Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Begotten (film)/archive3

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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 21 December 2023 [1].

Begotten (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1989 American experimental horror film Begotten, after two failed nominations in regards to sourcing and structure, I have done a complete revision by removing unreliable sources, adding more reliable ones and revising some problematic portions while updating the material when it was necessary.Paleface Jack (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wingwatchers

[edit]

Finally a film article at FAC. I will post comments/suggestions shortly. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "According to art historian Scott MacDonald, the film's allegorical qualities and purposeful ambiguity invite multiple interpretations." such as what? I wouldn't recommend shoving it to a single art historian because the lead is supposed to be written in a summary style. Rewrite that sentence to reflect the themes of in the body and avoid attributing to any single author. For example just explicitly say that the "The film's allegorical qualities and purposeful ambiguity invite multiple interpretations including XXX.
I am gonna redo that and make a separate paragraph that summarizes the film's themes.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest relocating the theme part after the plot in the lead and remove the part about Merhige acknowledging the thematic elements since it doesn't really provide any real content basis. You have already mentioned the "mythic and religious elements" and mentioning it is "intentionally incorporated into the film." is not very important or useful either. In addition, I would also suggest replacing the word argued with critiqued and readjusting it so it transitions well from the plot part wherever you see fit. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded it a little and placed it after the plot section lead as you suggested.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to have it placed after the story in the same paragraph but this also works. Wingwatchers (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see. my bad. If its fine as how I changed it I will leave it alone. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Begotten was shot on location in New York City and New Jersey over a period of three and a half years – although, in an interview, Merhige said filming took only five and a half months." I would think that Merhige's claim is more reliable and accurate since he is directly involved with the film. This sentence is conflicted and I cannot grasp if it is shot over three and a half years or the latter.
I will reword that to reflect the incorrect timespan with Merhige correcting it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once the film was finished, Merhige spent the next two years trying to find a distributor willing to market it." -> "After the film was finished, Merhige spent the next two years trying to find a distributor willing to market it."
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Begotten was written, produced, and directed by Merhige, with development for the film beginning in the mid-to-late 1980s, although some sources list the date as 1984." -> "Begotten was written, produced, and directed by Merhige, and development began in the mid-to-late 1980s, although some sources list the date as 1984."
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Principal photography took place in the mid-to-late 1980s" -> "Principal photography occured in the mid-to-late 1980s"
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the Influences section be part of the production? And we have two sections with confusingly similar names.
That sounds good, I will try to incorporate that into the development sub-section.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments

  • "Merhige later stated in an interview that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke, what Merhige called "an otherworldly response"." I disliked attributing a director's vision to an interview because it gave the impression that the director's vision was incorrect. I suggest changing it to "Merhige said that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke." to make it more concise and the fact that he stated such things in an interview doesn't necessarily add any context to the sentence.
I agree, did a short rewording.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merhige later stated in an interview that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke, what Merhige called "an otherworldly response"." "later", as opposed to "early"? To the best of my knowledge, the directors normally revealed a film's development process after that film had been published, so the use of "later" here doesn't make sense. Even if he is stating in retrospect, I would still remove the word "later" because he at the time was indeed drawn by the use of performer.
Redid it a bit to say "Merhige has stated he was drawn to the utilization of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement".--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing his next project," "next project"? What is his first project?
From all my diggin, I have not found the exact productions he directed and have only found sources that have stated that he previously worked on some with Theatreofmaterial.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing his next project, which was initially for the theater." I am sorry if the "next project" is Begotten. This sentence doesn't make any sense since the first paragraph suggests that the film in question is already being developed because you mentioned how he is drawing inspiration from Japanese dance and how he sought to replicate the same group dynamic.
Both Begotten and the start of his interest in film/theatre. The dance troupe planted the seeds for the film and what would become both Begotten and Theatrofmaterial as a background to its maker and what would be the film. Dont know how you feel it could be reworded.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must have misinterpreted that part as Merhige's general approach to the filmmaking process rather than the film's production itself. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All is good. I restructured that a little to be more clear.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was thought out as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra." I assume that the "next project" is the Begotten but the way it is presented suggests that is another project, which is amplified by the lack of context regarding his "earlier projects". The way I look at it, it can be reworded to "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing the film, which was initially for the theater." although I am still puzzled on how the fact he is intrigued by Japanese dances and sought to replicate Japanese group dynamic is relevant here since he began developing the film "after working on several different experimental theater productions". His Japanese vision based on my understanding is for the theater rather than the film itself.
reworded that starting sentance as the first paragraph is meant as background information leading up to the film's development.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was thought out as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra." -> "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was conceived as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra."
This has been reworded.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interviewed in 2013 by horror film magazine Fangoria, Merhige revealed that the film itself had also been an attempt to document many of the thoughts and ideas he was going through at the time, believing that if he did not "get it out there" they would overwhelm him" Remove interviewed in 2013 by horror film magazine Fangoria since it doesn't really add context to the production process. Just Merhige revealed will do.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Still only twenty at the time, he wrote the film's script in six months." Why does his age matter?
I am going off of a couple of FA article's that used the youth of the director as notworthy.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before working on Begotten, he had previously made several short films such as Implosion (1983), Spring Rain (1984), and A Taste of Youth (1985)" -> "Before working on Begotten, he had previously developed several short films such as Implosion (1983), Spring Rain (1984), and A Taste of Youth (1985)" more formal
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These were well-received, and gave the director the experience and insight he needed while working on Begotten" -> "These were well-received, and gave Merhige the experience and insight he needed while working on Begotten"
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Principal photography occurred in the mid-to-late 1980s" most film FA usually use began instead of occurred
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on to Themes

  • How did critics identify so many themes when the film itself received "little to no" critical attention? Do you mean scholars? Kane is not a critic so this should be changed to both critics and scholars.
The few that even bothered to review it pointed these things out. But, you are right most are scholars.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " who noted the film's intentional grainy and decayed visual style functioned as an allegory of uncertainty to what she referred to as "the hermeneutic of the image" note" is only to be used for facts, whereas this is interpretation.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alternately, critic David Annwn Jones noted the film's use of certain underminings of 1930s horror films such as Dracula and Frankenstein (both released in 1931)" Same thing
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really like using stated and noted as opposed to said, see MOS:SAID. Said is in no way informal and is a very consistent and concise way to express academic interpretations.
Alright, will adjust accordingly.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed all instances like "In her review of Merhige's third film Suspect Zero for the Los Angeles Times," "Author and independent filmmaker", "Film and literary scholar" because it would be very lengthy and dull to address people's journals and professions. See FA The Empire Strikes Back#Thematic analysis as an example.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instances such as "we are encouraged to mourn the film's characters (father/mother/son) through the agony and torment inflicted upon them." are written in a non-encyclopedic tone.
Any suggestions?--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dont know. Just avoid using "we". Wingwatchers (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I will tinker with it a little. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the quote "We would breathe to the point of hysteria and create these moments of panic. Afterwards, we would analyze what the experience was all about. It was an intimate science" is genuine. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How so?--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redid the quote to specify the director's intention. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In retrospect, author and independent filmmaker John Kenneth Muir is not a critic, so the previous statement, "Several critics have noted that Begotten contains an underlying theme of death and rebirth,[1][12][20] recurring throughout most of the director's works. [22]" would be incorrect.
Removed that title to reflect that because his books are partial reviews on horror films and because of the previous problem of extended titles being long and unnecessary.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instances such as "Merhige acknowledged" should be converted to "said" because it conveys that the film was indeed "deliberately arranged to appear as part of a mythology" but the statement itself is of his own interpretation.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wingwatchers, I think all of your comments have been addressed. Do you have any come backs and/or further comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

Still reading through, but just to note the quality of sources has improved significantly since the last FAC. Am a major fan of this style of horror. Placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it took a while and some suggestions/digging to find satisfactory, High quality sources. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be held open for a week please, would like to review but life events have happened. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing Paleface Jack (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ceoil was probably addressing the coordinators :-) . Sure Ceoil, in anticipation of one of your thorough reviews, we can hold it for a week. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sound Gog, and to hold myself to that deadline, have always though your innovation of reminding reviewers is most helpful. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support and trilled to see this at FAC - feel free to revert any edits made during my re-read...

lead:

  • Link motifs. Also motifs are not so much "explored" as placed or employed.
altered in the body and lead.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • conquer the earth through various means - last bit is redundant. Also the claim is vague, would be good to expand here.
Reworked.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • were major influences on Begotten, as Merhige believed their ideas and theories had not been explored in film to their full extent
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the first part of a trilogy would drop this as the next two claims say the same thing
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot:

  • Rephrase barren landscape", which is used three times in this sect
Changed to desolate.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good choice. Ceoil (talk)

General

  • would put the cast section much lower in the TOC. Also, the Brian Salzberg and Donna Dempsey entries here are uncited. And do we need "which included Adolpho Vargas, Arthur Streeter, Daniel Harkins, Erik Slavin, James Gandia, Michael Phillips, and Terry Andersen"...which seems to credit extras
The Son of Earth credit is cited due to the actor reappearing in Merhige's later works. The extras cast listing is there in fitting with other Featured articles that list extras if they are significant.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Principal photography lasted from a period of "three and five-and-a-half months". Guessing that it lasted three months, with some additional shots after 5 and a half months.
Unknown, most information I found only listed as this and not describing the half month period.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a real mouthful and diffucult to parse - can you break down pls - While comparing Begotten's opening sequence to the eye slicing scene in Buñuel's Un Chien Andalou (1929), Film Comment's Robert DiMatteo stated Dimitri Kirsanoff's Ménilmontant (1926), tribal art, ethnographic studies, Tobe Hooper's Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), as well as the paintings of Piero della Francesca as possible influences on the film.[12]
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have concerns over the reliability of SplicedWire, FilmThreat.com & WorldScreen (the last of which gives a lot of pop up ads). Given the film's art house origin and appeal, would have expected more academic analysis.
I did too, I checked out the reliability of all three and they appear to be reliable and sound enough for inclusion as per Wikipiedia guidelines.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicks:

  • You revered me on changing who sets out on a journey of death and rebirth through a barren landscape - which is totally fine, but still don't like "barren landscape" as it seems vague and lacking
Redid.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • twenty of her closest friends? (re Sontag) Maybe just 20 people
Would seem a bit more specific and better flowing for the overall structure if it remained as it is.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, dunno. Most people have 3 to 4 close friends, maybe just loose the word "closest" as it seems a bit swoony and pretentious. Ceoil (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "disturbing" is used 13 times. It is certainly that, but can you reduce, especially in the legacy sect, where we have hough initially mixed in his response to the film, Muir has since called Begotten "one of the most disturbing films ever made".[108] Natalia Keogan of Paste described the film as one of the best and the most disturbing avante-garde films.[24] Several publications selected it as one of the most disturbing films, including Highsnobiety (2016),[109] Entertainment Weekly (2017),[94] Screen Rant (2019),[110] NME (2023),[111] Similarly, Begotten has appeared on several lists of the top all-time disturbing...
Redid it to cut down on some of that wording.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Principal photography began in the mid-to-late 1980s - surely it began only once, do you know the actual year?
All sources use this wording so it is hard to tell withough asking the director himself.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime in mid-to-late 1980s. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Paleface Jack (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Development commenced sometime in the mid-to-late 1980s" is in this style, but it still says "Principal photography began in the mid-to-late 1980s". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paleface Jack, have you addressed all of the comments in this review? If so, could you ping the reviewer. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have. And i messaged them on their page and they have not replied yet. I still need to message the first reviewer which I will do later today. I am confident this will pass as all the issues have been addressed so we shall see. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for tardy response, will sign-off in next few days. A spot-check on source is needed, will action. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good mate. Any problematic sources shall he removed accordingly. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paleface, you shouldn't count on my support just yet; the interpretation sections are very muddled and not well done. Very repetitive and vague; mentioning again and again an archetypal figure - without going into examples of who that might point to. Will clarify this complaint in a few days, but for now, the article seems confused in what specific sources it draws from, and how it interprets them Ceoil (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I will get working on that and complete it as soon as possible. Paleface Jack (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the themes section there are pieces that I am gonna try to reword a little, starting with renaming the section as "Analysis", the suggestions and complaints to that section that you will explain once you get back shall be adressed once that is done. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Look forward. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For coords, myself and Jack are going to move this discussion to article talk, and report back in a few days. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This nomination has not shown signs of moving towards a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next day or two, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will get in touch with the reviewer and see where to go from there. Hopefully there shall be a consensus soon as possible, we shall see. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As there's still no substantial movement towards support, I'm archiving the nomination. I encourage you to continue working on the prose issues with reviewers and see about getting them to sign off on the article before resubmission. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by source comments

[edit]
  • BroadwayWorld.com (ref #143) is listed on WP:RS/P as "generally unreliable", so shouldn't be used in a Featured article without significant justification.
Removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a fair bit of inconsistency in how sources are presented. For a glaring example, see refs #3 and #128. More generally, some websites/publications are italicised while others aren't. Some list a website and publisher, while others don't. Some give the website address, some give the website name. A quick glance suggests that these issues were raised at the last nom, so should have been resolved prior to this nomination. I would echo some of the queries raised there about whether some of the sources used qualify as "high-quality" per the FA criteria, but I'm not well enough versed in the subject area to be able to offer any real expertise on this.
Yeah, I removed a lot of unreliable and questionable ones while rewriting the entire citation style, so some of that stuff sifted through the cracks in those edits. I will work on that today and get that all sorted out.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of listing a website for some of the sources, some of those sources did not come from a website or the "Website" was also the publisher. In some of those cases the publisher was not originally a website so just the publisher is listed. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few CS1 maintenance errors in the references, it looks like you've got some |ref= tags just duplicating what the reference would naturally be called anyway.
Yeah that might have been the ones that sifted through the cracks of my reference revamp.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found and fixed the errored citations. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This could really do with a source reviewer who knows the field, if possible. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I tried reaching out to some when editing the article before the nomination this time but no response.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A number of reviews in this and earlier noms wen through the reliability of sources, and from what I can see, all non-formatting issues have now been resolved. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Unlinked non-book/journal sources -
  1. WorldScreen - ok, "30-year-old publication covering the international media business", publishes in print and online.
  2. JoBlo, ie JoBlo.com - seems dodgy - is this not just a very popular/insiderish blog?
    Not to my knowledge. Some major publishers have used it as a source and has been listed as reliable by Rotten Tomatoes.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine as listed on the RT Critics List as a "JOBLO - Tomatometer-approved critic"
    Keep, modify or remove? Paleface Jack (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep as used Ceoil (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. shortfilms.org.uk - ok, is the London Short Film Festival[2]
  4. World Artists Home Video - Small distribution company, but they are used only to cited that they did actually release the movie on VHS.
    Searching, see that the release is on WorldCat[3]. Maybe use that ref also
    Looking over that, they imply that it was released on VHS in 1989 but there was no such release from newspaper reports, or any other outlet so I am not sure if this would be reliable enough to use as a source. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. RevistaCinefagia.com - dodgy Ceoil
    See its removed Ceoil (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HorrorNews - dodgy
    That was my original assessment, however, I have seen some literary sources that use that interview as a source. I have also seen some FA horror articles that have that as a source.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If its an interview and is used for direct quotes only, then am fine with it. Ceoil (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed and will find a new review to replace later.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you need to though? The article is already quite long. Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, then again so are many other FA Film articles I have seen. I will not add a review. But later if this nomination passes or not I have found some sources to add (We Got This Covered, is one of them) Paleface Jack (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Review sections can bloat easily with quotes, and as indicated on the talk, I would be more concerned with expanding on the film's visual style and its sources, rather "I liked" "I didn't like" back and forth. Ceoil (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Forum des Images - Fine, well established in the industry, high quality contributors
  8. Not sure what to make of "Merhige 2016", which seem's fine it's ex an instagram post by the director. The claim is "On July 29, 2016, Merhige announced via Instagram that the film was to be released for the first time on Blu-ray in the fall of that year" - can we source this from elsewhere. (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over everything and how far down the rabbit hole I went, I could not find an alternate source for that and it does have some reliability if the filmmaker is making that statement.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, was highlighting only to make the point that Instagram< is used only to source that the director made claims on instagram Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, alr. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The Film Stage - site has editorial oversite, professional RT approved writers who are regularly invited to major film festivals

Spot-checks to follow this evening. Ceoil (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

[edit]

Placeholder until tomorrow UTC. ——Serial 19:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Realmaxxver

[edit]

I will try to get comments by Thursday. Realmaxxver (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

  • "Its plot draws from various creation myths", "The film is based on various creation myths, including Christian, Celtic mythology, and Slavic paganism." I would suggest removing the first instance of this in the lead, as it it kind of repetitive.
Rewrote that based on your comment.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Begotten was conceived as an experimental theatre piece with dance and live musical accompaniment, but was switched to film after..." --> "Conceived as an experimental theatre piece with dance and live musical accompaniment, Begotten was switched to film after..."
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

I'd really like to see this article hit FA status, and it's clear how much work has gone into it (and how improved it is compared to when I last looked).

  • Opening paragraph requires work. Repetition of word 'violence', creation myths mentioned twice, and the sentence about 'narrative motifs' (without details of those motifs) is pretty useless. I worry that the second paragraph then returns to issues around silent films and influences; the structure of the lead could be a little better, I think.
Done
  • "Mother Earth and her son appear in a flashback" Do we know it's a flashback?
I think that was added in a copyedit by another user, while the scene is reminiscent of the beginning where Mother Earth and her son walk through a dead forest. Some reviews suggest this is a flashback so I will reword it a little for context.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consisted of a handful of core members highly in tune with one another, knowing each other completely on both a professional and personal level" This doesn't come across as that neutral
Did a little tinkering with the sentence.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " producing several theater productions" Repetition
removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will try my best.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You discuss the writing of the script after mentioning the start of production; is script writing part of the production, or did it come prior to the production? You mention his earlier films after that; I wonder if this section would benefit from being a little more chronological?
Did a little resituating of things.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the group followed up by discussing these experiences, filtering the and emotions into something he could replicate for the film" Incomplete
Incomplete in what way?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final sentence of the development section could be much smoother.
Redid it a little.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it was intended that the visuals had a decayed look" Beware of passive voice. Who intended this?
reworked to reflect Merhige's intention
  • "through analog format, with the development of Begotten realizing the filmmaker's ideas through this format" Repetition
removed--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetiton in discusion of Robert DiMatteo
Where at?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reached the end of the production section. I think the prose probably needs a bit more work before this is FA-ready. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, prose needs work and I am still trying to learn how best to do that. Any Suggestions?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (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/Begotten_(film)/archive3&oldid=1191176521"