Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jurassic Park (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 removed by User:Dana boomer 12:34, 12 April 2013 [1].

Jurassic Park (film)

Review commentary

Notified: Face, Bignole, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Science Fiction

Issues about this article were discussed in the article talk page in November 2012. No efforts were made since then. Also, I see that some lede content should belong to the body, like the 3D release. George Ho (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to actually paste in what criteria you feel the article is failing in here, rather than making people navigate to the page. That said, I do agree the article needs a stiff copyedit, some reorganization to better accommodate newer content, and probably some expansion; there's an entire book on production that could be used to beef it up and put it into other sections as you intimated. I'll see what I can do about the low-hanging fruit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Finding a criterion that an article fails would imply an intent to purposely delist the article. I brought this article into bigger attention, so improvements should be made to resolve article issues, not to delist... yet. At least, I hope, you can work on the article. As for the talk page, it addressed issues a while back, like referencing (like you said), structuring, layout, inadequacy, and formatting. --George Ho (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wasn't implying that you were trying to delist the article without a fair shake, just suggesting that providing more comprehensive list of concerns here makes it easier for other editors to examine the same issues :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the editor who worked on this article, and his research efforts were mainly online (with the exception of the Shay & Duncan book). I think that a Featured Article about a film with this kind of legacy warrants deeper coverage. There are numerous books about Spielberg, and I think that there could be a "Scientific accuracy" ("Paleontological accuracy"?) section that includes such coverage that probably is not immediately available online. If one searches for "jurassic park" in WorldCat.org (filtering for nonfiction), there are the following available print sources to review at least: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19... I'll stop there, but that's from 2012 going back to 2002 so far. There's still the rest of 2002 going back to shortly after the film's release. These are also only sources in which Jurassic Park is a chapter, so there are probably additional books to be found via Google Books, and Google Scholar as well here. There's probably news and periodical results to find too, like Variety covering the film at the box office. In summary, a topic like this needs to be researched much more than it actually was. I also have minor suggestions for the article body, too, such as better structuring of the "Cast" section (perhaps more like what I've done at Panic Room#Cast), better introductions to all the sections, the aforementioned accuracy section, and the 3D release being covered better. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erik: do you still have access to the BFI index you used to provide citations for possible sources for the Star Trek articles? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Want me to provide a citation dump for this film? I can do it for one of the Star Trek films like the old days too. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, throwing on the talk page like the old Trek articles might be the best option. If I cannae' get to this article in time, it'll at least be very helpful for others (or future me.) When I can get back to my old digs I can grab the Shay book, as I'm pretty sure that has a lot more info too and it's sitting on my bookcase... might as well tap the low-hanging fruit. In the meantime, I've done a quick pass at the plot section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the list of references here. If you need, I can electronically access the following: Film Review, Journal of Film and Video, American Cinematographer, Cinema Journal, The Hollywood Reporter, Film Comment, Sight & Sound, and Variety. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This is the second nomination from this user in a short period, after Halloween II. The FAR instructions call for no more than one nom at a time per user; I can see the rule being bent when an article moves to the final step of the process, but not when there are two nominations in a row like this. I don't want to sound nit-picky about the rules, but it's hard on any movie editors who want to save old FAs when there is this much activity at once. Does anyone have an opinion on whether this should stay up? If I was forced to choose between the two film noms, I'd prefer to see the Halloween II one stay up since the FAR has been in the works longer; as a side benefit, that gives David more time to go for a possible save here. This is not meant to imply that the article criticisms are without merit, just that it's important to keep instructions in mind at these processes. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is still active, the review is removed from the FAR page. I will re-list it into the page when the review on Halloween II reaches the final step before or without going into "removal candidacy". --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm taking a look at reorganizing the article to better reflect "modern" FILM standards and a more logical organization. I was wondering what the current practice is for where (or if) some of this material should be/go in the article; namely, things like the theme parks, television premieres, and where you'd place the upcoming rerelease (I kind of feel like that stuff belongs *after* the reception, given that it sort of deals with the lasting impact of the film.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Halloween II is now nominated for delisting the FA status. Therefore, the review on Jurassic Park is re-listed. --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before the review was relisted, there were changes. However, Production section is not easy to edit and to divide. Problems still remain, like the atrocious omittance of the film score in the main article. Even retaining a link to Jurassic Park (film score) does not help matters. --George Ho (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Production section has been finally split into subsections. Also, I've proposed a merger of the "film score" article in the main article's talk page. --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I fixed a couple of dead links and an odd template issue. Unfortunately, it looks like the article needs further work to meet the modern FA criteria, and movies aren't really my area of expertise. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate Comment - George, I didn't notice this until now, but did you make notifications to the projects and main editors, as required? If not, can you please do so; if so, can you please list them at the top of the page so everyone knows it's been done? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realize that notifying people about notifications is necessary. I've already notified two Projects earlier. --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for notifying major editors, I could not find active major contributors of this article, especially by edit counts. I compared revisions, and I couldn't find a more reliable editor. --George Ho (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Using the edit counter stats tool listed in the FAR instructions at the top of the page (it's what we recommend you use), it looks like there are only a couple of significant editors to the article. One is inactive, as you say, and I've notified the other (User:Face). Generally, notification of the top 2-3 editors, at least, if they're active, is needed. Dana boomer (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

FA criteria mentioned in the review section include prose, referencing and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – I don't think enough has been done to remedy the issues that have been brought up, and I still see things such as bare reference links. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~hold~~ delist as is (but re-review if further work done) - I think this might be salvageable....mainly has comprehensiveness issues - Crichton's status before writing this comes to mind as an important point to add context. Also needs a chunk of analysis on accuracy.....hmmm maybe a bit ambitious....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I'm not going to have any time to work on this presently, and it clearly doesn't meet criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dana boomer (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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