Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Dark Knight/archive1

Add links
Source: 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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 January 2023 [1].

The Dark Knight

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Dark Knight, the 2008 superhero film that redefined the genre, broke bunches of records, and established Heath Ledger as one of the greatest comic character incarnations of all time! Based on all the learning and feedback from previous FACs, this is one of my most recent projects and, I think, the greatest culmination of everything I've learned here so far. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

TDK is for me simply the greatest superhero film of all time, and I very much look forward to learning more things about it. Comments to come soon. FrB.TG (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, just a friendly reminder :) Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 13:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I'll get to it by the end of this week at the latest. FrB.TG (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead writes about the interest surrounding the casting and performance of Ledger before the film's release in great details after which the box office performance and the critical reception are mentioned. I was wondering if the critical reception part could be moved directly to the part after "from the press and public regarding his performance". This way, the reader immediately gets their answer on how Ledger's performance (and the film) was actually received.
  • "organizations from the police, Batman, and the Joker. The Joker" - it does not read particularly well to finish a sentence with "the Joker" and start the next with "the Joker".
  • "Gordon sacrifices himself to save the mayor" - maybe it's just me but "sacrifices himself" implies that he dies in the process of saving the mayor. If I remember correctly, he fakes his death at this point, but the plot mentions it later when he is revealed to be alive. IMO it has a suspense-dissolving effect and somewhat violates the neutrality policy.
  • "The Dark Knight's cast includes Eric Roberts, Michael Jai White, and Ritchie Coster as crime bosses Sal Maroni, Gambol, and the Chechen" - a respectively is needed at the end.
  • "The first scene to be filmed was the bank heist"
  • Perhaps link "extras" to Extra (acting) for those who might not be familiar with the concept?
  • "Christopher only used computer-generated imaging (CGI)" - abbreviation unneeded if it's not used anywhere else.

Down to the end of Production section. Not much to complain so far except for some minuscule queries. FrB.TG (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reviewers appreciated his charismatic Dent portrayal" - this subjective claim is made in Wikipedia voice. It should be something along the lines of "..praised his Dent portrayal as charismatic".
  • "Ledger won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, making him only the second performer to win an award posthumously" - who was the first?
  • According to professor Martin Fradley, among others, Batman and Gordon's "noble lie" is a cynical endorsement of deception and totalitarianism - which lie concerning Gordon are we talking about here? The paragraph previously talks about the lies told by Batman and Alfred, but not that by Gordon. Does it refer to Gordon supporting Batman in his lie?

This is it. Excellent work. FrB.TG (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks FrB.TG Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Remarkable work - thank you for improving the article of this masterpiece film. FrB.TG (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheJoebro64

Possibly my favorite film of all time so I can't miss the opportunity to review this. Should come within the next few days JOEBRO64 15:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article, so I don't really have much to say. But here's what I do!

  • My only real problem is that the critical response section feels a bit summary-ish. I think it'd be useful to provide more examples of how critics felt about the "complex moral tale about the effects of vigilantism and terrorism on contemporary society", for instance.
  • In the accolades and awards section, it's probably worth noting that the increased Best Picture limit became known as "the Dark Knight rule". [2]
  • In the post-release section, I think the other media stuff would fall under marketing, no? It feels a little weird to put promotional materials like this in a separate section under post-release, especially when most of the things discussed came out before the film itself was out!
  • Thinking about it, I don't think the subheading title "lasting reception" in the legacy section makes much sense. Reception is how something is received when it arrives; you can't keep being received over and over again forever, especially not by the same people. I think something like "retrospective assessments" would make more sense.
  • It's not necessary—I think the article is perfectly comprehensive without it—but Glen Weldon's book The Caped Crusade: Batman and the Rise of Nerd Culture has some commentary on The Dark Knight that could be useful, mainly how it was received within the Batman fandom. I have the book but won't have access to it until the 23rd, so I can send you the relevant pages (it's only like, seven pages, from what I remember) when possible, if you're interested.

And that's all I've got to say, really great article that absolutely does this film justice. Nice work JOEBRO64 15:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Crit reception sections are not the easiest, some reviewers want it tight, others want more detail. I've expanded on it a little with what I could find, the reviews just tended to mention the themes exist but rarely discussed them in detail, although I think I've found some decent comments, if few.
Done
This is a tough one as I'm not fond of the idea of labelling a roller coaster, a novel, or a DVD movie as marketing. It's certainly tie-in material that helps promote things but I get the Post-release label isn't necessarily appropriate. I've changed the header name although I'm not 100% on it, but i'm open to suggestions.
Done
Sure I can take a look at it. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 00:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the changes, so declaring a support. I'll email you the Caped Crusade pages as soon as I get the chance. JOEBRO64 14:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

Ooh. I've been wondering when this film would get its bronze star. I look forward to reviewing the article within a few days. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here we go! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed version. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • #Plot at least inconsistently refers to the Joker as "the Joker" or just "Joker". I would advise using the former uniformly.
  • Why is the Gotham City Police Department linked in #Cast but not #Plot?
  • They wanted to explore the theme of escalation and the idea Batman's extraordinary efforts to combat common crimes would lead to an opposing escalation by criminals [...] I recommend "the idea that Batman's extraordinary efforts" here.
  • Nolan said the title refers to Dent as equally as Batman. [...] Nolan found writing the Joker [...] did not influence the main narrative but Nolan believed [..] Which Nolan? The last brother named was Johnathon.
  • #Box office twice says that The Dark Knight was "the highest-grossing film of 2008".
  • [...] praise with the caveat his death made the role [...] Recommend "caveat that his death made the role [...]".
  • Once Dent experiences a significant traumatic experience [...] Suggest revision to eliminate the second "experience" here.
  • The citation templates in References [81] and [331] should have a |ref=none applied to them; they are throwing errors for not being directly referenced. Likewise the items in #Further reading.
Hi Vami_IV, thanks for reviewing. I've done all of these. The "highest-grossing film of 2008" is meant to relate to in the U.S. and then worldwide, so I've clarified that. I was a bit confused on how to deal with both Nolans so I tried just referring to Christopher as Nolan and Jonathan only ever as Jonathan. I've switched it to Christopher when he is named in the same section, but is that the appropriate way to deal with it? It's not a situation I've come across before. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to WP:SAMESURNAME: "To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity." –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about the Gotham City Police department link, I didn't put it in the plot because there didn't seem to be a natural place to name drop it, and I didn't want to hide the link under "police". Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved

You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan", and it looks like one of those plans is making this the best it can be, so count me in! From a glance, one thing that stuck out to me like is how it feels repetitive to use images of Heath Ledger in consecutive sections, but of course I'll at some point take the time to look deeper. Expect more comments within a week. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK now here we go!

  • The use of "several" from "several posthumous awards" is an understatement.
  • To not even list Ledger's BAFTA or Golden Globe in the lead is a glaring omission among his accolades. Solely listing his Academy Award not only feels incomplete but sadly perpetuates a systemic bias I've noticed among Wikipedia articles where mentions of Oscars often get prioritized above all other awards. Let's not make this feel so Oscar-centric.
  • Starting all except one sentence from the plot section's second paragraph with "the" is overly monotonous. A way to reduce this problem would be not having that word attached to every instance of "Joker"; just having that upon his first mention is enough.
  • Under the "Development" subsection of "Production", the use of "realizing" from "realizing the Joker in Begins's grounded, realistic style" reads awkwardly. Maybe go with "using", "utilizing", or "implementing" instead.
  • Beginning almost every sentence from the second paragraph of "Writing" with "Goyer" feels repetitive.
  • Don't insert POV descriptions like "iconic" as you did with "the threat of iconic villains" or "tragic hero" (the latter implies something is inherently sad and that's not a stance we should be writing out).
  • Rather than "significant" for "significant character development", I'd recommend you use "major" or perhaps "drastic".
  • Literally each sentence from the last paragraph of "Writing" starts with "the", and that's overkill.
  • From "Casting", the use of "a high- and low-pitch" feels like it's missing a "pitch" after the "high" part.
  • A slight correction I'd like to make is that Aaron Eckhart was focusing most on RFK Jr. among the Kennedys, not that guy's namesake father.
  • More neutrality issues with "tragedy" from "serving as a further tragedy to fuel Wayne's character".
  • For the first sentence of "Pre-production", you've misused a semi-colon following "parts of Yorkshire", and I'd elaborate on what the "several cities in the U.S" were.
  • You can probably guess what's wrong with the fourth paragraph of "Filming in Chicago"
  • There's something weird with File:The Dark Knight - Why So Serious.ogg where it's shown as being 31 seconds long on this page and one part of the audio file itself (exceeding the maximum length of 30 seconds that WP:SAMPLE permits) while another says 30 in total. Not sure what the true duration is here, but I don't see how it benefits the page per the 8th criterion of WP:NFCC.

I'll finish this up later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Kennedy Jr thing has to be a misquote either by the person taking the notes/writing the article or a mistake on Eckhart's part. I initially thought this but it's Senior who actually dealt with organized crime, the son just peddles vaccine conspiracies and has no links to fighting organized crime.
The use of "iconic", "tragedy", etc, I've only used that when its in the source so it's not a personal insert. Let me know if that makes a difference.
I think the music adds context since that particular track has a lot of discussion about it in that section, both in its construction and meaning.
Some responses, I've implemented the rest. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Morning/Afternoon/Evening SNUGGUMS, just a friendly reminder. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can rework the uses of "iconic" and tragedy/tragic in ways that clearly indicate they're the opinions of article authors/cast/crew per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (maybe as part of quotes), I wouldn't recommend having them in text. While both RFK Sr. and his son of the same name became lawyers, the two have vastly different focuses, and reading more on the bits of crime in that linked article does make more sense for the former now that you point it out (especially with his tenure as Attorney General). Here's the rest of the page:
  • The entire "Context" subsection under "Release" feels like pointless filler. Mere speculation on earnings are nowhere near as important as the actual results, and its first paragraph is irrelevant with details on other movies that have nothing to do with this one.
  • For "Critical response", it would help to name the publications that reviewers are writing for. Don't presume all viewers know where each critic is/was employed.
  • "Accolades and awards" is a redundant title, and when mentioning "a major Academy award" there, do you mean the first comic book movie to win an acting category, Best Picture, Best Screenplay, or Best Director compared to things like visuals and audio?
  • It feels like a stretch to say "Batman's physical abuse" under "Terrorism and escalation" when the given source doesn't use anything along those lines to describe his Joker interrogation, even with an analysis there on what happens when Mr. Wayne is pushed to/past his personal limits.
  • From "Cultural influence", it doesn't at all feel neutral to say "proved the genre could produce films with a distinct vision, artistic merit, and social commentary", at least not without more explicit attribution.
  • How is it possible for this movie and its success to affect Iron Man launching the MCU when that had premiered first?
  • When listing the memes, I'm surprised you didn't include the "Everyone Loses Their Minds" one.
  • "Notes" are a separate entity from "References" and thus shouldn't be lumped under the same section as them.
  • I'm not sure how trustworthy "Wizard Universe", "Ain't It Cool News", MovieFone, "Dark Horizons", "Superhero Hype!", Thrillist, VG247, "High-Def Digest", "Jump Cut", "Film School Rejects", or Nerdist are
  • Far Out Magazine → Far Out
  • Remove the italics for CNN, Digital Spy, MTV, MTV News, VH1, "The Numbers", BBC, Reuters, WTOP-FM, Syfy, Box Office Mojo, "E! Online" (which should only read as E!), Metacritic, any title of award ceremonies, Rotten Tomatoes, American Society of Cinematographers, and "Stuff"
  • It fees useless to list things within "Further reading" unless you plan on implementing those as citations.

That concludes my review. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have seen these comments, I've just had a really bad illness the last few days which aside from the throat pain is making it hard to look at bright lights/monitors, so I am here, but bear with me, hopefully it'll be gone in a few more days. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes for a speedy recovery! Your well-being definitely takes precedence over editing articles. One last thing I forgot to mention before: the sentence "rejection of a comic-book style in favor of a genre film that features comic-book characters" from the lead is rather confusing and I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire "Context" subsection under "Release" feels like pointless filler. Mere speculation on earnings are nowhere near as important as the actual results, and its first paragraph is irrelevant with details on other movies that have nothing to do with this one.
  • So I don't consider it pointless filler, the predictions are used to contrast with the results, in this case The Dark Knight vastly exceeded expectations. It provides context around the environment the film was being released in such as what it was released against and what the business trends were and things that were expected to work against it such as a depressed nation, and it provides a natural means of linking to other films released that year.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "Critical response", it would help to name the publications that reviewers are writing for. Don't presume all viewers know where each critic is/was employed.
  • I can add those links in but as far as I can see, every reviewer apart from The Village Voice one has their own article as they are independently noteworthy, I'm not 100% what adding Chicago Sun-Times would add to Roger Ebert for instance. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Accolades and awards" is a redundant title, and when mentioning "a major Academy award" there, do you mean the first comic book movie to win an acting category, Best Picture, Best Screenplay, or Best Director compared to things like visuals and audio?
  • It feels like a stretch to say "Batman's physical abuse" under "Terrorism and escalation" when the given source doesn't use anything along those lines to describe his Joker interrogation, even with an analysis there on what happens when Mr. Wayne is pushed to/past his personal limits.
  • From "Cultural influence", it doesn't at all feel neutral to say "proved the genre could produce films with a distinct vision, artistic merit, and social commentary", at least not without more explicit attribution.
  • How is it possible for this movie and its success to affect Iron Man launching the MCU when that had premiered first?
  • I've changed the wording, its arguing that the success of the Dark Knight made comic book films a viable mainstream focus. Iron Man was a success, The Dark Knight was significantly more successful than even that. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notes" are a separate entity from "References" and thus shouldn't be lumped under the same section as them.
  • I'm not sure how trustworthy "Wizard Universe", "Ain't It Cool News", MovieFone, "Dark Horizons", "Superhero Hype!", Thrillist, VG247, "High-Def Digest", "Jump Cut", "Film School Rejects", or Nerdist are
  • Wizard Universe is now defunct but it was a published magazine with a focus on comics, games, and films and was owned by Wizard Universe, there is no indication it is untrustworthy or unreliable. Per discussions below with Mike, Ain't it Cool News has been removed apart from the source from Harry Knowles listing his best films of the year as it is personal opinion, MovieFone has been replaced, Dark Horizons has been replaced, Superhero Hype is plenty reliable but I've replaced it, Thrillist is a major online publication owned by a big conglomerate in Vox Media and the author of the article used is a permanent Staff Writer who has also written for Esquire.com, XXL, CMJ, Spin.com, and other publications, VG247 is a very respected gaming site founded by pro gaming journalist Patrick Garratt in collab with Eurogamer and it's been nominated several times for awards for its coverag, Hi-Def Digest is owned by Internet Brands so it is part of a big company. It's a speciality site with a focus on home media so it is only sourcing relevant content and its author, M. Enois Duarte, is a permanent staff member, Jump Cut (journal) is a long standing professional journal in the same vein as the ones I would normally be expected to use for themes/analysis sections. It has been in print and digital. For its use in the article, I believe it is reliable, Per Mike_Christie, we've established FSR is fine, depending on the author, some are independently notable others just contributors. In this case, one reference is by Neil Miller which is a top films of the year. Given it's just sourcing his opinion, I don't think it's controversial and Miller is the site's founder, so he is a permanent contributor not paid freelancer. His frustrations one day in 2015 were also deemed worth noting by IndieWire. The second is by Alison Lorring, and as she is not on the permanent staff and I can't identify her independently, so I've removed this one, Nerdist again is a major website, it's got notable people at the helm such as Chris Hardwick, its product appears on BBC America, one of its founders went on to be a President at Lionsgate, it's a reliable source and there is no implication of unreliability. The article used in this case was written by a Staff Writer.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the italics for CNN, Digital Spy, MTV, MTV News, VH1, "The Numbers", BBC, Reuters, WTOP-FM, Syfy, Box Office Mojo, "E! Online" (which should only read as E!), Metacritic, any title of award ceremonies, Rotten Tomatoes, American Society of Cinematographers, and "Stuff"
  • It fees useless to list things within "Further reading" unless you plan on implementing those as citations.
  • As a last resort, you could use the link I gave for "Everyone Loses Their Minds" (which appears to be one of the more frequently used memes given how prominent the hospital scene with Joker corrupting Dent is). Still not sure what "rejection of a comic-book style in favor of a genre film that features comic-book characters" is supposed to mean, but assuming "tragedy" from "his chaos ultimately leads to tragedy and injustice" refers to death, just use that term instead. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "crime film that features comic-book characters" definitely improved things, and I now support the nomination! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

Image review

  • File:The_Dark_Knight_(2008_film)_ARG_Example.jpeg needs a more expansive FUR, particularly purpose of use
  • File:Graffiti_in_Shoreditch,_London_-_Syd,_Why_so_serious%3F_(13785515385).jpg: what's the copyright status of the artwork pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • FNs 19 & 313 appear to have something in the template that's throwing off the formatting -- everything is in italics after the website name.
  • You're inconsistent about publisher locations for the book citations -- Byrne and O'Neil do not have a location parameter, but Nolan & Goyer, Duncan Jesser, and Schneider do.
  • Optional: you could add chapter page numbers for Schneider and Nolan & Goyer.
  • You give the publisher parameter for FN 208, but all the other web citations use website= instead.
  • No website/work parameter for FN 369.

That's it for formatting; will look at reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the following reliable sources?

  • aintitcool.com -- I see it listed in WP:FILM's resource page, but it seems to be a two-person site, and of the three citations one is to "merrick" who can't be identified further because their Twitter account is suspended, and the third is to Harry Knowles's top ten list. If the site is reliable his top-ten list is notable.
    • So aintitcool was actually a major player from the late 1990s until the early 2010s when sexual harassment stuff came out about the founder. It got mainstream actor interviews, scoops, coverage such as This Hollywood Reporter piece, so at the time of The Dark Knight it was still considered reliable and a major news source (despite its appearance). Merrick was a main contributor, his real name is Glen Oliver, he's mentioned in articles such as this, andthis by name, and I think this is his LinkedIn though its barebones, but given the sexual harassment stuff I think most of the staff just distanced themselves from the site entirely. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this would be just about enough, but this is just Merrick quoting LoquaciousMuse for the entire blog entry, which is from a fanblog. If you can show LoquaciousMuse is reliable that would probably work but judging from their blog page that seems unlikely. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • darkhorizons.com -- I can see Garth Franklin would be reliable but this citation is to Paul Fischer, who is no longer covered on the site's about page.
    • He's not covered in detail but he is mentioned on the page as a former contributor, which I think suggests he was not just a freelancer or someone writing the odd thing to get paid. Fischer is also represented as a critic on Rotten Tomatoes, albeit his reviews only count when submitted via DarkHorizons. I did find this, which I don't think is necessarily a reliable site but it has a little blurb on him . Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that's enough -- he mentions a teaching career so I think this is a sideline, and his Rotten Tomatoes credit is only via the site, as you say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • torrentfreak.com -- it seems to be just two guys running a blog.
    • TorrentFreak is run as a blog but it's also a site that gets a lot of mainstream coverage because of its speciality nature and knowledge such as with Variety, the BBC, and The Wall Street Journal, and its writing staff includes at least two notable people, Rick Falkvinge and Andrew Norton. The article in question is written by the site founder, and again given its speciality focus on piracy, I think the information falls within accuracy and reliability. The site is cited by sites such as CNet and THR regarding this particular claim.
      I'm not convinced. They are certainly quoted, but in a couple of those cases it's because they're the topic of the news, not because the newspaper is treating them as a reliable source. It's hard to imagine that they could reliably say what the most pirated films are anyway, since they must be only monitoring a fraction of the illegal distribution channels. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • reelviews.net
  • blog.moviefone.com -- author is Mark Beall and the archive method means the link to his background doesn't work so I can't tell what sort of contributor he is.
  • Are FNs 305 and 306 necessary? Neither is a great source and all the information in the cited sentence seems to be in 304.

Will check links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links:

  • Suggest flagging the LA Times links as subscription required.
  • Some footnotes are flagged as live but appear to be dead: 43, 54, 58, 59, 63, 64, 82, 115, 126, 148, 153, 158, 162, 164, 203, 230, 237, 239, 252, 253, 256, 294, 311, 320, 415. Fixing these isn't required for FAC since you have archive links in each case, but it would be a good thing to do.
  • The title for FN 67 should be "Eckhardt gets Two-Faced".
  • There's something strange going on with FN 123. The archive link is working, so setting the link status to dead might be all that's needed, but the main link seems to redirect to the NY Times.
  • Compare FN 240 with its archive link; the archive link works, but the text is different.
  • FN 273 goes to the wrong page; the archive link is correct.
  • FN 284's archive link is to the wrong page.
  • The archive links for FN 285 and 386 don't work.
    386 is fixed but 285 (now 282) still has an archive link that doesn't work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare FNs 388, 389, and 393 -- I think these are the same page, archived at different times.
  • The archive link for FN 401 goes to the wrong page.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have seen these comments, I've just had a really bad illness the last few days which aside from the throat pain is making it hard to look at bright lights/monitors, so I am here, but bear with me, hopefully it'll be gone in a few more days. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that -- hope you feel better soon. I'll finish up the link checking tonight or tomorrow but no hurry. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finished checking the links; take your time and get better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of outstanding points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done all your's Mike, just a few of Snuggums to go. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting/links issues are all addressed now; there's still the aintitcool.com source left -- I think you were going to replace it with movieweb.com? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, the only AICN ref is the personal ranking of Harry Knowles, I thought you mentioned that one would be fine as he is individually notable and it's his own ranking of 2008 films? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my misunderstanding of what was left. Source review is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we have the OCLC for Boscaljon, 2013. (8255503669) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what an OCLC is, I've added the DOI? I did search for OCLC and then searched that site but got no results for the author or article name. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See [3] and OCLC#Identifiers and linked data.


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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Dark_Knight/archive1&oldid=1130983203"