Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden Film/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted 00:19, 27 January 2008.

Golden Film[edit]

previous FAC
Check external links

Golden Film is a comprehensive article, that treats its topic without going into unnecessary details. It follows Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and style. In October 2007, it was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. – Ilse@ 00:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you please request comments in this FAC from those who worked to copy-edit this article?
    "Recipients consider the Golden Film to be an award [given] for [those achieving] success." - is this what is meant?
    --Kiyarrllston 19:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked User:Galena11 to help, and I also copyedited the sentence in an attempt to clarify it myself. – Ilse@ 20:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination has gone around 20[10] days without significant comments.--Kiyarrllston 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    10 days, not 20 days. In your opinion, is the copyediting problem solved? – Ilse@ 10:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, in my opinion it is not.--Kiyarrllston 03:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Within 18 months of the award's introduction, the public's interest in Dutch films in the Netherlands had increased. The audience for Dutch films as a percentage of the total cinema audience in the Netherlands was 5.5% in 1999 and 5.9% in 2000. After the introduction of the award, audiences increased to 9.5% in 2001 and to 10.5% in 2002. - You seem to conclude that because of the award more people today watch Dutch movies. You analysis of the numbers are however IMO flawed. Most of the rise in viewership happened from 2000 to 2001 but the award was not introduced until late 2001. This is part of what I see as the biggest problem with the article - you need to put the award in context. What was the situation in the Dutch movie industry before the award was introduced? What else contributed to the rise in viewership; nationalism, better movies or better publicity etc. --Peter Andersen (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns, but I think your are not entirely correct. When you look at 2002 (List of films that received the Golden Film), all Golden Films were awarded in the second half of the year, from September 5 and onwards. The award was introduced on September 4, 2001, so all awards in 2002 fall into the same period of the year. Furthermore, there is no way of determining whether the Golden Film has actively contributed to the increasing audiences for Dutch films or not. The reader may conclude there is a causal relationship, but this is not stated in the text. I have copyedited the sentence you quoted here, in order to clarify the two things are merely coincidental, to provide context, which is sufficient context for this article. And lastly, I did not encounter any published analysis of the interesting question you raise here about the relationship between nationalism and viewership of national film productions, and I believe Wikipedia is not the place to speculate about this. – Ilse@ 09:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - (First of all, apologies for not getting around to this sooner, as I promised!)
    • Some of the items in the lead may need citations.
      The lead summarizes the article, all information in the lead is also in the body of the article. Therefore I believe that these citations would be redundant. – Ilse@ 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recipients consider the Golden Film to be an award given to films that are a success. Critics have said that films cannot be considered successful if they have sold only the number of tickets needed to receive the award. - This seems a bit muddled to me, especially the second sentence. Could be clearer what you mean.
      I have reworded this passage in the lead. – Ilse@ 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two trophies are presented for each film: one to the producer and the director, representing the film crew, and the other to the lead actors, representing the cast of the film. - That seems to be several people more than two. Do you mean two types of trophy are awarded?
      I have copyedited the sentence in order to clarify it. – Ilse@ 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trophy is a thick square frame, that contains a small square still from the receiving film. - Maybe reword to "The trophy consists of a thick square frame containing a film frame of the awarded movie." Or something like that.
      I have reworded this sentence. – Ilse@ 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history section needs a few more citations, as some of the sentences contain uncited information.
      I have added references where needed. – Ilse@ 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since its introduction, the Golden Film has been awarded to 48 films. In 2004, nine films were awarded the Golden Film, the highest number to have received the award in a single year. - It may be worth re-wording this or clarifying when it was written (ie "As of January 2008,"), otherwise the article runs the risk of becoming obsolete, thus requiring maintenance in order to avoid an FAR.
      The number of awarded films is transcluded from the featured list List of films that received the Golden Film per [[List of films that received the Golden Film|{{:List of films that received the Golden Film}} films]]. Is it preferable that this sentence is static? – Ilse@ 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I have added a note for the second sentence. – Ilse@ 21:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not certain that the mention about Houwer's film attendance is necessary - it runs the risk of POV-pushing, by implying that his opinion is solely because of sour grapes. His film's attendance figures do not necessarily blunt the force and meaning of his criticism, and it is entirely possible that his opinions regarding film popularity inform his intended audience instead of the other way around. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The film was released after the interview. I copyedited the passage, in order to clarify this. – Ilse@ 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article reads well, has a sizable references section, goes into sufficient depth. It provides high readability, and is of featured quality; I'm all for passing this as a Featured Article. Anthøny 22:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replaced the links that the script above mentioned as problematic. The script reports two more erroneous link, which seem to work just fine. – Ilse@ 09:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, these are dead links. Would you mind (as a courtesy) moving the language icons to the beginning of the citation, where non-Dutch speakers will see them before clicking on the link? Why are solo years (e.g.; 2001) linked? See WP:MOSNUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earlier today the page www.cinema.nl redirected to the now dead link... I will fix it again. – Ilse@ 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks; I'll go ahead and strike. By the way, you don't have to provide a link to the publisher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The www.cinema.nl links are fixed. The language icons are moved as suggested. There is only one solo year wikilinked—if I understand you correctly—which is the year 2001 in the lead, because it is the year of the award's introduction and therefore provides context. – Ilse@ 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the urls (and design) of the website www.cinema.nl were changed today. – Ilse@ 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - some things that stand out on a first reading..
    • "The Golden Film has been awarded to 48 films." - I'd add an "As of January 2008" or similar to provide accurate timeframing for this claim.
    • In the list of Golden Film recipients, it says 2001 and 2002 recipients only had to sell 75,000 tickets. If so this needs to be added here.
    • "Dutch newspapers have reported about films receiving the Golden Film." This seems pretty obvious to me. Wouldn't Dutch newspapers report about all Dutch films? Perhaps I'm missing the gist of this statement.
    • "While the recipients of the award have considered the receiving films to be successful, critics have said that films are not successful when they have sold only the tickets needed to receive the Golden Film ."
      • Not clear what this sentence means.
      • Remove the space before the full stop.
    • Does awarded really need to be wikilinked? It's a bit overkill in my opinion.
    • "10,000 tickets[3]" - full stop required.
    • "recognising" vs "subsidized" - British or American English?
    • Reference 12 - I don't think referencing Wikipedia is particularly appropriate for a FA. If that article has references to non-Wikipedia articles then use those.
  • I have more to come, so I'll pop back later (when work allows!) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments from me...
    • "announced the Golden Film on September 4, 2001 as an award for films from the Netherlands that had been seen by a paying audience of, at that time, 75,000 or more.[1] " - this reads rather awkwardly for me.
    • Not sure why "I Love You Too" has (2001) after it... Could it be confused with another Dutch film of the same title released at a different time which won the award in the same year?
    • Number of decimal places in table are not consistent.
    • Table adds up to 46 awards (I think) and you've said it's been awarded 48 times twice in the main text.
    • "From 2003 until 2007, the percentage of cinema visitors who watched a Dutch film was between 9.20% and 13.4%." - presumably only those visitors in the Netherlands, so this sentence should be contextualised.
    • "Recipients consider the Golden Film to be an award given to films that are a success." this seems pretty obvious to me, if I was given an award for a film I produced/acted in, I'd probably consider it a success too.
    • Don't like all the years of award in parentheses, it detracts from the prose.
    • "In the year after the interview, Rob Houwer's production Het Woeden der Gehele Wereld (2006) was released. The film, his only Dutch film since the introduction of the Golden Film, sold only 4,000 cinema tickets.[11]" - is this really relevant to the Golden Film award or just a bit of a dig at the fact this guy criticised the award and then turned out a flop film (in box office terms)?
  • That's about it for now. Please let me know if I can help further... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2008 (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/Golden_Film/archive2&oldid=1208175400"