Talk:Battlefield Earth (film)

message: While you were still learning how to spell your name, I... was being trained.... to review featured articles!!!! Like this one. 
This is another promotion from more than a decade ago that has not kept its FA status, and while I don't notice any major prose issues or low-quality sources, the biggest problem with the article is its lack of comprehensiveness
:*Most of the production is a very detailed history of its Scientology relations and the project's move from company to company, yet the actual production (filming, special effects, set designs, scriptwriting) is discussed little-to-none.
:* The "Filming" section is three paragraphs, the last of which doesn't even have to do with the shooting. It's about the movie's troubled PR before it was released. Essential to discuss, but nothing that establishes the production. 
:*The DVD commentary is only used twice (with the cites duplicated no less in different formats), with only one briefly revealing a part of its production... There has to be way more in the commentary (plus other DVD features) not in this article right now.
:*There are five interviews in the Blu-Ray showcasing separately its directing, music composition, set and costume designs, script writing, and miniatures, none of which I'm seeing in the article.
:*There are also massive making-of features published in Cinefantastique, Starlog (three issues of them in this magazine, no less, plus the costume designer's involvement is discussed in an interview with him), Science Fiction Age, Vice, The Independent, Newsweek, Film Courage and probably others I couldn't find in the bit of searching I did.
:*It has also not kept up to date with respective opinions and analysis that has been published after the article was promoted in 2008.
:*I have no idea what purpose the image in the filming section serves. Is it to show John Travolta and Forest Whittaker's junk?
:*The Reception section is mostly a quotefarm with specific criticisms only consolidated in a single paragraph and not established well enough. I'm shocked the overuse of dutch-angles wasn't discussed much more and is only given one citation, given it's the most notoriously-remembered aspect of this movie and there's an entire fucking image presenting the problem.
:*The citations are missing info for either dates, accessdates, authors, or (for newspaper articles) page numbers. 
:*Refs 9 and 118 claim to cite so many pages that specific page numbers are pretty much needed for verification.
In other words, it has not kept up with the times and is far away from FA status. 02:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous comment was made by User:HumanxAnthro, I think he may have accidentally signed his post using ~~~~~(x5) instead of ~~~~(x4) and yes the article probably would not be promoted past Good Article if it was being freshly evaluated today, there are some clear gaps in the scope/coverage of the article. Whether or not forcing it to be downgraded will encourage editors to do the necessary work to improve it is another question entirely. -- 109.76.128.149 (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, it was me that made those comments. Damn that keyboard HumanxAnthro (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. One thing that was missed from your list however, having just rewatched the movie, is that the plot section oversimplifies in places and is downright incorrect in others Vampus (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article in need of review