Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Human Centipede (First Sequence)/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 promoted by Karanacs 14:07, 5 October 2011 [1].

The Human Centipede (First Sequence)

[edit]

The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Coolug (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after two previous attempts to get to Featured Article I feel it's time to have another stab at getting that little star and then maybe I can have my life back and my girlfriend will start talking to me again. The last time round there were some super useful comments and the article has made a bunch of progress since then. It has lots and lots of reliable sources with as much information taken from them as possible, and I feel this article is as comprehensive as an article on The Human Centipede could be. cya! Coolug (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if you're joking, seeing as this is non-verbal communication. Have you really abandoned your life for a single article? I think you need to take a WikiBreak. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry - I'm his friend in real life. I can assure you that he's joking, although he has put far more time and effort into writing about this horrible film than any one else would dare! Papa November (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you're quoting from an audio or video source, it's good practice to include a time ref
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for magazines or not
  • Be consistent in whether or not you abbreviate months
  • Can you provide some details about the reliability and editorial quality of bloodydisgusting? The "about us" page redirects to "contact us"
  • Don't italicize publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for this super helpful source review. I have sorted out the inconsistencies in the months and they are all abbreviated to three letters (eg Apr). As far as I can see there aren't any publishers shown in italics. There are some magazine or publication titles in italics with no publisher shown, this is because I don't know who the publishers of the publication are.
Bloody Disgusting is an independent web magazine edited by Brad Miska and Tom Owen, and apparently owned by a company called The Collective. From what I can see it seems to be quite a popular resource for information on horror films.
Regarding the time ref's, is there an example somewhere of how one should go about formatting these on another article? I'd like to see how someone else has done it (preferably on a featured article) before I have a bash at sticking them in myself. cya Coolug (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added time refs to Over There (Fringe), a recent FA. Feel free to use it as an example. Ruby2010 comment! 21:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I shall put these in after the weekend. This of course means I am going to have to sit through the terrible film once more in order to work out where exactly it was that those statements were made in the commentary. Oh how I look forward to that. Coolug (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While you're at it, it might be a good opportunity to triple-check that there's nothing else of value in the commentary. Also, is there anything else of value in the other DVD extras.. deleted/alternative scenes, casting tapes, effects demos etc? Papa November (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have put in time stamps for every reference in the article from the DVD commentary, DVD extra features, and one interview. I had to remove a couple of things because I did not hear them when listening and did not want to sit through it again to try and catch them. There are some more audio/video references but I'm not doing that right now.
I'll stick in some time stamps for the other audio/video references later on, but I want a break first. Coolug (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I believe I have added the times for every single video/audio reference. What a day this has been. If I've missed anything out please let me know, I'm suffering from a bit of human centipede fatigue so I may well have missed one out and not realise it. Anyway, Nikkimaria, have I managed to fix all of the points you address to a suitable standard? Thanks. Coolug (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...I really hate to do this at this point, but are you aware of WP:IBID? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm afraid I wasn't aware of that policy. But it was pretty quick and easy to get rid of all those ibids and give them names instead. Everything okay now? Thanks! Coolug (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Better, although it should be "Director's" unless the name is actually "Directors". Here are a few other remaining issues, mostly minor:

  • Time format should be consistent - for example compare FNs 2 and 3. Also, ranges should always use endashes, not hyphens
  • Use a consistent citation template - either {{citation}} or the {{cite}} family, not a mix of both, as that creates formatting inconsistencies
  • When using shortened citations, make sure that the full citation appears before the shortened one and that the shortening is logical. For example, where is the full citation for FN 16?
  • FN 13: publisher?
  • There are still some publishers incorrectly italicized - for example FN 80. Some other citations appear to be missing publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for this feedback. I've fixed "Director's".
  • I'm afraid I'm totally confused by this, how is the time format not consistent? Everything is in the format (1 Jan 1900) except for those that I don't have anything more than the year so it's just (1900) I'm also a bit confused regarding the ranges, do you mean how I have put times like 14:01-14:22? I've done this in the style of Over There (Fringe) which is an FA. Do you mean I should amend them so they show as 14:01 - 14:22 instead of 14:01-14:22?
  • I think I've done this correctly but please let me know if it's still incorrect. I'm far from an expert on this sort of stuff!
  • Fixed.
  • FN 13 doesn't to my knowledge have a publisher, in that the resource is a website that someone is putting online, and doesn't have a big publishing company behind it. Should I Just put the name of the website again as a publisher? Does a website have to have a publisher? Surely if I make my own website and put some content on it, it doesn't really have a publisher in the same way that a newspaper, book or big corporate website will?
  • Again with FN 80, as far as I can see that's the name of the website, not the publisher. Those citations that haven't got a publisher showing are that way because I can't find a publisher.
I've noted that for some reason the "work" on some citations isn't showing, eg FN 8 and FN 16. I haven't got a clue why this is, if anyone out there can help me by telling me why this is I'd really appreciate it. Anyway, thanks for this detailed advice, you must have the patience of a saint to go through all of these FACs with a fine-toothed comb! Coolug (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responding just on the times for now (I'll come back to the rest later): "14:05–14:30" vs "7.15-7.20" - you'll notice that the punctuation is different, as the first uses colons and an endash and the second uses periods and a hyphen (– vs -). The former is more standard, but you can use either colons or periods; endashes, however, are required for ranges per WP:DASH. Does that make sense? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that makes perfect sense and I have amended the article accordingly. On my browser they seem to more or less look the same so that would be where the confusion must have arose. But I've checked and they're all dashes now. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I appreciate you are busy with wikipedia and real life stuff, but would it be possible to have any feedback on whether or not the changes made have adequately addressed the points raised? Thanks Coolug (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly. The only thing I'm not sure of is the website publisher info - where the website name is the same as the publisher name, it's more usual to see it unitalicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where the website name is also the publisher name, I've stuck in the website name as a publisher too, therefore every reference now shows with an unitalicised publisher name.
One thing I can't seem to work out which is driving me mad is how for the video/audio references (ones where I need an event time showing) the unitalicised publisher info is showing, but the italicised work info (for example the name of the website) is not showing. Footnotes 3, 8, 11, 16, 39, 57 and 92 are all doing this. I'm going to try and mess around a bit more and see if I can fix it, but if anyone out there can help me out I'd really appreciate it. Coolug (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have discovered that the reason the work info was not showing was because Wikipedia does not require a work title for video/audio citations. However, for the sake of consistency throughout the references I felt it was important that a work title show (after all, why should one reference from The Guardian have a work name and another not?) and so I have therefore added an italicised work title into the publisher information in a way that will make the reference appear the same as all of the other non-video ones. I've added an explanatory note to the wikitext so that editors will understand why these are done this way.
Nikkimaria, does everything (regarding the references at least) in the article now meet the required standard? If there's anything more I need do please let me know. Thanks for all the constructive criticism! Coolug (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, when you have a moment spare is it possible to get any feedback on these changes and whether or not the references meet the FA standard now? Coolug (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only looking quickly right now, but it looks pretty good, so I'd say so (with the disclaimer that I didn't do spotchecks; someone else can, if it's a concern). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hi. In the interest of full disclosure I should say that I know Coolug and Papa November in real life. I've just made a few minor changes to the article, but I now support the application to be a featured article. My changes are here (sorry, I seem to have not been logged in for all of it). I believe that this is as good as an article on this subject could or should be. Qwertyface (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I helped Coolug out with copy-editing in the earlier days of this article. I also know him personally so I think it's probably difficult for me to offer an unbiased opinion here. However, I believe that he has dealt with all matters that have been raised in this FAC nomination, and previous ones. The article appears to deal with the subject thoroughly, and cites all the useful information from every reliable source that can be accessed readily. I am happy that the quality of the written text meets the standards expected of a FA, and that all typesetting conventions have been met. In my opinion, this nomination is worthy of support. I would encourage any independent editors to come forward with comments or criticisms. Papa November (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I had commented on the previous FAC, where I said I did not believe the article was not quite ready and made suggestions for improvement. I'm pleased to see that Coolug seems to have followed through with them, and my earlier concerns I believe have now been satisfied. — Hunter Kahn 02:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. Happy to now support this one for FA. Ruby comment! 19:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Comment I saw your comments on the FAC talkpage, and thought I'd give the article a look-over:[reply]

  • "...previously experimented with creating a three-dog..." Three-dog looks a little odd; is this what the character calls it?
  • "Having already acted in or written for a number of films and television shows (including Heroes)..." I think you should indicate what Heroes is (i.e. popular American television series or something similar)
  • "He did not initially reveal that the victims would be joined mouth-to-anus, as he believed he would stand no chance of receiving investments into any such an idea.[30]" Needs a copyedit
  • "Yennie stated that the actors experienced jaw pain from holding a bite in their mouths during filming, but overall she did not feel that the physical side of filming had been excessively difficult.[48]" Wouldn't it have just been her and Williams with a bite in their mouths? And is it a bite, or a bit?
  • Sentences with direct quotes need citations, such as: Six claims that the surgeon initially wanted nothing to do with his film, as he felt Six was "crazy" and the idea had "nothing to do with medical science." Look for others
  • "The film contains a large number of long tracking shots,[64] Six has cited the influence of Takashi Miike who also uses many long shots in his films.[18]" Missing a word
  • "Six stated he in fact believed it to be Pier Paolo Pasolini's Salò, or 'he 120 Days of Sodom." Isn't the title Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom?
  • Provide appropriate wikilink for Video on Demand
  • Is Ilona Six the director's wife? You could maybe indicate their relationship
  • The last paragraph in the theatrical release section is pretty short and choppy. The film ____. The film ___. doesn't flow very well. Can more be done to expand it?
  • Home media is also short and awkward looking
  • Why did the film win awards in 2009 when it wasn't released til the following year. Am I missing something?
  • For the accolades section you can probably just list the ref (#4) at the end of each sentence.

You've definitely put a lot of work into this one! I made a bunch of small tweaks myself, but the rest are listed above. Ruby comment! 18:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made a bunch of changes, hopefully acceptable if not, of course feel free to revert. Will wait to see how you deal with above (some of which I think I've already done) before giving my opinion. Please ping me as soon as you think you're ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for these very helpful copy edits and comments. I believe that between The Rambling Man's brilliant edits and mine all of the points you have raised have been addressed.
  • In the film the dog creature is shown to have a grave marked "meine liebe 3-hund" - (my beloved 3-dog) - therefore I've called it a three-dog in the article to try and stay true to the original. I've added that tjis is Heiter's name for the animal.
  • I've added the heroes bit as you suggested
  • investment sentence - I've changed this a bit
  • I've clarified that it was Yennie and Williams with the "bite". In the original source Yennie does call it a "bite", so that's what I've gone with. Do you think I should add a "sic" here? What's the policy on this sort of stuff?
  • I believe every quote from Six does have a source. The one you mentioned has a source after it: "Six claims that the surgeon initially wanted nothing to do with his film, as he felt Six was "crazy" and the idea had "nothing to do with medical science." However, the surgeon changed his mind and came up with a method of creating a human centipede.[55]" The source is the [55] and I have it where it is because the very same bit of the source (a part of the director's commentary) is used for the second sentence about the surgeon deciding he did like the idea after all. If you think there should also be a citation directly after the quote then I can stick one in.
  • changed the Miike sentence
  • The Salo bit appears to have been a typo from some edits that were going on when you were reviewing the article, it's since been corrected
  • Video on Demand has been sorted by The Rambling Man.
  • Ilona Six is his sister, added a source for this
  • Rambling Man has fixed this choppyness
  • ....and this bit too. Thanks Rambling Man!
  • I have added a few words to clarify about the 2009 awards
  • Another bit already fixed by Rambling Man (or it might have been you, I can't remember)
All in all I think these concerns have probably been dealt with, although I won't be offended if you think there's still work to be done. (I have a bit of a hangover this morning so I may well have messed something up :) ) I'm very grateful for the edits you and Rambling Man have made, I'll be the first to admit that my copy editing isn't always the best, and so to have a couple of pairs of fresh eyes go over this and pick out so many issues has been brilliant. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Bit (horse) was what I was thinking of. It seems like the actress maybe made a typo. I would just change bite to bit (with wikilink), as it's not a direct quote. Also, you do need citations directly after a quoted sentence. Add to the one above, and others if you see any. And I would still like to see a wikilink for video on demand. Otherwise, I believe my other comments have been addressed, either by you or The Rambling Man. Ruby comment! 16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your helpful suggestions! I've made changes so the article includes everything you have asked for. I've changed Bite to Bit with wikilink, made sure there is a citation after every single direct quote and wikilinked video on demand. Do you think the article is looking like it meets the FA standard now? Coolug (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments from Ruby2010:

  • "Six kept how the centipede would be formed a secret until as late as possible, and Yennie claimed even her make-up artist did not know, asking Yennie what kind of "suit"[10] the actors would be wearing." Looks awkward to have the citation there (rather than at the end). Why is it there?
  • "However, writing in The Guardian, David Cox noted that he had been unable to trace the source of this quote as the "most horrific ever made" and had contacted Six to attempt to ascertain the origin of this judgement." Add citation after period (full stop)
  • Martin compared Six's claims to those of H. Kroger Babb and William Castle who had also made "grand promises"[53] about what they were putting on screen in a bid to lure audiences.[53] Delete first ref (it's ok to just have it at the end of sentence, otherwise it looks clunky)

-Ruby comment! 16:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I put that citation there because "suit" was a direct quote. However, I've moved it as you suggest. I've also added the citation after this full stop and deleted the first instance of the [53] ref (I put it there because it was also a quote). Thanks for all your help! If there's anything else at all you've spotted no matter how minor please let me know! Coolug (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Has there been an image review yet? And Coolug, have you had any FACs spotchecked for accurate representation of sources before? If not, we need to get a spotcheck too. Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not super familiar with all of the FAC review terminology, so I might be wrong here, but the images were reviewed in the first attempt at FA, and I assume they are now Ok. Papa November has helped me out a lot with the images and I believe he's pretty good at that stuff so I trust his opinion. The sources were very thoroughly looked at by Hunter Kahn in the second attempt at FA and they are all Ok too. Of course if a more comprehensive review is needed then go ahead, I'm confident that the sources on this article are pretty much watertight and I don't believe any problems will be found. Coolug (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this, with regard to an image review, there are only three images on the article. The infobox contains a low res image of the film poster (File:Human-Centiped-poster.jpg), with an appropriate non-free use rationale. There should be no problems with this. There is also a screenshot from the film (File:Human centipede still171109.jpg) which has a non-free media use rationale. I included this picture with commentary in the section on 'effects'. I felt that it was important to include this image because readers reading about a 'human centipede' will probably be curious to know what this 'human centipede' thing might look like. The image was released by the copyright holders to promote the film so I don't think they'll mind about it's use in this article, it is not an explicit image and most importantly it illustrates a point made in the article about most of the gore being hidden behind bandages. Finally there is a picture of the three main actors (File:10.1.10HumanCentipedeByLuigiNovi cropped.jpg) which has a CCC 3.0 license. The image is a cropped copy of a larger original image, and it was cropped by Papa November during the first FA review in order to remove copyrighted material in the background of the photo. The cropped version gives a credit to the original photographer as instructed in the original larger image, plus a link to the original which is on commons.
Based upon these points I believe all of the images on this article are suitable for inclusion on an FA rated article. But of course as the nominator it's not my place to declare this as fact and I leave it to other editors to decide.
Regarding spotchecking for accurate representation of sources, that's obviously not something I as the nominator can get involved in as I could theoretically just cherry pick a few citations that I know are bang on and say "look it's perfect!" Therefore I shall await someone else doing that. I hope though that my image explanation is helpful to reviewers. Coolug (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose Reading this article I do not feel it is neither outstanding nor complete, certainly not up to the standard of some other film articles. I think some of the support for this nomination derives from the disgusting and obscene nature of the article's subject matter. I'm also worried about how close to the article some of them are

or this http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-2SD6/the-human-centipede/stats/ with its tables of "NO DATA"? Why are reviews from the Guardian/Observer not used?

  • "The Human Centipede generally received mixed reviews." -- Ignore the fact you've seen crappy writing like this before in film articles and ask yourself if you can really divine what is meant. Is this semantically good? The source has a sub-clause that might support this sentence by the way, it's not the main subject of it.
  • Try the next one; "Review aggregator web site Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a 50% 'Rotten' rating, based upon 90 reviews, with an average rating of 5.2 out of 10.[83]" It could be done alot better phrased, plus uses the widest measure on the RT site to arrive at 5.2, In line with WP:RS, the "top critics", i.e. those that write in mainstream newspapers as opposed to fan websites, gives a lower score
  • Same with this one: "At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 33% based on 15 reviews.[84]" Where is Metacritic? Why not just say MC assigned a normalised score of 33%, based on a sample of 15 reviews."
  • A good one third of the article is based on interviews with the director, thus it feeds us back the promotional talking points, no real objectivity and the guy is not exactly an auteur
  • External links: One is used as a source in the article, thus the article should include this information already. The other contain wiki like elements, or a repetition of information already in this article. They add nothing more and should be removed per WP:EL

Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a response to your comments, however, I think it's rather unfair to claim that those who have supported the article are too close it to, Qwertyface has been completely open about the fact that he knows me in real life, and you can look at the contributions of the other supporters to see what their contributions to the article have been. The only people here who have any kind of vested interest in the article are myself and Papa November and you can see from his comments that he's not going to blow his integrity on wikipedia by supporting an article he's been so involved in. Also, are you really suggesting that the only reason these people are supporting the article is because it's about people crapping in each other mouths? From looking at the contributions these editors have made to wikipedia I would argue that they are very serious editors who wouldn't give support without a fair reason.
Firstly I agree that the article is not up to the standard of completeness of some other film articles. The reason for this is that the film is The Human Centipede and god willing it will never receive the same level of attention and dissection of films like Star Wars or Casablanca. Frankly if anyone ever decides to write a doctoral thesis on this film there will be something very wrong with this world. Therefore without the level of analysis other films have received, I have made the best of the available sources to write an article as complete as possible.
Regarding the use of Bloody Disgusting and Dread Central, well, they are both popular horror websites, and good sources of news regarding horror films. Nikkimaria asked about Bloody Disgusting in her source review and I was under the impression that this source was deemed to be ok. The source http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-2SD6/the-human-centipede/stats/ is used to provide the budget of the film only. That the source doesn't tell us anything else is irrelevant I think. It does what it needs to do which is provide a source for the budget of the film. I haven't used reviews from The Guardian/Observer because the article already has reviews from The Daily Telegraph, The New York Times and the Chicago Sun Times. How many mainstream newspaper reviews does the article need to have?
"The Human Centipede generally received mixed reviews." - the reviews were not generally awful nor were the generally good, to my mid that means they were mixed. But that's original research, so I use citation [82] which says "The original film, about a German doctor who kidnaps three tourists and surgically joins them mouth to anus to form a human centipede, received mixed reviews upon its limited release last year, and now the follow-up The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) is causing controversy over its sexually violent plotline." What's wrong with that?
Regarding the wording on the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, I don't use the wording I do because I've seen it on some other article before, I use it because I want readers who've never heard of Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic to understand what this means without having to go read another article first. I'm just trying to make this article accessible for people who haven't read loads of wikipedia articles before.
There is definitely a lot of stuff taken from the directors commentary track on the DVD. This is because the commentary track is a great source of information that isn't available elsewhere. Previous commentators has told me I should use every source to the greatest depth possible to get as much information as I can. I haven't used anything Tom Six has said to cite anything that be seen as promotional, if Tom Six says it's the best film ever on the commentary track I won't repeat that in the article. But if he tells us something interesting about how the film was made then of course I'm going to put it in the article because readers might want to know that.
If you think a link shouldn't be there please remove it! That's the point of this project!
Coolug (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Rotten Tomatoes 'Top Critics' score to the article. I've also added RT to the external links. I did this after looking at the article for American Beauty which always seems to be cited as the perfect example of an FA rated film article. I noted it has external links for RT, Metacritic, IMDB and Allrovi. Allrovi and IMDB aren't mentioned anywhere in the article but the links are there anyway. I have no idea what Allrovi is but I know what IMDB is and I think this link should stay in the article. My feeling is that internet users (and I don't mean wikipedia editors) will often come to a wikipedia article first when they want to find out about a film, and it can't hurt the article to have a link to the second place they might like to go to read more about the film. American Beauty seems to back this up. Of course American Beauty might be wrong here, but I think that unlikely seeing as it appears that the article is a pet project of the co-ordinator of wikiproject film. I don't know him but I suspect he would probably remove something on an article he was watching if it wasn't supposed to be there. Coolug (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding external links, the redundancy is incidental. In the article body, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are referenced for their aggregate scores. In the external links, they are included to give the reader access to multiple reviews (since the guidelines discourage including individual reviews). The URLs in both cases happen to be the same one used. It is hard to point to these websites as providing "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain" when they are deep in the "References" section. AllRovi used to be Allmovie. I don't find it the greatest external link since it is hardly a unique resource, so it can be removed. As for IMDb, it can be a unique resource in providing complete cast and crew information, plus other elements as a major film website. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for helping clear things up there. I've removed the Allrovi link as I never much cared for it anyway and still don't know what it is :) I agree that the rest of the external links are useful for readers and should stay. Coolug (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ktlynch, in case you're interested I thought some more about your comments regarding the review from Dread Central, and decided to remove the blog reviews altogether. Seeing as there are so many reviews from mainstream sources I don't think these reviews from less mainstream sources are as necessary as they were in the early days of the article. I was going to leave it there, but I decided to have another look at the Guardian review and saw that Peter Bradshaw described the film as "deplorable" and yet also "brilliant". I thought that was a wonderful example of a 'mixed' review so I stuck it in. I stand by my belief that the other sources are accurate and appropriate and I look forward to somebody carrying out a source spotcheck to back this up. Coolug (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ktlynch - Please could you provide diffs to back up your speculation that some of the support here "derives from the disgusting and obscene nature of the article's subject matter"? I have seen no evidence at all of this. If it really is just baseless speculation, the statement serves no purpose and I would ask you to consider removing it. Papa November (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent Ktlynch a talk page message asking him/her to come over and clarify those comments. Coolug (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It looks good and I think it deserves FA status. TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Karanacs asked me to look at the sourcing for this, and the following issues caught my eye:

Some of these may be reliable, but a number don't look like they'll pass the high quality reliable source requirement. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Thank you for so much for doing this. I shall go through these sources and explain why I believe they are reliable enough for the purpose of he article....
  • http://www.screenjabber.com/node/1816 is a video interview with the actors and director of the film. I have used this to obtain information about the making of the film. Editors who want to check the source can go to the video and watch the interview at the appropriate time (I've given the event times) an hear the actor or Tom Six saying the point that I have just made. I'm not using this source to quote anything subjective (such as "it's the greatest horror film ever made!" or anything similar) - just how the film was made. Therefore in the article if there is a section saying "This film was made by doing XYZ" readers can then go to a video of someone who actually made the film saying exactly that. I would personally deem that pretty reliable.
  • http://www.24xps.com/2010/04/down-on-all-fours-with-human-centipede-akihiro-kitamura/ is an interview with an actor who starred in the film. The site is run by a film critic and everything I have taken from the source is a quote from the actor. Whilst the website hosting the interview isn't anything like The Guardian or so on, the interview was carried out by Steve Dollar who also wrote source [9], which is an interview with the director for Paste Magazine. Again because this source isn't being used to source anything especially earth shattering I believe the source is reliable enough for this purpose. If anyone ever disagrees with the truth of these claims we can point to an interview with the actor by an experienced writer and say "look he said it here".
  • Bloody Disgusting is used as a source for six references used in the article. Two of these are interviews with actors where we have a name of the interviewer and the actor saying something about how the film was made, a third is a video interview with the director. I think the director saying something into a camera about his work should probably be considered pretty reliable. If he ever claims we've made something up in the article again we can point to the video and say "here you are saying so". The other three sources from the site are used for uncontroversial information, the films release date, that it was shown at a film festival and that IFC released the film plus some other films in the past. I don't think any of these facts are especially controversial and can be easily proved. Therefore I don't think there's any problem with Bloody Disgusting being used as a source here. It would be helpful if they improved their 'about us' page though I agree.
  • I shall go through the shortened subsequent footnotes as you ask here. I was under the impression that this was fine as it was as I think I did this under the instruction of another editor during this FAC, but to be honest I can't remember the exact details off-hand.
  • I was under the impression that the battle of italics was won, but evidently it isn't. I'll have a mess around and see if I can fix this asap. To be honest I don't know why some titles are shown as italics and others are not. This might be a bit complicated for me but I'll have a go anyway.
  • I would say something similar about the use of Dread Central as I did for Bloody Disgusting, the site is used for three references, two are interviews with the actors where they say things about the film. One of those two is in fact a video so we can even hear them say these things. Therefore I don't think anybody could dispute that they said these things. The third use is to state that the film was shown at a film festival once. I have replaced this ref with the more reliable Production Notes ref [4] which repeats the same fact.
  • I have removed the twitchfilm ref and replaced it with something more reliable. I think the original source was ok since the fact it stated was not especially controversial, but I've removed it anyway seeing as [4] covered this one too.
  • on http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-2SD6/the-human-centipede/stats/ you've got me. It is the only place I have ever seen the budget for the film given so I used it. I didn't realise it was user generated content though so I've canned it. Thanks for pointing that one out.
  • http://escobarmediacartel.com/2010/10/04/new-release-spotlight-tom-byron-pictures-the-human-sexipede/ may not be the most reliable source in the world, but the information on it - that a parody was made with a director and stars is not controversial information, and I think that this parody was made is important. Tom Six frequently referenced the parody during promotion of the film and it deserves a place. Unfortunately not many mainstream news sources carry the details of pornographic parodies of the human centipede, so this was the best I could find. I would however say that I see it as suitable for this purpose because none of the information gained from it is especially controversial and would be hard to dispute. There is a real name and a contact address given for the author on the EMC about us page if that is any help (btw that site isn't very safe for work kids!)
  • Lastly, http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tomsix-sitges is another video of the director saying stuff about how he made the film. The times of when he said these things are given and I think it would be hard for anyone to dispute this information. We have a video of him saying these things if anyone claims otherwise.
  • Thank you for this source review, I shall get onto those shortened titles and italics as soon as possible. I shall also have a look for another source that might possibly replace the Escobar Media Cartel source. Somehow I doubt I'm going to find this in The Daily Telegraph.... :) Thanks cya Coolug (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the various websites... To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Not only must it meet WP:RS, but it needs to be high quality, per the FA criteria. And what did you replace the twitchfilm ref with? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Firstly I replaced the twitchfilm ref with ref [4], which is the film's production notes. I have also now got rid of http://escobarmediacartel.com/2010/10/04/new-release-spotlight-tom-byron-pictures-the-human-sexipede/ and the Dread Central article on the pornographic parody, and replaced them with a citation from Adult Video News, which is the porn industry trade paper and nice and reliable (this is now ref [94] in the article.
Regarding the reliability of the remaining sources, from reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches I note the part that says "contentious statements or anything related to a living person require a high-quality source. Exceptional claims, even if they aren't about living people, require high-quality reliable sources and will draw scrutiny." The sources mentioned in the source review are for the most part interviews with the actors/director of the film where they talk about their roles in making the film. I don't think anything being stated is an "exceptional claim" that will draw any serious scrutiny. A couple of them might be used for things like the film's release date, but again I don't think there are "exceptional claims" either. If you want me to find a publisher or big company behind the sources then I can't for all of them. It was because of this that I removed the less reliable sources used to cite the pornographic parody, as this is a bit of an odd claim and thus needed something more reliable to back up what might be called an "exceptional claim". Coolug (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More thoughts, again regarding the use of Bloody Disgusting, I quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 63 about BD: "It's a relatively new website, and has a horrible name, but is starting to be cited by more reliable sources: The Scotsman; Time Magazine; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; MSNBC; again MSNBC. That's how sources become considered reliable, more reliable sources rely on them... but it's just starting that process." I'm not sure if that helps but I thought I'd share it. Coolug (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said this on the film's talk page since I seen in my watchlist Coolug removing BD as "unreliable". Bloody Disgusting, along with the CraveOnline (DreadCentral) sites, have been used to sourced horror film articles for a long time and many have passed GA. The site is essential to Wikipedia horror film articles and I know they gave this film and the sequel a lot of coverage. It's a shame that it's being removed as "unreliable". It uses JoBlo.com as a source which is another horror site that is reliable and used in many Wikipedia GA's. I understand this is a FA review, but if a source is reliable for a GA than it should be for a FA. Note I nominated Saw VI as a FA, and while it didn't pass, nothing came up about using BD -- which would wipe out most of the sources and thus probably the article. You can get more feedback on the reliability of the site from editors that edit film articles here. —Mike Allen 11:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FA requires "high quality" sources, not just reliable sources, so the standard at FA is indeed a bit higher than GA. Also, that requirement was implemented after that dispatch was written, so while the general advice is sound, you need to meet a slightly higher standard now, so that needs to be borne in mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)In general, I'll[reply]
For what it's worth, WP:RS says, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." WP:SOURCES also says, "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." It adds, "Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria [of reliable sourcing]." Other sources (reliable ones) recognize Bloody-Disgusting as authoritative for horror films. From what I see in Google News Archive Search, CNN, Reuters, Total Film, and IGN pass on Bloody-Disgusting's reports. B-D isn't being referenced for thematic analysis, which requires much better sourcing as an academic sub-topic. Here, it's being referenced for production detail, which is non-scholastic context. For that context, electronic media is completely suitable. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT objecting to it being online, I'm questioning the editorial control. And frankly, the fact that various aggregators pass on the news isn't exactly going to meet the requirement, what you want is some evidence that serious news outlets are citing it with attribution in news stories for facts. It'd actually be easier if you were using it for reviews/opinion, as you could attribute the opinion and that would be fine. Citing it for facts, you need to show that they get their facts correct and that others see that they get their facts correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so in the context of this FAC, if on this article I cite an interview with an actor from Bloody Disgusting is that OK? What about if I cite a video on Bloody Disgusting where we can actually hear the person answering the question? Is that OK? I can remove all the things in the article that rely on these sources, but it'll make the article a bit more rubbish because the sources provide lots of useful information that nobody is every going to claim was made up by some guy on the Internet. Coolug (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't support or oppose based solely on the sources, I was asked by the delegates to come in and look at the sourcing. I have issues with interviews posted on sites that we don't know the reliablity of - I strongly suggest checking out other sites that are reliable for this information, as well as the various newspaper articles, see if you can replace the information from other sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading what Erik has to say I'm of the mind that I'm going to keep the interviews and audio/video sources in the article. They make it a better article and if that means it fails FA then so be it. This is about the human centipede, not the moon landings and I think in that context they are absolutely fine. Regarding the other uses where there it is not an interview with an actor or Tom Six I shall look to see if I can find other "reliable" sources. If I'm unable to find such a resource then I might cut whatever is being said out entirely. Coolug (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right,I've removed the facts that were stated by Bloody Disgusting in non-interview news items. If anyone asks the film was certainly not released on VoD on 28 April. Unless I find a "reliable" source in which case it was after all. Anyway, all of the "unreliable" sources are now removed except for the interviews, all of which have the name of a writer who says he or she met an actor or Tom Six and has written down what they said. Or even better filmed it. I shall argue that these are reliable enough for this article until the cows come home. In the mean time I shall look to see if there are any more reliable sources about the VoD, but until I find one the article will have to ignore that digital release date. Coolug (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Don't you mean The Daily Telegraph... ;)? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you (buries head in pillow and screams) - anyway, from editing to try and fix the italics issue and consistency with shortened titles I've remembered why they show like this. When I have a reference which is an audio/video ref with an event time given, for some reason the article title shows as italics. If I change "cite video" to "cite news" it becomes non-italics, but I lose the event time. Therefore I've had to leave it as it is because I cannot for the life of my work out how to fix it. All the non video/audio refs show correctly with the article not in italics and in quotations, the newspaper title in italics and the publisher not italics, but the audio/video refs? Nope. Cannot work this out at all. Please can anybody help me get to the bottom of this? It's driving me insane. Coolug (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, all regular FA reviewers should already know that the various citation templates in Wikipedia are a complete mess and inconsistent with one another, and should never expect you to use a variety of them and expect consistency. Your best bet is to entirely forget the {{cite}} templates and do it manually. That way you stand a chance of being internally consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice The Rambling Man! I've binned the normal wikipedia template and shoved them all in manually. It's a bit of a pain that the templates aren't consistent to begin with, but it's done now. Thank god for that. No matter what happens with this FAC, at least those damn references finally look like all the other ones. I'm going to be giving out Dr Heiter Awards like it's the eastern front when this is done. If a fresh pair of eyes could look over the changes I've made to check I haven't missed something I'd appreciate it. I need a break from this for the rest of this evening. Coolug (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: This article has really improved since I looked at it a few months ago. However...
  • "Laser had previously appeared in over 60 mostly German language films"-->"Laser had previously appeared in over 60 mostly German-language films"
  • "Six gave Laser a shot by shot explanation of Heiter's scenes,"-->"Six gave Laser a shot-by-shot explanation of Heiter's scenes,"
  • " Laser, impressed by Six's dedication and passion agreed to take part in the film"-->" Laser, impressed by Six's dedication and passion, agreed to take part in the film"
  • "Katsuro, as the front part of the centipede can only speak Japanese"-->"Katsuro, as the front part of the centipede, can only speak Japanese"
  • "many horror film clichés in the first act, such as a broken down car"-->"many horror film clichés in the first act, such as a broken-down car"
Hope that helps! Kaguya-chan (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kaguya-chan! I've made all of those changes. Coolug (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I admit up front that I didn't read this very carefully because it's so disgusting. But I'll offer a few comments. The article said the consulting surgeon initially refused, but changed his mind; why did he change his mind? The investors in the film were misled. How did they react when they found out the truth about the film? The film was inspired by imagining what might be done to child molesters; but in the film the victims are just tourists, right? Why weren't the characters child molesters or the like? Also, how many brains are left after the surgery? This is probably mentioned somewhere in the article, but I suppose it should be mentioned in the lead so readers understand the nature of the creature. Finally, this world of ours is full of all kinds of wonderful things, and also crappy things. And then there's this movie. I just can't help but think that a stub would be more than adequate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. As you suggest, most of your questions about this work of fiction are answered in the article. As for those that are not, well, erm.... Yes thanks for the comments. Coolug (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't feel that this is among "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer". The prose is not engaging. If the subject matter were less disgusting, then perhaps it would be easier to write more engaging prose, and easier to make this one of Wikipedia's best articles. But even putting aside the subject matter, I found the prose lacking:

  • The article should say earlier how many brains the creature has (a search of the text for "brain" and "head" turns up nothing). It's obviously very significant whether only one person has to live through this obscenity, as opposed to several people.
  • I see that the inspiration for the film was how to punish child molesters, but the sentences that use the word "molester" do not suggest whether that idea is implemented in the film (and if not why not).
  • The first sentence that says the consulting surgeon changed his mind ought to say why.
  • The first sentence that says the investors were lied to ought to give sone idea of their reaction when they found out the truth.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. When I read your earlier comments yesterday evening I was a little amused as you had opened your comments with the admission that you hadn't actually read the article, and it was clear from said comments that you weren't really sure what to think of this article and it's subject matter but had decided to take a stab into the dark anyway. I wasn't sure how to respond, so held off doing so until this morning when I decided the best thing to do was to bite my lip and say as little as possible beyond suggesting you actually read the article. However, now that you have formally opposed the articles promotion to FA I suppose I shall have to respond in great detail to all of your points. I am afraid that I may have to refer to aspects of the plot in levels of detail that you find distressing. Unfortunately the plot of the film is quite horrible. I generally avoid things I find distressing (Nambla, Rick Santorum, Spherical Earth etc etc) so as to avoid offending myself. I fully advocate a similar approach to others:
  • You say that "the article should say earlier how many brains the creature has".... The plot of The Human Centipede (First Sequence) involves a mad scientist who kidnaps three people and joins them together mouth-to-anus. This means he takes somebodys mouth and places it over someones anus. A bit like in Anilingus I suppose (you probably won't want to read that article). He then sews their mouth into this position so they cannot move away, and repeats the process with another unfortunate victim. There is never any suggestion in this work of fiction of any brains being removed. Additionally there are no references to such actions nor speculation regarding the possibility of brains being removed (or added) to victims. Therefore to speculate on this would be to editorialise on the subject matter. That would be against the rules. It would also strongly contradict a large number of other points in the article that I presume you did not bother to read, including the still image from the film that shows the make-up of the human centipede (and is not an especially offensive image either).
  • Child molesters? I quote from the article: "The inspiration for The Human Centipede's plot came from a joke that writer/director Tom Six frequently made to friends about punishing child molesters by stitching their mouths to the anus of an overweight truck driver.[5] Six saw this as the concept for a great horror film, and he began to develop the idea.[15]" The idea of stitching child molesters to the "anus of an overweight truck driver" was an inspiration behind the film, but it is not what the film is about. If Mr Six had made a film about that I imagine it would be very different, and would probably have been a bit rubbish because beyond having a bit of a laugh watching some fat guy poo in a nonce's mouth we wouldn't want the victims to escape of the mad doctor to be punished - but that again is editorialising and not what wikipedia is about! There are some sources about the film and we've written an article based around them. No one has written a high quality source saying how much better this film would have been if the centipede had been made of Ian Huntley, Levi Bellfield and Roy Whiting and frankly, even if someone had it probably wouldn't deserve a place in this article. I imagine a lot has been written on the web about the morality of blowing up the death star with all those innocent contractors, but that's not suitable for the article on Return of the Jedi.
  • You say "The first sentence that says the consulting surgeon changed his mind ought to say why" - The sources used all say simply that the surgeon changed his mind, they don't delve into what exactly this surgeon was thinking. Hell there might not even have been a real surgeon, it could all just be a marketing thing, that's why in the article there is a lot of use of sentences like "Six claimed to have" etc etc. As I said before, we've written an article based upon the sources available. When this mysterious surgeon appears and publishes "Human Centipede: My Shame" or "Make your own Human Centipede!" we'll have a great resource for this, however, we don't, and if I go and find this surgeon and ask him or her that would be Original Research which I'm completely sure you are aware is against the rules on Wikipedia.
  • You ask that we include more detail on the investors reaction to the final completed film. The article says "they did not learn the exact details of the film until it had been completed.[5] Six claimed they were very happy with the finished film.[31]" This is based upon the sources that are available with regard to the film. Unfortunately until somebody publishes that secret memo saying "OMG we gave dis fella tom6 a millionhalf euros an he maid a fim bout pooinmouth we r in truble sell yr hous lol!" or something that that effect we will never know. Because wikipedia articles need to be sourced we can't speculate on something that has not been published somewhere. Tom Six makes frequent references to this deception in the available sources and thus we mention it in the article. But to talk about it in any more depth when we don't have a source would be completely inappropriate.
I hate to say this, but I suspect that you have passed your judgement on this article by reading the lead, deciding this was the worst thing you have ever read, and then skimmed through the rest without actually taking anything in or allowing yourself the opportunity to change your mind. I wouldn't normally say something this strong (on wikipedia in general and especially in a formal process such as an FAC) but I think because of this your opposition is basically completely worthless. It strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a small part of me thinks you should withdraw your opposition. However, a larger part of me thinks it is irrelevant if you oppose this because WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy and you haven't actually made any decent points. I would urge you in future to read FAC articles before supporting or opposing. And please remember that you don't actually have to have an opinion on this stuff. If you don't like something just ignore it. I hope my comments have not in anyway hurt your feelings and I would never try to be deliberately be offensive to anyone at all. Please do bear in mind that ultimately I'm just some random guy on the internet and my actions do not have to have any effect on your life at all. Regards. Coolug (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) A couple of points in response to Anythingyouwant:
  • Please could you clarify your comments about the quality of prose, providing specific examples of problematic sections? The subject-matter should be an entirely independent issue from the quality of written English.
  • There is no coverage of the number of brains because it has nothing to do with the film, and has never been discussed in any literature about the film! The number of brains is no more relevant than the number of toes, eyes or elbows. Coolug may want to include a short sentence at the end of the plot summary to describe the full extent of the surgery to clarify things. As there are no secondary sources discussing the brains of the victims, there is nothing that can be included in the article without introducing original research. It simply isn't relevant.
  • Regarding the lack of child molesters in the film... Again, I don't see the point of discussing things that do not happen in the film! A discussion of the reference the director made to child molesters is, however, mentioned in its correct context - the inspiration for the surgery. It is inappropriate for the article to include any original analysis.
  • The sentence about the surgeon changing his mind should only discuss his reasons if they are actually available in reliable sources. Editorial commentary or analysis can't be included as this constitutes original research.
  • Again, the reactions of the investors should only be discussed if they are available in reliable sources.
Coolug - please could you take a look at the sources and see if there is anything that addresses these issues? If not, I don't think that any of the opposing statements are really relevant.
Papa November (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is not engaging because it is unclear and incomplete. "German doctor ... kidnaps three tourists". Why? A possible reason is suggested: child molestation. If that isn't the motive, then what is the motive? Then this: "forming a "human centipede". This suggests a single creature. If it is not a single creature, but instead comprises several conscious people, then say so. Otherwise, there is confusion. Then: "The financiers of The Human Centipede did not discover the full nature of the film until it was complete." This info about the financiers seems hardly worth stating if you don't give a hint about their reactions. So I think the lead fails to engage the reader.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant, I have made a minor change that will hopefully help with any misunderstands regarding the plot and what a human centipede might look like. I have also added a tiny bit extra about how the surgeon changed his mind because for some odd reason he decided quite liked the idea after all. This has been taken directly from source [55] which I have just revisited.
The lead is supposed to simply be a concise overview that sums up the main points of the article. It isn't supposed to go into massive amounts of detail. We simply can't go into every point in great detail at this point and everything you mention is discussed later in as much detail as the published sources provide. I would argue that a lead that says the film is about a scientist who sews people together mouth to ass is pretty damn engaging and I would guess that a large proportion of the near quarter of a million people who viewed the article in the past month read a little further to find out what the hell this was all about. Regards Coolug (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the lead should be a concise overview. So you should perhaps remove discussion of a non-motive (child molestation) if you don't want to describe the motive; remove discussion of the financiers' ignorance if you don't want to mention their reactions upon becoming non-ignorant; remove discussion of "a human" if you don't want to say that it's actually several conscious humans, etc. The gaps in the lead are not engaging to me, though they may be riveting to a quarter million other people. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Thanks for your suggestions. However, I feel that the lead is appropriate, and I don't think it requires any changes. I think that it was inspired by this odd idea deserves a quick mention, as that there was something of a misunderstanding between the financiers and the makers of the film. I don't think the lead is the place to develop these points, and as the cited literature doesn't go much deeper into this anyway we really don't have a great deal to say regardless. I don't think that in the context of an article about a horror film we need to go into any depth about whether or not the term 'human' is appropriate. And seeing as that is the title of the film I suspect most readers who saw this would not even consider such a point. Because of these reasons I am not planning on making any changes to this section without the consultation of other editors. I also think that at this late stage in the FAC when really everything that could be discussed has been discussed it is far too late to be making any major changes to important areas such as the lead. Thanks. Coolug (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hooray! Finally I can have my life back! Thanks to all who have helped! I can sleep! I can sleep! Coolug (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2011 (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/The_Human_Centipede_(First_Sequence)/archive3&oldid=1145819144"