Wikipedia:Featured article review/Blade Runner/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria 16:44, 2 August 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: RoyBoy, DrKiernan, WikiProject Film

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is no longer up to standards for a featured article, as it was promoted almost six years ago. There are many facts that are missing references (most of which have been tagged) and too many lists for an article, most of which could be converted into prose to help the article flow much better. Some of the lists may also be split into a new list article. I spend the past several months in a FA nomination for another film article, and I am very familiar with the expectations and requirements for an article to become FA status, and feel that this article needs a lot of work in order to retain its status.

As far as content, the article is well-written; however, the "Derivative works" section needs some attention. I think there is too much detail and I don't think a separate section is necessary for each documentary that has been made about the film. The lists of every single DVD/Blu-ray special feature (along with its run time in minutes and seconds) is an example of both bulletted information that takes away from the prose and how there is too much detail, which can be removed. The "Cast and characters" sections should be merged into "Casting" and "Production" as a lot of the section contains quotes from the actors about the film's production or their opinions about the film, which can be relocated elsewhere. – Dream out loud (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The statements requiring verification (concentrated in the Soundtrack and Derivative works section) are of minor significance and most can be verified against the relevant primary source material. The list of accolades could arguably be split, but it's not overwhelming as is. The Derivative works section is a little over-detailed and could use tightening up, and yes there is perhaps some redundancy between Cast and Casting/Production. These are by and large cosmetic issues and don't rise to the level of requiring FAR in my (disinterested) opinion.  Skomorokh   18:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * 2c There are reference related cleanup tags throughout the article. deadlink, citation needed, page number etc.
 * 3 File:BladeRunner Spinner.jpg, File:BladeRunner Sun.jpg and File:BladeRunner Spinner Billboard.jpg are copyrighted images that do not have a fair use statement for inclusion in the article Blade Runner. Overall there are four non-free images in the article. Reconsider the importance of each image and attempt to reduce non-free usage. All photos in the article need alt text. Brad (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As I may have not explisitly mentioned, there are no major problems with the article, there are (were) just tons of minor ones, but too many to the point where they weren't being taken care of. It looks like progress has been made over some issues, but here's a list of some other things that should be done:
 * Add alt text to all images (check altviewer)
 * Consolidate lists into prose, particularly the "Cast and characters" and "Versions" section. Since both sections already have their own separate "List of..." articles, I don't think a list in this article is necessary.  "Cast and characters" could be merged into "Casting", eliminating the bulleted list.  Fight Club (film) and Little Miss Sunshine are good examples of this.
 * The prose in reception could be expanded. Most of the section is just a table of all the rewards it either recieved or was nominated for, but there isn't too much discussion about the reception in general.  Only three specific critics are mentioned in the section (two of whom had some sort of negative reaction) and other critical references use weasel words.
 * "Documentaries" section is a little too detailed. Information about the documentaries should be included (since they're each about 1/2 hour to 3 hours long), but doesn't need to be as detailed.
 * Very little information about home video releases is included. Unlike most films, Blade Runner has had a significant home video releases, since the most common release for the longest time was different from the theatrical version.  I don't know of any other individual feature films that have been released in 5-disc DVD/Blu-ray sets.  More detail about these releases and the information behind them (creation, packaging, reception) is also worth mentioning.  (Not the mention of each and every special feature included though.)
 * In general, prose should be cleaned up for better flow. There are a lot of paragraphs as short as two sentences long that should be moved into the larger ones somehow.
 * – Dream out loud (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the review section include referencing, prose, MOS compliance, images and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment As there are (to quote from above) "no major problems with the article", I don't see why we would want to delist.  Skomorokh   11:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Update I have addressed the list issues, cast section and alt test. I do not see many templates, and documentaries looks fine... as it has already been significantly reduced. - RoyBoy 23:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist per criteria 3 . Comment As noted above there are still open issues with non-free media that have not been addressed. The spinner pics were questioned on the talk page last December and were never resolved. On another note, why is there bold text scattered throughout the article? Brad (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Brad (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. 2c and 3 have been resolved satisfactorily. Brad (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, is there anything actually significantly awry with the article? These trivialities seem better fit for the article talkpage (or even immediate improvements) than requiring a featured article review.  Skomorokh   23:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why everyone is making a big deal about this article is getting delisted. When I nominated this article, I did so because I wanted to see it improved, not delisted.  This is a featured article "review" and the purpose here is to review and improve the article, not try take away its FA-status.  So is there anything significantly wrong with the article?  No.  Is it up to FA-standards?  No.  But it's getting close and this review has helped, and I really don't think this article will be delisted, especially since that was never my intention. – Dream out loud  (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, a note on procedure: if you read the intro at WP:FAR, it makes out there are three stages to the process: raising issues on the article talkpage, a more formal review with an eye to the FA criteria deficiencies, and finally a delisting discussion. The "review and improve" stage was the second one; we are now at "Featured article removal candidate (FARC) commentary" where the purpose of discussion is to assess whether delisting is necessary.  Skomorokh   07:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Criteria 3: Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Article currently fails the criteria which is certainly not "trivial". Brad (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know the procedure says, but as far as I'm concerned, the article is still being reviewed and improved. I don't think a delist is necessary, but we still need some improvement, and before this FAR started no improvements were being made. – Dream out loud  (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe it should be keep. The article may need some small details fixed but on the whole, though I have not yet checked the refs and their quality, I believe it meets FA criteria.
 * Linkrot - I have checked the refs and fixed the only dead link (according to CheckLinks).
 * Images:
 * I have looked at the alt text and made them more descriptive rather than repetitions of the captions.
 * I have checked the fair-use rationales and licences and see no problems there after amending one.
 * I will perform a copy-edit for prose, MoS compliance etc., though it initially seems in a good state.
 * One comment I noted above concerned the derivative works section which I have also deboldened as per MoS. I think the issues with the Documentaries sub-section are content versus weight and their location. On the Edge of Blade Runner and Future Shocks could be cut down slightly; Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner and All Our Variant Futures: From Workprint to Final Cut are included on various of the DVD releases and are fairly succinct. I am not sure how a Channel 4 or TVOntario documentary are derivative works and, though released on the DVDs, the same for the other two. Should these not be, respectively, in an "In media" section and "DVD extras" as a sub-section of "Versions"? Chaosdruid (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Criteria 3 on media is still in violation. Please read what I've outlined twice already during this review. Brad (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have and had before I posted, though it may be that I misunderstood what you see the problems as being. If I read things correctly the media would surely be up for deletion if they were not following the criterion for fair use.
 * It seems that the only remaining objection is: "Overall there are four non-free images in the article. Reconsider the importance of each image and attempt to reduce non-free usage."
 * Is this correct?
 * The images are used in three specific instances: BladeRunner Sun.jpg for the depiction of "Film Noir" mise en scene; BladeRunner Spinner Billboard.jpg to depict the use of buildings as bill boards (to differentiate between a billboard on a building and a building as a billboard)
 * BladeRunner Spinner.jpg is used as a depiction of the spinner, though it is not really necessary for the spinner description it is certainly better to show the lights and smog effects. It could be removed without detracting from the article as a whole, though it certainly helps to visualise the description.
 * I know you may feel that you are repeating yourself, but can you please put the specifics of how you feel these still fail. THanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok then. There are four non-free images in the article:
 * File:Blade Runner poster.jpg is correctly licensed.
 * File:BladeRunner Spinner.jpg is correctly licensed.
 * File:BladeRunner Sun.jpg and File:BladeRunner Spinner Billboard.jpg are the ones with issues. I corrected the licensing template on both files so that they now state: Non-free media use rationale for Blade Runner which were previously stating: Non-free media use rationale which was not specific to the article Blade Runner. However, both of these files were apparently at one time used in the article cyberpunk and their current rationales still reflect the reasoning for that article. The rationales need to be specific for Blade Runner; not cyberpunk and both rationales need to point out the exact reason why they're used here. You were the first person to justify the two "spinner" type pics; one to illustrate a spinner and the other to illustrate the billboards. I see the difference now. Brad (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem above still has not been addressed. Brad (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I thought you had done that. I will address that now. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good thanks. Delist now struck. Brad (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Can we please get some further comments on whether this should be kept or delisted? This article has been at FARC for over a month, and there has only been one solid keep/delist declaration made. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon revisit I notice there are a lot of 2c problems with citation uniformity. Brad (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)... The 2c problems have been fixed. Brad (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As detailed at Talk:Blade Runner, the article used to be consistent but then User:Horkana came along and changed some of the references while leaving others, and I was too exhausted by the inanity of the argument to put up a fight. DrKiernan (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It's been open long enough, and the article has improved. It's time to close and move on. DrKiernan (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


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