Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Wick (film)/archive1

Add links
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 archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 7 November 2023 [1].

John Wick (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2014 action film John Wick which became popular for deviating away from the typical action styles of its time (shaky cam and not being able to tell what the hell is going on) for long, choreographed action set pieces with wide shots showing you every move. It helped revitalize Keanu Reeves declining career and created an action franchise that has already managed to become one of the most financially successful in film history. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article Dakrwarriorblake developed highlights how John Wick quietly became one of the most influential films of the 2010s. The action genre was definitely struggling because of the shaky hand-held cinematography and rapid-editing techniques that takes you out of the plot. Along came John Wick and it was a breath of fresh air for having long, choreographed action set pieces with wide shots showing you every move.
It amazing how this film struggled to find a distributor two months before release. Hdog1996 (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheJoebro64

[edit]

Funny enough, I just watched this movie for the first time the other week and it immediately became one of my favorites. Can't wait to give this a read. JOEBRO64 23:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64 just scrolling past and noticed this comment from almost 3 weeks ago. Still planning to review? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! Just been extremely busy as of late. I'll have a review posted by tomorrow. JOEBRO64 13:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have too much to say, nice work. (Though that's to be expected!) Some comments:

  • I was a little surprised by how short the "Thematic analysis" subsection is given how popular the franchise ended up becoming. I'd take a search through the Wikipedia Library to see if any interesting articles worth adding pop up.
  • There are a lot of quotes, as well as scare quotes that aren't strictly needed (example: "Reviews praised the action scenes for their "fluidity" and "grace"..."). I'd do some work paraphrasing long quotes and removing unnecessary quote marks.
  • I noticed a few single-sentence paragraphs throughout my read (specifically in "Home media" and "Cultural influence"), try integrating those in other paragraphs
  • "Reeves was accompanied by Andy the puppy"—this comes at a point where it's been so long since we mentioned Andy that I think he should be reintroduced at this point. Something like "... Andy, the puppy that portrays John's dog."
  • "...though there was criticism the actors were underused" Maybe give some examples of specific critiques?

That's all from me. Sorry the review took so long! JOEBRO64 01:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I have addressed all of these. Regarding the Thematic Analysis, if you see my response below to Piotrus, I have reviewed a lot of works but they don't provide any information not already present in the article since they all seem to come to the same conclusion, mainly focusing on how Wick is like Reeves and what Reeves' public persona brings to the film. Most sources that might come up in a search of John Wick only discuss it off hand in relation to Reeves career or, most often, it's sequels and so the content for a larger section just doesn't seem to exist at the moment. I made the point that similar films in the 80s can have much more interpretation because the creators are influenced by the Vietnam War (Aliens), the fall of American exceptionalism (Die Hard), the rise of Reagonomics (Ghostbusters), and the changing role of men and women in the home and the resulting rise of hyper macho leading men (Schwarzenegger films, Die Hard, Predator, Ghostbusters II (moreso the focus on fatherhood in that last one), etc.). It was an incredibly interesting and fast developing era so there's a lot of content to draw from whereas the 2010s are mainly about the trauma of the rise of Michael Bay and overreliance on CGI as well as just a tonne of sequels and the ubiquity of the MCU. In John Wick's case it is a response to those shaky cam heavy films like Bourne, Batman Begins, etc, but these are filmmaking techniques mentioned throughout the article rather than themes. The content may come in time, especially if JW4 is the last one as I imagine we'll get more retrospective assessments, but I do not believe the content is there right now. John Wick was also a much smaller film, while hte franchise has done well it's not comparable to the 40 years Die Hard has had to be analysed so I don't think it's getting substantial coverage yet either. Technically there is a lot to analyse there given Kolstad was influenced by aforementioned 80s action films as were the directors so they were technically influenced by the same things outlined above plus they're old enough to have experienced those things first hand, but noone seems to have made that connection and wrote that analysis. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Someone had put a "D" in it (heyo), I've removed it and it's auto filled with the default text. Thanks Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Piotrus

[edit]

I am somewhat concerned regarding comprehensivness. The article is well structured, but sources don't seem to contain many academic works (there are some academic books cited, but only a single journal article, Hall 2022). A GScholar query like [2] suggests there is more literatre to review and cite. Ex. [3], [4]. Going back to the academic books, The Worlds Of John Wick is a collection of 15 essays. Several arguably are not very relevant being concerned with subsequent movies, but the nominated article cites only three, whereas close to a ten appear relevant. Why aren't others, like The Continental Abys: John Wick versus the Frankfurt School or Phenomenology of John Wick (and others) used? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 456 page book, I read through it and identified the relevant content, some essays are just people either discussing other things and mentioning John Wick in only a cursory way and others state claims based on information that is incorrect, misstating scenes/names/locations/etc, or not backed up by any other external sources and so is an outlier claim that I cannot establish genuine notability for. Some just discuss iconography but don't add anything not present elsewhere in the article. It was a terrible read and a very poor book that I'm surprised was published. Similarly to the tandfonline link which has a summary of "The results of this study indicate that the meaning of crime shown in the John Wick film displays and communicates four forms of crime, namely: shooting, killing, beating, and maltreating. The four forms of criminality are influenced by the ideology of masculinity and extremism. Masculinity is a cultural construction attached to men, extremism is a radical belief in a concept. The ideology of masculinity is constructed from the ideology of patriarchy and capitalism and the ideology of extremism is constructed from the ideology of fanaticism." That isn't particularly novel, insightful, or thoughtful content and appears to be operating at the most base level, but I also cannot find any independent notability to any of the three authors either outside of these essays and/or assocation with the university sans role. I will take another look at Google Scholar but I did evaluate the many available sources but most just restate what is already present in the article, and per the link you have shared, most of the results are for later films in the series or are talking about the film in an off hand way such as the one discussing Keanu Reeves, the evolution of the action genre, or are foreign language meaning any intended analysis is likely lost in translation. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I've researched these and only found one that talks directly about the film (John Wick, and the myths and tensions between star brands and franchise properties), and even then it's only in the context of Keanu Reeves external stardom and influence on the film, which is present in the article but I will add that source tomorrow to back up existing content. I think my previous Analysis sections demonstrate that I do the research on these films, but John Wick is only an 8 year old film that was a modest success leading to bigger things, it's neither 30+ years old like Die Hard or an action film from the 80s where they're all compared to the Vietnam War and influenced by Reagonomics and the rise of ultra macho men coinciding with efforts to reestablish American exceptionalism, so I just don't think the content is there yet. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply, which I consider well argued. I don't have any further objections as I concur this is not a topic that will have a lot of academic souces about itself, and I AGF that you've read all of the sources and cited the most relevant ones. Given "It was a terrible read and a very poor book that I'm surprised was published", I'd even encurage you to write an acadeic review of the book and publish it somewhere (in a sociology / media journal) - those are not hard to write (~800 words or so on average). I've published a few and would be happy to offer assistance on or off wiki if needed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

[edit]

I have not seen this film (that seems to be a recurring theme with your articles and me). It's been a while since I reviewed one of your articles, so I will try not to screw anything up.

  • "on October 7, 2013, on" (the one in the lead) — I have not read the rest of the article, so I might just be missing context, but is the exact date so significant it deserves a lead mention??
  • "kills him and escapes" — Is "him" John or Harry? OK, me from the future here. I thought "him" was John and read the rest of the plot, and was really confused on how John was doing all this stuff.
  • "moved closer to the film industry in Los Angeles" — does this mean he moved to LA or a city close to LA??
  • "Reeves's personal experience with bereavement" — is there anything else that can be said about this experience?

I'm the end of the casting section right now. It might be a week or so before I can complete this review given the article's pretty long (actually it's pretty short for a DWB article, but...) Pamzeis (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pamzeis! Long time no see. I've made the above changes you've pointed out, hope it's an interesting read for you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s up to you, but maybe make the context section a little less wordy. Hdog1996 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does everyone have against my brief context sections? :( Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing my review:
  • "combines the familiar in the private" — sorry if this is obvious, but what does "familiar" refer to here? And familiar to whom??
  • "while some aspects of the underworld did not work" — is very vague... is this bit needed?
  • "Supervising stunt coordinator J. J. Perry; Stahelski; and 87Eleven Productions associates John Valera, Jon Eusebio, Danny Hernandez, Guillermo Grispo, Eric Brown, the Machado brothers, Jackson Spidell, and armorer Taran Butler; had developed for an earlier film a combat style" — I'm really confused what is being said here. So would I be correct thinking that all these people worked on some film released before John Wick with that combat style?
  • "and lit characters to maintain" — what manner/style did he light the characters in? Or like, were all the character not in shadows or something?
  • "difficulties filming the scene because" — which scene? The previous sentence refers to the plural "scenes"
  • "this received a more positive response from Iwanyk, who said: "Holy shit! This is good!"" — is this necessary? One would assume the final cut received a positive response if it was redone because Iwanyk disliked it
  • "criticism the actors were underused" — McShane and Nygv-ist... how do you spell it? OK, I wasn't that far off, it's "Nyqvist". Back to the point, McShane and Nyqvist specifically or also other supporting actors?

More to come... Pamzeis (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pamzeis, I've done most of these except "and lit characters to maintain". I might be lacking the technical knowledge to fully understand what he means. The full quote from the book is "At the beginning of John Wick there was a lot of sigt light, but there was also some hard. It's not always a hard light, but there's a lot of in and out that sometimes are between color, and sometimes between shadow and a hard source. Even when he (I believe he means John Wick) goes to the club, he's in shadow, and he steps into the light. There's a lot of those things to keep the mystery. There's always so much mystery between characters, you don't know who to trust. Even when he goes with Willem Dafoe and opens the window and there's the shafts of light. Again, you wanted to give them options and choices to who lights who. Who's in the light and who's in the dark. Always. So I just went with it. Every scene-and with every character-I tried to tell a story with light." I don't know if that makes any more sense to you than me, I'm open to suggestions on how to rephrase that part. EDIT: I believe he's referring to Hard and soft light but I don't understand it enough to convey it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't understand this either, but if any editor does, feel free to jump in! Pamzeis (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, last few bits:

  • "It fails the requirement of objectivity because John is the protagonist and is generally presented positively." — seems like this is an opinion, but it's stated as a fact
  • "John Wick is regarded as one of the best action films ever made." — By whom?
  • "popular film series such as Die Hard and Rambo had been generally replaced with "forgettable" fare that heavily relied on CGI, shaky camera movements, and rapid edits, or a focus on larger-than-life superhuman bouts in superhero films." — is stated in wikivoice when it's an opinion
  • "John as a groundbreaking role for Reeves whose pragmatic attitude, slick appearance, and relatable revenge story" — sounds like its saying Reeves, not John, has these characteristics

That's it, I think. Mostly very minor issues, so I'll go ahead and support. Pamzeis (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pamzeis, I've done most of these, I was a bit confused by the third point because the segment starts saying its commentary by publications? Is it still not classed as opinion? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, but what I'm trying to say is: it isn't made clear/established that that sentence is also an opinion. From my interpretation, the article is presenting it as a factual explanation for why action films were in decline, not additional commentary by the publications. Bottom line: that bit needs in-text attribution IMO. Pamzeis (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, I've changed that sentence. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Reviewing this version, spot-check upon request and keep in mind that popular culture isn't my area of expertise. Have these sources been mined for stuff? Is JoBlo.com a reliable source? Apart from the free-access icons, the source formatting seems consistent. Is https://www.fancypantshomes.com/ really the best source for the where it was casted claims? Ditto using Carl F. Bucherer as a source - I think using a source associated with the film and not the company would be better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, if you see my responses to Piotrus and Joe above, I have gone through google scholar, I've bought books, read a 300+ page that was pretty much fluff, I have done a lot of research on the academic side, and while I won't reiterate what I've said above as it was quite lengthy, I have reviewed sources appropriately.
Fancypantshome is a stupid name but it is specialized in what it is sourcing and does have an Abous Us page that lists the writer among hte staff here
Yes I believe JoBlo to be reliable, it's been around for 25+ years and regularly features industry news ahead of some contemporaries, and has been mentioned by sites such as Variety and filmmakers such as Kevin Smith.
I've replaced the Bucherer ref Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with fancypantshome is that the source link reads like a typical corporate website, not the kind of place where I'd go look for casting information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, do you mean Casting? The fancy pants home reference is only being used for "The first five days of filming began in Mill Neck village with scenes at John's house." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In other words, I am not sure that this is a high-quality source for production information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree, for sourcing the location of John Wick's house it seems perfectly fine, but I've removed it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, any further thoughts on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, this passes, my caveats about this topic not being something I know very well in mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

[edit]

I'll try to get round to this in the next few days. As an initial comment, I stand by what I said on the talk page about the car details in the plot section a few months ago. TompaDompa (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, we did resolve it though Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TompaDompa, just checking to see whether there will be any more from you? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'll probably be done within a few hours. TompaDompa (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • The article has a rather laudatory tone.
    It was a lauded film, you'd have to point out anything specific as I tend to use neutral tone unless something can be backed up. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given a number of examples below (e.g. the thing about chasing superlatives), and they are non-exhaustive. This article looks like a labour of love, which is to say that it reads as if it were written by a fan of the film. It is of course expected that film articles will to a large extent be written by fans (because fans are more likely to be interested in working on the article than non-fans), but it's not supposed to shine through. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, that is not the case, my project is taking important films from each year and elevating them. I haven't seen Se7en or Saving Private Ryan for probably 20 years before writing their articles, where my favorite film of 1995 and 1997, respectively, would be Die Hard With a Vengeance and There's Something About Mary/Blade. If I were doing films in a series I liked the most I'd have done John Wick 2. Superlatives are exaggerated statements and you mainly seemed to mention the "best action" and the like, and I've sourced these amply, they're not exaggerated descriptors.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily referring to you; I don't know which parts of the article were written by which editor. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not terribly impressed by the images. Seven out of ten are just headshots of people, with the other three being the poster, the Beaver Building, and an additional photograph of Reeves where he poses for the camera.
    I'm not sure what you're asking here? It's pictures of people in the film, a picture of the most important building in the film, and a picture of Reeves at a screening of the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not something that needs to be fixed, just a suggestion about a possible area where improvements could be made. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the article appears to be based on interviews with the filmmakers, which seems less than ideal.
    Where else is this information going to come from? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally: secondary, independent sources. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that any information there is only going to come from those involved for the most part. We know when filming for Mission Impossible Fallout ended because Christopher McQuarrie posted on his instagram and a few sites reposted that information. It is/was a relatively small film and wasn't getting a substantial amount of coverage, it was only bought for distribution two months before its release and was expected to be another low-bduget Keanu Reeves failure so some info is going to come from interviews, I wouldn't say a lot of the references are such and where they are they are still reliable sources. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are very many quotes. To me, it affects the overall impression negatively.
    There are certain things I can't phrase in a neutral way or convey the same meaning as "doesn't say a lot, but when he does, the Earth moves. If John and Viggo are the gods of New York, Winston is the titan" when its the actors opinion of the character Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree in principle that some things need to be given as verbatim quotes, but we don't seem to agree about the number of instances where that's necessary. I don't think that format is needed for either of the two quotes with profanity, for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it the profanity that is the issue? I've removed the one by Iwanyk but I think the other one is too good to get rid of in context Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the profanity just made them stand out to me—profanity in quotes appears sparingly on Wikipedia, after all. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, well I have removed a couple more quotes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a fairly lengthy article at more than 8,000 words. It need not be as lengthy as it is. Copyediting for brevity and removing extraneous details could probably shorten this by about a thousand words.
    It's in no way lengthy, it's one of my shorter articles, see WP:SIZE. It's already been copy edited, removing 1000 words from it would make it a crappy article, that's a lot of content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect we will have to agree to disagree about whether 8,000 words is lengthy. An article being lengthy is not necessarily a problem—I have written articles of similar length myself—but articles shouldn't be longer than they need to be. I'm not suggesting a WP:SIZESPLIT here (that's certainly not motivated), I'm saying judicious copyediting could "trim the fat", as it were. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FACR 1c requires high-quality sources (not just reliable ones), and there are quite a few sources cited in the article that I would not characterize as high-quality. Screen Rant is an obvious example. I don't know if there are better sources that could be used, but it's not a good sign.
There was a source review above and sources such as Screen Rant have been used in lots of the featured articles I've passed recently. I regularly get rid of sources even when they have all the content I could hope for if they're not reliable. Not everything can be the New York Times and Vanity Fair won't be releasing articles regularly on a 2014 action film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • New comment: With this discussion in mind, I have to ask whether Stahelski and Kolstad belong in the first sentence over Reeves. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion isn't over but in this case I would argue that all four people (Leitch, Kolstad, Reeves, and Stahelski) are fundamental to its success, it's Kolstad's script which is considered original, it's Leitch and Stahelski's experience as stunt coordinators that let them direct the action in a way that popularized the longer complex takes over the constant quick cuts of confusing close ups, another reason the film stood out, and the analysis near the bottom identifies Reeves public persona as fundamental to the title character. I think Reeves introduction works well in the article where it is as he is introduced very early but it's integrated well with the plot summary. Leitch obviously isn't present as he isn't credited as a director. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. I think it might be better to have the first sentence be plain "John Wick is a 2014 American action thriller film." and relegate everything else to subsequent sentences, but I suppose this works too. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michael Nyqvist, Alfie Allen, Adrianne Palicki, Bridget Moynahan, Dean Winters, Ian McShane, John Leguizamo, and Willem Dafoe appear in supporting roles." – seems a bit odd to me to describe Nyqvist and Allen as appearing in supporting roles.
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lionsgate Films purchased the distribution rights two months before its October 24, 2014, release date." – seems ungrammatical. "Its" refers to the film, which isn't mentioned in the sentence (trivially fixable by adding "to the film" after "distribution rights").
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The existing sourcing did back this up, I've added substantial additional referencing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • "John races to New York Harbor, where he fights and mortally wounds Viggo. Resigned to dying from his injuries, John watches on his phone a video of Helen telling him they need to go home." – coming right after a mention of Viggo being mortally wounded, "Resigned to dying from his injuries" would intuitively seem to refer to Viggo rather than John, making this something like a garden-path sentence.
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • New comment: I would try to cut down on the word "believe" in this section. It's used quite a bit where other words might be better—"believe" carries the connotation of being incorrect or unjustified. For instance, instead of "believing their style matched the script's tone" I might say "feeling their style matched the script's tone", instead of "because he believed the character would maintain his health to keep up with younger assassins" I might say "because he reasoned the character would maintain his health to keep up with younger assassins", and instead of "which they believed resulted in confusing action sequences" I might say "which they found to result in confusing action sequences" or "which they viewed as resulting in confusing action sequences". On the other hand, for "Iwanyk, who believed it would alienate audiences" the word "believe" is indeed the best choice. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the early 2000s, Derek Kolstad struggled to gain recognition as a screenwriter, despite being related to successful author Lori Wick." – this observation seems rather strange to me. I wouldn't necessarily expect a relative (neither biography specifies their exact relationship) of a successful author to ipso facto make it as a screenwriter, and Lori Wick is not exactly a household name.
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph consists mostly of fairly tangential details that would seem a better fit in the Derek Kolstad article.
    Not really, it's setting up where he was as a writer and that John Wick was his first progression and success. If it was a regular occurrence for him the film would be less of an achievement. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see what you're going for, but things like moving to Los Angeles before almost immediately moving away again are just extraneous levels of detail for this article, "With encouragement from his wife Sonja" reads like something from an outlet that is trying to elicit an emotional response (e.g. a human-interest story) in this context, and starting in the early 2000s and outlining the number of screenplays per year before going into how many screenplays he wrote in total before one was picked up just makes the paragraph needlessly lengthy. Simply stating when he started writing and how many screenplays he wrote before one was picked up gives the reader all the context they need for this film. One or two concise sentences would do the trick, and it might not even need to be a stand-alone paragraph. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So the reason his wife is mentioned is because he was ready to give up. I think it's unfair to dismiss her contribution, however seemingly minor, since if he gives up there is no John Wick franchise. I've reworded it a bit though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, though I still think it could be condensed further without losing important context. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The script included elements such as John's elderly dog, his long-deceased wife Charon, Winston, the Continental, and the underworld gold coins" – is a comma missing in "his long-deceased wife Charon" or was his wife named after the ferryman in this draft?
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reeves's personal experience with bereavement, having lost his partner and their daughter" – I would mention when.
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He generally played his character as a straight man with some quirks." – that's a rather odd description, and it doesn't match the one given by the source particularly well (which says "We tempered the over-the-top action with sort of dry, comedic moments. We had great performances and input from Michael Nyqvist who played it straight and he was excellent. He was a quirky villain.").
    I was confused on this one, the quote you've added says he played it straight, he was a quirky villain, and the content in the article says he played it as a straight man, with quirks. I'm not sure where the deviation is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Playing something straight and being a straight man are two completely different things. The former is when a portrayal of something conforms to audience expectations of that thing without e.g. exaggeration, subversion, or meta-humour. The latter is an archetype in a comedy duo (or occasionally larger groups). TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworded it Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He found some of the physical punishment his character endures and spontaneous additions of Russian dialogue he had to quickly learn difficult." – this is a bit difficult to parse.
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moynahan did not read the script entirely" – I would either say "the entire script" or "the script in its entirety".
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: "Moynahan did not read the script in its entirety, wanting to know only as much as Helen would know about John." – this is the fourth and last sentence in the paragraph that has up to this point been all about Adrianne Palicki and her character Ms. Perkins. It flows rather poorly as a result. I've read this a couple of times over the last month or so, and (not being familiar with either Palicki or Moynahan outside of this) I have more than once had to go back and re-read the paragraph to double-check which sentences are about which actor and character upon reaching the end of the paragraph. At minimum, Bridget Moynahan should get her full name and a link. The same issue of the paragraph switching subject in a way that readers may not consciously notice at first is present in the preceding paragraph about at first Michael Nyqvist/Viggo and then Alfie Allen/Iosef, though it's not as pronounced there. Try to find a way to make the end of one subject and the start of another stand out more (to readers unfamiliar with all the actors and characters, it's easy to lose track in what amounts to a mishmash of names); leading with a link to the actor accomplishes this fairly effectively, and phrasing sentences so they come across less as a continuation of the previous one also helps. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: "Iwanyk said in a neo-noir film, the location is also a character" – unless I'm missing something, it was Kolstad who said that, and about noir rather than neo-noir. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: "residents were resistant to film trailers" – I daresay most people will instinctively parse this as referring to Trailer (promotion) rather than the presumably-intended mobile unit (as in "I'll be in my trailer"). TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stahelski said: "look at [Clint Eastwood] in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" – safe to link The Good, the Bad and the Ugly per MOS:LINKQUOTE.
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Design" subsection has a fair amount of implicit and explicit repetition. Lee Marvin and Steve McQueen are mentioned twice, and Point Blank starring Marvin is mentioned separately. John Woo's style is mentioned separately from the style in The Killer which he directed, and so on.
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: "to complete a stunt in which Wick is struck by a car" – up to this point the title character has consistently been referred to either by full name or first name. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: "included scenes in which he could reload [...] reloading scenes had to be moved" – "scenes" is definitely not the right word. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John's fight with Ms. Perkins was edited because they could not show him being as violent to a female character." – why not?
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stahelski wanted the action to be an integral continuation of the story rather than just a set piece." – link set piece.
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Release
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Context" subsection seems rather dubious in terms of relevance. It's not exactly astonishing that the overall box office sometimes underperforms and sometimes overperforms.
    It's a brief section establishing the context of what John Wick was released into, yes cinema takings ebb and flow but nearly 10 years removed it helps the reader understand John Wick's release environment and the kind of films it was released alongside.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like crafting a narrative to me. Do sources on John Wick present this narrative? TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't talk about John Wick at all because it wasn't a blip on anyone's radar, Wick is only generally mentioned in retrospect once it turned outt o be a success and that noone expected it to do well until it did. I'm not trying to craft a narrative, the sources are generally industry professional analysis and it provided some additional context, especially since it's success was unexpected but still very modest and so there isn't a great deal of context that can be provided in the box office section. The only other organic links there are Ouija and Fury, two films that have since been completely forgotten and so don't provide much to the reader. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's kind of my point. I get that you are trying to establish context and are not consciously crafting a favourable narrative, but the choice of details to provide and the way in which they are presented creates a framing nonetheless, and in this case it is a fairly flattering one. That's a problem when it comes from Wikipedia rather than from our sources. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    :/ I'm not sure what it's flattering? It talks about a downturn, struggles due to emerging distribution methods and films anticipated to buck the trend. The last sentence about low expectations for John Wick are necessary to later say it defied those expectations. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, it's obviously a far cry from something ridiculously puffery-filled like "In 2014, the box office was in a dismal state until John Wick defied all expectations and single-handedly saved the moviemaking industry", but it nevertheless reads a fair bit as the set-up for an underdog story of sorts. Which is fine if the sources emphasize these points to create that impression, but not if we do. TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're misreading it or approaching it from some presumption of my intent when writing it, it's saying the outlook was crap and the outlook for John Wick was even crappier. A separate section talks about it defying expectations but you're inferring an intent where there isn't one. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're acting in good faith, but the intent is also kind of beside the point here. I'm saying it reads as the setup for an underdog story, whether or not it was meant to. You say that "it's saying the outlook was crap and the outlook for John Wick was even crappier", and... well, precisely. We are in agreement about that. My point is that it needs to be context that the sources on the film deem relevant for it to be appropriate to include here, because the outlook being crap is a framing that gives the reader a certain impression. Context creates subtext, if you will. TompaDompa (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I put the text into chatGPT and asked it specifically "Does the tone of this text seem like it's promoting John Wick as an underdog story?" It's response was "The tone of the text does not necessarily promote John Wick as an underdog story. Instead, it provides context about the overall state of the U.S. and Canadian box office in October 2014, highlighting a downturn and various factors contributing to the decline in revenue. It mentions that expectations for John Wick were low, primarily due to Keanu Reeves's recent box-office failures and the film's short promotion cycle. The text is more focused on setting the stage for the film's release and the challenges it faced in the broader context of the industry's performance during that period." Which is what my stance has been from the start. I understand that you are interpreting it the way you are interpreting it, but it's either a misread or some kind of misplaced pre-conceptions of the film, the article, or the text, it's not intended to or reading as an underdog tale for John Wick, in my opinion or ChatGPTs. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film attracted a mostly male audience, about 77% of which were over 25 years of age." – 77% of the male audience or 77% of the overall audience?
    Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The film primarily drew a male audience, with approximately 77% of the viewers being aged over 25 years." resolves the ambiguity but creates the expectation that "77%" refers to the proportion of viewers who were male. Replacing "with" with "and" would solve this. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: "Outside the U.S. and Canada, John Wick is estimated to have grossing" – anacoluthon. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: "performing well in Germany ($3.7 million), France ($3.2 million), Australia ($2.8 million), Taiwan ($2.6 million), Russia ($2.59 million), the United Kingdom ($2.4 million), and Japan ($2.3 million), among others." – the cited sources[5][6] do not say that all of these were good performances. In fact, they don't say that any of them were—all we get in terms of qualitative judgments is about a couple of opening grosses. TompaDompa (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This made it the 114th-highest-grossing film outside of the U.S. and Canada." – really need to specify that this is about movies released in 2014.
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cumulatively, John Wick earned an estimated worldwide gross of $86 million" – this is a rather clunky phrasing. "Cumulatively" is rather redundant, as is the combination of "earned" and "gross". This would be way better as e.g. "Worldwide, John Wick grossed an estimated $86 million". If you really want to emphasize that the worldwide gross is the sum of the gross in the US and Canada and the gross outside of the US and Canada, you could try "In total, John Wick grossed an estimated $86 million worldwide".
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • "Critics were near unanimous in their praise for Reeves's performance" – that's a pretty strong statement. Do any of the sources say that critics were near unanimous?
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cliche-filled" – cliché-filled.
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-release
  • "The home-media release was a success, being the second-best-selling home release of February behind Dracula Untold (2014), and the number-one rental during its release week." – that doesn't strike me as something I would describe as a success.
    It was the best selling home release and second best rental? What do you consider a success? I've changed it regardless Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be much more likely to consider something that does not need such restrictive qualifiers (calendar month, specific week) to be at or near the top to be a success. This is yet another example of something that comes across as superlative-chasing. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there both a "Other media" subsection here and a "Sequels and spin-offs" section further below? It would seem much more logical to me to cover all of it under a "Franchise" heading or similar.
    This is for non-film content relating to John Wick, the sequels is for film content relating to John Wick. It would be awkward to be constantly flipping back and forth between mentioning video games and sequels as they are released, plus comic books, any anything else. Other media would also include merchandise if there were anything notable for it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't say I see why that would be a problem—putting everything under a "Franchise" heading would be a perfectly cromulent WP:Summary style solution with the John Wick franchise article—but okay. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Ann C. Hall, John Wick is a postmodern epic hero in a contemporary epic universe." – should probably link Epic (genre) or Epic poetry here.
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • "John Wick has been named by several publications and critics as one of the best action films ever made." – the sourcing is nowhere near strong enough for a statement like this. The first source is a top 50 list that doesn't even include the film (though it does the sequel). The second source is a top 101 that puts it at number 52. The third source is a top 36 that puts it at number 7. The fourth source is an unranked top 10. The fifth source is an (I think) unranked top 140 (and if it's meant to be read as ranked, it puts John Wick at number 16). The sixth source is a top 33 that puts it at number 32. The seventh source is an unranked list of five films that is explicitly restricted to comparatively-obscure ones (which makes me question what on Earth John Wick and Mad Max: Fury Road are doing there, but never mind). This just comes across as cherry-picking.
    The first reference had been changed by Empire, they've renamed it 50 best instead of the original 60 best link I used, I've marked it as dead and the archive shows the proper rankings. I've also added a metric tonne of additional references that back this up. There are literally high thousands if not tens of thousands of action films in existence, that all these reliable sources plus the ones I've added are naming it, by your own observation, in the top 52 action films ever made is sufficient backing for the comment which does not say "John Wick IS the best action film" or "John Wick IS one of the best action films", but that several publications and critics have named it such, it's not an extraordinary claim and would only be cherry picking if it was simultaneously appearing on lists of the worst action films ever made, and even if this isn't my favourite film in the series the discourse around it is not that it is a bad action film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that line of reasoning holds up to scrutiny. There are roughly eight billion people on Earth right now, which means that the person who is the twenty-millionth tallest is in the top 0.25%—but I wouldn't describe that person as "one of the tallest people alive today" when there are tens of millions of people who are taller.
    I don't think it needs to also be dismissed as poor for this to qualify as cherry-picking, I think being absent from lists of the best action movies of all time is sufficient to raise that question. A few minutes of searching the web turned up several such lists where it's eligible but does not appear: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. This comes back to an issue I brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books considered the best: cross-referencing "best of" lists like this is problematic. The proper way of doing it involves rigorous statistical analysis and ensuring a representative sample of sources—and goes way beyond what is allowed on Wikipedia in terms of WP:Original research. Doing that WP:ANALYSIS so improperly as to obfuscate that an analysis is done in the first place doesn't really resolve the problem. On Wikipedia, we have to accept making weaker statements than we would like to in order to not make statements that are too strong. TompaDompa (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I really just don't see the problem, are you looking at the statement in the lead or the Legacy section? The Legacy section says "John Wick has been named by several publications and critics as one of the best action films ever made." It's not making any claims that it is one of the best action films or among the best action films ever made, it states that several publications have stated it is such, including some of the ones you've linked above, though some have replaced it with John Wick 4 which came out this year whereas JW1 is nearly 10 years old and demonstrated long-term appearances on this list. By this type of logic it's not possible to call any thing ever the best if it doesn't appear on all lists ever made and that just doesn't seem reasonable. The statement is saying those publications have called it one of the best, I can change the lead but I really do not see the issue with the wording in the body text. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here I am specifically talking about the content in the body. It is true that certain publications have called the film one of the best, and I'm not disputing that. It is also true that certain other publications could have done likewise but chose not to. We're obviously not going to state both things in the article, so what do we do? Well, ideally we look at the literature on John Wick and see what the secondary sources say (as per WP:PROPORTION). If film historians say "John Wick is generally held to be one of the best action movies of all time" (which I think they probably would say about e.g. Terminator 2 if asked), the problem is solved. It's not that the film needs to appear on every single list of this kind, it's that a completely different type of source is needed for a statement like this. The sources cited are the lists themselves—in other words, they are primary sources for this statement. Using primary sources is appropriate in some cases, but this is not one of them. WP:MEDRS, while of course dealing with a completely different area, summarizes its most important guidance as "Cite review articles, don't write them." TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure who is determining what sources are valid here, it's rare that any site is going to do an article specifically about a single older film unless its an anniversary/retrospective so most sources that state something like this are going to be lists, and if it was Buzzfeed or Fox News I'd let it fly, but including the refs I've added there are now 17 separate references there including Empire which is a long standing film-centric magazine, Time Out, and Rolling Stone. The statement being made is neutral and presents a fact without taking a stance or expressing an opinion. Were I to remove that content entirely what is left to state the retrospective opinion of the film? As with the line in the context section I think you're misreading it or maybe approaching it from a presumption that I'm trying to inflate it but that is not the case at all, and is the reason I haven't included opinions about where it compares to the other films in the series because there are potentially other films to come. I have moved the statement to even further deemphasize it and tried to reword it but I cannot accept that it should not be in the article at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    17 primary sources is still 0 secondary sources. I don't know how much scholarship there is on John Wick, but a quick search at e.g. Google Scholar and JSTOR shows that it is a non-zero amount. It may still be the case that no secondary sources suitable for this particular purpose exist yet, in which case we are not to pre-empt them. I'm sure you wouldn't think saying "studies have shown X" on a medical article would be appropriate if we only had the primary research to use for sourcing. "Present[ing] a fact without taking a stance or expressing an opinion" is not necessarily neutral, because the decision to mention or omit something is itself an expression of the viewpoint that the thing in question is or is not worth mentioning in that context. For example: "Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi Party" and "Oskar Schindler is credited with saving the lives of more than a thousand Jews during the Holocaust" are both statements of fact, and both are phrased in ways that do not inherently express any particular viewpoint, but mentioning one without mentioning the other can, depending on context, be decidedly non-neutral. I get that it's unsatisfying not to be able to say anything about how opinions on the film have evolved over time, but then, maybe (scholars think that) it's too early to tell? TompaDompa (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am really confused at this point, a primary source would be the film itself, primary sources are contemporary materials, even the reviews at the time would be more considered primary sources, and these should generally be by people who were somehow involved in the event, the sources in the article are retrospective assessments, most are from 7-9 years after the film was released, they cannot be considered primary sources. Secondary sources provid analysis or evaluation and that is what the critics/publications are doing. If there were sources out there calling the film one of the worst action films ever and I was ignoring/omitting it, I'd understand, but there isn't, it didn't even get a Razzie award apart from the one for Reeves bouncing BACK to success with the film so even the place that mocks films gave it credit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are primary sources for the statement they are attached to. Rolling Stone's "best action movies" list would be a primary source for the statement "John Wick appeared on Rolling Stone's 'best action movies' list", and so on. TompaDompa (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are reliable sources giving their opinions. We don't need the NYTimes to report on the Rolling Stone's opinion for the opinion to become valid. At this point I'm happy to remove the comment from the lead altogether just to move this along, but I fundamentally disagree that we cannot include opinions about a film's reception in a section discussing its retrospective reception. By this logic the critical response section is invalid because the review is not being relayed by a secondary website, unless we're counting the aggregator. I've moved, diminished, and quantified the text to make it as innocuous as possible but I do not believe in removing the content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems we are at an impasse and I expect we'll simply have to agree to disagree about whether this is an appropriate summary of the cited sources or an inappropriate WP:ANALYSIS of them. I'll read through the article from start to finish again and then get back to you on my overall assessment of it. It may be several days, so I ask for your patience. TompaDompa (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several publications have named it one of the best action films of the 21st century, and among the best films in Reeves's filmography." – in combination with the preceding sentence, this comes across as superlative-chasing.
    It's just segmenting them out, not superlative chasing, it would be inauthentic to use sources that say its the best action film since 2000 and claim they say best ever made. I can add additional references if you want but I don't feel it's necessary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really the point. Why mention three "one of the best"s in the first place? That's conspicuous. TompaDompa (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It feels disingenuous to include references to best of the 21st century in a statement with best of all time, but I've just merged them together. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the most financially and critically successful action film series" – that's a very dubious statement, and it fails verification to boot.
I've lost a source somewhere here since I wrote it, but I've added an additional metric tonne of references for this statement. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Wick's success launched one of the most-successful action franchises ever made." – again very dubious and comes across as superlative-chasing.
    It's what the sources say and it's backed up by the existing sources plus sources used for the above statement. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make sure we're on the same page here: you do see that this is a positive framing, right? That's as opposed to a dispassionate one—we can leave whether it is WP:NPOV-compliant aside for now (a positive framing can, at least in theory, be WP:NPOV-compliant if it accurately reflects the sources on the subject even if it is not neutral in the everyday sense of the word). TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will try rephrasing it, but the statements are backed up in terms of its critical response and its box office. The latter is a list of film franchises, it's not perfect because it includes every film in the MCU at the top and then lists them individually and its debatable if they fall under pure action like Die Hard or John Wick, or superhero/adventury/fantasy, but ignoring the individual listings since they're listed under the MCU, John Wick looks like its in the top 11 or 12 highest grossing action franchises there, I unfortunately can't find a listing that just includes action, but the references to this statement are not an extreme outlier. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion: that the John Wick franchise has been (critically and financially) successful is entirely uncontroversial. Where it ranks relative to other action franchises is not crucial here. Simply changing the current phrasing thusly: "[...] which in turn led to one of the most a financially and critically successful action film series" would do the trick ("action" can be retained, but I think the sentence works better without it). TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed it, I'm not sure what undermining its status as an action series or stating the level of its sourced success changes here but it's gone. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mythology involved in the film's criminal underworld, such as a unique currency and strict rules, is also seen as contributing to the film's success." – rather redundant to "The mythology in John Wick was identified as a key aspect that differentiated it from other action movies, particularly the codes and rules that govern the criminals" in a previous section.
I've trimmed it down to just mythology, the first is the contemporary reception, the second is the enduring part of its reception
  • "Like how John Wick was influenced by the history of action cinema, it is seen as an influence on many action films that followed, such as Atomic Blonde (2017), Guns Akimbo (2019), and Extraction (2020); and 2021 films Gunpowder Milkshake, Jolt, The Protégé, and Nobody—which was also written by Kolstad and produced by Leitch." – bordering on run-on sentence. It also relies on "was" as opposed to "were" to clarify that only Nobody was by Kolstad and Leitch, which is suboptimal.
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the characters pragmatic attitude" – missing apostrophe.
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MovieWeb wrote John's in-narrative status as a legendary character before the film begins was a "genius" decision that adds depth to the character and the film's universe while keeping him sympathetic through the loss of his wife and puppy." – this is a garden-path sentence due to the lack of "that" after "wrote" (did "MovieWeb [write] John's in-narrative status as a legendary character"?). Also, the stuff before "while" is one point and the stuff after it a separate one, but it's phrased as if the latter is part of the former—the in-narrative status as a legendary character does not keep him sympathetic.
Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sequels and spin-offs
Summary

I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose at this point. This is based on overall prose quality, neutrality (both in terms of the general tone and specific issues such as the ones I have outlined above), and the sourcing issues I discovered when double-checking a few things that seemed questionable to me. That last point in particular gives me pause, because I did not conduct anything approaching a thorough spot-check, so the fact that I found what I consider to be serious sourcing problems suggests to me there are likely more such problems that are as-yet undiscovered. TompaDompa (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's normal to let me address your comments before throwing an oppose in there. Seems unnecessary. As per the last point giving you so much concern, it's sourced, what can I say. I will need time to deal with the rest. Also I only use reliable sources, I have thrown away good references containing information I needed because the source wasn't reliable, the sources are not questionable and your concerns about Screen Rant have been addressed in my previous FAC reviews. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that it's common for reviewers to oppose straight off, if they consider the issues serious enough. Opposes can always be struck, or even turn into support, as the issues get resolved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I thought a fair amount about whether to outright oppose or not. On the one hand, I would certainly be happy to change to support if the article is improved such that I feel comfortable doing so (hence my "at this point"). On the other, I wanted to be upfront about this not being a case where "it's close, fix a few issues and I'll support" and make sure to, well, manage expectations I suppose. I would hate for us to get stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP. TompaDompa (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging TompaDompa Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will, of course, give this a second look. Due to circumstances outside of Wikipedia, it will likely be an additional few days before I have the time do it justice. TompaDompa (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have started. I have added strikethrough markup to resolved issues, responded to some of your replies, added a couple of new comments, and left a fair number issues I will need to take a closer look at later without further action. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TompaDompa, just checking to see if there is anything more to come from you, before Darkwarriorblake wraps up their responses? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I quite understand the question, but: I intend to take a new look at the entire article from start to finish once my comments above have all either been resolved or reached an impasse, seeing as the article will be in quite a different state then than when I first evaluated it, and I may or may not spot additional issues when I do so. I am aware that this is taking quite a while, and I apologize—I underestimated how much time reviewing this nomination would take and overestimated how much time I would be able to devote to it. Rest assured that I am not going to abandon it altogether. I want to get it right, and I think accomplishing that after a delay is preferable to getting it wrong but being done sooner. TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise; you are doing a very thorough review and much improving the article. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, so by all means let us do this right. Pinging Darkwarriorblake to ensure they are aware that the ball is in their court. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the article again and added a few new comments. I'm going to have to think about my overall assessment a bit more, so feel free to address these comments in the meantime. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Darkwarriorblake TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 20:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake ping, again. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done up to September 28, 2023 viewable here Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having now thought about it for some time, I'm sorry to say that I cannot in good conscience withdraw my oppose here. I have been able to spot a fairly large number of (often individually comparatively subtle) editorial choices (some but not all listed above) that in aggregate result in an article that is to my eye pretty far from neutral. The article does not report the facts dispassionately—it crafts a narrative that is complimentary to the film. I want to be clear that I don't believe this to be intentional on the nominator's part—I expect that all of these choices were made in good faith and for all I know they could be by other editors altogether—but it permeates the article nonetheless. I don't think FAC is the right venue to address a problem this widespread, even if the article has undeniably improved significantly in this regard during the course of the nomination (if I came across the article for the first time today, I might not notice that anything is amiss—but being aware of it, it's still there).

I'm not being difficult for the sake of it, I genuinely think this is important. I don't think the prose quality (conciseness, use of quotes, wording, and so on) is quite up to WP:Featured article standards, but I also don't think those deficits are so serious that my objections on those grounds alone should hold up the nomination if all other reviewers agree that it's fine (especially considering how much it has improved during the course of the nomination). On the other hand, I do think the pervasive (though mostly fairly subtle) sourcing and neutrality issues are serious enough that the article shouldn't be promoted in its current state. I'm sorry. TompaDompa (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well thanks anyway, the input you've provided has been detailed and useful and I've appreciated much of it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro

[edit]
  • The article has some problems with reference ordering (i.e. "Test audiences were supportive of John avenging his puppy.[139][71][30]") but that's not an issue to. Happy to offer my support to speed things up. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Corvette ZR1

[edit]

Just like zmbro above, I'll give this one a support. Some small references might be a little shaky, but with DarkWarriorBlake, that isn't a bit issue in the way.TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 17:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]

Having done a fair bit of copy-editing (please check to see if I messed something up or accidentally changed the meaning of something), I think it's appropriate to recuse myself. However, I'd like to share my opinion: TompaDompa has raised valid points and the nominator has actively engaged with their comments, addressing their concerns where possible. If I'm understanding this correctly, it appears that Tompa's oppose is mainly because of neutrality issues, e.g. the citation of publications listing the film among the best. On this point, I respectfully disagree. It's standard practice to attribute such statements to individual publications, especially when reputable sources like Empire, Time Out, and Rolling Stone frequently publish such lists. While the ideal scenario might involve a source explicitly stating something like "Various publications named it one of the best films", the presence of over a dozen individual sources should be deemed more than acceptable in this context. FrB.TG (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Gog the Mild, are you receiving these pings? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been away for a few days, so I may not have been paying as much attention as usual. I did receive this one. {{@FAC}} is a better way of communicating with the coordinators as a group. As it is a coordinator has recused and opined on the nomination: possibly a sign that notice has been taken, discussions had, and that the nomination is moving forward. I imagine that one of @FAC coordinators: will be along in due course to render a final judgement. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it were the case that you had another article which you were burning to nominate for FA, a request here to open its FAC early is likely to be sympathetically received. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it's fine, I'm too busy to manage another one at the moment anyway but thanks for letting me know. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: (Taking Gog's advice on {{@FAC}} ) Is anyone here? This FAC looks very much dead, after TompaDompa said no, and the last edit was by DWB 5 days ago. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 16:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not dead as in abandoned, I thought I just had to wait for someone from FAC to pick it up, thanks for pinging them Corvette. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Doing it again, because this is now the OLDEST active FAC nom. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's being looked at, thank you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Woah woah, archived or promoted? I've got the reviews and support to promote David Fuchs, I've been waiting for 3 months for an admin to get to this! There are four supports, a weak support and one oppose and per FrB.TG's comments that user's review was in depth and I hit everything they asked for bar like 2 things and their opposition wasn't necessarily realistic. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, this article went under substantial work by Darkwarriorblake. This got the well majority supporters, I can't see how this wouldn't get promoted. (Also @Darkwarriorblake, can I use the acronym DWB for you?) The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 23:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course :) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Wick_(film)/archive1&oldid=1184163683"