Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eraserhead/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 GrahamColm 18:54, 20 September 2012 [1].

Eraserhead edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 21:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Henry, what do you know?
Oh, I don't know much of anything.

Perhaps the most surreal of the "midnight movies", Eraserhead launched the careers of David Lynch, Alan Splet and Jack Nance (all but one of those have since received Oscar nods for future works, Nance's snubbing being an egregious mistake). The article was penned over an intensely coffee-fuelled week off, given a Good Article review by Bruce Campbell, a peer review by Midnightblueowl and Mark Arsten, and a copy-edit by Mark as well. As usual I'm on hand to offer quick response to any queries and comments. Thanks in advance. GRAPPLE X 21:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source review
    • I ran the citation bot.
    • Be consistent with providing publishers, or not. ie. FN63 and 43 give the publisher, but the majority of the rest don't.
      • Hmm. I'll add those not in use, though I can revert and remove the limited use of them instead if you prefer. GRAPPLE X 22:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN74: Double period issue with author's name
      • Good catch, got it. GRAPPLE X 22:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes this a HQ RS? Simple explanation is fine..

TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review
    • File:Eraserhead poster.jpeg – no issues.
    • File:Kafka.jpg – may be my computer, but the source link isn't showing the picture.
      • Actually that's the same for me too. Given that the lifespan of the subject definitely dates the picture, is this an issue? GRAPPLE X 23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • To my discretion, no. However, it may be worth checking if the page is archived anywhere (ie. Wayback Machine, etc.). TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Gogol Portrait.jpg – again, may be my computer, but the source link isn't even loading. Also, from the current PD tag, it looks like a USPD tag is needed.
      • Same as above. Looking at the Commons PD-US template, it states "This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired"; or am I looking at the wrong template (this one)? GRAPPLE X 23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The current PD tag says "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Little digging turned up a more specific template, which has now been added. GRAPPLE X 23:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Eraserhead baby.jpg – good for the article, but it'd be nice if the two empty parameters in the rationale were filled.
      • Hmm; I seem to recall filling in every form when I uploaded it. Fixed now. GRAPPLE X 23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Luis bunuel 1920.jpg – no issues.

TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this for me. GRAPPLE X 00:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, for the Kafka image there is no indication that it was published before 1924. Taken, yes, but published? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know that never occurred to me. Have replaced it with File:Kafka1906.jpg; which from what I can ascertain is a 1906 publication. GRAPPLE X 23:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

  • Support on prose, good work on a... strange... film. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Pending above fixes; great article worthy of the star. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – As the Good Article reviewer and per above changes. Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Grapple X. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I copyedited and peer reviewed the article, and all of the issues that I came up with have been resolved. This will be a welcome addition to our featured coverage of art films, joining Mulholland Drive (film) as the second Lynch feature film FA. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget the FL work too! Thanks for your support and for your time copyediting and reviewing. GRAPPLE X 01:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComment Good structure and prose. However I do have a query on comprehensiveness: when I ran "eraserhead" through google scholar, it tossed up references either about Lynch's work generally or Eraserhead in particular, but these aren't in the bibliography: Wilson 2007; Godwin 1984; Godwin 1985; Bettinson 2010; Rosenbaum 1995 (for example). There are also studies that draw on eraserhead for discussion of other topics: for example Studlar 1989. I love this quote from Rosenbaum 1995: "Even the most cursory comparison of Eraserhead with Wild at Heart reveals an artistic decline so precipitous that it is hard to imagine the same person making both films, but it is the latter movie that won the Cannes Film Festival's Palme d'Or." (p. 23). Rosenbaum also makes reference to a New York Times review of Eraserhead that is not quoted in the article: a review that described the film as "murkily pretentious", "interminable" and "sophomoric" (according to Rosenbaum). I wonder if there could be more work done on the film's impact? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a few thematic interpretations I've not used as they chiefly repeat what's already present (sound design, sexual imagery, etc) and I felt it better not to bundle several sources after each point just to give a wider impression of comprehensiveness (for what it's worth, the same situation occurred with Manhunter (film) in that there are twice as many sources available as used in the article, but no unique viewpoints that haven't already been covered). As for Rosenbaum; that quote would be perfect for Wild at Heart (film) but given that it really refers to Lynch's work 15 years after Eraserhead I'm not sure if it's worth shoehorning in commentary on the director's future output beyond what's listed. I will try looking for that NYT times review as another negative opinion would be good for balance. GRAPPLE X 12:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)i[reply]
    This is the article; it's behind a paywall but if it was a factor in this passing then I'd be okay purchasing it for use. The abstract provides nothing of use, though. GRAPPLE X 12:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't waste the money, bug someone who can access it (or use WP:RX) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Great idea. Made a request at WP:RX. GRAPPLE X 18:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Really was a great idea; obtained a copy of the review and have added it to the first paragraph of "Reception". GRAPPLE X 19:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad the NYT item made it in. On Rosenbaum - one wouldn't shoehorn it into the commentary - it seems to me an important statement about how Lynch's ouevre is judged and would belong in the "legacy" section. If however Rosenbaum was the only critic / analyst who saw Eraserhead as such an outstanding work, then one would probably omit it. To know that, though, one would need to look at some of those others. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming I've found the right Rosenbaum 1995 (an essay in the Lavery-edited Full of Secrets?) then I've added it; it seemed to make sense to me in the first paragraph of "Reception" as it was similar in context to the NYT review (Eraserhead being assessed in comparison to another more recent film). GRAPPLE X 21:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You used it differently than I had imagined, but thanks for taking a look at that, and explaining your rationale for selection of sources. I've indicated support above. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2012 (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/Eraserhead/archive1&oldid=1136097954"