Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Fifth Element/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

The Fifth Element edit

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1997 science fiction film. The first nomination for this article was archived just over 2 weeks ago; it did not pass as only two people were supporting it. Numerous concerns were originally brought up, 100% of which were addressed in order to obtain the support of the two reviewers. Naturally this was a time consuming process, and by the time I had the support of the second editor the nomination was at the bottom of the queue, ready to be closed. As all issues known issues have already been addressed, however, I anticipate this nomination being much smoother and quicker. Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I was asked to support the nomination on my talk page, but I don't have a problem with that, since I supported the first nomination and the changes since then have been minor. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage edit

Back from an involuntary Wikibreak of several months, and I'm happy to dive right back into FAC. I love this film, and I'm really excited to see it here at FAC. Unfortunately, I don't quite think this is to the point where I can support its promotion. I'll start with references and reference formatting, as that's always been my primary evaluation demesne here:

collapsed round one of reference audit etc.
  • Most critically, you're very inconsistent about how you style online sources. I see at least four formatting styles: site name, not in italics (Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes); site name in italics (AllMovie); URL, not in italics (Rogerebert.suntimes.com, Slate.msn.com); URL in italics (dvdreview.com, dvdjournal.com).
    • The main problem here appeared to be the fact that in the cite web template, the parameter "work" (which defaults to italics) was used for some sources whilst "publisher" (no italics) was used synonymously for others. I have now made the cite web references consistent. Where the site name has a wiki article (e.g Rotten Tomatoes) I have put the site name as a wikilink. Where the site does not have a wiki article, I have used the URL (e.g dvdreview.com). This has always been my practice when using cite web. Is there a problem with this? I'll change them all to URL's if it will get your support :). Freikorp (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I'd rather that you changed them all to the site name rather than the URL. For example, "DVD Review & High Definition" is the website located at dvdreview.com. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. The two websites where I couldn't really use a name that didn't involve the ".com" suffix were 'RogerEbert.com' and Blu-ray.com'. If you can think of a more appropriate name for them let me know. Freikorp (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a few of the references are incomplete. The Ebert review doesn't even site Roger Ebert as the author, nor include the publication date available. At least the Box Office Mojo reference lacks a retrieval date. Ah, there's an AllMusic reference lacking one also.
    • Fixed. Freikorp (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wouldn't hurt to do a spin through all the references to see if there's anything else missing; this stuff is easy to overlook sometimes, but I don't see any that immediately jump out at me, so striking. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Edelstein review at Slate is improperly titled; the work is not "Slate magazine review", but rather "Unmitigated Gaul: The Fifth Element and Irma Vep". Pretty much every website referenced needs to be re-checked for completeness and accuracy.
  • Henkel appears to be a dead link.
    • Removed it and the associated text (nothing too important thankfully). Freikorp (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not immediately convinced that some of these web sources constitute reliable sources. Or, rather, that they constitute the best quality reliable sources for the information provided. There are several, although I think [2] stands out on a quick look.
    • I've replaced that reference with a much better one. If you list any further offenders i'll see what I can do. Freikorp (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've since taken the liberty of removing/replacing the next two sources which I considered the least reliable: [3] and [4]. I hope this now addresses this concern. Freikorp (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are some sources with things to say that at least need to be considered, if not included:
    • Ott, Brian L., and Eric Aoki. "Counter-imagination as interpretive practice: Futuristic fantasy and The Fifth Element." Women's Studies in Communication 27.2 (2004): 149-176.
    • Brandt, Stefan. "American Culture X: Identity, homosexuality, and the search for a new American hero." In West, Russel and Frank Lay, eds. Subverting Masculinity. Hegemonic and Alternative Visions of Masculinity in Contemporary Culture. Rodopi BV (2000): 67-93. ISBN 978-9042012349.
      • I've added one sentence from this book to the article, and intend to work on adding more tomorrow. In the meantime, i'm not sure how to reference it, as the section cited is not written by the author of the book. For the time being i've simply formatted the book as if the section was written by the book's author. Is there a better way to do it or is this sufficient? Freikorp (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Brandt, Stefan (2000). "American Culture X: Identity, homosexuality, and the search for a new American hero". In West, Russell; Lay, Frank (eds.). Subverting Masculinity: Hegemonic and Alternative Visions of Masculinity in Contemporary Culture. Amsterdam: Rodopi. pp. 67–93. ISBN 978-90-420-1234-9.
    • "Video Pleasure and Narrative Cinema: Luc Besson's The Fifth Element and Video Game Logic" by Warren Buckland. This article has been reprinted in several works, and I'm not sure which came first. Here is one.

Honestly, the reference formatting alone is enough for me to oppose (and I didn't check them very thoroughly, because there are some pretty fatal problems there), but I did a scan through the article body also:

  • In the plot summary, "It consists of four stones..." would have the Great Evil as an antecedent, not the weapon that it needs to refer to.
  • The process where Leeloo is restored is described as reconstruction throughout. I'm not sure whether I think that's the best word here, but in the plot section, "re-construct" is hyphenated, while later in Production, "reconstructed" is not. (I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be.)
    • Removed hypen for consistency. I can't think of a better word, but if you suggest one i'd be more than happy to consider it. The 'Brandt' reference you provided described her as 'reconstructed' :) Freikorp (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "jumps off a ledge to land in the flying taxicab" (emphasis mine) implies that was her purpose, rather than a fortunate happenstance.
    • Good point; clarified that it was not intentional. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zorg kills the Mangalores..." but then "The publicity surrounding the contest attracts the Mangalores".
    • Clarified that he did not kill all of them. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leeloo has become disenchanted with humanity". Perhaps say why, as it's sort of important to the point of the film?
  • In Themes, "eleventh hour" seems overly formal to my ear.
    • Changed to "last minute". Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's sad here is that I actually meant overly informal, but anyway, the phrase is gone. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a weighting concern with the Themes section. The entire second paragraph is exclusively sourced to Hayward. I don't have any problems with that source in and of itself, but has no one else made any reliable commentary on these aspects of this film? I find the last sentence of this section fairly incomprehensible, personally.
    • No, as far as I can tell no other reliable source has commented on themes in the film. This was actually, by far, the hardest part of the article to expand. I started purchasing offline sources as a last resort to find some information on themes, as I knew the article would not survive FAC without a larger theme section, and of the three offline books I purchased this was the only one that contained information on themes. Thankfully, it contained a lot of information on them. The last sentence was reworded considerably on prose concerns in the original nomination; I can see your point, and i'm not opposed to removing it entirely. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do think you should try to examine the sources I suggested above. Brandt, in particular, has something different to say about the role of the masculine character in The Fifth Element than Hayward does. Buckland has an entirely different take on the film's themes and style. I don't have immediate access to Ott and Aoki, but I have high hopes there as well. I'll try to find time to attempt to scare up more. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't locate a online copy of Buckland, but I have access to Ott and Aoki via my university. If you give me your email i'll happily send you a pdf copy. I intend to use Aoki and Brandt to expand the theme section tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've made a new paragraph, almost exactly the same size as the Hayward one, based about half on the Aoki reference and half on the Brandt one. Thanks for finding those btw. Freikorp (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for duplicate links. You've got some in Soundtrack, Critical response and legacy, and Accolades.

I know there's a lot of effort put into this, but at least at the moment, I regretfully oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I anticipate responding to all of your concerns by the end of the day, but i'll start with some of the easier ones now. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now attempted to address every issue except the additional sources you recommend/themes section. I'll get to those shortly. In the meantime if you could strikeout any issues you think have been resolved or let me know if you think there needs to be more work on any of them that would be appreciated. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zapped a bunch of them, and hopefully provided some help on the pesky cite book template. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to think i'm finished. Your thoughts? :) Freikorp (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of those problems seem taken care of, so I've collapsed to make some room. I can still wish for content from that Buckland source, but I've only been able to track down excerpts on line. Pedantically, that's a mark against being a comprehensive literature review, but if it gets down to that being my only objection, I won't hold it against the article; FACR does not quite demand perfection, after all! Some of the references for things like DVD release dates aren't sites that I'd consider RS for broader purposes, but there's a longstanding tradition of tolerance for those sorts of relatively trivial, bare-fact details (and it is a tradition I've benefited from myself). Sourcing looks much better across the board at this point.

  • The "Milla's Tale" reference isn't cited adequately. What you've pointed at is Milla Jovovich republishing an article from a periodical on her website. We can, I think, AGF regarding the fidelity of the reprint. But, importantly, Harpers & Queen is the periodical title (so needs to be styled in italics). And Sara Buys should be credited as the author.
  • Moving on from sources, is there a reason this article doesn't fair use in an image from The Circles of Power? The screenshot used in here even has a FUR that explains it is being used to highlight the influence and comparison, and the other article uses both for that reason. It's a topic clearly discussed in the prose, so I would think a FUR there would be no problem at all.
    • No particular reason. Before I started overhauling The Fifth Element that image was the only one there, whereas the other article had both. Do you think it is acceptable for FAC to format the two pictures in the same manner they are formatted at the other article? It bothers my OCD that the two pictures are not even sizes, and they do take up a rather large chunk of space when set together the way that they are. Freikorp (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't do it exactly like it's currently done in the other article, no. Since the Circles image is more vertical, perhaps resize them to a consistent width and display them stacked in a column? I'm uncertain, but I do think we do the readers a disservice when we talk about the visual similarity between the two works, but then only illustrate half of that comparison. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to get back here in the near future for a more thorough prose review, but I caught one issue quickly:
  • From Plot, "The current Mondoshawan contact": This implies that Vito Cornelius is a Mondoshawan. Rather, consider "The Mondoshawan's current contact" or something to that end.

References are in a better place than they were previously. No official stance on the prose until I get some more time with the article, but striking my opposition; I am neutral on promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Sorry to bother you but i'm a bit anxious to get this passed. Were my previous edits enough to gain your support, or have you noticed more things that need work? :) Freikorp (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get time for a prose read in the next couple of days. Don't feel anxious! This is still really high up on the FAC page. There's plenty of time (and there ought to be more reviewers) before the coordinators evaluate promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage: Hi, a good deal of time has passed now so if you're able to return it'd probably be helpful... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Squeamish Ossifrage hasn't made a edit to Wikipedia since October 2nd, and also hasn't left any clear indication on his user page of why he is currently absent, so i'm not filled with confidence that he will return before this review is closed. Freikorp (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edgepedia edit

  • This (could) be my first film article that I've reviewed, so please treat these as suggestions:
    • There appears to me too much blue in the lead. No sure why Earth and taxicab is blue, and we have science fiction action film and special forces major.
    • Plot: In the first paragraph "a Great Evil" seems wrong - surely grammatically it's either the Great Evil or a great evil? I can see what you're trying to say, but perhaps this can be re-phrased?
    • Themes: The quote: "echoe[d] stereotypical beliefs about gender"; don't you mean echo[ed] - i.e. you've added an 'ed'?
      • The original source said 'echoes'. Come to think of it it doesn't need to be passed tense, so i've changed it to 'echoes'. Freikorp (talk)
    • Production: "Besson envisioned the entire world...". Is 'entire' overkill? My brief glance at the source didn't justify it - surely he made up something during the film's development?
    • Effects: Does "20 feet" need conversion? e.g. {{convert|20|ft}} -> 20 feet (6.1 m)
    • Release:
      • Initial Screening: You have a repetition -> 100,000 square feet 100,000 square feet (9,300 m2). Does square feet really need linking?
      • "Gaumont spent between $1 million and $3 million"; I assume you mean US$ (As Cannes is in France it's not obvious as it is in the next paragraph).
    • Critical response and legacy: percent, per cent or %? (see WP:PERCENT). Also, in the same section "million euros in damages and interest and 2–5%".
      • Changed all variations to 'percent' for consistency. Freikorp (talk)
References
  • Books do not need an accessdate, as long as you've given the edition. See refs 8, 11, 13, 16, 31, 46, 55 (I may have missed some).
    • I didn't know that, but it makes sense. Removed. Freikorp (talk)

Thanks for the article, enjoyed reading it. Edgepedia (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome. Thanks so much for reviewing. Please let me know if I haven't addressed any concern adequately enough. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. just following this up. Were my replies to your concerns adequate for you to support the nomination, or are there further concerns that you would like me to address? :) Freikorp (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Freikorp, got your message on my talk page; unfortunately, I'm going to be busy travelling for the rest of October, so the time I have limited. However, I have had a chance to watch the DVD over the last week and I have a couple of a minor points:
      • When I was watching I never heard the evil planet thing being referred to as the "Great Evil". The sleeve notes call this "a planet-sized sphere of supreme evil" and the "Making of ..." special feature calls it a "dark and powerful force of evil". When I read it I though that the "Great Evil" (with capitals) was named as such. Perhaps the simplest thing to do is to lose the capital letters!
      • My DVD sleeve notes say most of the events take place in 2257 (The fifth element (Liner notes). Pathé. 1997. P8920DVD.). I can find sources on the internet for 2263, such as this one published in 2009; however by 2007 we have the 2263 date in the article and perhaps someone looked it up on wikipedia! Does this date come from elsewhere? Edgepedia (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm, it's interesting that it says 2257 in the dvd sleeve; 2263 is taken from the film itself. When Korben wakes up from his 'nightmare', you can see the time and date on his alarm clock. 2:00am 18 March 2263. The alarm clock clearly comes into focus at exactly the 16 minute and 58 second mark (at least on my iTunes copy of the film). Not sure what to do about these conflicting primary sources, i'm happy to leave it as it is but maybe we could just give an estimated date, describing the date as the mid 23rd century of something? Freikorp (talk)
PS: Can I echo Squeamish's "don't be anxious" – it took two months of my first FA to pass! The article is now a lot better than when I last looked at it! Edgepedia (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry to be on your case about it, maybe I should switch to decaf lol. Freikorp (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Edgepedia. Just a friendly reminder about the review and also letting you know i'll be on vacation myself from 22 October until 2 November. I anticipate having no internet access on vacation (probably a good thing lol) so if you comment during this time I may not respond. Freikorp (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<------ unidented
Got your message Freikorp. On the subject of the date of the film's events, I think that needs at least a reference in the article; You could use {{cite AV media | people=Besson, Luc (Director) | year=1997 | title=The Fifth Element | time=16 minutes 58 seconds | medium=iTunes | publisher=Gaumont}}. When sources conflict, I usually give both sources and say they conflict – this could help in stopping editors getting confused and changing the article when they find the "wrong" source. So in this case the reference would be something like The year is shown on a clock in the the film (at 16 minutes 58 seconds in the iTunes version), although it is given as 2257 on the DVD sleeve notes published by Pathé in 1997. Edgepedia (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks Edgepedia. Was this the only outstanding concern? Can you support the nomination now? :) Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Friekorp, please do not solicit declarations of support, as you have multiple times here. Reviewers are quite capable of deciding for themselves if they wish to explicitly declare their support (or opposition) re. promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Ian Rose. Apologies, I didn't realise asking whether my changes were good enough for the article to be supported or whether I needed to do more work was not OK, I won't do so again. And yes, i'll stop doubling up with the headers from now on also. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mirokado edit

The proposer also asked me nicely to look again at this article. I have read it through from scratch and will be happy to support it again once the following points have been addressed:

  • Lead: It has been called the best and worst summer blockbuster of all time. I suggest "it has been called both the ..." as later in the article, to make it clearer that it is not one reaction being referred to.
  • Plot: divorcee: I don't see the relevance of mentioning this. It is presumably added to the script to explain why Dallas is living in a batchelor pad with a cat, but it plays no part in the plot or the rest of the film.
  • Effects: proprietary software: the wikilink refers to the difference between closed- and open-source software, but the reference is referring to Digital Domain's use of standard (including closed-source) packages as well as its own in-house software (that is my understanding of page 60 of the reference, not something I "know"). I think it will be clearer if we say "in-house software" here, or remove the wikilink
  • Soundtrack: The Fifth Element is amongst Besson's films that have been described as "intrinsically musical": this reads a bit clumsily, please rephrase, perhaps: "The Fifth Element is one of Besson's films which have been described as "intrinsically musical";" or say "among" instead of "amongst"

In this edit I have corrected the punctuation in "mixed or average reviews" and tweaked some source spacing for consistency. --Mirokado (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • All issues addressed. Thanks so much for your review. Hopefully the nomination will pass this time :). Freikorp (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was quick!

  • In the update to Soundtrack: Autodesk Softimage, Arete, Side Effect's Prisms, RenderMan, as well as in-house software was used by Digital Domain...: need another comma and "were" here: "Autodesk Softimage, Arete, Side Effect's Prisms, RenderMan, as well as in-house software, were used by Digital Domain..."

Supporting now. Good luck with the proposal. --Mirokado (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments support edit

Love this movie! Here's my review.

  • Budget - Why not give a footnote instead of hidden text? This will allow you to hedge a bit more, rather than being verifiable but possibly incorrect.
  • Really light on production information in the lead. It took 22 years... did anything happen aside from people being hired? I mean, you dedicate so much text to it in the body, but the lead is sorely lacking.
    • Added some information the lead about why it may have taken so long. Freikorp (talk)
  • it remained the highest-grossing French film at the box-office until the release of The Intouchables in 2011. - what's with giving the reference here? Per WP:LEAD, this should be referenced in the body.
  • but their compatriots determine to seize them for themselves. - perhaps a way of making it clear that the stones are the "them" in question?
  • Plot section is a bit overly detailed. I know less than 700 words is recommended, but a lot of the 640 words of the current plot summary are fat. Is it really pertinent that he was a radio call-in winner (rigged or not?). Is their "consummating their love" (or, really, that whole paragraph) plot relevant, or is it just dénouement? I can imagine that this plot summary could be trimmed to 550 words.
  • While I'm discussing the plot: you don't explain why the Great Evil is returning sooner than "300 years".
    • To the best of my knowledge (which is considerable on this subject) there is no explanation. It is widely considered by fans (and wikipedia users I might add) to be a source of confusion. Freikorp (talk)
      • In that case, let's not be that specific. "in several hundred years" gives some wiggle room without being inaccurate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to have trimmed this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes sorry I forgot to mention that. I think it would just be easier to leave it out, I know this article and if I say several hundred years IP's will just keep changing it to "300". Hopefully if it doesn't mention it at all there will be less disruption. Freikorp (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book Science Fiction Film, published by Cambridge University Press, credited the film with exploring the theme of political corruption. - I'd expect the author to be the one we're supposed to mention in text, not the book. Mentioning only the book and publisher gives the impression that the book had no author. This goes for the rest of the journals etc. mentioned as well; these are ideas held by people, not necessarily the journals or the journals' editorial staff. Furthermore, this makes the mention of Susan Hayward and Phil Powrie appear WP:UNDUE, as they are the first authors actually named.
    • I have now specified authors as well as the book and journal. Freikorp (talk)
      • I'd probably trim the publishers though (Cambridge Uni. Press, etc.), but if you prefer them that's fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, the only reason I added them was to give it some notability to the source, I mean 'Stefan Brandt' clearly isn't notable enough to have a wiki article, and neither is his book 'Subverting Masculinity'. I thought if I showed that the publisher was notable it would give some indication of why we should value his opinion - because a notable publisher thought it was worthy to print. Do you think this is unnecessary? I have no qualms with removing it, I just thought it serves a purpose of sorts. Freikorp (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • IMHO, people who are going to question the reliability and/or weight of the source are usually those who know enough to check the references section (where you have the publisher spelled out). That being said, I'm fine with the way things are now if you'd rather not remove the publishers, and I'm not aware of any policies against including them in-text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The love story within The Fifth Element was considered to be one of the main narratives in the film, and it faces the same deadline as the main storyline. - "was considered" begs the question "by whom". Just say "the authors considered it" or whatever.
  • The section #Related media is way too short and underdeveloped. It can probably be safely merged into the release section (actually; split off the legacy text as its own section; that should work, and allow you to incorporate these alternative media).
  • He states he was waiting to build a reputation for himself as a filmmaker before he commenced production of the film, so that he would be able to make it with creative control. - Well, after a sentence like that we'd expect to be introduced to one or more films that made Besson well enough known that he could take control. Instead we jump right into the budget, and only then do you mention a film he made.
    • Moved some info around so that information about the 1994 film Leon appears right after that statement. Freikorp (talk)
  • Standardize whether your punctuation goes inside or outside of quotation marks.
  • Gaultier also borrowed designs from others to help create his effect. - any examples?
    • Not in the source quoted unfortunately. Text reads: "Gaultier explains that he pulls from past designs - not just his own - to create his effect." Happy to delete this mention entirely if that would be better than not being able to specify whose designs he borrowed. Freikorp (talk)
      • Important enough for the subject. Just was hoping that we could show and not simply tell. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He relies heavily on the use of orchestral textures and exotic influences, such as the oboe and strings heard as the surgeons prepare to regenerate Leeloo, and the pizzicato as she is reconstructed, as well as the shawm sounds as Leeloo tries to communicate with Korben after she falls into his taxi, and the Middle-Eastern unison strings as he tries to convince her to give herself up. - What a mouthful! can we split this, please?
    • I just deleted the second half of that very long sentence - there are enough examples without the second half anyway. Freikorp (talk)
  • The soundtrack section jumps around a bit. Content then sales information then content again. Perhaps a somewhat more organized presentation would be in order. Also, worth mentioning any of the review comments?
    • Reorganised and a reviewer comment added. Freikorp (talk)
      • Tried reorganizing... what do you think? Also, added two CN tags. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good. I found a source for one of the cn tags. I'm confident that no source specifically backs up the statement: "Part One (titled Lucia di Lammermoor) and Part Two (titled The Diva Dance) of this piece are included as separate but consecutive tracks on the soundtrack" (other than listening to the soundtrack itself) so i've just removed that sentence and the tag with it. Freikorp (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why not just cite the album itself? We're allowed to do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh I didn't know that lol. Done, though i've never cited an album before so do feel free to check i've filed out enough parameters. Freikorp (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Grand. I've done similar citations with some lists, so I knew it's possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps clarify what "exported" film means.
    • Changed to "As of 2011 it still held the record for the French film with the highest foreign box office gross." Freikorp (talk)
  • which called him "the summer's most outrageous special effect" - LA Times or Time?
  • The case was dismissed in 2004 on the grounds that only "tiny fragments" of Giraud's artwork had been used - What about Jodorowsky?
    • Clarified it was "tiny fragments" of the comic, rather than specifically Giraud's artwork. Freikorp (talk)
  • Anybody else give feedback regarding this film? If you mention only Oldman, it comes across as undue weight.
    • Another user added Oldman's comments after I nominated the article for FAC. I'd be more than happy to remove this information on the grounds of undue weight, though i'll have a look for other actors opinions later. Freikorp (talk)
      • If you can get 'em, that'd be great. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Finding this surprisingly difficult - found a basic quote from Willis and added it, will look for more. Freikorp (talk)
          • Having Jovovich or Maïwenn Le Besco would round this out (or Besson himself). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Ultimate Edition DVD contains featurettes with Tucker and Jovovich, both of whom speak fondly of their experiences working on the film. I was hoping to find something more specific, but i'm hoping this will be enough. Freikorp (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Any direct quotes? You can cite the actual featurette. See Departures for an example of how that works (with the format system my co-author and I used; it can be adapted for this article easily) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Done. Also have a look at my reply to the concern regarding the year the film was set in at the bottom of this discussion :) Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • nomination for Worst Supporting Actress, and Chris Tucker was nominated for Worst New Star for both The Fifth Element and Money Talks. - be clear if this applies to both Tucker and Jovovich, or just one or the other.
    • I'm not 100% sure what the issue is here - i've reworded to "Conversely, Jovovich received a Razzie nomination for Worst Supporting Actress, and Chris Tucker was nominated for Worst New Star for his performances in both The Fifth Element and Money Talks." Does this address your concern? Freikorp (talk)
      • Excellent. Yes, the way you had positioned your subjects suggested (erroneously) that Jovovich could have been in Money Talks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second disc provides various special features, focusing on visual production, special effects, fashion in the film, featurettes and interviews with Willis, Jovovich, and Tucker, featurettes on the four different alien races in the film, and a featurette on Diva Plavalaguna. - can we avoid having featurettes stated three times in a row?
  • The Ultimate Edition was praised for its special features. - by whom?
  • Suggest linking to newspapers and/or reviewers with articles.
    • In regards to what? Sorry i'm not sure what you mean here. Freikorp (talk)
      • i.e. DVD Talk has an article but is not linked (article could use some work, but that's not FAC relevant). The one that brought this to mind was LA Times, but it appears I forgot that you had already linked it previously. No need to worry about that one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikilinked. Looks like the DVD talk article was created after I added the source to this article. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any further details on the novelization (reviews? Changes in plots as mentioned in RSes? anything?)? How about the games? I'm sure they have reviews you can mention, at least one or two. I mean, you give sound bites for the DVD releases. (TV Tropes says that the PS1 game got on several "worst game of the year" lists... if we can cite that, it's fairly important).
    • Added two game reviews. You'll have to post a link to that TV Tropes article you're talking about if you want me to do anything about that; i'm not familiar with that website and I haven't heard anything else about these lists the game is apparently on. Freikorp (talk)
      • Not cite TV Tropes (its a Wiki, and non-reliable), but the fact. Gamespot has a review here (not familiar enough with WP:VG's RS guidelines to say off it's an RS or not here). IGN (RS) has a review. Game Revolution too (RS). Can't find anything for what TV Tropes claims, but those two (three?) reviews would certainly be plenty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've now added two reviews for the game adaptation and one review (the only one I could find) for the racing game that is based on the film. I can't find a review for the novelisation from a reliable source (google books doesn't list any reviews of the book either [5]). Freikorp (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the discrepancy in film length? Infobox says 126 minutes, but Ebert says 127. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure how that happened - changed to 127. Freikorp (talk)
  • Duplicate links: Gary Oldman — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, i'll begin addressing these issues one at a time and will ping you when i'm done. Freikorp (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Crisco 1492. I've either addressed everything or requested clarification on what you were after. Feel free to strikethrough any resolved issues so I know what you're pleased with. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you been able to consult The Adventure and Discovery of a Film: The Story of The Fifth Element or Valérian: Les Extras de Mézières, tome 2: Mon cinquième élément? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to (non-RSes) these two books have information on how Besson approached Mezieres, and on what Besson intended the fifth element to be... might be important. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm certainThe Adventure and Discovery of a Film would prove very useful, i've previously looked into buying a copy. Unfortunately it was limited edition and is out of print. The cheapest I can find a copy for sale is $200 [6]; my fiancé would kill me if I spent that much money on a book lol. Neither my local public or university library has a copy. The other book is not available at any library near me either, though it is more affordable to buy; I don't relish the idea of having to buy it though, and if I ordered a copy it probably wouldn't arrive at my house for a couple weeks anyway as i'd have to order from overseas. Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about an inter-library loan? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I haven't looked into that. I might get a chance to go to the library and ask the day after tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Managed to get to the library today. I put in a written request for both books, I was told someone would call me when the book(s) had either come in or if they knew they couldn't get a copy. I was told it might take a week or longer. I'm not sure if Ian Rose is happy for this nomination to stay open just on the chance that a) they can get the books in and b) that said book would have useful information. Would it be a massive problem to just let the issue of comprehensiveness slide for the time being? I mean, the article isn't obviously deficit without said sources, and as I have a clear interest in this article I can assure you that if I ever get a copy of either of the books, I will do my best to improve this article with their information, regardless of whether the article is already promoted to featured status or not. Freikorp (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comprehensiveness is part of the FAC criteria, so any objections on that count are prima facie actionable. How much a barrier to promotion it should be in this instance is therefore more in the hands of Crisco as an experienced film article editor/reviewer, than in mine as a FAC coordinator. No pressure, Crisco (honestly!) but if it's a stopper for you then given the time this has been open I'd be inclined to archive the nom until the books are obtained and worked into the article. If you think it does meet the criteria after all (but could simply be further improved with the additions) then we may still be on track for promotion shortly, pending image check and resolution of Nimbus' remaining points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Despite what my students may try and tell you, I'm not evil enough to oppose over that. Yeah, it would be a great addition, but this is already one of the most comprehensive single sources on the internet. I can easily assume that Freikorp will add further information as it becomes available. Images below are dealt with too, so
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness, with the caveat that I hope that the book does become available. I doubt it would cause a fundamental rewrite of the article, and there are no obvious gaps in coverage (for me, at least). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The public library just called me. It might interest you to know that there wasn't a copy of either of those books in any library in Australia, which is precisely why my local library has decided to purchase The Story of The Fifth Element for their collection. As they have to order it from overseas it will probably take 2-4 weeks to arrive, and they told me they'd put it aside for me so that I can borrow it first. Not surprisingly they weren't interested in ordering the other one as it isn't in English. Freikorp (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must say, the Australian library system sounds pretty damn good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, any of the special features on the DVDs? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used to own the original (no special features) version of the DVD; I now own the iTunes copy, which also has no special features. Thankfully, people have uploaded at least some of the special features from the Ultimate edition DVD to YouTube, hence why I was able to cite the interviews with Jovovich and Tucker in the 'Legacy' section. There are snippets for sure that could be added to the article (For example I was surprised to find out via Jovovich's special features interview that after 2 months of repeatedly bleaching her hair and dying it orange her hair started to fall out; she had to wear a wig in the second half of the film) but I don't recall hearing anything of vital importance. Was there a particular part of the 'Production' section that you think could use expanding with potential information from said special features? Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not exactly in a position to have the DVD features myself (Indonesia and all that). No, I am not aware of anything particularly important, and there are no obvious gaps in coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • K, so these "Comprehensiveness" questions are all I have left. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nimbus edit

Very nearly a 'support' from me. There are two cites in the lead, should not be there per WP:LEADCITE as long as the facts are cited later. Gaultier does not use the hyphen according to his official website. On the fictional date of the film is a date of the first Egyptian scene not given on screen then a cutaway says '200 years later' or similar? Been a while since I've seen it. The Cornelius/Zorg choking scene seems to have been left out of the plot? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. I have removed the two cites in the lead, and the hyphen in Gualtier's name. Yes, you're right - the movie opens to the text on screen "Egypt 1914". Then when it cuts to the future it says "300 years later", though Korben's alarm clock clearly states the year is 2263. How Luc Besson managed to contradict the date that badly is completely beyond me. This 'movie mistake' has proved quite annoying for me to work around. As for the choking scene - I had to leave most of the non-vital scenes in the film out of the plot in order to shorten in to 550 words. Freikorp (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, the alarm clock is clearly visible. And I mean clearly. Screenshot. It's huge. And yes, the earlier text says 300 years. Screenshot. How about including this discrepency in the footnote, citing the film (of course). No screenshots, owing to copyright concerns, but at least text and time the text is shown (or the Mondoshawan makes its pronouncement). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reworded the reference after the year 2263 to take all this information into consideration, any better now? Freikorp (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ping@Nimbus. Freikorp (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the date thing is covered now, perhaps it was deliberate?! I can't immediately learn where this was filmed, should be in the production section with a mention in the lead. The soundtrack infobox looks odd, it is not used in Blade Runner (a Featured Article) but is used at Blade Runner (soundtrack) at the top of the article where I would expect to see it.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm good point about the location of filming not being specified - i'll look for a source for that. No-one's mentioned anything about the soundtrack info-box before. After looking up about 15 featured film articles I did note the majority of them indeed do not have info-box, though two of the ones I looked at did (Manhunter (film) and Hoodwinked!). Does the info-box present a big problem? While there are only 2 notable reviews of the soundtrack, I do like how the inbox conveys the review scores with just a glance, and in this case there is not a separate article for the film's soundtrack; if there was i'd be willing to ditch the info-box immediately. I'd prefer the inbox to remain unless doing so would cost me your support, in which case I would be willing to permanently remove it. Freikorp (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox album states that the coding should appear at the top of the page, reading between the lines I guess it is only intended for use in album articles. My worry is that editors follow other Featured Articles, they may do the same citing this one as the precedent. The template could be used in a new soundtrack article in the same way as the Blade Runner example mentioned. Look forward to learning more about filming locations.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the inbox and added information on filming locations. Freikorp (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll change to support when all the sources have been confirmed as reliable by a source checker. I'm seeing current cite 92 as a dead link (70th Academy Awards). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep it was dead for me too; I replaced it. Freikorp (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Squeamish Ossifrage gave a source review already? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source in question was retrieved in July this year, and I double-checked everything was still live before nominating for FAC, so it looks like that source must have gone dead quite recently, but in any case it's fixed now. Freikorp (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to "I'll change to support when all the sources have been confirmed as reliable by a source checker.". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, righto. Yes, Squeamish Ossifrage did do a thorough source review. Is this issue resolved now Nimbus? Freikorp (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read Squeamish Ossifrages review thoroughly, they had many points, some resolved, the collapsed dialogue box had an 'oppose' comment then later this changed to 'neutral' which I believe just related to the referencing, not the article as a whole (may be wrong). It is unfortunate that they have have not returned to close the reference review. My normal field of editing is aviation and I have a very good knowledge of what is and isn't considered a reliable source, we need a film article referencing expert in here to guide us. One website 'Encyclopedia of Fantastic Film and Television' seems to be a cross between a wiki and a one person self-published enthusiast site on reading the 'FAQ' there, is it a reliable source in the WP sense? I can't tell though I would not use a site like that myself for referencing. Sorry if this is causing pain but myself (and the FA delegates) would be much happier with a positive yes or no for WP:WIAFA 1c (Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eofftv is the only source i'm using that I wasn't completely sure was reliable. I only used it as a last resort; when I couldn't find any other sources. When you asked for information on filming locations it was one of two sources I found stating scenes in the film were filmed in Mauritania. The other was a (much more reliable) article in Cinefex. I only had a snippet preview of said article from Google books [7] though that was enough to confirm that filming did take place there. I found a copy of said article on sale on eBay for $5, so I ordered it. The reason I wasn't using it as a source yet is because until the article arrives, I don't know what the article's title is, or its author. It would be a good guess that the author is Don Shay and the title is The Fifth Element, but I didn't want to assume. As the used source has now been questioned, I will add the Cinefex source despite its temporarily missing parameters, and will fill in the blanks once my copy of the article arrives. In the meantime i'll see if I can find alternate sources for the two other facts that Eofftv currently backs up. Freikorp (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found the correct author and title for the Cinefex article. I removed one of the other statements the Eofftv reference was backing up, it wasn't very significant anyway, and I found a reliable source for the last claim that reference backed up, so it's completely removed from the article now. Freikorp (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- This has been open a long time but does appear to be close to reaching consensus so I'll allow some more time for Crisco's and Nimbus' comments to be resolved. In the meantime, did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Corrected the odd formatting error (including a stray "}").
  • Is The DVD Journal really a Reliable Source? It sure looks amateur, and the "About Us" page doesn't inspire me with confidence.
    • Fair enough. I've removed the three inline citations that DVD Journal was used for. I couldn't find another reference for one of the statements the source backed up in the production sections, so I replace it with some new information. Freikorp (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#29: page?
    • Well I don't really have a specific page per se, since a large portion of the comic is about the "character named S'Traks, who drives a flying taxicab through the congested air traffic of the vast metropolis on the planet Rubanis." The character and these facts don't all get introduced at the same time if I remember correctly (I don't have acces to the book currently). Does this really need a page number? Or for that matter, does it need a source at all? Freikorp (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, other citations to this source give page numbers, so this one appears to be an omission. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just removed the source entirely; it wasn't really needed considering that the fact that S'Traks drives a taxi through the planet Rubanis in the comic is still backed up by the source used at the end of the next sentence, which states Korben's character was inspired by S'Traks. Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Thierry Arbogast and KEG FX appropriate sources? Are there not other sources that report the awards?
    • The Thierry Arbogast reference is no longer needed, so I removed it. I added it before I found the source that backs up all the Cesar awards nominations and winners. I haven't been able to find a more reliable source than KEG FX for the Saturn Award. The Saturn Awards official website doesn't list the previous nominations for best special effects: [8] IMDb and Movie Collection back it up, but I don't think they're any more reliable. It's the recipients offical webpage, so I was hoping it would be accepted. Given the circumstances, do you think it could be? Freikorp (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might get away with it since it's strictly factual data, but another source would be batter. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guessing these two aren't reliable either, but it's worth asking: Awards and Winners Cinetaka Freikorp (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first one's user-generated, and says at the bottom of the page that it gets some of its content from Wikipeida, so it's definitely out. The second one, I'm not sure—I think it's in Portuguese. I wonder if there's a Portuguese speaker who could tell us if it's a RS or not. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is Portuguese. On closer inspection the website appears to be some form of movie rental site, and the awards list looks remarkably similar to the one at IMDb (not exactly the same, in a very slightly different order and it doesn't contain two of the awards that IMDb lists). I wouldn't bet that it is reliable. Hoping you'll let me get away with the reference I currently have. Freikorp (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translations of non-English titles would be nice
    • Done. I haven't bothered to translate "Das fünfte Element" or "Le Cinquième élément", as I think that's a bit condescending. But let me know if you'd like me to do that. Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't call it condescending—Wikipedia serves a worldwide audience, many of whom live in places where it's unlikely they'd be familiar with any amount of French or German. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise ref formatting looks fine. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Fifth_Element/archive2&oldid=1144392590"