The article is very well done it has a lot interesting facts about Brokeback Mountain and I really like it.--Jack Cox 01:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm a regular contributor to this article and I think it has a long way to go before it can be considered featured. While the info regarding critical and financial reception is accurate and well informed, the controvesy section is just ridiculously long and fragmented. Also, the article requires in-line citations. CHANLORD[T]/[C] 01:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm also a regular contributor and think this should wait until the film has been out in video for a while, and this is no longer a current movie and still making news. There also should be more discussion about the themes of the movie, including different interpretations about the ending. This has been breifly discussed on the talk page, but not yet in the article. -- Samuel Wantman 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: inline links need to be converted to proper footnotes. Second, I'd suggest getting rid of the trivia section and integrating useful information into the body article.--Fallout boy 07:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article is still a current event and will not be stable for some time. Captain Jackson 07:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Still not stable. With regard to the trivia section. Some info is unencyclopedic. Some should be in the body of the article (like how others where considered as director and how other actors felt the roles too controversial to accept). - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Most of the article deals with the controversy surrounding it. I think more could be said as a part of the story of the making of the movie about the casting decisions, the stars that turned down the roles (who they were if possible). Much of the trivia section simply needs to be in the article itself and I don't personally like sections devoted to trivia in a FA. I would work on also discussing other things of possible interest like...why the state of Wyoming...was there political motivation for this due to the fact that Wyoming is a very conservative state? Was there a big decision as to what level of itimacy would be portrayed in the theatrical relaesed version. Lastly, the mixture of footnote cites and external links citation in article text needs to be all converted to {{ref|note}} style or similar for uniformity.--MONGO 12:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, events may change due to the film being nominated for the Oscars. Do try again next time. --Terence Ong 05:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Poorly-written, few references, and not enough in-depth about the film's development and its history. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Poorly-written, current even, bad flow, bad formatting, bad everything. Páll(Die pienk olifant) 15:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Now that the Oscars are over (it won 3), this vote shold be retaken. The article is well-sourced, informative, and has a lot of interwiki links. Gilliamjf 13:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object It still has fragmented, short bits of prose with few sources. And next to no images for something as visual as a movie, just to boot. Staxringold 03:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately. I love BBM, but this article changes so much in but days. A lot of things are fragmented, things getting added, then deleted, re-written, reverted, reinstated, etc. The article needs to be stable first before we can consider if it is good enough for featured status. And because a lot of people edits it, it will take sometime for it to be establish. Best to sew the cloth together before putting it on. --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, where is there any much information of Annie Proulx-sensei in this article? Surely she deserves at least a section, discussing why she wrote it, what she felt about the film, etc. The book needs to be covered in detail, just as much as the film. --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 19:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
01:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)