Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Treasure: Book of Secrets/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 00:38, 27 February 2008.
National Treasure: Book of Secrets[edit]
Nominator
It includes a lot of Wikipedia's Style Guidelines. It has internal links as well as external. There are images related to the article itself. It also contains references and citations. Connorjack (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Not totally comprehensive yet. Very small reception section with no individual reviews. No production information, except for a list of locations. The clues and meanings section seems pretty trivial, and a minor point, remove the second Jon Turteltaub link from the infobox. On the plus side, the plot looks pretty good. But this needs some work before it reaches FA standard. May I suggest that you try and get it to good article status first, and then get some comments at a peer review. The WP:FILMS Spotlight and Style guidelines may be able to provide you with some further ideas. Good luck, Gran2 19:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Gran2. This needs to be significantly expanded. For starters, there are no sections on production, soundtrack, promotion or the film's release. The "Historical locations" section needs to be fleshed out. Explain what purpose historical site had in the movie's plot. See other film FAs for guidance: V for Vendetta, Casino Royale, 300. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - too long "plot" section vs. rest of the article, no note on production of film, the lead does not speak of the plot.--Kiyarrllston 22:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Object per above. Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, for the aforementioned comprehensiveness concerns. Kudos, however, on full compliance with criterion three – something oh so rare on “media” candidates. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.