Wikipedia:Featured article review/Blade Runner/archive1

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 kept 12:28, 21 February 2008.

Blade Runner edit

Review commentary edit

Notified WP Films and WP Science Fiction.

The article was promoted as a FA in mid 2005 when rules for getting an article to FA status were less strict. This article is messy, it is lacking many citations, it is written fairly well - yet does not represent the best writing style on Wikipedia, and features some bad grammar, there is no proper fair use disclaimer for many of the images and the reaction section mainly goes on about what Roger Ebert thought of the film. Cinefile81 (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify the original FAC nominator and involved editors, identifiable through article stats as described in the WP:FAR instructions. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images do have fair use rationales, and I trimmed Ebert a bit. Some citations are already in the article and simply need to be replicated to other sections. Messy? Please be more specific. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images need to be significant, per #8 of WP:NFC#Policy. This means there needs to be critical commentary about each screenshot used, otherwise any screenshot from the film could be inserted for decorative purposes. A screenshot should directly tie into the content that exists in the article. Fight Club (film), in my opinion, represents how to utilize such screenshots in connection with the content. Basically, how do the existing screenshots in Blade Runner tie directly into the content? For example, the unicorn screenshot is probably the most appropriate of all the images with a large purpose behind it. There needs to be the same kind of purpose behind other images used. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I happen to really like Fight Club too. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, such context does exist for most of the images. If there is a danger of them being deleted (yet again), then I may be able to address any ongoing concern. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is context for the images, then my suggestion would be to ensure that fair use rationales are described fully and that the captions are written to explain the images in context. For example, "Romeo and Juliet kiss" = "Look, a pretty picture", where "Romeo and Juliet kiss in a fashion intended by the director to evoke that of the 19XX film" would be more directly tied. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added rationales/context to three of the images. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unformatted, incomplete and inconsistenly formatted referernces; external link farm and Seealso need pruning per WP:GTL, WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. WP:MSH#Captions attention to punctuation needed, also WP:DASH. Some listiness. The article has fallen out of status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also and External links have been nuked, much to my annoyance and IMO a detriment to the article. Caption and dash, uh no thanks. Focused on removing lists. Largest task was references, which I've improved upon somewhat. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the Reception section, would it be preferable to use commas instead of em dashes? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would a table be preferable for the list of changes in the Final Cut? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps a possibility would be retrieving the specific revision when this article was nominated and make a diff between that revision and today's revision? We can see what kind of content has been added and possibly trim any unnecessary information that's been added since. Of course, I agree with the nominator that this article needs a closer look beyond that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the article, I believe that its largest issue is its dependence on online sources, which is not appropriate for a film made in 1982. I have recently hunted down and found a staggering amount of resources through FilmReference.com (excellent website for resources on older films) and Film Index International. You can found them compiled at User:Erik/Blade Runner. I have yet to go through Google Books or Google Scholar, which may have additional resources about the film. With so many print sources that are not utilized in the article, I am unsure if the Featured Article can be improved in short time. If you want to improve the article, feel free to utilize the resources for which I have provided citations at my subpage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a modern classic from the 1980s, it of course will have considerable material written about it. However, with the exception of specifics from the BR - Bible, most necessary references can be found online. The cyberpunk theme compliments the idea of early adopters of the internet, discussing and referencing Blade Runner online. Excellent list though. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not a possibility that the existing online sources may not effectively reiterate the content of the offline sources? There's more offline sources than this article has online sources, and I'm not sure if online sources serve as a comprehensive coverage of this film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online references are never comprehensive, but I think they can be adequate for this FA. Just need to find a few more references; and ultimately I might be able to get all I need from the new edition of the BR Bible. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be practical to split off Future Noir into its own article? -Malkinann 02:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it matures/expands further, certainly. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What might be necessary is to split the versions section into a separate article as it has become very listy, detailed and large. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Done. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the most blatant OR statements from the video game section, but there are still no references for the second paragraph. --Mika1h (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The recently-released DVD has a long documentary on the making of the film that would make an excellent source (among other things, we learn that Pris's makeup was Daryl Hannah's idea during the screen test, not inspired by the eponymous character in We Can Build You as the article says. Daniel Case (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think moving the "Influence in film" and "Cultural references" down below, between "Novel" and "Folklore" would be logical. Present all the relevant info about the film, then go into how the film influenced other works. Phyesalis (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), images (3), and focus (4). Joelito (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Cultural References section needs cleanup and strays into Trivia territory at times. BuddingJournalist 20:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost a month now, and the Cultural influence section still needs major clean-up to remove trivial items ("The 2006 shooter Gears of War contains a revolver used as a side-arm by players that looks and sounds very similar to the pistol used by Deckard throughout the film.") and add references. References in general need clean-up for proper formatting (there's also a reference to a Youtube video [and the video is a copyright violation, from the looks of it]). BuddingJournalist 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned by some of the references: given the extensive academic analysis of the film, we should be using hard sources rather than websites. ~~I think~~ the images are ~~OK: they're~~ not free but they do have rationales. I'm concerned a little by the focus: the article over-concentrates on the Final Cut (fans seem determined to skew the article in that direction) but the article should be about Blade Runner not about one out of seven versions. If the article goes that way it will lack comprehensiveness and will, in a sense, only cover one seventh of the material. The plot and themes section should cover the joint plot and joint themes in all the versions, with the specific detail of each version restricted to the Versions of Blade Runner article. The article is still being worked on (or worked over) so it's too soon for me to vote yet. DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work needed; Publishers are not identified on many sources, there are unformatted citations, publication dates are not included on news sources (possibly others), Folklore section is uncited, Novel is undercited, Documentaries is mostly uncited, there's a lot of trivia (The film and music inspired a Subaru commercial.[44]) and trivia lists (There are several other songs influenced by the film (and book):), there's an entire section with a citation tag. MOS issues on ellipses and mixed use of em and endashes for punctuation. I don't think this article is going to make it; I'll check back in a few days to see if there has been a large improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DrK. This is on shortlist of sf material that has received serious consideration. (Don't trust me, trust google scholar.) More of that should be in the article. It's also not properly rationalized, as the overwhelming TOC shows. Marskell (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case it has not been noticed, I have a subpage at User:Erik/Blade Runner that reflects a multitude of print sources that would benefit this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also look at the offline references used in the German featured article for Blade Runner, many of them in English, some from 1982. In fact having skimmed the German article it is clear the English article could be much improved. -Wikianon (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the points above aggravate me. Feel free to comment within my post.

The German article, less information, fewer contributors, easier to maintain. Offline English sources are used here, with the exception of Retrofitting Blade Runner as I haven't read it, and it is a collection of essays... so I consider it less notable.

Why are the documentary sections in dire need of citation? Is someone challenging the content?

I spent a bloody hour on the dashes and its still being brought up!! Not happy.

The Music section is difficult to reference, I'm all for referencing our best work... I'm at a loss about the necessity here; I'll shred it and see if anyone actually cares. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improved. OK, more detail. See WP:DASH; in some places, the article uses unspaced endashes, in others it uses unspaced emdashes, and in others it uses hyphens. Pls pick one and be consistent (the one most often used is unspaced endashes). I found missing hyphens as well (see my edit summaries). Some dates in citations are linked, others are not, and two different formats are used (Barber, Lynn (2002-01-06), "Scott's Corner", The Observer, <http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,628186,00.html>. Retrieved on 22 February 2007) Linking the date parameter will solve many of those. This should be April 2006: "In Conversation with Harrison Ford", Empire (no. 202): 140, 2006-04. See MOS:CAPS#All caps, example: Fischer, Russ (08/2/2007). INTERVIEW: CHARLES DE LAUZIRIKA (BLADE RUNNER). CHUD.com. Incomplete citations, example missing author at ^ "A Cult Classic, Restored Again", New York Times, 2007-9-30. Retrieved on January 21, 2008. These are samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed mdashes except one in quotes, which I shall check. Dates linked. References use citation templates. Screamer caps removed. Author added. DrKiernan (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Default keep It's been three months with no "remove"s. One thing that still niggles me though is the listing of contents of DVDs. I don't find it especially edifying. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. We have to keep this stuff moving. Closing. Marskell (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.