Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Stanley Kubrick filmography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Stanley Kubrick filmography edit

Stanley Kubrick filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 16:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of Stanley Kubrick's films. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest directors. ~ HAL333 16:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alexandra

  • The second lead paragraph has an issue with repetitive "He directed A. Then he directed B. Then he directed C. Then he directed D." type of writing, especially in the beginning where we list off his documentaries and first feature film one by one.
  • While the unfinished film may have been named by Kubrick after Pinocchio, linking the article on the character here gives one the impression that the link will take one to an article about the unfinished film - especially as it is italicized like a title. I would suggest unlinking it.
  • The wording of the annotation Also editor, director of special effects, and breathing sounds read literally means that Kubrick was the breathing sounds rather than that he made them
  • Looks good otherwise. Please ping me when you have addressed the above and I will take another look.--AlexandraIDV 10:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandra IDV I've worked on the prose. ~ HAL333 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose, although I am unsure re: the concerns over criterion 3c that RunningTiger123 brought up.--AlexandraIDV 14:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally support on 3c with the addition of the reception list--AlexandraIDV 14:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The only thing I can add to the above is that the prose is a bit choppy in places, with short sentences which could be joined together, e.g. "His final film was the erotic thriller Eyes Wide Shut starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. The film was released posthumously in 1999" - that seven-word sentence could easily be joined to the previous one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra IDV, ChrisTheDude I have done some work addressing the 3c issues. ~ HAL333 21:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – While this page is well-done, I just don't see how this is long enough to justify a stand-alone list. Per FL criterion #3c, featured lists "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article", but at just 16 items, this is so short that it could easily go in the article Stanley Kubrick. I also checked other FLs for director filmographies, and the shortest I could find is probably Christopher Nolan filmography, which is almost twice as long (and likely to grow). RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RunningTiger123 Would merging it with List of recurring cast members in Stanley Kubrick films or maybe List of accolades received by Stanley Kubrick fix that? ~ HAL333 19:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the former is a good option. Kubrick's collaborations seem to have been more by happenstance than the result of a serious working relationship, so I don't think they're particularly notable, especially since most of them are just in two films. (Compare it to something like List of frequent David Lynch collaborators; Lynch's relationships seem more deliberate, span more works, and are documented in third-party sources.) The accolades list is also not great, since normally filmographies and accolades are kept separate and Kubrick has enough accolades to justify a separate list. The best option might be Stanley Kubrick's unrealized projects, though I definitely think you should get a better consensus than just my opinion before doing that. Maybe a discussion at Talk:Filmography of Stanley Kubrick with links to the discussion at Talk:Stanley Kubrick and Talk:Stanley Kubrick's unrealized projects would be good so other people can consider what the best option might be. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been able to think it over. I agree with your concern about merging List of recurring cast members in Stanley Kubrick films - I would not be able to find sources for several of those actors anyway. And I don't think that I would be able to merge Stanley Kubrick's unrealized projects without losing most of its content and/or giving it undue weight. Why should a script he considered in the 1950s have 10 times the content that 2001 does? That leaves List of accolades received by Stanley Kubrick, which I actually split from the article, which used to be Filmography and Awards of Stanley Kubrick. As Kubrick wasn't exactly a massive award-winner, I think I can add the content in a tight little table. It also fits nicely with my discussion of his personal wins in the final lede paragraph. Would that be okay? ~ HAL333 20:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about the unrealized projects. The awards could work, though there are quite a few awards that aren't listed on the other page (WGA and DGA need to be added, and some of the critics' groups listed on IMDb may merit mention). Again, though, I think this needs to be discussed by other people, as my opinion isn't the only one that matters for this review. Community consensus is the most important part of the review process, and that should be our focus. Heck, if other people review this list and can come to the consensus that it meets criterion #3c as is, I'll remove my "oppose" vote. I just think this is something that needs to be duly considered. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link to discussion ~ HAL333 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that old version of the page that you linked included a section titled "Cameos and other work". Is there a reason that disappeared? RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any reliable sources to support them. ~ HAL333 23:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured, I just wanted to check. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've seen something else that might work for this. I saw that the new FL candidate M. Night Shyamalan filmography includes a table summarizing critical reception for Shyamalan's films – i.e. Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and CinemaScore grades. I think this would be a great option to add to this page and give it more content to stand on its own. The article for Kubrick doesn't contain this information, so as it stands currently, the information is spread across the individual film articles. Summarizing it here seems reasonable. What do you think? RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123  Done ~ HAL333 17:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are the numbers accurate? The scores for 2001: A Space Odyssey in particular appear wrong. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just double-checked and fixed them. Sorry about that. ~ HAL333 19:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – With the addition of a reception section, this page now has enough information to stand on its own, in my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • My first thought when I started reading was that it would be really difficult to write a good lead for a Stanley Kubrick list ... he went in so many different directions in his career. But you did it, and made it hang together ... well done.
  • I don't have a preference, but "Dr. Strangelove" (as a film title, not a person) is normally alphabetized under D rather than S (and this is where you put it in the second table, but not in the first). In the second table, A Clockwork Orange should be filed under C, not A. Also, don't alphabetize these under "The": The Killing, The Seafarers, The Shining. Otherwise, the coding in the table seems fine.
Addressed. ~ HAL333 19:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review).
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. You make good use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • General: I think the formal awards he received for his work are more important than the critical reception from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, so I'd expect to see all those nominations and awards listed in a table here. Ok, it's listed as a "See also". Perhaps put {{main}} at the top of the section instead?
  • "13 feature films and three" comparable figures should be all words or all numbers.
  • "It was Kubrick's last film that he did not also write" the table seems to imply he was a writer on Lolita but just not credited.
  • "2001 garnered ..." we're encouraged to avoid starting sentences with a numeral...
  • You mention Vladimir Nabokov but not Anthony Burgess?
Good point. ~ HAL333 18:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead talks about critics but doesn't seem to relate to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, I mean for example FMJ which is pretty iconic, and that's related in the second table but not mentioned at all in the lead.
  • Check references for those which require subscriptions (e.g. the NYT) which need url-access=subscription adding to the cite template.
  • Ref 5 -> "The" Independent.
  • Ref 54, The Guardian is a work.
Not sure what's happening. It's a work in the code, but isn't italicized. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ~ HAL333 04:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was an errant apostrophe in the title, I fixed it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "British filmographies" a category?
From my understanding, some of the editors at Stanley Kubrick insist that he is British and the category was an addition done years back. Although born American, Kubrick moved to a country estate in the UK, where he made the rest of his films. I'm largely indifferent to the issue, but I'm fine removing it if you find it inappropriate. ~ HAL333 04:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that there's a category here that isn't reflected or mentioned in the article at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. ~ HAL333 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments. ~ HAL333 18:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Shouldn't it be |url-access=registration for the NYT?
    • it's missing for ref 50 as well
  • ref 56 doesn't have Ebert listed as the author link the others
Reliability
  • no doubts here, all reputable news sources
Verifiability
  • the link for ref 43 seems to be broken Aza24 (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for the source review, Aza. ~ HAL333 22:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from Birdienest81
  • Shouldn't the titles of the references (i.e. NYT, Variety) be wikilinked? I don't care if you do it every time or the first mention.
I've never really seen much use in doing that and have always thought that it was just a matter of personal preference. But, I may be wrong, and, if you can point me towards the policy, I'll be happy to oblige. ~ HAL333 15:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4 is actually from DGA Quaterly which has its own article here on Wikipedia.
Done. ~ HAL333 15:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 15 and 25 are from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the organization behind the Oscars)
Good catch. ~ HAL333 15:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's from a quick rundown. I see more, but I'll elaborate further soon. Nevertheless, these should be easy to fix and the list looks almost ready for FL status.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Most of my other concerns were raised up by SNUGGUMS. Well done.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS
  • I decided to be bold and move this nomination page to match the main article's name since that got retitled before the FLC concluded. Apologies for any inconvenience, but I thought it would be easier to have the titles be consistent. Now to assess the list's content:
  • It concerns me how File:KubrickForLook.jpg lacks a source URL. Having one would make it easier to verify that was properly licensed.
The two uploaders are gone (MIA since 2015 and blocked). Left a note on the Kubrick talkpage. ~ HAL333 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's quite unfortunate :/. If I do come across something, then I might go ahead and add a link myself. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced it's appropriate to include clips here like File:Fear and Desire (1953).webm, regardless of copyright status. That above all else seems decorative.
Readers come to this page for information about his films. If having one of his full early movies helps someone, why not? It doesn't detract from the article imo. ~ HAL333 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my knowledge, this isn't a very common practice for filmography pages, and such clips more often tend to be found in individual movie pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Since this is already available on his main biography, I removed it. ~ HAL333 19:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of a big fan of those... ~ HAL333 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do they add to this page besides decoration, though? At least they're not copyrighted. I would certainly oppose using non-free images when free ones are available. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Razzie Award" should read "Golden Raspberry Award"
  • When Kubrick (as far as I know) wasn't credited as a writer, director, or producer for A.I. Artificial Intelligence, maybe it shouldn't even be mentioned in the prose
The film was drafted and produced (Kubrick's company) by and dedicated to Kubrick. I also just think it's an important, albeit posthumous, event of Kubrick's career. ~ HAL333 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there should be a referral note linking to List of accolades received by Stanley Kubrick under "Critical response" when reviews and accolades are separate matters. It seems better for the "See also" section.
  • Ref#8 is missing its "y" from "Film Quarterly"
  • Don't italicize RogerEbert.com, Golden Globe Awards, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, BAFTA, Directors Guild of America, BBC, The Criterion Collection, Turner Classic Movies, Rotten Tomatoes, or Metacritic
I wasn't able to fix the "Golden Globe Awards" one... ~ HAL333 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To avoid italics, you can move text to "publisher" field or bypass the ones "work" generates by adding such code to it. I've done the latter here for you to demonstrate an example. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You learn something new everyday. ~ HAL333 19:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else addressed. I appreciate the comments. ~ HAL333 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome :). The main qualm I still have is with his portrait. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's annoying: Kubrick was very camera-shy and, as a result, Commons' images of him are sparse. I actually tried to replace that image on Kubrick's bio with one from later life. The discussion was quite contentious and went nowhere. ~ HAL333 19:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As long as that other pic you mentioned is properly licensed and has some link to help verify authenticity/copyright details, I would have no objections to using it here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat got it deleted, but there are a few others at Commons. Are any of those viable? ~ HAL333 22:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your best bet would be File:Stanley Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove Trailer (4) Cropped.jpg. I've checked the trailer it says this shot comes from, and that thankfully contains it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ~ HAL333 23:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You now have my support following sufficient changes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick drive-by comments from Sdkb

  • Two quick comments on the external links section: I think it's just "Rotten Tomatoes", not "the Rotten Tomatoes".
Done. ~ HAL333 15:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be nice to have some indication of who designed the kubrick.life site, rather than just having a bare link.
It seems to have been created by no one of note. I added "educational site" as I figure the names wouldn't have been of much help. ~ HAL333 15:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 19:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_list_candidates/Stanley_Kubrick_filmography/archive1&oldid=1015355804"