Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battlefield Earth (film)


 * 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 promoted 01:11, 14 February 2008.

Battlefield Earth (film)


This article has already been rated as an Arts Good Article for some time, but in recent weeks has undergone a major expansion by Cirt and myself. Many people will remember how notoriously bad Battlefield Earth was. The article doesn't dwell on the film's artistic merits, because frankly it doesn't have any; however, the back story of its development and aftermath provides an interesting insight into Hollywood's politics and behind-the-scenes manoeuvrings. ChrisO (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Co-nomination - It's been a pleasure working with on this article and I will do my best to address any comments that crop up during this FAC discussion.  Cirt (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Image:Battlefield earth screencap.jpg seems unnecessary per Non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which criteria specifically? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved the image to the Production section, where costume/makeup is discussed. Now it serves to provide an illustrative image to show what Travolta is talking about.  Cirt (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That helps. It was just decorative use in it's original location. Garion96 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks for pointing that out. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - comprehensive, well-written and illustrated (including that great parody poster). Looks like bad movies can turn into great articles.igordebraga ≠ 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per igordebraga. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Comment - The final part of the Production section mentions that there were large cuts in the DVD version from the theater version. Unless I missed an explanation, but could you elaborate on how or why this was so?   xihix  (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: - I wasn't able to access the link to that cite, so I removed it (the info also seemed inaccurate) and instead added some info on the DVD from a few other sources. Cirt (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - The cast section doesn't seem relevant. If it's simply restating plot information then just link the actor's full names in the plot section with their respective characters and ditch the cast section. The plot section should contain all the in-universe information, unless accompanied by real world information. There doesn't appear to be any real world information in the cast section (i.e. like casting info, or actor's interpretations of their roles) so it seems really unecessary to have. Cast sections are not required, and if they are only going to list their actors then IMDb covers that well enough already. Nothing from IMDb is acceptable, which includes their user rated worst films list. The citation template says "staff" but that "Bottom 100" list is based on user ratings.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  06:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. - Removed cast section, wikilinked actors' names after first appearance of character names in plot section, as suggested above by . Cirt (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. - Removed the "Bottom 100" list info and accompanying IMDb cite. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'll weigh in on the actual article when I have time, but I noticed that Battlefield Earth redirects to Battlefield Earth (film), while the latter has a dab link to Battlefield Earth (novel). This doesn't seem like an appropriate setup -- I would suggest two options: 1) Moving Battlefield Earth (film) to Battlefield Earth and keeping the dablink, or 2) Changing Battlefield Earth into a disambiguation page with links to both film and novel articles.  #1 may depend on the prominence of the film over the novel -- for example, Road to Perdition is the "main" article since it was much more recognized than its source material, Road to Perdition (comics).  1 or 2 should be applied here. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Actually Battlefield Earth was a disambig page - I just thought it was better to have just these 2 and no disambig page as there are only 2 articles w/ this title. But if you think it's best, I'll add back the disambig page (which is what I did just now pending feedback on this).  Cirt (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My own opinion would be to go w/ your first option. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, a third option would be to make Battlefield Earth (novel) the "main" article, since I don't think it's a truly obscure novel. You can then have a dab link to point to the film article. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, well I think the simplest option for now is to leave it as is (I restored the disambig page). Cirt (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - There appears to be a neutrality issue with the critical reception. The readers get it, the movie sucked, but there needs to be a balance of positive and negative reviews to keep Wikipedia's neutral stance. From what I gathered skimming the critical reception section, the entire thing is about how horrible this movie is. I couldn't find any positive reviews, except that bit about Travolta talking to Lucus and Tarantino. There may be a couple in there, but since it's so blatantly negative when you read it, it's clear that if there are some positive reviews then there aren't nearly enough. This is where Rotten Tomatoes comes in handy, because we can present a neutral section, with balanced prose of pos. and neg. criticisms, but cite Rotten Tomatoes as an aggregate site that keeps a percentage of the positive to negative reviews (in this case, it was 3%, which should speak for itself). It may not be possible to get an equal number, given the films notoriety, but the section could use a bit more positive and a cut back on the negative.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: If Rotten Tomatoes shows 3% positive reviews, then that should be the weighting given in the critical reception section. I will try to find a few positive reviews and add them to that section.  I'd rather not cut anything out, rather add some more to reflect the general consensus of the 115 aggregated reviews.  Cirt (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The weighting of the article should reflect neutrality, and the lack of things positive suggests that the article is heavily biased.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What is "neutrality" ? My point is that if 3% of 115 reviewers, which is a good sample size, gave the film positive reviews, than the reception section should reflect that.  Cirt (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: In the process of trying to find some positive reviews or at least positive comments made about the film, and adding them to the reception section. Cirt (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NPOV:"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." -- The article just needs to present both sides of the spectrum. It's clear the article will favor the negative criticism, because of the almost unanimous despise the film has received, but we still need to show that some people did actually like the film. (which I see you've added some more positive criticisms).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In essence of course I agree with your quote from WP:NPOV from above. Tell you what, allow me a chance to add some more positive comments into the critical reception section and perhaps trim out some phrasing for NPOV, and then tell me what you think after that?  Cirt (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:UNDUE. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Okay, from WP:UNDUE: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. This seems to say that we should have less emphasis on a minority viewpoint, not more. Especially this bit about: "should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Cirt (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You got plenty of time, I haven't gotten that far in the review. That was something that just crossed my mind when I was reading the lead, and decided to check the reception real quick.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is especially difficult because when going through the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes which the site actually calls "positive" - even from those few "positive" reviews there actually isn't much positive stuff to glean from them - because the "positive" reviews are pretty much all relatively negative, as well. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true, as Rotten Tomatoes decides if an article in positive or negative in odd ways. For example, I was reading a review that was positive on the site for Meet the Spartans (in anger, how could anyone give it a positive review?), and the overall review was pretty much negative, with him giving it a 2 our of 4 stars.  How thats positive, I'm not sure.  Cirt, if you have trouble finding anything on Rotten Tomatoes, try using Newsbank.   xihix  (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I added all the "positive" reviews from Rotten Tomatoes, will look elsewhere for more. But given that a second review aggregator, Metacritic, has a rating of 9/100 which it characterizes as "extreme dislike or disgust" - I think that the critical reception section is a fair representation of the aggregate of reviews.  Cirt (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Okay, counting the "worst ever" awards, there are about (15) total review sources in the Critical reception section. That includes the (4) I added for some positive balance, 3 of those were gleaned from Rotten Tomatoes where they were rated as "positive" reviews, and one from a review at Metacritic that was deemed "positive".  So at present over 26% of the Critical reception section is "positive" - which is much higher than the aggregate review consensus reflected at either Rotten Tomatoes, or at Metacritic.  Cirt (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Can the "Development" section be subsectioned in any way? It's rather long and monotonous.  Perhaps quoteboxes could be used in some instances?  In addition, I would suggest reviewing WP:PUNC to fix punctuation in relation to quotations.  Here's the difference between the two ways:
 * Reviewer John Smith considered Battlefield Earth "the worst film ever made".
 * Reviewer John Smith said, "Battlefield Earth is the worst film ever made."
 * Hope the distinction is understandable. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll take a look at punctuation and the Development section. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Split up the Development section into 2 subsections. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Added 2 quoteboxes using quotebox to the Development section (one in each new subsection). Cirt (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will next soon take a look at WP:PUNC as related to quotations. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Following some improvements made to the article since my comment, I believe this article deserves to be featured. Good job to all the editors!   xihix  (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes: Please ping me when done. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC) I will take a look at these above issues and note them here. (And then ping when done, as asked. :) )  Cirt (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe there are still problems with WP:PUNC (example: Explaining his motivation, Travolta stated "I have a special affection for this book. Hubbard was a great writer, and I had an idea of the movie's potential, a fantasy in my mind that lasted for years".)
 * Found missing WP:NBSPs
 * Please clear out empty parameters on cite templates, they unnecessarily chunk up the article size and make it harder to edit (this is preference, courtesy to other editors, good editing practice, not a MOS requirement). They also affect our readers by increasing load time.
 * Some use of %, other use of percent, please be consistent. Also, see WP:MOSNUM, this is incorrect us of % on range (... but ended up paying for between 60%–90% of the costs instead. )
 * Why the use of pp on single pages? Use page in the cite template instead of pages. (June 15, 2001, pp. A2. )
 * Please see MOS:CAPS, Staff. "It's Official: ‘BATTLEFIELD EARTH’ Is Tied With ‘SHOWGIRLS’ as RAZZIES’ All-Time WORST!",
 * Response
 * Where have all the editors gone? I worked on some of this myself.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Sandy, but it's only been 48 hours, and I've been quite busy with other things, IRL. Thanks so much for your edits.  Cirt (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob, I did a few; wanted to make sure you weren't run over by a truck. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, thank you. No truck, just IRL personal stuff.  Cirt (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to for the recent nbsp & percentages changes.  Of course also thanks to  for the other above-mentioned edits as well.  Cirt (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Sandy's issues have been fixed. Epbr123 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I left her a note on her talk page to come have another look. Cirt (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment "With my movies, the movie stars are my partners. If you give them 25 per cent of the profits (while reducing their upfront payments), they get out of the trailer faster." - I can't find this quotation in the source provided. Epbr123 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where that quote came from, but I know it came from some secondary source... Oh well, I replaced it with a quote from the cited source. Cirt (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.