Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pride & Prejudice (2005 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 09:01, 14 July 2012 [1].

Pride & Prejudice (2005 film)

edit

Pride & Prejudice (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 05:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it complies with all aspects of the FA criteria. I have been expanding it since early January (when it was in this state). It has received a GA review from Grapple X and a copy edit from Lfstevens, leading to its current nomination for FA. I can think of no impediments to this nomination's success, but am ready and willing to respond to any suggestions for further improvement. Thanks in advance, Ruby 2010/2013 05:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I like this article (especially as much of the film was shot in and around my home town of Stamford), and I had in mind to give it a thorough peer review. But the PR was closed after a few days, with no comments; I think this was a mistake, as it seems to me that the article needs quite a bit of final polishing. I have only read the synopsis, and found the following:

  • You should say what "Longbourne" is, rather than simply mentioning it
  • I thought the lead-up to it ("working farm in rural England") was enough - I didn't want to overload an already dense sentence. Do you think the mention of Longbourn is unclear to readers? Ruby 2010/2013 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove comma after "haughty sister"
  • First line, second paragraph: you have previously described Collins as "their cousin Mr Collins", so the words "their cousin" should be removed
  • The description "minster" is somewhat ambiguous. Collins would better be described as a "clergyman".
  • An awkward sentence construction: "Elizabeth dispatches a heartbroken Jane to their aunt and uncle in London, the Gardiners..."
  • Reworded to "When Bingley unexpectedly returns to London, Elizabeth dispatches a heartbroken Jane to the city to stay with their aunt and uncle, the Gardiners, in hopes of re-establishing contact between Jane and Bingley." I acknowledge that this may be a bit wordy. Ruby 2010/2013 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charlotte was a spinster, surely. Her fear was of remaining, not "becoming" one (she was a lot less pretty than Elizabeth)
  • More verbal awkwardness in "...to dine there and there meet..."
  • Also, I would put something before "...Lady Catherine's nephews", e.g. "whom it transpires are..." We only learn of the relationship at this point.
  • "exposes" is too strong a term. At this stage the letter makes accusations against Wickham but does not provide proof.
  • The wording "It is further revealed that..." likewise needs adjusting, as we are still in the realm of accusation rather than revelation.
  • "The Gardiners then take..." The word "then" is redundant
  • "There, she accidentally runs into Darcy..." Needs a bit more explanation. She visits Pemberley in the belief that Darcy is away, but he makes an unexpected return.
  • "Lady Catherine unexpectedly visits Elizabeth and insists that she renounce Darcy..." Jumping the gun; no claim on Darcy by Elizabeth has yet been established in this synopsis.
  • I agree, but "renounce" in this context is meant a little differently. Lady Catherine wants Elizabeth to promise her that she will not enter into an engagement with Darcy. I'm not sure how else to convey this without going into great detail. Would "...insists that she end her relationship with Darcy..." work? Ruby 2010/2013 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elizabeth accepts his second proposal..." This might mislead; most readers will have long forgotten the first proposal.

One general point to which you may or may not have an answer. Why was an ampersand used in the film's title. It's not in the book's title, nor in that of the 1995 TV film or other earlier screen versions. Just wondering. Brianboulton (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good question. I address it in the marketing section (they were trying to go for a post-modern spin on the novel, much like Romeo + Juliet). On a more general note, I appreciate you taking the time to leave some comments. I apologize for closing the peer review early, but after working in last minute touches all weekend, I thought it was ready to advance further. Ruby 2010/2013 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, this image from the film shows the dragoons marching through Stamford. Note the woman on the right, in non-period dress - what is she doing, I wonder? Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If she ended up in the shot, visual effects company Double Negative probably had her digitally removed! This is actually the first time I've seen this image - I may try to incorporate it into the article. Added it into article Thanks for spotting it. Ruby 2010/2013 20:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ruby2010, you've done very good work with this article. I only have minor comments for the most part, but think the writing could be made more engaging throughout and that one section that needs a major revamp:

  1. "Co-stars include Brenda Blethyn, Donald Sutherland, Tom Hollander, Rosamund Pike, Jena Malone and Judi Dench" - this seems to be a bit boring to me and redundant to the infobox. I'm not a fan of sentences that are just lists of names, I think they are very uninteresting to read and that people will most likely gloss over them.
Removed the line from the lead Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Lead: the 1995 adaptation is mentioned twice in the last para, about it being more acclaimed and influential. Combine both these into one?
I removed the first mention and mentioned in the second that it was popular Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "particular characters, particularly" eck.
Removed Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Describe Bridget Jones as a popular 90s rom-com? Not everybody knows...
Done Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Why have the track list and infobox when the soundtrack has its own article?
Good point. I removed it. Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The critical reception needs to be significantly expanded. Usually film articles here have a couple of paragraphs minimum quoting what the critics had to say. Also, the section seems to have no information other than comparisons with the 1995 version.
As most critics compared the 1995 and 2005 versions, I think this should be reflected in the reception. I did however add another paragraph that only focuses on the 2005 film. Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The article throughout makes this comparison with 1995 very, very frequently; it seems to overshadow a discussion of the movie on its own merit. Also, since the 1995 version is mentioned so many times, maybe the first time in the article-body it should be introduced with more information? Who acted in it, who directed, how influential it was? This stuff does emerge as we go along the article, but maybe it should be revealed right off the bat?
The filmmakers were considering the 1995 while making this once, so it shows up a lot in articles detailing the production. I did however add a brief introduction of the 1995 version ("popular," starred Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle). Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Accolades: Like #1 above, this is very dull to read: "The film/actor/actress won A, B, C, D, E and F." May convert to a table at the end of the article, especially since Film Critics awards aren't particularly major? Also, check for overlinking: Chicago Film Critics is linked thrice.
I originally had it in a table, and then converted it into prose after reading other film FAs. I agree though that a table is easier on the eyes. I have converted it back. Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Possessive years (like 1999's), I believe, are not acceptable/preferable in formal prose. Use "Film Name (1999)" instead.
Changed 2011's Hanna to Hanna (2011) Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is from a quick glance-through, I'll be more thorough after these are addressed.—indopug (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and the review. I believe I have improved the article per your suggestions. Let me know if there is anything else. Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quotations should be sourced in lead even if repeated later
  • Cartmell: spacing of publisher
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here. I tried to keep all page ranges consistent (p. 170 and pp. 161–70). Unless you are talking about the time ranges? Those are consistent too. Ruby 2010/2013 16:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use single quotes within double quotes for titles that include quotations
  • Pages for Haun 2005?
  • Gilligan 2011 lists journal as Film and Cinema, but link goes to something called Student Pulse - which is correct?
  • Film and book titles should be italicized in article titles
  • Pages for Sadoff 2010? Wells 2008?
  • Page for Edwards 2005?
  • Carrier 2006: publisher name redirects to the general DVD article
  • Source spotcheck. (First attempt at one, bear with me). GRAPPLE X 00:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 77: [2] ✓
    Supporting text: "Sarah Ailwood marked the film as "an essentially Romantic interpretation of Austen's novel," citing as evidence Wright's attention to nature as a means to "position Elizabeth and Darcy as Romantic figures ... Wright's Pride & Prejudice takes as its central focus Austen's concern with exploring the nature of the Romantic self and the possibilities for women and men to achieve individual self-fulfillment within an oppressive patriarchal social and economic order.""
    Source text is quoted accurately, presented simply as directly-attributed quotes with no room for paraphrasing.
    Ref 60: [3]
    Supporting text: "Representing Netherfield Park was the late-18th century site Basildon Park in Berkshire, leading it to close for three months to allow time for filming."
    Source text: "Basildon Park, Berkshire, as Mr Bingley's Netherfield. The house considered it worthwhile to close for a crucial seven weeks between August and October, to let the film crew in". Close paraphrasing is not a concern, though the source gives "seven weeks" which is less than two months, rather than three.
    Ref 114: [4] ✓
    Supporting text: "Equally pleased with the film was the San Francisco Chronicle's Ruthe Stein, who wrote that Wright made a "spectacular feature film debut" that is "creatively reimagined and sublimely entertaining"."
    Source is accurately summed up with the quotes taken, supporting text does not contain any paraphrasing concerns.
    Ref 86: [5] ✓
    Supporting text: "According to George Washington University professor Laurie Kaplan, while Wright's focus on Elizabeth is consistent with the novel, the screenplay removed her line of self-recognition: "Till this moment, I never knew myself". Kaplan characterises the sentence as Elizabeth's "most important," and believes its deletion "violates not only the spirit and the essence of Austen's story but the viewer's expectations as well.""
    Text given is supported by the source, paraphrasing is not a concern. Source discusses wider range of issues, though, perhaps it could be used to add another sentence or two elsewhere? Not a fault, just a suggestion.
    Refs 94 and 95: [6] and [7]
    Supporting text: " United International Pictures released it to cinemas on 16 September 2005 in the United Kingdom and Ireland."
    Citations simply support the date given; UIP not mentioned in either so I'd suggest "The film was release in cinemas on 16 September 2005 in the United Kingdom and Ireland" instead. Also might be worth using the BBC review as part of the film's reception as well, as BBC would be a good source to take an opinion from for something like this.
Both concerns addressed. The "seven weeks" was a minor misreading of the source (I read August through October, or 3 months). I have now adjusted to seven weeks. The United International Pictures issue was the result of a recent edit war (see P&P talk page) that I was trying to resolve. I made the change per your recommendation. Thanks for looking them over! Ruby 2010/2013 04:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was just wondering why the budget and box office takings were in dollars? It is a British film I believe, so shouldn't they be in pounds? Apologies if I've missed a prior discussion about this. - JuneGloom Talk 22:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, actually. As far as I've seen, all other articles on films designated as British (see this category) have used US dollars. I've tried looking for the worldwide gross in pounds (rather than just converting it myself), but have so far come up empty. I think the US dollar might be some kind of standard for film articles? I'll post a query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Ruby 2010/2013 00:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's generally easier to source the gross in US dollars as most sources that'll reliably compile it use that currency. However, if a good source for sterling exists too then both side by side would be a great idea. I've tracked down the lira figure for Italy's Una sull'altra, while Irish film Once gives the budget in euro and dollars, and the gross in dollars only, which I assume is due to the availability of sources for those; it's a good approach if you can manage it. However, dollars do seem, unfortunately, to be par for the course for the most part so it shouldn't be considered an anomaly. GRAPPLE X 00:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. I haven't managed to find anything in pounds, unfortunately. Box Office Mojo (of course) uses US dollars, and a Google search didn't tell me anything useful. Unless there's a British equivalent to BOM that I'm not aware of, I think the currency might have to stay as is. :/ Ruby 2010/2013 04:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
British Film Institute has the budget at roughly £22 million, nothing on the gross though. GRAPPLE X 04:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's a shame. I suppose, with Hollywood being so prominent, most published film items come from American sources and/or financing. Even the books that mention the budget list it in dollars. Thanks again though for your input. Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of worldwide grosses, then ideally the gross should be sourced in euros or US dollars rather than British pounds, since they are the two main reserve currencies. All global box-office should be in one these two units regardless of whether the film is American, British, Chinese etc. In the case of the British domestic gross that should be given in British pounds. You can get the UK weekend figures (in pounds) at http://industry.bfi.org.uk/article/16415/UK-Box-Office-2005, and you can get the UK total (in pounds) and the world total (in US dollars) at http://industry.bfi.org.uk/10022?page=1&step=10&viewby=category&value=16998 (you want the 2005/06 Yearbook). As for the budget, since it was made in the UK it generally should be given in British pounds since that is the currency that the bills were presumably paid in (the BFI site provided by Grapple will do the job there). Betty Logan (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links! I'll input them into the article tomorrow. Ruby 2010/2013 04:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- great to see spotchecks performed on this one but it's been open six weeks with neither support nor opposition -- reviewers are going to have to declare on this or it'll need to be closed with no consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, with the qualifiers that I have not seen the film (so cannot express a view about the synopsis), and have not checked sources. Very well written. I only found one sentence that seemed to me to be a problem, and I have edited that. Found the range of views picked up from critics and academics to be wide-ranging, and I was very much engaged by the discussion of screenplay, filming etc, which is material I normally find rather dull. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I began reviewing this article some weeks ago (see my comments above) but was prevented by outside circumstances from finishing my review at that time. I have just re-read the article; as a result of other reviewers' comments I think the prose has been tightened (I've done the odd tweak myself), and in other respects I am satisfied that the article meets the required FA standard. It is, I think, one of the better of the "film of the book" articles in the encyclopedia. There is one phrase that puzzles me: "...comfortable dresses that allowed the actors better accessibility". Better accessibility to what, exactly? The mind boggles....Otherwise, well done Ruby! Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fair question. I've reworded "accessibility" to "moveability". :) Thanks very much for the support! Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 21:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Between its GA review and the above spotcheck I've had a good look at this article, and setting aside my intense dislike of costume dramas I believe it meets the criteria comfortably. As Hamiltonstone I haven't seen it but I'm familiar enough with the source novel and I believe the additional sources discussing the changes have made those clear enough to me that I'm perfectly confident with the summary. GRAPPLE X 21:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Grapple! I know how hard it must have been to look a film like this over ;) Ruby 2010/2013 21:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I'm surprised this hasn't been promoted already. I can't find anything that sticks out anymore except maybe moving the Accolades to after Legacy—this keeps all the prose together.—indopug (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It hasn't been promoted already because reviewers have only just started supporting promotion in the last 24 hours or so -- I really must give more gentle nudges about people declaring one way or the other, it certainly seems to have opened the floodgates this time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thank you ball-girls, thank you ball-boys... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 14 July 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/Pride_%26_Prejudice_(2005_film)/archive1&oldid=1141922756"