Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Batman Begins/archive1

Batman Begins
AS being one of my favorite movies, this article is well covered and covers all the facts of the movie between it and other "Batman" movies. This article is worthy of a FAC. --Bugs5382 20:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per being the nominator --Bugs5382 20:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The Cast and Awards sections as lists are not so great, the trivia section really needs to go, and the references are generally thin. The article should probably go through Peer Review before an FAC. Loved the movie. Staxringold 21:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some reasons:
 * "The movie also solidified Christopher Nolan's capability of directing a major blockbuster." and other POV claims are uncited. As said above, citations in general are scarce. Really should have had a peer review first.
 * Trivia sections are rarely brilliant prose. Most of the disorganized blurbs there would work better in paragraphs and sections of their own. There really is a lack of prose overall, and I think breaking up the trivia section help this a lot.
 * Lead could use some work, see WP:LEAD. --W.marsh 21:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Too recent for my tastes. Plus, I suggest that the Trivia section have additional references to more of the trivia when it can be mustered. --293.xx.xxx.xx 05:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - References are fairly scant. Plot summary is too long.  Should be an overview only.  Trivia section is also too long.  Actually, trivia section should not exist.  Wikipedia is not a repository for trivia, which by definition delves into greater detail than the thorough overview that an encyclopedic article should provide.  Whatever can't be absorbed into the main article should be removed.  Overall writing style is ok, but not great. (Peer review would be a good idea).  IMDB vote figures in the image box should be removed.  This figure is updated on IMDB - are you going to keep editing this article to keep it up to date?  Images are not correctly tagged (don't use both the screenshot and the publicity photo tag for the same image as the image can not be both) and show no sources, and no fair use rationales.  As such they are likely to be deleted at any time.  Rossrs 12:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: In light of the objection to the trivia section, may I humbly point to my query in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive to further help in cleaning up that section? Some trivia could stay, as they do provide "behind the scences" info that can further enhance the article, yet don't have a place for them within the article elsewhere. I support the trivia section, but I do ask that suitable references be provided to be verified if so desired to "keep the trivia in check" to provide the good, from the "really speculative." --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In my opinion "trivia" = "trivial". I don't like the idea of something that is largely "trivial" being held up as Wikipedia's best work.  Having said that, much of the "trivia" section is not trivial at all, and could easily be incorporated into the article.  There are some good things in there, and their inclusion in the article would strengthen the article.   Anything left over, should go.  Also I just noticed this "In the movie, Dr. Crane declares Falcone hitman Zsasz insane as a favor for the mob boss. Rachel calls him on it and says Zsasz really isn't crazy. Ironically, the comics' version of Zsasz really is quite insane. He also appears in a quick cameo in Arkham Asylum, when the patients are escaping."  This is trivia at its worst. "Rachel calls him on it..." is as far from encyclopedic as can be, "ironically" is used in the Alanis Morisette sense, rather than correctly.  This is an example of fancruft masquerading as trivia and is exactly the type of thing that this article does not need.  I maintain my view that we should be moving away from "trivia" sections as nonencyclopedic, and work on ways of enhancing articles and elevating Wikipedia's status as a quality resource material.  There are numerous fansites on every aspect of popular culture,  and they have their place - but Wikipedia should not be using them as a model.  Rossrs 09:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose-Plot summary is too long, Reaction contains POV ('The film takes many liberties'), Trivia can either be dumped completely or incorporated into the main article. It needs a lot of work on the prose as it reads too "fannish" in sections.Logan1138 16:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cast/Awards/trvia could be cleaned up. Reaction needs more sources. Cvene64 11:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object, the trivia section needs to go.--Fallout boy 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)