Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Godfather/archive1

The Godfather

The article has been worked on by the Featured Article Drive team.

I've worked on this article over the past month, and I now feel it meets the criteria for what film articles should be. I'd like to think this article could be featured, and perhaps appear on the Main Page. The Godfather is an excellent film, and I hope this is considered to be an excellent article. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 14:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, for the following reasons:
  • The lead section needs to be expanded, and the blatant spoiler in the opening paragraph removed.
  • Cite your sources so that others can verify your work.
  • The images Image:Godfather vhs.jpg and Image:Al Pacino and Robert Duvall in the Godfather.jpg need information on their copyright holder (most likely Paramount Pictures), as well as fair use rationale.
  • The section headers need to be modified to conform to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings).
  • Statements such as "The role of Don Vito Corleone was memorably acted by Marlon Brando" violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
  • Last, but definitely not least, is that it's not comprehensive enough. Most of the sections are only a short paragraph or two long (the longest contains three paragraphs). Much more information is needed to expand them. I suggest modelling the structure of the article in a similar way to how the Casablanca and Sunset Boulevard articles are presented. Extraordinary Machine 16:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  • needs more depth to qualify as featured. Many very short sections give it a choppy effect. For example "Critical acclaim" - it's one of the most discussed films of the last 30 years - what did the critics say?
  • Images are tagged, but neither have a fair use rationale on the image description pages as per Wikipedia:Image description page. The screenshot for example - why that particular one? What is it adding to the article?
  • The two references quoted seem to have been used only for a few minor points in the article, which suggests that most of the article is not referenced. (The two references are back to front also - the information that is supposed to be referenced by reference 1 actually cites reference 2 and vice versa).
  • Trivia section should be merged into article and then trivia header removed.
  • some POV (Brando's "memorably acted") and issues with colloquial style should be reworded. ("smashing" records, "rocketed into the limelight" as examples
  • lead section contains an absolute spoiler - should not be there. Rossrs 16:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Object. This article was not ready for the FAC. However, I do understand that people didn't properly address problems with the article in the Peer Review, a case I commonly see. Rob, fix the complaints stated above and I will change to support. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks for all the feedback so far. As Link mentioned, none of this was brought up in the Peer Review. I'll take this page as a to-do list and make the article better. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 21:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)