Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1

Comments from Lugnuts (addressed)

Note: Reformatted comments from Lugnuts, per diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lugnuts (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

;Comments from Lugnuts Comment The infobox seems bloated with who stars in the film. The infobox guidance states "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits." Are there really 17 stars to this documentary? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Yes, all these stars appear in the documentary for about equal time each. I'm open to any suggestions however they are all billed in the same manner in the screen credits. — Cirt (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC) In addition, two alternate film posters both list seventeen (17) stars each, see version 2 and version 3. — Cirt (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Great - thanks Cirt! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC) You're welcome, and thank you for your interest, — Cirt (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Rejecwater (addressed)

Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Rejectwater Image alts. See WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples. Could the caption for the picture of Steve Anderson be made more interesting? Why is Hunter Thompson mentioned in the caption of the Tera Patrick image? I noted there is a portalbar but no template with links to related articles. This isn't part of a series on film, or the works of Steve Anderson, or freedom of speech, or anything like that? "from M*A*S*H (directed by Robert Altman) to Scarface (by filmmaker Brian De Palma) and Clerks (directed by Kevin Smith)." I don't like this sentence, probably because it reads like a list, but I can't think of anything to recommend in it's place. I imagine it must be possible to write it in a less repetitive manner. I find it odd that the article mentions think of the children but without any explanation of the concept, just the wikilink. Once again I'm not sure of something to recommend here as I would want to be mindful of going beyond the scope of the article. Is "Film poster" really the best possible caption for the infobox image? Are there any other parameters of Template:Infobox film that can be filled in, such as budget, gross, written by, etc? Overall, a fantastic article. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Rejectwater, there does not appear to be any information on any of those three topics. I've searched extensively. Corvoe (speak to me) 03:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Response to comments from Rejectwater Thanks very much for these helpful comments, I'll respond to them soon and note changes back here. — Cirt (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC) I'm not the best expert with Image alts, Rejectwater, but I'd very much appreciate it if you could help us with your expertise in this area. Done. Changed the caption for the picture of Steve Anderson to make it more interesting. Done. Fixed the caption for Tera Patrick. At the moment there's no template indicating a series and I'm not sure there would be enough entries yet for a template on Works by Steve Anderson — but the film is included in Category:Films about freedom of expression. Done. I've copyedited this sentence so it's a bit more clear. Done. I've added info explaining this in a brief footnote. Done. Improved the caption for the infobox image. Done. Per research by Corvoe, and in addition to that, added one other parameter to the infobox. Thanks very much for your kind words on the overall quality of the article, — Cirt (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC) I have updated the alts that I thought needed updating. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the help with the image alts, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Great article, well referenced, very informative. I believe it meets all the criteria. I do have one minor quibble with the Lenny Bruce image caption. Seems to make sense to mention why he is being searched by a police officer rather than simply giving a quotation of his. I am very curious to know the background behind the picture, I am sure others would be as well. Also, please feel free to move my comments to the talk page as that is how it is done. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Swapped out Lenny Bruce image for one of Billy Connolly that was in there before. — Cirt (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt (addressed)

I'm a bit perturbed by the "Content" section, which probably follows the film closely but which looks to me on cold reading to lack organization. Can something be done about this? By way of example, the fifth, sixth, and seventh paragraphs. Also in that section:

• "Fuck points out that the original use …" in voice over? You have mentioned the various film clips and statements from various individuals but this seems to imply something more.
• "Fuck begins with a segment from the 1965 propaganda film, Perversion for Profit,[7][8] and a clip from SpongeBob SquarePants notes that the word can be used as a "sentence enhancer"." Two things: can something more be said about the 1965 film? It is not linked and I've never heard of it. The other thing is I think you need a "which" or similar before "notes".
• The word "linguist" is used three times in close succession. When you say "subtitles", do you mean when they are introduced, or actual translations? I'm not sure in the former case that they are subtitles. Possibly captions.

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Responses to comments from Wehwalt

1. The Content section does indeed follow the film closely. If it appears to lack organization, that is actually a similar criticism given to the film itself by reviewers in secondary sources -- so that means I've reflected that appropriately in the summary. :)
2. Done. I've added a quote to the cite for the secondary source given here to make this a bit more clear.
3. Done. Perversion for Profit actually is linked in that particular sentence, but I've linked it again in the caption.
4. Done. Added "which" before "notes" in this sentence.
5. Done. Copy edited down to one use of "linguist", from three, per above recommendation.
6. Done. Changed "subtitles" to "captions", as your analysis of this is indeed correct here.

Thank you for your helpful comments, — Cirt (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. You might want to make it clearer you are following the film. I'll go through the rest of the article in the next couple of days. Shouldn't hold up what looks to be a well deserved promotion--Wehwalt (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, maybe you have some suggestions on how best to indicate that? Thanks very much for your kind words about the quality of the article! — Cirt (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I changed the subsection header from just Content to Content summary -- hopefully this is clearer now. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the synopsis, I suggest words like "then" and "after" be used to alert the reader that there is a sequence. Additionally, you might want to mention some of the cutting of interviews Anderson used as a technique (and then excerpts from the Hitler and Stalin interviews were shown, with Hitler taking the liberal view and Stalin the conservative, with the clips making it appear they are replying to each other). That kinda thing anyway. Just once or twice, if you can figure out a good place.

Production

• "and became fascinated by the usage of "fuck" as a writer." As a writer?
• "Anderson noted that he did not previously frequently curse." "Noted" carries with it belief. It's probably too strong to be used in someone's unverifiable statement about themselves. Also, might this not be better phrased in the opposite direction, i.e., "Anderson suggested he cursed a lot more than he used to". I would note that his logic somewhat escapes me, that making the film would alter his patterns of speech.
• "In a CanWest News Service interview published in the National Post, " suggest that this phrase be cut. In general, I don't think that we need to know who was at the receiving end of the interview each time.
• "The director has said that he wished the film" Why the sudden change of tense?
• "During production, Fuck was known as The Untitled F-Word Film." Somehow I doubt they referred to a one-syllable title by a seven syllable term.
• Having consecutive subsections which are almost entirely Anderson's viewpoint is a bit of a heavy emphasis, if there's anything else out there that can be inserted. Also, it's hinted that there was opposition to the title, but never stated. That makes the term "adversity" in "Title and marketing" slightly surprising as there is no statement that there was any opposition other than newspaper ad standards.
• "Fuck employs an editing technique in which separate interviewees seem to talk to each other" Hm, maybe "The interviews were cut so that different subjects appear to be talking to each other." From the "critical response" section, I note that the interviewees in question generally had opposite views on the subject, this might be worth stating more explicitly if so.
• "Bad Apple Films in Spokane, Washington" more likely "in" should be "of"
• The Thompson interview is described as the final one before his death. It is not stated as definitely in the lede.

Critical response

• "Chelsea Bain of the Boston Herald described it as a discussion of censorship." I would say that the reader knows this already and this can be safely cut.
• "noting that Fuck succeeded where the other did not" as this is a matter of opinion, I would say that "noting" is not the proper term.
• The parenthetical in the MacDonald review asks too much of the reader. Who is being disheartened?

Home media

• Is the on-screen counter starting from zero regardless of where the viewer begins his watching? That is, if he starts with the last occurrence, will it finish with "000001"?
• Did any sources comment on the reason for the long delay before home media?
• The saga of the Philly teacher is interesting but given that it really has more to do with the sex flick, should it be set out at such length? possibly it could be footnoted.

General; anything known on costs or revenues?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Responses to 2nd set of comments from Wehwalt

1. Done. Copy edited this sentence, thanks.
2. Done. Used proposed wording suggested, above.
3. Done. Cut this phrase from the beginning of the sentence.
4. Done. Fixed the tense here, removed "has".
5. Done. Added quote to citation to make it easier for reader to see this is indeed accurate.
6. Done. Removed word "adversity" here. Also, this is a reflection of coverage amongst secondary sources.
7. Done. Used proposed wording suggested, above. Added bit about opposing points of view.
8. Done. Changed "in" to "of" here, thanks.
9. Done. Made this more clear and definite earlier in the article.
10. Done. Trimmed this bit.
11. Done. Removed "noting", here, per above recommendation.
12. Done. Trimmed out the parenthetical, not needed for reader to understand sentence.
13. Done. Added footnote to explain the sequence of the counter per suggestion, above.
14. No sources commented to my knowledge on the delay before home media.
15. The saga of the Philly teacher directly relates to this film: The headline in the secondary source coverage of it in the Philadelphia Daily News is "The 90-minute lapse that killed a 19-year career: Showing a DVD about the F-Word in class was a mistake ... But why a fatal one?".
16. This was commented on, above on this FAC. My research was checked by Corvoe, see diff.

Thank you for these helpful suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Support Good job. Feel free to move addressed comments to talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jimfbleak (addressed)

• Support and comments from Jim. Nice work and meets the standard, just a couple of very minor things you might want to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• There's a little overlinking, not bad, but you might want to run the duplicate detector tool
• Captions should avoid using the article name where possible. There are a couple of pics where you could maybe do this
• Chuck D spells his name without a full stop, if the linked article is correct
• The Deseret News, not The Deseret News, I think
• Link linguistics at first occurrence?
• The film was unrated— what does this imply (I'm a Brit)?
• He was fired by...—in BE this would be too informal, is it OK in your usage?
• Two nations divided by a common language... British broadsheets like The Guardian print fuck in full, and US first-timers on the mainstream The Graham Norton Show are often visibly surprised by the Brits saying words like fuck and shit on live Friday evening TV (no action required). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs)

Thanks very much for your Support. — Cirt (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Response to comments from Jimfbleak

1. Done. Used the tool and removed the dup links, thanks for pointing this out.
2. Done. Copy edited the captions t remove this when possible in a few places, looks better now, thanks.
3. Done. Fixed punctuation for Chuck D in two places.
4. Done. Changed to Deseret News in a couple locations.
5. Done. Linked linguistics in first occurrence.
6. This just means it didn't receive a rating from the Motion Picture Association of America.
7. Done. Copy edited this in the article.
8. I agree, interesting cultural differences.

Thanks for these helpful comments, — Cirt (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Addressed comments moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff. — Cirt (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell (addressed)

In my opinion, there are too many images in the article, and it crowds out the text and creates an awkward impression. None of the images is irrelevant, but many of them are not strictly necessary. I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images specifically about the number of images in an article, but I see that there's consideration about "overwhelming the surrounding article text." It's a gray area, but in my estimation the number present detracts from, rather than adds to, the quality of the article. I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions (including yours, Cirt) on the matter. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Discounting the infobox image, there were eleven images in the article. I've gone ahead and removed five (5) of those images. Hopefully this is now satisfactory, — Cirt (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you're fast! Honestly, you may have gone a little overboard; I didn't mean to cause the removal of nearly half the images. Perhaps you can add back in File:Christopher Fairman.jpg and/or File:Tera Patrick in Fuck film.jpg? (The lower half is a little sparse now.) – Quadell ^(talk) 14:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Added one back, Fairman. Here's hoping this is now satisfactory, — Cirt (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No further objections. Also, the lead, images, and sourcing all seem satisfactory. Note that this is not a full review, but it doesn't look like this nomination will suffer from a lack of reviews. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Your comments, "Also, the lead, images, and sourcing all seem satisfactory.", are most kind! :) — Cirt (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)