Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trembling Before G-d

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Trembling Before G-d

[edit]

Originally a Jumpaclass entry at WP:LGBT, I somehow just kept working on the article long after the competition. I think it's ready for FA (though possibly with a few finishing touches which I'm sure you'll tell me about). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The "Awards" section is presented in table format, so could it be turned into prose? I know past film FAs have used tables, but I've always thought that if it was turned into prose it's always more engaging to the reader and doesn't disrupt the flow. LuciferMorgan 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO! You brought this up on the peer review, and I told you then I wasn't going to change it! Seriously, look at the difference between the awards section and the awards section on Brokeback Mountain - BBM's looks dreadful. I don't get how an awards table can disrupt an article where a prose section, which is also unsightly, wouldn't. All of my previous FAs have tables, and I would like this trend to continue. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list would look something like this:
I think the table makes it easier for the reader to interpret the information. The information being presented is sufficiently complex to warrant the use of a table. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - That's a list you've placed above Ashlux, and you don't have to write it out like that. I meant paragraphs and prose - you've misinterpreted what I'm saying. The one on BMM isn't a prose section - that's a list actually Dev, and not what I asked to change it to. I oppose lists in FAs, and I OPPOSE tables too per criterion 1. a. which asks for "compelling, brilliant prose". An example of what I'm saying would be in the "Reception" section of Halloween;

Halloween was nominated for a Saturn Award by the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films for Best Horror Film in 1979, but lost to The Wicker Man (1973).[28] The film has received other honors since its theatrical debut. Halloween is 68th on the American Film Institute's list 100 Most Thrilling Movies Ever, compiled in 2001. In 2006, the United States Library of Congress deemed Halloween to be "culturally significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry.[29]

On a final note, no need to bite my head off either. LuciferMorgan 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry I misunderstood you, Lucifer (I'm amused -- it sounds like I'm calling you a demon). Prose would make sense if the movie was nominated for only a couple of awards (http://imdb.com/title/tt0077651/awards only lists 2 awards). But Trembling Before G-d has been nominated and won quite a few more than that (http://imdb.com/title/tt0278102/awards). A list or table really starts to make sense for Trembling, but not for Halloween. Or are you suggesting we leave off some of the awards and put something generic like "The film has received other honors since its theatrical debut"? (Slightly off-topic, the Haloween article doesn't cite anything for that statement and IMDb doesn't confirm it). -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you saw it as biting, Lucifer, but the layout of awards section is purely personal preference and I'm exasperated by the number of people who ask me to change it because they think it looks nicer. Frankly, I will rather fail this FA than be forced to change a section into something that is personal preference and I, the writer, consider unaesthetically pleasing. The awards sections have been passed in virtually every film FA without comment, certainly in all the FAs I have passed. The awards section will not be prose. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the awards being in prose was the only thing keeping it from FA, I wouldn't be opposed to changing it. =) -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hope you understand I'm not asking for it to be like Brokeback Mountain - I would oppose that too. As concerns the "Awards" section, I prefer the one used by Halloween as I dislike the list or table format which I find unaesthetically pleasing in FAs - tables and lists are for FLC in my opinion. I'm still opposing per 1. a. though since these tables, which are especially prevalent in song FACs, I feel violate that criterion and make the article off putting. LuciferMorgan 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns them being passed in virtually every film FA, that's rather unfortunate in my opinion since all those film FAs I wouldn't class as FAs if they have those tables. These tables fail to engage the reader I feel. I still think my vote is valid and actionable, and hope you don't feel I'm singling you out. LuciferMorgan 18:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- fine article! One note I failed to mention in the Peer Review that I'll mention here..."Coming out at 15, he was expelled from seven yeshivas for homosexual activity before becoming a drag queen, and is now dying of AIDS." by my understanding of AIDS, one doesn't actually die from it, but from complications of or complications relating to AIDS. I think the sentence should be changed. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Changed to "AIDS-related illness". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for a variety of reasons.
    1. Sources: The Internet Movie Database is used as a source, but it is fan-written and has "no editorial oversight or fact-checking process", so it must be considered a questionable source. The PDF "Trembling Before G-d: A Film by Sandi Simcha DuBowski" appears to be self-published. There is no source to back up the claim that Orthodox Judaism has traditional considered homosexuality le-hach'is or the claim that Norman Lamm's reinterpretation of it as ones is gaining ground in Modern Orthodox Judaism while being rejected by Haredi Judaism.
    2. Less than brilliant prose:
      • The film follows several gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews as they went about their lives, and interviewed both rabbis and psychotherapists about Orthodox attitudes towards homosexuality suddenly switches tenses mid-stream from present to past, and suggests that the film itself interviewed people.
      • Most of those who agreed to be interviewed are interviewed mostly in silhouette: while chiasmus can be an interesting effect, in this case "most...interviewed..interviewed mostly" sounds quite stilted. (It's also not really true; there is some silhouette in the film, but it's certainly not with most interviewees most of the time.)
      • Reception by the Orthodox Judaism communities was mixed: using the noun phrase Orthodox Judaism attributively like this sounds odd; why not Orthodox Jewish communities or even (since the religion is clear from the context) Orthodox communities?
      • ...the small category of Biblically-prohibited acts ... which an Orthodox Jew is obligated under the laws of Self-sacrifice under Jewish Law to die rather than do: repetition of the word "law" sounds awkward, and isn't there a more full-bodied verb than do that can be used; commit, maybe?
      • According to Boxofficemojo.com, it has grossed $788,896 at the box office: As of when?
    3. Style: It's hard to pick out a topic of the second paragraph of the lead: it tells us about the background, then hops into a definition of cinéma vérité, and wraps up telling us what languages the film is in. The "Style" section is very short and choppy, reading like a list of unrelated facts. The "Production" section isn't really very much about production. The article violates the Manual of Style's recommendations on national varieties of English by using British spelling despite the fact that the filmmaker is American and the U.S. is listed as the only English-speaking production country. The article is not consistent in its spelling of Has(s)idic.
    —Angr 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok:

Your prose concerns have been changed, all references to IMDB expunged, and the one typo of "hassidic" changed. Any source written by a recognised expert in their field is an acceptable RS, so a self-published document by The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards is acceptable. Similarly, who is better an authority as to what form a film is made in than the man who made it? I didn't add that source, but now I've read it I am so grateful to have found it!
I copied much of the background section from Judaism and homosexuality, and so I have deleted the unsourced claim you noted, as I can find no sources for it.
Yes, the article should probably be in American English, but its not, and I am not prepared to go through the entire article word by word trying to remember how exactly Americans traditionally spell. WP:MOS also says "please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page." It hardly seems a definite requirement, more a matter for personal preference.

So, how's it looking now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot better. I've made some more changes in line with what I said above, including switching to American spelling (Microsoft Word makes that very easy), and can now support. —Angr 18:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course. Well, now I know it won't be such work I will actually do it next time if someone wants it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given it has been seen by an estimated 8 million people worldwide, I would hardly call it an unknown. You need to read WP:NOTABLE, Tomer. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment : ref format trouble at critical reception section. Will proceed to finish article and then give my opinion on it. Raystorm 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Fixed it myself.[reply]

  • Very interesting article. I believe it meets without problems FA criterion 1 (b,c,d,e), 2 (a,b,c), 3, and 4. I've seen at least one editor has a problem with 1(a), but to be honest, I don't find the prose objectionable. About the tables vs prose discussion, I believe the table looks good in this instance. And of course the thing that matters here is the quality of the article, as WJBScribe, Angr and Ashlux have pointed out, and not its relative importance. So, all in all, support. Raystorm 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede comments:
    • "The film follows several gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews as they go about their lives and vague, and both rabbis and psychotherapists are interviewed about Orthodox attitudes towards homosexuality." --> "as they go about their lives" is a bit informal. Since you have "follows", is it even necessary? Or perhaps "follows the lives of..." The mixing of active ("follows") and passive ("are interviewed") creates tension in the same sentence. What about "...and includes interviews with rabbis and psychotherapists about...")?
    • "DuBowski met hundreds of homosexual Jews over six years..." --> For some reason, "over six years" sounds too vague to me (although I know what it's implying). I would suggest: "During the film's six-year production, DuBowski met hundreds..."
    • "Trembling Before G-d was successful at the box office, grossing over $5,500 on its first day of release and $788,896 by its close date on January 5, 2003." --> Might want to qualify why $5,500 on opening day was a box-office success. On how many screens was it initially released? Is $788,896 > the production costs? "on single screen" --> is there supposed to be an "a" there? Or is this just box-office lingo?
    • "Until recently, it had been assumed that all homosexuals chose to engage in homosexual actions in order to spite God, to be perverse, or due to mental illness." --> "...many of its followers had assumed..."? Also, this is kind of an awkward list construction (infinitive, infinitive, "due to"). Can this sentence be recast somehow? Still a bit awkward: "has...chose" should be either "had...chose" or "has...choose". Its still an awkward list. Perhaps try rewriting this sentence from scratch.
  • Other comments:
    • "While a variety of views regarding homosexuality as an inclination or status exist within the Orthodox Jewish community". I'm not sure I see the purpose of "as an inclination or status" here. If this sentence is just saying that a variety of views exist regarding homosexuality in general, cutting "as an inclination or status" results in a stronger sentence.
    • "...have begun re-evaluating homosexuality as a phenomenon" Another "as a..." phrase...are these qualifying statements necessary? I think the "as a phenomenon" could be cut.
    • "Until recently it has been assumed..." see my comment to the similar sentence in the lede.
    • "In this way, homosexuality could be redefined..." Unclear: did Rabbi Norman Lamm argue this, or did he just invoke the principle of ones, and left the redefinition to others?
    • "Many within the Haredi Jewish community view homosexuality as a perversion." This seems to be a topic sentence, but the rest of the paragraph doesn't mention Haredi Judaism. Is Moshe Tendler a Haredi Jew?
    • I think it might be a good idea to mention in the lead that DuBowski is a gay Jew, since his personal examination of his upbringing (according to the first sentence of Production) led to the creation of the documentary.
    • "...so their neighbors would not know." Would not know...what? Would not know that they were filming? Would not suspect they were homosexual? BuddingJournalist 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will get on that as soon as I've cleaned out my guinea pigs... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. But people make it difficult to change them easily when they use those stupid cite templates. I will get on it today. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly agree on those obnoxious cite templates; anyway, we still need publisher, along with author and pub date when available, and always a last access date on websources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded re: the citation templates. They make cites incredibly fiddly to change and the text hard to edit. Great article, by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Anything else? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't anyone ever tell me anything? I didn't know {{cite web}} was deprecated. I hope {{cite book}} is still allowed! —Angr 09:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is deprecated - {{cite web}} doesn't say it is deprecated anyhow! -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just do them manually? It's a lot faster and doesn't screw up the text so badly. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, along with most people, cannot remember the correct formats. Also, using the template works as a checklist for me on what information I need to grab from the source (I just copy and paste the full version and remove what I don't need). The templates are prone to less errors. You could change the formating of your citations in every instance that uses the template, to do something like this otherwise would quite a manual task. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 01:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've never deployed cite templates on any of my FAs, and I don't know if you've looked at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E, but all 500 of those references were created without cite templates, using the same three formats, which I copied and pasted in and then filled in the relevant information. It's better way of doing it, really, and it makes it easier to edit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Project might want to take a closer look at that article in terms of WP:BLP violations, which demand the highest-quality sources on living persons; a lot of those websites don't seem to rise to the level of reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It already does: "The last word of the title is a common Jewish way of writing the word God. By omitting the middle letter, the word is not written in full, thus eliminating the possibility of accidentally destroying the written name of God, which would violate one of the 613 Mitzvot of Judaism (number 8 on Maimonides' list)." in the production section. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Trembling_Before_G-d&oldid=1078808534"