Wikipedia:Featured article review/B movie/archive2

B movie

B movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/B movie

• Featured article review/B movie
• Featured article review/B movie/archive1
• Featured article review/B movie/archive2

Notified: Nominator is inactive, User:DCGeist was a frequent contributor but is now banned, WikiProject Film, 2021-04-28

Review section

I am nominating this article (a 2007 promotion) for featured article review for multiple reasons:

• The elephant in the room in this article's length, and it was brought up the first time this article was nominated for review. It is way WP:TOOBIG, with sections filling it with content as if there were no other articles to place them in. We have other B-movie subtopic articles to put this stuff in (B movies (Hollywood Golden Age), B movies in the 1950s, B movies (exploitation boom), Midnight movie and so on), and we're probably gonna need more.
• Adding to the length issue (as well as making this article at odds with 4 of the FA criteria) is content that is only tangentially related, particularly its excessive summaries of the state of the film industry in each era. Examples:
  • "By 1990, the cost of the average U.S. film had passed $25 million.[155] Of the nine films released that year to gross more than $100 million at the U.S. box office, two would have been strictly B-movie material before the late 1970s: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Dick Tracy. Three more—the science-fiction thriller Total Recall, the action-filled detective thriller Die Hard 2, and the year's biggest hit, the slapstick kiddie comedy Home Alone—were also far closer to the traditional arena of the Bs than to classic A-list subject matter.[156]")" If the article is going to talk about how major studios impacted the possibility of lower-budget movies being made and released, it should stay focused on that.
  • How does bringing up which people led certain major studios per era add to the topic?
• There is content in the lead not summarized in the article. Putting Karen Black, Bela Lugosi and other actor names in a word search feature shows that those names only appear one time in the article (in the lead); that should tell you something.
• Info like this needs citing: "A B movie or B film is a low-budget commercial motion picture that is not an arthouse film."

Simply put, the article is a unnavigable mess. On the positive side, much of the content is cited with professional high-quality book sources, but the issues above are too significant not for this to be reviewed. I suspect what should be in this article and what should be split would be up for long debate, so I think it'll need more time and work for this to be FA quality, and I mean lots of it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC Extra long sections need to be divided up and trimmed. No major edits to the article since the notice was placed on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include length and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delist. Unsourced statements from May 2021. DrKay (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delist minimal engagement in the article since notice was placed on talk page. Z1720 (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delist no engagement, significant issues as pointed out by others. Hog Farm _Talk 15:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)