Talk:The Rookie (1990 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 
Former featured article candidateThe Rookie (1990 film) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 26, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 20, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 12, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Fair use rationale for Image:The Rookie.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:The Rookie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC generated comments[edit]

  • Nick Pulovski (Clint Eastwood) and his partner, Powell (Hal Williams), are assigned to the case of taking down the criminal empire of a German felon, Strom (Raul Julia), who willingly engages in grand theft auto and chop shop operations. During an encounter with Strom and his men, who are loading a semi-trailer truck with stolen cars from a valet parking service, Powell is murdered. Pulovski, despite efforts to catch the criminals on the highway, which result in multiple car crashes and pile-ups, ends up losing them.
  • Of course, Strom willingly engages in grand theft auto, etc. What is the point of telling us that? How about this:
Nick Pulovski and his partner, Powell, are investigating the criminal activities of Strom. During a night-time surveillance, Powell is killed. Pulovski pursues Strom and his men, who flee in a semi-trailer loaded with stolen cars. Pulovski loses his quarry after a spectacular chase, during which luxury cars litter a four-lane highway.
  • The article is chock-full of mis-directed wordiness that hampers the reader's understanding of what actually happens in the movie. To do the movie justice, especially the escape sequence in which P and the rook drive the car out of the warehouse, this really needs zing! So these should be fixed, especially in the synopsis, to make it more accessible to the reader who hasn't seen the movie.
Other problems.
  1. Misleading prepositional phrases. "Under Eastwood's instruction, Braga commented..." He told her what to say? That whole paragraph confused me!
  2. The second paragraph of filming and stunts covers several topics, some of which come up several times later in your text. Can you reorganize some of this so it's not as jumpy? This whole section, actually, needs some reorganization....You talk about stunts in two of the four paragraphs. Put it together!
  3. Critical reception. This section is a jumble of people who liked it and people who didn't. Can you organize this into thumbs up critics and thumbs down critics, not by list of critics, but organized by the kinds of things that went over well, and those that were blasted?

This is an overview. When this is ready for prime-time, I'm happy to support. But it's not ready yet. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


Auntieruth55 asked me to take a look at this article after the second failed FAC for it, so just dropping by to leave a few hints and bits of advice for improving it. I think this is a great article for taking to FA quality as it has a wealth of sources. However, the article is not currently FA quality. The FAC mentioned quite a bit of the prose issues, but it also has some very core issues. IMDB is not a reliable source at all per overwhelming community consensus (it is a user-edited site), and anything it is sourcing needs to be properly resourced to reliable sources. There is also unsourced content, and other than the lead and plot, all content in an FA needs sourcing. One disagreement on the FAC comments is that a section on themes and style is not required. If no significant sources covered the themes, then there is nothing to say. To try to add them without sources would just be OR. As it is now, the article has had OR added, in what appears to be believe an attempt to meet the request for a theme section. The film is being inappropriately used to basically reference original research and that needs to be removed. Also, if there are reliable, third-party sources that discuss the themes, such a section does not belong in the production section but in a separate themes section position between the plot and production. See WP:MOSFILMS.
This article is certainly in better shape than many film articles, however it still has a long way to go yet. It is very clearly not as comprehensive as it could be. There are hundreds of mentions of this film in books, particularly in Eastwood-focused titles, that do not appear to have been evaluated and added to the article. There are likely tons of additional newspaper and journal sources that are not available through traditional online means that need exploring and adding to the article as appropriate. The reception section is okay in terms of format, however the OR bits need removing (summarizing "mostly negative" and stating "Positive reviews seemed to be few and far between" is both OR and lacking NPOV), and the critical responses should generally be ordered chronographically rather than in a positive/negative split.
I certainly hope the editors working on this article will continue working on improving it, and I highly encourage them to make use of the Film project to do so. As someone who has written several FA articles, I'd also strongly recommend following the "due process" of taking an article to FA:
  1. Get the article to B quality per the project guideines
  2. Nominate for (and pass) a Good article candidacy
  3. Have the article copy edited
  4. Have it peer reviewed specifically noting it is for an FAC
  5. Response positively and openly to feedback from the PR and make fixes as appropriate; if a remark doesn't seem fitting with the article, check with the project or ask one of the project coordinators on their talk pages. We're generally friendly and ready to answer questions on film articles.
  6. If the PR found a lot of issues and it takes awhile to update the article, have a second one done
  7. Have the article re-copy edited (usually just a quick check of anything new added or changes made)
  8. Then go for an FAC. Being able to point to PRs, GAs, and showing that a lot of effort and checking has been done before will help make your case for FA-readiness stronger.
I hope this helps some. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations for use[edit]

Film Literature Index results for The Rookie:

  • Solina. La durezza dell'icona, le tenerezza della camera. Filmcritica: Rivista mensile di Studi sul Cinema 46 Jan/Feb (n461/462) (1996): 14-16.
  • Pezzotta, Alberto. Fuori e dentro le regole: "Cacciatore bianco, cuore nero" e "La recluta." Il Castoro Cinema n164 Mar/Apr (1994): 92-102.
  • Rattigan, Neil and Thomas P. McManus. Fathers, sons, and brothers: patriarchy and guilt in the 1980s American cinema. Journal of Popular Film and Television 20 n1 (1992): 15-23.
  • Gray, Marianne. "The Rookie." Film Monthly 2 Feb (1991): 15.
  • Matthews, Tom. "The Rookie." Boxoffice 127 Jan (1991): bet p24 and 35 [pR5].
  • Grant, Edmond. "The Rookie." The Film Journal 94 Jan (1991): 48.
  • Schnelle, Frank. "Rookie - der Anfaenger." EPD Film 8 Apr (1991): 44.
  • Horguelin, Thierry. "The Rookie." 24 Images n54 Spring (1991): 81.
  • Klawans, Stuart. Holiday celluloid wrap-up. The Nation 252 Jan 7/14 (1991): 22-24.
  • Pezzotta, Alberto. "La recluta." Segnocinema: Rivista Cinematografica Bimestrale n50 Jul/Aug (1991): 35-36.
  • Glaessner, Verina. "The Rookie." Monthly Film Bulletin 58 Feb (1991): 58.
  • Gentry, Ric. "Rookie" stunts, effects dazzle viewer. American Cinematographer 72 Jan (1991): 66-70.
  • Gentry, Ric. Slam, bang, crash, boom for "The Rookie." American Cinematographer 72 Jan (1991): 22-26+ [9p].
  • Valot, Jacques. "La releve." Revue du Cinema n473 Jul/Aug (1991): 56.
  • Koltai, Agnes. "A zoldfulu." Filmvilag 34 n5 (1991): 56.
  • Valot, Jacques. "La releve." Revue du Cinema Hors serie 39 (1991): 91.
  • Ciapara, Elzbieta. "Zoltodziob." Filmowy Serwis Prasowy 37 n9/10 (n715/716) (1991): 20-21.
  • Vanesse, Patrick and Jacques Graye. "La releve." Cine-Fiches de Grand Angle n137/138 Apr/May (1991): [37-38].
  • Saada, Nicolas. "La releve." Cahiers du Cinema n446 Jul/Aug (1991): 71.
  • Klerk, Nico de. Acteur. Skrien n178 Jun/Jul (1991): 18.
  • Hansen, Henrik Jul. "Koldt bly og varme oretaever." Levende Billeder 7 May (1991): 58.
  • Garsault, Alain. Mieux qu'efficace. Positif n367 Sep (1991): 40-41.
  • Conciatori, Mauro. "La recluta." Film: tutti i film della stagione 5 n4 (1991): 188-189.
  • De Gaetano, Roberto. "La recluta." Cineforum 31 May (n304) (1991): 94.
  • Lowry, Brian. "The Rookie." Variety 341 Dec 10 (1990): 84-85.
  • Canby, Vincent. Review/film: Clint Eastwood with fiends bloodthirsty and otherwise. The New York Times 140 Dec 7 (1990): C19.
  • Giddins, Gary. Driver's edge. The Village Voice 35 Dec 18 (1990): 76.

Note: some of these will already have been used; others might only mention the film in passing. Still, I hope this list helps should the primary editor want to continue building the article. Steve T • C 22:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)