Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Che (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 Karanacs 19:54, 7 July 2009.

Che (film)

 * Nominator(s): J.D. (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because a lot of hard work has gone into this article to make it as comprehensive on the subject as possible. It has achieved a GA status and I believe that it can achieve FA status as well. J.D. (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * I don't think "Part One/Two" as well as the names of the different parts need to be bolded in the lead.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The film is slated for DVD release in the UK on June 29, 2009." Is there no Blu-ray being released? If there is, consider rewording to home media release. Also, a home media release should be mentioned beyond the lead.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The box office total citation in the infobox needs to be formatted properly.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure on the guidelines for this, but different dashes are used in the multiple quotes in the article. I think they're supposed to be consistent throughout the article, such as using &mdash; instead of --. Be sure to check, because I may be wrong.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason why the plot comes after the production section? Every other film FA/GA I've seen has the plot come first.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the plot, the actors' names don't need to follow the character names if there is a cast list directly after the plot.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...with a 15 minute intermission..." I think it should be "15-minute".
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "As of January 30, 2009, Che was doing poorly in the US theatrical market." This needs to be updated.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I tagged both of the non-free images to be reduced in size, see WP:FILMS' image guidelines.
 * Throughout the article it should be The New York Times, make sure to fix all occurrences.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "On December 7, 2008, Che premiered at Havana's 5,000 + person Karl..." Remove the space after 5,000. Fix the other occurrence a few sentences later.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no citations for the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's currently a red-linked category, was it recently deleted or is it still waiting to be created?
 * Removed.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no mention of the music/soundtrack in the article, is it possible that a section can be added on it?
 * To be honest, I really couldn't find much in the way that could be properly sourced. I think I'll hold off until it given a proper DVD release to tackle that.--J.D. (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is well-written and covers the film well. Hopefully the above comments are helpful, and if you disagree with any of them, feel free to state your rationale. Good work so far. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, recommend peer review Article is pretty close, but there are some issues:
 * The article relies heavily on the Cannes film festival program as a source. While Cannes is a high-profile event, I'm not sure that a pamphlet is an appropriate source for a featured article, since it was never really published and it's not even clear who wrote/edited it.
 * Well, other film articles have relied on Presskits and Production Notes for sources of info and those anonymously written but I think just as valid. I would say that you might have a valid point if the bulk of the source material came from it but the article also cites Amy Taubin's two articles extensively as well as Michael Guillen's and Ben Kenigsberg's articles.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article switches between the names "Che" and "Guevara" to refer to the subject of the film.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes DVD Times a reliable source? Also, the citation is formatted differently from all the others.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The "External links" section is strangely formatted, with lots of "--"s.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The first two sentences of "Development" are plagiarized, copied directly from the Miami Herald source.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Del Toro confessed he had previously only thought of Guevara as a "bad guy" since he was a child." "Confessed" is a very strong word here. "Previously" and "since he was a child" shouldn't be used together.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Additionally Del Toro read Don Quixote, one of Guevara's favorites, and the first book published and given out free after the Cuban Revolution." This appears to come from the Telegraph article, but it's cited to the Backstage article. You don't need all these "also" and "additionally" words.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Del Toro then personally met with people from different stages of Guevara's life, including Guevara's younger brother and childhood friends in Argentina." "Research also included traveling to Cuba where Del Toro met Che's widow, family, and "tons of people that loved this man". These appear to be describing the same incident. The first source doesn't mention Argentina specifically so I think these should be combined.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The modified quote "bucketful(s) of love" should have []s, not s, but I recommend just using the original wording since there's no way to define a bucketful of love anyway.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...collaborating with the three surviving guerrillas from Guevara's ill-fated Bolivian campaign, and with several guerrillas who fought alongside him in Cuba. While researching for both films, Soderbergh made a documentary of his interviews with many who had fought alongside Che in both Cuba and Bolivia." Were these different events? The wording "fought alongside ... in" shouldn't be used two sentences in a row.
 * Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's just the first two paragraphs; I'm gonna leave it there for now. As the first two sentences are plagiarized I'm hesitant to critique the rest of the article. I see this was peer reviewed in February; I think it should be peer reviewed a second time. Content-wise the article looks great, but there seem to be a lot of minor nitpicks like these that need to be cleaned up before we can address the real FA issues. —Noisalt (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that is what should be done that's fine with me.--J.D. (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Current ref 6 has the author listed in the middle of the ref, make it at the start to be consistent with the rest of the article.
 * A bunch of deadlinks that need to be fixed
 * Current ref 22 (Phillips..) has a bare url in it and Chicago Tribune should be in italics
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.collider.com/entertainment/interviews/article.asp/aid/6916/tcid/1
 * http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/30/che-release-strategy/
 * Current ref 80 has the author listed in the middle of the ref, make it at the start to be consistent with the rest of the article. Also needs to italicise Boston Herald.
 * Does the article really need ALL the further reading and the external inks?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.