Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Casino Royale (2006 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 14:14, 17 September 2007.

Casino Royale (2006 film)
previous FAC

The final comment of the last FAC, that is, overlinking, has been dealt with. Now, the article meets all criteria. Vikrant Phadkay 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Bloody hell, it's done. It's done everyone. It's done. Done. It's informing, well written, well cited, it's done. The Filmaker 15:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Distributed by, Running time, Budget and Admissions sections in the infobox need sourcing, as I can't fin this infomation anywhere else in the article. Dalejenkins | 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Distributed by and Running time do not need to be sourced since that can be seen in the film itself! Vikrant Phadkay 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I skimmed through the article and saw it was well referenced and was filled out enough. All good. Then I started to read the plot sypnosis and was alerted to two major problems. 1) The prose is not very well planned at all and reads strangely: "James Bond performs two kills to qualify for double-0 status. In the opening sequence, he is sent on a mission to Prague to kill a former MI6 section chief, Dryden, who has leaked classified information, and his ally, Fisher. Elsewhere, Mr. White is serving as a middleman, introducing a banker Le Chiffre to a guerrilla group that seeks a safe haven for its funds. Although Le Chiffre tells his clients there is "no risk" in his investments, he uses their money to engineer attacks on certain companies and short sells their stock to make large personal gains." I mean, it starts off right away with the weird, short sentence "James Bond performs two kills to qualify for double-0 status." It makes no sense what-so-ever. 2) The article is still overlinked in my opinion. With a bright blue link every sentence or more, your eye is immediately drawn to it making it immpossible to actually read the article without having your eyes darting all over the place. I mean, do we really need links such as Short sells, free running, casting and timeline? They're all basic things which don't need a link in this article. Also, dates don't really need to be linked to in this article unless it's one of those "2006 in film" date links etc. De link them. Other than that, the paragraphs to the end of the article need fleshing out. If you fix all of this, I'll happily support. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 07:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Vikrant Phadkay 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 *  Changed to Neutral above ↑ -- A little bit better now, but I don't feel the article is quite ready for my support. The prose is still a bit off and some of the paragraphs in production etc need to be merged because they're too short on their own. If you want my support, you'll have to do quite a bit, but I'm quite happy just to leave my vote at neutral. It's up to you... Cheers, Spawn Man 04:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Only one para was broken and need merging. But please stop saying that the prose needs attention. Nobody said this before, so you must point out wrong sentences
 * I would argue that non-common phrases such as short sells (are all of our readers going to be versed in finance?) and free running (which is relatively new and unknown to the larger public) do indeed need links. Also, Spawn Man should probably have been more specific about linking dates. Solo years, months, and stuff like "January 2006" do not need to be linked. However, full dates (January 23, 2006) do need to be linked per MOS as it's the only way for the date preferences to work. 69.202.63.165 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Corrected all the links, confirming that spawn Man was partly incorrect Vikrant Phadkay 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How was I incorrect? I said usually dates don't need linking to - in fact I'm one for linking to dates, as they are articles too. I resent the fact you call me incorrect and earlier said that "...please stop saying that the prose needs attention..." Just because nobody said something before doesn't mean it is wrong and secondly, please don't tell me what to say. Remember to assume good faith and civilty here VP. By prose problems, I meant about its level of writing; it is written at about a highschool level, with sentences like "...Le Chiffre, a banker, tells his clients that there is "no risk" in his investments, but he actually uses their money to...", which very loose in regard to prose, "...of the embassy so as to escape." which is clunky at the end; possibly use "in order to escape" as an alternative. "...MI6, hoping that a defeat would force Le Chiffre to aid the British government in exchange for protection from his creditors, enters Bond in the tournament..." is clunky - you could possibly expand this sentence and divide it into two smaller ones or use "enters Bond into the tournament" to clarify the sentence. "...Bond soon learns that his poker winnings were never deposited in the Treasury's account and learns that Vesper is..." is too repetitive with the use of "learns". Admittedly, most of my concerns rest in the "plot" section, and I should have conveyed that more clearly. This does not draw from the fact that I was called incorrect about the broken paragraph, considering that you noted that one was indeed broken, proving I was correct and that you said I was wrong about dating systems; I've partaken in many conversations about linking and dates and I have a fair grasp on the concept. I was refering to dates such as January 2006 and solo dates, which again I should have been more informative about. However, the reason I did not go into great detail was because I was only voting neutral and didn't feel that the prose was a big enough deal to oppose on. Admittedly, I don't like being called wrong when I know I was right; But sicne you brought it up and have forced me to list all the problems etc, I guess I'll have to change my vote until the problems I have listed are fixed. The plot section could also be fleshed out a bit afterwards if you use a higher level of writing. Thanks and next time, try and stay on the good side of people who have commented instead of accusing them of being wrong. For example, you could have asked for clarification. In any case, have a great day. Changed to oppose pending changes -- Spawn Man 07:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Corrected all of it. Vikrant Phadkay 15:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lessening vote then. The prose is still a bit weak in general across the plot section, but I wont oppose... Spawn Man 03:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Is this much sufficient? Vikrant Phadkay 16:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more that the plot section has weak prose. The "weak" points in the prose stem from editors coming across the page and deciding that they just need to include their favorite moment from the film.  Truthfully, and I say this without false modestly, if editors were willing to just revert to one of my previous versions of the plot section rather than try to integrate every irrelevant detail that gets added in, the prose would be clear, crisp, and read with one voice.  Croctotheface 23:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well they didn't and therefore it isn't up to scratch. Free-running and short sells have been relinked for some reason - everyone reading at a highschool level knows (or should hopefully know) what short sells and freerunning is and considering that over linking was a major problem in the last FAC, I'm keeping my vote unchanged for now. Sentences still linger like "Bond seduces his wife, Solange, and she reveals that her husband is flying to Miami". It cuts suddenly from him seducing to her revealing - there should be a break in the middle and a bit of expansion. And as I said before, the whole plot section needs expanding. For a 2.5 hour film, the plot sypnosis goes by in a flash. It's nowhere near as detailed as the rest of the article and in a matter of a few seconds vips through several key scenes. That's why it has prose problems, because it's written like a children's book: I went to the zoo I saw a crocodile. Then I got icecream. Then I went home. Then I went to bed. It just isn't expansive enough for an article that's meant to be encyclopedia worthy. Take this section of text for example: "Bond obtains Mollaka's mobile phone and discovers many calls received from the Bahamas. Bond travels there and finds the caller, Alex Dimitrios, an associate of Le Chiffre. After winning Dimitrios' car in a poker game, Bond seduces his wife, Solange, and she reveals that her husband is flying to Miami. Bond kills Dimitrios at the Miami exhibit of Body Worlds and then follows Le Chiffre's henchman, Carlos, to the Miami Airport". You have to agree, it goes through things very quickly. Why not putting a few sentences in there? I went to the Burmingham zoo yesterday, where I saw a large crocodile being fed. Crocodiles are my favourite reptilians and after this, I visited the rest of the animals in the zoo. It was a hot day so I went to the kiosk for some icecream. With the day drawing to a close, I took the bus home, where I was overcome by exhaustion and fell asleep. See? Even a stupid little story that sounds as if it's been written by a two year old can be spruced up to a good standard, so imagine how much better your plot sypnosis can be with a little more effort? Explain how deafeated the attempt to blow up the plane. Why was the infringement angering to M? Where did this "free running" chase take place? So to answer your question if you'd done enough yet to confirm my support - the answer is not yet. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I just disagree with you over some of these changes, then. I relinked short selling and free running because linking them is completely informative.  I don't know any person took a class on free running in high school.  It would be a detriment to the article, in my opinion, not to link them. In fact, the first edit made in response to your expressing concern that "free running" was linked changed the sentence to say "a long chase", which is much less informative.  I agree that older versions that linked "castrate" went overboard, but that's not the situation present here.  If you believe that the difference between this article being of FA quality is the difference between "free running" and "free running", then you're certainly entitled to that opinion, but the consensus seems to be that those terms should be linked.  As another editor pointed out, many people don't have a background in finance or stunt work.  To your second point, plot summaries in this encyclopedia necessarily need to walk a razor's edge about being concise (because plot should not be the focus of articles about films, according to WP:WAF) and explaining every event it discusses in detail.  I tend to favor a section that does what you dislike: goes through events quickly.  It's not the job of an encyclopedia to attempt to recreate the experience of actually watching a two-hour film in a section on plot summary.  I actually believe that the current state of the Casino Royale plot section is more like your second example, which communicates the logic of events.  In some cases, the plot section might be a bit too generous in assuming that the logic is clear from the events, but by and large I don't think that's a concern.  There's a difference between communicating the logic of the story and just putting in more detail, such as by explaining how Bond defeated the attempt to blow up the plane. The "how" question may be interesting, but it is not at all essential to the plot: what matters is that he foiled the plot and left Le Chiffre with a big loss.  It's possible that we just don't see eye to eye about the mission of a plot summary, and that's OK.  Maybe it would be helpful if you could find a featured article on a film with what you would consider a well-written plot section.  That might be a better vehicle for comparison than your story about going to the zoo.  Croctotheface 15:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I can let the free running objection go, as I don't think that it's such a big deal. However the prose and detail of the plot sypnosis is unnegotiable. I'm changing my vote yet again - I found dealing with Vikrant Phadkay a little bit more pleasant, seeing as they were more hospitable. It doesn't matter what you think and what you prefer Crocttf, seeing as you're not the one commenting on the FAC. If it did, we wouldn't have a need for FACs and users could simply place FA badges on evey article they've worked on a bit. However, as we all know, this is not the case, so complaining to me or down there that you can't please everyone isn't helping. Frankly, it's a load of croc... ;) (Pun...). Anyway, hopefully you'll come around and realise that you can't always have what you think is better. It's called compromise and seeing as how I compromised on the free running link, I'm hoping you'll be big enough to return the favour. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was never my intention to get personal, though I could see why my comments below could read that way. I apologize, then, for the presentation, but not the content.  My point below was meant to illustrate what you have alluded to: it's not possible to please everyone who might comment on a nomination.  Including more detail in the plot section could cause you to support the nomination, but it could also cause Staxringold to withdraw his support.  I just have two comments to make here.  First, this plot section is almost exactly 700 words in its current form.  The guidelines relating to the subject say, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a complicated plot."  Since Casino has a rather simple plot, there is not a reason to move outside of that range.  700 words is already on the upper range of acceptable. Again, I would be curious to see a featured article on a film with a plot section that is to your liking.  It would be very helpful to see a different way to go about summarizing the plot. Croctotheface 04:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't take your comments below as an attack, but thanks for the sincer effort to amend things. Searching through the list of featured films, without looking too hard, I picked a couple which I thought had points which might help as a reference: 300 (film), although still pithy, has subtle descriptions which elaborate on the main story. Not much, but it's still a bit better. Considering 300 has a pretty basic plot (Go there, kill, wear skirts) it is still as long (if not longer) than Casino's sypnosis. Halloween (1978 film) has quite a lot of what the characters said and doesn't zip through things quite as fast as Casino's plot summary. Admittedly, the prose is not the best in places, it is still an advancement in some areas. The guideline says a sypnosis shouldn't exceed 900 words - this could equate to about one or two paragraphs of text and I'm not even asking for that much, just a few descriptive words here and there and some elaboration. Besides, haven't you read WP:IAR? "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." I'm pretty sure a few extra words over 700 won't cause a server melt down, nor will it cause Staxringold to oppose. I've made some points above about parts that could be expanded - use your own initiative to decide where something could be expanded or use elaboration and provide the links here or mark in your edit summary that it's to do with this. As I said, I feel this is non-negotiable. Happy editing. Spawn Man 05:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Quite amazing work at sourcing that much useful text on things like the production background. All I would ask about is if the plot summary could be shortened slightly, since Bonds films (Casino Royale included) are not incredibly deep in terms of plot it seems like the summary could lose some details in some points. Regardless, great job! Staxringold talkcontribs 19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Slightly cut, since its already short. Vikrant Phadkay 16:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to note that this concern is the opposite of Spawn Man's. Obviously, it's impossible to please everyone, and I want to reiterate that I think the "less is more" school of thought is the way to go when it comes to plot summaries in an encyclopedia. Croctotheface 18:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments Principal photography commenced on January 30 of what year? The article still features some clunky prose. For example "...and the only thing in the final film shot is the scene where Bond steps off the plane in the Bahamas..." Surely we can do better than "thing"? And what is "thing" referring to? "only...final film shot" is also problematic. This phrase seems to indicate that there are other scenes throughout the move that were filmed in South Africa, but the only "thing" in the final shot of the movie that was filmed in S.A. was a scene where Bond steps off of a plane. 69.202.63.165 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added the year and cut that "thing" statement: meaningless and unsourced. Vikrant Phadkay 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to, as someone who has edited the article, express my opinion here. However, if it is, I want to register my support for promoting this article.  In truth, things like FA status don't matter a whole lot to me, but I can't imagine a more comprehensive and better sourced article on a film.  Croctotheface 07:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support each failed nom the article only gets better. igordebraga ≠ 18:24, 14 September 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.