Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starship Troopers (film)/archive1

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 August 2024 [1].

Starship Troopers (film)

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about 1997 science fiction film Starship Troopers, one of director Paul Verhoeven's last works in the western studio system and the unofficial third and final installment in his anti-authority trilogy including RoboCop and Total Recall. The film was widely derided on its release as a pro-fascist film despite its intention to satirize fascism, which was blamed both on poor marketing and contemporary cultural leanings. It's reputation has grown over time once the satire became evident and is now considered a cult classic. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

10,000+ words!! Really?
- Clearly, he believes the reader Would Like To Know More RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In December 1991 ... Davison realized it bore many similarities to the 1959 science fiction novel, Starship Troopers, by Robert A. Heinlein. The novel had ... remained an enduringly popular work for over four decades." Do the math. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's 9700 words, most of my comprehensive articles on older films range around this as comprehensiveness is part of the requirement, but as I say on each review, the Thematic Analysis section is something I have to include, not want to, and I have to provide an acceptable level of coverage for it. That section is 1300 words in this case and, plus the 400 words in the lead, text relating to a big and influential science fiction film adapted from a controversial book, with an arduous production, and which generated controversy itself is actually about 8000, though, per WP:SIZE, I can go up to 15,000 words if the scope of the subject warrants it. I have gone through prior to this and copy edited it and removed some information which I found interesting but I took an objective approach towards so I do believe I've reached a fair equilibrium.
- I think by 1991 it would've been in 4 separate decades, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, but I've removed it anyway as I don't think the specificty is important. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I may ask, why do you not want to include the "Thematic analysis" section? TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've replied on your talk page Tompa as I don't want to go too far into the weeds here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I would have just said something like "whose popularity spanned four decades" RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify this has been addressed, Gog the Mild, you may be using a different tool to me but the "page size" link said that, before your comment, it was 9700 words. I have gone back through it and reduced it to 9500, and I did spend all of June reducing it from 11500 so I have tackled this to the best of my ability. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"its popularity had endured over the span of four decades." This would normally be understood to mean 40 years. You are using it when the time span in question is 32 years. The current wording has, IMO, a high risk of misleading a reader. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed any mention of time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I probably won't be doing a full review, but I am happy with what I have seen. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for over four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week it's liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come support this people, it's Starship Troopers! No more apt a film for our time! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but after more than four weeks this has made no progress towards a consensus to support and so I am timing it out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Bneu2013

I just watched this movie recently, and just happened to notice it was an FAC. As such, I should be able to review this article relatively efficiency. I skimmed over the article, and am already leaning support. However I need to thoroughly read over the article first before I post my first comments, which will most likely be by the end of tomorrow. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 11:41, 11 August 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.