Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Batman (1989 film)/archive1


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 23:11, 28 October 2008.

Batman (1989 film)

 * Nominator(s): User:Wildroot (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I simply feel it is ready. I worked this article through Peer Review and A-Class review. This is obviously the best source of information for the 1989 Batman film found anywhere. I am open to suggestions to improve this article. Wildroot 04:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.batman-on-film.com/
 * http://www.batmanytb.com//news.php
 * http://www.snarkygossip.com/2006/12/14/interview-with-mel-gibson-post-apocalytpo/
 * http://www.superherohype.com/
 * http://blogs.amctv.com/future-of-classic/2007/06/reinventing-the.php
 * Spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as AMC
 * Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been fixed, please ignore the above statement and the small discussion below. The websites and information listed above were simply removed from the article per WP:RS. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for asking that question. Basically, editors from WikiProjectFilms (such as Alientraveller, Erik, Bignole and others and obviously me) agree that we can only use these sources whenever they have either direct interviews with the person or whenever Hollywood invites them for a set visit. And the above links to have only direct interviews with the person. AMC is a good reliable source, and it is not one of those "rumor blogs", even though it says blog in front of the URL. Thanks. Wildroot 14:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that just because it's an interview doesn't mean that the publisher of the information doesn't need to be reliable. How do we know the interview is presented correctly without bias? To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean. Well, Batman-related filmmakers such as David Goyer, Michael Uslan and Chris Corbould have called Batman-on-Film a reliable source. AMC is a television cable channel, popular in America (American Movie Classics. SuperHeroHype.com is found at Superhero Hype!. It is published by Coming Soon Media, L.P. and Crave Online Media, LLC,. None of those interviews have "bias" in them. Wildroot (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some evidence as to where they've called it a reliable source, please? Giggy (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This may sound somewhat skeptical, but the evidence comes from the main page in Batman-on-Films website. Yeah, that's not the best evidence, but the guy that runs the website has been invited with set visits to the past two Batman films from Warner Bros. This is where the other film editors have agreed on with sites like Batman-on-Film that only use sites like those for interviews and set visits, when information comes directly from the source. I only' used those links for interviews. I hope this helps. Wildroot (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck some, but the others are still in the article and evidence that they are reliable hasn't been presented. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per conprehensiveness concerns. I'm surprised nothing is included from Time and The New York Times, which I know have material on the movie (at one point I was going to work on the article and so I went through the archives of the major websites). Make sure you exhaust all available info from major media outlets. This movie was a pretty big deal and received according coverage (Also: totally unnecessary info, but it might be my favorite movie. Jack Nicholson as The Joker and music by Prince!!!). Also, there's this book of academic essays titled The Many Faces of the Batman (I think that's the correct name; I have it at my college library). It was published in 1992 and deals a bit with the film, and if I recall correctly it discusses the film's marketing in-depth at one point. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I never would have thought of that. I went through the Time archives, and found 2 useful articles. I still need to look at The New York Times. Also, I tried looking for that book you requested, but I cannot find it anywhere. Perhaps you might be the only one who can help? Wildroot (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! I just went through the New York Times archives and there were a lot of articles. Anyway, I finished adding your orders and requests into the article. Is there anything else you want to further address? Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't feel it's comprehesive; the publications I listed are just examples of sources to include. I agree with the other editors here that more research can be done. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This is an excellent start on Batman, a wonderful movie that I just watched the other day. However, I feel that it does not yet meet the FA criteria:


 * Image:MikeandJack.jpg - The "purpose" of this non-free image is described thus: "Illustration of a specific point within the article" - What point? The purpose needs to be described much more specifically.
 * Done Wildroot (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not done - the purpose now says "one of the main themes". The fair use description should clearly articulate what that main theme is. This is not specific enough. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Burtonjoke.jpg - I'm not totally convinced of the need for this non-free image, as it is not discussed in the article. If this image were discussed in the article, it would be a wonderful addition to the article, however.


 * The lead does not summarize the entire article. It leaves out a discussion of the "Themes" section, for example. Each section of the article needs to be discussed in the lead, as well as important points in those sections. See WP:LEAD.


 * While I applaud the short plot summary, I think it needs to be rewritten a bit. For example, the sentence about Napier killing Bruce's parents stands in isolation - explain how it ties into the plot. Also, Knox falls out of the plot description after the first paragraph, but he is a character in the movie long after that point.
 * Done Wildroot (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Better. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is overlinked - terms should generally be linked once or twice in an article (see WP:MOSLINKS). In the "Production" section, for example, people's names and movie titles are repeatedly linked.


 * The article needs to be copyedited, as there are small grammar errors, typos, and awkward syntax throughout the article, but I would not worry about this until the new research has been added.


 * The "Themes" section needs to be expanded, as there is much more written on the meaning of the film that these few tidbits. The little that is here should probably be explained a bit more for the reader, as well. I see the above reviewer has recommended some sources for further research - I would also recommend searching the MLA database - there are many articles about Batman there (I checked). Also, see Alison McMahan, The Films of Tim Burton: Animating Live Action in Contemporary Hollywood. New York: Continuum, 2005.
 * Bat-Done. Wildroot (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not done. Adding a few sentences here or there from this one source is totally insufficient. Did you even search the MLA database? Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Reaction" section needs to be expanded using the reviews written by film critics. This sentence - "the film received generally favorable reviews from critics. Based on 49 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, 69% of reviewers have enjoyed Batman. By comparison, Metacritic has collected an average score of 66, based on 17 reviews" - does not really convey what critics thought about the film. Select some important reviews and quote from them.
 * Done. Wildroot (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, this needs to be rewritten so that flows more seamlessly within the section. For example, there are detailed responses to the characters and the music before general responses to the movie. That doesn't make much sense. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "In addition, Batman helped establish the modern day superhero film genre" - This important fact is buried in the "Legacy" section and is not really explained to the reader. Put this in context for the reader - explain what the superhero genre is and what movies came after Batman.
 * Done Wildroot (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not done. Adding an aside from Burton is totally insufficient. Please read what I suggested - you need to define the genre and then explain what movies were inspired by Batman. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources that Ealdgyth has highlighted certainly appear unreliable to me and the answers given so far do not suggest that the websites satisfy WP:RS, so more work needs to be done replacing those sources or deleting the information sourced to them. Note that if the only place we can find a specific piece of information is on a sketchy website, that piece of information itself becomes sketchy! :)
 * Done. Wildroot (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not done per Ealdgyth's reply above. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My advice would be to withdraw this nomination, since additional research needs to be done. After that research is completed, I would be happy to help copyedit the article in preparation for its renomination. Awadewit (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your first comment has been addressed. The entire "reliable sources fiasco" has been finished, so no need to go into that detail. You said the Reaction section "does not convey what critics thought about the film". That's false, because there are 2 paragraphs discussing what the critics thought. I fixed your comment about what you thought of Alexander Knox in the Plot and stuff. The Image:Burtonjoke.jpg photo is very encyclopedic. I don't see any need to change it. I will finish off the other comments shortly. Cheers.Wildroot (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not say the Burton image was unencyclopedic - I think that it is a great image (see my comment above). However, you have not provided a sufficient fair-use rationale for it. Currently, it is not discussed in the article and therefore is nothing more than an illustration. You need to provide "critical commentary" on it to justify its inclusion. Again, I would urge you to withdraw this article and work on the research. The sources I found on the MLA database and the books suggested in this review for you to use as sources will take some time to read. You will then need to carefully add information to the article. This takes time. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments Matthewedwards 17:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't look at film articles often, so this might not apply, but I'd like to see a bit more in the Reaction section. There must be more than just some comments from a comic book writer. Siskel and Ebert, NYT, LA Times, movie magazines, etc. I have a People Weekly magazine from the week the film was released with a review and a four page spread of the movie premiere too, if you're interested
 * Also, the image caption, "the duel of the freaks" -- surely that should begin with a capital, and it should be attributed to someone
 * I fixed your suggestion on the Themes section. And yes, that would be very nice to see that People magazine section. Wildroot (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - it would be nice to see more about the parallels between Batman and Metropolis. We spent a good deal of time in my Film History class discussing this. A good resource is the Chapter "Metropolis Redux: Visual Metaphor and the Urbanscape" in Beyond the Stars: studies in American popular film (you can find it on Google Books). The cathedral scene in Batman, for example, is almost a verbatim remake of the cathedral scene in Metropolis. And of course there is much to discuss of the thematic and architectural similarities. Kaldari (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for suggesting that. I found it here. I will try to fit this in my busy schedule because the other editors are also asking for suggestions. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The reception section doesn't seem overly detailed or complete, and I agree somewhat with Awadewit. I don't edit film articles often (erm, ever) but if I was reading this article out of my own interest (which is how I looked at it) I would get the feeling that there's something. WP:FA has plenty of examples; at a glance, I think this article does the reception section quite well, IMO. It's getting there but not quite "right" yet. Giggy (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing per nominator request; please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the  template on the talk page until the bot goes through.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.