Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saw VI/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 not promoted by Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [1].

Saw VI

[edit]

Saw VI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Mike Allen 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I've have been working on this article for over six months. It passed GA in March and had a peer review in July-August. Most concerns in the peer review were, lack of images (I finally got a free image of the director), and problems with prose. I had an independent copyeditor go through the article. Another concern was lack of offline sources. I managed to track down the issue of Fangoria that featured the film, but wasn't successful in finding anything else offline--and probably won't anytime soon. This is also my first FA and I will probably not have help fulfilling reviewers' concerns. Mike Allen 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review One appropriate FU, two retouched self-made, OK, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is the "sequel" section still important? I imagine it was just the base of the current Saw 3D article and the information could be summed up in one or two sentences in reception. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. Actually I just wrote that section yesterday (and used some refs from the Saw 3D article). I've read where the Film Project may remove the "Proceeded by" and "Followed by" parameters in the film infobox. I may have misunderstood though. Still, I believe anything in the infobox should be mentioned in the prose. With that said, I don't disagree with moving it into the reception section. Mike Allen 01:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I want to ensure that the film article is as comprehensive as possible, so I ask FAC reviewers who have access to subscription-only databases like JSTOR to check for coverage of Saw VI and provide them here. Existing references look good, but not all content will be available online. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't seen this one yet, so I'm refraining from really reading the article in-depth. But, at a glance I do have a couple of questions.
  1. Shouldn't the sequel info be at Saw (franchise), and not on this article? Typically, once you get into multiple films, all sequel info is intially mentioned on the original's article and then subsequenly on a film series/franchise page. Technically, any film after numero uno is always a sequel to that film, and not a sequel to the sequel - even when it continues a storyline started in a sequel.
  2. Can we legitimately say this article is comprehensive if we haven't used anything from the audio tracks on the DVDs? Maybe I missed them, but I couldn't find anything in the sources listing their use and I find it hard to imagine that with 2 full tracks that neither covers anything new that could be included in this article.
  3. Image placement. You're infobox image is your first, so the next one should be on the left side, the quotebox on the right, and the last image on the left (where it is currently). As the MOS for images says to cascade the sides for those types of things.

Just a couple of things. I don't want to ruin the film for myself by reading details. :( Sorry.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. That makes sense. I just added the section before I nominated the article, like I said above, I thought everything listed in the infobox should be included in prose, somewhere.
2. I rented the DVD once it was released in January hoping to be able to add something useful to the article... but was disappointed. I listened to both commentaries and remember mostly trivia. The only useful thing that came out of them is on the Saw 3D article (and it was republished on a horror news site). It was Marcus saying that Tandera Howard would be in Saw VII. I'll rent it again and refresh my memory.
3. Fixed. Also someone has added the soundtrack poster (again) ... is that really needed? Mike Allen 21:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soundtrack image would fail WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE in a heartbeat. Probably don't need the infobox itself (which is what is drawing the need to fill the "image" parameter for some people), as the soundtrack has its own article. Plus, you're really only supposed to have 1 infobox in an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I feel about the non-free poster too. I brought the album infobox up on WT:FILM last month. Mike Allen 23:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as Erik pointed out at WP:FILM, the image doesn't stand the test of time as far as fair use rationales go. You'd have to have critical commentary on it for justification, which as far as I know that article doesn't have. That said, I'm personally against soundtrack infoboxes. I was under the understanding that we're only to have one box per article (not a FILM guideline, but a Wiki guideline), but maybe I'm wrong. Again, in the least it's a personal preference and if I cannot find anything stating that it shouldn't be there then there isn't a reason for you to remove it. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should Saw VI: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack be bolded? Mike Allen 01:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on WP:MOSBOLD, I could not find anything (and I may have easily missed it) that says you bold a title later in the article. All I could find is "in the lead", and that isn't in the lead. So, I'd say "no", unless someone else sees where that page says that you should.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The plot is currently at 725 words, and that's because the actors are included next to their character names. If I made a cast list, it would bring the word count down to 697. So, should that be done? Mike Allen 23:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need. 725 words is not overly detailed. The series does have a semi-complicated backstory with its characters. I think the section looks longer than it actually is. I mean, I'd read it and cut any wordiness that I saw out of it, but as I said before it's the only one I haven't watched yet.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • sign on . hyphen
  • story lines . storylines. more common
  • I don't like the emdashes in between the heavy numbering and symbols. brackets perhaps
  • It grossed $14,118,444—$4,650 per theater its opening weekend - not gramatical
  • Box office is just a proseform of a list of numbers. Covered in excruciating detail.
  • No. 6 inconsistency.
  • weighted average score. perhaps hyphen.
  • The best entry in the series since Saw II". move full stop inside.
  • One "Blue"-ray
  • "It's a fitting marriage, as hard rock and heavy metal are the sonic suitors to horror and torture porn films and video games". move inside

86.141.247.236 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the box office, what else am I suppose to present? I thought the box office section is supposed to show how it did at the box office (that involves numerical figures). At least I did include the international box office performance, what else would you like to see. I don't know what you mean about the "Blue"-ray. I would appreciate, instead of listing a bullet point presentation, that you would please list your comments like the rest of FAC reviewers. Thanks. Mike Allen 04:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I've used NewsBank and got a few results from that. I've added one newspaper to the article. Many reviewers talk about (online and newspapers) how the film "satires" the US health care situation of 2009 and some even go as far as to bring Michael Moore's name up. [2]. I don't want to add any undo weight, but when multiple reviewers mention the heath care plot, do you think it should be discussed in the reception section. If so, how would it be the best to add it? Mike Allen 03:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment—The Critical response section containing the film critic reviews appears a bit "light" on content. It seems it could use a bit of an expansion. As a quick example, have you looked through a site such as the Movie Review Query Engine for additional viewpoints? For this particular film, it lists 73 critical reviews, which of course also appear on other film critic review sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. DeWaine (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right it does list a lot of reviews... but I'm not sure if many of those sites are considered reliable critics to use on Wikipedia? Also, I disagree with two of your edits. The first one you added this to the lead, "Following its cinematic release, the film failed to receive any award nominations from mainstream motion picture organizations for its production merits or lead acting." Is this really needed? I'm not sure if any "mainstream" motion pictures organization would nominate a Saw film for anything, given its nature. The other edit where you delink the US$ sign from the infobox. The film is also considered a Canadian film (apparently), and since US$ and CA$ are too different things, I thought it would be best to clarify that. Mike Allen 01:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response—Well, to start off, I believe the lead sentence addition is needed. A film like Saw would sometimes garner an award for special effects or music. (I admit it; I might have overdone it by adding lead acting in that sentence). But never the less, films like that do receive nominations for "production merits". The dollar sign, is a questionable edit. I just didn't think it was necessary to include that tidbit of information. Finally, as far as the reviews are concerned; I do believe a significant number of those reviews are reliable. They contain viewpoints from notable newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, the Village Voice, the Boston Globe, the Austin Chronicle, Orlando Sentinel etc. Just because it's not Roger Ebert, doesn't make it unreliable. The point I'm trying to make is, a page under consideration for Featured Article status should contain thorough-filled content in it's main sections. The amount of critical content is a bit low. If you remove the image, it becomes even more slim. I just feel you should add more reviews. DeWaine (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will add more reviews from the major publishers. I also saw a few via NewsBank. I wouldn't expect a big critical analysis of a Saw film though and one reason I think I didn't add more reviews is it was just the same thing, just a different reviewer. And Robert Ebert hasn't reviewed a Saw film since the first... Also I would like others to weigh in on the dollar sign linkage and the addition to the lead--before the FAC gets closed due to no consensus. Mike Allen 02:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional response—Ok, fair enough. By the way, I was aware of that Roger Ebert issue. That's one review that would be considered a "given". If he reviewed the film and you didn't insert it, I would have made another objection. DeWaine (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more reviews (though I'm still looking through newspapers), would you "Agree" or "Oppose" to be a featured article? Mike Allen 00:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary response—I'm leaning towards a support for FAC status. I'm satisfied with the additional inclusions of critical critique. It certainly looks more built up. Just so you understand, I wanted to clarify something with that. I understand your point by mentioning you didn't want to add the same types of reviews over and over again. But for the reader, its important to do just that. The reason is, every critic has a different reason for their individual negativity. One might think the plot was too predictable, another might have thought the dialogue was absurd, or another might have felt the film had cinematography and editing which was of low quality. Its important for a reader to understand why each critic gave a negative review.

But on another front, in the Production section, is there any more supplemental content to add? The material is segregated in three short paragraphs. I noticed through the References section, much of the content is sourced using only internet sites. And those would include Bloody Disgusting, The Collective and Crave Online Media. Have you consulted any novels? I don't see a single printed book with a corresponding ISBN number for your sourcing. DeWaine (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a concern (see the top of this page) with User:Erik. The only "book" source that I know features Saw is Fangoria, and it's already in the article. Google Books doesn't show anything. I live in a small town (under 500 people) so my library is not a good resource. I just don't think there is in-dept coverage of Saw VI in offline sources. Do you have access to subscription-only databases? Mike Allen 05:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Sorry there. Indeed it would appear I missed that previous response. I didn't know that issue was already addressed. When I get back in 10-12 hours, I'll see what I can dig up. If I can't find anything, then that will have to suffice. I suppose. DeWaine (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Other comment—Well, after searching for additional print sources, I've come to the conclusion that you were indeed correct about it's prospects. I don't have any access to any subscription-only databases, and my search for novels in connection with the film was fruitless. I'm not sure if it would be too wide or relevant of a topic to simply reference the Saw film series in general and not just this film in particular for more production details. If your able to do so on that front, I don't see how it could hurt the article.
On a separate note, I would like to just quickly touch upon other content in the article. First, in the See also section, is it really necessary to include the link for 2009 in film? I see virtually no relevance at all between that link and the Saw article. In fact, the only connection I see would be that the film was produced and released in 2009. Thats about it. Nothing else. I don't think thats a good enough reason to include it. Its simply way too broad of topic to include in the article. Wouldn't a more relevant link be to include the Saw (franchise) instead? I can't think of a more applicable topic to insert. Now I understand the link already appears in the lead section; but its distance from the See also section in the article warrants a duplicate insertion. Also, if a reader wants to research more into the film series, he should not have to search for the link in the article. Its easiest located in that section. Lastly, for the same reason just mentioned, I believe you should also re-insert the Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo links in the External links section. If a reader wants a more detailed layout of the box office performance, or simply wants to read into more critical reviews, the easiest place to find it would be the External links section, instead of searching for the link to those websites somewhere in the article. DeWaine (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's how current film FA's do it now. See Fight Club (film). Instead of piping 2009 in film to 2009 which results in an Eggy link, editors have been placing it in a See also section. I will include the Saw franchise link and re-insert the RT, MC and BOM links. Mike Allen 00:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments—Ok, fine. Just three quick comments though. First, in the Home media section, you might want to add that the film is currently available in Video on Demand format too. You can reference that on say, Amazon.com. It is a home media format just like DVD and Blu-ray. Next, I just wanted to justify that lead sentence which you thought had no merit. These type of films, and this one in particular could have been nominated for any of the following awards:

  • Best Art Direction
  • Best Cinematography
  • Best Costume Design
  • Best Film Editing
  • Best Makeup
  • Best Original Score
  • Best Original Song
  • Best Sound Editing
  • Best Sound Mixing
  • Best Visual Effects
  • Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

The inclusion of the phrase lead acting was just to round out the sentence. But I don't believe that sentence is unwarranted. Finally, I would just like to make a quick reference to that dollar sign issue. You can link the sign if you'd like, but I would suggest adding perhaps a citation as to why it's linked. Just linking it in the fashion you did it as, serves no purpose. It would be the same as linking the phrase United States or the term English. If you would like to reference a correlation between Canadian and United States dollars, it would be best to indicate that exact point. DeWaine (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're not going to link, then it may be better to leave the US in front of the dollar sign (US$)? This is to show readers that the money is in US dollars and not Canadian. Mike Allen 20:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Ok. DeWaine (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment looks pretty good, but in teh soundtrack section: I would prefer to have the list auto-hidden, and instead have a sentence on the composition of the score (i.e. 3 parts + a bonus, etc). Nergaal (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I auto hid the tracks. I added this sentence "The soundtrack includes 18 tracks separated by 3 parts, each with six songs and includes 3 bonus tracks". I hope that makes sense (I know nothing about soundtracks)? If so, would you "Agree" or "Oppose"? Mike Allen 00:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, but could you add a bit more about the release? It seems a bit short for a FA, and it only talks about English-speaking countries + Spain. Nergaal (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What countries would you like added? English speaking countries were added, because, well this is the English Wikipedia and Spain was included because of the controversy. Mike Allen 02:24, 20 September 2010 (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/Saw_VI/archive1&oldid=1083676452"