Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Call Me by Your Name (film)/archive1

Add links
From 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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2018 [1].

Call Me by Your Name (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me by Your Name is a coming-of-age film directed by Luca Guadagnino and written by James Ivory, starring Timothée Chalamet and Armie Hammer. It is based on André Aciman's novel of the same name. I have been working on the article since October 2017; it underwent a copy-edit in May 2018 and has passed for GA two months later. I believe that it is ready for FA now. Any additional help would be greatly appreciated! Damian Vo (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • Please include ALT text for the infobox image.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (his professor father's 24-year-old graduate-student assistant), I have never seen “graduate student” with a hyphen before. I have always seen it spell out as two separate words. I am American though so that could be why.
It's already gone when I revised the article. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment/concern about this sentence (James Ivory was initially set to co-direct the film but became the screenwriter and co-producer.). It could read that Ivory was set to co-direct the film, and then he wrote the screenplay and became a co-producer only after he dropped out as a co-director. I would assume that his decision to not direct the film is not directly connection to his role as a screenwriter and a co-producer, which the current wording in the lead suggests.
I gave it a little tweak. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (At the 90th Academy Awards it received four nominations), there should be a comma after “Academy Awards”.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (In response to a note from Elio, Oliver leaves a note on Elio's desk telling Elio to meet him at midnight.), I would avoid the repetition of the word “note”.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a personal preference, but in the “Cast” section, I would place the note (Credits are adapted from Fandango.[6]) before the cast listing.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the note, I am assuming that you want the Fandango wikilink to go somewhere else.
Oops. I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (Call Me by Your Name is the final installment in Guadagnino's thematic Desire trilogy), please use the director’s full name and wikilink him as it is the first time that you mention him in the body of the article.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (The film is a departure from his previous work because he took a simple, "non-aggressive" approach; he said this is the calmest movie he has made), could you clarify what he meant by “non-aggressive” and “calmest” as it sounds rather vague?
Those are the words he refered to during interviews. I added another opinion in paragraph. Damian Vo (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by this part (Despite being a literary adaptation, many scenes are wordless. "Words are part of what's going on, but it's not necessarily what's going on underneath. I think this film celebrates the underneath", he said.) as it has an underlying assumption that all literary adaptations rely on words (or I am assuming in this sense dialogue). I would instead include a part on how Guadagnino removed dialogue during the adaptation of scenes from the book to the film. This may seem picky, but I do not think that such a bold assumption/claim (Despite being a literary adaptation, many scenes are wordless.) should be made.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (As someone who considers sex in film a representation of the characters' behavior and identity,[17] Guadagnino was not interested in including explicit sex scenes in the film, to keep the tone as planned, saying, "I wanted the audience to completely rely on the emotional travel of these people and feel first love... It was important to me to create this powerful universality, because the whole idea of the movie is that the other person makes you beautiful—enlightens you, elevates you".[18]), I would make the quote part into its own sentence as the flow reads awkwardly to me.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (and described it as “devine”;), I am assuming you mean “divine”?
Another silly mistake. Yup I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if this quote ("the need to make this into a movie”) is really needed. I think you can paraphrase this.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (During negotiations, the production's budget was reduced from $12 million to $3.5 million.), is there any information on why the budget was reduced? It seems like a rather sizable decrease.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was confused by this part (In 2016, Ivory stepped down from directing to avoid conflicts,) when I first read it. Conflicts with what? You explain it somewhat in the next sentence, but it should be clarified here.
I removed the conflicts part, since such content is explained in the next sentences. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading this sentence (Guadagnino dedicated the film to his friend Bill Paxton, who died in February 2017.), I was wondering if there was any information out there on why he dedicated this particular film to his friend?
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence (Guadagnino was tempted to remove the scene from the novel in which Elio masturbates into a pitted peach, which he thought was a metaphor for "sexual impulses and energy", and that it was too explicit.) is awkwardly worded/constructed. The last part (and that it was too explicit) is not fully connected with the rest of the sentence. I understand that you want it to connect with the verb “thought”, but the way that the commas are placed, it really connects with the beginning of the sentence and does not make sense. I would revise this.
I fixed the sentence. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (describing it as "a metamorphosis of some of the strongest ideas in the movie" and the key to illuminating the character's "overabundant sexual energy”.), the references should in sequential order. Check the rest of the article to make sure that the references are in the correct order as I see a few other instances of this.
I revised and fixed the other references. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (LaBeouf had read for the film in New York City but the production company later felt he was unsuitable because of his "various troubles”;), I would add a comma after “New York City”.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about the relevance of this sentence (Chalamet has acted since he was a child and co-starred in Showtime's Homeland (2012).) for this article.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by this part (Chalamet, who can speak fluent French and had played piano for years, arrived in Italy five weeks early to learn Italian, piano, and guitar.). You say that he had played piano for years, and then he had to learn it again?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what you mean by this sentence (Guadagnino did not want the film to "look like a reflection on the 80s ... when it becomes period.”) or what the quote even means to be honest. So Guadagnino did not want this movie to look like a period piece? Is that what he means? I am confused by this.
I fixed the quote. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence (Elio's polo shirt and Fido Dido T-shirt came from her husband's closet) reads strangely as the “her” does not match the subject “Elio”. I revise this to avoid it.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (The pre-production in Crema was fast;), could you clarify how it was “fast”?
The director vaguely mentioned it the interview. I removed it out of the paragraph. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two comments for this sentence (Post-production with regular editor Fasano in June and July took only a month;[9] the fastest Guadagnino had edited.[66]). What do you mean by “regular editor”? Do you mean that he has frequently collaborated with Guadagnino? Also, you imply that Fasano edited the film, and then later say that Guadagnino did it, so I was a little confused here.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the Sufjan Stevens image to the right as he is look down and to the left, which makes it look like he is looking away from the article (which is normally discouraged).
I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is a separate section on a potential sequel, I would include a sentence or a bit on it in the lead.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with this article. I would imagine that this would be a difficult article to work on given the amount of coverage devoted to the film. I still have not seen this film, but I enjoyed reading about it. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you once again for your helpful review! Good luck with your current FAC and your upcoming projects! Damian Vo (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in when you include publication locations and publishers
  • FN38: Graduate Center is not a work
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 48 and 63 are to the same source but are formatted differently. Same with 199 and 200
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed sources from Badtaste. As for AD I replaced with a link from Attitude. Damian Vo (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

[edit]
  • In the "Plot" section, we mention Hanukkah celebrations in the last paragraph but have not previously ascertained in the section that the family is Jewish. Perhaps that could be placed into the first sentence. Similarly, when referring to "a 24-year-old graduate student, Oliver," we make no mention of his American nationality. These are pertinent pieces of information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One reviewer asked me to remove them out of the Plot during the GA nomination :( Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Damian Vo: I would definitely recommend adding them back in! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "need to make it into a film, which later became the first feature film"; here we have the word "film" repeated in quick succession. How about "need for a cinematic adaptation, which later became the first feature film"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ivory hardly met Guadagnino during the process; Guadagnino was making A Bigger Splash (2015)." - a little clunky, perhaps. How about something like "Ivory hardly met Guadagnino during the process for the latter was preoccupied making A Bigger Splash (2015)."? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aciman felt the place was not familiar with the town square he pictured in the novel"; again, I find this wording a little unclear. Perhaps something like "Aciman felt that the town square selected for filming differed from that he had pictured in his novel"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He described the scene in which Elio conveys his feelings to Oliver as one of the story's most important moments that captures the "euphoric passion and nervousness" of their first love" - there needs to be some change around "moments that captures" to make this sentence flow properly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it better now? Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guadagnino was tempted to remove the scene from the novel in which Elio masturbates into a pitted peach, which he thought it was too explicit". Bit clunky. Guadagnino wasn't removing a scene from the novel itself (as an editor might); he simply considered not using it in the film. Also, "thich he thought it was too explicit" should be "which he thought too explicit". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revised. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, some excellent work has gone into this article and once these prose issues are addressed I would be very happy to support its promotion to FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, are you able to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to offer my support for this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Damian Vo (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bilorv

[edit]
Delinked. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seductive courtship" – I'm not sure whether they're trying to seduce other people or each other at this point. Each other? But it doesn't look like either of them are deliberately trying to seduce the other. If it's a topic sentence, I don't think it's needed, and I think it would sound fine as "Elio and Oliver they swim together, go for long walks ..."
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gay" movie seems like an inappropriate/Easter egg link. From the link, the term "New Queer Cinema" is used to "define and describe a movement in queer-themed independent filmmaking in the early 1990s". That's more than just "this is a contemporary film about queer people", and neither of the sources use the phrase "New Queer Cinema" (unless I missed something), so I think the link should be removed.
Delinked. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ivory hardly met Guadagnino during the process for the latter was preoccupied" – Took me a moment to parse. A comma between "process" and "for" might help.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guadagnino was "talking about how he would do" the scenes with nudity involved" – I don't think the direct quote adds much. Maybe "Guadagnino discussed how to film the scenes involving nudity".
Revised. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The director did not like the idea of having the main character tell the story retrospectively, stating that "it kills the surprise"." – Does this sentence not belong in the beginning of first paragraph of Adaptation?
The first two paragraphs are supposed to reflect the changes from Aciman's book. The last two are about Ivory's original script. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The production section needs to make clearer what languages the film is in. The infobox says English and Italian, so what exactly does that mean? The characters switch between English and Italian, or scenes in some locations are in Italian and others are in English?
Added in the Casting section (fifth paragraph). Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His character, 17-year-old Elio, is fluent in three languages" – And these three languages are? Only French and Italian are mentioned in the rest of the sentence. Is English the other one?
Yes. Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Capriolo, who is not an actor" – I'd say being cast in a film makes you an actor. Maybe "was not an actor".
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "even if it meant increasing a production's budget" – Should this not be "increasing the production budget"?
Oops. I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "earned 29 million on-demand audio streams" – It's not really something "earned". Maybe "garnered" would be better.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reportedly made due to the government's "consistent stance of intolerance toward gay content"" – Who is reporting this and where does the quote come from?
Added writer and publisher. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The website's critical consensus reads; "Call Me by Your Name" – Shouldn't the semi-colon be a comma or a colon?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hammer confirmed about the sequel" – Not sure if the "about" should be here, but this isn't official confirmation, right? So maybe just "Hammer said about the sequel".
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A sequel to the film was announced in January 2018." – Either this is too matter-of-fact or the body isn't clear enough. I'd say "planned sequel" if it's not actually been optioned/announced by a production company.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is an absolutely outstanding article, thoroughly comprehensive and with brilliant prose and sourcing throughout (the minor details above being exceptions). It brings to life what sounds like an excellent movie, and is easily understandable even to someone with no familiarity with the subject. I'll be very happy to support once the points above have been addressed. By the way, the website parameters in the references are not consistently linked or not linked, and I don't think Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are needed as External links since they're mentioned in the body, but I don't consider these relevant to the FA criteria. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Vo, I'd like to move this review along, are you ready to respond to Bilorv comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like they already fixed the issues yesterday, just without commenting here. I've made one small edit, and one of my comments has been unaddressed, maybe for a good reason ("Does this sentence not belong in the beginning of first paragraph of Adaptation?"), but I'm now very happy to support. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just had the craziest first week in college, and fortunately I saved all my edits based on your review right before the server switch yesterday. I addressed all your comments above—as for the website parameters in the references, I just linked all the available publishers. A big fat THANK YOU for your patience towards the nomination. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

I think we still need an image review -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Damian Vo: I started looking at this to see if it's ready for promotion, and errors in the writing are easily spotted: "It was originally scheduled to be shown on Beijing International Film Festival" in the Release section. Please give it a careful reading for obvious typos and grammatical issues. --Laser brain (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that. Damian Vo (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Laser brain, in fact I started to do a quick scan of the lead and main body to see if it was ready for promotion and ended up copyediting more than I expected to before stopping to do other things. I wouldn't necessarily say the prose can't be improved enough for promotion during this nomination, but it will need someone going through it top to bottom and very soon -- if I have time I'll recuse as coord and do it myself, but no promises. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
OK ALT Text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Since I'm not sure about the copyright in those two images, I could remove them if necessary. Damian Vo (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed both pictures from the article. Damian Vo (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pandino, monumento ai caduti.jpg is fine. The statue's copyright had expired in Italy before the URAA, meaning it has also entered the public domain in the US. The sculptor, Pietro Küfferle, died in 1942 (see the pdf linked to the entry at the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities General Catalog of Cultural Heritage). According to WP:URAA, the term of copyright protection for a statue in Italy prior to 1996 was 50 years after the death of the author. 50 years after Pietro's death was 1992, so copyright on the statue had expired prior to the date of restoration. It is in the public domain in both Italy and the US. I've updated the information on the image page at Commons accordingly. —BLZ · talk 20:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian

[edit]

Per my comment above, I decided to recuse and do a full copyedit/review. I applaud the effort that's gone into this article, but the ce was heavy going, and the thing should have gone through Peer Review before FAC. My concern now is that even after the copyedit, there are still outstanding points that need to be dealt with:

  • Ivory was "very much involved" – not clear who said this, pls attribute inline.
Removed the quote. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • a "much more efficient" solution, to help the audience understand the characters and "reflect the essence of the book" – again, quotes should be attributed inline.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the arid climate and "spookily deserted" nature in Crema – what exactly does "nature" mean here, the landscape?
Yes, I fixed that. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the production company later felt he was unsuitable because of his "various troubles" – per above, exactly who said "various troubles"? If the production company, was it a named representative? TBH I’m dubious about including the quote anyway, as the question immediately arises for the uninitiated: "what troubles?"
Removed the quote. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casting director Stella Savino met Vanda Capriolo when she was bicycling in the countryside. – not immediately clear who was bicycling...
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guadagnino usually selects the music for his films himself. – perhaps I’m too familiar with people like Stanley Kubrick but is it so unusual for directors to choose music?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was also screened at the Berlin International Film Festival on February 13, 2017. – I assume “It” is the promo reel rather than the film itself, since the promo was mentioned in the previous sentence? If not, replace “It” with “The film” and drop “also”.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • largely because of Sony Pictures' "misleading" use of an image – should attribute “misleading”.
Removed the quote. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • an under-performance compared to "some of its competition with similar theater counts" – according to...?
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, and putting my coord hat back on for a minute, it appears that this would be nominator's first FA if successful, so we'd want to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing. This will add to the nom's already long duration, and in any case I'm afraid I've invested all the time in it that I can spare. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also a bit surprised by the withdrawal. It looks like the article is close to passing—I think it certainly deserves to—and I'll volunteer to do a source review if the nomination remains open. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm back. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting, I appreciate that the nominator has made changes based on my comments above but, checking diffs, a lot of text has changed since then, improving some areas but introducing further prose issues. As I said earlier, I can't spare the time to go through it again top the bottom, but I think somebody needs to -- in all conscience I can't support promotion as things stand, so must reluctantly oppose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tony1

[edit]

Why has this been here for so long?

  • "35-mm" – MOS and ISO breach: no hyphen when symbol is used.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elio, an introspective bibliophile and musical prodigy, initially finds little in common with Oliver, who has a contrastingly carefree and exuberant personality. Elio resents having to give up his bedroom for Oliver for the duration of his stay. He spends much of the ...". "He" is who?
It's Elio. Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guadagnino took note of Armie Hammer upon seeing his performance in The Social Network (2010)." Not a good sentence.
I gave it a little tweak. Damian Vo (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the "Principal photography" crowded with obstructive ref-tags? Is it contentious? "Principal photography on Call Me by Your Name lasted around 33 days.[58][68] It began on May 9, 2016,[69] and was completed in June 2016.[48][70] The process was unobstrusive,[71] reports only appearing after filming had been underway for two weeks.[72][73] The film was shot primarily in Crema[8][11] and the province of Cremona.[74][75]"—This is a weird sentence: "The process was unobstrusive, reports only appearing after filming had been underway for two weeks."
I moved the tags and fixed the sentence. Damian Vo (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has "a publicity campaign" got to do with "Principal photography"?
It's included in the production budget in Crema. Damian Vo (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several historical locations in the streets of Crema and Pandino, including the arch of Torrazzo at Crema Cathedral, were chosen during production." Re-do the order of this sentence.
Is it better now? Damian Vo (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1a: The lead is ok. I've not looked at most of it. Nothing to write home about, but I won't oppose. Tony (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • By coincidence, I've just watched half of this film. The 17yo is not a "musical prodigy". I wonder whether this was a loose indulgence by a critic. "a talented musician" might be OK. Is the Jewish identity given undue emphasis in the article? Any outsider symbolism is hard to find. Tony (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone seems to have different opinions about the characters' Jewish background. Maybe you should read the comments from Midnightblueowl right above, or from the GA nomination in July. I fixed the "musical prodigy" part. Damian Vo (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Undue emphasis. After TWO mentions toward the top of the article I was all prepared for it to be a meaningful part of the plot. Can you explain how it is that? Tony (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: @Damian Vo: The Jewish identity of the characters is an important thematic element of the film and, at the very least, it's far from undue to mention the fact. I agree with Midnightblueowl's comments above. It's not the crux of the entire movie, but it is significant to the identity of the characters and the overall meaning of the story: in an early scene, Elio is shocked to see Oliver openly wearing a Star of David necklace in public, which is a clear symbolic parallel between LGBT people remaining closeted for fear of persecution and Jews assimilating, passing, and hiding their identity for fear of persecution. Remember that Italy is a deeply Catholic country. A general reader unfamiliar with the film may mistakenly assume the characters are Catholic, which carries a very different cultural context. It's worth including the fact to avoid that misunderstanding alone. Sure, a general reader would probably figure it out by the time they get to the word "Hanukkah" in the final paragraph, but at that point a mistaken assumption would have colored their entire reading. Introducing the characters' Jewish identity is also useful for casual readers who may use the Wikipedia page as a quick reference to remember that aspect of the movie. For what it's worth, it's trivially easy to find examples of critics remarking on the significance of the characters' Jewishness, including several from Jewish or Israeli outlets:
In short: the fact of Elio and Oliver's Jewishness is not a Chekhov's gun upon which the plot pivots, sure, but it's worth noting in the article because it carries important contextual and thematic significance (not to mention usefulness for Wikipedia as an encyclopedic reference point). Perhaps including the Star of David necklace scene in the plot summary as well will provide additional weight. —BLZ · talk 21:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal; but two mentions of Jewish identity at the top seemed one too many. I've asked a friend who's read the book whether the Jewish identity plays out more there. He said there's a little more detail, but it's still not important to the plot or characterisation, symbolically or otherwise. I don't understand why "encycopedic reference point" (whatever that is) is relevant. Tony (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I said about serving as an encyclopedic reference point, I just mean we should try to include facts that are reasonably notable that someone would use Wikipedia to look up for reference. It's easy to imagine a reader recalling the movie, wondering "I can't remember what religion those characters were" (or any other number of thoughts that might spark curiosity about this fact) and using Wikipedia to check. This just speaks to the way people ordinarily use the site; sometimes we sit down and read full pages, sure, but other times—most of the time, let's be honest—there's one or two facts we want to recall. The identity of the two main characters is a conspicuous-enough fact that it's easy to imagine readers would reasonably be curious about this fact, or indeed that their whole purpose of searching out the page in the first place could have been to check this one fact.
I've edited the plot summary to include the fact that they are both Jewish-American again—I hadn't realized earlier that removing the fact that they are Jewish also removed their nationality, which is similarly important and nonintuitive without prior knowledge (if someone lives in Italy, you don't presume that means they are expats, and even if you do, expats can be from anywhere; similarly, graduate students studying abroad can be from anywhere.)
Another point about all of this: most of the film's actual events are omitted from plot summary. I discussed the peach scene below with Damian Vo, and decided that (despite the scene's fame) a literal description of the events of that scene is probably not necessary as the meaning is subtextual. At the moment, the plot summary does not include the Star of David scene, either (which is actually more significant than I remembered; several writers online have pointed out that Elio is seen wearing a Star of David necklace later in the film, and it is implied that Oliver gives Elio his Star of David at the end of their visit to Bergamo). It also doesn't include other scenes that aren't directly relevant to these themes, like their visit to the archeological site, the dance, etc. It's OK that these scenes are omitted, because the summary doesn't have to recount every scene since it captures the arc of the relationship in summary style. That said, because events like the scene concerning the Star of David are not included in the summary, the full subtextual significance is not going to be apparent to someone who only reads the Wikipedia summary. CMBYN is a movie built on subtext, but it's not necessary (or possible) to fully convey the subtextual significance of every major thematic element. Nonetheless, several facts about them both being Jewish-American are significant even without a full subtextual understanding and wouldn't be evident otherwise, including that the characters are in a non-native land and share a common religion—the minority in the country they are living in—and a common national background. And unlike the interpretation required to see the full significance of the peach scene, the fact that they are Jewish-American is a simple true-or-false proposition that is easily contained in sentences introducing the characters. —BLZ · talk 17:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Tony (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC) And I support for cr. 1a. You might trim a few of those "upon"s to plain "on"s. Tony (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Bilorv

[edit]

Spotchecks done and no issues found for: FN3, FN7, FN19, FN26, FN30, FN33, FN48, FN111, FN118, FN132, FN148, FN157, FN182, FN236, FN243. Other spotchecks:

  • FN61 is a blog somehow associated with the University of Liverpool. It's not clear to me that this is reliable, but it seems like removal is best as the prose it sources is also covered by FN60 (and, really, the primary source of the film itself).
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN76 and FN77 don't really source the statement "A search for extras in Crema began in March–April." They are both just calls for extras; there's no evidence that they were the first or last calls.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only read machine-translated versions of FN83 and FN84 but it looks like it was the City of Crema that were reportedly paying €18,000, not the production company. Am I misunderstanding something?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see a part of FN208 which can be summarised as "Ken Eisner of The Georgia Straight questioned the film's central message". Rather, it seems that Eisner criticises that certain details are not central to the story.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

  • Publication locations are used for some sources and not others—why?
Because those locations are listed explicitly in the sources. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN24 translates the title as "Call me with your name: because Luca Guadagnino likes Americans". Would "Call me by your name" not be a more accurate translation, since the title is referring to the film name? Same thing in FN63.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The budget is given variously as $3 million, $3.4 million and $3.5 million. Presumably the exact figure is $3.4 million and the other sources are rounding, but the article uses $3.5 million when it seems like $3.4 million would be a bit more precise.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN71 does indeed say filming happened "quietly", but this is just an informal description by a journalist. I don't think it's a strong enough source for the article to claim "The process occurred quietly". Perhaps remove this and leave the description that reports only began after two weeks into filming.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN92 should have its website (Interview) as a parameter.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN178 should link "Box Office Mojo".
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Gardanotizie a reliable source? Rappler (which describes itself as "citizen journalism")? Washington Blade (a tabloid)?

— Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on sourcing, I guess, though I've already supported above. Thanks for the quick responses. All the problems I found have been fixed, I am confident that sources used are reliable and spotchecking didn't reveal any systematic problem in the article's sourcing (in particular, there was no close paraphrasing or plagiarism and only occasional minor inconsistency between the prose and the sources). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Damian Vo (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brandt Luke Zorn

[edit]

Excellent article about a wonderful film. I've began making some copyedits throughout. I'm writing pretty thorough edit summaries to explain my reasoning in most cases; most of my changes aren't radical rewrites on a textual level, but they sometimes make a substantive difference in meaning. If you disagree with my edits there, feel free to bring them up here. I'm still reading through the article closely, but here's a few preliminary thoughts on topics that ought to be addressed here:

  • The plot summary is concise, even—appropriately, I feel—spare. It adequately covers the film's arc without giving too much away. You've done well to summarize without belaboring or tediously lingering on any plot points. That said, I think you should reconsider the omission of the "call me by your name and I'll call you by mine" line of dialogue, not just because it's the source of the title, but because it is echoed in the final telephone conversation.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think the "peach" scene should probably be included in the plot summary since it is so famous... but I'm conflicted here, because I also understand why it's missing. "As the end of Oliver's stay approaches, the couple find themselves overcome by uncertainty and longing." In a single sentence, you've done justice to that part of the film in terms of the emotion, which is the true through-line of the film. Personally, I know I don't have the skill to write down a literal description of what takes place in that scene that would convey the actual emotional effect of the scene, let alone avoid diminishing it. Idk, tbh. It might be worth giving it a shot if you haven't, but it's tricky, and you came up with an elegant solution. I'd like to hear your thoughts. It might be a worthy addition, but maybe it's better left out—the peach scene is addressed elsewhere, anyway.
I agree that the scene is one crucial piece in the plot but I think it is already well-addressed in the "Adaptation" section. Damian Vo (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'd already talked myself out of it more or less, but I wanted to put the thought down for the record anyway. —BLZ · talk 09:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You include this article, but you've omitted some of the most fascinating parts of Ivory's criticism. You did include the "phoney" quote elsewhere, but I think you should take a bit more from here. First, it's interesting that Ivory feels that Guadagnino was self-serving and duplicitous in his decisions about the depiction of nudity to the press. Ivory called it "bullshit," a strong word, and said Guadagnino told the press something other than what actually transpired in development. Additionally, Ivory expresses a strong aesthetic preference for depicting male sex and even makes the case for why it's preferable. "To me, that's a more natural way of doing things than to hide them, or to do what Luca did, which is to pan the camera out of the window toward some trees"—in the context of queer storytelling, "to hide" seems like significant, almost political language that goes far beyond ordinary considerations of whether to include sexual content or not. Most versions of "should we include nudity?" in filmmaking center on familiar retreadings of issues like gratuitousness or marketability, so I don't think a general reader is likely to intuit these hidden stakes. These are important insights into the process, the thinking, and the conflict of the two most important contributors to the film, and including more of Ivory's reasoning could make this aspect more vivid. The sentence here feels too dry: "According to Ivory, Guadagnino discussed how to film the scenes involving nudity, but later dropped it." It misses a lot of the conflict and the reasons for the difference of opinion between writer and director.
I made some changes to the "Adaptation" section based on your suggestions. Damian Vo (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised this section again, as I thought there were some things that were worth clarifying:
  • It's not quite accurate to say Ivory thought the film depicted a "'phoney' version of a same-sex relationship". The comment he made to the Guardian in which he used the word "phoney" was not about onscreen same-sex relationships in particular. He merely thought it was phoney that films contrive ways to hide post-sex nudity, when it's more realistic to expect that people of any sex will probably walk around naked for a while after having sex in most cases as long as they're still alone and in private. Either way, Ivory's perception of "phoney"-ness is narrowly about nudity and intimacy, not about an overall failure to depict a realistic gay couple. It overstates his criticism to say he felt the lack of nudity rendered the entire relationship between the characters inauthentic or "phoney", he just felt the lack of nudity itself was "phoney".
  • "Ivory also criticized the film's lack of nudity, due to the director's 'aesthetic decision'" — the sentence that this quote comes from is: "He sat in this very room where I am sitting now, talking about how he would do it, so when he says that it was a conscious aesthetic decision not to – well, that’s just bullshit." It's inaccurate to say Ivory thought the film's lack of nudity was due to the director's "aesthetic decision". What he said is the director's own statements that the lack of nudity was due to a "conscious aesthetic decision" were false or misleading. In Ivory's account, it sounds like the filmmakers had made a conscious aesthetic decision in their pre-production discussions, but it had been to include nudity, not to omit it, and the subsequent decision to omit nudity was mostly due to nonaesthetic considerations (such as the actors' no-nudity contract terms.) In other words, Ivory's problem here is not so much the decision itself (although he disagrees with that too, for other reasons); his problem is Guadagnino's statements that the decision had always been conscious (intentional, deliberative, implying that even Ivory himself intended or approved it) and aesthetic (strictly about artistic vision, not a compromise to other external considerations), which in Ivory's view is not true.
  • "To me, that's a more natural way of doing things than to hide them, or to do what Luca did" — Ivory was comparing CMBYN to his earlier film Maurice. Without this context, it's unclear what "that" refers to. —BLZ · talk 09:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just scrolling through, one of my favorite parts of the article is the gallery of photos from filming locations. This is an exceptional visual feature for the article, the kind of thing I'd like to see more of on Wikipedia. Have you considered bumping the image height up slightly? I've played around with it a few ways in preview and 200px seems like it could work. You get two rows in most window widths that way, but I think that only enhances the gallery without detracting from the article flow. Compared to the web design you find on most other modern sites, I think Wikipedia's default design elements squish and encourage the squishing of images too much, but that's just me.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is something I say whenever I can: major kudos for archiving every link in the references. It can be a pain and it's not strictly required by the FA criteria, but it's essential. If Wikipedia exists decades from now—and hopefully it does!—archived links will help preserve the site's best work.
Thank you :> Damian Vo (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some copyediting on punctuation placement for quotations. See MOS:INOROUT. However in my rush I think I actually messed up a few of these. Gonna revisit tomorrow or the next day, my comments above are enough to start on anyway. —BLZ · talk 07:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I've finished copyediting. Some changes were as minor as fixing punctuation to MOS standards, other times I dug back into sources to see if I could clarify unclear wording or expand quotes to make more sense of them. Let me know if you disagree with any of my revisions. I've also added a map of the filming locations, which seemed like a fun challenge. I'm not 100% confident that the way I formatted those templates will work (or look good) 100% of the time—on my mobile device, it looks like the two maps may stack vertically. I'm still willing to tinker with it if you like the addition, or maybe someone better at CSS than me will weigh in; it's also possible to remove the map of Italy, although for an average (non-Italian) person the map of Lombardy may be cropped too closely to get a sense of the region's location within Italy. Overall, superb work. This is an excellent, comprehensive article. —BLZ · talk 09:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I see Ian requested an additional copyedit/prose review; I should be able to complete a review today. I'll copyedit as I go rather than post queries unless I think something requires input from the nominator. Please revert if I screw anything up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see Aoba47 recommended that you mention Fandango in the introductory sentence of the cast section. Aoba47, you said this was personal preference -- is there more to it than that? I'd prefer to cut it, since it immediately made me think that either the cast list was very hard to source (which is unlikely) or that the Fandango cast list differs from other sources. It's a minor point, either way.
    I simply suggested that the Fandango reference and sentence be placed before the section as opposed to below as that is how I have seen it normally done. I would imagine that the cast list should have a reference though to support the actors/characters credited (as seen in Margarita with a Straw. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then I'd suggest cutting it -- there seems no need to explain to the reader where we got the citation from; they can click on the footnote if they're interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I think it should just be the reference. I have looked through other FAs on film, and I have seen a mixture of those citing the cast section and those that do not. I personally think that it should be cited to explain why these particular actors are including in the cast list and to avoid the addition of very minor characters or extras, but it is up to the editor's preference there. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the process, Ivory put together more than 100 pages of notes on Aciman's book.": suggest cutting this -- what screenwriter doesn't make notes?
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a few direct quotes, which would be nice to avoid. Here's one: 'According to Guadagnino, the filmmakers set the movie entirely in the present timeline, a "much more efficient" solution to help the audience understand the characters and "reflect the essence of the book".' Can we make this "The filmmakers set the movie entirely in the present timeline to help the audience understand the characters, believing that this approach would still allow them to remain true to the spirit of the book." There's a slight shift in meaning here, in that the source does not say the timeline setting would help reflect the essence of the book; they say only that they don't think it gets in the way.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'He said that explicit nudity was "absolutely irrelevant" to his vision for the film,[44] and that he did not like the idea of having the main character tell the story retrospectively, stating that "it kills the surprise".' These are two independent points, and the one about the timeline is covered earlier in this section. I'd move that half of the sentence up and merge it with the earlier discussion.
These two are about the voice-over narration and the nudity from the previous sentence. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many of the changes to Ivory's screenplay were made during the filming; the screenwriter was not present at the shooting set, as is typical in filmmaking." Suggest "Many of the changes to Ivory's screenplay were made during the filming; Ivory was not on set during shooting" with a footnote explaining that this is typical.
Removed the last part. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Speaking about this disagreement with Ivory, Guadagnino had said: "I understand that for James [explicit nudity] would have been relevant but that is his vision, what is clear is that we had no limitations on what we wanted to do."' Suggest 'Guadagnino said that he understood Ivory's position, but that it was clear that there were "no limitations on what we wanted to do".'
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest cutting the sentence about Hammer changing his mind while on the phone; it's trivia -- we're already saying he considered passing.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Call Me by Your Name became the third film in which Hammer played an LGBT character, following his roles in J. Edgar (2011) and Final Portrait (2017)." Suggest "Hammer had previously played LGBT characters, in J. Edgar (2011) and Final Portrait (2017)"; the fact that it's the third film isn't worth calling out, and the reader can count to three anyway.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Guadagnino said he did not want the film to "look like a reflection on the 80s, the way cinema usually does when it becomes [a period piece]," as he believes it is "very difficult to resist the temptation of thinking of a period from our perspective, our idea of the 80s."' I think this is more than we need of Guadagnino's words. How about 'Guadagnino did not want the film to be a period piece, and tried to resist making a film that would reflect "our idea of the 80s". His goal was an accurate recreation of the period that was invisible to the viewer.'
Fixed.
  • 'Reports on the filming only appeared after the process had already been underway for two weeks.[70][71][72]' Can we cut this? I don't see why the reader would care (nor why there are three citations for it).
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rephrased the sentence on the heavy rains, but I noticed some interesting discussion in the source about how the cinematography had to adapt. Not necessary for FAC, but afterwards you might consider incorporating some of that material.
  • "Scenes set in the nearby villages Pandino and Moscazzano were filmed between May 17 and 19 before moving to Crema on June 1": the scenes didn't move to Crema on June 1, the shooting did. Will the sources support "Scenes set in the nearby villages Pandino and Moscazzano were filmed between May 17 and 19, and shooting in Crema began on June 1"?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'which allowed the filmmakers to "witness the onscreen maturity of both protagonist and actor".' I'd cut this; you might reintroduce it in the critical reception section. If you want to keep it it needs to be paraphrased, or else you need to attribute it to Fasano in the text.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That whole paragraph is almost entirely constructed from quotes; it needs to be narrated in the encyclopedia's voice. We shouldn't use quotes to tell the story; quotes are for illustration.
  • Why do we care what the Piazza Vittoria Emanuele memorializes?
It's one infamous scene in the film. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we care that Aciman saw that scene, let alone that it was his first day on set?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, because I can see from the comments above that this has plenty of support for promotion, but at this point I have to Oppose. There's some trivia, which I'm either cutting as I find it or asking you to cut in the bullet list above. There are problems with the writing -- mostly with a lack of concision, but occasionally more than that. The worst issue is the overuse of quotes. I haven't reached it yet in the review, but the critical response section also needs work; see WP:RECEPTION for some suggestions. I'm out of time but can continue with the copyedit and review tomorrow or Monday if this is not archived. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Damian Vo: What's the status here? This is at the bottom of the list and we have open comments more than a week old. I see you have been active editing. --Laser brain (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed most of the problems mentioned above. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination has been dragging on for months and I couldn't keep track of all the comments toward the article. Maybe it's time to close this. Damian Vo (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laser brain, I have a little time tonight, and may have some more during the week, but can't commit to more than an hour or two until Saturday. I will take a look at the fixes Damian has made above later this evening if you haven't closed this by then, but I can't guarantee I'll be able to finish reading the article until the weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike Christie, no worries at all. Damian Vo, I'd hate to close this when so much progress has been made—let's hang on tight. --Laser brain (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll see what I can get done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a shame to see this archived after so much work but I also opposed above, not long before Mike, largely because I think too much work has been done. Several people, including me, have made extensive copyedits or requested many changes, some decent work along the way has I think been undone (not through the fault of the nominator) and it's become a dog's breakfast. Obviously I'm speaking purely as a reviewer here, but I would've thought it best for the next copyedit to be away from FAC, because even after that people like me will want to go through it again to see that it finally comes together. I reiterate though that that's just me as a reviewer, I don't have to make a judgement on closure... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damian, I came here to post a follow-up and saw Ian's comment. I was about to post the comment below, but I'll add here that I think the article would benefit from some work away from FAC. I would be willing to work on it with you and I think it's likely it would get through FAC fairly easily if we did that.

Here's what I was going to post. The biggest remaining issue for me is the critical response section, so let's start there. Take a look at WP:RECEPTION; I won't repeat the advice it gives, but the section suffers badly from the "A said B" problem. This is fixable but it requires dismantling the section and rebuilding it in a different way. If you want to take a stab at it, go ahead; I would suggest looking at the "True Detective" example given in the essay as an example of how it could be done. If you're not clear what I'm asking for I can be more specific. Or, as I said above, I'll work with you on it away from FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - OK, it looks as though the best thing for all involved will be to work this up outside of FAC and then renominate when it's ready. @Damian Vo:, when it's ready, you can definitely ping those who have already reviewed the article and ask them to comment again. --Laser brain (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Call_Me_by_Your_Name_(film)/archive1&oldid=868716598"