Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conan the Barbarian (1982 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 promoted by Ucucha 14:52, 15 October 2011.

Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)

 * Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"Raul Khan: What is best in writing a Featured article?"

"Anonymous editor: To hear praises about your work, watch it receive a bronze star, and see it prominently on the Main Page as a TFA."

"Raul Khan: What about you, Ahnuld?"

"Ahnuld the Wikipedian: To crush poor prose, to see copyvios and original research driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of discarded bad content."

"Raul Khan: Good, that is good!"

More than a year has gone into researching and writing this article, transforming it from a mass of fan opinions into a piece that befits Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Brianboulton, Wehwalt, Casliber, and User:David Fuchs have offered their opinions in its peer review. Yomangani played an instrumental role in improving this article by participating in the review and selflessly giving the article a massive copy edit, which I believe has pruned the once massive text to a more effective read. You might have read many opinions, articles, and interviews about Conan the Barbarian, but there are few you can trust. Not Laurentiis, not Milius, not Schwarzenegger. This you can trust! Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Giving locations as "State, United States" isn't as helpful as "City, State" would be
 * Check for typos - ex. "Illinous"
 * The New York Times, not New York Times
 * Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the state name error and given definite articles for NYT. The doubled periods are due to the editors' initialized middle names (and the way the cite journal templates print out the parameters); I left out the last period for a quick fix.  As for the "State, Country" vs "City, State" issue, I am uncertain over changing that for the mass of sources at the moment.  Jappalang (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Support I cannot 'see' any reason to oppose it, it's an amazing article, I wouldn't have thought that there was that much background information about the film. One criticism though, aren't there better representative pieces of music from the score for the music section? I know it's from the main theme but the more prominent piece I recall being used very often was a piece you can hear in " Riddle Of Steel - Riders Of Doom" with the background choir. Not a big deal as I still recognize the piece in this article, the other one is just more standout, memorable piece. EDIT Hmm, looking at your refs, you should archive the website ones in case the links go dead as that will cause your article some issues in the future. Especially variety.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support. It was a toss up between "Anvil of Crom" and "Riddle of Steel" but I chose the former because it is well described by the critics and because of Jerry Goldsmith's opening number for Total Recall (Legacy and impact).  Jappalang (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Link Check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, some minimal issues below:
 * "Danny Peary", "James Wolcott" are linked twice.
 * "Richard Wagner" is linked twice and not on first mention.
 * "Al-Andalus" is easteregged behind "Moorish" and linked twice ==> Maybe change link to "Moorish" or even "Moorish architecture" to provide specific style information. GermanJoe (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Double links removed: Names of the three people linked on first mention, as for "Moorish", "Moorish structures" now linked to "Moorish architecture". Jappalang (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support great article - and Jappalang's FAC intros continue to be hilarious. igordebraga ≠ 01:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support; I will continue to try my best to pun for fun. Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: My part in the peer review was relatively minor, since much had been covered by others before I contributed. This level of reviewer attention, combined with Jappalang's concern for detail and accuracy, has helped to give us an article of high quality. I am sure that nitpicks can be found, but they are not immediately obvious and I don't propose to go searching for them. The article sets a formidable standard for future film articles. Happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As always, your opinions and support are appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - Jappalang's improvements are really worth it in improving this article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support; though taxing, it was quite fun to find a piece of information that led to further searches and other sources. Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments It looks generally good, overall. I think the prose in the lede could use some work.


 * Lede
 * "It is based on the stories by Robert E. Howard, a pulp fiction writer of the 1930s, about the adventures of the eponymous character in a fictional pre-historic world of dark magic and savagery." This sentence could probably be improved by making it more continuous.  Consider "Robert E. Howard, a pulp writer of the 1930s, wrote of the adventures of ...
 * I guess you have to say who directed it in the lede paragraph, but I would not include others. Possibly further down in the lede, but I have a high opinion of the reader and believe him fully capable of shifting his eyes slightly right to the right, where all of this is set out in the infobox.
 * "The target of his hatred " I would say "subject".  I haven't read the plot yet and didn't see the movie (sorry!) but assume this guy killed Conan's parents.  I would say so if so.
 * I would omit the final sentence of the lede paragraph in its entirety.
 * I think Stone's profession should be mentioned. He is not as well known as he once was, and overseas little.
 * "and he rewrote " Ordinarily I would simply take out the word "he" myself, but I'm mentioning it to show a concern that the prose may need a little more seasoning.  Possibly it can all be worked out during this FAC.
 * " Howard's stories and films such as Kwaidan and Seven Samurai." You need "with" rather than "and" or else it implies Howard did Seven Samurai.
 * "Schwarzenegger performed most of his stunts " I would add "own" before stunts, but I could go either way on this.
 * "Grossing more than $100 million at box-offices around the world, Conan was a commercial success for its backers, " I would reverse these clauses.
 * " although the revenue fell short of the mark that would qualify the film as a blockbuster." The question of what that mark was crossed my mind ...
 * "Academics and critics interpreted the film as advancing the themes of fascism or individualism. The fascist angle featured in most of the criticisms of the film. " The prose seems rather choppy here, possibly make the second sentence a parenthetical in the first.
 * "The film's success prompted the Laurentiis to produce a sequel. Novel and comic adaptations were published, and Universal staged a live-action show based on the film at their studio cum theme park in California. " Omit.
 * I dislike the etc. Can you not get rid of that with a "such as", etc? --Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the roles of the others in the first paragraph could be left untouched. It establishes the immediate basics of production of the film and highlights the significance of its music.  I think Infoboxes do not appear in print editions and we should not rely on them to help establish crucial points of a summary (I think Infoboxes are there to supplement the lede).
 * About "subject" versus "target of hatred", I am not quite certain about this (not being a literary expert). From Books Google, 33 results are returned for "subject", and 147 for "target" (9 of which are university prints).  Conversely, a web search reveals the opposite (120k vs 20.3k).  It seems both forms are appropriate?
 * I am finding it a bit difficult to elaborate Stone's profession without redundancy ("Oliver Stone, a scriptwriter, to draft a script."). Stating it as simply "Oliver Stone, a scripwriter." would clash with the preceding mention of Schwarzenegger's recruitment.  I think the current form should be fine as "to draft a script" defines him as a scriptwriter (a situation similar to Schwarzenegger, who was more known as a bodybuilder than an actor before this film).
 * Expounding "fell short of the mark" might lead to further complications. The "mark" is $50 million in domestic rentals as stated in "Box office and other media".  The problem is that "rentals" in movie-speak is a sort of jargon (revenue after deducting amount due to the cinema owners) and most readers would most probably think of "rentals" as video rentals; thus if the $50 million mark is included in the lede, its definition would have to be included and would bloat the lede.
 * The others have been taken action with. How are the changes?  Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks OK. I'm inclined to call it editorial discretion on these.  I can't come up with anything better on Stone, so let it go.
 * Support--Wehwalt (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me win you over to support. *heh*  Jappalang (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. Not seeing much to nitpick over. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support, much appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - this has to be the best and most comprehensive article I have ever seen about a film. The sourcing is impeccable and apart from a few instances of the word "also", which is a minor pet peeve of mine, I can find no fault with it.  The authors should write an essay on how to write a Featured Article for the rest of us!  As an aside I wrote and delivered a speech on this movie in High School for a "Speech and Debate" class.  My biggest criticism of the film was how it wasn't in the nature of a typical REH Conan story and was more like an epic or an opera.  It was interesting to see those criticisms in the article as well.  Great job!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mike. Yeah, Conan the Barbarian is a subject of much talk among the REH community and critics.  Fairly controversial subject, whether it is a good or bad film...  Jappalang (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Image review: The one non-free image is used appropriately and has a sufficient rationale. Same with the non-free sound file. The other images are validly free. However File:Siegfried and the Twilight of the Gods p 056.jpg seems to have a few formatting problems that make it harder to tell the information... that probably ought to be fixed. Some of the images appear to be only tangentially-related to the article (the vulture pic in particular is a bit of a stretch, since it doesn't at all depict what's described in the caption), but hey, they're free, so it's not a problem in this image review. – Quadell (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the formatting on Siegfried's image. Yeah, the vulture one is a bit of a stretch (I tried to find a "free" photograph of iaido practitioner whose pose is very similar or exact to notable images of Conan or Valeria, but failed).  Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Source Spotchecks: I checked reference footnotes 1d, 1g, 6, 8, 33, 52, 73b, 74, 207, 215, 232b, 233, and 235a. (Numbers refer to this version.) In no cases did I find verbatim copying of text or close paraphrasing. But I did find the following problems. Besides these issues, all other material was fully supported by the sources given. – Quadell (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Footnote 6 only sources the fact that the "Riddle of Steel" is in the film, not that it's "an aphorism on the importance of the metal to their people".
 * Similarly, only some of the plot elements in the paragraph sourced to footnote 8 are actually found in the source.
 * In footnote 74, the sources only say that the quote is attributed to Genghis Khan, not that he actually said it, which is doubtful.
 * Regarding the riddle, I cite to Passman, who comments on the religious significance of steel to the Cimmerians (who worship Crom). The matter of the enslaving the children and the use of the Master's sword to decapitate Conan's mother (which I presume are the only matters failed to be stated by Gunden) are cited to Flynn.  As for Khan's speech, that is stated in Howorth (as already cited).  Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your additional sourcing is appreciated. (I can't verify the contents of Flynn or Passman, but I'll happily take your word for it, since the statements aren't controversial and your sourcing has proved to be well attested.) I'm still going to raise an issue about my man Genghis Khan, though. It's true that an 1876 polemic blithely accepts that the quote is legitimately from the Khan, but nearly all modern scholars find that highly unlikely (which is why the modern source you use refers to it as an "attributed" quote). I don't think this article should state that the words actually came from Genghis Khan. – Quadell (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "nearly all modern scholars find that highly unlikely" would be worthy of a citation itself, especially if these university prints put the quote into the horse's mouth, so as to speak. As explained in the footnote, the English translation is of the French version by d'Ohsson, who is respected for compiling, analyzing, and translating the ancient Chinese texts, Persian-Arabic sources and earlier French studies of the Great Khan; d'Ohsson's work "was comprehensive and critical ... and remains to this day the best treatise on the subject in any European language."  If scholars can treat d'Ohsson's work as authentic translations of what the Khan has said, I do not see why Wikipedia cannot.  Jappalang (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.