Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fight Club (film)/archive2


 * 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 20:37, 11 February 2008.

Fight Club (film)

 * previous FAC

I am nominating this article, because it is one of the best arcticles I have seen on wikipedia in months. It is well sourced, talks about the film in a great way... there is everything that should be in Featured Article. Have a nice day. Running 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing this nomination, because Erik (main contributor) wishes so... --Have a nice day. Running 20:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Article stats:
 * Erik 318
 * LGagnon 65
 * Bordello 47
 * Malachirality 27
 * Conti 18
 * Bignole 17
 * 68.80.198.25 17
 * Alientraveller 14
 * Pomte 13
 * Earisu 12
 * Maziotis 11
 * Dark Kubrick 10

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Moderate to Strong Oppose First, there is poor writing throughout the article. Second, it is not well sourced as the entire "Plot" Section doesn't have a single reference. Finally, there is a lack of wikilinking. It need serious work before it will reach FA standards. Juliancolton Talk 00:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, could you please point out where the writing is poor? I had someone from the League of Copyeditors go through the whole article, but your constructive criticism would be welcome.  In addition, the consensus is that the Plot section is self-referential, focusing only the descriptive unfolding events and saving interpretations for analytical sections.  Please review the other Featured film Articles; all of them are presented similarly.  In addition, where do you feel that there could be more wikilinking?  The article was previously reviewed to avoid overlinking. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not that there is is one example of poor writing, but the prose doesn't seem to flow very well. I also wasn't aware that there was that consensus about the Plot section. Somehow it seems slightly better than it did last night, and after I read it over and over again, I change my 'vote' to Weak Support for now. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I appreciate Running's nomination of an article that I've improved significantly since the last time it underwent the FAC process. August 8, 2006. The article has received a copy-edit from editor Malachirality from the WikiProject League of Copyeditors.  I've done my best to incorporate images and quotes in an encyclopedic manner, but I am fully open to constructive criticism in shaping this article for the better.  One thing, I'd like to note is that there are numerous academic studies of Fight Club, and I was influenced by Awadewit in deciding to pursue the "unintended themes" aspect of this film.  You can see my subpage with the resources listed; I haven't made headway with it, being too busy IRL.  It would probably be best served as a spin-off article, but I had held off on a self-nomination because I was concerned that this article's lack of coverage would be detrimental.  I personally don't believe many film articles have sections on unintended themes (this one only has intended themes).  Comments about this are welcome. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Erik, do you feel the article is ready? There is FAC talk page precedent to withdraw a FAC that has a significant main contributor if that editor says the article isn't ready. It doesn't appear that Running has ever edited the article, so it can be withdrawn if you're not ready or would prefer to resubmit later.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend on if other editors feel that this article requires coverage about unintended themes. My opinion is that such coverage would be on a sub-article because the current article is fairly lengthy already.  I feel that the coverage will be similarly extensive in the interpretations sub-article.  It seems to be a matter of balance, basically asking, "Is this article OK without the academic studies available here?"  I could move the subpage to the mainspace and provide a more link to the Themes section, but the sub-article would obviously be very stubby and a link farm.  I think that outside of this key issue, the article is ready for the process.  Having spent a lot of time with this article, independent pairs of eyes are always welcome. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I have really never edited that article, but I came across it and I found it is very well written and very well done, then I found it meets every criteria for FA (plus it is already a GA), so I put it to FA.. --Have a nice day. Running 02:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Erik. You have a great opportunity to up the ante for film articles by including an overview of this literature, perhaps learning about academic criticism yourself in the process, and certainly exposing "regular readers" to a broader perspective on how films can be interpreted. I think you should do this. It will take more work, but it will pay off. Awadewit will be helpful, I'm sure, if she has time, and if you need a journal article or two as listed on your resources page, you're welcome to email me! – Outriggr § 03:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note of encouragement, Outriggr. I suppose that's been the reason why I've held off a self-nom; I'd like to set a "gold standard" for film articles rather than have this article limp through the FAC process.  The reason why I haven't made leeway with interpretations is, well, the academic studies are a challenge to digest.  Topics like spatiality and masculinity are presented to a layman like me; I unfortunately do not have any credentials to invoke in any regard to my editing.  Any additional resources for interpreting the film would be greatly appreciated! :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 04:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me just add a quick note here. Like Outriggr (hi, Outriggr!), I would be happy to help you out with this article. I looked at your list of articles and I can immediately see why someone unfamiliar with literary criticism would find some of it rather dense. If you want, we can work on the article together. I am rather busy with Jane Austen and Mary Shelley at the moment, but if you don't mind working rather slowly, I think that we can achieve the "gold standard" you are referring to (a very admirable goal). Awadewit | talk  06:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now as a primary contributor. Admittedly, there is some pride involved in having this article put up for the FAC process.  However, taking Outriggr and Awadewit's advice, I think it would be better to pursue the "gold standard" with the unintended themes, even if the content is spun off into a sub-article later on.  I doubt that this pursuit could take place within the time frame of this FAC process, based on the complexity of the academic studies to implement and the generally busy schedules of myself and potential assistants. :)  Running, I truly appreciate the commendation of this article, but I hope you don't mind if I ask you to withdraw the nomination for the time being.  It's probably most appropriate as a Good Article now having broad coverage, where Featured Articles should be comprehensive.  You and others are welcome to help expand on the topic of unintended themes; this article seems as good of a place to start as any, with all the resources lined up. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I will withdraw if you wish, I am just not sure how to do withdraw the article without doing some mess :) I wrote it up there, I don't know if I should also remove it from FAC page and if I should archive this conversation.. --Have a nice day. Running 20:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, per WP:FAC/ar, pls wait for GimmeBot to update the talk page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Erik. Epbr123 (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Erik. I look forward to seeing its return with the planned additions for sourced interpretation and unintended themes!  Would support its being made a GA though, as it already meets those standards. Collectonian (talk) 16:01, 11 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.