Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uncle David/archive3

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 GrahamColm 23:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Uncle David

[edit]

Uncle David (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a British avant-garde independent film about an abused man who finds solace in his uncle on the Isle of Sheppey. It attained GA status many months ago and has since gone through FAC twice, each time getting neglected. The last time it failed was on 31 December 2013, but User:Ian Rose suggested that it might be third time lucky, and permitted me to re-submit it before the usual fortnight was up. So, that's precisely what I'm doing... and third time lucky ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 comment
[edit]

I did the GA review on this article. Per my usual practice, I just pick the article that has been waiting the longest. So far history has been repeating itself, with no review during the first two FA nominations. Whether it is to pass or fail, this article deserves to get reviewed. Please do! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments
[edit]
  • Sorry I didn't get to the last nomination. I'll give you a review now.

Image review

Text review

Many thanks for your comments, Crisco 1492 – they are much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor prose comment per User:Tony1's excellent writing guide, "with" is a particularly awkward additive link (ctrl+F for "With as an additive link"). You should recast the relevant sentences as suggested there.—indopug (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, indopug. I have looked up Tony1's page and am proceeding to replace many of the uses of "with" as an additive link in this article. Thanks again! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- @Midnightblueowl: It looks to me like Sturmvogel 66's most recent comments haven't been responded to, nor have there been any additional reviews since then. I'm loathe to close this for lack of interest, yet again, but there's not much else to do after almost two months, even allowing for the usual holiday period slowdown... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ian Rose, I've responded to Sturmvogel's comment (apologies that I missed it). There's clearly a majority support here (albeit a majority of one); does not that mean that it should pass as a FA ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, you probably should take Sturm's advice and review more FACs -- although it's unwise to become too focussed on numbers of supports (consensus to promote is not based on that alone by any means) a minimum of three is required. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got the ping. I'm really more of a GA reviewer than a FA reviewer, but will give it a try. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 review

[edit]

First my disclaimer. (see above ping) I've done a lot of GA reviews, (including the one for this article) but this is my first FA review. Would appreciate any critique from experienced FA reviewers. For FA I think that I should be tougher than I was for the GA review and will do so. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing an interest, User:North8000, I'll respond to your queries now. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review discussion
[edit]
  • Could you add a couple words explaining what "region free" means? Even the linked article does not explain it. Or maybe explain it at the linked article? :-) North8000 (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be a summary of what is in the article. In the lead it mentions that it was shot without a script, but that is not covered in the article. And related to that, regarding article completeness, I think that there should be some coverage of that important & interesting aspect in the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO the lead is too short and incomplete. Most notably, there is very little in there from the entire "Production" section and it's two substantial ("Background" & "Development") subsections. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The info box said that the budget was £4000 and a quote in the article said that the budget was under £1000. Could you reconcile or clarify this? North8000 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I can gather, £4000 is the total budget of the production, whereas £1000 was the budget for filming. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Normally, I'd be saying that this is important info, and also presume that the sources that came up with those two numbers would say what they covered. But since the numbers are so miniscule, 9we're talking about only a £3000 "disparity", and allowing for differing things to be included in the figures, I consider this to be a minor point. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify the following phrase: " while same-sex pornography starring Ashley plays on the television set." Is that referring to Ashley Ryder, the real world actor, or Ashley the character in the film? North8000 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It said that Boy George contributed a musical track for the film. It does not say whether it was just allowing use of one of his existing songs, or whether it was created for or debuted in the film. I think that this would be good info. Could you clarify? North8000 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only one sentence in the article regarding the movie playing in theaters, which was a sentence on it's original release. The rest of the "release" section segues into and is about a discussion regarding potentially making a musical. Is it possible to add more on it's playing in theaters? North8000 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could find no evidence that it was ever screened commercially in different cinemas. I think that it only played at a few film festivals, and then was released on DVD. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like an important aspect for a movie, but I think that that handles it with respect to the most that an editor can do with available sources. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing that covers the film's degree of commercial success. Is there any of this info available? North8000 (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any plot info available on whether or not the Ashley character was an adult vs. a youth? The plot summary refers to him as a young man, and presumably the actor (being a porn actor) is an adult, but then a reviewer discussed the movie being about a paedophile "grooming" him; with that term usually meaning a youth as a target. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA criteria:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is—
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

Results on meeting Featured Article criteria

[edit]
  • 1b: On a "0 -10" scale, I'd call the prose an "8", and would consider that to be sufficiently good. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c: I have some concerns that there are certain key aspects where info is not included and probably not available. It seems that there are little or no "overview" type sources which would cover for example, whether or not the movie even played in theaters. I think that the editor(s) probably did a good search for these and that they are probably not available. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1d: I think that the article certainly meets the second half of this criteria. Everything that is in the article is sufficiently sourced and cited. Regarding the first half, please see my notes under 1c. I think that more "overview" sourcing is needed to make this article ideal. If such exists, then more research was needed. If it doesn't exist, then sufficient research was done. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1e: Meets this criteria. Article is stable. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2a: Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2b: Meets this criteria. Structure looks appropriate for the size and content of the article. North8000 (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2c: Appears to meet this criteria, but I am not a good judge of the smaller formatting details. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3: Meets this criteria. Has 5 images. The two non-free images have article-specific use rationales. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4: Meets this criteria. Certainly not over-sized or overly detailed. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: My thought is that that is the end of my comments. As I understand it, it is not my role to say "pass" or "fail". And again, I was the one who did the GA (Good Article) review and passed this one. I did not plan to do FA reviews, but I got pinged and felt that this is owed a review. I applied a tougher standard, but do not have a FA reviewing perspective. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you North8000! It is much appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose - i thought this was very well put together. i do have a couple of other queries, though.

  • What establishes the significance of the Sex-Gore-Mutants website. Is it even a reliable source? I note it isn't wikilinked, which raises a question about how important it is.
    • Hmm. Fair point. I mean, it is an established website devoted to horror films, with a large number of reviewers (see this) but at the same time it does appear to be self-published. Any advice from other users who are more knowledgeable in this area would be appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had a bit of a hunt. By conventional criteria, it is pretty marginal, but as a source of reviews that can be worth quoting it appears to have a long track record and has even been cited in a scholarly book. So I think it is OK. The few facts (as distinct from reviewer observations) on which the article relies on this source alone (really just the budget number) do not appear in any way dubious, but are consistent with the rest of what we know from other sources. My view is that it's sound. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the small number of sources, if anyone could check this, it would be great - Google Scholar indicates that the film is referred to, but I don't know if the reference is of any consequence.

Nice article. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

while Ryder portrayed a misbehaved nine-year-old. - hmm, I'd say "while Ryder portrayed a misbehaving nine-year-old".

Closing comments - Sadly, after an extraordinary time here at FAC, I don't think the prose is up to scratch. I made one edit to help tighten the writing but clunkiness remains. The use of "the latter" is often a sign of non-professional prose and should be avoided. I suggest recruiting a good copy-editor who can bring a fresh pair of eyes to the prose. Graham Colm (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2014 (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/Uncle_David/archive3&oldid=1136094923"