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.
I am nominating this 2007 featured article for review because, as User:RetiredDuke mentioned November 9 on talk, the article has some uncited text, many incomplete citations, at least one blog as source, and a very long list of not very important characters. It further relies too much on long quotes, and has some too short sections (two sentences in subsection). The original nominator seems to be blocked for sockpuppetry. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited text: removed. Obviously the plot description can stay as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete citations: Well I think I've fixed the most egregious specimens. If there are any left they certainly aren't showstopping issues. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blog sources: Jim Korkis is an acknowledged expert on fantasy film. Anthony Daniels is a well-known actor and voice actor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Long list of minor characters: removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Long quotations: All of them seem reasonable, both as a percentage of the sources used (small), and as percentages of the text here. The longest quotation is in 'Animation', from Bakshi; it's of interest because it shows how he was thinking about the choice of animation methods, something that has been much discussed by critics ever since. We can shorten it but at the price of losing the tone and attitude, which have much to do with how the film looked and how it was received. I suggest we leave it as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned about the subsection 'directing', which now seems to rely too much on (direct quotes) by Bakshi. If other sources are available, it may be nice to add them. If not, maybe one of the quotes can be paraphrased with more context from the given sourcing. Not a sticking point for me. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've paraphrased most of the quotations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Short subsection: this is a very minor point, but I've merged it. It's actually pretty reasonable to have a shortish section on awards. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by RetiredDuke
The sourcing needs a close look, I'm finding some fan sites/blogs that need to be discussed, for instance:
Beagle was brought in to help, so whatever his views were, he became an involved party. We can't cite him as a neutral observer, though perhaps some insider comment would be useful. Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather a serious bibliographic site, and we're using it only for plain bibliographic details. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chiswick Chap OK, that ref 27 (IMDb) does not cover the rotoscoped scenes of Barty and Baird, as far as I can see. Maybe substitute that IMDb link for this book that covers that? It's already being used in the article (The Animated Movie Guide), we would get rid of the user-generated source in an FA. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For convenience, here are the next pages of Beck's book: page 155, page 156. If you want to take a look. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merged the refs so we have a 3-page range covering those pages too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This well-cited book (J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment) mentions some important bits, like the fact that the lack of screen credit for the animation doubles went to guild arbitration. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added; I've used Drout in many Tolkien articles. Feel free to add a bit more from him (I've named the ref and given the full page range) if you think there's more that needs said. For my money, as accidental page curator, we're pretty much up to speed here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments:
The article lacks info on how the rotoscope tecnique negatively impacted the film's quality, and how it becomes "glaringly evident" at times. Can be found on J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment: the doubling actors' movement and interaction is said to be poor, the number of Orcs at one particular scene is underwhelming, and the tecnique makes for inconsistencies between scenes.
I don't know why there's only 1 work listed in "Sources" and the others are in "References";
Thought we would be using multiple different pages, i.e. factor out the source and define it just once, but as we're using one small page range that's not necessary, so it's in Refs now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isthis blog acceptable as a high-quality reliable source?
I know that I'm free to add all of this to the article, but I'm not knowledgeable about this movie. I'm just doing a bit of research. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noted.
RD continuing
The lead should reflect the body of the article:
the genres mentioned in the lead (dark fantasy + adventure) aren't mentioned or sourced anywhere (maybe in the infobox?);
Cited.
Zaentz is not introduced as the producer (plus full name and link) the first time he's mentioned in the body; (I took care of it RetiredDuke (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks.
the Dolby Stereo sound system part is not mentioned in the body,
Removed; this is mentioned on various sites but they could be echoing this article.
the cult classic bit is not mentioned in the body (or the matinee re-runs during decades).
Removed.
Plot: I followed the plot well enough until the "and wonders if "she" might help" part. Seems a bit out of the blue, maybe clarify?
Development: I don't understand that bit "Denis O'Dell was interested in producing a film for The Beatles, and approached directors...". Does this paragraph basically mean that everybody at United Artists was kinda busy with something else at the time to do something about LotR?
It means that O'Dell looked around for someone suitable to make the film.
That quote The Boorman script cost $3 million, so Boorman was happy by the pool, screaming and laughing and drinking, 'cause he got $3 million for his script to be thrown out. needs a small intro, like "Bakshi would say in a later interview that" or something, otherwise it's not clear who said it. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Bakshi was aware of the work of illustrators like the brothers Hildebrandt. - Why does this matter? CTRL-F Hildebrandt shows no other mention to them. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. It links to the next sentence, meaning that they had not determined his approach, which used many styles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm's comments
What is lambiek.net? I'm not convinced its high-quality RS
Surely there's a better source than user-generated IMDB for those awards, especially the Hugo, Saturn, and Golden Globe. If the Golden Gryphon can't be supported by a RS, then I wonder if its that signficant.
Conlan Press appears to be a piece written by a guy I've never heard of that's essentially an advocacy piece for getting Peter S. Beagle some money. I'm doubting the reliability there
Other dubious-looking sources are either passing SPS credentials, are simple interviews, or are primary sources, so should be okay, IMO. Hog FarmBacon 17:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have not seen the film, have not reviewed the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Femkemilene, considerable work has been done. Is the article to the point that a fresh review is warranted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with all the work that has been done; my concerns are addressed. The only criterion I cannot assess is comprehensiveness, as I don't have the topic knowledge. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Femke; I will put this on my list to read through, also @RetiredDuke:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen the film, I have not read the books. I am the kind of editor for whom the lead needs to provide a better clue than:
Set in Middle-earth, the film follows a group of hobbits, elves, men, dwarves, and wizards who form a fellowship. They embark on a quest to destroy the One Ring made by the Dark Lord Sauron, and ensure his destruction.
What is the issue with this "One Ring" that makes it so necessary to destroy it?
Could someone explain to me the use of IMDb as a source? It is used to source quotes which I can't locate on the page cited; perhaps I don't know how to use IMDb, and it is not clear to me that IMDb should be used for this in any case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 17? It's a documentary being cited. Courtesy link to IMDb, I guess. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, current ref 17 (although I never refer to them that way, as they can change at any moment :) So, if we are citing Bakshi's words on a documentary, shouldn't we be citing the documentary itself, with a timestamp for verifiability, rather than linking to IMDb? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. (I haven't seen it, though) RetiredDuke (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Missing publisher in citation: "John Howe, Illustrator: The Black Rider". Archived from the original on December 14, 2019. ANd, incomplete citation: "The Lord of the Rings (1978)". AFI Catalog. No accessdate. All sources need a publisher, author if available, accessdate for websites. Samples only, please review throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've fixed those, checked all publishers, and been through all cite web and cite news items for accessdates also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this is a book, where are the page numbers for the quotes? Jackson, Peter (2001). The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Director's Commentary. New Line Cinema.
This isn't a book, it's Peter Jackson's spoken remarks among the extras on the DVD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another direct quote from a book with no page nos: Barrier, Michael (2003). Hollywood Cartoons: American Animation in Its Golden Age. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-516729-0.
Citation formatting, check pp vs. p Hammond, Wayne G.; Scull, Christina (2006). The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion & Guide. Houghton Mifflin. pp. 20 ... is it 20 pages or page 20?
Fixed. Page 20 is linked in the citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Korkis is the author of numerous books on animated film published between 1990 and 2019, i.e. he is a long-time commentator and "expert" on the subject, as I already mentioned above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting the impression this is a bunch of marginally reliable to non-reliably sourced interviews strung together to concoct an article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that's not helpful. There are books from major publishers here, like Oxford University Press, and major Tolkien scholars like Hammond and Scull. The inside information on Hollywood manoeuvres cannot be from anything except film sources which by their nature are somewhat chatty; these have been heavily edited down to extract the essence, as is proper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing the who’s who on the authors, and I apologize for my unhelpfulness and impatience. I think we are good here unless anyone has something else ... that is, is RetiredDuke done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, SandyGeorgia, Chiswick Chap. I left some minor comments a few days ago, I think it went unnoticed. It's under "RD continuing" above. Just some requests for clarification I had while reading the full article; I think that we're good to go on my end with those fixes. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Close without FARC, fine save, CC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Close without FARC, all my queries have been dealt with now. Thank you for work on this one, Chiswick Chap. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Close without FARC - Issues have been substantially addressed, and the article is now at the current standards. Hog FarmBacon 01:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
