Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Insider (film)/archive1

The Insider (film)
I think that this is an important film that depicts a significant event in United States history -- a big tobacco scientist admitting in a public forum (i.e. 60 Minutes) that cigarettes are addictive -- as well as a fascinating critique of American media and censorship as the interview that was conducted was subsequently censored because of corporate interference. Count Ringworm 19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Object That may be true, but the actual article has only four inline citations.--Rmky87 22:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Object mostly unsourced; opening paragraph says it is a 1999 film yet then says it was "later aired in 1996". Huh? Also object to the repeated use of the term "big tobacco". I'm not exactly sure what that means (Is there a little tobacco?), but I do know it is used in a negative manner by those biased against tobacco sellers and smokers. Therefore, I feel it is a violation against the NPOV policy here. --Jayzel 22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Per arguments above. Not only that there are only four citations, they are actually all from the same source. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 03:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Even though it is a great film and the subject matter important, I must Object per above. Also writing isn't the best. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 03:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Object Not even close. No continuity, it reads like a serious of disjointed sentences pulled from a bag, ditto the above, what's Big Tobacco?  Lead sentences to sections show a failure to identify the audience, it's not just fans of the film, it's anyone who wants to learn about the film for any reason.  "When Mann was in post-production on Heat, Bergman was going through the events depicted in The Insider."  The Mann is the director of the film, as the article is about the film, should have come before the mention of his contribution to the adaptation in the lead section.  Add this sentence about Mann "in post-production on Heat" and no one can tell what's going on.  What does Mann's interest in "doing a movie on an arms merchant in Marbella that Bergman knew" have to do with anything?  There are sentences all over that have nothing to do with the article, and there's not even an attempt to make the article a cohesive whole, or even join these stray fragrments on random topics to the article.  It's poorly written, the lead section is just a list, it is not written for a general encyclopedia's audience.  Too much wrong right now.   KP Botany 00:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Object - Lacks inline citations, needs a thorough copy edit. Lead contains more blue than black words. + Ceoil 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Object per above, and contains a Trivia section, which needs to be merged into more encyclopedic sections. The JPS talk to me  19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Seriously needs references. The controversy section doesn't have any citations, and it is the kind of section that would need strong ones. Besides, I kind of got lost in the controversy section.. I didn't understand why those people were accusing each other, based on what and for which reasons. That section doesn't look good in particular. Baristarim 23:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)