Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Fuck (film)

Fuck (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1

Nominator(s): — Cirt (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuck (film) is a WP:GA quality article on a documentary about freedom of speech and censorship.

After being promoted to WP:GA status by Khazar2, the article went through Peer Review where useful feedback was received from Red Phoenix, Piotrus, and Rejectwater. Subsequently WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors member Miniapolis provided helpful copy-editing.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration, — Cirt (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Fuck, Talk:The finger, User talk:Rejectwater, User talk:Piotrus, User talk:Red Phoenix, User talk:Miniapolis, User talk:Khazar2, User talk:Cirt, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Comments from Lugnuts (addressed)

Addressed comments from Lugnuts moved to talk per agreement with user, see diff.

Comments from Rejectwater (addressed)

Addressed comments by Rejectwater moved to talk page, per agreement with Rejecwater, see diff.

• Support Great article, well referenced, very informative. I believe it meets all the criteria. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the Support! — Cirt (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Red Phoenix (addressed)

• Support per my comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1. I did find and still find this to be quite an excellent article, and any concerns I had were addressed during the peer review. Congratulations to the editors who worked on this article; it's very well done. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your Support! — Cirt (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Taylor Trescott (addressed)

• Support This is an excellent article on a very interesting and educational film. I especially like all the OTRS free images. Well-cited to reliable sources, feels very complete, and was a nice read. Good work, easily deserves the star. Just one quick question: Citation #7 is the DVD Verdict review which is used to source some quotes in the Contents summary. Any reason why this review is not summarized in the Reception section? Regards, Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the Support. Also, Done. -- I've gone ahead and added DVD Verdict to the Reception section, per your suggestion. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Source check and comments from Gen. Quon (addressed)

• Random Source Check - Ref 11. is correctly used to cite how many times the word 'fuck' is used and to back up a point about how the director feels that other directors should fight against censorship. Ref. 31 accurately backs up the claim that the word gained its current meaning during the world wars and how its flippancy is beneficial. Ref. 34 correctly backs up info regarding Apollo 16. Ref. 56 correctly cites that the AFI festival is at the ArcLight Hollywood on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood, California. Ref. 60 cites that the film was shown at the Florida Film Festival. These were all randomly picked, and were all completely accurate. The prose is excellent (I fixed a few boo-boos) and the images are wonderful. Thus, I see no reason other than to Support this article's promotion.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the Source Check and the Support. I really appreciate your comments, particularly, "The prose is excellent ... and the images are wonderful.". Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt (addressed)

Addressed comments from Wehwalt moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff.

• Support Good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your Support. — Cirt (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jimfbleak (addressed)

Addressed comments by Jimfbleak moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff.

• Support and comments from Jim. Nice work and meets the standard, just a couple of very minor things you might want to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your Support. — Cirt (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Image check from GermanJoe (addressed)

Image check - all OK (CC, own work, OTRS). Sources and authors provided (agree, nice work with the OTRS-tickets). Just 1 nitpick (Done):

• File:Tera_Patrick_in_Fuck_film.jpg - The longer statement in the main text probably needs 3 sources, but does the short caption (looks uncontroversial and simple) need all of them aswell? Remove some cites in caption, if possible. GermanJoe (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Trimmed to one citation for the Tera Patrick image caption, per above recommendation from GermanJoe. And thank you for the Image check ! — Cirt (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell (addressed)

Addressed comments from Quadell moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff.

No further objections. Also, the lead, images, and sourcing all seem satisfactory. Note that this is not a full review, but it doesn't look like this nomination will suffer from a lack of reviews. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Your comments, "Also, the lead, images, and sourcing all seem satisfactory.", are most kind! :) — Cirt (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Further comments:

• I have cleaned up minor comma issues in the lead.

• The lead uses a serial comma in "linguist Reinhold Albert Aman, journalism analyst David Shaw, and Jesse Sheidlower of the Oxford English Dictionary", but omits one in "art, linguistics, society and comedy". Please be sure the entire article either omits or uses the serial comma consistently.

• The term "primarily mixed reviews" is usually a poor choice, and it's a pet peeve of mine. If a film received "mixed" reviews, that means the reviews aren't primarily anything, either positive or negative. ("Primarily mixed reviews" an annoyingly common term on Wikipedia, however.) Anyway, consider "mixed reviews" or "both positive and negative reviews" or something similar.
  • This in fact was one of the expressions in the lead that prompted me to ask for further prose work -- great minds... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see any further problems with the lead. It effectively summarizes the article, and provides a proverbial "hook". Yes, it does feel a bit choppy to go from one celebrity's random thought to the next loosely-related thought, but I've seen the film; it's a choppy mishmash of themes around a charged word. I don't think any accurate, brief summary could seem much more fluid than what this lead provides. I have not copyedited the rest of the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Response to further comments from Quadell

1. Thank you for the helpful cleanup of minor comma issues in the lead.
2. Done. removed the serial comma usage here.
3. Done. removed "primarily", changed to just "mixed reviews".
4. Thank you, Quadell, for your helpful feedback, particularly your comments: "I don't see any further problems with the lead. It effectively summarizes the article, and provides a proverbial "hook". Yes, it does feel a bit choppy to go from one celebrity's random thought to the next loosely-related thought, but I've seen the film; it's a choppy mishmash of themes around a charged word. I don't think any accurate, brief summary could seem much more fluid than what this lead provides." That is most appreciated. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Indopug

strongly oppose the lead

The lead is largely unreadable, thanks to excessive name-dropping—of disciplines, celebrities, scholars, songs and media outlets—contributing to a "sea of blue" effect thanks to the wikilinks (overlong book names don't help). Instead of going on in such detail about who participated in the film, you should concentrate on what the film is about. Apart from "a defence of free speech" the reader really doesn't glean much.

Also, by expunging the names and details, you could build an engaging narrative—what was the idea behind the film, how it was made, what's it about, was it well received, was it a hit, how did scholars see the film, was it controversial—much more clearly than now.—(self-locked-out User:Indopug)122.164.151.173 (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these helpful comments, User:Indopug, I shall get on addressing them right now. — Cirt (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Response to comments from Indopug

1. Done. Reduced number of disciplines mentioned in the lead.
2. Done. Trimmed number of celebrities name-dropped in the lead.
3. Done. Copy-edited lead to reflect more actual information from film's contents, rather than simply listing celebrities.
4. Done. Removed mention of the songs from the lead.
5. Done. Removed wikilinks and "sea of blue" from the lead.
6. Done. Trimmed overlong book name in the lead.

Thank you very much, User:Indopug, I think the lead now looks much better. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, I realise you've pinged Indopug to check over the changes and he hasn't as returned here as yet. Failing that I'd like to see someone else take another look over the lead as it is, indeed the entire article from a purely prose point of view (John perhaps?). The plot summary, as an example, seems a bit choppy to me and I think could use another set of eyes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose, the article already received a copy edit from Miniapolis from WP:GOCE and a peer review and there are positive comments about the prose from multiple editors, above at this FAC, including Wehwalt. But sure, further input on how to improve the quality of the prose is always appreciated. I had just thought the FAC was progressing quite nicely in a constructive manner, I admit it is a bit frustrating to see it stalemated especially with such good level of positive participation and comments expressed about its quality, above at this FAC. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you read the peer review, I did not think the synopsis was the strongest point of the article. But when I looked at it on my read over at FAC, it looked good enough. One of the hardest things about reviewing is biting your tongue when you would do it differently but the way the editor did it was OK, and in a close call I tend to go with the judgment of an experienced editor Not saying others couldn't view it differently..--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I see, that certainly makes sense, Wehwalt, thank you. Please note I made some changes with respect to additional helpful feedback from Quadell, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from John

Cirt asked me to take a look and I am doing so. From an initial read I can see changes I would make to the prose. Many of them would probably be pretty minor and uncontroversial and I intend to just make them in the article and note it here for your approval. But there's one that leaps out at me that isn't simple; it's the lead sentence Fuck (styled as FUCK, F★CK, or F*CK;[1][2] alternatively titled Fuck: A Documentary and The F-Bomb: A Documentary[3][4]) is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson which argues that the word "fuck" is an integral part of societal discussions about freedom of speech and censorship. I see the multiple renderings of the title and their multiple references as pretty intrusive right at the start of the article. If we were to streamline this to something like Fuck (styled as F*CK; alternatively titled The F-Bomb: A DocumentaryNB) is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson about the word "fuck". The film argues that the word is an integral part of societal discussions about freedom of speech and censorship., would we want to keep ★ or * as the censorship mark? We certainly don't need to record the all-caps, the different typographical stars, or the presence of the subtitle "A Documentary", and we shouldn't need to have multiple references for them in the lead. We could even use a note to a fuller set of sources where I've typed NB. What do folks think? Don't worry, I won't be this verbose or nitpicky through the rest of the review. --John (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This might also be a good place for a footnote; all the alternate titles could be listed there. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I had in mind with the NB suggestion above, sorry I wasn't clear. --John (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've broken up that sentence as suggested by John, above. I've also moved the alternative titles to a footnote, as suggestd by John and Quadell, above. I don't know why I didn't think of that before, it looks much better this way! Please note the reason I added those alternate titles to the lede in the first place was because of a request from a talk page visitor, see Talk:Fuck_(film)/Archive_1#Alternate_titles. Thank you, John, for your input, keep us posted with the prose changes, — Cirt (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Ah yes, suddenly I can see "use a note" right there. I guess the bad news is, I'll have to reduce my self-evaluated "reading comprehension" score tad. But the good news is, great minds think alike? Regardless, it looks as if Cirt has implemented this. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Quadell, thanks to the wise suggestion of John, I think this particular minor issue is now resolved. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

John, your copy-edits are excellent, except one: "It's a two billion dollar bushiness". Thought I'd bring it to your attention, though I must admit, it's quite an amusing mental image! All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, good catch Quadell, I think that was an autocomplete error there. So, with that correction, we have this this series of edits; main thrust was improving flow by removing wordiness. Beware of elegant variation and especially trying to use as many synonyms for "said" as possible. A little repetition is preferable to looking like you were using a thesaurus. "A number of" just means "several" or "many" so use the shorter form. We don't need to link countries or put items in See also that are already linked. I've slimmed the article down and made it more readable without losing any meaning from it. I might have one further look at it but this is the bulk of what I wanted to do. --John (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through all the copy edits by John edit-by-edit and they all look great. :) Thanks very much, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have two further questions before I can support.

1) I've no doubt that These scholars are described in captions as "cunning linguists".[16] is true; but do we need to say that in the article? It seems to lower the tone a little, but maybe that is just me being prudish.

2) Somewhat similarly, In the film, opponents of the word "fuck" use an argument commonly known as "Think of the children".[23][b] is no doubt true also, but is it explicitly stated in these terms in the source and if so, is it important enough to mention? If yes, do we need to mention it and link it twice, one in the text and once in a footnote?

I don't think I'll have any further questions after these are addressed. --John (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Removed this bit from the article.

Done. Added quote from source to the citation to make this more clear that this was the exact point made by the secondary source.

Done. Removed one of the links for this, it is now linked only once in a footnote.

Okay, John, those are all now addressed, as well. — Cirt (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support; all of my prose misgivings have been addressed and any further minor improvements can take place via normal editing. --John (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, John, for your Support. All of your copy editing help is most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks indeed to everyone who's participated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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