J.R.R. Tolkien's popular fantasy tale of the quest of a group of hobbits, elves, and men to destroy a magical ring of power before it falls into the hands of evil." As Forever young may have realized, there are also too many fair use screenshots. Use them selectively to illustrate the best parts of the movie. They should be interspersed with the text rather than in a gallery. The images in the production are least likely to be appropriate as fair use and should probably be elminated; Image:RBLorcamera.jpg is not a promo image and others may be mis-tagged. The trivia section should be dissolved and incorporated into other sections. The Reception and Follow-up sections also need to be longer. Superm401 | Talk 08:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Undoubtedly we might have seen a little interest in the whole hobbit franchise over the last, oh, five years now is it? The commercial nature of the subject of this article may quite easily lead to the entry being misconstrued as advertising. By validating this and many, many similar subjects as good practice, we may expose wikip to a direct avenue of abuse by grass-roots marketing campaigns. --HasBeen 09:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Too much plot summary (some of which relates to the novel rather than movie); too many screenshots (which aren't integrated with the text); too much trivia; too little description of the business aspects of the production; too little discussion of the critical reception. Monicasdude 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. That gallery of copyrighted images has got to go. Jkelly 18:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the screen captures section from the article, and I added a few more items to the "Differences from the book" section. (Ibaranoff24 00:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Support Object What is the use of the the Cast section? I know that most pages provide a longer cast than the info box, but there is already two links to IMDB, also, most of the names in the box are red, so I don't see the use of it really. The table really seems to just take up space. Er, don't know about the Ralph Bakshi film box, is that really needed, again if people want to see a list of his works they can just click on his name, the table, like the cast one, is quite annoying. The The Lord of the Rings table at the bottom is more appropriate. On the images, the placement could be a lot better in the plot section and in the production section, I don't think you need two images. But apart from that the writing is quite good. Issues addressed.Forever young 03:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted cast section, fixed Bakshi template, moved the images around. (Ibaranoff24 05:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose. Not well-enough referenced. Also, one small thing that you could change is the caption "A scene that inspired Peter Jackson". May have inspired would probably be more NPOV. Batmanand 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Jackson was introduced to Tolkien's novels through this film. "May have inspired" would be changing the facts around. He was inspired by this film, and he ~~ripped off~~ borrowed several scenes in "homage" to the film. (Ibaranoff24 00:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Has he ever said that? Has anyone who we can verify and cite ever said that? If not, please change to "may". Batmanand 08:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]