Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carol (film)/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2017 [1].

Carol (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pyxis Solitary talk 05:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Matt723star (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Carol, a 2015 romantic drama about two women who fall in love in the 1950's. To me, the article is fantastic; it is well written and absolutely sourced to the heavens. I see it, as a genuine Wikipedia user and reader, as a top contender for FA hopefully by December, or even January. I don't have much experience in getting articles up to speed in terms of what it needs to be on the front page; I've managed to nominate and gain a page its GA status (West Coast by Lana Del Rey), but that's it. I'm capable of making edits, but I need others who are far more experienced to see this page and help wipe out the cracks and gain it the spot it deserves. And I've had people come for me and discredit my nomination for another page before because I either didn't have much edit history or because my contributions to the site haven't been as glamorous as some, so if this nomination goes away then by all means please, someone who's been here forever, re-nominate it. --Matt723star (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2015 film Carol directed by Todd Haynes, based on the groundbreaking 1952 lesbian romance novel The Price of Salt by Patricia Highsmith. Carol received 276 nominations, won 90 awards, and in the first extensive critical survey by the British Film Institute of 84 years of LGBT cinema from 12 countries was named the "best LGBT film of all time" in March 2016. After considerable contributions, I nominated it for GA status, helping it pass review on August 7, 2017. It is now listed as a Media and drama good article. Pyxis Solitary talk 05:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: Then shouldn't it be your name at the top of the page? Matt723star has made four edits to the article ever, and they were all 18 months ago. Nominations by editors who haven't been significantly involved in the writing are normally summarily closed because FAC is an interactive process and there's no point in reviewers providing feedback to someone who isn't familiar with the material. If you're happy to proceed, and you're in a position to address comments about the subject matter and the sources, I'd recommend you add your name at the top; if you're not, then this should probably be closed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: If Matt723 agrees with your suggestion, I'll step into the role of nominator. @Matt723star: Pyxis Solitary talk 10:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though I have provided comments below, I am not sure about this FAC should proceed given that the nominator has not made a large contribution to the article, and he or she does not appear to have consulted with any of the primary editors. The nominator has done similar behavior in the past, such as putting up The Witch (2015 film) without doing a lot of editing on the article and then ignoring the nomination completely. Again, I am not sure if this FAC should proceed or not, but it definitely raises a red flag for me at least. The nominator also has done similar behavior with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sylvia Plath/archive1 so it may be best to close this on similar grounds.Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: @Aoba47: Matt723star has not responded and his login history is sporadic. After (1) HJ Mitchell's recommendation and (2) Aoba47's information about the nominator's past history in these matters, I added my name as the nominator, and crossed out Matt723's name and his nomination comment. I hope I did not misunderstand what "add your name at the top" (as nominator) meant. Please let me know if what I did was the way to go ('cause I know how thorny some things can become).
Does the FAC process have a time frame? I'm asking because right now my circadian rhythm is on the fritz and I'm crossing time zones again soon. In the meantime, I'm going to start handling the suggestions by Aoba47. Pyxis Solitary talk 10:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! That's a relief. :-) Pyxis Solitary talk 05:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would greatly appreciate it if you could put your responses directly under each of my original comments so that way I can easily tell what you have addressed and read through your response easier. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should have thought about it when I responded. Sorry. I moved the "track" to after your comments. Pyxis Solitary talk 09:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been unable to find another editor familiar with the subject that is willing to lend a hand in the FAC process. Unbeknownst to me when I took on the nomination, once the process has started there is reluctance by other parties to become involved. I have to balance my time on Wikipedia, therefore, I must regretfully withdraw my name as nominator. (Time permitting, I will do what I can to edit the two sections that some editors have suggested could be more cohesive.) Pyxis Solitary talk 07:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added "status=withdrawn" to the FAC template in the article's talk page. Pyxis Solitary talk 01:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I would change this part in the lead, (also known as Carol), to (later republished as Carol). I think that the verb “known” is a little vague and I think saying that it was republished would be more specific.
  • In this phrase (The next morning they discover that), I think you need a comma after “The next morning”.
  • In this phrase (Carol, meantime, has been seeing a), I think that “meantime” should be “in the meantime”.
  • In this phrase (During a meeting in mid-April with divorce lawyers that becomes confrontational), could it be shortened to the following (During a confrontational meeting in mid-April with divorce lawyers) for more concise language?
  • In this phrase ( contained and refuses to deny her nature), I would revise the word choice for “her nature”. It borders on being a euphemism and the phrasing should be more direct.
  • I would revise “demands regular visitation even if supervised.” to “demands regular visitation even if it requires supervision”. Just something about the original phrasing feels incomplete to me.
  • In this phrase (it was risky idea to play the role of Carol), it should read as “it was a risky idea”.
  • For this phrase (Film4 Productions and Tessa Ross financed the development of the film), I would make the connection between Ross and Film4 Productions clearer. It reads somewhat awkwardly to jump from a company to an individual person financing the film without any connection.
  • I would add the year in which Rear Window was released. Same goes for Brief Encounters.
  • I would link Eisenhower on its first use in the article.
  • I am not certain about having the Burwell and Lachman sentences as their own paragraph in the “Pre-production” subsection. It appears a little choppy this way in my opinion.
  • I think that these two sentences (They decided to show the cut to Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein was impressed and endorsed it.) can be combined.
  • The images require ALT text.
  • I am a little confused by the structure of the “Critical response” subsection. are the second, third, and fourth paragraphs organized according to any theme or common point of reference in the critics’ reviews? I think that this section could use more revision to read more like a narrative instead of a list of critics’ opinions and their relevant quotes.
At this time I am unable to contribute the extensive editing that is being requested. I need to take my own advice and not turn Wikipedia into a job. Pyxis Solitary talk 07:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand how you feel; I have certainly spent too much time on Wikipedia in the past in my pursuit of various projects so it is important to remember to balance everything and put value and time in things that are really important and matter in the long-term. I would recommend that you withdraw this nomination then. Good luck with all of your work outside of Wikipedia and have a wonderful day! On a side-note, I keep meaning to see this film, but I still have not for some reason lol. Aoba47 (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I truly appreciate your understanding. There is another editor that devoted a vast amount of time and contributions to the article and, hopefully, she will be taking a look at it. As for the film ... do see it. As an actress, Cate Blanchett is a chameleon. (Not only do I own two copies of the DVD and Blu-ray, but my home folder for Carol contains 4,215 items. You might say I totes like the movie. :-) By the way, exactly how do you withdraw an FAC nomination? Pyxis Solitary talk 01:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, this ping didn't show up in my notifications for some reason, I just happened on it when doing a period search for withdrawal requests among the FAC list. I'll take care of it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a similar concern with the “Response to Academy Award omissions”. It does not appear that the critics’ opinions are tied together into a strong narrative and it reads rather choppy (particularly with the use of a few shorter paragraphs, and a one-sentence paragraph at the end). I would suggest revising this to make it more cohesive for the reader.
Same response as ditto question above. Pyxis Solitary talk 07:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the LGBT link up to the first instance. Right now it is linked in a different place other than its first appearance in the article.
  • I am not sure about the inclusion of Desert Hearts in the “See also” section. Unless critics have tied these two films together, it borders on original research. I would remove it.
Re no connection made between Carol and Desert Hearts: I think it's been the result of not many editors knowing about Desert Hearts (and sometimes I read and re-read an article I'm involved in and don't see what's right in front of my nose). I can add the info in either the text or the *See also* section as a notation. { I'll betcha that wherever I add it and how I do it, someone is going to object. :-) } Pyxis Solitary talk 09:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep track — I made the following edits so far:
  • Carol republished
  • Comma
  • Meantime
  • During a meeting....
  • Nature
  • Regular visitation....
  • Risky idea
  • Rear Window and Brief Encounter
  • Eisenhower
  • Burwell and Lachman
  • LGBT link

Comments from Gertanis

[edit]
  • I'm not crazy about that reception paragraph. It consists almost entirely of pull-quotes from Eng-Lang film critics, almost all positive, with no significant thematic thread uniting them. See Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections for some advice. There is also very little first-response criticism à la cannoise: keep in mind that this was one of the most hotly anticipated films of the 68th Cannes Film Festival, as Mr. Haynes is bit of a darling on the Croisette, ever since scoring the Prix de la meilleure contribution artistique for Velvet Goldmine in '98. Keeping it Gallic, maybe we should mention that Cahiers du cinéma put this beautiful mélo on their 2016 Top 10 list? See also reviews in Libération, Premiere, LeMonde.
  • I miss a proper section on #THEMES, or indeed, analysis of Haynes' cinematic technique. There's lot of useful stuff on CriticsRoundUp.
  • Earwig's copyvio tool shows 59.9%. That's way too high—please paraphrase.
  • I find it strange to have a paragraph on 'popular culture', considering that the film itself is indeed popular culture—it reeks of trivia. Please integrate elsewhere in the prose.
  • We need alt text for the images.
  • The whole para on 'Controversy' is rather unfortunate, as it might become a troll magnet. See WP:CRIT. Same comment wrt 'popular culture' as above.

That's that for now. Gertanis (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pull quotes, French reviews, and Top 10 lists. The pull quotes are no different than those about critical response found in other film articles. I am fluent in more than one language, but French is not one of them. Based on the languages I do know, the accuracy of a web translator is not a reliable option, and I don't think the inclusion of French-language in the article would get a thumbs-up in this English language Wikipedia. There used to be a prose summary about top 10 lists, but it and the reliable sources were deleted by an editor. The hassle that ensued because of it is not worth revisiting.
Re: Themes and Critic's Roundup. Per MOS:FILM > Themes: "A separate section is not required if it is more appropriate to place the material in the Production or Reception sections." And in the article that's where you find the "themes" about the film. I believe an analysis of Haynes' technique is more appropriate in his article. Some of the opinions you find in Critic's Roundup are already cited in the article
Re: Earwig tool. That tool is questionable considering that many reviewers repeat the same details about a film. Except for personal reaction based on a reviewer's feelings, critics regurgitate and spin what they read elsewhere (often from production notes distributed at screenings). When content is quoted words, it has been sourced.
Re: Popular culture. According to MOS:FILM it's a legitimate section. It could be renamed, but the content is valid.
Re: Alt tex. Aoba47 pointed it out in his comments.
Re: Controversy section. What WP:CRIT is about does not apply here. What happened is a documented fact and is verified with reliable sources. It is not a section about "viewpoints".
Quite honestly, after looking at other Featured Articles about films, such as (for example) 200 (Stargate SG-1), Casino Royale (2006 film), Little Miss Sunshine, Summer of '42, and The Whistleblower -- I don't understand the basis for the critique regarding the reception section, popular culture, and controversy sections. They're all different articles with their own, individual circumstances and record, but the Carol article is not far removed from what you find in them, yet they were good enough for FA status. Pyxis Solitary talk 00:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for jumping into the discussion. I think that the primary issue with the critical reception sub-section is that it lacks a clear structure or narrative. Right now, it appears more like a list of quotes and critic's opinions in a rather random order. I would recommend looking through this source (which has already been linked above) to better understand how to revise the critical reception section as it does need work. A similar thing can be said about the controversy sub-section as it does not have a clear structure or narrative. The information is presented in an unclear and choppy manner and could improve from clear organization. I am not opposed to the sub-section staying, but it needs work to show its benefits to the article. I have to agree with Gertanis' concerns with the "In popular culture" sub-section. It could be integrated into a revised critical reception sub-section or be a part an an "Impact" sub-section if you could find more information on the film's impact following its release. I apologize for intruding on Gertanis' comments; just wanted to try to bring some clarity to this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The main editor does not seem to appreciate constructive criticism of the article, which is what this nomination page is all about. Pointing to practices in other featured articles is of little value, as they are indeed "different articles with their own, individual circumstances and record". I'm sorry if I'm being a wet blanket/douchebag here, but it's necessary, if this article is to become a top-notch page. Many thanks to aoba47 for his wise comments—other reviewers are also welcome to participate in this particular discussion. Gertanis (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments. You have pointed to important issues that need to be addressed in the nomination and the article as a whole. I would greatly encourage the nominator to look through these comments again and revise the article accordingly. If this FAC does not work (and I am not suggesting that it will not as it is still the beginning), then I would suggest peer review before putting this up again for a second FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2017 (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/Carol_(film)/archive1&oldid=1143877344"