Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kung Fu Hustle


 * 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 removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 03:46, 26 June 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notifications: Alasdair, WP Films (Chinese task force), WP Hong Kong, WP Comedy.

The article has no information on critical reception outside of the US, which I have already pointed out at the talkpage and by placing a banner in the article. I have also previously tried to get the attention of primary contributor Alasdair. To me it seems like this falls somewhere between comprehensiveness and neutrality. I believe that a film FA should have at least a minimum of information about critical reception in Hong Kong, and possibly other markets where the film has been successful.

Peter Isotalo 11:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never contributed significantly on film articles - do you know what are some reliable sources for critical reviews and reception of non-US or Asian/Chinese movies? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know this specific topic, but I would imagine that major newspapers is a good place to start.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You said "the article has no information on critical reception outside of the US", and that's false. That section mentioned the box office result and awards received in Hong Kong. So the tag of "not representing a worldwide view of the subject" shouldn't even be there in the first place. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Critical reception is as far as I understand reviews, not commercial results and awards.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to do something about it, but I have real life issues to deal with at the moment. Ask someone else please.-- Alasdair 13:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is comprehensiveness/balance.  YellowMonkey   ( cricket calendar poll! '') 02:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, the FAR nominator indeed raises a valid concern that certainly should be addressed and dealt with in more depth at the article's talk page, but the article is of a high quality and well-sourced, and this isn't something worth losing its FA status over, IMHO. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I basically agree with Cirt, without denying that Peter has a point, and the section in question should be improved.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A tiny and trivial section shouldn't interfere with the big picture. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I filed this FAR hoping that my comments about the bias would be amended quickly, not that it would linger here for several weeks. I guess we might as well close this now as long. I'm satisfied as long as no one removes the tag in the article until it's properly amended. Peter Isotalo 09:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the purpose of FARC is to settle such issues, and keep the high level of the FAs. Thus if we close the FAR keeping the tag at the same time (which means that no improvement was made) are we doing our job properly?--Yannismarou (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think an RFC is needed to hurry things up  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 23:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The reception section looks balanced to me, with some positive and some negative comments ascribed to named critics, one of whom is from Hong Kong and two of which are American. I've added two references to British reviews, which parrot the comments already in the section. DrKiernan (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist. This article has not been checked for MOS issues. I found WP:ACCESS, WP:MOS punctuation issues, WP:MOS, left-aligned images under third-level headings, WP:MOSNUM issues, MULTIPLE missing publishers in the citations, empty parameters in cite templates that could be cleaned out, so I stopped there.  Concerned about all of these keeps when there are still things to be addressed. There are also prose issues:  from a non-gamer, what the heck is "A MMO 2D Side-scrolling Fighter Game ..." ?  Do others really think this prose is FA level?  "Two-thirds of the time were spent shooting the fighting sequences."  When publishers aren't even provided, has reliability of sources been reviewed?  Tools added:  several dabs and multiple dead links also need attention.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - Sandy asked me to comment, so these were the concerns I noted. What makes http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/6581.asp a reliable source for the information that the movie developed a cult like following and that it was the highest grossing foreign language film in the United States in 2005? Three deadlinks in the refs. What makes http://www.movieweb.com/news/NEa2riad0SBYdc reliable? What makes http://www.soundtrackcollector.com/catalog/soundtrackdetail.php?movieid=70817 reliable? Whether this is worth a keep or a delist, I don't know. There were indeed a number of refs lacking publisher information, also. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist. This is a pretty good article, but not one that meets the current Featured article criteria, specifically 1a (prose), 1b (comprehensiveness) and a little 1c (quality of sources). The sourcing issues, as described by Ealdgyth above, are likely the easiest to fix; it shouldn't be too hard to find alternative sources that, for example, list the film as a cult favourite in Western markets. Similarly, should someone have the time to work on this, the prose and manual of style issues can perhaps be tackled well enough to give it a pass. However, I find myself agreeing with the nominator that there is a huge gap in the article's coverage; how a film was perceived, by reviewers and audiences alike, is a major—not "tiny and trivial"—part of a film article's makeup; how the film ("the highest grossing in the history of Hong Kong") was perceived in its primary territory is a chief among the information that should be included in such a section. If there was an indication that the issue was going to be worked on, it wouldn't be such a big deal, but as the original nominator is currently inactive, and with a lack of editors able to source reliable information from the primary market, the gap will remain for some time yet. I have several other concerns with the article, but to avoid clogging up this FAR page, I've listed them at Talk:Kung Fu Hustle. Issues include original research and synthesis, prose complaints, MOS issues (as described by Sandy above) and out-of-date information. Perhaps few of these alone would be enough to warrant a delist, but cumulatively they point to an article that needs an overhaul before it can be considered an example of "Wikipedia's best work". All the best, Steve  T • C 10:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Leaning de-list I've only read parts of the article, but I too have concerns not only with 1b but with 1a. The comments above about the quality of sources seem troubling. Not having any information on the critical reception (other than awards) in its home country seems quite odd, even if such a section would probably only be a paragraph. Imagine an article on a Hollywood movie that focused solely on non-American reception. Also missing is any discussion of how the story/script evolved. "Chow's first priority was to design the main location of the film..." Really? Some odd prose throughout as well. "Many of the props and furniture in the apartments were antiques from all over China." OK, great, but why? The all too common problem of describing the production process without digging deeper into the motivation behind it (i.e. how does it serve what they were trying to achieve in the moving). "Yuen managed to take seemingly outdated wuxia fighting styles like the Deadly Melody and Buddhist Palm and recreate them on the screen with his own imagination." "Managed to"? Also, the first half (the focus on "outdated") does not contrast with the second half (recreation on the screen). And why "with his own imagination"? What does that mean? "In spite of the film's success, Yuen Wah worried that nowadays fewer people practice martial arts." Again, quite a disconnect between the two thoughts. "Having lost the Taiwanese film market in the late 1980s following a visit to China, he switched to doing business." Wuh? "Doing business"? "Having been asked whether she wanted to have any dialogue in the film, she decided not to speak so as to stand out only with her body gestures." Asked by whom? Context? What is this trying to say? TwilligToves (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed because of combination of OR, prose and citations.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.