Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RKO Pictures/archive1

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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

RKO Pictures

I think that this is one of the best works of Wikipedia. Tomer T 15:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose refs have yet to be correctly formatted. See article on main page for reference styles.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs now properly formatted (and sources list added) in style consistent with other recent Filmmaking WikiProject FAs (e.g., Kinetoscope).—DCGeist 08:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style "consistent with other recent Filmmaking WikiProject FAs" isn't the standard on FAC. Publishers should be clearly identified on all sources. As an example, please explain how http://www.film-center.com/ is a reliable source. Oppose, until sourcing and references are clarified. External links also include a number of personal websites that could be pruned. Agree that the middle of the article is very listy, and the images bracketing the TOC are jarring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that combination of website and author does not qualify as a reliable source--it was also an unnecessary source, as the note cites three reliable published sources covering all the relevant information in the main text. Any other online sources cited in the article that seem unreliable? (Publishers seem pretty clear--as the publisher was perfectly clear in the case you mentioned. Can you point to where they're missing?)—DCGeist 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Of course, consistent style within the WikiProject isn't the standard on FAC. The standard is the standard. Project consistency is the cherry on top.—DCGeist 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The middle part of the article is too listy. The section The Astaire–Rogers RKO films, Hepburn and Grant at RKO and Robert Mitchum at RKO — these sections IMO need summarization. Yes, these actors are intimately associated with RKO. However it would be better if daughter articles/lists are created and these sections are summarized. Also, the two poster images flanking the Table of content looks odd. Those images could be incorporated somewhere in the text. The last image of classic closing logo, that one should be right aligned. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...General guidelines certainly do argue against lists, even purely objective ones such as these three. On the other hand, users may find them particularly useful in this context and there's really no way to summarize them. They're either there or they're not--simply linked to. Disagree on the other points. The two images flanking the TOC looks attractive and is a very efficient way of introducing several of the leading figures associated with RKO and visually encapsualting the transformation of the studio from the 1930s to the 1950s. Ending the main text of the article with the centered closing logo is a fine design concept. Why right align just to save a couple inches/milliseconds of screen scrolling?—DCGeist 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes those lists may be summarised, in the sense that two new articles (or lists) can be created named "RKO films starring Robert Mitchum" (or something like that) etc. Now in this article a section called "Grant, Hepburn and Mitchum at RKO" can be created where the major films of those actors can be discussed in prose form. Movies that became particularly popular can be discussed in one sentence or so (if not already mentioned in any other part of the article). Why they were so intimately associated with RKO can be mentioned. At the start of this section, the newly created articles/lists are to be mentioned as "main articles".

Now, you can wait for what other people have to say, because it's not a rule that you cannot have lists in the article, it's just a trend.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood now. I couldn't see what you had in mind. I think, in the context of this article, the lists actually do the job better than the sort of narrative section you propose--which would not align with the chronological arrangement of the rest of the narrative--but it's an arguable alternative. As you suggest, let's see what others have to say. Thank you.—DCGeist 05:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you need better fair use rationales. While they may very well be proper usages of poster the fair use poster tag says they can only be used for commentary on the film or the poster itself... so, your fair use rationale should explain why they qualify in this article. Same goes for screenshots. You may want to get trailer screenshots if you can find them because apparently many of them aren't copyrighted. gren グレン 08:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit confused here... Every single image has a pretty detailed rationale, whose last bullet point is quite specific to the image's use in this particular article. Can you identify those rationales you believe are specifically inadequate?—DCGeist 08:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! I am not used to the rationales being below the licensing so I didn't scroll down. Sorry about that :) --gren グレン 08:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.