View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/V for Vendetta (film)/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:00, 25 January 2010 [1].

V for Vendetta (film)

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Toolbox
Notified: Mailer diablo, Bdj, P-Chan, Cvene64, Oscarthecat, WikiProject Films, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Comics, WikiProject London, WikiProject Politics,

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel it no longer meets the featured article criteria. I just tagged it with clean up and ref improve tags. The article contains vast amounts of unsourced content in the article, particularly in "Tie-ins" (unsourced), "Music" (unsourced), and "Differences between the film and graphic novel" (almost entirely unsourced, making it pure WP:OR). It is also using unreliable sources, including IMDB, some personal websites and self-published blogs, etc. The citation formatting is not consistent, with some having bare references, others using templates, and many missing basic details like author, date, etc. This fails criteria 1c and 2c. The article does not follow WP:MOSFILM well, and the sectioning is a little excessive. Themes should be below plot, development and production really should just be a single section. "Publicity and release" should likely be added there as well, or publicity moved to production and release made a single section with home media merged in. It has several badly done quote breakouts (which should only be used for those 4 lines or longer). The music section should be part of production or under home media as a subsection; home media also gets overly detailed on the DVD releases. The lead does not meet WP:LEAD as it is not properly summarizing the article. This relates to criteria 2 and 4. I also am concerned that it has too many non-free images, with neither of the two appearing in the body seeming to be necessary nor sourced to their claims. This relates to criteria 3. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove. I think Collectionian did a good job in listing the faults. The lack of MOSFILM really sticks out. --Mike Allen 23:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've re-organized all the sections, improved the infobox, and unbolded the cast, to meet the WP:MOSFILM guidelines. --Mike Allen 01:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the issues outside of the sourcing (lack of, and selection of) should be fixable with some elbow grease (some has been done, noted above). I'm not seeing a problem with the 3 non-frees - movie poster is acceptable, and the two in-film shots show scenes of imagary/symbolism discussed in the text. The "Differences" section needs more quotes from the comic book to support the last paragraph (eg, stating that the comic took place at location A while the film at location B is a fair difference that can be sourced to the primary work itself) - the second-to-last para of this section, however, is going to likely need some secondary sources to establish a differentiation in character between works. I think this can avoid FAR, but it needs someone to dig in and fix the MOS and sourcing issues very soon. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article uses no print sources as references, which is indicative of a lack of comprehensiveness. (Online sources are usually brief and lack in-depth coverage found in periodicals.) Here is a list of sources that can be used:
  • Keller, James R. (2008). V For Vendetta As Cultural Pastiche: A Critical Study of the Graphic Novel and Film. McFarland. ISBN 0786434678.
  • Reynolds, James (September 2009). "'KILL ME SENTIMENT': V For Vendetta and comic-to-film adaptation". Journal of Adaptation in Film & Performance. 2 (2): 121–136. doi:10.1386/jafp.2.2.121_1. ISSN 1753-6421.
  • Williams, Tony (November 2006). "Assessing V For Vendetta". CineAction (70): 16–23. ISSN 0826-9866. "Looks at V FOR VENDETTA in the current political climate."
  • Shay, Estelle (July 2006). "Overview: Dan Glass on V for Vendetta". Cinefex (106): 15–20. ISSN 0198-1056. "An overview of visual effects supervisor Dan Glass' and Cine -site's work on V FOR VENDETTA."
  • Winterton, Ian (April 2006). "Fear Me". Empire (202): 89, 91–95. ISSN 0957-4948. "Cast and crew discuss the making of and the themes in the film V FOR VENDETTA."
  • Wolff, Michael (February 2006). "R for Revolution". Vanity Fair (546): 44, 46–47. ISSN 0733-8899. "Article considering V FOR VENDETTA as a reflection of the post-9/11 world, and placing it in the tradition of 'cultural sabotage' embodied by films such as IF.... and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE."
  • "The V for Vendetta". Film Review (664): 80–81. December 2005. ISSN 0957-1809. "Co-creator Dez Skin and original artist David Lloyd discuss the genesis and controversy surrounding the release delay of V FOR VENDETTA."
The above resources are from just one index and show that this article is hardly comprehensive enough to be a Featured Article. Other thoughts: The "Differences" section needs to be trimmed clean of indiscriminate comparisons (discoverable with lack of authoritative sourcing). "Books" subsection should be put in a "Further reading" section at the end of the article. "V" daggers screenshot is not necessary and can be replaced with descriptive text. Erik (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested featured article criterion concerns are citations, original research and comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist while some of the MoS issues have been fixed, most of the major issues, including the inconsistent citation formatting, unsourced content and seeming OR, and the lack of comprehensiveness and use of some pretty major sources have not been addressed. It seems unlikely they will be in the remaining time of this FAR, as there has been little activity on the article at all since the initial clean ups done on the 21st. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the infobox MoS again, going by things I've learn from the 21st to now. Also the referencing date formats are inconsistent. Well, the MoS is the least of this articles' worries.. but that's what stands out to me, as I haven't really read the article's content, because... well the film itself doesn't interest me. :P I hope I've been some help. —Mike Allen 06:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist due to the article not being comprehensive enough. It is in okay shape for a Good Article, but the research for the article does not go deep enough. Erik (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, agree with this assessment as provided above by Erik (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The main issue is the lack of references and the use of low-quality (although in many cases technically reliable) sources rather than high quality book and journal sources, such as those listed in the article's Further reading section and the list provided by Erik in the FAR section above. Other concerns include lack of alt text and improperly formatted references. Dana boomer (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.