Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manos: The Hands of Fate


 * 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 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Manos: The Hands of Fate
Self Nomination. Article I managed to get GA'd back in November on what has been described as one of the worst films ever made. I realize that I haven't gotten any replies to Peer Review yet, but I'm feeling a bit lucky and don't know how much more can be done on this article. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This has got to be my favorite MST3K ever, and possibly one of my favorite "bad" films, so i'm glad to see this so close. My concern is with the structure - the MST3K issue (which is really the only reason anyone knows this flick) is causing the prose to jump all over the place.  Is there a reason the production is before the plot?  How about in reaction?  Again, the MST3K thing makes some issues, but is there a reason for how you decided to handle it that way, as opposed to noting the MST3K stuff following it?  I'm positive you'll get my support, but I'm just curious for now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm fairly certain that this is breaking ground as far as articles about films and TV episodes are concerned (i.e. I am unaware of any other MST3K articles this far in development.) I guess I was treating it primarly as a film article, and I left the production section there at the top...erm...because it seemed to fit. The same form is used on the Star Wars films, as well as a few others. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 03:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right - this is an unprecedented FAC in terms of what this article has to mention and deal with. Support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks pretty good. Appropriate length, very readable, meets all the criteria. --- RockMFR 20:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Excellent article, but I don't see the reason for the bottom two images (the master and the hal warren pic)- they don't explain anything relevant concerning the article. If you're claiming fair use, they have to be in the article for something other than decoration. Borisblue 05:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried rewriting the fair use rationales for the pictures you wanted removed. If the problem is with the images themselves, do you have any suggestions for alternatives that would be considered fitting for the article or do you think the poster and the clapboard shot are enough? --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 15:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a shot of Torgo's "knees" would be valid. It is criticized in the article as an example of the film's amatuerishness. Borisblue 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was a good shot of Torgo's knees in the film, but I have found a rather small picture of him walking from behind from the MST cut. You think maybe this pic of him and the Master might work better?
 * There's one of him walking on this page, but it's a bit faded. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The second picture is perfect! (the quality looks OK to me given it's an oldish (and poorly made) film: the pictures already on the article aren't much better)- it nicely illustrates a point criticized on the article- that is, the way they tried to portray Torgo as a satyr by giving him weird pants. I would still want the master and the hal warren pictures removed before I give my support however. The foundation resolution here permits fair use for this type of thing only within "narrow limits". The Torgo and clapboard pics are necessary to illustrate points given in the article: the Hal Warren pic isn't needed. (There is nothing special about his appearance, or of that particular shot that requires a picture to illustrate. Borisblue 15:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 16:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Enthusiastic Support Borisblue 16:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Excellent article. The retrieval dates of citations—should not they be linked (per Manual of Style (dates and numbers), to allow readers' date preferences to work)? --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Comment. A good article with just a few issues before I can give support.  The "Plot" section is under-cited.  I couldn't figure out which source the plot details were drawn from.  Looking at another FA movie article (Dog Day Afternoon) it seems that the article outline should be:  intro, plot, production, cast, reaction/response, aftermath/legacy (after Manos).  I think the "make-out couple" image should be moved down further in the article so that it won't crowd the text around the infobox.  By the way, I saw this "film" when it was originally aired on MST3K.  The film was so excruciatingly painful to watch I almost turned it off in spite of the accompanying MST3K jokes. Cla68 23:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When I rewrote the article, I was modeling it mostly on the Star Wars films, and felt that the story of the film's production was interesting enough to be placed up front as in their model. From what I can tell, there is no established model for film article section arrangement (my other recent nomination, Borat!, has a plot section first.) Also, few film articles have extensive citations within their plot summaries. I don't know about where else the "make out" image could go. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 03:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, A New Hope does follow the same pattern as this article. I moved the image down. Cla68 03:55, 7 May 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.