Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)/archive1


 * 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 10:35, 28 September 2007.

Review commentary

 * Messages left for Ibaranoff24 (top contributor and nominator), Uthanc, and Josiah Rowe and the Middle-earth, Films, and American Animation WikiProjects.
 * Original review at Featured article candidates/The Lord of the Rings (1978 film).

To me, this article fails 1a, 2a, and possibly 3. I opposed the article's FA candidacy, but for some reason my opinion was overlooked and the article was promoted. Just looking at the lead, writing problems are everywhere:

"J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is a 1978 animated fantasy film directed by Ralph Bakshi. It is an adaptation of the first half of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Set in Middle-earth, the film follows a group of Hobbits, Elves, Men, Dwarves and Wizards who form a Fellowship and embark on a quest to destroy the One Ring made by the Dark Lord Sauron, and with it, ensure his destruction. The screenplay was written by Peter S. Beagle. An earlier draft was written by Chris Conkling, but not used.[2] The film features the voice work of, among others, William Squire, John Hurt, Michael Graham Cox and Anthony Daniels." 2nd paragraph: "Director Ralph Bakshi first encountered Tolkien's writing in the early days in his career, and made several attempts to produce The Lord of the Rings as an animated film before successfully gaining funding from producer Saul Zaentz and distributor United Artists.[3] The film was produced mostly utilizing rotoscoping, wherein many scenes were shot in live-action first and then traced onto animation cels.[3] The film is notable for featuring some of the most extensive use of the technique. Although the film received a mixed reaction from critics, and was deemed to be a flop by the original distributors, who refused to fund a sequel that would have covered the remainder of the story, the film was a success,[4][5] and sparked new interest in Tolkien's writing, inspiring the production of several further adaptations of the story."
 * I know they're incredibly popular, but a quick explanation of what Tolkien's work is would be nice.
 * Is "with it" in the third sentence necessary?
 * The fifth sentence feels like it's just dropped in there for no reason.
 * "Among others"? Is that necessary?
 * "first encountered"-don't need first
 * "early days in his career" of his career
 * "mostly utilizing rotoscoping"-how about just using rotoscoping?
 * The final sentence goes on way too long.

And that's just the lead. The Plot section, also badly written, feels more like the back cover of a book than an encyclopedia covering a synopsis of the film. Example:"In the early years of the Second Age of Middle-earth, the Elven-smiths forged nineteen Rings of Power for mortal Men, the Dwarf-lords, and the tall Elf-kings. Eventually the Dark Lord Sauron made the One Ring to rule them all. As the Last Alliance of Men and Elves fell beneath his power, the Ring fell into the hands of Prince Isildur of the mighty kings from across the sea."

Differences from the Book is just a ton of stubby paragraphs loosely jumbled together, instead of tight paragraphs describing major differences. Some of them don't even seem that noteworthy: "The hobbits' first encounter with a Ringwraith is treated differently: in the novel, Frodo hides separately from the other hobbits;[9] in the film, together with them." Cast section is just a list of blue links that mostly go nowhere. Why does (voice) have to go after every single entry? Can't it just be said, "The film featured the voice talents of..." Pre-production and Production have some text, but they're about half taken directly from quotes. I can understand using quotes to strongly emphasize an important point, but they should not tell the whole story and be used as much as they are here, that's Wikipedia's job. Reception feels a little small, although I can understand if there aren't many sources for this film. But using Rotten Tomatoes's percentage for an old film like this doesn't say much.

Images: The two in Pre-Production don't look like they add much, and of the dual images in Legacy, the bottom one is kinda dark to really tell anything from it.

I feel strongly that more work has to be done (and I'd be glad to help) to make this article of featured quality.--Dark Kubrick 19:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR and use The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) to notify the other top contributors, Uthanc and Josiah Rowe. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about not notifying those two others, they are now aware.--Dark Kubrick 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dark Kubrick that more work needs to be done and it needs to be done ASAP. Greg Jones II 03:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment — I reverted the page to an earlier version and made a few tweaks. (Ibaranoff24 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment — The article is currently listed at requests for proofreading. (Ibaranoff24 16:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment — I expanded the article a bit and I really think it's better than when it was passed as a featured article. It's not as detailed about the process of making the film as I would like it to be, but it's not like I have a whole lot of resources I can access regarding this film. With Fritz the Cat and Coonskin, I was able to find quite a lot detailing the production of these two films, but it's not the case with Lord of the Rings. I still think it's better than before, and I hope it'll still be featured. It can only get better. The "differences from the book" section is still pesky, but that will get fixed during the copyediting process. (Ibaranoff24 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC))
 * I'd like to say that you and Uthanc are doing a good job; the article has certainly improved already, and you've got plenty of time to make more improvements. I'm not too worried about detail of the production of the film; I sympthasize with you on how hard it is to find good and reliable sources for old films like this one. I'm more concerned about the presentation of the material you have in the article now, which is very good anyway. But could the Pre-production and Production sections be merged? And while the quotes don't stand out from the text anymore, there are still many of them throughout the sections. Sometimes they tell the story for the article, sometimes they add unnecessary detail (ex. the last quote in Pre-production). But regardless, keep up the good work.--Dark Kubrick 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - If there are any more issues left, this FAR won't go to FARC. Greg Jones II 02:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Greg Jones...if there are any more issues left, it should go to FARC...Anyway, unfortunately the article seems to be failing criterion 1c now:
 * On ref #5, the link no longer goes to the article's title, but just a main index for current films.
 * On ref #19, IMDB trivia is used twice. IMDB's trivia is not a reliable source.
 * Ref #20 is supposed to be referencing this statement: "Much of the film used live-action footage which was then rotoscoped to produce an animated look", but the ref is just pictures of the live-action shoot. How does this prove it was rotoscoped?
 * Ref #21 is referencing this sentence: "while Sharon Baird served as the performance model for Frodo Baggins." but the ref is just a picture of Bakshi and Baird grinning for a picture. How does that verify anything!?!?
 * Ref #25 is a link to Google Video. I'm guessing that there was a video of the reference, but apparently it's been removed. Regardless, I believe the video shouldn't be used, but I'm not sure.
 * Refs #27-29 use an interview posted on a website forum. This is unreliable as well, no matter who conducted the interview.
 * Apparently, more work is required than I thought.--Dark Kubrick 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — The official Ralph Bakshi website is a more than acceptable source. Information from the director himself is reliable. (Ibaranoff24 15:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC))
 * I assume you're referring to information from refs #27-29. Yes, information from the director is certainly the most reliable information, but the fact that it was conducted by and posted on a message board makes it unreliable.--Dark Kubrick 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the director's official website. I haven't had any objections to using it as a reference before. (Ibaranoff24 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC))
 * It's the forum on the director's official website. Information from that board is not official, as anyone can make up or alter anything there. Could someone else chime in on this discussion?--Dark Kubrick 21:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The website was put together by Bakshi's daughter. The interview was conducted by someone who works for the Bakshis, and is an administer on the forum, not some random fanboy. While it is true that on a message board, anyone can make up things, it is 100% unlikely that the Bakshis would allow false information or fake interviews to be passed off as legit. Things are a little more in control there than you think. (Ibaranoff24 14:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC))
 * I think forums are ok if it's the actual person, like how Roberto Orci chimed in on the Transformers message boards. Alientraveller 10:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To weigh in, I'm not confident that forum references meet the reliable source criteria. First of all, the information isn't published (as it is a message on a forum) anywhere that would make the verifiability absolute, such as coverage by The New York Times.  It's not immediately verifiable that the information on the forum is appropriate; there's no telling what kind of editorial oversight exists to maintain the quality of information.  I would suggest replacing the references with something that would be indisputable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree that this article has some issues that need to be addressed. Both "Omissions" and "Modifications" do not seem to have any real-world context established; like Dark Kubrick mentioned above, what is the encyclopedic value of noting that Frodo hid with the other Hobbits in one medium, but not the other?  In adaptations of the source materials, there will usually be a shopping list of changes, ranging from minor to major; the most relevant ones are the ones that have been pointed out independently, instead by the editors themselves.  Also, the Reception section seems severely lacking -- there is no detailed critical reaction, positive or negative, to the film.  What did the critics like about it, what did they dislike about it?  The section should be expanded.  This is just a preliminary glance, and these items seem major enough to need addressing.  There may be more, like what Dark Kubrick has pointed out, so this is just a start. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment- doesn't have that many references now. The sunder king 20:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: When this was a Featured Article Candidate, I expressed major concerns about the following claim, which is still included in the lead:  "The film...was deemed to be a flop by the original distributors, who refused to fund a sequel that would have covered the remainder of the story. However, the film was a success..."  This still makes absolutely no sense to me.  Why would United Artists "deem" the film a flop if it was a success?  Is there a reliable source or reference that notes distributor representatives proclaiming the film to be a failure despite the fact that it turned a profit?  If the film made money for them, wouldn't they naturally finance sequels instead of "refusing" to do so?  The way this has been written raises many more questions than it answers.  Also, the two references which claim the film was in fact a success appear questionable to me.  According to the book's index, Maltin's Of Mice and Magic mentions Bakshi and Lord of the Rings only once, on page 342, and the text on that particular page says nothing about whether the film made money or not.  Also the referenced New York Times article  simply notes, regarding Wizards and LOR, that "a fair sum of money poured in at the box office."  Neither one of these references really seem to note definitively that the film was a box office success.  I think the claim that the film was both a flop and a success needs to be rethought/rephrased, with adequate sources provided.  There may be other issues with this article, as the editors above have noted, but I haven't read beyond the lead paragraphs yet.  However, I do agree with Erik that the "Reception" section seems to be amazingly skimpy.-Hal Raglan 01:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I rewrote it to simply state that United Artists did not provide funding for a sequel. I remember Bakshi saying that the studio told him he flopped. I'm not sure what interview this was in. If someone can find a good source for the earlier statement, put the original sentence back in. I've only skimmed through Maltin's book in a store, and I don't actually own a copy, because there were only a couple of things that I found significant, so I chose to memorize those two facts rather than buy the book, but it's in there. It's at the end of the section on Bakshi. He says that Fritz the Cat and Lord of the Rings were the only two works in Bakshi's filmography in the 1970s that were significantly successful. (Ibaranoff24 06:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC))
 * I took the liberty of removing the part about the distributor "deeming the film a flop" as this was directly contradicted by the remark that the film was a success.-Hal Raglan 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments, completely unformatted blue-linked URL citations, and incomplete refs (for example, without a date for the New York Times article, how can it be found in a library?) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I corrected the unformatted citations. I am not aware of an undated New York Times citation. (Ibaranoff24 03:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC))
 * I've found the citation you were referring to and I have corrected it. (Ibaranoff24 03:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

So...while substantial work has been done, the article still has a ways to go, and it's been more than two weeks. Move to FARC?--Dark Kubrick 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), LEAD (2a), and images (3). Marskell 19:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep — Article has been significantly improved since the FAR started. (Ibaranoff24 13:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Remove-Yes, while the article has definitely improved a lot, and I'm grateful to all those who helped, it's still not FA material. What about the unreliable references used in Bakshi's message board forum, or the writing in the plot section (not to mention other parts of the article), and several unnecessary or unhelpful images, like the comparison image in Legacy where it's too dark in the bottom image to tell anything? If you don't agree with my objections, then post a reason for your disagreement, don't just ignore them!--Dark Kubrick 14:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — The citations of Bakshi's website are not unreliable. And the images look fine to me. Perhaps your monitor is at a low brightness level. Reset it to the default levels. It should look fine. (Ibaranoff24 01:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC))
 * The citations to Bakshi's website's forum are unreliable as discussed above. And my monitor is not at a low brightness level; the picture itself is just too dark and murky to tell anything from in comparison to the above picture, even when you click on it.--Dark Kubrick 10:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove unless further work is done. The changes have been patchy. A comprehensive review was required. Here are random examples from the first section of what needs fixing:
 * MOS breach—hyphen as interruptor (em dash required). Then we see a spaced em dash, which MOS does not prefer.
 * "From the start, they are pursued by the Ringwraiths. Narrowly escaping them, they eventually come to Bree, where they meet"—"They" and "them" could render a multitude of meanings. Same here: "At Rivendell, Frodo is healed by its lord, Elrond. He meets ...". Needs an audit for fuzzy pronouns.
 * "and he gets sicker"—it's not wrong, but "gets" sure does bring out the ugly side of English.
 * "Frodo sets forth from Rivendell with eight companions: Gandalf; Aragorn and Boromir, son of the Steward of the land of Gondor; Legolas the Elf; ...". Sets out, surely. The second item is two people or one?
 * In a continuous narrative, avoid "then". Weed it out.
 * Caption period: MOS breach.

Cast: quadruple dots are ugly. Use spaced en dashes.

Avoid square brackets around ellipsis dots.

"Cartoony"?

Worth fixing. Tony 13:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment — The article's currently at Requests for proofreading. Much of the problems regarding writing and grammer should be corrected. I'm just curious, though, why do you consider the use of the word "cartoony" to be a problem if it's in a quote from someone involved with the production of the film? (Ibaranoff24 17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Remove until "Differences from the book" is removed or revised to have an encyclopedic bearing -- entries like the different colors of clothing are rather insipid. There needs to be more focus on why there were specific changes, which reduces the wide scope of differences generated by the adaptation of any source material into differences that have been covered by reliable sourcing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hi, I made some changes to help improve the article. You might want to take a look at them. (66.82.9.58 20:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Comments "Bakshi is quoted as saying that he had "mixed feeling" about Jackson's adaptations, and he had not seen the films." Is that supposed to be mixed feelings? Also, instead of using the awkward passive voice there, why not just "Bakshi had mixed feelings..."? "And" doesn't seem to be the best conjunction there. Shouldn't it be "although" (since if he hadn't yet seen the films)? Finally, "Not has anyone sent me a bottle of wine..." <-- should that be "Nor"? Or if it's a direct citation and seems to be a typo, use "[Nor]" or "Not (sic)". 69.202.63.165 20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — Fixed. (Ibaranoff24 00:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
 * Keep. Most of Tony's items are trivial; they could, and should, have been fixed with much less effort than bringing them here. I see no objections to the substance; and the writing is no worse than, say, the recently promoted Augustus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Work needed, samples only. Undefined term in the lead:  what is an "animation cel"?  It needs to be defined or linked. No punctuation on sentence fragments in image captions, see WP:MOS.  What makes http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/about.htm a reliable source?  Why are solo years (1950s) and common terms known to most English speakers (like Spain, United States and English) linked (see WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK)?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — Done. (Ibaranoff24 06:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
 * Fixes needed - the lead needs work "Set in Middle-earth, the film follows a group of hobbits, elves, men, dwarves and wizards who form a Fellowship. They embark on a quest to destroy the One Ring made by the Dark Lord Sauron, and ensure his destruction." - needs to be reworded. Also, I'd put much of Screenwriting and development in past tense, not present and it could be expanded I'd have thought. eg noting that the Jackson film also removed Bombadil - putting it in context (if possible). Prose improves further on in article. I have to get off the keyboard now but might try to chip in later if time permits. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe sufficient work was done for a keep here and we've gotten to the microissues stage. The question we've always asked: does it have sufficient focus on the out-universe aspects. This does as near as I can tell. Marskell 10:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.