Talk:Carol (film)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 21:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well-written:

1a Pending concerns in 2d; some use of the slang "photo" as opposed to "photograph" in plot, "$338K" in Box Office, as well as "movie" in Filming which can simply be cut without replacement; Some choppy sentences and an unclear "despite the interest of a woman there" in last plot para; stray comma after "Dec 18" in 3rd para of Release; shift between past and present tense in 4th para of Release; inconsistency in periods in "UK" between Release and Box Office sections; Too much WP:SEAOFBLUE in Accolades, including redundant links of actress names and "Oscars". 1b layout is mostly fine, though the Television and In-flight sections are very short and can likely be joined as a "Censorship" section

Verifiable with no original research

2a Thoroughly referenced 2b What is the reliability/publisher/notability of Thelaughinglesbian.com (ref 16) or theawardscircuit.com (ref 104)? 2c. No synthesis, checked links verify content 2d. Some copyright and close paraphrasing concerns:

Resolved

"while working at the toy counter"- surely there's another way to word this; "as much of a problem for investors as their gender"- surely there's another way to word this; "Berwin's rights to the book lapsed in 2010, and the script went into turnaround"- surely there's another way to word this; "as though Todd Haynes' next film, which she was producing, was not going to happen after the star had dropped out"- surely there's another way to word this; "Haynes used post-war color photography as"- hopefully we can reword this; "New York was too expensive and not viable as the city does not resemble early 1950s New York, and filming there would be difficult moving from location to location"- surely there's another way to word this; "locations except for one set, the hotel room, which was built on a music hall stage in Cincinnati. The department store in the film was designed on the site of an old department store."- hopefully we can reword this;

Broad in its coverage:

3a. Very thorough coverage. All main and many minor bases covered. 3b. Not a lot off topic.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

4. Pending It feels like the Academy controversy section can be condensed a bit, ideally by reducing the WP:QUOTEFARM. The bashing of the Best Picture nominees can probably also be cut back on, since those aren't balanced out. 5. No horrific edit wars

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6. Cannes image is free, poster is attributed

Collapsing some Hamlet-esque pondering on whether to go forward

Pinging nominator @Pyxis Solitary: I was wondering, since it's been nearly 48 hours and you have not yet posted here or replied to the talk page, or acknowledged the review apart from this edit [1] - are you still interested in this nomination? I know there have been some conflicts that stemmed from this article, though no serious edit wars affecting the stability. If you wish to step away from this for a while and would like to withdraw the nomination, I would well understand the sentiment. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC) You must put it on hold if it's awaiting improvements, Ribbet. Bluesphere 07:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Bureaucracy is fun. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC) @Ribbet32: Please accept my apology. This is the first article I've nominated for GA and misread the bot notification. I honestly don't know what the process is after an article is undergoing GA review. I did make that 1 edit because it was an easy one. I don't know how well I can rewrite existing content. Should I contact editors that were actively involved in creating/editing the article? I think it's safe to say that 99% of them have moved on to other projects. Maybe they are not aware that it is finally under GA review. And, yes, I am still interested in the nomination. What do I need to do now? Thank you. Pyxis Solitary talk 09:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Hi Pyxis Solitary, that's quite alright. There's no need to contact other authors, unless you know of an active one who'd be willing to help. Most of the suggestions I've given above would involve some selective removals rather than rewriting, particularly with the Controversy and Accolades. If some attempt is made at rewording the quotes I made above, I can look over what you've done. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC) I'm one of the editors who has significantly contributed to the article content. I'm aware of this GA nom (Pyxis notified me), but I currently do not have the time to go through all the changes that have been made since I last edited this article (about a year ago) or tend to the suggestions given here without knowing what has been added, removed, or altered. There's also more information that should be added to the article, including critic reviews. Pyxis if you're the only one responding to the GA review and there's too much to sort through for the time frame, my suggestion would be to withdraw the GA nomination and nominate it again after the suggestions are addressed. I would personally wait till you or others add some critic reviews before renominating. Lapadite (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Lapadite, GAs do not have to be as comprehensive as FAs, and this article is certainly comprehensive in many other areas, including aspects of reception. Ribbet32 (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Of course, and I think it's comprehensive enough for GA as well. It's just general preference to have a solid reception overview before a GA review (the article's reception section only references Cannes Festival reception and the RT and MC scores). Anyway, like I said, I would help out with content after I've seen all the changes made over the past year. Would appreciate it If other editors would help contribute reviews summaries. Cheers. Lapadite (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC) @Ribbet32: Just want to clarify. Are you saying that it can pass GA with a little more content about critic reviews? What the article contained about critical reception was deleted by one editor on 22:17, 11 January 2017. It used to have a "Top ten lists" section that Lapadite removed per MOS:FILM on 9 February 2016. If a handful of reviews were plucked from this deleted content and used to enhance the existing *Critical response* section ... would this be enough? Pyxis Solitary talk 11:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Pyxis Solitary, I'm saying I feel it's already comprehensive, but yes, a handful of "plucked" notable reviews would be informative. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC) @Lapadite77: I'm concerned that if the article is withdrawn, it will be quite a while before it's considered again. It was originally nominated on September 16, 2016 and the nomination rejected on February 2, 2017 because the editor that nominated it had not been actively involved in editing the article. I renominated it on March 6, 2017. It took 5 months for it to be looked at the first time ... it's taken 4 months for the second time. Altogether, that's 9 months for Carol to reach this point. I feel like this is a race at Newmarket and the colt is one gallop away from the finish line. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Yes good point, Pyxis. It is GA quality anyway so go for it. We can all contribute more and polish it later for future FA consideration. Btw, film articles can certainly (and many FAs do) have a summary statement on the film's inclusion in many critics' top 10/best of the year lists, especially with a highly acclaimed film like this whose 'best of the year' reception is noted by realiable sources. That was not an list of top 10s (which I myself had removed), so I don't know what Tenebrae was doing with that edit. A film being considered one of the top 10 best by numerous critics as noted by relatable sources and its prominent inclusion in major publications' critics' polls is definitely notable and lasting info. Removing this information is not constructive and omitting it does a disservice to a comprehensive article. Lapadite (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC) While you were gone ... I brought the matter of an "actual list' vs. a "summary statement" about lists to MOS:FILM and had hoped to reach a consensus about the specific guideline for the deleted content, because imo he was mixing Apples (Critical response section) with Oranges (Accolades section), and the editor involved accused me of canvassing against him. He filed a baseless ANI, which in turn created extreme friction between us. A neutral editor not involved with MOS:FILM offered to administer an RfC about "a list vs. a summary", but it stayed on the backburner until she backed out of doing it. Pyxis Solitary talk 10:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ribbet32:@Lapadite77: Per dicussion, the Critical response section has been augmented. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Pyxis Solitary; I'd still take "movie" out of "movie extras" under Filming. Regarding the WP:SEAOFBLUE in Accolades, I think it would be easiest to just remove the links to specific award categories, except the most prestigious and the wins: For example, " nine BAFTA Award nominations, including Best Film," and "nominated for six Independent Spirit Awards, and won for Best Cinematography". For anyone who wants details, List of accolades received by Carol (film) exists. Also, is Thelaughinglesbian.com a reliable source? I'm not familiar with it. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The Laughing Lesbian is a 2-yr-old non-partisan online niche magazine founded by Emily Krawczyk, dedicated to "women empowering women" with a lean towards women in the entertainment industry, particularly LGBT. All I can say about it is that it has snagged interviews with singer-songwriter LP, comedian/actress Lea DeLaria, producer Jane Charles, director/producer Maura Anderson, to name a few. You can find several one-on-one interviews with Phyllis Nagy on the web but one of the more interesting ones was with Emily Krawczyk. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, thank you Pyxis Solitary, I see she has some affiliation [2] with the University of Alabama, which is good. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Accolades section done. (Some citations were missing template parameters and I added them.) Pyxis Solitary talk 11:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Better. I have some WP:QUOTEFARM concerns about the newly expanded Reception section, some brief paraphrasing would be nice, though paraphrasing the items noted in 2d remains the priority. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: I was under the covers for a few days. The items in 2d have been taken care of. Pyxis Solitary talk 00:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Re new content in *Critical response*: it can be edited down the road. As Lapadite said, the article is comprehensive and can be polished later for FA consideration. Pyxis Solitary talk 00:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That's understandable, I will be travelling myself very soon Pyxis Solitary, so won't be able to have a good look in 24-48 hours, but will have Internet connection where I'm going. In the meantime, I don't think the "accolades" link in the lede should go to a section when it can go to List of accolades received by Carol (film). Ribbet32 (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Accolades link: done. Pyxis Solitary talk 03:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Appears better, Pyxis Solitary. Re 1a, I think "homosexuality of the two lead characters, Carol and Therese, was not as much of an obstacle for potential investors, but, rather, their gender." would read smoother and more correctly as "homosexuality of the protagonists was not as much of an obstacle for securing investment, as the fact that they were women." Also with "the cost of production in the New York City area would be prohibitive on their budget", I would delete "on their budget" as redundant. Pending this and the Controversy section, we're getting close. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wording ... down. Pyxis Solitary talk 08:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ... up, Pyxis Solitary. Good work so far. I'm heading back home soon, so again, will be unavailable approx. 24 hours. See you then. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Regarding my concerns about the Controversy section, my main recommendation was reducing the quote farm. I thought I'd give you a suggestion on how I'd do it, feel free to use it: Ribbet32 (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

In addition to criticism regarding a lack of racial diversity in the Academy Award nominations, the omission of Carol from the Best Picture and Best Director categories prompted considerable discussion from journalists on the organization's perceived indifference toward female-centric and LGBTQ-centric films. Nate Scott of USA Today called its absence "the standout snub" of the ceremony, "one made all the more ridiculous because of the bloated Best Picture field". At HitFix.com, Louis Virtel suggested that Academy members' reception of the film was hurt by its focus on independent women. Matthew Jacobs of The Huffington Post expressed similar sentiments, and felt that the Academy's artistic tastes were "too conventional to recognize its brilliance", and Nico Lang of The A.V. Club, who noted that despite the film being considered a "lock" for a Best Picture nomination, the omission "shouldn't have been a major shock" given the controversy over Brokeback Mountain's loss a decade earlier.}} Richard Lawson of Vanity Fair proposed that although its "themes of passion and heartache may be universal" the film may be "too gay", speaking "in a vernacular that, I'd guess, only queer people are fully fluent in." Lawson stated that the film's lack of "gushing melodrama" put it at a disadvantage. Dorothy Snarker of Indiewire attributed the omissions to the Academy's demographics. Snarker agreed with Lawson that Carol may be too gay and too female "for the largely old white male voting base" to connect with. Snarker also considered that the LGBT rights movement's successes in the U.S. may be partly responsible for the lack of "political urgency" around the film. Writing for Paper magazine, Carey O'Donnell similarly noted that gay romances are only "Oscar surefires" when they use the tragedy and desolation equation. Marcie Bianco of Quartz noted that the film is "centered around women's desire" and Haynes structured it in a way that "elevates the power of women's gaze". The omission of Carol from Best Picture, Bianco concluded, illustrates "yet again how sexism operates in the world, and in the Academy specifically, as the refusal to see women as protagonists and agents of desire. Jason Bailey of Flavorwire pointed out that most Best Picture nominees that include gay themes "put them firmly in the realm of subplots", and most often the actors are nominated, not the film. "Carol's most transgressive quality", Bailey declared, "is its refusal to engage in such shenanigans; this is a film about full-blooded gay lives, not tragic gay deaths." David Ehrlich of Rolling Stone commented that the film's "patience and precision" did not conform to Academy tastes, but its legacy "will doubtlessly survive this year's most egregious snub". Todd Haynes said he thought the film having two female leads was "a factor" in the omission.

@Ribbet32: Thank you. Give me a couple of days to concentrate on it. Pyxis Solitary talk 09:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: Okay! It's been done. I tweaked a little here and a little there, and moved some content around to balance the 'voices' (i.e. not too many 'he saids' and 'she saids' grouped together). "Couple of days", eh? Who knows where the time goes. :-) Pyxis Solitary talk 11:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Final concerns @Pyxis Solitary: Sorry, I was hoping to get this done today, but some things jumped at me and need addressing before this is done.

Some more 2d concerns:

Resolved

Under Production Development: "woman in a mink coat" can be "woman wearing a mink coat" "for financing for the film, Nagy and Berwin" can be "for sponsorship for the budget, the filmmakers" "interested in films like Brief Encounter and suggested" can be "intrigued by Brief Encounter and similar cinema and proposed" Under Pre-production: "to start filming in early 2013 when Crowley left the project" can be "to commence photography in early 2013, until Crowley withdrew" "sent him the script. Within 48 hours he" can be "gave him a copy of the screenplay. Less than two days later, he" "a lot of local crew." can be "many local citizens for the crew" Under Post- production: "a few weeks before picture lock" can simply be deleted.

1 and 4 concerns via WP:WORDSTOWATCH

Under Response to Academy Award omissions

Instances of "noted" and "pointed out" should be replaced by "argued" "hypothesized" or "asserted" Ribbet32 (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: I took care of the final 2d concerns. Keeping "Nagy and Berwin" is important to differentiate that this was the initial attempt to acquire funding, before Berwin's rights to the novel expired -- which is when Elizabeth Karlsen took over the project and financing was procured. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:WORDSTOWATCH ... done. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for all your hard work, @Pyxis Solitary: I know it's been a long road. Congratulations! Ribbet32 (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: Thank you for seeing it through to the finish line! On behalf of those who committed to create a good article about a damn good movie: one...two...three.... Pyxis Solitary talk 23:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)