Jump to content

Talk:Borat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleBorat is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 7, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 8, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 26, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 7, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
November 19, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Format

[edit]

For the "Box Office" section the first sentence should be changed. It should be, "Americans loved the film and there were many sold out showings". This allows the sentence to be much more concise while still getting its point across.--Gcamp02 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Half a year ago I tagged Azamat Bagatov as failing notability. Nobody has improved and a WP:PROD was removed. I tried my best just now to expand that article, adding a reception section, but I don't think there is enough out there to warrant keeping this. But I think this could be merged here, perhaps into the cast section? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR needed

[edit]

This FA is incredibly dated and does not fulfil the FA criteria anymore.

  • There are many unsourced statements, sentences and entire paragraphs.
  • Many section are underdeveloped with some containing a few small sentences and a few with a single paragraph.
  • A quick search on WP:TWL gives hundreds of results on Borat when sorting by peer-reviewed. Google scholar and google books contain no shortage of info either. The current sources are from pre-2010. Although this doesn't compromise the quality of the article (as film content doesn't change) it definitely signals that the article was only seriously edited during these years.
  • The article feels too list-y and misuses commas frequently; prose work is needed.
  • Many instances of "anti-Americanism" in the body could be linked, but is only linked in the see also section.
  • WP:OVERLINK is violated multiple times throughout the article.
  • Some info and sourcing could be expanded from the respective main articles of some sections, such as the Soundtrack section, although it's not enough.
  • Some ref URLs are dead.

@Lenin and McCarthy: @DemonDays64: @RealFakeKim: @EdChem: @Wehwalt: Pinging some of the biggest active contributors. Wretchskull (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it over. It might be best to revert to a version from the FAC and then add more modern material as you mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who's pretty knowledgeable about Borat... this article will probably need a complete, from-the-ground-up rewrite if it's going to comply with modern FA standards. From just a quick glance:
    • It's missing a lot of production information, both from the time of release and retrospective interviews.
    • There's no scholarly analysis of the themes and messages present, which is a massive oversight.
    • The reception section needs to be massively expanded/rewritten
    • Borat had a massive impact on popular culture that this article doesn't discuss.
    • As previously mentioned, the article as a whole is presented in a list-like fashion that falls into WP:PROSELINE territory.
So unless this article undergoes a substantial rewrite, I don't see why it should remain featured. JOEBRO64 19:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023

[edit]

Under Controversies I would like a new section called "Legality of participant waivers - The Borat Problem in Contract Law" with this text:

The legality of the participant waivers involves fraud, assent and standard forms. Two parties reach an oral agreement. The first then presents a standard form contract, which the second signs without reading, or without reading carefully. When the second party later objects that the first did not perform according to the oral representations, the first party points out that the signed document includes different terms or disclaims prior representations and promises. This occurrence is called the “Borat problem,” after litigation over the 2006 movie of that name based on this fact pattern. The Borat problem exists on the blurry border between tort and contract law.

This paragraph will need citation to Russell Korobkin , Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Program, UCLA School of Law . His article is here:

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0wp5r2gr 2600:1017:B822:9B22:40A3:EC07:16B:19CF (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Why is this needed? Seems entirely unrelated, except the name. Borat problem isn't even mentioned in the article. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]