Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barton Fink

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 14:29, 24 January 2009 [1].

Barton Fink

[edit]
Nominator(s): Scartol • Tok

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have done some exhaustive research, copyediting, and polishing over the past several months. It has undergone a peer review, and the concerns raised have been addressed. All of the fair-use images are properly rationaled, and I believe I've been able to combine all of the duplicate references. (One small note: I prefer to used spaced en dashes as allowed by the MOS in place of em dashes, but the original texts in some spots use em dashes, which I've preserved. Hope this seeming incongruity doesn't cause too much confusion.) Scartol • Tok 16:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Glad to see the process underway! Hope to find the time to have an extensive look... in the meantime, did you ever get to look into the Literature/Film Quarterly resource I mentioned at the peer review? I think I could access it, if you're interested and seeing if there is any value it provides. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I'd love to have a look. I tried to find it myself, but was unable to do so. You can email it to me or leave a talk page message or whatever works for you. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 17:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • File:BartonFink.jpg - This fair use rationale needs to contain a more specific link to the source (we don't want to have to hunt for it). It also needs to list who the copyright holder is.
  • File:Barton Fink pictures of women.jpg - The purpose of use in this fair use rationale is too vague (the "fictional" vs. "real" distinction is a bit strange, too). I would simply use some of the material from the article to write a more specific purpose.
  • I still don't think that the purpose of use quite gets across how central the image is to the film. The article does this much better. There is a whole section of the article dedicated to this image, but the fair use rationale does not make it clear why the image is so important. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mayhew&faulkner.jpg - I am on the fence about this fair use image - I am unconvinced that it meets WP:NFCC #8. How is the reader's understanding "significantly" increased by this image? It is of course nice to compare the actor to Faulkner, but how necessary is it, really, in the end? We could just have the free image of Faulkner and say that the actor resembles him.
  • File:Louis B. Mayer.jpg - This image is missing source, date, and author. The license cannot be verified at this time.
  • I think I told myself that I'd go back and check this before submitting it to FAC. Obviously, I didn't, and I feel really dumb as a result. I can't find an original source, so I expect I'll need to switch the Mayer photo to this image, for which I'll need to plead more Fair Use. But at least we have copyright info for it. Scartol • Tok 18:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mayer was born in 1884. I find it highly unlikely that there isn't a free image of him somewhere. We are required to use free images whenever possible. How much work have you really done to try and find a free image? Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried everything I can think of – I have pored over at least ten pages (~20 images each) at Google Image Search, tracing each site to its source, trying to find a free image. The LOC has three images; the one linked above is the only one with any kind of detail. The Life images are all post-1923. Most of the other sites I've tried return nothing at all usable.
  • If you or anyone else has suggestions about where else I could look, I'm all ears. (I suspect that as a film magnate he was very careful about who took his picture and how they were copyrighted, but that's just a baseless speculation.) Scartol • Tok 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lipnick&mayer.jpg - I am on the fence about this fair use image - I am unconvinced that it meets WP:NFCC #8. How is the reader's understanding "significantly" increased by this image? It is of course nice to compare the actor to Mayer, but how necessary is it, really, in the end? We could just have the free image of Mayer and say that the actor resembles him.

Hopefully I will have time to read the article itself! Awadewit (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel that the images of Lipnick/Mayer and Mayhew/Faulkner are necessary, since they demonstrate the specific visual connection between the characters and their inspirations. For example, Michael Lerner looks very different in the movie Poster Boy. John Mahoney also usually doesn't resemble Faulkner (bow tie, moustache, etc). The screenshots demonstrate the similarities in ways that a simple allusion by itself cannot.
  • Thanks for being so comprehensive about the images, A. I hope the prose is more satisfactory! =) Scartol • Tok 18:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not yet convinced by your argument regarding the Lipnick/Mayer and Mayhew/Faulkner comparisons. I suggested just including free images of Mayer and Faulkner, which would give the reader a sense of what the character looks like as well as the inspiration. How much does adding the fair use image really add? The more I think about, the less I think these images are necessary. They are a nice addition, but not one that adds significantly to the reader's understanding. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree in the strongest possible terms, and I was very very careful about which Fair Use images I inserted from the movie. I still believe that the side-by-side comparisons (which I didn't use, incidentally, for Barton Fink or Charlie Meadows/Mundt, even though I think they would have been interesting) are helpful for the reader's understanding. However, I'm more interested in having the information featured than in stonewalling on this point, so I've removed the Faulkner image. I'm going to keep looking for a free image of Mayer, and in the meantime I've removed that comparison pic too. Scartol • Tok 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I was going to suggest now was that we ask other reviewers to comment on the fair use rationales for these pairs of images - that way the decision to keep or remove them will be a consensus of some sort. Awadewit (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • The isbn on the Bergan book is not working correctly.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for your feedback. I hope I've remedied your concerns. Scartol • Tok 12:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought, since some of them are struck, and all the images used in the article (besides the poster and the image of the woman on the beace, both of which look fine to me) are free, the fair use issues are fixed. Currently, the article seems fine (to me).--Music26/11 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you could please read the discussion, you will see that is not the case. Please do read the comments on the fair use images above. We would appreciate your input. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the comparison images File:Mayhew&faulkner.jpg and File:Lipnick&mayer.jpg? Music2611 is fine with them being struck, it seems. I do not have a strong opinion either way. What needs to be discussed? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only struck them because they were removed. They deserve a wider discussion, as I explained above. Awadewit (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've seen that CactusWriter said at Talk:Barton Fink#Screenshot comparisons that the Lipnick/Mayer photo had a shaky rationale and that the Mayhew/Faulkner photo could be more acceptable. In reviewing the relevant context, I think that both comparison images have little merit. The Mayhew/Faulkner photo is not strongly backed by enough context; what exists is more about characteristics than physical appearance. The article would be better accommodated by a non-free image of the hotel setting, for which there is extensive critical commentary. Perhaps we can explore this venue instead? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am, indeed, fine with the images of File:Mayhew&faulkner.jpg and File:Lipnick&mayer.jpg, not being in the article, the images are a plain "nice" addition to the article, but it looks fine the way it does right now. An image of the Hotel would provide some clear visual identification (I agree with Erik), but is, in my opinion, not really necessary.--Music26/11 17:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the consensus is to drop the two non-free images that have been removed, with the possibility of adding a screenshot of the hotel. (I agree that it would be nice but not necessary.) Awadewit, how would you feel about such an addition? Scartol • Tok 18:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that WP:NFC can be too strictly interpreted to exclude any and all non-free images; nothing in the end is "necessary". We could easily have a Wikipedia without any non-free images, yet there is tolerance for such images as visual aids to clear-cut commentary. The film article is rife with critical commentary about various aspects of the hotel, and we should not hesitate about including one. More readers than not will find such an image useful in the context of the various descriptions of the hotel. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Erik, who makes a very clear point, Scartol (since you're the main contributor), can you provide a screenshot of the hotel to the article? My only question would be where this image should be placed, the plot summary seems like the best location to me but placing another image there would possibly make the section a bit overcrowded. No wait, perhaps the "setting" section would make an even better location for the image, Any thoughts?--Music26/11 20:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put one in tomorrow afternoon. I agree with Erik's point about how "nothing in the end is necessary". Scartol • Tok 05:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this screenshot to the start of the "Setting" section (where the discussion of the wallpaper is most prominent). The only other screenshot which really reveals the interior of the Earl is this one, but there's more discussion about the dripping wallpaper than the shoes, so I opted for the other one. Scartol • Tok 03:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a better choice for a screenshot, as the setting is clearly very important in this film. Awadewit (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — This is one of the strongest film articles I've seen thus far in terms of content. Strong sources. Looks to be complete. Enough images to adequately support the article, but not to decorate. Looks great. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: Terrific screenshot choice! I'd like to give a more extensive review, but I was wondering, can the "Plot" section not be written to be consistent in terms of names? "Barton" seems to be the most consistent name (which I'm fine with), but there are a few usages of "Fink" that seem inconsistent. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I caught them all on my earlier go-round, but apparently not. However, I just went through and examined each appearance of "Fink", changing any solo fliers to "Barton". Thus, the word "Fink" now appears only as part of his full name (usually as the title of the movie) or inside quotation marks from an original source. Whew! Scartol • Tok 20:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with comment - The article is thoroughly well-researched and written. Though, when I look at an article, I first skim and then read in detail. When skimming, I was thrown off by the M. Keith Booker blockquote in the Fascism section. With the picture to the left of the quote, it does not indent and does not format in way that's obviously a quote. So, I was at first puzzled by the ellipse (multiple periods), "typical of postmodern film...." Looking at that image, I wonder if it really is necessary, especially in that spot? Donald Lyons is not mentioned at all in that section. The other option might be to take the key points of Booker and paraphrase rather than a direct quote. Having both a block quote and image (both attention grabbers) right together is too much. --Aude (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That blockquote is formatted with the {{Imagequote}} template, which I designed for precisely this purpose – allowing a blockquote to show up properly beside a left-oriented image. Perhaps the margin was set too small? (I just made it bigger; does that help matters?) Could you take a screenshot so I know what you're seeing? (Also, you do know that the image is of Adolf Hitler, not Donald Lyons, right?) Cheers. Scartol • Tok 05:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen Hitler in other photos, but did not recognize him in that one. The way the caption is worded made me think the photo was of Donald Lyons. Please reword the caption to make clear what the photo is. Anyway, the imagequote template doesn't seem to work well. On Firefox, the quote does not indent at all and appears formatted in no way different than an ordinary paragraph. I also looked at the article on my iPhone browser (Safari), and the quote and image were not lined up together, and there was a huge margin on the left of the quote. I'm thinking that left-aligned images and quotes do not go together. Could you find another photo of Hitler that does not have him facing off the page? That might be the best solution, so the image could be right-aligned. --Aude (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rotten Tomatoes ranking is already in the reception section, as is commentary from the Chicago Reader. I didn't want to overload that section with various comments from assorted reviews, so I just chose a couple that were indicative of the different points of view. Others are of course welcome to add them if they see fit. Scartol • Tok 13:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said could, it's completely your call, I think the reception section looks fine as it is now, but (I figured) a little expansion can never hurt.--Music26/11 15:09, 23 January 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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Barton_Fink&oldid=1066007260"