Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blackrock (film)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Blackrock (film) edit

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an independent Australian film that was inspired by the murder of Leigh Leigh (which is a previous successful FAC nomination of mine). Freikorp (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed (one fair-use). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now - did browse before...now where was I.....

I'd add who Felicity Holland and Jane O'Sullivan are (are they film critics, sociologists etc.) - helps understand the context.
ditto Brian Joyce

Otherwise looks pretty good overall WRT prose and comprehensiveness.

Thanks for your comments. The journal article itself does not introduce them, though google reveals that Jane is an academic. I think it's reasonable to assume that Felicity would be also, so i've described them as such. Brian Joyce is introduced in the 'Theatrical origins' sub-section. Freikorp (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok my bad - support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Support. Looks good; all my issues have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "his relationships with both Rachel and Diane": I think it would be more natural to say "Rachel and his mother".
I though about this while I was writing the plot; what concerns me is the rest of the plot section. I.e should "Jared joins Diane and Cherie" and "Despite learning of Diane's illness" be changed to "Jared joins his mother and Cherie" and "Depite learning of his mother's illness" respectively? I thought I should be consistent, and it didn't sound right to keep using 'mother'. Your thoughts? Freikorp (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see your point. I'll think about it some more and see if I can come up with a better approach, but I've struck the comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film's critique of criminal masculinity, however, undermines the status of previously celebrated masculine lawbreakers in Australian history and cinema": why "however"?
Good point, removed. Freikorp (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give a date, even an approximate one, for Joyce's initial approach to Enright? If not I think this sequence should be in past perfect to make it clearer to the reader that we're going back in time prior to the film. A date for the Sydney Theatre Company commission to Enright would be good too.
I don't think so, but i'll keep looking. Leigh was murdered in November 1989. The draft for the play was completed in "early 1992". I can't find anything that narrows down the time that Joyce approached Enright anymore than that. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck; if there are no sources then no worries. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By December 1995, Vidler was working with Enright as an unofficial script editor. He stated that they were having trouble finding financing for the film." This is a little bit proselinish; if the source supports the two things happening around the same time, can we combine them? "By December 1995, Vidler was working with Enright as an unofficial script editor, although they were having trouble finding financing for the film" or something similar. Unless there's some reason to doubt Vidler's reliability we don't need to ascribe this to him inline.
Done. Freikorp (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her attempts failed after the film received government financial backing;[16] the film received financing and assistance from the New South Wales Film and Television Office.[1]" A bit repetitive; could we make this "her attempts failed after the film received financial backing from the New South Wales Film and Television Office", and combine the refs?
Good point, done. Freikorp (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Film adaptation" section doesn't say the film was shot in Stockton explicitly. It mentions that Stockton landmarks were visible, which made me wonder if they had been intercut with wherever it had been shot; then I remembered the lead mentioning that it was shot in the town where the murder took place. Then the controversy is mentioned. It wouldn't hurt to make it explicit, either by adding a few words to the place where you mention the Stockton landmarks, or by moving that section below the mention of the controversy, and making it explicit at the point that the controversy is mentioned.
Done. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a dozen or so uses of "stated" or "stating", which are often unnecessary and are very stilted when overused. They're appropriate for a reporting a statement, particularly an official statement, and a very occasional use is OK, but there are too many here. Just using "said" is usually OK, "said" is an almost invisible word; but if you want variation, you can sometimes rephrase to avoid needing to use a verb at all -- for example, see my suggested rewording above about having trouble finding financing, which eliminates a "stated".
Removed 10 uses of the terms. Freikorp (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the sources yet. Some of the later sections, in addition to the issue with "stated" mentioned above, also feel a little listy; there's a bit of recitation of what various people said, rather than anything more directed. It's hard to avoid this with reception sections, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for your comments. I've attempted to address everything so far. If you give me some specific examples of 'listy' stuff that you'd like changed i'll see what I can do. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck everything above. I'll have another read through, probably today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Hi Mike. Did you have time to finish taking a look at this? Let me know if you'd like me to review something in return. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to get back to this sooner. In a plane on the way to a cabin with unknown cell reception so may not get to it this week, but will do so as soon as I can. Thanks for the review offer; do you have a humanities background? I have radiocarbon dating at FAC at the moment and would love to get a non-technical reader's opinion. The only reviewer so far who does not, as far as I know, come from a technical or scientific background raised a comment I'd like to get more opinions on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: No worries take your time. Can't say i'm overly familiar with that subject, so I can give you a nontechnical opinion on it :). (Bolding so I get everyone else's attention) I won't have computer access from March 21-29, and I don't think i'll have time to look at your FAC before I go, though hopefully it will still be open when I get back. If so i'll have a good look at it. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comments.

  • I think the lead is a little short. You don't mention the questions of historical accuracy, for example, and I think there's room for a little more detail on some of the areas you do summarize.
  • "The film's portrayal of the rape and murder at a teenage party": I think "a rape" or just "rape" would be better than "the", which doesn't really work with "a party".
  • 'concluding it was "almost guaranteed to find a distributor in the U.S"; the film never found an American distributor': I think some connective tissue is needed between the critical comment and the contradicting note. Perhaps 'concluding it was "almost guaranteed to find a distributor in the U.S", though in the event the film never received American distribution'.
  • "Brien theorised that some of the condemnation the film received may have been due to public frustration with the legal system, as the film achieves justice for the victim, whereas no one was ever convicted of raping Leigh; citing the film as an example of why sensitivity and care must be taken when fictionalising an actual crime". The last clause, beginning "citing the film", is intended to be parallel with "theorised", but it's so far away from it that it's hard for the reader to see that, and the punctuation doesn't help. How about "Brien theorised that some of the condemnation the film received may have been due to public frustration with the legal system, as the film achieves justice for the victim, whereas no one was ever convicted of raping Leigh. Brien cited the film as an example of why sensitivity and care must be taken when fictionalising an actual crime"?

I made some copyedits; let me know if you disagree with any of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Mike Christie; i'm happy with your changes. Freikorp (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes look OK, except that I copyedited the lead a little -- I think the way you had it was redundant: if you say Leigh's family opposed it, you don't need to say the film-makers didn't have the victim's family's consent. I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tomandjerry211 edit

Support

  • Good Job overall so I'm supporting this article, although next time I'm suggesting you send stuff to A-class before FAC?
  • The Plot section has a number of paragraphs that are unsourced.
  • Plot sections do not require sourcing, as the film itself is the source. Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think citing Infobox data is necessary, if it is cited in the article
  • Most features articled tend to at least have a citation in the infobox for box office revenue; i'll wait for a second opinion on this :) Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to broaden your research a little bit (I only see eight sources).
  • There's only 8 book and journal sources, but there's also 13 online sources, 11 offline newspaper sources and 2 citations from the film itself. Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose I'm supporting you on prose, since it looks OK for a FA.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Citations with multiple pages should use "pp." not "p.", and ranges should use endashes not hyphens
  • Some books include locations , others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Ɱ edit

Support I read this top to bottom and made minor changes; see the article history. I have no complaints or suggestions past what I just changed, this looks very good.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 18:59, 6 April 2015 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Blackrock_(film)/archive1&oldid=1138456143"