Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by The Act of Killing/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of accolades received by The Act of Killing edit

List of accolades received by The Act of Killing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...

It's a critically acclaimed film with real world impact -- and some of that impact has been directly connected to award nominations/critical success. I started the list a few years ago and, after coming across a couple other "List of accolades..." FLs recently, I felt up to the work. Granted, it wound up being a bit more time than I anticipated, going back to find other nominations, adding data, navigating a whole lot of 4-year-old broken festival/awards sites, but I think it's in good condition now. After reworking and expanding the lead, I feel fairly confident that it's FL material. I haven't been through this process before, though, so I look forward to your feedback. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • I would rephrase the follow sentence (The film's primary subjects were petty criminals at the time, but promoted to be leaders of a powerful death squad during the purge) to (The film's primary subjects were petty criminals at the time, who were promoted to be leaders of a powerful death squad during the purge) as the "but" sentence construction is a little odd in this context at least to me.
  • I am a little confused by the phrase "film justifications". Maybe specify whose justifications are being filmed?
  • In the final sentence of the lead's second paragraph, I think something should be added before the final quote to fully explain how the film is different than a "historical account".
@Rhododendrites: Everything looks good; once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thanks for your comments.
  • I'm not sure I understand the first point. The "...at the time, who..." doesn't sit quite right with me. The but is to contrast the roles of petty criminal and a quasi-official position of power on a death squad. Sort of like "They were nobodies at the time, but came to have a lot of power." What about rearranging as "The film's primary subjects had been petty criminals, but during the purge they came to lead a powerful death squad."?
  • That make sense to me. For some reason in my initial reading, I did not quite understand what you were referencing so I apologize for that. I think your rearrangement is stronger and I would recommending using that instead if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Changed to "Oppenheimer set out to film the ways people justified the killings, and was struck..."
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded from "According to Oppenheimer, the film is not a historical account of the killings themselves, but rather 'about a regime...'" to "The film has historical context, but primarily concerns the role of the killings in people's lives today. According to Oppenheimer, it is 'about a regime...'". Is this along the lines of what you mean? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes more sense to me. I was a little bit confused on the original wording on how this was separate from a historical account (as I have never seen or even heard of this film as terrible as that probably sounds). Thank you for the rewording/revision. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Support: Great work with this list! I can tell you put a lot of time and energy into this and it was a very compelling read (which is very difficult to do for a list of all things). I can definitely support this, and good luck with the rest of the review. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? I apologize for being so bold to ask for your input so feel free to say no if you do not have the time or energy. Good luck with this and your future projects. Aoba47 (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*The lead is far too long and detailed. This is a subarticle. It is an interesting read but much of the information is better placed in the main film article. These type of lists tend to follow a pattern of 1st para= what the film is about, people involved in the making of the film. 2nd para= where it premiered, release schedule, box office, reception by critics. 3rd para=performance at the major awards e.g. Oscars, Golden Globes, BAFTAs followed by its performance at more minor awards such as Guild Awards, Critics Associations, Critics' Choice or Independent Spirit Awards.
  • The table requires rowscopes and colscopes for accessibility
  • Online Film and Television Awards has no date for the ceremony
  • The recipients needs to sort by last name. The Act of Killing should also sort by Act.
  • Reference publishers needs work. Only newspapers or magazines or online versions of these should be italicised. Not all the references have adequate information. They should bare minimum have url, title, publisher, accessdate, date (if present), author (if present). The publisher should also be linked at first mention.

Cowlibob (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: Thanks for your feedback.
  • Scopes  Done
  • Sortnames  Done
  • Before I go back through all of the citations, could you clarify what you mean by "reference publishers"? The publisher parameter? I almost never use it unless "work" doesn't speak for itself. Is this a mistake? I do add all of the fields you list where possible (but with work instead of publisher).
Use work for things like the film newspaper "The Hollywood Reporter" who are published by an organisation (Prometheus Global Media), and publisher for things like "Chicago Film Critics Association" as they are the publisher. Cowlibob (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done? Tweaked a bunch of refs here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not find a reliable source for the Online Film and Television Awards date, unfortunately. I may take another look tomorrow, but I do remember checking for secondary as well as archived primary sources without luck. Frankly thought about removing it but for the existence of a stand-alone article...
I've nominated the article for AFD as I don't think it is a notable awarding body. I see that your PROD was deleted by another user who said they'd improve it but then didn't add any further references.
I went ahead and removed it from the list. It will likely be deleted, and the date was bugging me, too. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the lead, I won't disagree that it could be tightened, but "far too long and detailed" is surprising to me. My sense, reading it back now, is that starting off the "what it's about" paragraph with historical background gets us off on the wrong foot in terms of "too long and detailed". :) I have trimmed a little bit of the lead detail, combined a couple of the paragraphs, and added premiere and box office information. The main article definitely needs work (I hope to come back to it soonish), and that may also lend to an assessment of excess detail here, but to the extent that's a factor (if at all), I would argue that's a problem with the main article rather than this.
  • I would think that what information is relevant for the lead would require some flexibility between types of films. Box office figures for a Hollywood film may contribute to a film's sense of success and therefore could be said to be relevant to a list of accolades. But I don't think that e.g. box office numbers are important to the subject's notability, omitted from almost all sources on the subject aside from those which publish such data routinely. The numbers are fine for a documentary, but not impressive and seemingly irrelevant to its accolades. On the other hand, this film has been significant in the way it has had an affect on the world outside of cinema -- as in, that's among the things it's most notable for, and the reason for many of the accolades. For that reason, if we're tightening the lead, I would prefer to omit details like box office and premiere location that don't connect to the accolades in favor of including a fuller summary of why it's received the attention it has. I don't know if I'm communicating that well, so my apologies if this comes off as defensive/difficult. I'm new to the process, so may not be familiar with some typical factors that are otherwise taken for granted. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly very passionate about this important film but I only comment to improve articles so don't take it as an "attack" on your work that is not my purpose. The lead does look better. I agree the parent article requires a significant amount of work and much of this would be useful to include in the main article as well. I think "current" is not needed the social significance sentence."As the institutions and people responsible...", this implies they are still in power, are the perpetrators still in government, I thought Suharto was overthrown in the 1990s? The review aggregator sentence could be reworded "Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator surveyed 137 reviews and judged 96% to be positive". No need to include the consensus. The Metacritic one could also be reworded. The sentence which begins "Most...." could be reworded to "The Act of Killing garnered awards and nominations primarily in the Best Documentary category and for Oppenheimer's direction."Cowlibob (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I don't feel attacked and appreciate lending your experience with FLs to this. I just want to challenge if I disagree or learn more if I don't understand. :) I removed "current", though it may be good to add, in some way, that the scope isn't the social significance in general but the social significance in the present (i.e. not c?ncerned with what happened between 1966 and when the film was shot). I also changed the "As the institutions..." line to say "As many of the institutions.." to be a bit safer without getting into details (I'd have a bit more research/sourcing to do to clarify the timeline sufficiently otherwise, and it would further elongate the lead). I went ahead and reworded the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic lines (the latter along the lines of the former), though I do have to say I prefer to see the %/score first (not that I feel strongly about it). Also reworded the "Most awards..." line. Wasn't sure if you intended to end the sentence after "for Oppenheimer's direction", leaving off mention of the other awards, Sorensen, etc., so left those in for now. Thanks again. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the long delay, I have been very busy at work. The lead looks better.
  • I would suggest removing the last sentence, as it is about a different film.
  • The last two sentences on the first paragraph would be better placed in the main article. The prior sentences give enough info on the content of the film.
  • What's the reference for the "As many of the institutions and people responsible remained in power" sentence?
  • I'll go through and fix the reference formats myself.
  • Ref 26 (Biograf) is dead.
  • accessdates should be present for all references except archived ones.

Cowlibob (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the list. I found certain references that need to be replaced by more reliable sources: Uproxx, Alt Film Guide, Awards Circuit, Ekstra Bladet, and About.com Cowlibob (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the follow-up feedback, and for your efforts fixing some things on the page. I'm still unclear about use of certain reference parameters in particular examples, but I also don't have any objection to any of your changes so I'll stow that and perhaps ask on your talk page down the road. :)
  • Removed the last sentence about The Look of Silence.
  • Regarding the last two sentences of the first paragraph:

The film has historical context, but primarily concerns the role of the killings in people's lives today. According to Oppenheimer, it is "about a regime in which genocide has, paradoxically, been effaced and celebrated – in order to keep the survivors terrified, the public brainwashed, and the perpetrators able to live with themselves."

I think these are also tied to the preceding sentence:

Oppenheimer set out to film the ways people justified the killings, and was struck by the extent to which they not only rationalized but boasted about their participation.

When he was taken by surprise by their boasting, the basic idea of the film shifted from being about justifications of the past to how it affects people in the present. (i.e. the first and second of the three sentences kind of go together and then the quote describes the new focus). I've had a go at rewording and condensing these sentences a bit to make their purpose a bit clearer (and tighten it up).
It's possible the final quote ("According to Oppenheimer...") could go, though I do think the language he uses conveys the shock/impact of the film in a way that wouldn't be appropriate outside of quotes. :) That said, I'm open to removing it as I can appreciate that my own interest in the film may drive me to think more description is necessary than is actually the case. :)
  • Added one existing ref and added a new ref to the "still in power" sentence.
  • Sorry, I'm not seeing which ref you mean. Ref 26 (and the few around it, including the ref for Biografilm, if that's what you mean) are all working for me. Perhaps it was a temporary issue?
  • Will come back later to add accessdates and improve problematic refs. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cowlibob: Ok. Sorry about the delay. I believe all of the refs have accessdates other than a book and those with archivedates. Also addressed the problematic references. Removed a couple that were unnecessary to begin with, replaced a couple others. The one that remains is Awards Circuit. I seem to be having trouble finding a replacement for the New York Film Critics Circle. Would it be better to just remove that line from the table? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, forgot one Uproxx ref. Also having trouble replacing it (this one, Houston Film Critics Society]). It was originally from HitFix, which is now part of Uproxx. My impression is that HitFix isn't so bad for this sort of basic information (the one mention on WP:RSN is an affirmation, though it was a long time ago, with little participation). I see a couple smaller sites that pulled from it, a few awards round-ups that list only winners, and a woefully inadequate official site (via archive)... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: I think the New York Film Critics Circle can be removed, only a runner up mention. Officially NYFCC does not release runner ups, they only emerge based on leaks from participants so I can see why finding a reliable source will be difficult. HitFix I think is counted as a reliable source. I've certainly used it before in my FLCs.Cowlibob (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowlibob: Ok I went ahead and removed NYFCC. Am I missing anything from the above? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good list on an important film. Cowlibob (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • " 500,000-2,000,000" en-dash.
  • "$0.5 million" specify and link to US$.
  • "for an Oscar," Academy Award.
  • "well known" hyphenate.

Otherwise very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:  Done Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man: Thanks. Sorry to ask a FLC noob question, but is there a certain timeframe or number of reviewers we're looking for here? To be clear, I know that there's no fixed length other than >=10 days; I'm mainly asking if there's an informal number you look for to decide whether consensus has emerged. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd normally look for at least three supports. As for ten days, I can't remember the last time a nomination was ready in less than two weeks! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – I don't recall seeing you here before, Rhododendrites. If this is your first time nominating a list here, welcome to FLC! I took a look at the sources, and they all appear to be well-formatted and reliable enough. Spot-checks of references 19, 41, and 59 revealed no issues. The only problem came from running the page through the link-checker tool; reference 27 (Biografilm Festival) is showing up as a dead link. This will need to be repaired or replaced; perhaps the Internet Archive made a copy of it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: Indeed my first time at FLC. Thanks. :) Oddly, that Biografilm came up above as a broken link, too, but when I click it (now, as then) it's perfectly accessible. Maybe it's a bot error? Regardless, for good measure I've archived it and added a link. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bot sometimes delivers false positives, so it's important to check manually like you did. Since that was the only outstanding issue and it appears that a consensus has been reached, I'll go ahead and promote the list now. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:38, 23 April 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_list_candidates/List_of_accolades_received_by_The_Act_of_Killing/archive1&oldid=1076194778"