Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Turn of the Screw (2009 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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2015 [1].

The Turn of the Screw (2009 film) edit

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a 2009 BBC adaptation of Henry James's classic ghost story The Turn of the Screw. Is it just another TV film? Well, yes and no. The BBC's horror films and costume dramas are both well loved, and this is a nice example of both. Also, this holds special interest as a pre-Downton Abbey collaboration between Michelle "Lady Mary" Dockery and Dan "Cousin Matthew" Stevens. Finally, as this is an adaptation of James's novella rather than an original story, it holds interest both for fans of classic literature and for literary theorists. I started writing this in January after catching the film on TV (the article was pretty rudimentary), and I'm pleased with how it's come out. I'd like to thank Eric Corbett for a great GA review back in March- since then, the film has been released on DVD in North America, and so the article has been slightly updated, but it remains mostly as-was. This is a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto edit

  • "The BBC had previously adapted M. R. James horror stories for Christmas films, with their A Ghost Story for Christmas series" the "A" and "their" clash when used together so I would move "series" to before the introduction: "The BBC had previously adapted M. R. James horror stories for Christmas films, with their series A Ghost Story for Christmas.
  • A personal preference and a normality in BrEng is the use of the definite article. I would adopt it in this article seeing as it is on a BrEng subject: "BBC executive and drama commissioner Ben Stephenson..." → "The BBC executive and drama commissioner Ben Stephenson..."
    • Do you have a source that suggests that my approach is nonstandard? I'm not convinced. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • These prominent authors and linguists say that it is normal in BrEng as do the British Council who call it one of the most used words in the English language. This reliable website compares the definite article use to that of the Americans who seldom ever use it to introduce things. Less reliable, perhaps, is me :). I use it in all of my FA's and I've never had a problem. Tim, I know, uses it a lot too. CassiantoTalk 17:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • See the article False title. The use is common in tabloid papers, but is better avoided in high quality writing. The advice in the NY Times style guide is both amusing and wise. Tim riley talk 17:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tim, Cassianto: Thanks, I'm learning a lot already! I'll try to internalise this rule... Fixed that example in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this framing device is not used in the original novella, but both the novella and the film share a first-person narrator" -- Novella/novella repetition. Is there another word you could use for one of them?
  • Who said "screaming-banshees-and-horrible-corpses style of ghost story"?
  • "The Turn of the Screw was filmed on location in the West Country of England -- "on location" is redundant here.
    • I disagree- it could, for instance, have been filmed at a sound stage in the West Country. On location filming refers to a particular kind of filming (namely, at a "real" location, rather than on a made-for-filming set), not just filming that is at a place. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I bow to your superior knowledge on this. It's a subject I'm quite ignorant on. CassiantoTalk 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The period in Mrs. Sarah Grose is AmEng. Do the BBC use this?
    • Removed (also sorted "Dr."). Clearly something I've been getting wrong for some time... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up to plot, will continue soon. CassiantoTalk 15:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Nothing else from me everything else looks to be tip-top. Great work Josh! CassiantoTalk 13:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley edit

I'll look in after a proper reading in the next day or so. Meanwhile, as we seem to be in BrEng, pray consider the spelling (four times) of "sanitarium" for the usual English "sanatorium"; and did the critic in The Times really spell "suppurate" as "supperate"? Tim riley talk 21:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both. The mistake was mine, not Chater's, and I blame the "sanitarium" spelling on a band I used to follow... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Later:

  • Lead
    • If you agree with Cassianto and me about the false title, you may like to look at "by housekeeper Mrs Grose" in the lead.
    • "significantly less ambiguous" – what does it signify? It is a pity to waste "significantly" as a mere synonym of "considerably" etc unless there is a measurable significance.
  • Production
    • "adapted many times, although not previously by the BBC" – not true: see here. Put not your trust in The Daily Express as a WP:RS.
      • I think Baylis (and, correspondingly, me in the article) specifically meant television/film adaptation. All of the mentions on the BBC listings were either on the radio, versions of the opera or else non-BBC films. I've changed this to "The film is an adaptation of Henry James's 1898 novella The Turn of the Screw. As one of his more popular stories it had already been adapted for films and television many times, although not previously by the BBC." (And I appreciate that The Express isn't exactly a top-quality newspaper, but Baylis is a professional television critic notable in his own right who has also written for much better papers- he's not just some hack.) Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ann's father is a pastor" – in England? I don't think I have ever heard an English clergyman called a pastor. It sounds like something out of Ibsen or the Deep South of America.
      • I'm not sure why I wrote that. The source uses "preacher", so I've used that instead. I don't want to be more specific, as it's not clear in the film itself precisely what his job is. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Corin Redgrave, who played the professor, is the son" - alas, was the son.
  • Plot
    • "affected by the War" – really necessary to capitalise?
      • I'm using "War" as a proper noun- it's the War, not just the war (that has just passed). Or would you advise against this? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Point taken. I think MoS zealots may purse a lip or two, but to Hell with them. Tim riley talk 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception
    • "commended the performances of Dockery[9][22][11][12][30][31][32]" – you need to get the refs in numerical order here
  • Literary analysis
    • "literary theorist Anna Viola Sborgi" - "Good morning, literary theorist Sborgi"
    • "with regards to both setting and costume" – I think "with regards to" means sending good wishes. What you want here, I suggest, is "with regard to"
    • "For literary theorist Thomas S. Hischak" – a close friend of harpsichordist Yagyonak?

All very minor stuff. I'll read the article once more tomorrow, and then I think I'll be able to add my support. – Tim riley talk 22:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much- I think I've fixed everything/clarified why I haven't. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good. (Forgive my King Charles's head in re false titles, and thank you for taking my sarcastic comments so graciously.) Having read again this evening I am happy to support. With the exception of Britten's chilling opera I have never run across an adaptation of HJ's original novella that really works, and I note with approval that you scrupulously reflect the balance of critical opinion over this attempt. The article seems to me to cover everything that should be covered, impartially and in most readable prose. In my view it meets all the FA criteria. It almost makes me want to see the film. Tim riley talk 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've watched the film twice, which is why I did the GA review. I don't think I'd watch it again though, as I was never certain when the events were happening, or whether in fact the governess was mad. But that was of course the point of the film, and which I think is well explained. Eric Corbett 20:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, Tim! For me, the film is very watchable with a great atmosphere, but is by no means perfect (in its own right or as an adaptation). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Henry_James_by_John_Singer_Sargent_cleaned.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really haven't a clue (and I hate to say this, as someone who spent a lot of time working with images...). I thought the US had a copyright term of the author's life plus 70 years. I've no idea when the painting was first "published", or what that would constitute. It's a 1913 painting, if that helps anything. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • For paintings, display counts as publication - was the artwork publicly displayed, and when? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I couldn't say for sure, so I've switched it to a photograph definitely published in the US prior to 1923. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't follow why M. R. James is referred to at the opening of the article.....
    • Thanks for taking a look. I'm aiming to set the scene with regards to the BBC's previous adaptations of classic ghost stories; when the BBC originally revealed that they were working on The Turn of the Screw, they presented it effectively as a spiritual (hurr hurr) successor to their adaptations of the M. R. James stories; it also helps establish the significance of the fact that they'd never adapted Turn of the Screw, mentioned in the next paragraph. They'd done lots of M. R. James's short stories, but never Henry James's more famous novella. So, put it this way: The first paragraph establishes the film's relationship with previous BBC dramas, the second establishes its relationship with Henry James. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critics disagreed about the extent to which the film was successful in capturing the ambiguity of the novel. - a little ungainly - maybe, "Critics disagreed on how successful the film was in capturing the ambiguity of the novel." or somesuch.
    • I've gone with "Critics disagreed about how successful the film was in capturing the ambiguity of the novel." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grapple X edit

  • On a similar note to Cas Liber, I do feel the MR James information is useful but is maybe better served being rearranged a little. The sense now is that the previous productions were adapted due to their author, and broadcast at Christmas, when the intended sense seems to be that they were adapted out of desire for material at Christmas and the author happened to be a fruitful one. Perhaps rearrange "The BBC had previously adapted M. R. James horror stories for Christmas films, with their series A Ghost Story for Christmas including adaptations of The Stalls of Barchester, A Warning to the Curious, Lost Hearts, The Treasure of Abbot Thomas and The Ash Tree." to read as "The BBC had previously adapted several horror stories as Christmas films, with their series A Ghost Story for Christmas including adaptations of the M. R. James stories The Stalls of Barchester, A Warning to the Curious, Lost Hearts, The Treasure of Abbot Thomas and The Ash Tree." (or, of course, reword it better since prose is not my forte)
  • Following on this—is "The Ash Tree" the proper title of the BBC broadcast? The story itself seems to be "The Ash-tree". Similarly, the article prefaces these titles with "adaptations of...", yet "The Stalls of Barchester" is given the name of the adaption, not the name of the story that it is adapted from.
    • I have rejigged so that I more clearly refer to the original novellas, rather than the TV films. It seems Barchester is the only adaptation with its own article, so I've included a link to that in addition. The "The Ash Tree" issue is a funny one- my James collection (I've just checked!) entitles it "The Ash Tree", so I'm happy to call it that in this article- why the main article is titled with the dash is unclear to me. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a great fan of just listing cast members and their roles as a series of bullets. This isn't strictly an objection but I feel it's redundant to their mention in the plot, especially given how names in the plot section are given unlinked, surname-only, before they're first used in full.
    • I note that the cast list has several more characters than the plot section. I could remove the parenthetical actor IDs from the plot section, if you prefer. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally I tend to feel that if a role is not worth noting in a summary of the plot, it's probably not worth noting (we do link to sites like IMDB in the external links for those who want a full cast list). It's my personal preference not to see one unless it's used to summarise information about the casting process (see Eraserhead versus Manhunter (film)#Cast for two examples I've written in either style). But ultimately it's personal preference and not objective criticism so whatever you feel is right for the article is right for the article, it won't affect my judgement. GRAPPLE X 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do see the merits of your view, but I think I'd rather keep the list; for example, I think the link to Wendy Albiston is useful, though Baines is not a significant enough character to be included in the plot section. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's a BBC production, so UK critical sources will be predominant, but I'm surprised there aren't more sources outside of the UK, especially given the article's mention of a Downton Abbey connection that I would have thought US audiences may have been intrigued by.
    • I've delved as deep as I can- I don't think it's actually been shown on mainstream television outside of the UK/Ireland, to be honest. My American sources (Hicks/Cooper) are in response to the DVD release. (It'd be OR to note in the article, but I'd guess that the American release was made precisely to cash in on the Downton connection.) Another search threw up lots of unreliable blogs, an Entertainment Weekly article (which I added, though it's more about Downton than Turn) but also this one, which I can definitely bring some material from. I'll get to this later this evening. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding alt text to any images used to allow them to be picked up by screen readers.
    • Ok, done. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I gave one of them a tweak as it didn't really describe what was being shown (the DVD cover), but otherwise these are good. GRAPPLE X 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:British films is redundant to Category:British television films.
    Overall quite happy with this articles, though as always be aware that any assessment by myself is going to be based on everything but prose. GRAPPLE X 10:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for taking look; thoroughly appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Everything has been addressed or discussed to my satisfaction. GRAPPLE X 22:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

This looks in good shape. I have a handful of minor points; I expect to support once these are resolved.

Thanks for taking a look- thoroughly appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have both "Clara" and "Carla"; it seems that "Carla" is correct, but I'll let you fix it in case I'm wrong.
    • Well spotted; fixed.
  • "Inside, Mrs Grose assures her that she must be confused": how about "Inside again, Mrs Grose assures Ann that she must be confused" to establish sequence and clarify the pronoun?
  • The sentence beginning "Mrs Grose stops Ann ..." doesn't tell me if that's at the lakeside or later.
  • I also don't follow "After ordering the staff and Flora away from Bly": Ann has the authority to order some or all staff to leave the house? And what does it mean that Flora, a child, was ordered "away" from her home? Was she sent somewhere?
    • Yes, Ann is very much in charge of the house, and sends the servants away. As I understand it, governesses were traditionally somewhere between servants and family- typically of a higher social class than the other staff, sometimes even related to their charges. Where Flora goes is not made clear. I'm not sure if something needs to be changed here? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Given what you say, I think this is as clear as it can be made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fisher is dismayed to see Ann led away by the police, accused of Miles's murder, and sees Quint's face on one of the officers": suggest "Fisher is dismayed to see Ann led away by the police, accused of Miles's murder, and he sees Quint's face on one of the officers" to make it a little easier for the reader to parse.
  • "This subtly, according to a review": is this a typo for "subtlety"? That would make more sense.
  • I think it should be a colon rather than a semi-colon after "expressed a contrary opinion".
  • "Critics disagreed about how successful the film was in capturing the ambiguity of the novel. Part of the enduring appeal of James's story is its ambiguity, and, for Tim Dowling, a columnist for The Guardian, the film failed to capture this." This is a little repetitive. How about "Critics disagreed about how successful the film was in capturing the novel's ambiguity, which is part of the enduring appeal of James's story. For Tim Dowling, a columnist for The Guardian, the film failed in this regard." Or something along those lines; I see you use "in this regard" a sentence or two further on.
    • Yes, done- I've adjusted the Whittaker mention to remove "in this regard". Josh Milburn (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In several places you use brackets to indicate the substitution of lower-case for upper-case letters; per WP:MOSQUOTE (see the section on typographical conformity) there's no need to do this.
    • Ok, removed. I can't say I like it, but I'm happy to go with the MOS! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Segal, by contrast, felt MacLiam was badly cast, meaning that": is "meaning" the word you want here? We haven't quoted a statement from him to interpret; we've characterized a statement, but his intended meaning isn't the meaning of the characterization, it's the meaning of his statement. Sorry, that's a bit confused, but perhaps you'll see what I'm driving at.
    • Good point. I've switched it to "Segal, by contrast, felt MacLiam was badly cast, which resulted in "one of the story's primary dark forces [looking] more like a member of Elbow than the very essence of evil"."
  • "another film adaptation of James's novella which focuses upon the supposed sexual aspects of the novella": two uses of "novella" in a short span.
  • Can anything be said about the DVD's commercial success? It appears to have been released in other countries; shouldn't that be mentioned?
    • I've come across nothing- it was originally released in the UK and rereleased for a North American market, which is discussed in the article; is there something I have missed? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      IMDB has some foreign release data; is that a reliable source? I seem to recall it's not, at least not for some things. I'll look at your other replies this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Interesting, thanks. IMDb is no good for that kind of information, but I will look into this. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll hold off on support till you respond on this, just for completeness. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I think (after some Googling) that some of those were just the title translated into other languages, but I've found some sources for DVD releases/TV showings in some foreign languages, so I have added this to the article, being careful not to state that they are the only non-English releases. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt edit

  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Main sticking point for me before I can support is there is a bit too much liberal use of quotes. Try perhaps paraphrasing some. I'd recommend cutting them down at least by half. You can have the same rough amount text size, just paraphrase the gist of what they were saying. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll look into this; I'm a little frazzled right now, but I'll get to in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed some quotes, and will try to do a few more. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:08, 3 October 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/The_Turn_of_the_Screw_(2009_film)/archive1&oldid=1138473634"