Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lord of the Universe


 * 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 01:35, 10 April 2008.

Lord of the Universe
Self-nomination. This is a WP:GA-rated article which has had a peer review, about a documentary film which won a Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award in 1974. I'll do my best to address comments as they come up in this FAC discussion. Thanks for taking a look, Cirt (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: link to peer review for ease of navigation. Steve  T • C 08:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support- Article is well structured, has good prose, flows well, and is well referenced. I see no reason to oppose it.  Steve Crossin   (talk to me)  08:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support good prose and well cited. BJ Talk 08:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. All is well here; another excellent article by Cirt. Qst (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Informative article on little-known film. -- Semifreddo (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Sorry I couldn't find the time to finish that. Maybe if the FAC drags on past Monday. All the best, Steve  T • C 14:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments. Interesting article. I was planning on giving it a thorough review, but something's come up. Still, it'd be silly of me not to post what I'd looked at so far:
 * Perhaps give the prose another quick another pass? For example, the very first sentence:"Lord of the Universe is a 1974 satirical documentary film about Guru Maharaj Ji, now known by his given name, Prem Rawat, at an event in November 1973 at the Houston Astrodome called 'Millennium '73'."The use of "now" is generally to be avoided for future-proofing purposes. I also understand the need to make mention of Prem Rawat's former name, but in having that statement right in the middle there knocks off the focus of the sentence. I also suggest incorporating the fact that this is a made-for-television documentary into the first couple of sentences; it's not altogether clear at first.
 * The infobox states that the documentary was preceded by The World's Largest TV Studio and followed by Gerald Ford's America. The article body states that these were merely films by the same production company. Is this relevant information to include? If it's ultimately agreed that it is, I'd still remove these films from the infobox, as they're not part of a specific series.
 * "The documentary received mostly positive reviews" is uncited. While likely correct, this kind of statement is one which is often-challenged in film articles.
 * Replies
 * Lord of the Universe is a 1974 satirical documentary film about Guru Maharaj Ji, now known by his given name, Prem Rawat, at an event in November 1973 at the Houston Astrodome called "Millennium '73". -- Adjusted this wording a bit, in response to above comment, also moved a sentence up a bit in the intro about the national broadcast on PBS. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the entries of The World's Largest TV Studio and Gerald Ford's America from the infobox. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "The documentary received mostly positive reviews"  -- I removed this wording. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Image:Lord of the Universe vhs back.jpg appears to violate WP:NFCC, which states “Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.” It also violates NFCC#3B (it is not low resolution) and NFCC#8, as it does not appear to significantly contribute to our understanding.  Why is an image that is nothing but text over a gradient background needed?  The article contains a content summary, which eliminates the need for the top third of the image.  The middle third is reviews, which are covered in the reception section (we don’t need an image to understand it was reviewed) and the bottom third is copyright and unnecessary TVTV info .  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 14:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: I removed that second image. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Stricken, thanks. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 14:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

made some MOS changes to the article, and has stated I think the MOS issues are now fixed. Thank you so much for your help, Epbr123! Cirt (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.