Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Wick (film)/archive3

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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 November 2024 [1].

John Wick (film)

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2014 action film John Wick, or John Vick as some of the Russian gangsters may say. This has had two previous nominations: the first had some good responses and improvements added/suggested by TheJoebro64, Piotrus, Pamzeis, TompaDompa, zmbro, and The Corvette ZR1, although the second sadly failed due to a general lack of responses. Since the first nomination in 2023, new books have been released which has allowed me to significantly beef up the Thematic Analysis section which was a common criticism as I had struggled to identify sources that specifically discussed the first time as they were more focused on evolutions in its sequels, particularly the lore around the High Table and underworld which is only really touched on briefly in John Wick. It is also the tenth anniversary of the film this year, so it would be nice to get it to FA status before the end of the year if possible. Your feedback is greatly appreciated, thanks. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Paleface Jack

Looking over this, the article is strong. My only (minor) highlights for improvement would be having the writing and development sub-sections reversed as I find them slightly confusing. The "Retrospective assessments", while short is ok, though I will leave that up to others to offer their thoughts. Since you struggled on finding some good sources, I took a look around and found a couple with some (minor) info pertaining to this film. You can add or not add them.

“In Brief.” Film Comment, vol. 51, no. 4, 2015, pp. 79–79. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43577930. Accessed 15 Oct. 2024.
SWEENEY, R. EMMET. “Muscle Memory.” Film Comment, vol. 54, no. 1, 2018, pp. 16–17. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44991186. Accessed 15 Oct. 2024.

Paleface Jack (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Paleface Jack. I did check the references you've provided but they seem to relate more to the stunt company and one of their stuntwoman respectively. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so. Was worth a look. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to reply to your comment on the DEvelopment and Writing sub sections. Typically on films this would be the other way around, but in this case the development section can't happen without the writing section since all the writing happened first as an independent script rather than as part of a planned project. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me, if you are having trouble with information on some sections, there are behind the scenes videos that you could possibly include if you are still having problems. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not having any trouble with sections, it was just the Thematic Analysis section was fairly brief because noone really discussed the first film, they focus on the later ones which have a great deal more lore around the High Table and the assassins. But I've rectified that now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It seems improved from last year, and it was pretty much good enough back then. Well done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I never had any issue with the article to begin with: DWB writes some of the best articles on WP. But I do agree the analysis section in particular looks better this time around. My only critique would be that the picture of Ian McShane in reception (as of this revision), does not appear relevant to the section itself (compared to the image of Lance Reddick in analysis). I'd advise making the McShane caption more relevant to the section or remove it. Other than that I support. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zmbro, fixed the caption, the image was there since he was singled out by a few critics but I too felt the caption made it look like a weak addition. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a well-done article; I like the organization of the meta and reception of the movie. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support A really good read, thoroughly enjoyed it and happy to support. Lankyant (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Draken Bowser

It was very interesting to read the analysis on the memetic mythologization of Mr. Reeves, having grown up on the internet and watched the process first hand. This looks like a quality piece, so I'll just leave a few short comments:

Baba Yaga - is this a personal nick-name invoking the old slavic legend? If so we might want to surround it with quotation marks.
experienced actor rather than an elderly one. - considering we've just mentioned Eastwood and Ford the contrast doesn't fully make sense. Sure, they're old, but also experienced.
Variety praised the idea for targeting the same male audience as John Wick without the cost of making a full game based on it. - maybe I'm overly sensitive, but could we rephrase their analysis of the merits of this marketing campaign to not use the word "praised"?
There seems to be some confusion on the internet about Ballerina being John Wick 5. Should we clarify also, if that is indeed still true, that 5 hasn't begun filming as of 2024?

And with that, I'm all out of ideas. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Draken Bowser, good notes, this is how I found out there is a planned spin off starring Donnie Yen. I've made the changes you've suggested. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

Typical fair-use cover art, no worries there.
All other photos are appropriate CC licenses.

The photos in "multiple image" templates don't have alt-text, although that is not an FA requirement, it'd just be nice to have. The photos all seem relevant to the film. Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Generalissima, I think the alt text may be a technical issue as they do have alt text included per the template for Template:Multiple image, but it doesn't show for me on Microsoft Edge when hovering over the image. The images under the Production section had "alt_fotter" but I've added individual alt text as well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh interesting! Scratch that then. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

It doesn't seem like the sourcing notably changed from the review I gave this article last year. There are a bunch of naked URLs though that need fixing. Is a spotcheck needed? My usual caveat about this not being a topic I know well applies, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know a few bare links had snuck in but I've sorted them, thanks for spotting. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for that. No, a spot check is not required. Let me know if you consider the source review is now a pass. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa

In the interest of not making it necessary to read through the entire article, I'll re-ask the question asked by AirshipJungleman29 in the second nomination: Can you give specific examples of how you have addressed the issues I raised in the first nomination? TompaDompa (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The context section was removed, the article was copyedited for tone, effort was made to remove as many quotes as possible and turn the content into prose, the thematic analysis section has expanded by about three times, and the commentary on best action film lists was reduced down to the mildest and vaguest of mentions despite the support of its inclusion by other editors. There have been a lot of changes, but these areas seemed to be the biggest bugbears for you last time around.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging TompaDompa Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look at parts of the article, and it looks much better than it did the first time around. I unfortunately do not anticipate finding the time to give this a full review, but I will state for the record that my oppose from the first nomination should be treated as being out of date. TompaDompa (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe

I'll take a look today and tomorrow, looks like the article's improved a lot since I last reviewed it JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is personal preference and you're free to ignore this, but you're using false titles—for instance, writing "Producer Basil Iwanyk" instead of "The producer Basil Iwanyk". This is discouraged by some style guides and the WP:FALSETITLE essay makes a decent argument that it should be avoided on Wikipedia as we're an encyclopedia rather than a news source. Again, up to you—just some food for thought!
the inspiration for which came from two 'terrible revenge movies' he had watched Any information out there on which films in question he was referring to?
I'd try to ensure you're using the active voice as much as possible, like in the reception section. Example: The directors' decades of experience in stunt work was seen as a major benefit to the action sequences → Reviewers saw the directors' decades of experience in stunt work as a major benefit to the action sequences
I don't think you really need subsections in the Legacy section; it's just four paragraphs and I think the first paragraph actually leads into the second one nicely
Some of the refbundles are a little confusing, to highlight two instances in particular that stand out to me:
- The third paragraph of the critical response section has four sentences (beginning with "Reviews commended the fluidity...") with a lot of generalizations about specific aspects that critics praised, all cited to a single refbundle with a whopping 13 references. It's hard to tell who's being cited for what. I'd go through the references, pick which ones support which statements, and add those to the end of the statements, incorporating them in refbundles if it's necessary.
- In legacy, you quote Rolling Stone calling John Wick "The Last Great American Action-Movie Franchise", but rather than directly citing the article, I have to open the refbundle and hover over multiple references to find it.

I would go through all of the refbundles in the article to make sure there isn't anything else like these.

This is optional and not going to affect my support, but going off the previous point, I think it'd be useful if you identified the references in text in the refbundles. I've been recommended this at my previous FACs and I think it both aids in navigation and makes it a lot easier to identify precisely what's being referenced. (Examples: Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts#Notes, Donkey Kong Land#Notes)
Spotchecked statements attributed to references 70, 75, 100, 134, and 166. All backed up the statements I checked.

That's my 2p. Good article. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 19:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheJoebro64, I have done all of these except: No, there is no information on what terrible revenge movies he saw; and your second to last point. I may do that in the future if it won't hold up a support, tbh I've been working on this for so long I kinda want to move on from it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheJoebro64, how is ths looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. nice work. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 18:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

This will probably seem picky picky, but MOS:CAPTITLES needs applying to the titles in the "References" section. Eg, "In" → 'in' etc.
"focused on highly choreographed and long single takes". Entirely optional, but maybe 'focused on long, highly choreographed single takes'?
"Reeves's recent films had underperformed." I think this needs unpacking a little. What does "underperformed" mean? Attracted poor reviews? Made a financial loss? Something else?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done the latter two Gog the Mild, on a previous nomination I was led to believe that you either capitalized them all or capitalize some, as long as its consistent, so at present I think everything is in Proper Case, at least from what Case Converter outputs. Is that not the case? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean title case versus sentence case. Someone has tweaked the MoS so they need to be in title case - makes sense, given that they are all titles. MOS:CAPTITLES lays out the rules, with MOS:5 listing the do's and don't's. Note "Other styles exist with regard to prepositions, including three- or even two-letter rules in news and entertainment journalism, and many academic publishers call for capitalization of no prepositions at all. These styles are not used on Wikipedia, including for titles of pop-culture or academic works." which is why I used In/in as an example. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gog the Mild Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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