Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tender Mercies/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SandyGeorgia 14:48, 3 December 2009 [1].

Tender Mercies

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Here's hoping the third time is a charm. During my first FAC nomination for this entry, there were frankly a lot of issues that needed addressing, including the removal of unnecessary detail and problems with images. During my second nomination, I got a lot of very positive feedback, but the article was said to be lacking a comprehensive "Themes" section and analysis from scholarship journals. I believe the article now has that missing element. (Actually, I would have renominated it months ago, but it took me a surprisingly long amount of time to get my hands on one particular journal article.) I think it's finally ready, but I am more than willing to make any further necessary changes. Thanks all! — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is well researched, well structured, well focused, and comprehensive. It is in need of a rigorous copyedit, which I'm beginning to undertake. Here are two problems in the "Writing" section I'm unable to resolve.

  • "Foote was initially in writing a film based on the nephew and his young colleagues trying to form a band of their own, an experience from which Foote drew a parallel to his own attempts to find work as an actor in his youth." Clearly a word or two is missing from this ungrammatical sentence, but it's not self-evident how to correct it.
  • "Although the script also conveyed a strong spiritual message with religious undertones, Foote felt it was important to temper those religious tenets with practical, human application.'" Is that an inadvertent quote at the end of the sentence, or is there a missing open quote that needs to be included somewhere along?

I see there's also a problem I raised some months ago on the article's Talk page that remains unresolved. Here's the issue I raised (this is in the "Distribution" section):

  • The following is problematic: "Universal had released Scarface, a far more expensive and anticipated film, that same year and the studio was spending most of its advertising revenue on that film, which left little remaining to publicize Tender Mercies". First, the past tense is simply incorrect--Scarface wasn't released until December 1983, nine months after Tender Mercies. Second, that's a long time in industry terms--and, I believe, a brand-new fiscal year. It's rather difficult to believe that Scarface had much to do with the scrimping on the Tender Mercies publicity budget. Then we check the source: it's Tess Harper. I can't say that an actor who was making their film debut at the time is a great source for accurate reportage of studio financial machinations. If corroboration for this claim can't be found, I'd cut it, or relegate it entirely to a footnote, clearly identifying its source.

I'll state more firmly now that an actor's comments in a "making of" documentary simply do not qualify as a reliable source for flatly reporting a studio's publicity budget decisions. (I note also that the documentary was made 19 years after Tender Mercies came out. That makes it all the more likely and understandable that Harper would misremember and misreport things with which she wasn't directly involved.) Hunter, you said in Talk that you found "it hard to believe that they would have included it in the film if it flat-out weren't true", but it's clear they didn't fact-check her statement--they included her assertion that Scarface "had" been released, when in fact it was not released for another nine months. In addition, in the very lead of the article, you provide much more plausible explanations for Universal's weak promotional effort: "poor test screening results" and "the studio's lack of understanding of country music."

Scarface is a well documented film. If its release had a negative affect on Universal's publicity campaigns for its other films as far as nine months ahead of time, it should be possible to verify that. If Harper's claim can not be corroborated by a published source it should, again, be cut, or at least relegated to a footnote and explicitly attributed. DocKino (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are probably right about the Scarface reference. Let me ask, would it address the problem to add Tess Harper to the prose text? Like "Tess Harper felt the studio spent most of its advertising revenue on Scarface and little to publicize Tender Mercies." Or something like that? Then the reader could judge the source and the statement for themselves? Let me know what you think. If you feel this isn't sufficient, I'll cut it out altogether. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the claim was uncorroborated but plausible, I think that would be exactly the way to handle it. But it's not like Tender Mercies came out within a few months of Scarface. It came out nine months before, rendering her claim implausible. In the absence of any corroboration for it--and faced with completely plausible explanations for the weak publicity effort--I believe it shouldn't appear in the primary text. DocKino (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Texas is named and linked in the first paragraph. As the first sentence of the article states that Tender Mercies is an American film, there is no need to clarify--even for those few English speakers who have never heard of Texas--that it is set in America. DocKino (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are writing an encyclopedia here, not a magazine article, and not exclusively for Americans from the US. Regardless of whether you think it is too obvious, or quite redundant, or that the whole world knows that Texas is in America and that America means the United States (unless otherwidse stated), there is simply no escape from the fact that locating subject matter accurately in time and place is a basic necessity. Can't you think of a tidy way of doing it?
Mmm. How about mentioning, in the first paragraph, that it's an American film set in Texas and linking Texas for the benefit of those few English-speaking encyclopedia readers who have both (a) never heard of Texas and (b) are incapable of deducing that it's in America? You know, I think that might work. DocKino (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Steve T • C This is a strong article, an improvement over the version from the last nomination, which I felt was a little light on content in some areas; I'm glad to see that Hunter even waited a few months just so he had one last journal article from which to draw. A few prose bumps aside, there's little I can find fault with:
    • After recent expansions, especially to the "Themes and interpretations" section, the lead no longer summarises the body. Given the length of the article, I think an extra 100 words—give or take—wouldn't be uncalled for, but any length is OK as long as it covers the major sections and points.
      • I've expanded the lead a bit, particularly with info on the "Themes and interpretations" section, but also a bit about the challenges in securing the financing and finding a director. Let me know if there's anything missing or if the wording needs some tweaks. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is better; it still feels a little slim, though there isn't anything major unsummarised from what I can see. I'll take another look, and if I've got a suggestion I'll let you know. Otherwise, consider this concern resolved. Steve T • C 11:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Duvall ... provided his own vocals"—ha, I rather hope he didn't expect to be dubbed in post-production by Glenn Close. Obviously you're referring to the singing, but the way it reads makes one think of general dialogue too.
    • It's usual to include the full release date in the lead text, but your mileage may vary.
    • Given that the actors are already linked in the lead section immediately above, and in the infobox, I'm not sure it's necessary to link them all again in the plot section, or use anything other than their surnames.
    • I don't see any harm in reinserting Harper's claim about the marketing as long as it's not in the primary text (i.e. it's in a footnote), and is unambiguously attributed to her.
      • Well, given that this has been an issue not only in this FAC but beforehand as well, and after having come so far in trying to bring this up to FA standards, I'm sort of hesitant to bring it back in if it's going to lead to objections here. That being said, I'm also not sure exactly what you mean by having it as a footnote rather than the primary text. Could you explain it a bit or, if it's not too much trouble, maybe make your suggested change in the article and then we could discuss it from there? — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't the time to look at every one, but a random check of half a dozen of the sources reveals no issues with too-close paraphrasing or original research.
    • Have you had a look to see if there any free pictures of Waxahachie or Palmer available that might get across to the reader the "barren" look of the unnamed town in the film? Alternatively (or in addition to), free, time period-appropriate images of Duvall, Harper or Hubbard could be useful too. As it stands, the article is composed of several large chunks of text, unbroken by visual decoration. If there are definitely no images available, is there anything you discarded that could fit into a quote box?
      • Unfortunately, I've not found any of those pictures; a few months ago I even asked over at Wikiproject Texas whether anyone could snap shots for me, but to no avail. I added this geographic photo just to illustrate exactly where Waxahachie is in Texas; let me know what you think. (And for Harper, Duvall and Hubbard, doesn't the photo in casting serve that purpose?) As far as quote boxes, I'll take a look through my sources to see if I can find some... — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I say, other than a few prose bumps (which I'll tackle separately) I can't see anything else to pick at. Nice work, Steve T • C 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how to correct this: "Although the script also conveyed a strong spiritual message with religious undertones, Foote felt it was important to temper those religious tenets with practical, human application." First off, "tenets" are principles or doctrines--that is, rather explicit things, certainly more explicit than "undertones". Which term better describes this aspect of the film? Second, do you mean that he felt it was important that the religious beliefs expressed in the film be seen to be practically applied, for better or worse? Or that he felt it was important to balance the religious message of the film with a focus on the purely practical challenges of everyday life? DocKino (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter. I've changed the wording to reflect that a bit better (and borrowed some of your own wording in doing so, if that's OK. ;) ). I also replaced tenets with the more simple "elements", but let me know if that's insufficient... — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Good work but it has some minor errors. I think this article still needs a "Cast" (not "Casting") section with short introductions for each of main characters. The "references" section should be divided in "Notes" for citation and "Bibliography" for books that you used in this article. Could you find more illustrations for article like images of actors or location which appeared in film? Because with only one (fair-use) image, this article looks somewhat monotonous for reading. And in my opinion, the intro section of this article is a little bit short (and a little bit fragmentary too) in comparison with the rest. Hope you don't find me too "prissy" :). Grenouille vert (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all! :) The lead has been expanded as per some of the above comments, so let me know if that works for you. As for images, I added this one and would love your thoughts on it. As indicated above, the selection of photos for this article are pretty limited, but I am in the process of looking through my sources for quote boxes to help illustrate the entry a bit. As far as the lack of a "Cast" section, this was done in response to feedback during the first FAC review; the feedback was that when there was a "Cast" section, the cast was mentioned in the infobox, in the lead, in the plot synopsis, in the cast list, and in the casting section, and that it was "overkill". The solution was to drop the "Cast" section, and identify the actors in parentheses after their characters are named in the "Plot" section; this approach is identified in WP:MOSFILM, which itself specifically cites the use of the approach in the FA Tenebrae (film). I truly feel this compromise was best approach, and that readding a "Cast" section would only be redundant because it would rehash character and cast info that is already included elsewhere in the article. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead looks fine now. The fact that I'm too familiar with featured/GA articles about films with a distinct cast section so Tender Mercies makes me feel a little bit confused. I've read your argument for removing it but Tenebrae (film) is not a good example, it was promoted a long time ago, you can consult Tropic Thunder, which has been just reviewed this month. And how about my idea of dividing "references" in "notes" and "bibliography"? It will make the article look clearer and easier to consult (because you used many books as reference). About the "reviews" section (will "reception" be a better name?), it is well-written now but I think you could still add Rotten Tomatoes's score or even IMDb's score (not recommended by Wiki but I still think it's a good channel for audience's opinion), and Roger Ebert has just added this film to his list of Great movies which is a very high appreciation from the respected critic, that information may be useful for this article. That's all I can comment now. Grenouille vert (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I didn't see notice your suggestion about Notes/Bibliography. I've tried adding it, but I also still need citation tags for all my book references, so please let me know if this is what you had in mind. Thanks also for the Ebert citation, I had no idea about that! I've run out of time now, so I will add that one tonight, and take a look at IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. (I also changed "Reviews" to "Reception" as per your suggestion.) As far as the cast thing, I'm still reluctant to add something that was specifically objected to in a previous FAC review. (For the record, I only used Tenebrae (film) as an example because WP:MOSFILM uses it when addressing this type of cast approach.) Is this such a major point that it would hold up your support of the entry? Also, I'd encourage you to look back on various points (here and here) and I'd suggest they don't add anything that aren't already in the current entry at some point... — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's only one weak oppose (mine) about the "cast" section so you can take it easy, if you don't want to change structure of the article now, then so be it :). I helped you a little bit with the reference by using {{Harvnb}}, overall I think the article's good, hope it will be promoted soon. Grenouille vert (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • On the use of IMDb—by long-standing consensus user ratings from the IMDb are considered unreliable, as they are subject to vote-stacking and demographic skew (I can dig out the multiple discussions we've had on this over the years if you want me to, but it would have to wait until tomorrow). Polls of the public should only be included if they're carried out in accredited manner, as those from CinemaScore are (unfortunately not around when Tender Mercies was released). On Rotten Tomatoes—it's usually fine to include the score; however, for films released before the site became active it's not a good idea as the site is often wrong about film's reception at the time it was released (due to a bunch of factors too boring to go into here—again, this is something that has been thrashed out in the past). For example, reading the site, one might think that Fight Club achieved immediate critical acclaim, when in fact it pretty much polarised critics. (Oh, and as a side note: examples of recent film articles that have passed FA without a cast list include: Changeling and Fight Club.) Steve T • C 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you, great answer! No need to cite me the discussion about IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes because I knew their disadvantages too, I just want to add IMDb rating because it still has value about viewer's opinion, but per consensus first, of course. Grenouille vert (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've added the Roger Ebert quote (thanks again for that!), and I see the IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes questions have been addressed. Considering the Changeling and Fight Club examples above, do you think you'd be willing to support this entry now with the cast section as is? — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how to correct this: Beresford "contacted EMI Films and asked for permission to visit Texas for one month to familiarize himself with the state before committing to direct the film, to which the company agreed." Obviously, Beresford didn't need "permission" to travel to Texas. I assume you mean that he asked EMI for time--to not pick another director for a month. Did he also ask them for money--to pay for the research trip? DocKino (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you can still access the restricted NYT article that sources this passage: "Beresford, who is known for carefully planning each angle and shot in his films, created drawings of how he envisioned the sets and camerawork, and shared them with Oppewall and Boyd as soon as filming began." The common term for "drawings of how he envisioned the ... camerawork" is storyboards. Is there any reason not to use that term here? You might say "Beresford...drew his own storyboards as well as detailed drawings of how he envisioned the sets"--if that's supported by the source, of course. Also, the cinematographer and especially the art director would customarily look at pertinent material of this sort in preproduction, before filming begins. Are you sure the existing sentence accurately paraphrases what the source says? DocKino (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made the suggested storyboards change. I can access the NYT article, but I had to wait until I get to work on Monday and get access to the Lexis Nexis account there. However, I'm pretty sure that the paraphrasing is correct; I also Beresford talking about his detailed storyboards and drawings in the Miracles & Mercies documentary. I'll get back to you though. — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the attention paid to the choice of the motel, the art direction devoted to its look for the film, the significance of the rural setting, and the importance of capturing it authentically, I think there's a strong fair use case for a judiciously chosen still from the film showing the motel and its barren surroundings. Here's five possibilities: garden and landscape (third image after the poster); gas station and landscape (a high-angle shot); motel and sign; Mac's trailer between the two buildings; two buildings and landscape It's my sense that the last image might be the most informative, but you know the movie best, and I think the inclusion of any of these five would significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the film and its setting. DocKino (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I've given this a shot with the latter of the images you suggested (I agree with you, it's the best choice) and I've added it to the article, next to the part that discusses Jeannine Oppewall and her art direction. Please check over my non-free use rationale (which you'll see borrows a lot of your own wording) and let me know if you think it's sufficient... — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related point, this sentence needs to be recast: "The only specification for the location of Rosa Lee's flatland motel was that no other buildings or physical structures could be visible from it." In fact, of course, there is another building visible from it--the free-standing gas station building on the same property. The existing sentence leads the reader (led this reader) to mistakenly believe that the gas station and motel are all one structure. I assume the building used as the gas station was already there when Oppewall found the abandoned building chosen as the motel. Is that right? Or was it, like the motel sign, built for the film? And how does this relate to the new construction implied in the following sentence: "Oppewall purposely deviated from conventions of 1940s and 1950s motel design in order to give the building a more singular shape"? I'm looking at the stills of the motel and struggling to figure out what is particularly "singular" about its "shape". I think a revisit of the sources for this entire passage is in order. DocKino (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I've consulted that source again and I think I paraphrased it accurately, so I'm not sure how to address this problem. I was hoping you could take a look yourself and give me your suggestions. This can be read on Google Books. The "singular shape" source can be read here, and the "no other physical structures visible" source can be read here... — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You did fine (though your paraphrase was a bit too close to the original). It's Anker who may have bungled it. Here's his description of the Mariposa's "singular shape": "its central building [is] perpendicular to the road, with two arms or wings extending diagonally toward the road". Let's break this down, slowly so we're sure we have it right: I've been able to access photos of two structures on the property, but I gather there are actually three. Is that correct? My impression is that the central building serves as the gas station and perhaps the motel office. Is that correct? I gather that the building to its right, from the perspective of someone standing in the road, is the primary motel building. Is that correct? I assume that the building to the left (which I have not found an image of--except perhaps its rear in the first image I linked above), would be Rosa Lee's home and is not part of the motel at all. Is that correct? Or is the building on the left also a primary motel building, and Rosa Lee and Sonny live in the back of the gas station structure? DocKino (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a closely related point, could you please check the restricted NYT article cited at the end of this passage: "Oppewall chose for the setting an old building that had been sitting abandoned by a Waxahachie highway. Mary Ann Hobel said the owner immediately handed over the key to the house when approached about using it in the film: 'We said, "Don't you want a contract, something in writing?" And he said, "We don't do things that way here."'" Now, obviously, in the film there is more than one "old" building on this property. Is the description of a single building actually true to the source? If it is, do we have any way of conclusively determining if the source just ignored the other, existing structures on the property or whether those other structures were built for the film? DocKino (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here is the exact text from the source: "Once in a while, during the course of production, the Hobels were blessed with beginner's luck. They were driving around outside Dallas searching for the right location, when they saw a perfect old house set in the middle of a prairie. 'We found the owner,' says Mr. Hobel, 'and we said, 'We want to shoot a movie here.' And he put his hand in his pocket, took out the key and gave it to us.' Mrs. Hobel nods. 'We said, 'Don't you want a contract, something in writing?' And he said, 'We don't do things that way here.'" Also, your impression is correct about the central building. (I wanted to double check that Rosa Lee's home is not part of the motel, but you're right; it isn't.) It seems like in both of these cases, the author of the source texts is equating the motel/gas-station/house as one structure, rather than three connected structures. Could the solution be as simple as changing the phrasing of "The only specification for the location of Rosa Lee's flatland motel was that no other buildings or physical structures could be visible from it." Maybe instead of "flatland motel", it could be something like "Rosa Lee's motel and home" or something like that? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, Hunter. I've edited the paragraph so we violate neither the published sources nor the facts onscreen. I've eliminated the business about "conventions of 1940s and 1950s motel design" and the building with a "singular shape". It is evident that the motel building is perfectly ordinary. As I suspected, Amker simply misremembered what constituted the motel and didn't rewatch the movie to check. This happens way more often in film criticism than one might think. DocKino (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the lead and the "Themes" section describe Mac's conversion to Christianity; the "Themes" section also discusses his and Sonny's baptisms--but these significant events are mentioned nowhere in the plot summary. DocKino (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything fine. Just change the location fields of the references to where the publication in question is published rather than where the news reported took place. RB88 (T) 23:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Very engaging article that introduced me to an aspect of Beresford's work of which I had not even heard. Nicely crafted and has obviously benefitted from careful copyediting and attention from various editors. I fixed a couple of things that were the only issues I came across. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I will be gone for the next four or so days for the holidays. I will be able to check in off and on, and can probably address a concern or two if they are raised, but if there are any major outstanding issues I'll take care of them upon my return. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Semi-conditional Support. Steve T • C Although I criticised the article at its last nomination, it was still a strong effort, only light in a couple of areas. I'm pleased to see those issues have been resolved, including the ones I outline above, and that it's had a copyedit or two to iron out the bumps (I hope you don't mind, but I've made a few tweaks myself instead of wasting time by listing them here—see the intermediate edit summaries for the rationales for each). The article is well-cited, well-written and seemingly comprehensive. Two things: I agree that the audio clip could do with being a little shorter, and I'm not wild about the use of the Internet Movie Database to cite which songs are used in the film. Traditionally, the IMDb isn't accepted as a reliable source, especially at FAC. It doesn’t bother me too much in this case as it's just providing a convenience link for something that's verifiable through the primary source—the film itself. Ideally, though, it should be cited to somewhere more obviously reliable (perhaps the BFI can help?). Otherwise, nice work. Steve T • C 12:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Steve! I've shortened the audio clip to just under 30 seconds. As for the music bit, your BFI link seemed to include the songs. However, since it didn't include the artists, I added it as a citation but kept the IMDb one intact, so that the statement is now cited by both sources (as well as the primary source of the film, as you pointed out). In the meantime, I'll take a look for any other sources I can find with the soundtrack info that also includes the artists names, so that maybe I can remove the IMDb one altogether. Thanks for your support! — Hunter Kahn (c) 14:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Love and family" subsection:
  • In her song "The Best Bedroom in Town", those lyrics include, "(the) best part of all ... the room at the end of the hall, where everything's made all right. ... (We can) celebrate the heaven that we've found (in) best bedroom in town".
  • First, editorial interpolations to improve a quote's clarity or flow should be in square brackets, not parentheses. Second, these interpolations seem strange: (1) The actual lyric is not "the best part of all"? There's really no "the" there? (2) The actual lyric is not "We can celebrate the heaven..."? What is it actually--and are we sure the actual lyric doesn't work here? (3) The last interpolation should be "in the", rather than just "in", right? But then, is the actual lyric not "in the best bedroom in town"? What could it possibly be? DocKino (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, interestingly, I've gone to the DVD rather than the source and the exact words as they are sung in the song are: "But the best part of all / The room at the end of the hall / That's where you and me make everything alright / We can't afford good wine or pink champagne / We ain't got no open fireplace flame / But we celebrate the happiness we've found / Every night in the best bedroom in town / Every night in the best bedroom in town." So obviously, they misquoted the songs in some spots, and I'm not sure at all why the source broke up the quote the way they did. In my opinion, it would be best to simply say "...those lyrics include, 'The best part of all / the room at the end of the hall / That's where you and me make everything alright ... We celebrate the happiness we've found / Every night in the best bedroom in town." However, even though that's the correct quote, that isn't how the source quoted it, so can I still use it? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You better, you better, you bet. (Wait a sec, how the hell did The Who get in here?) Sorry. Yes. The film is a perfectly good source for quotes for the film. And this allows me to bring up something I've been thinking of taking to the Films WikiProject for some time. As a best practice, we should feel free to cite directly to the movie with the precise timing (analogous to page numbers for books), which DVDs allow us to do. Please see, for instance, what I did with the Sex Pistols FA, in notes 85, 148, 154, 169, 207, 211, 215, 219, 225, 226, and 230. You've cited to the film Miracles & Mercies repeatedly (hint--this method is also applicable there [by no means insisting on it, but nice opportunity for double-checking quotes and paraphrases]), so why would you hesitate to cite to the topic film itself? (Hint 2--this method would also allow for the replacement of that last niggling IMDb cite.) DocKino (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I've replaced the quote and added a citation for the film and the specific section that it takes place. I've replaced the pesky IMDb citation with the same thing. I used the Cite video template, so take a look and make sure those work. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • See, now you've schooled me--I didn't even know there was a "Cite video" template. Works great for the lyrics quote; of course, we'd prefer "Credits appear" to "Event occurs" for the song credits cite, but I figure anyone who's interested will get the idea, right? DocKino (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I certainly hope so! :) — Hunter Kahn (c) 06:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • You could just change the time= field to say "end credits", as I did over at American Beauty recently (before I found a secondary source). The output of "Event occurs at end credits" is probably clearer for those wanting to verify the statement. Anyway, it's up to you. :-) Steve T • C 08:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Great idea. I'd actually do both, for maximum clarity and verifiability; so the time= field input would be "end credits (1:30:51–1:31:12)". This raises another question: According to the timing you provide, the song credits, which are usually among the very last of the credits, end around the 91-minute mark, yet the infobox gives the running time of the film as 100 minutes. Really? DocKino (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Good idea on the time= field. Just to make the running time issue even murkier, the BBFC lists the theatrical cut at 92 minutes, the original VHS release at 87 minutes, and the DVD release at 88 minutes! Add to that the fact that due to PAL–NTSC frame/refresh rate differences, UK releases will be 4% shorter than US versions, and we're left with a bit of a pickle about what to actually put in there! I'd go for either a range, perhaps linked to a footnote explaining the above, or go simple with the running time of the original US theatrical release. Steve T • C 13:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'd go with the latter, just the running time of the original theatrical release. (I'd say that should be the standard, except where there are official alternative cuts.) DocKino (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've never heard of this movie, and the article did an excellent job of explaining it to me (now I need to go rent it). I thought the prose flowed well, and I had no outstanding questions when I finished reading. Great job! Karanacs (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In "Distribution", Beresford's quote: "if you flicked a piece of paper on the floor, you could hear it in fall." Just want to verify that's correct, and not simply "you could hear it fall." "In fall" is possible--and really, really quiet.
  • In "Box office", the phrase "executive engagements". I'm familiar with "exclusive", but not "executive" engagements. Is that the term actually used by the source? DocKino (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Vincent Canby quotes in both "Distribution" and "Reception" need inline cites.
  • In "Awards", Duvall's refusal to participate in any Oscar campaigning: Was that an established practice of his, known from previous nominations, or did it reflect issues he had specific to this film? DocKino (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nominator has ably responded to each and every query, and in general did everything possible to facilitate a rigorous copyedit. This is a superb article, one that meets a Wikipedia ideal: I believe nowhere is there a superior informational resource on the article's topic. DocKino (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2009 (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 "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tender_Mercies/archive3&oldid=1136095314"