Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jaws (film)/archive2

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 Ian Rose 06:46, 20 March 2012 [1].

Jaws (film)

[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): igordebraga ≠ 01:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC) DocKino (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Martin Brody, my ship was sunken by an adversary willing to chew on me, and I'm taking shots at it. Lame jokes aside, I had already rewritten this Former Featured Article hoping to return its bronze star, and then during the last FAC User:DocKino joined and did a much-welcome copyedit. Now that my two weeks of waiting are done, I just want to see if I'm gonna need a bigger boat. igordebraga ≠ 01:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegates: WP:FFA, has already been on main page, should this be promoted, it needs to be reflected in WP:FFA, and added to WP:FA as already having appeared on mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sources comment: I think the main sources/citation issues were cleared at the previous FAC, but I notice one small point: there is duplication and/or overlapping in the page ranges of a number of the McBride citations, and for consistency these should be combined. Note, for example, cites 23, 24 and 30; cites 47 and 48; cites 84 and 117; cites 124 and 187. There may be other instances, although this does not seem to be a general problem. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These citations are proper as stands. A citation of, for instance, pages 236–237 (cite 24) is not the same as a citation of page 237 (cite 23), nor should it be altered to appear the same. There is neither a "problem" nor an apparent correction to be made in this regard. DocKino (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. To me, the commonsense understanding is that "236–37" includes "237", and the same principle applies to the others I have mentioned. You have freely used combined references elsewhere in the article;, so what is so different about these? Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If something is mentioned only on one page in the range, why is it necessary to cite the full page range? I see no problem with either approach, and citing individual pages when applicable alongside ranges containing those individual pages is perfectly fine. Page N might contain the entirety of a quotation being used, whereas pages N–P contain a train of thought being summarised. Why cite the full range for something only contained on one of its pages, then? For the specific example being given, pp. 236–237 does contain p. 237, but a reader wishing to verify this with a book in hand shouldn't be directed to both pages when only one is used. GRAPPLE X 00:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Grapple X is correct. This is precisely the logic employed in the referencing in almost every one of the thousands and thousands and thousands of high-quality book sources on which we rely. Brian, I appreciate the detailed attention you brought to this point, but you are simply wrong here. Like virtually all other high-quality reference works, we properly cite the page or pages that are relevant and none other. DocKino (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is of course a very minor issue in the context of the article, and I apologise for labouring it. However, I don't accept that I am "wrong"; I do accept the reasoning behind the strategy that has been employed here, provided it is maintained consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe either approach is right or wrong, so long as it's consistent. I generally tend to use the style seen here myself, unless the article's references list has grown quite long, in which case I'll fold individual pages in with their parent ranges to clean things up a little. It's mostly down to personal choice, I believe. GRAPPLE X 12:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lobo

Lobo comments: I just read through the article, and on the whole it is excellent. Easy to read, fully comprehensive and extensively researched and referenced. This is undoubtedly a very important cultural article, so thank you for bringing it up to such a high standard. I have a few comments:

  • I feel like the plot summary in the lead is a bit longer than it needs to be?
  • "and it is now widely regarded as one of the greatest films of all time." > Might be better as "..it is often cited as one of.."?
  • I don't see any mention of "Inspiration and themes" in the lead. It's not something that should be dwelled on, but a sentence or two is needed.
  • "For a director.." This is a bit of an awkward way of starting this discussion.
  • "whose résumé included The Old Man and the Sea" > Later on this book is mentioned as an inspiration, but the relevance may not be immediately clear to readers at this point. Maybe add in "a film with similar themes", or something.
  • "he had picked the still-unpublished Benchley novel up off a stack of manuscripts" > Not sure we need that level of detail. I also feel like this whole experience should maybe be attributed, ie "Spielberg reported that..."
  • "When the producers purchased the rights to his novel, they guaranteed that Benchley would write the first draft of the screenplay." Might read better as, "..they promised Benchley that he could write the first draft.."
  • Why did Benchley pull out? It's not really clear.
  • "According to Gottlieb, Quint was "in the abstract" based on Mundus, whose book Sportfishing for Sharks he read for research." A bit awkward and unclear. And I think there needs to be a smoother connection between this and Quint's monologue (the discussion of it seems to start quite abruptly, in the middle of the paragraph). You should probably also make clear that the monologue is one of the film's most praised moments—it is kind of written like everyone already knows this.
  • The "Filming" section is excellent!
  • "His gamble paid off:" I think this could be removed.
  • The "Critical response" section should ideally be weighted to match the proportion of positive/negative reviews. Since it says it received "mostly positive", I'm wondering if the negative section is a bit too long?
    • I just tried to give both sides the same weight (5 reviews each for positive and negative - Berardinelli's one doesn't count as we only used it for his opinion on the shark), despite more examples of positive ones.
      • It should only be equally weighted if the reviews were equally bad/good. See WP:WEIGHT. I think the ratio should be more like 5 positive, 3 negative.
        • I don't believe in "equal weighting" in terms of doing a count of how many different critics are quoted. The reasons for negative criticism are here, as often elsewhere, more diverse than the reasons for praise--a version of the Anna Karenina principle applies. Furthermore, in the generally "negative" paragraph, two of the critics cited--Canby and Magill--are quoted also making positive statements. I believe that the primary text of the article successfully conveys that the critical response was "mostly positive"; I don't see any need to eliminate any of the negative comments, and I feel that doing so would detract from the article's informational value, while adding still more praise would court both redundancy and puffery. DocKino (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accolades: it might be nice to explicitly mention that you're moving on to "later recognition" in the third paragraph.
  • I personally don't see the need for the comparison with Psycho's shower scene...and did Psycho really make people scared of showers anyway?!
  • The bluray apparently now has a release date, see if you can ref it with a reliable source.

That's it from me: not many complaints for a long article. Well done! --Lobo (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments, Lobo. Between Igordebraga and myself, above and in a series of edits, I believe we've addressed them all. DocKino (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everything looks good now (although please see my inline comment about the weighting of reviews). The only thing that maybe remains unclear is Benchley leaving the project. But I'm guessing maybe there isn't a clear reason why he left? --Lobo (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been reworded so we don't have him actively "leaving" the project. It is common practice in Hollywood that additional screenwriters are brought in after an original screenwriter does his or her work, and I believe the section now more clearly describes that unexceptional process. In addition, inspired by your previous comment, the relevant passage now clearly states Spielberg's dissatisfaction with Benchley's version. (And please see my response above to your inline comment about the weighting of reviews.) Thanks again. DocKino (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, if I may. I'm new to FAC, so delegates may wish to disregard this, but I personally can see no reason why this shouldn't be a featured acticle. It is top-class. --Lobo (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support, with comments: I'll try and add to it as I go through, but just niggling things:

  • Should really add some non-breaking spaces per WP:NBSP for figures like budget and such. I've done a few myself.
  • "prompting effects divers to search for the lost shark, scaring a few in the process" --> Scaring the divers, presumably, after they happened on a shark in the seaweed. Could this be made a little more clear?

--I'll continue adding comments as I go through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The choice of word "watershed" in the second sentence seems unfortunate because of the clash with watershed (television). (Full disclosure: I had to look up what "watershed" meant, so I googled "watershed film" and ended up at watershed (television).) 82.8.55.199 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's being used with the third definition listed at wikt:watershed, though perhaps "watershed moment" would work better than "watershed film". For what it's worth, this meaning is what I tend to think of when using the term, though as a simple definition and not a concept, it doesn't have an article here to link to. GRAPPLE X 14:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "watershed moment" seems better. 82.8.55.199 (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While "watershed moment" does seem better, "the prototypical summer blockbuster" all by itself after that comma seems fragmented and peculiar, as if we're saying the "moment" is the blockbuster rather than the film...does this make sense to anyone? Maybe, "and is considered the prototypical summer blockbuster"? Or is that too complicated? Blake Burba (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How would "It is regarded as a watershed moment in motion picture history, becoming the prototypical summer blockbuster" read? GRAPPLE X 16:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That reads better, sure. Blake Burba (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to that, then. GRAPPLE X 16:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on the lead 82.8.55.199 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Taken in isolation, the words "professional shark hunter to hunt the shark" sound redundant.
  • "Jaws was generally well received by critics, and it became the highest-grossing film in history to that point." -> When you write "to that point", what point is it? Probably clearer to write "at the time".
  • "simple, "high-concept" premises" -> I find the comma after 'simple' to be unfortunate. Breaks the rhythm.
  • "released in the summer at hundreds (now thousands) of theaters and supported by heavy advertising" -> The construction of the sentence could be revisited. It is difficult to tell 'released' refers to. Is it "premises", "business model"? Something is wrong here.
  • Going back to when the article was first featured, the lead mentioned the Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916. I quick search revealed no mention of this event. This seems like a major hole in the article.
Box office

Some of this information is erroneous; it didn't finish its original theatrical run with $129 million—this was the gross rental as opposed to the gross revenue. Jaws actually took something like $200 million on its original theatrical run, equating to about $115 million gross rental: [2]. Gross rental is the historic measuring system which is no longer in use, but many modern sources confuse it with revenue. Also the claim that it was the first $100 million grosser is incorrect. In fact, it was the third one after The Sound of Music and The Godfather (and Gone with the Wind via reissues): [3]. Again, this is most likely due to the confusion over gross rental and gross revenue, since with its $115 million gross rental it beat The Godfather ($81.5 million) and Gone with the Wind ($77 million): [4] (although all of these films made $100+ million in revenue). I would have gone ahead and corrected this, but it is under review and the problem is there are sources corroborating the incorrect claims, based on the misinterpretation of gross rental, so I thought I'd bring it here first. I notice this issue has been addressed in a previous review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Jaws (film)/archive2) but wasn't acted upon. I'm happy to fix this for you (we also have international figures at List of highest-grossing films too which can be incorporated), so if no-one opposes my suggestions or wants to do it themselves I'll sort it out tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, when I researched for more BO data (after all it had at least 2 reissues) the word "rentals" came up frequently. Either I'll fix them, or you're welcome to do so, Betty. igordebraga ≠ 16:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've sorted it. Obviously it would be much better if we had the gross figures, but at least it's clear now. I also took the liberty of removing the claim about its 5 weeks at number 1, because BOM only shows five weeks and I suspect it spent much longer in pole position (in its 6th week it was actually up from its 3rd and 4th week takes) so we are probably doing it a disservice by saying it spent 5 weeks at number 1; that would be good by today's standards, but back then a film was only starting to get going by its third or fourth week. Betty Logan (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Betty. And I fully concur with your removing the claim about the 5 weeks at number 1. DocKino (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for the delay; I'm semi-retired you know. :-) Some comments (Steve T • C):

  • Despite (or perhaps because of) its status as the prototypical summer blockbuster, Jaws is a film that has been analysed, scrutinised and pored over by film historians and scholars in ways that must make some of the most high-brow art films envious. It's a little surprising, then, to see a relatively slight themes and analysis section, one that seems to be a somewhat random dip into the waters instead of a comprehensive immersion, when compared to some of our other film FAs. Can either of the nominators confirm that this list of potential sources has been properly mined for useful commentary? From the snippets I've read, there do appear to be several promising depths left unexplored.
  • Similarly, the list contains several entries from production-related publications that have seldom left me wanting (though I understand on this point that perhaps the various books you've used have covered what there is to know).
  • From the title alone, "'Jaws' played to 80 million on ABC" from The New York Times seems like it might give up something useful about that first TV broadcast beyond the headline.
    • Added two TV tidbits on Legacy.
  • The film's international release strategy and box office performance are limited to one statement each; there are several sources, most notably Variety, that will be able to provide a more comprehensive breakdown, especially of the film's excellent, record-breaking performances outside North America. Such detail is not uncommon in film FAs, and it is possible to craft this in ways that it doesn't seem like an uninteresting info-dump. Regardless, to be truly encyclopaedic, the article may have to find room for it.
  • I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't more to be had from those Variety articles (as I say, it looks like we're mostly citing the headlines here), but given the expansion I'm OK striking this point as a major concern. Steve T • C
  • Returning to the point I made during the first FAC, it still seems odd to say that "the film received mostly positive reviews upon release" when McBride (pp. 255–256) states outright that was not the case. I understand that the AFI link you've chosen to use presents a different view, and I don't deny the site's reliability, but where two seemingly-reliable sources conflict, I'm not sure we should just eliminate or ignore one of them—the implication being that you deem McBride unreliable, yet not for the 22 other occasions you've used him. Note, I'm not taking about the mix of reviews you've chosen to illustrate the section (which seems to be what you thought I was saying during the first FAC), but the statement of the film's critical regard. It may help to bolster the claim if you can find sources from closer to the film's release rather than relying on retrospective commentary.
  • That's fine for what it is—another source that says the film received positive reviews, but a few minutes on Google finds plenty of others that go with the "mixed" line or generally favourable. And the collection of glowing quotes doesn't mean anything on its own, as it's possible to cherry-pick positive or negative reviews of any film to present a desirable narrative. Enough quotes could probably be gathered for even the most reviled of films to present it in a positive light. I'm not saying that's what the author of the linked article has done, but the approach does leave us little better off. Steve T • C 00:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no question that McBride is a high-quality source, but "mostly positive" (AFI) and "widely divergent" (McBride) are not necessarily contradictory. AFI's language appears to describe an overall up/down tally, while McBride focuses on the breadth of opinion--and the latter, I believe, is captured by our current selection.
  • Also, at your suggestion, I looked for a source that characterizes the critical response from closer to the film's release. What I found was this: "Critical response to Jaws was as overwhelmingly enthusiastic as its public reception" (Current Biography Yearbook 1978, p. 402). That clearly bolsters AFI's overall appraisal. Beyond that, in doing a straightforward Google Books search on "Jaws Spielberg reviews", I came up with "great reviews" (Parish, Steven Spielberg, Filmmaker, p. 47) and "the reviews were strong" (Morton, Close Encounters of the Third Kind: The Making of Steven Spielberg's Classic Film, p. 86). No overall appraisal of "mixed" that I could see. DocKino (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for delving deeper; I only pushed this point because I've seen so many times before how retrospective analysis of now-revered films can get the original reception wrong. The additions and your explanation are enough for me. Struck. Steve T • C
  • Do you think it's worth considering a move for the "Inspiration and themes section"? Its current placement doesn't flow particularly well with the structure of the rest of the article, and feels as if it was chosen at random. Would you be opposed to moving the section to appear just after the plot? There, it may benefit from the context provided by being closer to the events in the film it is dissecting. This method has worked well in other film FAs (e.g. Fight Club, American Beauty).
  • Although the plot section clocks in at only a little over the recommended 400–700 word count, it does feel a tad overlong, and I did zone out a couple of times when trying to read through it. The plot section is intended to complement the wider coverage that follows about the production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects. However, you should be wary of including too much fine detail, unless directly referenced later in the article; the broad strokes will usually suffice. The plot section is the first that your readers will encounter, and will turn them off the rest of the article if it's difficult to get through.
  • In looking for some decent commentary from the period on the critical consensus, I happened across this article, which presents a slightly different version of the story told towards the end of the filming section, a story that although essentially the same, seems to have had its edges rounded with time.
    • It confirms that it was done due to test audience response, and he shot one scene at a pool. The other is there, though told in a confusing way (it even sounds like it was shot in the pool too!).
  • The BAFTA and LA United Film Fest links appear to be dead.
    • Betty fixed them.

That's all for now. I look forward to reading your responses/rebuttals. All the best, Steve T • C 23:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the suggestion to tighten the plot and to relocate "Themes and Inspirations" to follow on from the plot section. Obviously the themes follow on naturally from the narrative, so the plot provides a context for any analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I moved, even though I disagree (unlike the two examples above, Jaws has a straightforward plot without much symbolism). Expanded a bit on foreign performance, too. igordebraga ≠ 18:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree, don't do it and don't worry about it. No-one is going to oppose over section placement. It was just a suggestion. Steve T • C 20:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the additions regarding the international performance, specifically those cited to Variety, the impression I get is that you haven't been able to access these; each statement that has been added could have come from the article headline. Are you sure that's all there is? Steve T • C 00:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for how extensively Igor has researched this, but Variety didn't track international box office in the 70s; it may have reported on it from time to time when films broke records, but it wasn't like today where you get weekly updates. I would imagine the best sources would be local trade magazines and newspapers, but those are most likely to be in a foreign language. Betty Logan (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable, but in this case these articles plainly exist, and it may be telling that the only ones that have been used are those that can be cited to the headline. Steve T • C 23:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books didn't have much into foreign results (though I knew a country where the film is still a record holder because I live in it :). And I returned Inspirations to where it was - still think how hard it was to make the film is more important, and two recent film FAs put Production before Themes, after all. igordebraga ≠ 23:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No deal-breakers prose-wise are jumping out at me, and it is pretty comprehensive, so I am leaning support on those two criteria. I'll take another look tomorrow. can't see any prose or comprehensiveness issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • "Shot largely on location ..." - I'd prefer "Shot mostly on location ..." but maybe that is just me. Not a FA showstopper.
  • "skinny dipping" - Should have link for readers that don't know that term
  • " Benchley returned to play a small ..." - Odd wording. Why "returned"? it is common for authors or directors to have roles as extras. Did Benchley depart? Was there an argument of some kind?
  • "rewriting the entire script for a nine-week period ..." - "for" does not seem right there: the 9 weeks were not the purpose or goal. Maybe change to "during"; or re-write the entire sentence.
  • Need attribution: " ... caused substantial controversy. Spielberg described it as a collaboration between Sackler, Milius, and actor Robert Shaw, who was also a playwright. Milius turned Sackler's "three-quarters of a page" speech into a monologue, and that was then rewritten by Shaw." There is controversy, so you need to ascribe the viewpoints to various participants. The 2nd sentence above is "Milius turned Sackler's ..": who is claiming that? Is that in opposition to Spielberg's view? Or to Gottlieb's view of the next sentence "Gottlieb gives primary ..". Readers love controversy, so if you're going to present them with one, explain what the 2 or 3 viewpoints are, and who they belong to.
  • Needs clarification: "Most minor roles were played by residents of Martha's Vineyard, where the film was shot". I know that local residents often play extras; but is this article saying that local residents actually had speaking roles? If so, you need to clarify that. Which persons? Were they trained actors?
  • Consistency: ""sea-sled shark" vs "platform sharks" vs "side model" sharks - Should "sharks be inside or outside the quotes?
  • Wording not great: "To some degree, the delays in the production proved serendipitous." Either delays had a beneficial aspect, or not. I'd drop the "To some degree"; or reword to "The delays proved serendipitous in some regards ..." or similar.
  • Ugly footnotes: "It is generally regarded as the best of the sequels.[207][208][209]" - The three footnotes at the end are very ugly, and interferes with reading flow. Ditto for all places you have 2 or 3 footnotes for 1 sentence (of course, bundling cannot be done if it is a named ref). I recommend WP:CITEBUNDLE: put all three cites into a single "ref", separated by bullets or whatever. I know unbundled cites have passed muster here at FAC, but the goal of FA is to exceed bare minium FA standards. Tastes vary, and others may not view it as a FA show stopper, but that is my opinion.
  • Define term: " the beginning of the end of the New Hollywood period." - Need to explain what "new hollywood" means here, and why it is important in the context. The term is _linked_ above in the article, but even above there is no definition. In any case, another explanation is needed at the 2nd occurrence of the term.
  • Bibliography: Two books: Collins and Buckland, are not cited by any footnote. Maybe they should be moved to a "Further reading" section? Because the Bibliography section appears to be intended to be "References" that were read/used by the article's author. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT etc. Not an FA showstopper.
  • Overall, a very good article. Leaning towards support once above are addressed.
Changed to Support, based on recent changes. --Noleander (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Anyone made a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing? If not we'd better organise one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source spot-check
    • Ref 6(a), OK:
      • Article text: "To direct, Zanuck and Brown first considered veteran filmmaker John Sturges—whose résumé included another maritime adventure, The Old Man and the Sea—before offering the job to Dick Richards, whose directorial debut, The Culpepper Cattle Co. had come out the previous year."
      • Source text: "The first director with whom they discussed the picture was John Sturges, whose films included not only the classics Bad Day at Black Rock and The Great Escape but also The Old Man and the Sea..." and "They decided to offer the job instead to Dick Richards, who ... had made his feature debut at Fox in 1972 with a Western about a teenaged cowboy, The Culpepper Cattle Co.."
    • Ref 34(b), OK:
      • Article text: "The model required 14 operators to control all of the moving parts."
      • Source text: "Dubbed 'Bruce,' it required 14 operators to function..."
    • Ref 205, OK:


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/Jaws_(film)/archive2&oldid=1151014372"