Archive 38 |
Archive 39 |
Archive 40 |
Archive 41 |
READ THIS:
Please create new sections at the bottom of the page. Do not assume I know which article, image or page you are talking about, please provide a link so I do know, even it has been deleted. Also, please sign your messages, so I know who you are. I will reply on your talk page, unless you tell me otherwise.
I will probably remove bot and template messages after reading them, but they are still appreciated. Most other messages will be archived. Remember that a lot of people could read this- for confidential communication, email me, though for the vast majority of messages, here is the appropriate place. Thanks!
Contents
- 1 Red links
- 2 The Signpost: 29 April 2015
- 3 Boys Don't Cry (film)
- 4 Incomplete DYK nomination
- 5 WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
- 6 The Signpost: 06 May 2015
- 7 Hello from the team at Featured article review!
- 8 The Signpost: 13 May 2015
- 9 DYK nomination of The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge
- 10 The Signpost: 20 May 2015
- 11 DYK:Dimension 5 (film)
- 12 DYK for The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge
Red links
Hi, did you manage to have a look at the guidelines around red links at all? I've started up a discussion at WP:REDLINK about getting some clarity on what is likely. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 April 2015
- Recent research: Military history, cricket, and Australia targeted in Wikipedia articles' popularity vs. quality; how copyright damages economy
- Traffic report: Bruce, Nessie, and genocide
- Technology report: VisualEditor and MediaWiki updates
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Boys Don't Cry (film)
Hi! Thank you so much for taking the time to review Boys Don't Cry (film)—I guess I didn't really read it carefully enough to see some of the sourcing issues. However, I addressed your comments, most of which I just fixed, but some of which I had questions on. These questions are marked. Before I cut and paste your comments, here are some highlights from what I did:
- Cleaned up all the unsourced passages (in total, I added 24 completely new refs).
- Cleaned up the tone where you suggested.
- Removed OR in "Themes" section.
- Created a comprehensive page on awards, which I split off into List of accolades received by Boys Don't Cry (film).
Here's the full list:
- Comments from JM
Oppose, suggest withdrawal. An interesting topic, but the article seems to fall a little short. Though this certainly isn't a bad article, issues with sourcing, neutrality, writing and non-free content all add up to it needing more work yet.
- "The film has been cited as one of the most controversial and talked-about films of 1999" Where is your source for this? You don't seem to say it in the article proper.
- Done. Reworded to fit a source.
- "Brandon Teena was never his legal name; it is uncertain the extent to which this name was used prior to his death. It is the name most commonly used by the press and other media. Other names may include his legal name, as well as "Billy Brenson" and "Teena Ray"." Could we have a source/sources for this?
- Added source from Chicago Tribune. If you want another source, I have one.
- "In the Boys Don't Cry commentary contained on the 2000 and 2009 DVD release of the film, director Kimberly Peirce states that she admired the way Brandon behaved towards women, especially the good will and generosity he showed them." Why do we need this?
- We don't. I'm not sure why it's there. I removed it.
- "Peirce began working on a concept for the film and gave it the working title Take It Like a Man." Reference?
- Added ref from Political Film Society.
- "Peirce co-wrote the screenplay with Andy Bienen. They worked together for a year and a half on the final drafts and made sure they did not "mythologize" Brandon; the aim was to keep him as human as possible." Reference?
- The Salon ref covers this. I added it.
- "at her home" Whose home?
- Tisdel's home. Fixed that up.
- "Peirce also interviewed Tisdel's mother. She also interviewed" Repetition
- Done.
- "Much factual information was incorporated into Boys Don't Cry, including Nissen being an arsonist, and the games of chicken and joy riding that were a common pastime of the real Lotter, Nissen, and Brandon." Reference? Also, "games of chicken" and "joy riding" may be unfamiliar terms- links?
- Added a ref and removed some.
- "The LGBT community was highly interested in the project because of all the publicity the murder had received." I don't like the fact that this is sourced to Pierce. If you don't have a third-party source, perhaps you could clarify that this was Pierce's claim.
- I made it clear that this was Peirce's claim.
- We do have a better picture of Sevigny- are you attached to that one for some reason?
Question: Were you thinking of File:Chloë Sevigny in Austin.jpg?
- You use the word "pants" a few times- is this not a little informal?
- Changed it to trousers.
- "Peirce had envisioned only two actors for the role of Lana Tisdel: a young Jodie Foster and Chloë Sevigny, who had prior credits in mostly independent films. Peirce had decided to cast Sevigny based on her impressive performance in The Last Days of Disco (1998).[27] Sevigny had auditioned for the role of Brandon,[28] but Peirce decided that Sevigny would be suited playing Tisdel.[29][30]" This almost reads like three different stories- I think this needs to be restructured.
- It's been restructured. I also added detail and a quote.
- "The film portrays a double murder when in actuality a third person, Phillip DeVine, a black disabled man, was killed at the scene. At the time he had been dating Lana Tisdel's sister, Leslie Tisdel." Is this intended as an example? If so, perhaps "For example, the film portrays a only double murder, when in actuality a third person, Phillip DeVine—a black disabled man—was killed at the scene. At the time, he had been dating Lana Tisdel's sister, Leslie Tisdel."
- Done. Good catch. :)
- "perspective, his imagination, and the way he perceived things" I'm not clear what the difference for the first and last is.
- Done.
- "The bumper-skiing scene was delayed when a police officer, just arriving at a shift change, required that a large lighting crane be moved from one side of the road to the other. The scenes took six hours to shoot and ended up being filmed at sunrise, which resulted in a blue sky in the background." First, I'm not sure what the "shift change" thing is about, second, you refer to the scene even though this scene has not been mentioned yet, and third, I do not know what bumper-skiing is.
- I'm not sure what a "shift change" is either. Once again, I'm not that much of a regular contributor, so I didn't write that. I also clarified what scene that was.
- "A flood gave the cast and crew a "mud bath" and resulted in some of the filming equipment being stuck in mud. Radio wires in some of the scenes conflicted with the sound production. Swank required a stunt double for the scene in which she falls off the back of a truck. Teena's rape scene was given an extended filming time, and Sexton, who portrayed the attacker, walked away in tears afterward." This is just a list of facts.
- Question: I know, but it's all from the same source (the DVD commentary). Any ideas about how to change this?
- You're going to need to do something about that "clarification needed" tag.
- Took it out and removed some of the jargon-y stuff around it.
- Is File:Boysdontcryrollerrinkscene.JPG an artificial combination of four separate screenshots? You can't do that- there's no reason that four screenshots in one JPG is any more acceptable than four separate screenshots. If there were four separate screenshots, people would be opposing based on the excessive use of non-free content.
- Question: I didn't upload that. What exactly should I do? Should I reupload it with just one screenshot?
- "the striking transition shots seen throughout the film" Non-neutral.
- Done.
- "he visual style is often dark, saturated, and raw, depicting the harsh Midwestern United States" Again.
- Done.
- "the violent, emotionally charged scenes" Again (also, repetition of "scene").
- Done.
- "During a very compressed prep period" Colloquial tone
- "She also watched several of her favorite" Who's "she"?
- Peirce. Done.
- "Peirce also used the same shots in the opening roller rink scene (where Brandon pursues his first relationship with a young girl) that were used in The Wizard of Oz (1939) when Dorothy first left her house and entered the land of Oz. The scene consists of a three shot sequence meant to symbolize a metaphoric "entrance to manhood" for Brandon." I'm afraid I don't follow this. Presumably you don't mean that footage from The Wizard of Oz was used, but, if not, I'm unclear on what you do mean.
- No, it's not literally the same shots. I clarified that.
- "Peirce also used the same shots ... backdrop of the city skyline." This is apparently all unsourced.
- There are some sources in there. However, I couldn't find it on some, but it's likely to be on the DVD commentary.
- "Time lapse photography is used in several sequences, most significantly in the scene where Brandon and Lana discuss plans to tell the family that she has "seen him in the full-flesh", and when Lana is seen driving on the highway after Brandon's murder, before the credits appear." Source?
- I couldn't find a source, so I removed it.
- "The Boys Don't Cry soundtrack features a compilation of country and rock music from the film." Unclear. Of course the soundtrack contains music from the film- that's what a soundtrack is? Or do you mean a soundtrack album?
- It's a soundtrack album. I clarified that.
- "1988 country-pop hit" Non-neutral tone
- Done.
- Who performs the "Boys Don't Cry" cover?
- Nathan Larson. Done.
- ""The Bluest Eyes in Texas" was played when Hilary Swank went onstage to receive her Academy Award for Best Actress in 2000." Unsourced. In any case, is this important?
- I added a source. It's not really important, but it'll stay in for now.
- "This summarization strengthens the academic view that the film is about the search for freedom and identity in a society where diversity is rarely accepted" That's a very strange claim. Why would a tagline/advertising campaign strengthen an academic view? What does your source say?
- Removed. See next comment.
- Actually, that's not a reliable source. It's a student essay "published" through something resembling a vanity press. There is no peer review or editorial oversight. Unless the status of the author gives us reason to think otherwise, the source should be removed.
- Okay, I think the material has been removed.
- "is even uttered" Tone.
- Done.
- "and some critics even cite parallels" Tone. What makes you think Herz is a critic?
- Removed that too.
- "Some critics noted that the film was about the illusions often produced by love or a strong relationship." Source? Also, weasel words.
- Not sure where this came from. It's been removed.
- "Critics and academics have attributed Boys Don't Cry's success" You only seem to have one source, here.
- Made it clear that I'm only talking about Halberstam.
- "many commentators" Ditto.
- That sentence got cut out. I also removed a bunch of OR in this section.
- "Critics have called the film a" Again.
- Changed this to Ebert.
- "describing Brandon—heroic and fatally flawed—as this spirit who was murdered when angry townspeople discovered who he really was." Source?
- This was just some shoddy original research making claims about Ebert's statement. I removed it.
- "Brandon yearns for ... critics suggest Boys Don't Cry "raises the broader, widely explored issue of masculinity in crisis"." Is this all sourced to footnote 51 (which is malformed)? Similar tone/plural "critics" problems.
- I completely reformatted this paragraph, removing OR, making the source not malformed, and changing the tone problems.
- "some scholars and authors" Weasel words cited to a single source.
- Done.
- "Boys Don't Cry premiered ... in the United Kingdom." Unsourced paragraph.
- I added a bunch of sources to this paragraph.
- "The film won a variety of awards, with the majority of wins going to Swank for her performance" Swank winning and he film winning are different things? Same mistake made a few times in that paragraph.
- Done.
- "Some critics called the film one of" Again. Weasel words, and "some" implies more than one.
- Not sure where this came from, so I removed it.
- "The performances of Swank and Sevigny were picked out as some of the film's strongest elements, with many critics declaring Swank's performance to be "one of the greatest" in recent years. Swank was considered an immediate favourite to win Best Actress at various film awards, including the 72nd Academy Awards." Unsourced, same issues.
- I sourced the first sentence and removed the second one.
- "Boys Don't Cry became one of the most applauded films of the year." Source?
- This was basically just a restatement of the critical consensus up top, so I removed it.
- "She ended up calling Boys Don't Cry "the best film of the year"." Source?
- Not sure where this came from. I removed it.
- "Emanuel Levy of Variety Magazine ... a place to call home." Source?
- Done. Source was misplaced.
- "Premiere voted" Magazines(?) can't vote.
- Done.
- "The real Lana Tisdel ... Brandon Teena"." Unsourced…
- Added a source from E!.
- The "Awards and nominations" section is completely unsourced.
- Done. This took a couple days, but I decided to split it off into List of accolades received by Boys Don't Cry (film).
- "A DVD version ... different cover art." Unsourced.
- Done.
- "Exact technical ... picture quality." Source?
- Done. Removed it.
- "Swank later apologized, but many transgender activists asserted that she was correct in referring to Teena as a man, as this was the gender in which Teena preferred to live and act." Unsourced. (Unsourced criticism of a living person?)
- Done.
- Your "Moss and Zeavin" source is malformed. I'm not really clear what's being cited.
- Question How is it malformed? It's an essay written in a book that psychoanalyzes various films.
- Your source formatting generally is a little inconsistent, and some information may be missing. This is the kind of thing which needs to be cleaned up before FAC.
- Question I don't see anything. Could you provide me with some specific examples? Thanks.
Response to questions
@BenLinus1214: Hi Ben, I'm glad to see you're putting the work in. I'd recommend that you send the article to peer review and seek a copyeditor if possible before you renominate at FAC. In answer to your particular questions...
- Were you thinking of File:Chloë Sevigny in Austin.jpg? We have a few; see Commons:Category:Chloë Sevigny. File:Chloe Sevigny 2010 crop.png isn't bad.
- I know, but it's all from the same source (the DVD commentary). Any ideas about how to change this? You have to ask if this is important information or just trivia. If the former, it needs to be worked into prose.
- I didn't upload that. What exactly should I do? Should I reupload it with just one screenshot? Well, at the very least, I think that image needs to be removed. If the point can be illustrated with a single screenshot, that would be preferable as per NFCC#3a, but you also have to ask if a non-free image is really required (per NFCC#8).
- How is it malformed? It's an essay written in a book that psychoanalyzes various films. I've adjusted it myself, but commented it out for now- it's not actually cited.
- I don't see anything. Could you provide me with some specific examples? Thanks. There are a lot of problems in this regard. For instance, compare the way the Wood citation in the biblio is formatted to the way the Halberstam source is. Some newspapers have publishers, but others don't. The Jenkins source is incomplete. The Zacharek source looks quite different from others. The Playboy citation isn't really a citation at all. Some dates are formatted differently. Some italics where they probably aren't needed. And so on- you'll need to go through this with a fine-toothed comb. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- On the Chloë Sevigny file: Done.
- On the DVD commentary: I think it's important enough information that I'll work it into prose.
- On the non-free file: I don't really think it's necessary, especially because it cannot be illustrated by a single screenshot. But I do not have deletion powers. Should I nominate it for FfD or what?
- On the "Moss and Zeavin" source: Okay. I think I'll buy the book to see if I can work some info into the themes section.
- Alright, I'll get to that soon. :) BenLinus1214talk 18:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
-
- If you remove the file from the article, a bot will get to it and it will be deleted as an orphaned non-free image. Concerning the book, hold off ordering it for now (if you haven't already!) and I'll have a closer look. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll get to that soon. Also, seeing your edit summary, I'm pretty sure that it's a reliable source: It was published under the supervision of The International Journal of Psychoanalysis and edited by Glen Gabbard. I haven't ordered it--but in what way will you take a closer look? Thanks again, BenLinus1214talk 22:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- @BenLinus1214: Quite right- I was thinking aloud (or maybe revealing my own biases...). I can access the book; email me and I'll send you across the article. That'll save you some money and time! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I've sent that email across. BenLinus1214talk 22:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @BenLinus1214: Replied, hope it's helpful. Just a note that I have a lot on at the moment, so may be unable to quickly reply if you are seeking further input from the article. I am, of course, happy to offer advice, you may just have to wait for it. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I've sent that email across. BenLinus1214talk 22:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @BenLinus1214: Quite right- I was thinking aloud (or maybe revealing my own biases...). I can access the book; email me and I'll send you across the article. That'll save you some money and time! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll get to that soon. Also, seeing your edit summary, I'm pretty sure that it's a reliable source: It was published under the supervision of The International Journal of Psychoanalysis and edited by Glen Gabbard. I haven't ordered it--but in what way will you take a closer look? Thanks again, BenLinus1214talk 22:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- If you remove the file from the article, a bot will get to it and it will be deleted as an orphaned non-free image. Concerning the book, hold off ordering it for now (if you haven't already!) and I'll have a closer look. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Animal Rights Without Liberation at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
- Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
- Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
- LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 May 2015
- Special report: FDC candidates respond to key issues
- News and notes: "Inspire" grant-making campaign concludes, grantees announced
- Featured content: The amorous android and the horsebreeder; WikiCup round two concludes
- Traffic report: The grim ship reality
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello from the team at Featured article review!
We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.
Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.
Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 May 2015
- Foundation elections: WMF Board candidates share their views with the Signpost
- In the media: Grant Shapps story continues; Wikipedia's "leftist ties"
- Featured content: Four first-time featured article writers lead the way
- Traffic report: Round Two
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
DYK nomination of The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge
Hello! Your submission of The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 May 2015
- News and notes: A dark side of comedy: the Wikipedia volunteers cleaning up behind John Oliver's fowl jokes
- From the editor: Your voice is needed: strategic voting in the WMF election
- In the media: Jimmy Wales accepts Dan David Prize
- WikiProject report: Cell-ebrating molecular biology
- Arbitration report: Editor conduct the subject of multiple cases
- Featured content: Puppets, fungi, and waterfalls
- Traffic report: Inner Core
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
DYK:Dimension 5 (film)
Thank you for your suggestions. I was afraid the hook wasn't going to pass, or that the plot wasn't enough expansion. This is an extremely hard film to find references for, even with all the Star Trek and James Bond alumni present. Is it possible to change my hook if I can't source this one better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkwell765 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Inkwell765: A new hook with a better reference would certainly be considered. I can appreciate the difficulty in finding sources about this kind of thing- I suspect there will be material out there, but a lot of it may be in specialist publications. A quick Google Books search suggests that it is fairly widely mentioned. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I may have another hook. It seems 5 cast members have been on Star Trek. And three of them were on the original pilot. Hunter, Lormer, Phillips. I just need to find a reference. Inkwell765 (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed my hook. The ref should be good. A book I've had for over 30 years! Inkwell765 (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)