Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Werner Herzog 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Werner Herzog filmography edit

Werner Herzog filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 20:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many will recognize Werner Herzog as the secondary villain from The Mandalorian, but he is much, much more. A prolific filmmaker, he is unlike any other. Watch him analyze a nihilistic penguin and observe firefighters in Kuwait as an alien visitor would. Or watch him get shot and barely react. Viewed by about 300,000 people yearly, this list and Herzog himself deserve featured-level quality. Cheers ~ HAL333 20:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank edit

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • I'm not experienced with image copyright issues, but I think at least an additional tag of some kind is needed for File:WERNER HERZOG star.jpg. Also, I can't tell for certain what's going on with the license for File:WernerAndGalen.jpg; has Lena Herzog contacted anyone about this image?
  • "The Wild Blue Yonder" should sort under "Wild".
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to apparently reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 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. Except as above, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • And just for you, I'll add number 7: you might or might not want to take a look at my current FLC. :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dank: I removed both of the images and added one new one with a better license. Thanks for the comments. ~ HAL333 02:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. I see you put a lot of effort into this one, and it paid off. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A great list, well-researched and well-written. I checked the formatting details and all looks fine. Excellent work! --Tone 09:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif edit

A nice looking list, my only comments are:

  • I think the refs could be improved. I'll take Letterboxd as a good source and that was my only concern there, but I mean in terms of the parameters. Could archive links be introduced; could wikilinks be introduced for the works (RogerEbert.com, Empire, etc.) as well as some authors (Roger Ebert, A. O. Scott, Peter Bradshaw at first glance, there's probably others); where it seems a film is being sourced to the work itself, I assume it is being sourced to an online directory, could this be made clearer?
  • Sorry, but I'll have to push back on all of these. I really dislike work and author links (except for books). Although they technically aren't, I regard them as duplicate links and of dubious help -- as a reader I never clicked on them. I don't really know what I can do for the sources with titles identical to the films. FLC reviewers were fine with them on all of my previous filmographies. However, I am a stickler for archiving refs but the archive bot isn't working for me.... which is very annoying. ~ HAL333 17:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a separate "works cited" section, which is fine, I just wonder that due to the number of Rotten Tomatoes and Letterboxd citations, it might be simpler to just add the Herzog RT and Letterboxd filmographies to this section? I'd also like some clarity on what Prager is being generally cited for, or if it is just that one citation (at which point, for consistency in ref formatting, the "works cited" needs to go and the Prager ref needs to be made a citation like the rest).
  • I ended up just integrating the literary citation with the rest. ~ HAL333 02:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the notes for the fiction short films table, would it be worth adding editor and sound columns, and checking them off like D/W/P?
  • Good point. Done.
  • The documentary short films table has the note "As himself" for Portrait Werner Herzog; this is presumably referring to his narration role? If so, can there be a note added for the other works marked as narration, as to whether he is narrating as himself or a character. If not referring to his narration role, there needs to be some better description - perhaps archive footage of Herzog is what you're referring to?
  • I added "autobiographical" for clarity. ~ HAL333 19:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the 2000 Years of Christianity entry, I think "of" should take the lowercase "o". Also, episode titles are typically in quotation marks and not italic. (i.e. "Christ and Demons in New Spain")
  • Done
  • Lowercase "e" for the "episodes" of the On Death Row entry
  • Done
  • Similar to the "As himself" comment above: the other work, film table has five actor entries with the note "As himself", and one "Cameo" - we must assume that the other 15 actor/narrator roles are not as himself and not cameos, but we should know what they are (character names? Should also get a character for the cameo, too) if possible
  • Ditto for the other work, television table - what are Herzog's characters for the four shows this goes unnoted. And are there any notes for Parks and Rec?
Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, I hopefully have addressed all of your concerns. I went through and added his acting credits but there are no sources for two or three, like the Parks and Rec cameo. ~ HAL333 15:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Screen Rant says it was S7 E1 "2017" and he played Ken Jeggings. That was the top result for 'herzog parks and rec cameo', a few more down was this Guardian write-up about the persona he has in acting cameos, something which I think could be added at the end of the introduction (where the cameos are mentioned); thanks for the work so far, I'll look through your updates soon! Kingsif (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't regard Screen Rant as a high quality reliable source, and have never used it in any filmography I've written. But I include it if you want. ~ HAL333 17:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only potential problem with Screen Rant is making indiscriminate lists of inconsequential things, which it does a lot - it shouldn't be a test of something's notability. But otherwise, it is reliable and is specialist in this area, so it's good. Kingsif (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Done. ~ HAL333 19:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC edit

HAL333 hasn't edited since February, so I'm not sure if these comments will be seen or responded to.

  • Most of the fiction films called out in the lead appear to be significant in some way - a career first, an award-winner, a collaboration with a significant partner, etc. However, Rescue Dawn and Bad Lieutenant appear to be neither. Why call them out, specifically?
  • The selection for the documentaries appears similarly arbitrary. It's unclear why these specific works are being highlighted, as opposed to any of his other dozens of works. If it's because they are significant, the lead should say so.
  • I revised the final paragraph of the lead to remove some repetitive wording.
  • I see Kingsif has noted some of the inconsistencies with the "Other work" tables and I also noticed these

Aside from this, the formatting is clear, organization is clear, and I see no issues with the sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Premeditated Chaos, I think I've addressed your comments. I modified the lead and tried to include more awards/noms but it simply goes down to due weight. There's major Herzog and there's minor Herzog, and their coverage in sources is proportionate. ~ HAL333 15:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's major Herzog and there's minor Herzog Of course, as with any artist. My issue was that in the initial version it was not possible to tell the difference, which presented titles with no context as to why they were significant to his career. What's there now is somewhat better, but it still feels a bit like a series of disconnected titles and not a summary of his career. (Inferno, Lo & Behold, and Fireball still don't seem to justify their own inclusion aside from being newish). If you feel the current version is clunky, can I make a suggestion that may involve some rewriting? I won't oppose if you're not into it, but it may help with flow. What if you tried tying things together by theme? I'm improvising here without looking at the sourcing, so consider the overall idea rather than the exact words, but something like:
  • Herzog made his debut as a documentarian in 1969 with Some Movie, and he continues to explore a variety of topics. He has made over a dozen documentaries about the natural world, such as award-winning Award-Winner and his most recent work, Stuff About Volcanoes. Other works explore human society, including Some Other Movie and the Oscar-winning Encounters at the End of the World. Early in his career, he experimented with stylization, not always successfully: Lessons of Darkness was criticized for supposedly "aestheticizing" the Gulf War. Later on, he began to focus on Some Other Stuff: interviews, such as The One With Gorbachev, and works about scientists, such as One About Scientists.
  • It's a little bit harder to write something like that but it tells the reader so much more about Herzog than just reading titles. Again, if you're not into it, I won't press it, since it would be a bit of a rewrite, but I think it would make the lead much more valuable to a reader. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree -- the lead still is a little clunky. A FL shouldn't read like Watch-Mojo. I'll try the above as well as a few other 'tricks'. Let me chew on it. ~ HAL333 17:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks fantastic, you really get a sense of the man's work. Happy to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: I see that you have returned to editing; are you planning on continuing this nomination? --PresN 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I'm sorry about the delay. I'll have it all knocked out by Sunday. ~ HAL333 20:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – Reference reliability looks okay throughout and the link-checker tool shows no issues. One formatting issue exists that should be addressed: refs 72 and 80 lack publishers (The New York Times and Toronto International Film Festival, respectively). Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed (just to confirm). ~ HAL333 21:34, 27 May 2023 (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_list_candidates/Werner_Herzog_filmography/archive1&oldid=1157492289"