Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Into Temptation (film)/archive2

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 19:12, 4 July 2011 [1].

Into Temptation (film) edit

Nominator(s): — Hun ter Ka hn 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated once before, and failed mainly due to some WP:LINKROT issues and a lack of reviewers participating in the FAC. I think the former has been resolved now, and I will try to engaged the WikiProject Film and ping a few editors to try and prevent the latter. It's a short article but I believe it's comprehensive, and I'm ready to address any concerns that remain. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need page numbers for print sources with no weblinks and for multi-page PDFs
- I've added page numbers to the PDFs and print sources (or, in some cases, added URLs that I found but weren't included before). One problem, however, is that I cannot find a page number for the Hollywood Reporter source (#11). The link here isn't available to view except for subscribers, and this Highbeam archive link doesn't have a page number in the copyright info. Any thoughts on how I should handle this? — Hun ter Ka hn 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could either add the archive link (assuming it has the text?) or contact someone with a subscription, either through WP:LIBRARY or some other venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reuters often reprints The Hollywood Reporter articles, so I was able to find a reprint here. I've updated the citation in the article. We can use WebCite on it too. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fantastic, thanks Erik! I've added the WebCite link. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that Blogcritics was a reliable source? It's own Wikipedia page briefly outlines that the site has been around for a while and gained some semblance of renown, and they have a pretty full staff. Also, this source is only used for a review and to reinforce some of the themes, all of which are also cited by a second source, it's not being used for factual information. That being said, if you think it needs to be removed, I'll remove it. — Hun ter Ka hn 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would argue for its removal, but I'll leave it to your discretion. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The page looks good to me. There may be some very minor things, but I did not notice them on my first read through. If they exist I'm sure they'll be taken care of, but for the most part the page is pretty well developed for what essentially boils down to a straight-to-dvd film (though I know it was released in a handful of theaters). The only thing I would suggest would be putting "Themes" after "Release". There is not a set structure to films articles (though I am away that "Themes" currently sits high order wise on the WP:MOSFILMS page...there is discussion about moving it to the "Secondary Information" section), but to me it always seems weird to discuss films from an interpretive standpoint when there is still objective information like distribution and awards still to come. Since a lot of the "theme" discussion are extensions of the critical reviews, to me it seems more appropriate to have that last. Either way, it has no bearing on the page meeting FA criteria, so it doesn't impact my support in the least. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 06:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for coming back to the second review, Bignole. For now, I've moved the "Themes" section to the bottom of the article as per your suggestion, and I'll be keeping an eye on the WP:MOSFILMS talk page to see what the result of that discussion. I'll change it back if that discussion reinforces keeping Themes up higher. Thanks again! — Hun ter Ka hn 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will try to provide an in-depth review of this article, but I wanted to respond about the section ordering. I think that because release information frequently comes after production information, there is a rough chronology of sections after the plot summary. However, the plot summary is supposed to convey a basic description of what the film is about. I would argue that a "Themes" section conveys another level of description of what the film is also about, using secondary sources. At least that's what I recommended to Steve for American Beauty (film), but I do recognize that different orderings (like at Tender Mercies) exist. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since it will be easy enough to move the Themes section later on if need be, I'm going to leave it where it is for now rather than move it again. Perhaps as this discussion proceeds, we'll come to a more concrete consensus on what the order should be. Personally, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other where it goes; I can see the argument either way. Thanks Erik! — Hun ter Ka hn 19:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi, great article. Since the the film was released in some theaters, it still received a box office gross of $97,457. (see The Numbers) This should be included in the article. —Mike Allen 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the link! I've added this info to the article and the infobox. — Hun ter Ka hn 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is well referenced, well written and comprehensive (for an independent film). TheNumbers.com usually has DVD sales, but doesn't have any data for this film. A cast list (or lack of) is aesthetic and doesn't have any barring on the quality of the article, IMO. —Mike Allen 00:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is well-referenced and reads well as a whole. I did some minor copy-editing. One concern I have with the article are some of the quotes from the cast and crew. We have to be cautious with using quotes. Some will provide insight about the film, while others can be fluff. For example, in the "Casting" section, Sisto's explanation is insightful, where Baumgartner's quote about not being able to put down the script is fluff. Two other examples are, "Oh my God, we've been looking for that," and "the best indie film to come my way in some time". Would it be possible to remove these quotes and leave it to the critics to comment on the film's quality? [EDIT: In relation to this, is there any kind of overview reference you can use to back the claim of "generally positive reviews"? I assume that the claim is based on 5 out of 6 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes being positive, but an overview reference would be better.] Erik (talk | contribs) 16:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed what I believe are the unnecessary quotes, but if you feel others need to be removed, let me know. Regarding the "generally positive reviews" claim in the lede, my feeling is that the lede is supposed to summarize the entire article, and this statement is meant to simply summarize the "critical response" section. As you can see from reading the section, most of these reviews are positive, so I felt the "generally positive reviews" for a summary in the lede statement was in line because it is verified by that section. What do you think? — Hun ter Ka hn 03:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My thought is that it helps to have a critical consensus backed by a secondary source, which can then determine the tone and balance of reviews in the Wikipedia article. I was suggesting a source that could adequately capture the overall reception, especially in retrospect. For example, with so few reviews here, it's easy to determine the balance yourself. Six isn't the best sample set. It's certainly not panned, but it could be more universally acclaimed or more in "average" territory. Is there anything that could be used? Not a dealbreaker, as I already lent my support, but it would help. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I added the Rotten Tomatoes link that you had mentioned earlier. It's not perfect, but since it shows an 83% positive rate and a summary of the positive reviews, I thought perhaps that combined with the sourced info in the "Critical response" section should hopefully be adequate. (I looked for Metacritic as another alternative but Into Temptation isn't on there.) Do you think this helps? — Hun ter Ka hn 19:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the actors are mentioned within the plot summary. While we have had reviewed articles that do this, I think it would be better to have a cast list apart from the plot summary. It seems unnecessary to go through the summary to identify the actor behind each role, when we can list them for easier navigation. Basic cast lists aren't bad per se; well-written prose is recommended whenever possible, and I think you've accomplished that in the rest of the article body. Is that something you would consider? You could have a simple "Cast" section with the image from the plot summary in that section to break up some white space. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, what exactly would you be looking for in the "Cast" section. I've always been one to dislike just a basic list of the actors and the characters, because that's pretty much what IMDb does. The "casting" section pretty much covers most of the cast that are relevant. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a basic list is a bad thing. One benefit at IMDb in listing the cast is that one can click through and navigate actors' pages. We do the same thing on Wikipedia with all our blue links, but I think that kind of cross-navigation is tough when the actors are embedded in a plot summary. One particular weakness of embedding is that the plot summary would not necessarily mention all the characters (and the actors who play them) even though they could be relevant outside the film itself. Some films just have a large cast of major characters, while others will have cameos of note. I also think that identifying actors is a kind of interruption in reading the plot summary, especially beyond the opening sentences. The opening sentences can help identify leading roles, but I think that afterward there's a certain obligation to mention the actor behind each explicitly identified character that made it into the current draft of the plot summary. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find that simple lists distract from the rest of the page, because there is this big blank space that sits in the middle of the page. Those lists appear to have very little value beyond simply naming who was in the film. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the white space to the right of the list? That's why I recommended having the image from the plot summary in that space instead. I agree that the space can be an issue, but I think it is more beneficial to list the cast members than to embed them in the plot summary. It's more directly presented for the benefit of identification and navigation. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but to me it seems counterproductive to the message we're sending at WP:MOSFILMS. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a lot of ways that one can present casting information, and I think that the cast guidelines are a little old and inflexible. (It's the only section that has not received a full revamp since around 2007.) A basic cast list as the only element related to casting in an article likely indicates that the coverage is not comprehensive enough. In the majority of superhero film articles, we're able to have bulleted paragraphs because there's typically a lot of interest in all the characters. In other articles, there may only be two actors and roles truly covered among the whole cast, and they could be discussed in a paragraph after the list. I think that the white space is a cosmetic issue, but it seems like we're sweeping the cast members under the plot summary rug and removing the benefit of a list in the process. [EDIT: I am arguing this as a reader because when I've tried to read articles where the cast fully embeded in the plot summary, I find it harder to "dig out" the names mentally.] Erik (talk | contribs) 19:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I haven't replied, I've been busy the last few days, but what I plan to do is write up a couple of possible "Cast" sections that we could choose from, put them in a subpage in my userspace, then post them back here so you can see a few possibilities. Hopefully we can come to a consensus about which one is best to be used, or whether we don't want any of them. I'll try to do this by tomorrow. (I should also note there previously was a cast section in this article, but it was removed in response to comments at the last FAC. Personally, I am comfortable with the article not having a cast section, as I feel identifying the actors in the plot summary is adequate enough; I don't think it's difficult to wade through the text because the wikilinks make them stand out, and they are already listed in the infobox as well. However, I'm open to finding some middle ground on this one.) — Hun ter Ka hn 16:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you prefer having the cast members in the plot summary, that's fine. It won't make me oppose. :) It's just an argument I wanted to put out there. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've written up three possible alternatives for a Cast section. Option 1 is a straight list, exactly waht the previous article had. Option 2 is a list with a brief description of the characters. Option 3 is essentially taking away the existing "Casting" section and adapting it into this "Cast" section. Any thoughts on these? Personally, I'm still probably most comfortable with either Option 1, or with not having any Cast section at all. I feel Option 2 is repetitive to the Plot section, and I feel that the information in Option 3 flows better in the "Casting" section than it does here. But I'm open to suggestions. — Hun ter Ka hn 03:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi I would generally support this article, however, I'm not sure about the 'Themes' sub-section. The section explains what the film is about (and to it's credit with lots of sources) but sets these themes out as fact. Wouldn't the article read better by instead of saying "Into Temptation is about etc etc" saying something like "John Smith in The Film Review said Into Temptation was about etc etc"? Coolug (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V#Neutrality says, "Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: 'John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y,' followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say." I think that implies that unless there is a contrast, attributing via in-line citation is sufficient. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in, Coolug! Although I can understand your concerns that it could be something like WP:OR, I think that this themes section is consistent with what's outlined in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Themes, which states: "Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated, regardless of whether their presence is the conscious intent of the producer, writer, or director. Inclusion of a treatment of a film's themes – well-sourced and cited to avoid original research – is encouraged since an article's value to a reader and its real-world context will be enhanced." Do you think there are specific parts of the themes section that need further attribution within the text? — Hun ter Ka hn 16:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hey, thanks for explaining, I'm relatively new to FAC so I'm not up on all the policies yet, therefore with this in mind I should state that I support this article being promoted. Good work. Coolug (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support article for Featured Article status. It is well-written and unusually comprehensive and well-researched for an independent film. (When I did a search engine test, I barely found any references for the film, so you definitely did your work!) My concern about neutrality has been addressed since Hunter Kahn revised the quotes that came off as a little fluffy. I'm not feeling strongly about the presentation of the "Cast" section, so I'm lending my support anyway. For what it's worth, I like Option 1. I assume that blue links will be added? Will the plot summary still have actors' names embedded within? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the wikilinks, but as you can see, only a handful of the actors actually have Wikipedia pages, which perhaps is another reason the Cast listing as illustrated in Option 1 doesn't add a lot of value to the article. Personally, I'm fine with Option 1, and I don't think the whitespace is a problem; in fact, I think the double list makes the article look kind of snazzy. However, since it was a factor in Bignole's comments the first FAC, I'd like to hear his final thoughts before I readd it. Thanks for weighing in at the FAC, Erik! — Hun ter Ka hn 19:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you know how I would feel about Option 1. :D lol. I wonder if there isn't another compromise here. Could we take a page out of Fight Club, and instead of the image of Kevin O'Brien we include a tabled cast list to the right of the casting information? The table is generally small, contains all of the key players and provides that "easy identification" that Erik and some other readers like when it comes to finding out who was in the film. I've added that possibility to User:Hunter Kahn/Into Temptation#Option 4 so you can see. I did not add all of the key actors, just enough to give an example. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pending, and adherence to sources and close paraphrasing check pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues still pending, and still waiting for a spotcheck on close paraphrasing and adherence to sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

"(pictured)" is unneeded in the context you're using it
- Removed. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Red-light_district_scene_from_Into_Temptation.jpg - what is the copyright status of the mural in this picture? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. The director of the film has released the photograph itself through a GNU license, but the mural never came up. How could I verify this? Or perhaps I should crop the picture so most of the mural would be removed? — Hun ter Ka hn 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I honestly did not even notice the mural in the shot. If it is part of the background, is there really a concern of copyright? I'm trying to review pages like Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and Wikipedia:Public domain and can't seem to determine anything about a background element possibly being copyrighted. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You might contact the director and ask about the mural. As for the background issue, I would argue that since almost the entire thing is visible and it's a fairly obvious part of the scene, the potential for copyright is not ignorable. YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've e-mailed the director, will write back here when he responds. — Hun ter Ka hn 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The director responded: "The mural was created by art director James Bakkom and we have all rights to it." — Hun ter Ka hn 17:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of 7 sources found a few issues:

"Into Temptation was optioned in Hollywood, but Coyle was displeased when industry officials pushed for a different ending and more gratuitous sex scenes" vs ""Into Temptation" was optioned in Hollywood, but they wanted "a different ending and more gratuitous sex," Coyle said"
- Changed the wording, please check the new phrasing and see if you were OK with it. 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
"Patrick Coyle's father, Jim, took a particularly strong interest in the film and called every week during production to hear how it was going" vs "Jim Coyle took a great interest in Patrick's latest project. He called every week to see how “Into Temptation” was coming"
- Likewise, changed. Please check it out and let me know. — Hun ter Ka hn 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both are now fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of smaller unquoted exact-wording extracts, for example "gentle piano tunes" vs "gentle piano score" or "kind but hot-tempered" vs "charitable but hot-tempered" - try to avoid these as much as possible
- I've reworded these two. — Hun ter Ka hn 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, but these are examples only, there were other instances. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a spotcheck issue, but in the process I noticed prose problems. For example: "the Omaha hospice where his father Jim was staying in Omaha" - the Omaha hospice is in Omaha? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the error you pointed out. This was given a pretty thorough grammatical review at WP:PR and few other prose issues have been raised so far, so I would suggest this was an exception that slipped through the cracks, not a chronic problem with the article. Unless you found other examples? — Hun ter Ka hn 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did - further examples include: "Father John and Lloyd find Linda has moved out, but he finds..." - repetition of "find", odd change from two men to one; "The film was finished on December 2008" - no, it could have been finished on a specific day in December, but without a day it was finished in December; use of non-wikilinked potentially unfamiliar terms, including "optioned" (for non-film enthusiasts) and "Twin Cities" (for non-Americans); "During its opening weekend at the Lagoon Cinema in Minneapolis, Into Temptation sold more tickets in three days than any other film during its opening weekend" - repetition; etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks Nikki. I change the first sentence to "At the apartment, Father John and Lloyd find Linda has moved out, but they discover she had possessed a 12-year-old newspaper clipping about Father John's ordination." Changed the "on" to "in", wikilinked optioned, and changed "Twin Cities" to "Minneapolis – Saint Paul". For the latter, I changed the second "opening weekend" to "debut weekend"; I couldn't think of any other word to use other than "weekend" for the second reference. — Hun ter Ka hn 13:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lead must not contain any references. TGilmour (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LEADCITE says of the lead, "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited". I cited this particular sentence (that the film got positive reviews) because it seems on the surface an objective statement likely to be questions or challenged. Do you disagree with this? — Hun ter Ka hn 05:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TGilmour, your information is incorrect. Please familiarize yourself with WP:WIAFA and WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I will be away traveling starting Thursday and will not be back until Monday. I may have limited access to computers from time to time, but for the most part, I probably won't be able to respond to inquiries until I get back. So, if anything new pops up between now and then, I'll deal with it upon my return. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 02:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the prose is up to the standard, and it appears to be comprehensive. ceranthor 13:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.