Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rob-B-Hood

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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Rob-B-Hood

Self nomination: I've worked on this article for a while, inserting and expanding sections on production, a plot, release information and reception sections. Having gone through a peer review and some minor copyedits by others. I think it's time for it to be nominated. Feel free to write down any problems that remain with the article.--Alasdair 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're going to want to review the non-free images. Most of them don't seem to be showing something that could not be adequately explained without the image. Although you did explain why the images cannot be replaced by a free image, you did not explain why they cannot simply be removed. For instance, the image in casting shows that two people were in the film together for the first time in a long time. Anyone can understand that just by reading the text, why show the image? Jay32183 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I'll add reasons to most of the pictures in that regard. I'll try to find a replacement for the Yuen Biao pic.--Alasdair 01:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point was actually that you may be able to do without the images, rather than trying to find replacements. "There needs to be an image" does not satisfy WP:NFCC. Jay32183 01:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • To make those images satisfy "significance" criteria, I will explain why they are significant. Some people think any image is not necessary for them to understand the topic, yet others do. Hence significance is still a subjective term. The discussion at WT:NFC#Confusion about the NFCC and Board's language? indicates this. The reason why I go lengths to write rationales is that I really wanted the images to be there, and if a convincing reason is made, at least some people will agree that it is significant.--Alasdair 01:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If there is a free means to convey the information you cannot use the non-free means, WP:NFCC#1, not #8. I'm not saying the images are insignificant, I'm saying there is a free means to convey the same information. An image can be replaced by a non-image. I want you to reconsider the images, not make up fancy wording to defend them. One of the goals of Wikipedia is to be free, which means you should always try to avoid non-free content. Jay32183 03:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Having talked about it further in WT:NFC, it is commented that it is not required for the image to be "impossible" to be expressed by text for it to be used. "Considerably difficult" is sufficient, and that the intepretation of some users of the critierion may have been too strict.--Alasdair 05:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, I guess I will replace the remaining screenshots with shots that have a 640x480 resolution.--Alasdair 05:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I did some minor copyediting and don't see any major problems with the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I find the structure quite odd – I would begin with plot. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines suggests the same; could you explain your rationale for how you have organised it?
  • I find the article concentrates heavily on Chan; given his start status, this may be valid, but there are points where I feel it breaks through. For example, in Casting each commentary on a cast member focuses on his relationship with Chan. Yuen Biao’s paragraph spends so long detailing his relationship to Chan, that his character isn’t named until the end. Surely good practice is to state actor and character straightaway, then explain casting background?
  • Is Jackie Chan’s birthday party really relevant to the film?
  • We have Casting, and then Cast, which appears redundant. I would suggest merging the two.
Feel free to disagree with any of the above J.Winklethorpe talk 23:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's answer your comments one by one.
  • When it comes to the structure of the film, I believe that it should follow a logical order of production -> plot -> release -> reception. Since a film always starts in the production stages. When the audience have seen it entirely, they'd know the plot. Following the first screening, the film would be released everywhere around the world, and what's left is to listen to what reviewers have to say (reception). Hence such an article structure.
  • The reason why the article is so "Chan-centric", is because, well, the Chinese media tend to idolize Jackie Chan. Whenever a film involving him is made, the press would swarm over him, and even the lesser actors would be asked about him. Also, Chan plays a significant role in production besides being an actor. He co-wrote the script, his production company found the cast and he is the stunt director. Anyway, you do make a point, and I'll attempt to find interviews of the cast that don't involve JC.
  • Per your comments, the paragraph has been removed, and the Stunt Work section has been merged with the Filming section.
  • The casting section refers to how the stars are picked for the film, and their experience, and what they said in interviews and such. The cast section refers to the characters in the film, and I guess I'll rename that section as "Characters" to avoid confusion.
In short, I'm following the format of a previous article I made which became a FA (Kung Fu Hustle), whose format is based on Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Cheers.--Alasdair 10:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, well the structure makes sense. I appreciate the Chan-worship issue, hopefully you can find some useful sources to work on it. J.Winklethorpe talk 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Much improved.

  • Horribly over-linked. Take the lead. Why is "Jackie Chan" linked twice in eight lines? Why "October 2006" and other non-full dates? MOS says not to link currencies unless they're obscure. And why dilute important links with silly ones such as "Europe" and "North America"? And hello? Why "littering" and "perfectionist" and "homosexual"? We do speak English here. Please FIX.
  • MOS: em dashes normally unspaced.
  • Contractions (e.g., "wouldn't")—see MOS.
  • Lots of red links in the infoblot. Delink or start articles? Tony (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, long time no talk. Anyway, I just moved into my new dorm, and have set up the internet, so I can finally reply to you. Let's take those points one at a time, shall we?
  • I've delinked many redundant words in the article. Things like continental links and incomplete dates have been delinked, as well as those words which you mentioned.
  • The spacing with the em-dashes are removed.
  • I've also removed the contractions, they were by another editor, it seems.
  • Red links have all been removed.
If there is anything else, please let me know. Cheers.--Alasdair 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be tardy in responding to request to revisit my oppose. The ony thing I notice is that HK dollars might be converted into US dollars on first occurrence, just to give the readers a general idea. Six to one, is it? (But most people won't know that.) Tony (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This has clearly had some work put into it, and it has pretty good coverage. My main concern is with the prose. In most places it is adequate, and some places, like the plot section, it just plods along. Many sentences are very short, and it feels choppy. Another issue is the name 'Chan' shared by the film's director and lead actor. Reading the article is difficult because sometimes I can't tell which Chan it is referring to. I also had a problem with at least one citation, for example "...make cameo appearances as homosexual security van drivers during a car chase in the film" would seem to require a citation [1] which, when I checked, linked to a page written in broken English that didn't say anything about the characters' sexual preference (Though it listed "Broke Broke Mountain!" (sic) as a highlight). The production and writing sections probably need some expansion and prose editing as well. I get the impression that this movie has a pretty crazy plot, I can't say I've seen anything like it. That got me wondering about how this fits into any existing film genres. The article mentions repeatedly that Chan was asked to do a villain for the first time in his career, but it doesn't say anything else about how this film relates to others he has done, or any the director has done. Perhaps a good peer review is in order, have some people with fresh eyes and good writing/copyedit skills work on it, and you can get it up to snuff. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you comments. I've made a couple of preliminary changes so far:
  • The Chans have been disambiguated, Benny Chan and Jackie Chan.
  • The homosexual security guard statement is given an extra reference that refers to them as "greenhorn security guards".
  • Greenhorn means "new, inexperienced"
More changes pending. Keep your eyes peeled.--Alasdair 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still looks strained, as though it is just trying to barely meet the minimum criteria. Take a look at some of the current FA in the media section for comparison. The content with this article is thorough and the writing is sound, but that's not enough. The prose needs to be compelling and engaging; this article is just an autopsy of the movie. It will take some work to make the prose come alive. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current status: The plot is being reworked, the rest of the article will follow.--Alasdair 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose looks a lot better. I'll strike out my objection as my concerns have been taken care of. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose changed to Support Learnedo 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's only B status, not even GA. Absolutely not! Stop wasting FA reviewers' time! Please come here when the article's ready. Leranedo 13:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't appear to be an actionable comment. There's no requirement to go via GA before FA. And personally, I don't consider my review of this article to have been a waste of time. J.Winklethorpe talk 20:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had the impression that this would promote the article into the main FA page, so nevermind my comment. I still think it should at be a A status article before coming here however.
  • It has most of the content matters that are relevant.
  • In Reception, add ratings/rankings it received from various outlets.
  • Break the section on how much the film grossed into a separate section or within an appropriate one.
  • I moved the Characters section under Plot. It can work either way, but I feel this makes more sense as they are closely related.
  • Other then that maybe have more internal links to other wikipedia articles.
  • Will change to yes after these are fulfilled. Leranedo 05:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's reply to your points one at a time.
  • It should be noted that the film was NOT released in the United States and most of Europe. Therefore, it won't receive many reviews from the media there.
  • Wherever the reviews come from, that is what should be in the article. I never suggested it should be from western places.

Current practice is that the scores are only quoted from RottenTomatoes or MetaCritic, and although there were 3 reviews, they were not enough to generate a "% fresh" rating.

  • It does not demand that editors "only quoted from.." It states: "Also useful are websites such as Rotten Tomatoes ([5]) and Metacritic ([6]).."
  • When it comes to reception, the Style guideline for films recommend that the box office figures are placed in the section marked Reception, so there is no need to further split that paragraph.
  • Better and new guidelines Learnedo 08:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that you have unilaterally changed the guidelines to coincide with your views. However, it should be noted that guidelines are not something to be changed lightly. Community consensus must be obtained before you change guidelines.--Alasdair 12:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reply is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alasdair#Reply Learnedo 19:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the previous opposes was due to the fact that there are far too many internal links in the article. So, it has been delinked. For instance, the names in the infobox, if linked, will generate a lot of red links, which aren't desirable.--Alasdair 08:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, there's nothing wrong with redlinks, and their removal is not a requirement for FA status. On the other hand, if a term is not adequately defined in the article, then the redlink can be stubbified or a definition provided in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if a link produces red links because they are broken, then why would we make an internal link to it?... I said "maybe have..." Learnedo 08:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWeak Object [mainly due to 1a, 2a ]Is this really FA level?
"Crude methods were sometimes used to coax the baby into cooperation." what is meant by crude? (easily fixed)
I think Jackie Chan should be expanded it's into own section. the "good guy" typecast, the chinese censorship of the character "too evil"- "one of the best things Chan can do for his flagging movie career" - This movie and this movie article, are both really about Jackie. I think it would be a great way to improve it significantly, and moving it away from walmartness and into brilliance/FA quality. I don't think it's FA quality yet.
--Keerllston 04:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Separating topics into a "Jackie Chan" section goes against the Manual of Style of film articles. Oh, and by the way, why the heavy focus on Jackie Chan? This is because he is not just an actor in the film. I know it sounds crazy, but he's also a producer, writer and stunt director. In fact, he does them all! This is typical in his films these days. Also, Jackie Chan is extremely admired in China, Hong Kong and Southeast Asia in general. Even if other people co-stars with him, they don't get half of the attention in interviews and reviews (the reliable sources for the article), even so, they are almost always asked, "What do you think of Jackie Chan?" It's just unavoidable. I hope you understand.--Alasdair 09:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As it is currently it seems the only notable thing about this movie was x, the only reason the movie succeeded was x, the only reason it was made was x. x is jackie chan in all three. Which is unusual. (I didn't ask why the focus on Jackie Chan) Jackie Chan is a huge star. He is maybe bigger than Bruce Lee in martial arts movies, but that's not a reason for an article veering off into talking about him. In fact, most cases this talks about jacking chan distractingly, and if you take off the parts that are about him, it is clearer, concise, perhaps all this talk about Jackie Chan could fit in the Characters section.--Keerllston 12:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe I said some conflicting statements. He's important and talk about him is distracting.--Keerllston
Continued/Elaboration
"After a production schedule lasting 10 months," this, in the lead, notes the production length and then goes on to talk about the unrelated reception, it is better without that sentence, the lead could use some increase of size..I think I have found that the lead needs to be rehashed in general. You said Revenge of the Sith was a guideline for organization of the article, the lead is substancially better both in that one and in Kung Fu Hustle.
I think that the problem with hurrying articles is that they don't get very long.
In characters, it should begin with the name of the character, not the actor. Not Jackie Chan as Thongs, but Thongs, played by Jackie Chan (unless you want to change the heading to "Casting"
Comparing the prose to that of "Jackie Chan" it becomes apparent the difference in the quality of the writing.
"As in many of his previous films, Chan made use of improvised weapons in combat[...]" Chan or Thongs? - Perhaps better would be that "his combat coreography included [...]"
"It took over 100 auditions[...]" better would be "100 auditions were made before[...]"
I now object due to criteria. Oddly enough I like it more now, doesn't seem so walmarty.
--Keerllston 12:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your oppose, I've done the following things so far:
  • The lead section has been reorganized, now the first paragraph talks about who wrote and directed the film, as well as the starring actors. Then, it mentions the production budget and filming dates, as well as how the stunts are performed. The 2nd paragraph talks about the plot and setting, while the 3rd is about its release date and reception.
  • Mentions of Chan have been greatly reduced in the Casting section. However, they are still left in the Writing section, since Jackie Chan did write the film and design the concepts at the beginning. Also retained is the fact that it's the first film in which Jackie Chan plays a bad person. It's one factor that makes it unique among his filmography.
  • Prose changes made regarding "100 auditions" and "combat choreography". The Characters section has been renamed to Cast.
These are the changes I made for now.--Alasdair 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section still needs work. It should definitely note that this movie is due to Jackie Chan's intention moving away from being typecast, "The stunts, some of which involved the baby,[1] are performed by Chan himself and choreographed by the Jackie Chan Stunt Team.[2]" I would delete/severely trim (repetitive, not notable) -jackie chan does this in all his movies), instead putting the information I suggested. Maybe they could even be merged.
Rather than "set in Hong Kong" should go about it "Rob-B-Hood tells the story of a kidnapping gone wrong in Hong Kong" or similar
--Keerllston 13:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made changes to the lead. I've removed the emphasis on Jackie Chan's stunts, instead talking about his character role. "Rob-B-Hood is notable as the first in which Jackie Chan, tired of being typecast as "Mr. Nice Guy", plays a negative character—A burglar and compulsive gambler.". Also changed is the first sentence in the second paragraph: "Rob-B-Hood tells the story of a kidnapping gone wrong in Hong Kong".--Alasdair 10:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently discovered that many of the notes are in another language, usually when this is the case an admonition to this fact is placed before any other information about the source, I was wondering why this was different.--Keerllston 12:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why most of the sources are in Chinese is that it is a local film, that has not been released outside Asia with the exception of Greece. In addition, the Chinese press happened to be the ones which provide the most coverage on the subject, hence there are just so few reliable sources in English.--Alasdair 13:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: as in: Spanish Libro de libros. 2005 - while currently it is "Hero Killed Kat" (Chinese characters) (simplified chinese).--Keerllston 14:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I've removed the translations of the source titles in English, this is because all the citations are made using the standard citation templates, and the position of the source language could not be changed without causing a great distortion.--Alasdair 09:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.--Keerllston 13:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have discovered how what I thought was standard is done. It is done by <ref name=example> '''Language''' {{citation template}}... I think the way it is now is standard.--Keerllston 02:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I like the changes I see
In Reception it notes very weasely that "some" say something and then goes on to quote a single person that says that. This should be changed to either have "(person A) says that (this) was (this way)" or "some critics said that (event) was (judgement) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]" (or do you know perhaps a third option?)
"Chan stated that he [did not] wanted to play a different character rather than the typical nice guy role [he has] played by Chan for over 20 years. " possible rephrasing? "wanted to play a villain"?
Section "Cast" should be renamed "Characters" and have "Character" played by "Actor" or merged with casting in production. Reasoning: 1 title should be reflected in content 2 two sections should not have the same topic.
--Keerllston 02:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here are the next round of changes.
The reception section has been changed so that it mentions the identity of the reviewers or newspapers who give the specific comments.
The offending phrase has been rewritten as follows: "Chan stated that he did not want to play the typical nice guy role that has been the staple of his previous films."
Cast section has been renamed to characters, and the format's been changed per your request.
That's all for now.--Alasdair 14:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rob-B-Hood&oldid=1140219067"