Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/True Detective (season 1)/archive7

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2017 [1].

True Detective (season 1) edit

Nominator(s): DAP 💅 & Mike Christie 17:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first season of HBO's True Detective, the anthology crime drama created by Nic Pizzolatto and starring Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their seventeen year pursuit of a serial killer, during which they must recount the histories of several unsolved cases related to said perpetrator. Since the failed nominations in the past year and after a lengthy hiatus, I've worked with Mike Christie on addressing the issues in previous FACs. He will thus be a conominator as he has made substantial improvements in the reception section, which was the main concern going forward. I believe this piece satisfies the FA criteria and hope for it to be a template for other media articles. DAP 💅 17:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging reviewers from the last three or four FACs: Aoba47, Brandt Luke Zorn, Tintor2, Jfhutson; would you mind taking another look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • Please link the show name (True Detective) on its first appearance in the body of the article.
Done . DAP 💅 13:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sentence (The Sydney Morning Herald included the opening sequence in a list of ten of the best title sequences on television), wouldn't it be more correct to put the writer's name rather than attributing the publication as a whole as putting the opening sequence on this list? The same comment applies to the reviews in the "Reviews" subsection as they primarily attribute the reviews to the publication without naming the writer/reviewer directly.
I don't believe so. This was a subject of concern working with Mike and we believe declarative statements are more organized and heighten the reader experience rather than a summary of reviewer comments. DAP 💅 13:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only two questions/comments I had about the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Great work with this article; it is a very interesting read. Good luck with getting it promoted this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. I am still a little confused about the treatment of the reviews as I have received notes in the past that the quotes/content should be attributed to the writer/reviewer rather than the publication as a whole, but if you both feel that is best, then I will not push the issue. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at it though; hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy to give feedback for your nom. I'll glimpse through the article and comment sometime next week. Cheers! DAP 💅 20:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Aoba47, thanks for the review and support. Re the attribution of the content: I think the point of an inline attribution is to let the reader know the source, but if the source is a reviewer they'll never have heard of, the reader is none the wiser. Naming the publication gives the reader a better chance of evaluating the authority of the reviewer -- the New York Times is likely to carry more weight than Uproxx, for example. In some cases it might be worth giving the reviewer's name as well as the publication, for example if the reviewer is very well known -- Pauline Kael would be an example -- but I think this is rarely worth it. Eliminating the name makes the text a lot easier to read. The reader can still see the name by going to the footnotes, after all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot better than the first time I saw. I can't find a single by having a big look so I support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks for the feedback! DAP 💅 20:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Awesome plot, and a very interesting read. Prose is great too! Good work! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! store. DAP 💅 14:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Seems like not all images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo; I've added more details as requested. I checked every image and I think there is alt text for all of them; did you spot one that was missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:TrueDetectivedigitaldouble.jpg: Which is the preferred size? Regarding ALT text, it seems like I miscounted the number of images... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The smallest size is fine for that file. store. DAP 💅 14:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "Hart tracks down an associate of Ledoux's and forces him to name the Iron Crusaders, a biker gang out of East Texas for which Ledoux is now cooking meth." It isn't quite clear what you mean by "name". For what?
  • Revised for clarification. DAP 💅 14:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an abandoned lightbulb warehouse near Elmwood." I would suggest "light bulb".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Fort Macomb, a nineteenth-century fort outside New Orleans" I'd like to get you to get rid of the duplication of "Fort". Maybe "and nineteenth-century Fort Macomb, located outside New Orleans.
    That works; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " disposable children's clothing" most children's clothing isn't disposable, disregarding the obvious. Do you mean secondhand?
  • That works, done. I had used "disposable" moreso to describe the quality of the clothing used, which Walsh said was pretty worn and ragged when he bought it from a thrift store. DAP 💅 14:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many of which are never reported or investigated by authorities." Possibly a "to" after "reported"
  • "insanity, decadence, and mental illness" sounds a bit duplicative.
    I made it just "insanity and decadence". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both formats contain bonus content including interviews with McConaughey and Harrelson, Pizzolatto, and composer Burnett on the show's development; "Inside the Episode" featurettes; two audio commentaries; and deleted scenes from the season." I'm not a big fan of using semicolons in a list, especially on an American-themed article.
    I hadn't realized this was a UK punctuation habit. I do it when the list contains commas that are not list separators -- in "Harrelson, Pizzolatto, and" for example. How would this be done in US style? Wouldn't it make it harder to parse if they were all commas? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would use commas. The usual rule in AmEng is one semicolon to a sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. I'll try to bear that in mind for future AmEng articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't pretend to be a fan, but very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I've responded to most points above; pinging DAP388 (talk · contribs) for the two points that require some knowledge of the show itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wehwalt (talk · contribs) let me know what you think. DAP 💅 14:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looks good. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1: yes, we requested one; just waiting now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • The article uses reliable sources.
  • Refs 71, 82, and 83 have no archive link.

When my concern is resolved, I'll check back. -- 1989 18:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1989: thanks for the source review; archive links have now been added. Can you take another look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. Source review passes. -- 1989 18:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Brandt Luke Zorn edit

Support. I previously reviewed, and ultimately supported, this article during its fifth nomination. A lot of my comments at the time recommended fairly substantive revisions or additions, including incorporating a major source (a print book analyzing the show's philosophical themes), adding another subsection ("Auteurism") to the Themes section, and other comments on the sourcing and text. DAP388 was responsive, cooperative, and amenable to my suggestions and, as far as I could see, the suggestions of others. Looking over the article again, nothing new jumps out at me as something to be resolved or improved. This article meets all of the FA criteria to my satisfaction.

I hope that it finally passes this time, but in the event that it doesn't please feel free ping me again if it must be renominated. I've been fairly busy irl and inactive on Wikipedia for the last few months, but I would support this again going forward. I don't really see any way that this article could somehow get worse or drop below the FA standards as I understand them. Alternately, I'm happy to let any future FAC coordinators consider my support here as a blanket support for purposes of any renominations in the near future. —BLZ · talk 20:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gertanis edit

  • "As an anthology, each True Detective season possesses its own self-contained story, following a disparate set of characters in various settings." — 'possesses' → 'has'. Plain and better English. Also, isn't disparate a bit too strong a word in this context?
    I agree on "possesses" and have made that change; I'd like to keep "disparate", if you don't mind -- it seems a concise term for what's intended. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Engineered as a nonlinear narrative," — 'engineered'? Really? Try 'Constructed' or 'Written'.
    I went with "Constructed". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... season one focuses on the lives of Louisiana State Police homicide detectives Rustin "Rust" Cohle (McConaughey) and Martin "Marty" Hart (Harrelson)" — strike 'lives of'. I'd also choose another verb than 'focuse'.
    Agreed on "lives of"; done. I like "focuses"; do you have a better suggestion? I think it's the usual verb to convey this mean for a TV or film. Perhaps "concentrates on"? Though I think that's less precise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seventeen years later, they must revisit the investigation, along with the histories of several other unsolved crimes, the perpetrator of which remains at large." — strike 'histories of'. Also, 'at large' is a bit too idiomatic/informal for my taste. 'unknown' is better.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "True Detective's first season explores themes of philosophical pessimism, masculinity, and Christianity, and critics have analyzed the show's portrayal of women, its auteurist sensibility, and the influence of comics and weird horror fiction on its narrative." — "and...and...and"
    Fixed with a semicolon; I could also just split the sentence in two but I think the rhythm is better with a longer sentence here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and won several other honors recognizing outstanding achievement in writing, cinematography, direction, and acting." — "-ing -ing"
    Changed to "won several other honors for writing, cinematography, direction, and acting" since we already have "outstanding" earlier in the sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cohle quits the police force immediately after." — love that Southern brogue, but not warranted here, alas.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two detectives reflect on the on-going universal battle between light and dark." — I kinda hate that purple prose. What specifically are they talking about?
    DAP388: you're familiar with the content here; can we be more specific? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before creating True Detective, Nic Pizzolatto had worked as a literature professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, DePauw University, and the University of Chicago." — did he function as a literature professor in both places?
    Checking the source, it says he taught at all three places but doesn't give any other information about his position, so I've simplified this to "taught at". DAP388, is there another source for Pizzolatto having taught literature? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several years later he wrote a full-length novel titled Galveston, published in 2010, and around the same time began preparing to write for television." — strike 'full-length'. Also, the sentence is too vague. To begin to prepare to write somethin' isn't noteworthy for an encyclopedia. And do we need two time markers ('several years later': 'in 2010') here?
    Cut to "He published a novel, Galveston, in 2010, and began trying to write for television" -- he was speculatively writing scripts and sending them to an agent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pizzolatto thought the narrative's shifts in time and perspective made the story more suitable for television." — strike 'story' and use a pronoun: it means the same as 'narrative'.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The writer pitched an adaptation of Galveston to two executives, and from May to July 2010 he developed six screenplays, including an early, 90-page draft of the True Detective pilot script." — 'the writer' is Pizzolatto, I presume. Also, "to two" is clumsy, if grammatically correct.
    Changed to "He pitched", and cut the mention of the executives; I agree it's clumsy. DAP388, what's the source for that pitch meeting? I couldn't find the supporting detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...thanks to the support of production company and manager Anonymous Content,[9] who ultimately produced and developed the project in-house." — Is who the right relative pronoun for such an entity?
    Agreed, in American English anyway. Changed to "which". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because the series is an anthology, each season possesses a self-contained narrative, following a disparate set of characters in various settings." — see earlier comment
    Fixed here also, and as above I'd like to keep "disparate". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "True Detective's anthology format allowed him the freedom to employ film stars, who normally avoid television series because of their busy schedules, because the show only required actors to commit to a single season." — "because...because"
    Recast, and shortened a bit as a result. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mathijs Peters, in a piece for Film International, argued that True Detective probes Schopenhauerian doctrine through its approach to individuality, self-denial, the battle between dark and light, and so forth." — needs an indef article before 'Schopenhauerian'
    I changed "doctrine" to "philosophy". Looking at the the source, I don't think it would be accurate to add an indefinite article; the discussion is about the range of Schopenhauer's thought, not one or two specific beliefs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Theorist Edia Connole saw connections to Philip Marlowe and Le Morte d'Arthur's Lancelot with regards to True Detective's presentation of Cohle, all "knights whose duty to their liege lord is tempered with devotion to God." " — 'with regards to' → 'in'.
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm sorry, but this article currently fails 1 a). Gertanis (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gertanis, thanks for the review. There's one point above I've asked for input from DAP388, the other nominator, but other than that I think I've responded to all your points. Can you take another look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. I made a few copyedits. --Gertanis (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch

  • "Fukunaga took cues from David Lynch's Twin Peaks to adapt his filming style for TV." – too vague: what is ment by 'filming style'? Gosh, it would be nice to use the French caméra-stylo or ´cinécriture...
    I've changed this to "The filming schedule was not organized in the episode sequence, which made managing the logistics much more challenging", which appears to be what Fukunaga was saying in the interview in question (here). He does mention Twin Peaks, but I don't think his comment is specific enough for us to be able to use it to support this point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The entire season was shot on 35 mm film,[35] which production staff chose to achieve a nostalgic quality" – first, you need a def article for 'production staff'. Secondly, I'm not sure what is ment by 'nostalgic': 35 mm is still widely in use. I'd love to hear something more specific about the texture, grain, or light qualities of that format, which made it more attractive for the show.
    Here's the entire relevant piece of the source:
    Why was 35mm chosen as opposed to another format?
    Cary and I are both great film lovers. It has a special texture. Our series takes place in 1995 for the most part, and film helped us achieve a slightly nostalgic aesthetic. We wanted the series to have an unaffected quality to it, and film has a wonderful ability to translate the best parts of what catches an eye into a beautiful image without pushing or tweaking it too much. Film is a very forgiving veil. We had to shoot about five minutes of screen time a day, so at times I was leaning on the format pretty hard to give me a provocative result.
    As you can see, "nostalgic" is what they thought of it. Can you suggest another way to summarize this that would be more informative for the reader? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the visual palette in comparison was sharper and had much more contrast, lending a modern aesthetic" – what is a 'modern aesthetic'?
    The source (same as previous point) says: "We used (PANAVISION) Primos for the 2012 segments. These lenses are a lot sharper and have more contrast, giving the image a more modern, crisp feeling. Longer lenses helped pull the characters out from their environments to hopefully help audiences get inside their heads, and camera movement became a little faster, like there’s a ticking bomb to disarm at the end of the tale." I don't mean to ask you to do the work here, but you're evidently knowledgeable about this sort of commentary: could you suggest a better summary of this?

That's it for now. Gertanis (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gertanis: Thanks again; I've addressed one point above but have dropped in the source text for the others in the hope that you can suggest better wording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No thank you, for responding so swiftly. I've gone ahead and made a rewrite suggestion, w/ a more liberal use of quotes, so the reader will understand that we're not the ones making the judgments. Gertanis (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your copyedits look good to me. I appreciate the support and the attention to detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 6 August 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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/True_Detective_(season_1)/archive7&oldid=794776863"