Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan


 * 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 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
previous FAC

Remoninating article after previous FAC about a month ago. Objections to previous nomination have been dealt with. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 22:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Image problems. Including images of the back cover of the DVD and the disc negatively affects the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Having access to the full artwork is an incentive for customers to buy the DVD; when Wikipedia provides significant excerpts of the artwork, that incentive is weakened. Additionally, our non-free content policy says "If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a 'fair use' defense." The information conveyed by these images can be transformed into text (as has already been done in the article). Punctured Bicycle 02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess those could be removed, but before I do it I would like to know if this old verison of the DVD might fit the criteria for a free image, and thus be kept. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 02:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's probably a derivative work and is therefore non-free. Punctured Bicycle
 * There's a similar picture on Halo 2, which recently passed FA. I was going to bring it up before you replied. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 02:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All due respect, but do people really buy DVD's for the cover artwork? But if this is standing in the way of the article getting FA status, I guess we will slash it I should note however, that images of both sides of the DVD case are available on amazon.com.  Would we be safe if we go no higher resolution than those?  And I think Lenin's comment about Halo is germane, we need to be sure the standard of judgment for FA is consistant, not just the likes and dislikes of whatever editors happen to be weighing in.User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] 12:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the notion that Wikipedia's use of the DVD cover reduces the incentive to buy the DVD. It's incredibly low resolution and the artwork is freely available and displayed by nearly every retailer selling the DVD. I'd recommend adding it back in if you want to do so. --- RockMFR 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose In addition to the image objections listed above, which I fully endorse (it should be noted that the existance of problems in other articles, regardless of their status, does not excuse this one. Simply because Johnny's parents let him stay out past curfew doesn't mean we're going to as well...), there are numerous other issues:
 * That was more directed at getting others sorted as well. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Organization:
 * Why is plot synopsis and deleted scenes and DVD release so far apart? They would do better together.
 * Why does the controversy section exist at all? Why aren't these section part of the reception section?  Aren't these just examples of negative reception?
 * Then that section would probably be too long. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I personally dislike the use of "controversy" or "criticism" section in articles, as usually these could be renamed or folded into other sections. Not a huge issue here however.--Jayron32| talk | contribs 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The cast section consists solely of a table, with no explanatory text. It is jarring and interrupts the flow of the article.  It is also fully explained in the next section, so why is it there in the first place?
 * It was added during the last FAC. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, regardless of when it was added, it sucks. A discussion of the cast may be appropriate, perhaps a discussion of the casting procedure even. However, a simple table without comment interrupts the flow of the article. The information could be better conveyed in prose than a table.--Jayron32| talk | contribs 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got it up, but it may need more work. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A better organization scheme MIGHT be: Production->Screenings and release->Reception->plot synopsis->DVD release->deleted scenes->soundtrack.
 * I know of no article where the plot summary is placed so far down in the article. Putting it there would leave it seriously out of place with the rest. I agree, it might work better with some degree of rearrangement, but not that far. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, but the deleted scenes should definately follow EITHER the DVD release (where they were included) or the Plot Synopsis (where they seem to follow). Either way, they need to be moved from where they are now, as the whole order of the article needs clean-up. Perhaps: Plot Synopsis -> Production -> Release -> Reception -> DVD Release -> Deleted Scenes -> Soundtrack is better.--Jayron32| talk | contribs 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comprehensiveness problems:
 * Production doesn't actually deal with the production of the film, except as a precursor to the later controversy section. What about the prominent crew?  Casting?  Pre-production?  Filming start and wrap dates?  Editing process?  Rating process?  Also, the film is largely unscripted, but it was staged.  How were the "rubes" in the film chosen?  They weren't random people on the street... Why were they chosen?  How were the scenes staged?  etc, etc,
 * There isn't a lot of information avaible on the film's production. Sorry, I'm just trying to work with what is known. And the DVD release was practically useless in this aspect. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the DVD isn't the only source for this information. Somewhere there must be interviews with the director/producer/Cohen discussing these things? IMDB or Allmovies doesn't have anything to help flesh this section out? The problem is that the section deals ONLY with issues related to the film's controversy, and doesn't really deal with production of the film at all.--Jayron32| talk | contribs 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The oldest information I could find was the news page of the "Unofficial Borat homepage". It would seem these folks covered their tracks quite well. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article speaks very little of the development of the Borat character, except as a brief mention in the lead. This is inadequate.  For much of the audience, this was the first exposure to Borat, a character with a long history.  Some treatment of the character and the history of his development is probably appropriate, as well as the development of the Azamat character.
 * I guess an expanded Cast section in prose could deal with that. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 02:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be in the article on the Borat character, which does exist.--Wehwalt 12:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The soundtrack section should probably be expanded some. Maybe some sales figures?
 * No other FA films I can find have such information. And where such information is, I do not know. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 04:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine then, it was a small issue. No biggie really.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyediting problems:
 * Most scenes in the film were unscripted, although the end credits do credit a "Naked Fight Coordinator", and in most cases the film's participants were given no warning on what they would be taking part in except for being asked to sign release forms agreeing not to take legal action against the film's producers - run on sentance, needs to be broken up.
 * the all persons fictitious disclaimer. - awkward wording.
 * Dan Mazer confirmed in an interview that there was a scene cut from the film, which he then expected to be featured in the DVD as a bonus feature, in which Borat took part in the shooting of an actual pornographic film. The middle clause in this sentance makes it hard to follow. Break this up into two sentances.
 * In late October 2006, less than two weeks before the film's debut, Twentieth Century Fox scaled back its American release from about 2,000 to 837 cinemas after marketing-survey data showed unexpectedly poor levels of audience awareness, with only 27% of respondents being aware of Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan compared with percentages as high as 81% for the film's opening-weekend competitors. - run on sentance.
 * In an article for Slate, writer Christopher Hitchens offered a counter-argument to suggestion of anti-Americanism in the film, claiming instead that the film actually demonstrated amazing tolerance on the part of the film's unknowing subjects, especially citing the reactions of the guests in the Southern dinner scene to Borat's behavior. - Run on sentance
 * The usual disclaimer included at the end of the film's credits stating that all characters in the film were fictitious also noted that "No real person depicted or appearing in the film has sponsored or otherwise endorsed its contents." A comma maybe? Something is needed here.
 * The feminists from Veteran Feminists of America (VFA) also felt that they had been duped, having "sensed something odd was going on" before and during the interview with Borat, although according to the Guardian, at least one of the women felt that the film was worth going to see at the cinema - Run on sentance
 * The New York Post had reported in November 2006 that Pamela Anderson filed for divorce from her husband Kid Rock after he reacted unfavorably to the movie during a screening, claiming he had said on her role in the film, "You're nothing but a whore! You're a slut! How could you do that movie?" - Run on sentance
 * While Cohen himself is Jewish and has stated that he uses Borat to expose the prejudices felt or tolerated by others,[86] the organization remained concerned that some audiences might remain oblivious to this aspect of the film's humor, noting "some may even find it reinforcing their bigotry." - Run on sentance.
 * Yousuf Abdul Hamid, a film censor for the United Arab Emirates commented on the film “It’s vile, gross and extremely ridiculous, wholly unsuitable for UAE audiences"; while noting that the censors had actually walked out on their screening before it had ended, claiming “We all left because the film was extremely offensive and void of any story, substance or even comedy". - Run on sentance.
 * As can be seen above, the article is rife with run-ons. Look, there is no need to cram 4 clauses into one sentance where 4 sentances would be easier to parse.  Consider the Kid Rock sentance above.  It could be reworded as such to avoid problems: The New York Post reported in November 2006 that Pamela Anderson had filed for divorce from her husband, Kid Rock, after he reacted unfavorably to her performance.  She claimed that he said, of her role in the film, "You're nothing but a whore! You're a slut! How could you do that movie?"  In the original version of this sentance, there are no less than 5 action verbs in a single sentance, not to mention misused case (the Post reported that she had filed is the correct order.  The reporting came after the filing, not before).  As a whole, this article needs some real copyedit help, perhaps from The League of Copyeditors.  I am not a great copyeditor myself, and I caught all of the above "less than brilliant" prose.  This article needs a LOT of work to get to featured status.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  03:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Will get to work on what I can. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto.--Wehwalt 12:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Changing my vote from above. The article has been extensively copyedited, and the run-on sentance problem has been fixed.  Images have been fixed, and the cast section has been expanded.  Maybe a sentance in the "cast" section indicating that all other persons in the movie were not "in" on the joke, but not really needed.  All-in-all this is a great article, and deserves to be promoted now.  Great job! --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written, excellent work. --יהושועEric 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support This articles covers the huge controversy this film had superbly. Buc 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.