Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Begotten (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 December 2019 [1].

Begotten (film)

edit
Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Begotten is a 1989 experimental horror film written, produced, edited and directed by E. Elias Merhige. I have been working on this article off and on for about four years now and have recently gotten it passed as GA. In preparation for this FA nomination, I was assisted in doing copy-edits by fellow editor Pdebee. I am hoping to get this up to FA status as it is both extensively sourced and represents the highest tier of writing and standards of Wikipiedia.Paleface Jack (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BLZ

edit

Fun topic! I'm somewhat acquainted with the movie and its lore but not at a deep level, so I can hopefully bring a good perspective balancing distance and familiarity. After seeing this nomination I rewatched the first 15 minutes or so. While I'm no superfan—for this flavor of spookiness, I personally prefer Eraserhead or Blair Witch—it does have an effectively mysterious air of mythic darkness. Forget "cult" film, heck this was the first kvlt film. Being more of a music buff than horror buff, Begotten strikes me as the filmic equivalent of a certain brand of dark, purposely lo-fi, quasi-ambient black metal with a ritualistic atmosphere.

Before doing a deep dive, here are some preliminary comments and recommendations:

  • The current "theatrical" poster used for the infobox seems to originate from a 2016 limited screening event in Seattle with a live score. The current caption "Theatrical release poster" suggests that this poster accompanied the original theatrical run—so at a minimum, I'd suggest revising that to something like "Poster for 2016 theatrical screening event". I understand why you chose this poster, given the apparent lack of a poster accompanying the original theatrical release. All I've seen by way of promo art for the original theatrical release is a newspaper ad for its Film Forum screening.
While it's unusual to use home video art for a film infobox, in this case I think it's actually the best representation available and I'd recommend swapping the 2016 poster for the iconic original VHS cover (or perhaps the similar-but-redder DVD cover). Normally a first-run theatrical poster would be preferred, but none seems to exist. This makes the VHS cover the first "official" artwork to visually represent the film, the function normally served by posters. Strictly speaking, the 2016 poster primarily represents the screening event rather than the film itself; it was designed by the third-party Broken Press and almost certainly commissioned by the theater. It's not "unofficial" per se, but it's not the best "official" or historical representation of the film. Plus, the 2016 poster design is derived from the same screenshot used later in the article, a somewhat duplicative move that misses an opportunity to showcase a different visual aspect the film. The duplication arguably weakens the fair use case for use of the screenshot: why is it strictly necessary to show a moment from the film already seen in the infobox poster?
  • You cite the film as a primary source for the plot section, which is usually deemed unnecessary because it's implied. However, the idea of citing a source for plot details here is interesting, because by its nature the film is abstract/allegorical and requires some degree of interpretation to unpack at a conventional "plot" level. Almost any secondary source that describes the film's plot makes this point. Because of the peculiar nature of the film, I'd suggest opening the section with a short preamble explaining the unconventionality of the "plot" as such and may even recommend citing secondary sources in the summary.
  • The Din of Celestial Birds section implies, but doesn't state outright, that the trilogy does not yet have a third part. This is the case, right? I would state this outright, and see if Merhige has ever expressed any plans or ideas for the third part.
  • In the lead, you say: "critic Susan Sontag, who wrote the film's most publicized review" and "Sontag's highly publicized review". But so far as I can tell, Sontag never actually wrote or published a "review" of the film—she just praised it and had that praised quoted/blurbed.
  • The "Sources" section could use some tidying:
  • Making the subheadings part of the wrapping columns is unusual, somewhat difficult to navigate, and possibly an accessibility issue; I'd strongly recommend keeping the subheadings out and putting only the citations in columns.
1. Restored the original layout, which didn’t have sub headers for ‘Books’, ‘Websites’, and ‘Newspapers’. Done, with my apologies for taking this unhelpful initiative. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 01:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pdebee: I apologize, I think my earlier comment was unclear. The subheadings themselves are good, it's just that they shouldn't be formatted into the same columns as the citations. To see what I mean, check out Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror (poetry collection)#Sources, which is my own work. The subheadings there break up distinct sections of columnated citations, rather than wrapping within the same columns as the citations. —BLZ • talk 01:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BLZ: Thank you for your most helpful clarification; I therefore reinstated the subsections and also ended the columns within each of them, thus also completing the action below. Done. Thanks once again. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 03:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. The action of putting only the citations in columns is now also Done. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 03:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No all-caps in source titles; switch to title case.
  • The Harvard-style naming/alphabetizing of some sources is confusing. For instance, this source is named and alphabetized as "Celebritarian 2005", apparently because the word appears in the title "Dramatic New Scenes For Celebritarian Needs: An Exclusive Interview With Marilyn Manson". It would be better to name it as "MansonUSA 2005" after the site that published it, but better still would be to use Template:Cite interview and give it authors, since it is an interview between interviewee Marilyn Manson and pseudonymous interviewer The Hierophant. Elsewhere, the naming of anonymous sources after publishers is fine for Harvard style, but it's still difficult to see why they're alphabetized where they are. For anonymous sources, I would recommend setting |author=Anon. then listing them all together at the start sorted by date; naming them after the publisher/site for citation/footnote purposes is still OK, but listing them under "Anon." makes it easier to navigate the "Sources" section itself.
  • Another example: "SFFSa 2018" is credited by name to an author, Kathy Geritz. Shouldn't it just be "Geritz 2018"?
  • This article from Fangoria (via the Internet Archive's library) probably contains some useful info. To pick just one interesting tidbit, it mentions that Manson kept Begotten on loop in the studio while recording the Antichrist Superstar album. —BLZ • talk 23:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've copyedited the lead and the "Plot" section. For FAC reviews, my preferred method is to edit the page myself and then discuss or explain changes as needed. Feel free to let me know if I've made any mistakes or if you'd like to discuss any of my changes further. I directly save changes, rather than listing out every recommendation here first, simply because it's more convenient and time-saving. That said, I want to be clear that I make these changes in the spirit of open collaboration, not to directly impose "my way or the highway". I don't mean to step on any toes, and I fully acknowledge that I may make mistakes, that I may come up with stuff that's not actually an improvement, and that in any case further improvements are always possible.
With my disclaimer out of the way, on with the show. Here are some of the changes I felt warranted explanation or unpacking:
  • When referring to the artistic medium, I think it should be "theater" rather than "theatre" to conform with standard American English. Let me know if this is mistaken. This doesn't apply to formal names like "Theatre of Material" or "Music Box Theatre".
  • Done (6x). Also reworded existing content and replaced ten occurrences of 'the film', along with six of 'Merhige'. I also fixed a few remaining slanted quotation marks I missed in my earlier sweep. Here are all the diffs. Hope this helped a little more. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 11:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed "God" to "Godlike figure" for a couple reasons, mainly that it seems necessary to distinguish the character from the Abrahamic God. The plot takes inspiration from a variety of different creation myths, including some Pagan ones, not just Christianity and other monotheistic traditions. Naming the character "God Killing Himself", rather than just "God", suggests a different entity, or at least a specific incarnation/manifestation, which is not necessarily equivalent in all respects to "God" full stop, however that might be interpreted. In any case, whatever resemblance "God Killing Himself" has to God he's certainly a nontraditional/heterodox depiction to say the least. With that said, referring to the character as "God" on second reference seems fine.
  • I almost completely reworked this sentence: "In spite of Sontag's highly publicized review, the film was largely ignored by mainstream critics and is currently banned in Singapore due to its violence." First, I split the critical reception bit and the fact of the Singaporean ban into separate sentences because they are not logically connected. There's no reason that its banning in Singapore could have been prevented by a wider reception or should have been prevented by Sontag's enthusiasm, because it's a matter of the film's content and the laws of Singapore. Even after that split, I'd advise against the "in spite of Sontag" construction because it places the wrong emphasis on the effect of her endorsement. It should credit Sontag for the role she played helping the film reach the level of attention that it did, rather than suggesting her efforts actually failed to catapult the film to some hypothetical higher level of success that it did not. Anyway, I've combined the bit about being "largely ignored by mainstream critics" with condensed versions of the sentences about its attainment of cult status and subsequent influence.
  • Moving to the "Plot" section, I uncapitalized "He" and other pronouns when referring to God Killing Himself (other than when the words "God Killing Himself" appear together as his name, of course). Even if the film or secondary sources use capitalized pronouns, I'd still be reluctant to do so here. MOS:GOD specifies that "Pronouns for deities and figures of veneration are not capitalized, even if capitalized in a religion's scriptures," and the argument to make an exception for a fictional character would be even weaker.
  • "instrumental to its eventual release" – In what capacity? What I mean is: the film had already seen "release" because it had screened at festivals. Does "eventual release" mean "wider theatrical release" and/or "release on home video"? Or does "eventual release" mean, in a more general sense, simply coming to greater attention?
  • "until approximately two years after editing was completed" – I'd like to see a year in this sentence, as well as dates in the "Distribution" subsection that it summarizes. Rather than "approximately", which to my ear sounds quasi-scientific, I think it'd be better to say "nearly two years" or "over two years" depending on which of the two is the case.
  • Should it be "the Son of Earth", or just "Son of Earth"? Is either considered to be wrong, or are both OK?
  • In the infobox, shouldn't the language be "English" due to the intertitles? The fact that it's technically English-language because of onscreen intertitle text rather than spoken dialogue could be clarified in a parenthetical or footnote.

More sources:

  • Internet Archive has the complete DVD booklet. Great choice for external links. The Scott MacDonald interview is probably the same as the one already cited.
  • I have the text of Richard Corliss's 1991 article in Time magazine, "A Happy Birthday for the Kids of Kane" (also available at Time.com with a subscription). Contrary to some other sources (e.g. this book), Corliss did not put Begotten on an annual list of the year's best films—that discrepancy alone may be worth a footnote. In actuality, his article highlights four recent films he considered "cult classics", the three others being Poison, Paris Is Burning, and Water and Power. The article also does not carry the (evidently apocryphal) phrase used as a blurb on some video packages, "Makes Eraserhead look like Ernest Saves Christmas", which frankly does seem more like a line from a film geek than Time magazine (in a good way). Anyway, happy to email the article to any interested parties, just ping me.
  • At JSTOR: From Film Comment, we have a 1991 review, a 2000 article by Michael Atkinson (mostly about Merhige's next film but with some good stuff about Begotten), inclusion in the Jan.–Feb. 2001 list of "Top 10 DVD Picks". From Cineaste, there's a review of Shadow of the Vampire that mentions Begotten only in passing; probably the only decent tidbit is a comparison of the film to Samuel Beckett, just another for the pile.
  • Another from the Internet Archive: Contemporary North American Film Directors: A Wallflower Critical Guide, 2nd ed., p. 374. There's a Buñuel comparison, an "early David Lynch" comparison (presumably Eraserhead plus the early short films), a rarer Alexander Sokurov comparison. Probably useful. (Though the abbreviation is missing from the list of contributors, the "JWo" who wrote the book's entry on Merhige is presumably Jason Wood, who's listed as JWo in another Wallflower Critical Guide) —BLZ • talk 18:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a heads-up: dates are formatted inconsistently throughout. Per WP:DATEOVERVIEW, dates should be formatted consistently and they should tend to match the dominant formatting style found in the subject's nation of origin, wherever applicable. In this case, an article on an American film should always use MDY ("August 30, 2018", with the comma each time) rather than DMY (30 August 2018). —BLZ • talk 00:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to the proposal to delete the poster for Din of Celestial Birds: I think it would make more sense to split Din of Celestial Birds into its own separate article, since in the long term that's what should happen anyway. It is notable enough to stand on its own, even if it would be fairly short. The Begotten article could still have a subsection about Din, but it would be a briefer summary of the film and its relation to Begotten. —BLZ • talk 01:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Reply

edit

Thanks for taking the time to review the article.

  • Looking over what you said about the current poster image not being the original one, that comes at a surprise to me but it figures since I really didn't add that image to the article. I looked around for a high-quality image of the original VHS Box art but have yet to find a suitable one for this article, something I REALLY want to find. That might take a while since I DON'T want to use that red box art. I changed the Celebritarian reference to MansonUSA as requested, and fixed a citation error for one of the newspapers.
  • I do agree with you on the plot section, what I might do with that is have a short blurb, if you can call it that, mentioning the director himself admitting that the film's plot is open for interpretation and the following summary being one of those interpretations. Or I have a subsection that details the open interpretation of the film's plot, which Merhige himself has invited. I will wait for your confirmation before doing this.
  • Now that I've read through the plot section for myself, I actually think it does stick to onscreen action enough that it is probably fine just relying tacitly on the film as its primary source, without needing to rely on secondary sources. It doesn't take too much interpretation to suss out that, for example, what you're seeing is a disembowelment, it's not exactly subtle. But an opening statement about the highly unusual presentation of "plot" could still be worthwhile.
  • Looking at the Sontag "review" you mentioned, I can understand what you mean by that. Though all of the sources I've researched have specifically stated it was a review, but NYTimes is not what it once was and some of the archives they have are incomplete so I don't know what to do with that.
  • Interesting; I don't even know which publication it would have appeared in. I half-suspect that what people mean by "review" is really shorthand for "very public praise and support", but imo it is a confusing word in this context (at least in literalist encyclopedic tone), since Sontag is known as a writer and I think it would be natural for a reader to assume that means a written review.
  • What you said of the Din of Celestial Birds does make sense as I have yet to see another film by Merhige that would fit into the trilogy he has been calling it. His most recent project Polia and Blastema might be considered part of it, though that remains unconfirmed. I might just list it as a "series" rather than a trilogy.
  • I mean, if he'd been referring to plans for a "trilogy" then it should be called that. I'd just be clear that there are no "official" plans for the third part yet.

Thanks again for the pointers. I will get to work on the other suggestions. Sincerely, --Paleface Jack (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found an image of the original VHS cover, let me know what you think: http://www.hippoquotes.com/img/begotten-movie-quotes/250full-begotten-poster.jpg --Paleface Jack (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey! Apologies for dumping more new comments before replying to you—I thought I'd hit "save" on those comments last night. I think that VHS cover works great, and I agree that it's better than the DVD art not only on an aesthetic level but also for historical reasons as the "original release". You can largely transfer the language of the existing poster image's fair-use rationale, just substitute "poster" for "VHS cover art" etc. —BLZ • talk 19:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. I added the new image to the article, personally I am not a fan as it does not feel right as the other one did. (shrugs) Anyways, I looked over the Fangoria magazine and it IS very enlightening. I do want to include the bit where Merhige admitted to suffereng depression after completing the film due to him being so involved in the making of the film but I'm not sure where to put it. I also saw the Time Magazine Top 10 films of 1990 but I would have to pay money in order to properly view the article, which seems a bit much. Anyways let me know if there is anything else you want me to add/ work on.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not reviewing this as I already did the GA review but I wanted to announce that...I am the one that posted the "original theatrical" poster in 2017 (I think, after discovering the film) as a non-free use image after finding it on a website discussing the film, and I'm sorry that it turned out to be from the 2016 screening, as I legitimately thought it was the real deal. But I guess some things are sometimes just too good to be true! Thank you Brandt, for correcting my mistake. I've actually learned to use google image searches since then so I hope I don't make that mistake... -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 03:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, it wasn't that big of a mistake. Thanks for letting me know.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries NowIsntItTime! I mean, I think under some circumstances even a late theatrical release poster could be OK for an infobox, especially where there wasn't a poster for the original release—it could just be labeled as such in a caption. I was mainly concerned about the extreme similarity between the poster image and the still image included later, which seemed duplicative, but I don't think you made a "mistake". —BLZ • talk 01:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Nikkimaria

edit

Oppose

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere
  • Some issues with overly close paraphrasing, for example "prior to breaking it down into its physical elements" vs "then we would break it down into its physical elements", or "a core group that did everything together and knew each other thoroughly on both a professional and personal level. Wanting to achieve something similar" vs "a core group of people who... did everything together. They knew each other thoroughly and not just on a professional basis. That fascinated me and I wanted to achieve something similar".
  • Style/MOS edits needed: quotes of longer than 40 words should be blockquoted, don't include ellipses at the beginning or end of quotes, etc
  • "Her praise of the film became one of the Begotten's most publicized reviews" - don't see this in given source
  • "In its review, Episent.com..." is not cited to Episent.com, and I don't see this claim in the source that is given
  • "he wrote the film's script in six months" - source says six months was "from when you wrote the script to when you said, “Okay. I want to do this as a film.”" In terms of the actual writing it says only that he wrote it when he was 20 (which contradicts the claim just before this in the text)
  • File:Din_of_Celestial_Birds,_Sep_2006,_film_poster.jpg is tagged for deletion
  • Citation formatting needs cleanup for correctness and consistency - for example, the author of a newspaper article is not the publisher
  • Copyediting needed in places - for example, "Sontag, who set up a private screening at her home for some of her closest friends" is not a complete sentence
  • What makes Under Southern Eyes a high-quality reliable source? 13th Floor? Muzzleland Press? Scott Nicolay? Movie Habit? SplicedWire? We Are Movie Geeks? HighSnobiety? (not a complete list)

Given the issues with close paraphrasing, verifiability, and sourcing in particular, I think this might benefit from withdrawal to allow more time to work away from FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Response 2

edit

Looking over all the comments and concerns about certain points in the article, I am going to try and address them based on the user attributed to the. Feel free to let me know if I missed anything.

Brandt Luke Zorn In regards to your concerns and suggestions:

  • Fixed the all caps issue with some of the references, as well as the Geritz, and MansonUSA references have also been fixed.
  • Added DVD booklet to "Further Reading" section.
  • In regards to Time magazine, based on what is stated in the Fangoria reference you sent me, the Top 10 mentioning should be in the December 31st edition in 1990.
  • @Paleface Jack: I hadn't found that searching "Begotten", but I tracked it down and Begotten wasn't listed. Time's top 10 movies of 1990, listed alphabetically, were Cinema Paradiso, Cyrano de Bergerac, Dick Tracy, Edward Scissorhands, Goodfellas, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Internal Affairs, Misery, The Nasty Girl, and Postcards from the Edge. Here's the citation: Time staff (December 31, 1990). "Best of '90: Movies". Vol. 136, no. 28. p. 43 – via the Time Magazine Vault (subscription required). {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help) If I had to guess, I think Fangoria and that other source are just repeating the claim made by the DVD packaging, which puts "One of the Ten Best Pictures of the Year" above a longer blurb from Corliss's other article. —BLZ • talk 23:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should I put that as a note stating that this was a mistake on the part of the authors? If so, how?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The issues with Sontag's mentioning could be reworded to this: Sontag, who set up a private screening at her home for some of her closest friends, would become one of the Begotten's leading advocates and instrumental for its eventual theatrical release.
  • That sounds great. In the "Distribution" section, I would add that Sontag screened it for about 20 friends (from Merhige's "like 21" estimate in the HorrorNews source). —BLZ • talk 00:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking over HorrorNews.net's interview with Merhige, the director stated that it took 2 years to "get it out there". Other than that, it is not further elaborated. Any suggestions?
  • How about this: "Once the film was finished, Merhige spent the next two years struggling to find a distributor willing to market it." I've already changed it in the lead, but you can adjust it as you like and adapt it into the body. I think this wording also conveys that Merhige was actively (if fruitlessly) pitching the movie, and that those two years didn't just pass idly. —BLZ • talk 00:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed "Silent" in the infobox to English (intertitles).
  • Son of Earth is the official title of the character so I think both Son of Earth and the Son of Earth could be right.

Nikkimaria In regards to your concerns and suggestions:

  • I am a bit confused as to what unsourced information you are referring to when talking about the infobox. Could you elaborate?

Done. Found it in the end credits.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The paraphrasing issue might have been the result of copy editing, or my fault, I'm not sure which. What do you suggest I should do about it?
  • There is something I uncovered about the release date that maybe you can help me word it. The note I have states that some media outlets have mistaken the film's release date. I found another one in the New York Times that alternately lists the film as 1991. My thoughts on that were to rewrite the note to say: "Various media outlets have alternately listed the 1990 and 1991 film festival releases as the film's original release." I was just wondering if this should be more detailed or if this is good enough?
  • Looking over the quotes in the reception section, I kind of see what you are getting at. I have a couple of ideas to fix it, such as ones that continue the quote with "further stating" I can just redo that second part while leaving the first intact if that all works.
  • Currently working on resolving the issue with the Din of Celestial Birds poster.
  • Currently working on fixing formatting issues with citations.
  • Definitely still issues in this department. For example, look at your reference listings for the Shadow of the Vampire and Suspect Zero Rotten Tomatoes pages - similar source, completely different presentation. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed Episent citation error.
  • Fixed the issue with the director's age and the time it took to write the film (it turned out it was a small error in copy editing).
  • The issue of the reliability of the sources that you have listed are from secondary reviews of the film as almost all mainstream film critics refuse to touch the film. I can try and elaborate this in the section if need be.

I will be doing more changes later today. Thanks for all the input from BOTH of you.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from JM

edit

I've seen the film; I'm a big horror fan (and I've spent far too long reading Nietzsche), but this is too artsy for me, if I'm honest. (Undeniably disturbing, though.) I think this is a great topic for a featured article, but I am not sure that this article is there yet. Taking inspiration from an ongoing conversation on the FAC talk page, I am going to frame these comments as an "oppose", though note that I genuinely hope this article can get to where it needs to be.

  • Is God Killing Himself really the father of Mother Earth? She comes out from under his corpse, but I'm not sure that's the same thing.
In the film, she just emerges from his corpse, implying his death "created her".--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but does that make him the father? I'm OK with it if you've got a source. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "Theatre of Material"? It's one word, isn't it? (Though I'm not sure how it would be appropriately capitalised.)
Sorry. That must have been a mistake from either me or the copy editor. Fixed it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics have identified several major themes in Begotten. In interviews, Merhige himself has acknowledged that he intentionally incorporated these themes into the film, while also inviting viewers to form their own interpretations of the film." This feels like OR, unless you have a source explicitly identifying these as the several major themes critics identify. Also, I am not sure we need to reassure everyone that the director deliberately put them there; it's enough that critics have identified them. (We can surely accept the death of the author in a film about the death of God...)
I have both things stated by the director in the same interview. Not sure how to reword it so it doesn't sound like an OR statement. As to the "Multiple critics have identified" statement, I was told I didn't need to cit that in that statement but in the following paragraph(s). Sorry.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with "multiple critics"; it's the "several major" I was worried about. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the mythology section is a tough read. Also, is the film referring to Christian creation stories in Genesis or creation myths generally? I thought your links a little odd.
Fixed (hopefully) and reworded to "various creation myths" as it is not just a single myth that the film references.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merhige himself has acknowledged that the film was deliberately arranged to appear as part of a mythology." As before. By all means talk about this in the production section, but perhaps leave the themes section for critical/scholarly appraisal?
That's a possiblity. It fits better in the themes section as it confirms the use of this theme by the film's creator. I could also add it to the development section as well if needed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm encouraging you not to worry too much if the film's creator has "confirmed" the use of the theme. It's not terrible there, I just think you should be focussing on third-party analysis. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The death of God, and the birth and rape of Nature, or God-as-Nature" Links?
MacDonald only states this but never fully elaborates on any specific instance that he is referring to. Should I still link it?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that these phrases will not be familiar to lots of readers. Right now, you're just listing abstract-sounding ideas, but the capitals suggest you're referring to something concrete. A link to death of god would be easy, but what do the others mean? Worst case scenario, direct quotes can take the terms out of Wikipedia's "neutral" voice. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above are some comments on the prose, but I didn't look through the whole article. I also made some fixes; please double-check these, but they may well be indicative of issues further down.

The main issue, for me, is sourcing, including how you refer to your sources, how you format your references, and the kinds of sources you're using. In short, your source formatting really is all over the place, both in the prose and in the bibliography. You're also leaning on some questionable sources. Here are some examples from the opening sections of the article:

  • "Movie Habit.com" Why not just Movie Habit or Movie Habit? If you're going to spell out the URL, at least make it one word! Not a great source, but OK for an interview, I think.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Episent.com reliable? It looks like a blog to me.
That one was previously pointed out to me by Nikkimaria. Although I am gutted about removing it as it gave some good information on Din of Celestial Birds. Removed the one for the "near-death experience" info as I found another source for that. What should I do about the Din of Celestial Birds one?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't have a decent source for a claim, the claim really has to be removed, unless it's completely uncontroversial. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Author William E.B. Verrone" He is/was a scholar of film and literature. That's more important than the fact he's an author. This is the kind of source we should be drawing them themes from - not Episent.com! It's a shame it's only cited a couple of times. The Google Books preview suggests it will be very useful. It would be great if you could get hold of a copy (if you haven't already).
  • Similarly, Scott MacDonald is a Full Professor of Art History. "Author" doesn't really sell it. "Art historian" might be better! (He's also easily notable, but our coverage of academics is patchy...)
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " authors Ernest Mathijs and Jamie Sexton" Again. The views of these people are worth including in the article not because they are authors, but because of their areas of expertise. (There are more.)
How about this: In their book Cult Cinema: An Introduction, University of British Columbia professor Ernest Mathijs and Northumbria University Senior Lecturer Jamie Sexton noted that...--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad, but is it not more interesting to say what they do rather than their job titles? "film studies scholar", "literary theorist", "art historian"... Noting their job titles/place of work is probably a bit better than the rather useless "author", though. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You jump from citing a book called Aesthetics of Discomfort: Conversations on Disquieting Art published by University of Michigan Press to citing "10 Horror Movies Too Intense Even for Halloween" on ScreenRant. A nice example of the slightly confused sourcing - the former's great, but the latter is OK at best. Also a nice example of formatting problems; article titles shouldn't be in italics!
Not sure what you are meaning by this. Do you mean in the citations or in the article?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "jumping" is in the article - you move from a great source to a poor one. The formatting point applies in both cases. Article titles are in "Speech Marks"; book titles, magazine titles, etc. are in Italics. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And glancing at the bibliography:

  • You cite a lot of books that are (more or less) edited collections, meaning you should cite the particular chapter (and its author) and not just the editors/authors of the book as a whole. Examples include Film Out of Bounds, Contemporary North American Film Directors, and 100 Cult Films. There may be others.
How should I do that?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using {{cite book}}, use the editor= and chapter= parameters. Here's an example from one of my articles: {{cite book|author=Cochrane, Alasdair|year=2016|chapter=Inter-Species Solidarity: Labour Rights for Animals |editor1-last=Garner |editor1-first=Robert |editor1-link=Robert Garner |editor2-last=O'Sullivan |editor2-first=Siobhan |editor2-link=Siobhan O'Sullivan |title= The Political Turn in Animal Ethics|location=London|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield International}}. This results in:
Cochrane, Alasdair (2016). "Inter-Species Solidarity: Labour Rights for Animals". In Garner, Robert; O'Sullivan, Siobhan (eds.). The Political Turn in Animal Ethics. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.
Or you can do it manually. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of referring to websites - even well known websites - as things like "Rotten Tomatoes.com", "Turner Classic Movies.com", and "SpectacleTheater.com". Not only is this non-standard, but it is inconsistent, and often redundant to explicit mentions of publishers elsewhere in the reference. (E.g., Anon. (3 February 2007). "E. Elias Merhige's Power of Unflinching Belief - MovieMaker Magazine". MovieMaker.com. MovieMaker Magazine. Retrieved 13 September 2018. The name of the magazine is mentioned three times in a row, but never in italics with a wikilink - MovieMaker!)
  • Other formatting problems include listing authors as publishers. Example: Mottram, James (28 October 2014). "BBC - Films - interview - E Elias Merhige - Shadow of the Vampire". BBC.co.uk. James Mottram. Retrieved 23 July 2019. What's wrong with Mottram, James (28 October 2014). "E Elias Merhige - Shadow of the Vampire". BBC. Retrieved 23 July 2019.? On that note, shouldn't you be using American dates?
Changed the formatting a bit. Not sure I understand what you mean by "American dates".--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brits write 1 January 2020. Americans write January 1, 2020. You're inconsistent; you should really match your date formatting to your spelling/grammar. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questionable sources. Episent.com I've mentioned; efilmcritic.com? Horrorfreaknews.com? The Third Eye? These are examples; a full source review would be much tougher.
Episent is removed, however ThirdEye is also a Magazine published in the UK so it could be noteworthy. (Found the author and made changes accordingly).--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure I follow your separation between web sources and newspapers. Lots of your web sources are the websites of newspapers - which, if they're reputable newspapers, is fine.

I hope this indicates why I do not think this is ready for FA status, and what needs to be done before I'm able to support. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I can see the nominator is responding energetically to the issues raised but the sheer volume of those issues indicates the nom was under-prepared for FAC, and there's clearly still a way to go before everything is resolved. I'd like this resolution to take place away from the pressure of the FAC process, preferably while continuing to engage with the reviewers on the article talk page. When done, we should be in a better position for a fresh nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2019 (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/Begotten_(film)/archive1&oldid=933353041"