Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alien Nation (film)/archive2


 * 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 by SandyGeorgia 10:09, 8 April 2010.

Alien Nation (film)

 * Nominator(s): Theatrickal (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A few months back, this film article was nominated by a user for the FA Queue. At the time, the article was essentially a skeleton. It had a foundation, and certain elements necessary for FA approval, but nothing in terms of comprehensive researched content. Although not a huge success at the box office, the film still retained a popularity for its original concept. I've taken a passing interest in the film, and spent my own time sprucing it up in trying to meet the criterea necessary for FA Status. It is thoroughly filled with referenced content this time around, and I believe in its current incarnation, it merits FA inclusion. Theatrickal (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. A dab link to Brian Thompson; external links fine. To me, many of the sources—Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etcetera—don't look like the high-quality reliable sources the FA criteria require. Ucucha 02:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Response I fixed the dab link and resourced those Barnes & Noble, Amazon etc. citations. Theatrickal (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now per evaluation below:
 * Should the film really be called a buddy cop film? I can understand the element existing, but it seems first and foremost a science fiction film.
 * The "Cast" section is missing links to actors. I assume this was an attempt to avoid overlinking, but I'd like to say two things: 1) The lead section is an overview of the article body, so you shouldn't avoid linking in the body just because it's in the overview, and 2) the "Cast" section really is the most navigable for readers, where names are lost in the "Plot" section.  Links to actors in "Cast" section is better accessibility.
 * "Production" has no sense of how the film came to be. It goes right into "Makeup", which is a little confusing.
 * "Critical response" has weasel wording: "Between critics, reaction to the film was generally mixed." Only individual reviews are cited; it is better to find a source that reports the critical reception in retrospect for this overview.  Also, these two reviews lack reliability: 1 and 2.
 * The "Post development" section should be outside the "Production" section, probably best placed in the same area as "Sequels".
 * "Box office" does not mention the release date, and theater does not need linking. It's a recognized enough word in the English language.
 * The article seems to be missing a section that involves academic analysis of the film, especially its themes. Was no such coverage found?  See an article like American Beauty (film) for what I mean.
 * Here, here, here and here are examples of what I mean. Google Books and Google Scholar may reveal more like this.  I asked another editor to search about the film in JSTOR and Academic Search Premier.
 * There are very large paragraphs that amount to "walls" of text through most of the article, especially "Production". Any way to alleviate that with quote boxes or even images?  I think that "Makeup" in particular would help support the inclusion of a non-free image of the alien appearance.

I do particularly like how much content is available about the production, and it's nice to see Cinefex used. Hard periodical for me to find! Anyway, these are the broad strokes, for a start. I'll have to read the content more closely for additional suggestions. [edit: I would like to say about this article, though, it is a vast improvement from when it was previously nominated. Nice job! It's now a matter of meeting the FA criteria, obviously.] Erik (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Response Hello, Erik. I've read what you've wrote and I believe I can address all of your concerns.


 * First issue is the buddy cop genre point. This film is indeed a buddy cop film. Every film critic organization or authority labels the film as a buddy cop genre. It is a buddy cop film although with a science fiction twist. There are other buddy cop films that have attempted a twist to differentiate from the standard theme too. Films like Turner and Hooch - pairing a cop with a dog. Red Heat - pairing an American cop with a Russian cop. In this film, its pairing a human with an Alien. But it is indeed a buddy cop film. You won't find a film authority that disputes that.
 * Second issue, the Cast Section. I indeed did not link those names for that exact reason which you pointed out. To avoid the over-linking. I will change that, if you feel thats the way it should be.
 * Next concern is the makeup sub-section. Basically, the entire film element that made this film different from others is the aliens. So I began the production with the background and application of the makeup. I don't really see an issue there. I thinks its an appropriate way to start the paragraph because of the central idea of the movie. If you want, I can switch around the Set Design and filming section to appear first. Let me know on that one. But I don't personally think its necessary.
 * Next problem, critical response. I understand where your coming from as far as criticizing the reliability of some of those critics. But here is the situation. The film does not have an abundant amount of reliable critics you see in the media today that reviewed the film. Those were the critics that were available. As an example, noted critic James Berardinelli didn't even review this film because it came out it 1988. He started reviewing in the early 90s. I worked with what I had. The abundance of famed film critics were simply not available for this film. It came out 22 years ago. The critical reviews from Rotten Tomatoes are not really built up with many dead links. Additionally, there's not even a listing for the film on Metacritic. Now as far as the weasel wording, I'll make an attempt to correct that issue.
 * Next issue, Post Development. I will make that change as you wish. I thought it would stand in better as a section alone, but I'll merge the two.
 * The Box Office section, I will make those corrections. No problem there.
 * Next issue involving Academic Theme and Google Books. Truthfully speaking, a theme analysis section is not always required if the article in general explains the themes throughout the page. This is according to WP:MOSFILM. Theme elements are run-through for instance in the production section with the alien language as being a foreign language from another country. Or the subtle makeup job is explained as making the aliens appear as just a discriminated minority group dealing with racism. So that section is not really needed. As far as the Google search is concerned, I'm trying to keep the article in accordance with standard prose sizes. The article should be within 50kb to 70kb of readable prose. I think it stands as 53kb which is fairly acceptable. Also if I might add, some of those google searches only produce a trickling of minor mention of the film. Not necessarily enough to formulate a few major sentences or a complete paragraph. And some of the books contains info which is already in the article, making it redundant. If you'd like to make a contribution from there, go ahead.
 * Last issue, is the walls of text. Ok, I guess you got me there. It does appear like a mountain of text. I didn't obtain any images to supplement it. I don't believe there is a rule that says you must have images with the text. But if your able to help out and make additions, please do so. I'm just not that fluent with the images part. Later tonight, I will make an effort to perhaps add some quote boxes to help as you say, "alleviate" those walled sections. (oh, and by the way, I purchased the Cinefex article. It was hard to obtain. But I made the additional effort to get it so that it would help the article get to FA.) Theatrickal (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not have any problem with how it can fall in the buddy cop genre. Could you not say that it is a science fiction film with a buddy cop twist?  It seems better organization to identify it out of the gate as a science fiction film and mention later in the same paragraph how it is also a buddy cop film.  Unless you want to mash up genres in the lead sentence?  Just a thought.
 *  RESPONSE  - Made the changes. Science Fiction theme put in with a side project as a buddy-cop film.
 * Regarding "Production", I was more looking for a better lead-in to the whole section. Outside of the lead section, this is the first real exploration of the topic, and it warrants some kind of opening.  A lot of film articles start out with how the film took off in the first place -- whose idea it was, who wrote it, who backed it, etc.  Maybe one summary-style paragraph to start "Production"?  Hope you know what I mean about a lead-in.
 *  RESPONSE  In a few short hours, I'll be home and I'll insert an introductory paragraph entitled "origins".
 * For critics, I don't think the lack of reviews is an excuse to have to use these two. They should be removed, and some of Andy's listed references look like reviews.
 *  RESPONSE  - Deleted those reviews. Will try to add Andy's additions later.
 * "Post development" could be its own section, too. I just mean that it is outside of this particular film's production, so a section covering the TV series should go outside that film's "Production" section.
 *  RESPONSE  Changes made.
 * Regarding themes, I think this film warrants a section discussing them because they are potent in this case. Weaving themes is one approach but works better for when they are simpler, like the director explaining what theme he intended with his script or with a given character.  With the links I shared, I think that it would be worth a stand-alone section to explore the themes, since they are neither production- nor reception-related.
 *  RESPONSE  Changes made. I combined the origins section with themes. Although, it may appear slim on the outside, please keep in mind, the subject matter in that paragraph is repeated numerous times throughout the article. It almost seems redundant. But I included it there as per your instructions.
 * As for the wall of text, there's no rule, but I think there is precedent to at least break it up with something. I only suggested an image as a two-birds-with-one-stone approach -- it would break up the wall of text in "Makeup" and also be a contextually significant visual aid.
 *  RESPONSE  - Added Quote Boxes to help with text wall.
 * I won't be able to respond to any followup statements until tomorrow. And I suppose I will have to fork out money for the Cinefex issue for Dark City, my own project. :) Erik (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Erik asked me to search through some academic databases to see if any papers have been written about this film. I came up blank in the academic department. But, I did find several newspaper and magazine sources that you haven't used. They might be useful in rounding out information about production, reception, and so on:
 * Barlow, Mike (May 5, 1989). "Alien Nation a satirical sci-fi". The Windsor Star: p. C5.
 * Beck, Marilyn (October 8, 1988). "'Alien Nation' may give Caan the boost he needs". St. Petersburg Times: p. 2D.
 * Blowen, Michael (August 6, 1989). "'Alien Nation' Sophisticated sci-fi". Boston Globe: p. 76.
 * Boyar, Jay (October 10, 1988). "'Alien Nation' just cops and robbers with intergalactic angle". Orlando Sentinal: p. C1.
 * Elliott, David (October 13, 1988). "Caan fine, but movie just another cop-out". The San Diego Union: p. C8.
 * Groen, Rick (October 12, 1988). "Dirty Harry buckles up with E.T. in latest buddy-cop variation". The Globe and Mail: p. C8.
 * Kehr, David (October 7, 1988). "'Alien Nation' has too little wit, too many cliches". Chicago Tribune: p. K.
 * Miller, Richard (October 7, 1988). "Two Elite events: Baker's film is out, Mitch Kanner joins. (Elite Films, Graham Baker)". Back Stage 29 (41): 1–2.
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * New Comment Ok, thanks. In a few short hours when I get home, I will look through those and try to incorporate those additional references. Theatrickal (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I found a few articles earlier that seem promising. I was going to post them after I'd read them all (discarding the useless ones and those you've already got), but I'm out for most of the evening and won't have time today. As you might want them sooner rather than later, take a look here. Steve  T • C 17:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Theatrickal, if you need copies of any of these articles I listed, e-mail me and I can reply with them. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 Additional Comment Hi Steve. I will look through that scrapboard as well. But just after a quick run-through, some of the information from that list is already in the article. Posts from Ebert, Maslin and Kempley. The racism card and references towards Outer Heat/In the Heat of the Night are also present. Plus, other references with immigration officials and the alien mix are mentioned numerous times. But I will do a thorough check tonight. Thanks. Theatrickal (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Weak object Comment While there are many things that are good about the article, there are a few things that are bothering me:


 * The "Cast" section needs expanding, as there is nothing there except the character and the actor who portrays them. You need to write about what kind of role the character plays in the film, and (if possible) how that character originated. For and example, look at this.


 * You need to expand the "Music and soundtrack" section. It is very bland and short, barely telling you anything about the soundtrack. For more information, look at this.

Cheers.-- Guy546 ( Talk ) 22:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, well I'm not sure thats exactly the right course of action. Much of the information added to the cast section would simply be redundant info. Information about the cast members are given in the plot section. There's no need to list it twice. Also, many of the cast members in the list are just minor characters. They have a few lines in the film, and are shown for only a few minutes. 90% of the film has 3-4 characters that are shown fairly often. So I don't think that expansion is necessary. If anything, perhaps the article doesn't really need a casting section to begin with. According to WP:MOSFILM, the casting section is not necessarily needed if the characters are described completely in the plot. As far as the music is concerned, there isn't really much expansion that can be done. There was no soundtrack release of the original score by Sobel, and I've put all the information I could find so far. If you can come up with referenced content to supplement it, feel free to make an addition. But I wasn't able to. Theatrickal (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.