Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dustbin Baby (film)/archive1

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 not promoted by Karanacs 13:16, 31 August 2010 [1].

Dustbin Baby (film)

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have gone above and beyond on this article for a number of reasons. Firstly, I bought the DVD, and watched the film several times. This isn't my normal choice of film. I wrote several pages of notes after watching the making-of feature. I managed to successfully request the release of some high-quality images to illustrate the article, one of which is now a featured picture. I wrote a good number of articles about topics related to this article, including some of decent quality. I've nurtured this article from creation on a sleepy afternoon after watching the film because I was bored to where it is now, and I now feel it is ready for featured article status. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

Although I made some formatting changes to this article in the past, I'll still comment here on some more issues that should be addressed before this reaches featured quality.

~~The caption in the infobox doesn't need punctuation.~~
- Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The plot should be reduced to the recommended guidelines of 400 to 700 words. Go through and remove some of the extraneous details or any subplots that aren't vital to the main plot.~~
- I actually expanded the plot just before I nominated, so I included a mention of the majority of characters mentioned in the cast. I can easily cut it down, but will it matter that the cast will list characters who aren't mentioned elsewhere? J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cut down to below 700 words. Missed off a few minor characters/symbolic incidents, but it focuses on the plot. It's actually surprisingly complicated because of the large number of flashbacks. Not the most linear of films. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm not sure if this applies only to American English, but should "14 year old" be "14-year-old"?~~
- Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Both Jaqueline Wilson and critics responded positively to the film, and it was released on DVD on 12 January 2009." This would probably benefit with splitting into two sentences, right now it seems that the release was as a result of the good reception.
- Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everytime I view this article I want to remove the random screenshots, but then I remember that they're all free. Again, excellent work on securing permission for these, this is definitely a rarity for film articles (especially ones that are so high-quality).
- Thanks :) J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The BBC purposefully searched for an actress with Asperger syndrome to play the part of Poppy. Lizzy Clark, who has Asperger syndrome..." For the second occurrence, can it be reworded to avoid the redundancy?
- I've just removed the sub-clause. That faced some rephrasing because of the fact I referred to her as "suffering" from AS, which is not PC. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Some of the paragraphs throughout the article are a little lengthy, could some be broken up to better divide up the ideas?~~
- Split a couple. Any others concerning you? J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Maybe the plot could use one or two more, and reception could be split up into two. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tried splitting the plot further, but it wasn't really happening. I'm not really seeing a non-arbitary way to split the reception section either, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Awards and nominations" -> "Accolades"~~
- Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~In the references, since "Behind the Bin: The Making of Dustbin Baby" is a DVD special feature could some additional parameters be added to help clarify this?~~
- Expanded the main citation. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Current citation number 20 is dead, are there any other related news stories that covers the same information?~~
- Citation 20 links to this, which is very much alive, as far as I can see? J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Weird, wasn't working for me the other day. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a closer look later. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a few more fixes.

"Both Jaqueline Wilson and critics responded positively to the film, with Wilson saying she thought it was the best film adaptation of her work." Looking over the novel's page, this has been the only adaption, is the "best film adaptation" necessary?
- It's referring to her work generally- as opposed to the likes of, say, The Story of Tracy Beaker. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps change it to "collective work"? In this case it could be interpreted as just this film. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Rephrased to "of any of her works". Better? J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"While at work at stately home..." Should this be "at a stately home", similar to someone working "at the office", or is it supposed to read similar to someone being "at school"?~~
- Yeah, sorry. Part of me wants to make a joke, but I don't think anyone'd get it. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"In a flashback, we see a young April..." "In a flashback, a young April is seen". Do the same for any other, "we" statements in the plot.~~
- Yes, a good idea. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Nice work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"The film moves back to April's" In a similar manner, it's best not to use self-referential descriptions such as "the film" or "the plot". Reword any occurrences.~~
- I struggled with that when writing the plot section. I'll see what I can do. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Plot sections are a pain to write, and then they get edited continuously by anyone and everyone instead of the more important sections of the article. Good job rewording it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"The present April considers returning to Marion, but realises there is another place she wants to visit. Marion realises where April will be going..." Reword one of the "realises" for variety.~~
- Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if any clarification is needed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support, nice job. I would recommend getting the time frame references for the DVD citations as requested below. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h71MOkuHWqa875XG5NQMOq4IRQmg doesn't work (perhaps it does in the UK?). Ucucha 06:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is already cited to another source, so I've just gone ahead and removed it. There must be a reason that was there, but it's not actually needed, as long as the BBC can be considered a reliable source :P J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: all of the images' licenses check out. You're very lucky to get publicity photos released under a Creative Commons license for use here. I have a concern though. The Kindle Entertainment logo feels like window dressing to me. It's appropriate in the navbox at the end of the article because those articles pertain to the company. I guess I'm not seeing the encyclopedia value of including it in the body of the article where it feels like advertising to me. Imzadi 1979 → 07:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could add other related logos (BBC and ITV DVD are both PD) to balance it a little, or I could remove the Kindle one. Your call. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd pull it. It's already in the article by way of the template, so using it in the article is a bit superfluous. The other reason is that the logo isn't discussed in the body of the article. In that case, it's not needed to illustrate an element of the text's commentary. It's not needed for branding or reassurance to readers that this article is about the company in question, since this is about a movie not the company. I can't think of any reason to leave it except decoration. Of course it would be nice to have more imagery to break up the text. It's a shame that you don't have a movie poster of some kind to include, even under fair-use, with the appropriate commentary on it. You'll have to ask someone more knowledgeable on WP:NFCC if the DVD cover could be used in connection with the "Home media release" section. Imzadi 1979 → 11:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The logo is freely licensed? You do realise that don't you? The NFCC do not apply, so leaving it in as "decoration" is fine. And the DVD cover, which was previously used in the article, is not at all needed, as it's basically the same as the third publicity shot anyway. Neither the DVD cover nor the logo would be legit under the NFCC, but all of the images currently in the article are free, and so we can use them as we wish. J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I say though, if you like images to "break up the text", the ITV DVD logo (which is free) could illustrate the home media release section, and the BBC logo could be slipped in somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I know that the logo is freely licensed, that's not what I was talking about in connection with my comments on fair-use, which were aimed at movie poster/DVD cover images. I don't know about others, but I don't add images to articles just for "decoration". Adding the other two logos would start to make the article look like the side of a race car. Being free to include a thing in the article doesn't mean it can or should be included. In this case, the logo is unnecessary window dressing. It doesn't add any value to the article, so it should go from the text. If you can find other appropriate images to include that would add value to the article, then do so to help break up the text. That's why I had the idea that the DVD cover might be nice to include. It could be used under fair-use if done correctly and placed in the "Home media release" section. Since it's so duplicative of freely licensed images in the article (which I did not know) it wouldn't meet NFCC as a free alternative does exist. If no other images can be included, that's fine. You might want to space them out a bit more if you can. Imzadi 1979 → 12:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, I've removed the Kindle logo. I don't see the point of spreading out the images, as I have added them in the sections where they are most appropriate- you said yourself that images should add value, rather than be used decoratively. I strongly disagree that the use of the DVD cover would have been legit, regardless of the fact it is so similar to one of the images already used, but that is not really relevant. J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to temporarily retract my guidance that the image licenses all check out. Yes, the three images currently in use are all taggedunder Creative Commons licenses, which was the basis of my previous guidance. It appears that the file uploader also processed the OTRS ticket. Please don't think I'm implying any impropriety, but until someone else can verify the OTRS ticket for me and respond at the Commons noticeboard, I feel the need to play this one safe. Imzadi 1979 → 22:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Ticket independently verified. Imzadi 1979 → 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The film was shown on the BBC but the 'Home media release' section states that it was issued by ITV DVD? Is this definitely right? I've seen BBC productions released by other companies such as 2 Entertain but never ITV. Cavie78 (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely right. I was asked about it in the GAC review. Couldn't honestly say why this has happened (I'm no expert on the industry) but I can assure you that it has. J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Why is the Dustbin Baby article on BBC's CBBC website listed at the top of the references? This does not appear to be cited in the article.
- It's a general reference for the likes of run time, (the start of the) plot and, most of all, the cast. The kind of things that would often go without a reference. I couldn't think of a clean way to cite it inline for the cast list. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous citations to the "Behind the bin" section of the DVD. Presumably track numbers and timings are available for the comments cited. These are the equivalents of page numbers in books, and should be given for each of the references to the DVD. Also, can you clarify what the role is of "Julia Ouston" in regard to this DVD?
- Tracks? I could do approximate times if you want. I can address that tomorrow if you feel it is necessary. Julia Ouston was the producer of the film and the interviewer in Behind the Bin- would you like that clarified in the citation? How would you recommend I do that? J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  You can see an example at Tropic Thunder, I used several commentaries and featurettes, and the citations included the approximate time (I used a second or two before the statement that was being cited was made). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  The refs have been reorganised, so I can't see exactly how my minor concerns have been met, but they seem to have been resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll deal with the timing/track issue within 24 hours. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, I will get to this soon, I promise. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Consistency is required in the provision of retrieval dates (11 is missing) and on the formatting of these dates (26 is different)~~
- Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources seem OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I don't normally read "entertainment" articles, such as those on movies, but I thought I would give this a go. Below are my comments.

~~"Dustbin Baby is a 2008 BBC television film directed by Juliet May first broadcast on 21 December 2008..." – 2008 seems redundant in the opening sentence.~~

Changed. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The last sentence of the lead seems a little cumbersome. Could it be broken up?~~

Split. J Milburn (talk)

Perfect! – VisionHolder « talk » 13:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the plot text seems disjointed: "However, the Johnsons' relationship is an abusive one, leading to Janet's suicide. Marion talks to April's friends, and realises that April has lied. April travels alone to Janet's grave. Marion continues her search, ending up in a shopping centre, where she meets Elliot, who has joined her." I realize that movie will jump from character to character, making it hard to connect in text. The text might just need some touch-up, with words like "meanwhile", "while April does X,", etc.

I've tried to rephrase the section you mentioned. There's some toing-and-froing in the second paragraph too, but I think that's a little more clear. The plot's currently towards the top end of recommended space- it's a fairly disjoineted film, considering it's aimed at kids. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better, but I will withhold judgement for now. I'll try to watch what others have to say and add support when I feel comfortable with it. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two references are listed by not cited in-line. For what are they referencing? (I plead ignorant when it comes to non-academic referencing.)

Behind the Bin is cited several times (cites 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 34). I could link those cites to the main listing as I have seen done in some articles, but I have no idea how to. The BBC link serves as a general reference for some of the uncited details- cast, mostly.

In the first case, it sounds like you want to use CITEREF. Give that a read and see if that works for you. In the latter case, if the ref is used for the cast, it might be good to introduce the list with something like, "The cast includes:[ref]". – VisionHolder « talk » 13:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citeref looks cool, but I don't think fits the formatting I've used in the article. I've tried your second suggestion a few times, I really don't like it- it looks much neater like this. Considering cast lists are often unreferenced anyways, I didn't think it would be a problem. I could do it if you really think it's necessary. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once someone reviews and approves your references, I recommend using WebCite to archive every web page you cite to avoid link rot, which may compromise this articles FA status later on (assuming it passes). If you have questions about how to do this, just drop a note on my talk page.

Thanks, I will do that. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that when you do it, you'll want to use "archiveurl" and "archivedate" parameters in the cite template. For example, see {{Cite news}}. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it was a very good article about the movie. However, the Plot section was a little tough to read. It may be me, though. If you fix the other points I've brought up, I will add "leaning support", and if other reviewers fail to find fault with the Plot section, then I will switch to "support". Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.