Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boys Don't Cry (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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2015 [1].
- Nominator(s): Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boys Don't Cry is a 1999 romantic drama film directed by Kimberly Peirce and starring Hilary Swank and Chloë Sevigny. Swank plays the part of real-life trans man and hate crime victim Brandon Teena, who was beaten, raped, and murdered by his male acquaintances in Falls City, Nebraska, in 1993. Being transgender myself, this film holds special significance for me, not to mention that it's beautifully done.
Back in April, I naively nominated this for FAC without a peer review and without even being a significant contributor. It was more than a little bit disastrous, as I somehow failed to catch that several sections were unsourced completely. After some amazing help, I added 45 independent references and nearly 30,000 bytes. I believe that it is ready again. It's been through a successful peer review, and User:J Milburn has been so kind as to give me several rounds of independent comments himself. Ultra special thanks to Josh as well as thanks to User:Ugog Nizdast for peer review comments, User:Baffle gab1978 for a helpful copyedit, and User:Ashton 29 for making the article a GA in the first place a few years ago. I look forward to reading and responding to comments! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments byWereSpielChequers Nice work, great prose, I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them if not its a wiki...
"on that reduces and, ultimately, nullifies Brandon's gender and sexual excess", was that typo in the source? if so I'd suggest on [sic] ϢereSpielChequers 11:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @WereSpielChequers: Done. Do you have any other comments? :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing that, Support on grounds of well written prose, sorry but things have come up in real life and I'm not going to have time to properly check any other criteria, sorry. BTW I agree that ""Themes and analysis" is unusually long, but consider it merited for this film. ϢereSpielChequers 14:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI think section "Themes and analysis" is much, much to long. Feels like some culture research paper from college, especially when there's another long section: "Critical reception".--Jarodalien (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jarodalien: I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. Critical reception and themes and analysis are not the same thing. Critical reception is reviews from film critics, while themes are academic analyses of the film. I believe this length adequately represents the range of interpretations of the film. Another FA with a similarly long themes section is American Beauty (1999 film). Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 13:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jarodalien: I also vehemently disagree with you. In fact, I'm slightly angered you would suggest something so nonsensical. Boys Don't Cry is a thematically rich film–its extensively detailed and superbly written Theme section (well done, Johanna!) is completely worthy. In fact, you could talk at length about the themes in this film without even scratching the surface of its subtext. So to say that the Theme section is "too long" is ridiculous. It's well sourced too, so to say it resembles a college paper is, again, ridiculous. Ashton 29 (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So there's absolutely no chance to even consider make an article like Themes of Boys Don't Cry (film), right? "In fact, you could talk at length about the themes in this film without even scratching the surface of its subtext." Yeah sure, just like another 15 thousand movies, and "talk at length about the themes in this film without even scratching the surface of its subtex" is not a good thing. So, consider the big words against to me like "vehemently", "ridiculous", "angered", "nonsensical", let's just agree to disagree, after all, who cares.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Burklemore1
[edit]Really interesting article that is very well written, it's astounding and a pleasure to read. I believe it is as comprehensive as it can be, going in depth with all aspects of the film or anything involving the film, especially "Themes and analysis". Very detailed for all the good reasons! I'm not a specialised editor in films or in subjects related to the LGBT, but I have one very minor and quick comment, it's more of a suggestion actually. Btw, I know how you feel when it comes to nominating your first FA (saw your comment somewhere here), it can be daunting.
- In the third paragraph of "Self-identity, transgenderism and the gender binary", the second "heteronormativity" used is linked while the first one is not. I think it should be the other way around. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- done.
- Support. I see the article's been through a good deal other prior stages of review, including a peer review, GA review, FAC, and then another peer review. It's quite meticulously well sourced, throughout, with good overall structure and wording. I did an image review and all the images check out just fine, both the fair use rationales and those from Wikimedia Commons. Great expansive Themes and analysis sect, nice job. — Cirt (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Hi, Johanna. As a first attempt at FAC this looks very impressive. I hope to find time for a more thorough review; for the moment, here are a few comments relating to the lead:
- A "romantic drama"? I have seen this film, and would hesitate to classify it as romantic, since its central theme is a hate crime. Tragic, heart-rending, deeply saddening – but surely not "romantic"? I recommend you drop this word from the description in the first line.
- At this point, I'm classifying it as a romantic drama because Peirce's interpretation of the sequence of events and due to the fact that it matches the criteria in the page romance film.
- You don't need citations in the lead for the statement: "It was widely lauded as one of the best films of the year" – this has multiple citations in the body of the text.
- done
- Likewise the citation of "controversial issues" in the lead looks superfluous, as the rating issue is fully discussed in the text.
- If it's okay, I would prefer to keep it--the cite was added in another round of comments and I think it makes sense, considering there's nothing explicitly stating this in the body. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why have you wikilinked the second use of the term "rating" rather than the first?
- Good catch. Done
I'll be back when I can – meantime, good luck with this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Brianboulton: Thank you! I believe that I have fixed everything. I look forward to hearing more comments! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from West Virginian
[edit]- Johanna, thank you tremendously for submitting this article for FAC. I've completed my thorough and comprehensive (and yes, much delayed) review of this article and I assess that it meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are some minor issues that must first be addressed before I lend my support. I have also completed an image review and found that while the images are properly licensed, they will require alt citations. The details of the image review are included in my comments. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Comments by West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Lede and overall
Plot
Cast
Production
Themes and analysis
Release
|
@West Virginian: Hi there! Thank you for the thorough and helpful review, especially on the images. You had exposed a bit of a hole in my wiki experience--I wasn't previously really sure what alt text was or why it existed, but now I do! :) Take a look and let me know if there's anything I can do! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Johanna, thank you for addressing my comments in such a timely manner! Again, I appreciate all your extraordinary work on this article and congratulate you on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I am feeling a little bit lazy to check the article. However, I did review the article a few days ago and had some comments which seem to be already resolved. I further found it to be of great quality. The article is well-researched and is a comprehensive illustration of the film. All of the sources are from reliable publishers and formatted properly (please fix some links here). Overall, the article stands out as a great one and thank you for working on it. Good job! -- Frankie talk 17:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! I fixed these links. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 01:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with the proviso that I have made a small number of prose edits to this article in the recent past. It's a well written article and deserves FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Bentvfan54321
[edit]I'll gladly support pending response to one minor quibble: according the external links tool, there still seem to be a few dead links listed, for me at least (perhaps a few more have died since User:FrB.TG's review?). If the nominator could look at those and archive them, I see no reason not to support. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bentvfan54321: Everything should be fixed now, even though for whatever reason checklinks is clearly only displaying a portion of the article's external links. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm ready to support. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.