Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

 * Nominator(s): QatarStarsLeague (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, a motion picture. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Mark miller
Image review

All have the proper license and rationales for non free content, however, File:Participant Media logo.jpg does not pass NFCC# 8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.. The non free logo is certainly not needed to increase the readers understanding an its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. The company is mentioned in passing in a short section. I see no justification for use of the non free image in this section.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it. I have switched out the image. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Participant Media logo.jpg is free use, but also out of date. - hahnch e n 17:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, 1b/1c. There is no discussion in the article about the themes of the film, and relevant scholarly literature has not been cited. See for example:
 * I feel as that although this certainly merits inclusion within the article, its absence does should not doom its FA chances. The Mummy (1999 film) is an FA; no such section. The same with Casino Royale (2006 film), Transformers (film), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film), or, in addition to others not mentioned here, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Other articles having or not having a section is not generally a rationale unless it's an established style. The Film WikiProject definitely recommends a Themes section if warranted. From a brief search of scholarly journals, it seems that this film has been written about and examined in such publications. Therefore, this article is not comprehensive without using those sources. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think "Themes" is a required section if you work the information in elsewhere (per WP:MOSFILM) but the information is definitely out there and should be used. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think "Themes" is a required section if you work the information in elsewhere (per WP:MOSFILM) but the information is definitely out there and should be used. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there not a restriction of pay-to-access sources being used as references? I'm merely asking as I don't really know. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there is no restriction on pay-to-access sources. In fact, most scholarly journals are pay-to-access and any topic which is covered in academia will need those sources to be comprehensive. However, it is pretty easy to get access to databases which index these journals for free. Do you have access to a university or public library? If not, there is also The Wikipedia Library. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Prose and other criteria not reviewed. This is not ready. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean not reviewed by way of peer review? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I just mean I didn't do a detailed prose review because of the 1b/1c issue. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Given the absence of a "Themes" section or subsection, I share the opinion that the article is unready. Such a section should be in place, and I will work to install one as I continue to try and promote this article. In the meantime, this nomination has run its course I feel. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks guys. I'll treat that was a withdrawal, Qatar, and close this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.