Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The King's Speech/archive1


 * 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 by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 19 September 2011.

The King's Speech

 * Nominator(s): Ktlynch (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How did a story of "two grumpy men in a room" become a international pheonmeon? A little known relationship converted into a resonant, smartly made drama filled cinemas across the world and spent months collecting awards, especially for Colin Firth, who complained of "never being more nominated". Eight months after its general release in the UK, it has made hundreds of millions and collected the top Oscars and BAFTAs. The article still clocks up several thousand page views per day, I hope it is worthy of its subject ... Ktlynch (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The historical accuracy thing seems a bit toned down and buried. Do you think it best to lead in that section with a couple of paragraphs on how accurate they insisted on being, when the, well, liberties that they took with history are then given second place?   From what I recall when the film came out as well as when it was nominated that there was more coverage about the inaccuracies than there were about how careful they were (and I will say it is a majestically-presented film, pun intended). I've written 2 FAs on Chamberlain so I know how far from the facts they are varying.  George was a strident supporter of appeasement as was Mary and in fact, most of the Royal Family as long as it was convenient to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. There was a big brouhaha, but then opinion swung back to the reasoned centre, i.e. it's ok to change certain details to tell the story. Do you think that the factual differences should be more explicitly spelt out? I would be against any sort of enumeration of this. But am open to tinkering around with the structure of the section. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, the two writers who take up the appeasement point aren't actually criticising the film for supporting that policy, merely that it doesn't do enough to criticise it. A lot of others pointed out that the film isn't really about war or Chamberlain anyway, those are just background events to the personal narrative. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to keep going on about this, but I think it's a worthwhile point. The first, defensive sounding sentence has been deleted, partly for NPOV, partly for sourcing. The present first paragraph of the "historical accuracy" section could be moved to "Development". --Ktlynch (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I need to look it over. I'll be back to you by the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I still feel it is buried, and I suspect by your comment that your feeling expressed above about "reasoned centre" is reflected in the article. As I have no great desire to review this article in full, I will refrain from opposing, however, and will not stand in the way of promotion if others feel it is merited.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved the first paragraph which you weren't sure about. I hope this gets rid of the sense that material was being sandwiched so as to present it in a certain way. --Ktlynch (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Media Review
 * File:Affiche Internationale juane The King's Speech.jpg does not meet NFCC #8. Non-free images cannot be used for beautification, they must add substantially to the articles they are in. The poster itself isn't mentioned in the article, and the French version of the film gets a mere one line of text in the article. The image has to go.
 * The poster is mentioned in this section, and the fact it is a foreign version demonstrates the international release of the film. Several main posters were used to visually identify TKS around the world --Ktlynch (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added another bit about it, as well as a comparison to the original. There is plenty of comment but some of the sources I am not sure about. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Filming Colin and Helena.jpg and File:Tom Hooper directing The King's Speech.jpg are now licensed as CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0, not CC-BY 2.0. I'm not sure how to proceed here; I certainly haven't heard of the Flickr upload bot being fooled, but does the modified license (which is one we don't consider free) change anything?
 * I'll have a look, I remember it was freely licensed. --Ktlynch (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, meaning that once it has been made and the image has been properly uploaded to the Commons under that license, any subsequent change in the original source's license is invalid and the images remain on the Commons under the original Creative Commons license. I've added the proper tag to the image description pages. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Regan. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've verified (i.e. asked zscout370 to verify) the OTRS tickets at File:GeoffreyRush08TIFF.jpg and File:TomHooperColinFirthJan11.jpg as valid.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Ktlynch (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - a couple of minor nitpicks, shouldn't the fascist link direct to the British Union of Fascists? What was so rude about hand delivering a script to an actor? I think a brief explanation might help here as this part just left me a little confused. Lastly, the references from the directors commentary need times. Have a look at Over There (Fringe) as an example. Coolug (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a brief sub-clause explaining the correct way to offer a script. I pipe-linked the Union, since the posters in the film simply say "Fascism is practical patriotism". Unfortunately I do not have access to the DVD at the moment, so getting the times will be hard. It is definitely preferable, but all I can say is that the relevant comments are at their corresponding place in the chronology. ;) Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Could you please not strike out my comment regarding the directors commentary times? This is because the times have not been added to the references. Coolug (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I meant to do just the linking and clarification. Undone now. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to User:DrKiernan for these eagle-eyed copyedits.--Ktlynch (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * spotchecks?
 * It's a polite way of saying "going though and comparing the the sources with the article prose to make sure there's no plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Everyone gets spotchecked at FAC, so it's not personal.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I didn't mean it in an accusatory sense, though I'm guessing that it means the verification of sources isn't finished yet. I've seen an alternative sometimes on the FAC page, but obviously I'm not up to speed with the lingo! Aller, conintue! Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether you provide locations and publishers for newspapers
 * there were a few with them so I deleted them for consistency's sake. --Ktlynch (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether you use website names or base URLs for web citations, and if you use URLs how they are formatted. Also, for newspaper websites be consistent in whether you use the newspaper name, the publisher name, or the base URL
 * Generally used urls with a clickable title. I hope the stray exceptions have now been all swept up.


 * Sources that require subscription or registration should be noted as such
 * Just two, I added that in at the end of the ref

Deleted this
 * This link returns an error message
 * Dead links and tags need to be fixed
 * Cleared up - source was doubtful in any case

First deleted. Rotten tomatoes is widely used. It provides an aggregate of critical opinion. I think the later excerpts back up that analysis. The other is a film news website, it seems ok,not great, but I've been able to replace it with another.
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
 * Web citations need retrieval dates and publishers
 * Yes


 * Newspaper citations without weblinks need page numbers
 * Added a new secondary source which mentions the original article ( I suspect this was the real source. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "For critiques of the film, see e.g., Hitchens and Chotiner (above). For historical sources substantiating Churchill's stance during the abdication crisis, see e.g., Roy Jenkins's biography of Churchill (2001) and Frances Donaldson's biography of Edward VIII (1976)." - need more details, and there is no Hitchens and Chotiner above
 * Made some changes here, what do you think now? I'm not sure the note is needed at all. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized and what isn't, etc
 * Ok, have tried to italicise and link newspaper names only


 * FN 74: formatting
 * Fixed


 * FN 75: need more publisher info than "UK"
 * fixed


 * Don't include harv tags in Further reading, and Further reading formatting should match that used in citations.
 * removed it.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this close survey, my referencing will be of a higher standard in the future!!--Ktlynch (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment I suppose that the "Cast" section must be like this 50.17.45.35 (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Look at this. Guy546 ( Talk ) 19:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - comprehensive, well-written and interesting. Some points and suggestions.


 * Link check: DABs and ELs all OK.


 * Currencies: check MOS:CURRENCY for reference, a consistant "main currency" should be used throughout the whole article. When a value is given in a different currency, i would atleast add the converted value in parentheses.
 * Budget - box office value: especially for the casual reader comparing those values gives a first impression of the movie's "success". Omitting the converted value actually hinders reader's understanding of the article in that regard.
 * Cast: the list doesn't fit in well, but a lot of people like a cast list that way, so no general objection here. Adding the main image from Firth's biographical article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Colin_Firth_2011.jpg may help to spice this section up a bit (Rush already has a solo image in the article).
 * Production: "after he had completed it, he sent it to a few people for feedback." Vague and very short. The source has a lot more information. I realize, not every minor detail is needed, but maybe check the source, which information is most interesting or relevant for the feedback process and include that one as example.
 * Box Office: "In Australia The King's Speech made more than AUD$6,281,686 in the first two weeks, according to figures collected by the Motion Picture Distributors Association of Australia." ==> Source? (i couldn't find those numbers in next source). Per MOS:CURRENCY the article's main currency should be used (or added in parentheses for readers unfamiliar with AUD$).
 * Critical response: "Bradshaw said that Pearce's dispatch of the role "with some style" replaced the memory of Edward Fox playing the part.[74]" ==> Actually he said, the memory of Edward Fox play was "put to rest", not replaced - though he probably meant it that way. The mixture of quote and source interpretation is problematic. As Pearce's accomplishment is already covered in the previous sentence, maybe drop this sentence completely.GermanJoe (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Response to GermanJoe, thanks for these useful comments, I've implemented all suggestions.
 * i)I agree about the cast listing, especially in articles with infoboxes, but it's hard to get them out. Firth portrait adds a lot there now.
 * ii) For reference, here's the currency talk page discussion. GermanJoe, Erik, the MOS & I are in favour of parenthetical conversions. Escape Orbit continually reverted this and Ninja Dianna didn't think it necessary.
 * iii)The part in the production section was more for narrative, didn't want to include every single thing he did. I hope vagueness is gone now and the narrative remains.
 * iv)While the repeated mentions of Pearce's performance are of interest, I had already felt that it was slightly overstated. So I've removed the Bradshaw line as you suggest. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing those points. A source for the Australian box office statistic is still needed though. Ref 65 of Sydney Morning Herald doesn't cover that information (or i can't find it). All statistics should have the source, where the editor obtained them. GermanJoe (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignore last comment, i am obviously blind (source is OK). Change to support. GermanJoe (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Procedural discussion moved to talk. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * There is an inconsistency with some of the refs. For example, The Daily Telegraph is cited as Daily Telegraph in ref 5, but then its correct title in ref 76 (which is also over linked).
 * Fixed. TClapton (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are quite a few instances of overlink. Only link a work and publisher on its first appearance.
 * I deleted some, and am going through the article again to catch others. Normally i leave one in the lead, one link in the body and after that contract someone's name and not link it anymore.--Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking of TDT, why do some refs have its UK location, but not others
 * Fixed--Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Guardian in ref 48 should be in italics
 * Fixed. TClapton (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think ref 46 might be better off as a note
 * Not sure, this has been discussed above. It's a bibliographical reference rather than an expansionary note.--Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Refs 21, 35, 62, 70 and 72 are not correctly formatted
 * How so? There is no date in 21 in the source. The others can I cannot see a clear problem. --Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do some refs have works and publisher but others only works?
 * Usually the title of the publication suffices, in cases where there might be a doubt about reliability, such as certain websites, more information is included.--Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Avoid caps in titles such as ref 38
 * Fixed. TClapton (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ref 60: its Los Angeles Times, not The Los Angeles Times
 * Fixed. TClapton (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Instead of writing in italics about needing its subscription, why not put { subscription } in ref 11
 * Done--Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Crystal Clear x3 05:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Commments
 * I think this article is inconsistently cited. I suggest always using templates.
 * The references have been checked many times, we so many people working on the article things get changed, all some sources are missing information, such as the date from ref 21 (see above). For references the chosen style is: "authorlastname, firstname, (date), title, publication. Retrieved...."--Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Instead of curly quotation marks, use straight ones.
 * I'm not a typographic expert, but I ran a find and underline though the article and couldn't find any typographic quotation marks. Straight ones are preferred, but it's not absolutely neccessary. --Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

TClapton (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from nominator Thanks for all editors who have taken the time to check the reference formatting. Crucial for verifiability, but I'm surprised not to have more checks one what those sources say, and more substantive critiques of the article as a whole. Call me masochistic, but that's what I came here for!! Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose on references. Most of the sources are missing crucial publishers. Just because you have the work, does not mean you can skip another key point from the reference formula. I also question the reliability of sources #11, 12, 19. Why are #22 and 23 different? What about #24? I have several in question, and many are missing key parameters. I have this page watch-listed, so I'd be happy to come by and re-consider my oppose once certain issues have been met.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   08:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nathan, when the work itself is well-known, then the publisher can be omitted. See the documentation at Template:Cite news. Most of the references are mainstream publications with their own blue links. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 03:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explanation Erik, but there are further issues. #24 should be italics, why doesn't #62 use the cite news template? If you are not going to list publishers, than be consistent. Here he lists Fairfax Media. What makes #35 and 76 reliable?-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the references should be consistent in formatting. You raise a good point about #35, but for #76, the publisher AlloCiné appears pretty official to me. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 03:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * replaced #11 & 12, #35
 * #76 is reliable, it is a database and has professional editing. Respected source in France.
 * #24 In general, publications not institutions are italicised, hence the difference.
 * Erik explains it quite well about the publishers. I removed the Fairfax Media, ironic that removing info improves the article. It would be silly to say that the Guardian is published by the Guardian Group for instance.
 * Regarding key parameters, all references include the author's name (where given), the date of publication (where marked), the title of the article, its url if online, the publication and the retrieval date. --Ktlynch (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I feel like it is awfully soon for this article to be a featured article candidate. Best Picture winners are pretty well-studied, and it seems premature to put this article in the running before the film is analyzed through an academic lens. For example, American Beauty (film) has a bibliography of references many of which were published years after the film was released. While the article appears to make the best use out of the information printed so far, I still get the impression that more is to come. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 03:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Erik, your point is right -- better sources appear over time. However the FA criteriion "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" make reference to avaliable literature. If, in the future, better material becomes avaliable and the article is not representative of it then it would be liable to be delisted. --Ktlynch (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The FA criteria does not mention available literature, just relevant literature. For this important work of fiction, I think that the relevant literature has yet to come. Obviously, we cannot wait until the end of time to survey all the relevant literature about the film, but in my experience, the ensuing years after a film's recognition will often result in analysis of the film. Without including that analysis, I just think that the article will come off as too contemporary when it could be even better with retrospective references. For example, 300 (film) became featured within a year of the film's release, and there are now numerous retrospective sources from 2009-2010 that aren't being used. I just find a certain reluctance with the delisting process. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It says "relevant literature": that can hardly include literature that does not exist. You can't really judge something on the hypothesis that other relevancies might exist hereforthwith. We should do the best we can now. Plenty of articles have been delisted, if you feel that process is lacking you should beef it up, not try and see the future here. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: 300 doesn't use superior sources to here, some of the superhero websites cited there I think would be criticised here. There are sigificant discrepancies in formatting there too. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I am not opposing because I agree with you that the feature article criteria does not quite encapsulate my viewpoint. However, the criteria was designed to be applied to all subject matter—quite the feat. I'm just not sure if the criteria as written applies well to very new topics (especially compared to all the ones that are long relegated to history). The peak of coverage for this topic, judging from the references, was around last February and March—when it won all these awards. I'm suggesting that an article about this kind of film ought to have some semblance of retrospective, analytical coverage before it becomes featured. You want to work with what exists now, I understand. You don't want to make presumptions about what will be printed in the future, but in my experience researching different kinds of films, I am very confident that such coverage will exist for this Best Picture winner. Let me show you what I mean. The previous Best Picture winner was The Hurt Locker, which is still pretty recent, and we have a couple of sources here and here, not to mention Google Scholar Search results. Before that film was Slumdog Millionaire, which has sources like this and additional Google Scholar Search results. Before then was No Country for Old Men, well-studied especially since it's the Coens, and numerous results are here and here. That's why I suggest waiting because I don't think we need to be in a hurry. If you disagree, that is okay. :) I am just sharing my thoughts here for reviewers' considerations. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Erik, you're still making a massive leap in reading the criterion: it simply says "relevant" there's no way that can include hypothetical literature. A couple of examples of previous Oscar winners means nothing, so what in those cases? Academics don't decide on research themes on the basis of a flippant awards ceremony. I repeat that you'd be better off doing better sweeps of existing FA/A/GA articles to make sure everything's still up-to-date, that catches changing standards, erosion of quality through vandalism & other edits, and new avaliable information. Secondly, if you are suggesting there isn't strong sources I'd look again, there's a good lot of deep analysis in them, including, e.g., American Cinematographer (like American Beauty) not just awards fluff. Interesting debate, but it might be more suited to the talk page. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Best Picture winners (and nominees) are studied because they are considered some of the best films of the given year. I gave you several recent examples of the recent winners alone, but I can do more with older winners and nominees old and new. There's a definite presence of retrospective analysis when it comes to these films. I'm not sure why such analysis should be dismissed and why there's a hurry to get Featured Article status so soon. This film will have its due, in which we can place this subject in context. That might be the featured article criterion it does not meet when the article does not look back on this film at all. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.