Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Changeling (film)/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 23:51, 26 April 2009 [1].

Changeling (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Steve T • C 12:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! I'm happy to present my first FAC submission—Changeling (film)—for your appraisal, believing it meets all the featured article criteria. It's a shame the film itself will likely be remembered as a marginal one as far as Clint Eastwood's career goes, but its atypical development and the forthrightness of several people involved in the production provided more than enough information to craft a fascinating article. I hope you enjoy reading it. Dan Dassow (talk · contribs) also made significant contributions that should not go unrecognised, and the advice of Erik (talk · contribs) has been invaluable. To pre-empt the question, "what makes the following sources reliable?" I've taken the time to provide rationales for those most likely to attract attention:

  • Comments -
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return.
  • You've covered all the sites I would have questioned above, but I'll point out I am on the fence about the news:ref.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, www.huffingtonpost.com, and the www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com sites, but willing to let other reviewers decide for themselves.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it became a sticking point for others, the newsgroup could probably go without any great loss to the article; the section already states something about looking for other directors after Howard stepped down. The others would be a bigger loss, but I'm happy to see what kind of response they get. Thanks, Steve T • C 16:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the abbreviation point, at first I thought you meant those in the article body, but you mean the references, right? The only ones I can find are BAFTA, AMC, BBC, MTV and EMAP. All these appear to be the names by which these organisations are most commonly known. I've expanded BAFTA, but do you think the others require the same? Steve T • C 00:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd at least go with AMC network. MTV and BBC are pretty well known under those names, but most folks aren't going to recognize EMAP, so it should probably be expanded also. The idea is to keep from forcing your readers to click through to another article just to figure out what the ref's publisher is. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. Thanks, Steve T • C 00:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

images In the main, a great job getting non-free content, in what is a particularly difficult genre. I would however I oppose the use of File:Changeling_closing_sequence.png in the article, per WP:NFCC#8 and FAC#3 Fasach Nua (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Mind if I ask why you feel it fails those criteria particularly? If it just needs a stronger rationale, please let me know. If it's totally irredeemable, I need to know that too. Thanks again, Steve T • C 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text beside it is well written, the significance of the scene is explained well, I just dont think the image is needed to understand what the text is referring to, failing WP:NFCC#8. I give you 10/10 for effort, it's well worked into the article, it was obviously a considered desciion to include it, I just dont think it can ever be justified in terms of nfcc, no matter how hard you try. The free images are great but this non-free component lets down the article, having said that I wouldn't be heart broken if I was over-ruled, but the oppose stands, but this is not a !vote, and I could be wrong Fasach Nua (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve wrote the "Closing sequence" section some time before including the screenshot, and I had no real impression of the scene in reading the section at the time. When he included the screenshot, I found myself re-reading the section and looking back and forth between the text and the image. I found the image to be significant as a visual aid for the section. Readers, unlike you, will not have the image locked in their heads, so what can they really envision in their mind's eye? The section describes different aspects of the shot, including filming, visual effects, and themes (Chinatown), and I think the image's omission would be detrimental. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erik has provided a shorter and clearer explanation of the image's usefulness than I was going to (thanks!), so I'll limit myself to saying that I've decided not to remove the image for now, unless significant further opposition presents itself. Thanks for your comments and for taking the time to provide a full answer to my request for clarification. All the best, Steve T • C 08:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like Fasach Nua, I do not think the image is needed; it is either showing something that needs no further illustration, or failing to help visualize what could need better explanation. The failings of this imagery could probably be blamed on the film's setting. Based on its FUR, caption, and text, the image is to illustrate "specific visual effects described in the article", which I take to mean special effects. Unfortunately, such effects these days are of photo-realistic standards, and people these days (let alone the future) readily know what these effects entail (seamless replacement of on-screen elements with digital effects); as the effects are of "real-life" structures (unlike non-fictional settings that require a different mindset to imagine), readers do not need further illustration (they have a fair idea of how old buildings and cars look like). Regarding the Chinatown comparison, unless the reader has watched the older film or has seen a similar screenshot from it, how do they gain further understanding from this Changeling screenshot (and I for one have not watched Chinatown)? It would be akin to telling someone that car A resembles car B, when the listener has seen neither car. What perks me as a possible FUR is the mention of what the scene should convey (although I feel this image would still be lacking in this aspect): "scene should allow room for emotional reflection." However, it is Michael Owens's (what is his exact role?) idea, and does not seem to be earning any notable comments or critiques from reviewers; hence such a purpose and accompanying rationale would be of insignificance. On its own, the image is just a photo of a street. Jappalang (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I'm going to think about it for a little while, and if I can't think of an adequate rebuttal, or provide good secondary sources (Owens was the VFX supervisor) that go to the "emotional reflection" point, I'll likely go ahead and remove it. Thanks again, Steve T • C 10:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An entire section is devoted to the design of the specific closing shot of this particular film, and the stringency that denies the visual aid for the section is appalling. It is easy to shrug off the screenshot once you are exposed to it; are you telling me that if you never saw an image for this section, you'd be okay with the lack of an illustration? I saw the section before and after the image, and it helps this particular reader to see it. Please remember that your claim of familiarity with "old buildings" is very American-centric; this film made its splash in territories outside the United States. In addition, the section breaks down the details of the particular shot. If readers saw the shot by themselves, your "photorealistic" argument is exactly why it benefits them to see what is computer generated (streetcars) and what is not (downtown set extension). There are very few film articles on Wikipedia that have such an intricate breakdown of a film's visual effects (they are instead riddled with "fun" screenshots like here), so as someone who proposed and drafted WP:FILMNFI to improve standards, I am amazed that this screenshot still cannot meet them. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for chipping in with such eloquent defences for the image's inclusion. The application of fair-use use for images is an area I'm not that familiar with, which is why I've been keen to defer to the judgement of others in this particular case, and probably why I've been hesitant to mount a determined defence myself. Everyone in this discussion has made coherent points, both pro- and anti-inclusion. The main issue seems to be that whatever is in the image may already have been adequately explained in the text, i.e. that it doesn't aid our readers' understanding. This seems to be a bit of a judgement call; after all, doesn't a strict interpretation essentially prevent the inclusion of any fair use image? I would think it difficult to find any that can't be described via the text in some way, and where we draw the line does seem to be rather fuzzily-defined, largely down to individual preference. So perhaps only someone with the experience of reading the article before and after the image's inclusion is able to say for certain whether it enhanced their understanding. I'm wondering if either of the two editors who don’t believe the image is necessary would be able to point me in the direction of one they've come across recently (preferably in a film, or related media, article) that they feel does meet the criteria; this might give me better understanding of the issues related to this image. Many thanks, Steve T • C 11:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that ones perspective on whether to include the image is driven by whether they are primarily a Visual learning or audio learner. I believe that Wikipedia articles should in generally address both styles of learning and thus favor the inclusion of the image. --Dan Dassow (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Illustrating old buildings is not what the picture was meant for as fair use. A public domain picture of such buildings would be in a better position to do so. (As pointed above, the image page specifically states "specific visual effects described in the article".) American-centric? I am not an American, but there have been enough TV documentaries, books, films, and school lessons (history, geography) that I have at least a passing familiarity with 18th-20th century local, American and European architecture. It is not unreasonable to expect that other readers would have similar qualifications (we are certainly not asking readers to visualize Byzantine architecture). Steve, you are right in that it is a judgment call (as most of what FAC is when subjective measurements are called into question). I can only say that based on the rationale (and purpose) given, the picture fails to present a strong case for fair use in my opinion. On what images I think are qualify for fair use, these are a few of the most recent I have seen: File:Lion Turtle Sage02d.jpg in Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle (key: art style), File:Bigissue.jpg in Street newspaper (key: definition of "professional" quality that brought dissension). You can also read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noël Coward and Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek: The_Motion Picture/archive1 for my opinions on their fair use images. Jappalang (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though the decision might ultimately be to remove the image, what I do recognise is that the "Purpose of use" is very poorly described. I've rewritten this with two specific points in mind: #1 The filmmakers' introducing the shot to create an atmosphere of "emotional reflection" for audiences, an intent that I don't think can be easily conveyed with words alone. #2 The provision of specific reference points for readers when studying the corresponding article text, which breaks down the details of how the shot was imagined, constructed, which elements are computer-generated, etc. Steve T • C 11:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: out-of-date. Steve T • C 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A better, more comprehensive FUR is forthcoming. I'll drop a note here after I've had a chance to write it up and add the required text to the article and image page. Steve T • C 15:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both the accompanying text and the "purpose of use" have now been substantially rewritten; I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Many thanks, Steve T • C 22:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the rationale is better; I suggest noting that the emotional intent is guided by the use of perspective and activity (human and vehicular) in the image. By the way, what do you mean by "to add Massive extras."? Note that the oppose is Fasach Nua's and is his to strike; my comments here are to explain why the image could fail the criteria for fair-use. Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Massive is right, though you're not the first to question it, so I'll have a stab at making it clearer that these are digital extras; I'll also do as you suggest and add a little more to the purpose of use before contacting Fasach Nua for reappraisal. Many thanks for your help, Steve T • C 07:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Linked Massive in the section; it's a little close to the previous instance of the link, but I think that's acceptable to resolve the ambiguity. Steve T • C 21:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fasach Nua contacted. Steve T • C 07:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments dealt with
  • Comment: What's the purpose of the real background information to the murders and such? I feel like we should only need an overview, and such detail after the principal sections that it relates to (the plot, writing, development) seems odd. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closure? :) A two-hour film, no matter how accurate the writer claims it to be, can only ever be an abridgement of the facts in a case of this scope. I felt it important to fill in some of those gaps for the interested reader, to provide that wider context, maybe see where it differed from the history (e.g. Sarah Louise Northcott), and—perhaps most importantly—tell what happened to the main protagonists after the film ended. Steve T • C 13:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh? You mean the film wasn't completely true?! :P I dunno, I just feel like since it's just a straightforward summary (leaving the compare and contrast bits to readers, rather than spelling it out) it would make more sense trimmed down and stuck before development. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The placement is definitely something we've toyed with. Previous versions had it adjacent to a "Premise" section, others put it right at the end. I'll take a look at alternative positions again. As for trimming it down, you make a good point, but if you don't mind I'm going to hold off for now on making any major edits to the section; it's the first day, and others might have a different opinion to both of us. If it does seem like a shorter section is called for, the two subsections can be merged quite easily, with the first subsection the main casualty as it repeats a lot of information from the "Plot" section. Steve T • C 16:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've experimented with several different formats. Here is the section as currently written and positioned, this is the same text positioned just after the "Plot" section, this is a trimmed version positioned as it is currently, and this is the shortened version positioned after "Plot". My preference is, as you'd expect, the first, but comments and suggestions are more than welcome. Steve T • C 00:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • My preference is for the last one. I think it makes the most logical sense to immediately contrast the plot with what really happened, especially since the development is based on this historical happening, and the trimmed version still gets the important gist (and differences from the movie). --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Seeing the current version of the text placed just after the "Plot" section has made me realise how redundant most of that information in the first subsection is. Yours is an excellent suggestion; so implemented. Thanks, Steve T • C 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found it strange that the film's star Angelina Jolie is not mentioned until the end of the second paragraph of the lead section, despite starring in the film. Seems like she should be mentioned in the same breath as Eastwood and Straczynski (at least in their neighborhood), and certainly before Ron Howard and Brian Grazer. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you seen that infobox poster image? She's about to devour that poor boy! I definitely wouldn't want to upset her, so I'll tweak accordingly. Do you think she should be added in the same breath as director and writer, or simply named in brackets after "woman"? Steve T • C 21:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you saw this, too?! I think that it may be best to include her in the opening sentence ("starring Angelina Jolie") and then mention "(Jolie)" beside "woman". It feels like pushing a square peg through a round hole to first mention her in the midst of the premise. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't see that link! Though I'm glad I wasn't the only one to think that about the image. I've tried Jolie in the lead sentence, but I'm not sure if it doesn't look a bit cumbersome. A solution might be to remove Straczynski and introduce him at the beginning of the second paragraph. What do you think? Steve T • C 08:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that to include Jolie successfully, you need to rewrite the first few sentences with a different tone. For example, "...and written by J. Michael Straczynski. The film stars Angelina Jolie as Christine Collins, a real-life figure from 1920s Los Angeles who is reunited with her missing son—only to realize he is an impostor." Not the best example, but the inclusion requires some more shuffling around. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've nailed it. Now you can see why I've had to make over 700 edits to this article. :) Thanks for the pointers. Steve T • C 14:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Edited link. Steve T • C 21:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've never been a fan of quote boxes in the reception section, they always seem to unnecessarily stand out as if these particular reviewers were better than the others. What doesn't help its cause is the fact that there are 2 boxes, and they are both praising the film (or the actress). There isn't a balance in them. Though I would personally like to see them go altogether, if they stay I think one should be something that doesn't praise the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose I included the quote boxes so the reader wasn't confronted by a large wall of review text; towards the bottom of the article there wasn't really any scope to include images, so I thought the boxes would break it up somewhat. I'm not sure what you mean by both praising the film; the second box (Dargis) is negative. Steve T • C 07:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, you're right to single that second quote out; long after putting it in, I can now see it's not immediately obvious that it's supposed to be negative—at the time the wider context of Dargis' overwhelmingly negative review was forefront in my mind. Later on I'll see if I can find a more appropriate and clearly negative quote to use. I've also reinserted the image size on the closing sequence image; I've tried it on several different screen sizes; due to the aspect ratio, it becomes almost useless as a reference for the purpose Erik describes above when at thumbnail size. Do you have an opinion on the strength of the fair-use claim, btw? I think it's solid, but the more opinions I get the better I can judge its appropriateness. Thanks, Steve T • C 07:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't looked at fair use. I just did passing maintenance on things, but I do plan to read the whole article and provide a more in-depth review (looks good from the naked eye).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looked at it, and it seems alright. I mean, you cannot really tell it's digital...but I guess that's the point.;) Um, this line--"Owens constructed the scene by first building the digital environment around the live action in the foreground. He then added the background before filling the scene with vehicles and people.[1]"--is a little confusing. The first sentence sounds like he built (I added "digital", so please correct if that was wrong, as it wasn't clear if he built a real set or a fake one) it and it was added, but then the second sentence says that it was added later. If the second sentence is correct, then should it not be something more like, "Owens first built a digital environment for the live action..."?? That also brings up another question I had. Did he create an environment for the foreground, or did a create an environment for the background which was placed against a live action foreground"? It currently reads, confusingly, like the stuff he created was for the foreground. If the LA was in the foreground, then I would drop the "in the" and change it to "...live action foreground scene". IDK, I need clarification on what it's trying to say.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looking back at the cites, I think foreground action was filmed, then Owens added the foreground digital environment, then the background digital shots (matte paintings, skyline), then last of all populated the scene with people, vehicles, etc. I've tweaked the wording to make this a little clearer. Let me know if it isn't. :) Steve T • C 14:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Much clearer now. I have some school stuff to work on, but when that's done I'll try and schedule some time to go through the whole article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Here are the things I found. Some are questions about what a statement is saying; some are structural things; and some are general opinions on possible rewrites. If you disagree with anything, just leave me an explanation and I'll be cool with that.

Lead
  • "Changeling explores female disempowerment, political corruption, child endangerment and the effects of violence." – The effects of violence on what? If it's just in general, ok, but everything else was so specific that I thought maybe they were looking at the effects of violence on a particular population.
    • The violence depicted in Changeling consisted of police executing suspects rather than bringing them into them in and placing "troublesome" women in psychopathic wards. --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, is this supposed to be just a generalized violence, or do you think saying specifically "effects of police violence on society" - or something like that would help better clarify exactly what violence is referring to?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lest I forget, the other violence depicted is against the kidnapped boys and Gordon Stewart Northcott being hanged for his crime.--Dan Dassow (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, the wording is generalised because it covers several bases. However, "repercussions of violence" might fit better with what we're trying to convey. Steve T • C 08:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Straczynski learned of the case from a contact at Los Angeles City Hall." – What case? The Chicken Coop case, or Collins boy case?
    • Straczynski initially found out about the Walter Collins kidnapping case and Christine Collins being placed in a psychopathic ward. He found out about Gordon Stewart Northcott and the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders after he started his research.--Dan Dassow (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The addition of "Collins" seems to have nicely clarified this point, thanks. Steve T • C 07:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Straczynski learned of the case from a contact at Los Angeles City Hall. He spent a year researching the historical record, which he said shaped 95% of the script." – You could probably turn this into a compound sentence, which would make the whole statement a bit stronger and less short winded (just an opinion).
    • I've tried several ways of phrasing this throughout the article's lifetime; of the choices, I think this is the best fit to avoid a snake. Steve T • C 07:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about, "After learning of the Collins case from a contact at Los Angeles City Hall, Straczynski spent a year researching historical records that would ultimately shape 95% of his script." ?? Just throwing that out there for shits-n-giggles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The shooting script was Straczynski's first draft and his first produced film screenplay." – Possible rewrite as, "Changling was the first screenplay of Stracznski's that was produced, and Eastwood chose to film his first draft." – Or something like that. The way it is now kind, IDK, reads funny (To Me). Maybe it doesn't to anyone else.
  • "Visual effects supplemented scenes with skylines, backdrops and digital extras." – Should it be, "Visual effects were used to supplement the skyline and backdrops in certain scenes, as well as insert digital extras"? I say this because part of it says that visual effects replace skylines and backdrops, but it doesn't explain what they are replacing them with. The final part suggests that digital extras are being supplemented for visual effects, instead of the visual effects being used to create those digital extras…if that makes sense.
    • I'm not entirely sure what you mean. "Supplement" here is used to indicate an addition or enhancement (e.g. "Vitamins supplemented his meagre diet.") Are you thinking of "supplant"? Steve T • C 08:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No no, that's what I was thinking. It just sounded odd when using the term "with". The way it reads, visual effects were enhancing scenes that already have skylines, backdrops and digital extras. But, I think the meaning you are going for is, "Visual effects supplemented scenes by adding skylines, backdrops, and digital extras."
        • The "by adding" makes it sound as if an entity called "Visual effects" was the one to add skylines, backdrops and digital extras. I think the problem here is that I recast the sentence some time ago to eliminate as many redundant words as possible. In doing so, I also changed it from active to passive. If I switch it back, that should eliminate the problem. Steve T • C 14:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've now recast the paragraph in a way that clarifies the effects additions. Steve T • C 20:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eastwood's customary laid-back directing style extended to Changeling's shoot; actors and crew noted the calmness of the set and short working days." – if this is so common, is it really necessary for the lead paragraphs?
    • Included because a good portion of the "Filming" section is devoted to this theme; as the project developed I noticed more and more people, both involved and uninvolved with the production, commenting on the way he directed this. So it seemed odd to devote a whole paragraph to it in the article body yet not mention it in the lead. Steve T • C 20:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Changeling premiered at the 61st Cannes Film Festival on May 20, 2008, where it met with critical acclaim." – You know some of the rules better than I do, but should this be "…where it was met with critical acclaim." It almost sounds, currently, like it met with some individual named critical acclaim.
    • "met with" is already in the past tense, so adding "was" would be redundant. I can see your point, however, so I've recast the sentence. Steve T • C 20:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It performed modestly at the North American box office, but did well internationally, earning $111.5 million worldwide." – What's "modestly"? How good is "well"? It might be best to just state the facts of the numbers (maybe in tangent with the budget of the film).
    • Box Office was $35.7M (US) and $75.8M (Foreign) for a total of $111.5M according to Box Office Mojo. Since the film is still in being shown in a number of countries, the foreign total may increase. --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So...is that agreement that the numbers would be better? This isn't my article (i.e., I'm not the primary editor so I don't want to make dramatic changes to things without consulting first and this, though not huge, certainly isn't a simple copy edit).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To clarify, there are a couple of minor results left to add in, unlikely to tally more than a few hundred thousand. To answer the other point, that the film did middling business in the US and better elsewhere isn't my opinion, it's cited in the "Box office" section. Do you think the comment on how the film was perceived to have done is inappropriate? Numbers alone can be meaningless to someone unfamiliar with how much of a return makes a hit/miss. Steve T • C 07:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm generally not a fan of introducing perspective on that in the lead itself, because you aren't going to go into detail about how "CEO of Studio felt," or "Industry analyst say...". I think, in the least, if someone else is using those terms it may be best to put those sources in the lead next to them, because it's a subjective opinion (even if it's professional). IMPO.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The sources use "middling", "so-so" and words to that effect ("modest" is my paraphrase). I previewed a direct quote in the lead, but it doesn't look great with the informal language, so I've tweaked the statement to present fact only. Steve T • C 20:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • "Reverend Gustav Briegleb (Malkovich) publicizes Christine's plight and rails against the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) for its incompetence, corruption and the extrajudicial punishment meted out by its "Gun Squad", led by Chief James E. Davis (Feore)." – Is there a better word to use than "rails", maybe something more commonly used? I just think that people rarely think of "rails" when they think of protesting or attacking someone verbally.
    • I personally like rails, since it evokes the images of a minister making comments from the pulpit. However, it is not common usage. Other possibilities would be severely criticizes, castigates, excoriate, scolds, reprimands, lambastes and chastens. --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several months later, the LAPD tells Christine that her son has been found alive." – Several months after…her son goes missing, the reverend starts publicly bashing the police? Since it isn't clear when Gustav learned about the boy, it's not really clear which events these months proceed. To clarify, if Gustav learns right when it happens that's different than if he had learned a couple of months later.
  • "After Christine confronts Jones with physical discrepancies between "Walter" and her son, Jones arranges for a doctor to visit her." – Medical doctor? Psychiatrist? There's lots of doctors, so this might need clarification, especially given the following statement about her being unfit.
  • "A newspaper prints a story implying Christine is an unfit mother. Briegleb tells Christine the story was planted by police to discredit her." – These might work better as one sentence separated by a comma and a conjunction of some sort.
  • "Christine tells her story to the press; as a result, Jones sends her to Los Angeles County Hospital's "psychopathic ward"." – Do they refer to it as the "psychopathic ward", is that why it's in quotations? Otherwise, you could drop them and just use the typical name "psychiatric ward".
    • The term "psychopathic ward" is used in the original news accounts and in the film. The current usage is "psychiatric ward".--Dan Dassow (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those issues that weren't taken care of last night are now covered. The only outstanding comment is the use of "rails", which I think presents a specific enough visual that I'd like to keep the word, if possible. Thanks, Steve T • C 14:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • "Straczynski had spent twenty years working in television, writing and producing shows such as Babylon 5 and Jeremiah, and felt he needed a break from the medium,[4] so he spent a year researching the Collins case through archived criminal, county courthouse, city hall and city morgue records." – Could probably simplify this to just: "After twenty years working in television, Stracynski felt he need a break from the medium, so he…" We really don't need the extra bit about those specific shows.
  • "After Howard stepped down, it looked as if the film would not be made, despite admiration for the script in the industry (a situation Straczynski said he had "gotten very Zen" about)." – The last bit, in parentheses, seems unnecessary. If this was his article, I could understand it.
  • "Straczynski said five A-list directors were interested." – Do we know who these A-listers are? If not, then it's probably vague enough that it can be removed without much harm.
  • "Eastwood said his memories of growing up during the period meant whenever a history dealing with it landed in his hands, he "redoubled his attention" upon it." – This sounds odd. "whenever a history dealing with it…"? Is it supposed to be, "whenever a script dealing with the history lands in his hands"? I'm also not sure if there should be a comma after that, because if you remove the dependent clause the beginning is a fragment.
Writing
  • "Straczynski described specific visual cues in the screenplay, such as in the scene of Sanford Clark's confession to Detective Ybarra. Clark's flashback to a falling axe is juxtaposed with the crumbling ash from Ybarra's cigarette." – this is a little confusingly worded. I think I understand what it's saying, but it kind of just jumps in on the scene, with no introduction. Maybe something as simple as "In the scene, …" would make all the difference. IDK.
  • "In common with most of the cues, Eastwood shot the scene as written." – Is "common" the right word here? I've never heard the phrase "In common with".
  • "Among the changes Straczynski made from the historical record was to omit Northcott's mother—who participated in the killings—from the story. He also depicted Northcott's trial as taking place in Los Angeles, though it was held in Riverside." – Shouldn't this be up near the top of the section, where you first talk about the changes the writer made (i.e. when he had to embellish some of the psycho ward scenes)?
    • I've incorporated some, but not all of these recommendations. On the first point, it already says "such as in the scene..." but I've made it slightly clearer. And while I think we're safe with "in common with", I've simplified it to "As with". I've just spent a few minutes previewing different places for the mother and trial details, but they don't seem to fit particularly well in that second paragraph, either before or after the psychiatric ward details. I think it's probably OK as it is, as the section as a whole discusses little changes here and there. Thanks, Steve T • C 13:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That will have to do it for tonight. My eyes are shot. It's been a good read so far. Most of my comments are really just opinionated stuff. I stopped with the Writing section. I'll continue more tomorrow at some point.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Good work Steve. I'll try and finish reading the rest of the article tonight so you can look over the rest of my review tomorrow (or late tonight if you're still up).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks; to stop other potential contributors' being put off from commenting due to the size of the above, do you mind if I fold the resolved issues into a collapsible? Steve T • C 20:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment - I was reading the recent changes and noticed this: "After the authorities released Collins, she won the second of two lawsuits; though Jones was ordered to pay Collins $10,800, he never did." - Nothing about lawsuits is mentioned previously in this section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aye; I think an earlier version said something along the lines of (from memory): "After the authorities released Collins, she sued the police department and won the second of two lawsuits; Jones was ordered..." In my perhaps over-zealous redundancy drive before this FAC I merged the two ideas, believing it put across the same information in fewer words. If it doesn't, it can be clarified with "After the authorities released Collins, she sued the city and won the second of two lawsuits..."—though I do think it implicit that if she won a lawsuit she must have sued someone. Steve T • C 22:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It just comes out of the blue, with no context because you don't know who she was suing. You see "Jones", but they are not identified until that point. Since the cast info isn't until later, and you identify in the lead that some characters are actual and some are composites, it's hard to tell who was real and who wasn't until later in the article. If that makes any sense.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed accordingly; I didn't anticipate that moving and trimming the section would create that gap. Thanks, Steve T • C 22:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Last comments, same shtick as before. I’ve noticed that you’ve made corrections while I was doing this review so ignore anything you’ve already taken care of.
Casting
  • How come some of the cast has plot descriptions and some do not? I don’t generally like “cast lists”, because they tend to breed unnecessary plot information (i.e. over time editors come in and add more to the description). Because of the size of the article, I think you could (and I’m just throwing this out there...it’s your preference as to what you want) possibly cut all of the plot info and condense everything into basic prose paragraphs. You’ve identified the actors in the plot, so you could save the space from “Jolie plays Collins”; eliminate redundant character plot descriptors (e.g., Jones is a police detective...), and be left with casting information and character characterizations. Just a thought on how to cut some redundancies and cut back on the size of the article – if they aren’t identified in the plot, then you can still identify them in prose format, it’s just a way to remove the ones you already have covered in the plot in fine detail.
  • ” She said the most difficult part was relating to the character, because Collins was relatively passive throughout. ” – I sure you mean “throughout the film”, but I think it’s best to either say that, or just drop the “throughout” since “relatively passive” suggests that at some point she wasn’t passive.
  • ” Donovan expressed his fascination and disbelief at the power Jones wielded in the city, and at his ability to have Collins committed based on his word alone. ” – My WORD says the comma is not supposed to be there. IMPO, I think it’s ok. Just pointing it out.
  • ”He worked around scheduling conflicts with television series Generation Kill, which he was filming in Africa at the same time. ” – Should there be a “the” after “with”? (Sorry if I don’t make any corrections myself. I’m at work and have to limit my Wiki editing)
  • ” Hahn is a defense attorney known for taking high-profile cases. He represents Collins and in doing so plants the seeds of the overturning of "Code 12" internments—used to jail or commit those deemed difficult or an inconvenience. These were often women committed to the psychopathic ward without due process. ” – My only problem with this is that more than half isn’t about Hahn, but Code 12. Obviously you need to explain what Code 12 is, but I could have sworn that was done in one of the early sections. If not, then it’s ok...but it kind of leads back to my original point about the prose paragraphs, since this section is supposed to be about Hahn and/or Pierson, but deals more with what that law actually is.
    • Implemented most of these, and restructured the section to present it in a less space-hogging way. I've also taken out the duplicate plot information, save for that about Code 12; this is referenced later in the article and doesn't fit well if introduced elsewhere. Steve T • C 23:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did a mock format that would condense the section more. It eliminates the half prose half bullet, and makes it flow better IMO. Just presenting an option.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Much better than my hybrid version! That was above and beyond, Bignole. Thank you. Steve T • C 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Locations and design
  • ” Location scouting revealed that many of the older buildings in Los Angeles had been torn down, including the entire neighborhood where the real Collins lived. ” – Maybe we don’t need “real”? I cannot think of why someone would confuse the film Collins with the real Collins in this instance.
  • ” Suburban areas in the nearby cities of San Dimas, San Bernardino and Pasadena doubled for 1920s Los Angeles instead. ” – “Instead” might be redundant.
  • ” It was used for interiors and exteriors, and stood in for some adjacent areas. ” – Used “stood in” twice, might think of a way to change it up.
  • ” The production sourced around 150 motor cars dating from 1918 to 1928 from vintage car collectors throughout Southern California. ” – Should a comma be inserted after 1928? It reads a little off without a pause.
  • ” The visual effects team retouched shots of Los Angeles City Hall—on which construction was completed in 1928—to remove weathering and newer surrounding architecture. ” – Possibly replace “retouched” since you just used it in the sentence prior.
    • Edited section to incorporate the recommendations, save "instead"; I think something is needed to link the idea to the previous sentence (all the older buildings had been torn down... those cities were used instead). Steve T • C 19:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Principal Photography
  • ” The budget was $55 million.[42] Universal Pictures financed and distributed the film. ” – Could you merge these two, maybe into something like ”Universal Pictures financed the film for $55 million, and also distributed it. ” ... Just a thought because the first sentence just seems to plain.
  • ”Ron Howard and Imagine Entertainment partner Brian Grazer produced, alongside Robert Lorenz and Eastwood for Malpaso Productions. Gary D. Roach and Joel Cox edited the film, and Tim Moore and Jim Whitaker were executive producers.[43][44] ” – Is all of this necessary? It seems to just reiterate what’s in the infobox, and since you really don’t talk about any of these people in this section I wonder if the article would be hurt if it was removed.
  • ”...the town hall—at the time one of the tallest buildings in the city, the city center—which was one of the busiest in the world, and the "perfectly functioning" Pacific Electric Railway—the distinctive red streetcars of which feature closely in two scenes. ” – Is there a way to break this up? Emdashes are great, but should be used sparingly, and there are 3 in this sentence alone. Also, “...tallest buildings in the city, the city center” is a little clumsily written. The “city center” part seems to stick out as not belonging.
  • ” To improve the pacing, he also cut scenes of a political nature focusing on Reverend Briegleb. ” – Could probably simplify this down to “..cut scenes involving Reverend Briegleb”, since we do not know why he cut those political natured ones, it’s best to just keep it simple.
  • ” He said too often a story aimed to finish at the end of a film, whereas he preferred to leave it open. ” – I had to read this several times before I realized exactly what he was saying. Is there a way to reword this so that it’s easier to comprehend? Maybe it was just me.
Cinematography
  • ” He used Kodak Vision 500T 5279 film stock because it provided improved blacks. Stern used Panavision C-Series lenses, with neutral density filters mounted behind to allow adjustment of the F-number. ” – Could probably condense and combine these two into one compound sentence, since they are strongly connected.
  • ” Stern lit the tiles from above to produce a soft, warm light that was intended to evoke the period through tones close to antique and sepia. ” – Think we should possibly link “sepia”, because I don’t know about you but I have no idea what sepia is. I know from a quick look that there is Sepia (color) and Photographic print toning#Sepia toning.
  • ”Stern used stronger skypans of an intensity not usually used for key lighting to reduce contrasts when applying daytime rain effects, as a single light source tended to produce harder shadows. ” – I think “of an intensity not usually used for key lighting” should be encased in commas, as it’s an extra clarifying point that if removed wouldn’t change the sentence.
    • Covered these points. Not exactly as recommended, but in a way that addresses the issues. Steve T • C 20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Visual Effects
Overview
  • ” The effects work consisted mainly of peripheral additions: architecture, vehicles,[55] crowds and furniture. ” – How come the source is in the middle of the sentence, and there isn’t one at the end? If source 46 is supposed to be referencing the tail end of this sentence then it may be best to place an additional cite at the end of this sentence since half of it goes to one location and half to another.
    • It does look strange. Essentially, the sentence is an amalgam of two near-identical statements from separate sources. Both say that the effects work consisted mainly of peripheral additions, but use different examples: one goes for architecture and vehicles, the other for crowds and furniture. I'm wary of separating a cite from the exact statement, but I think this one survives being moved to the end of the sentence. Steve T • C 20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, other than direct quotes, I don't think there is a hard fast rule about where the citing is placed (e.g., directly next to the paraphrased text, or at the end of the paraphrased text).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Digital Extras
  • ” Massive worked well until this stage; the effects team had to intervene to move the digital pedestrians to avoid having to remove the live-action extras from the shot. ” – I think “had to intervene” is extraneous, and could probably be dropped. Also, you could possibly change “having to remove” to just “removing”.
  • ” To eliminate inaccuracies that develop when creating a digital extra of different proportions to the motion capture performer, CIS sent nine skeleton rigs to House of Moves before work began; consequently, House of Moves had time to properly adapt the rigs to its performers, resulting in motion capture data that required very little editing in Massive. ” – This would probably work the same without the semi-colon, and just using a period. That, and also remove “consequently”. Based on the text before and after, it doesn’t seem to be needed.
  • ”...displacement maps in the air shader were linked to the motion capture and would animate wrinkles in trousers and jackets. ” – Possibly change “and would animate” to simple “to animate”... less words, same meaning. But, you may be turned off by the two “tos” in the sentence. Your choice.
    • Incorporated these with slight variations to retain the intended meaning (e.g. that it was because CIS sent the rigs to House of Moves early that they had time to properly adapt them). Steve T • C 20:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disempowerment of Women
  • ” She said it had as a result been subject to sexist disdain, comparing that with the sexism shown to the women in Changeling and those who vied for high political office in 2008. ” – Is there a way to reword the opening, it’s kind of confusing.
  • ” Miller surmised that attitudes towards independent, career-minded women had not changed significantly in the intervening years: ” – Though there is no concrete rule about it, “towards” is typically an English word, and not an American one (we use “toward”), kind of in the same vain as “amongst” or “beknownst” (see http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/toward.html).
Corruption in political hierarchies
  • ” ...the film also focuses on issues relevant to the modern era through its historical lens. ” – I’ve noticed this before and it occurred to me, should we be saying “modern era”? In 10 years, if Wiki is still around, the “modern era” will be different than it is now..so to speak. Maybe we should say the 2000s? It’s a little funky, but more accurate in the long haul.
    • I've tried several alternatives and none are as elegant, but I do think we're safe with "modern era". That, to me, refers to anything from 20–30 years either side of the now, perhaps longer, especially as the paragraph gives it context by referring to events in Poland in 1980. Essentially, all it's saying is "in your (comparatively recent) lifetime, not the ruddy 1920s". Steve T • C 21:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strategy
  • ” ...until Eastwood made arrangements himself for Changeling's appearance. ” – “himself” is extraneous.
Box office
  • ” By December 5, 2008, the number of theaters dropped to 681, for a return of $34.7M; the end of December saw the number of theaters fall to 125. ” – Is all this necessary? All films eventually circulate out of release, and this seems to be just fluff...unless it can be shown that there was something unique about this particular decline in theaters.
  • ” Releases in major markets in January 2009 included Germany, South Korea and Russia. ” – Where’s the subject in this sentence?
  • Did the film break any records (other than Eastwood’s personal records)?
    • Answers: #1 good point; I was attempting to craft some kind of coherent narrative, but we can stand to lose some of that. #2 fixed. #3 Nope; "performed modestly", remember. :) Link to changes. Steve T • C 21:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
Summary
  • What was the “Top Critics” percentage for Rotten Tomatoes? Is there a particular reason for not including them in the mix? Just curious.
    • No reason, only that the last time I checked it only listed about 5 critics, which at the time I considered too small a sample size for accurate statistics. After that I just forgot. Added. Steve T • C 22:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of, ” and in the United Kingdom 83% of critics listed by Rotten Tomatoes gave Changeling a positive review. ” – I wouldn’t list this. The reason being is that the UK version of RT is the same as the US version, with the exception that that UK version cites a fewer number of the critics than the US version. Thus, it provides a less representative sample of the same critics. At least, last time I checked they were all the same ones.
    • This isn't cited to the uk.rottentomatoes site percentages, but a bona fide news story; it seemed notable enough to mention, as sources that specifically discuss a film's critical consensus tend to be thin on the ground. Steve T • C 22:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source isn't from the UK-RT, but that's where they get their info from (which was 2 days after the release of the film, and thus had not leveled off yet...see links). This is the regular Cream, and this is the UK Cream. You'll note that they're the same critics, the UK just calculates their average based on 12 reviews, whereas the US does 36 of them. The guy says "Tomatometer", so I assumed that's where he got it (as he's quoting the current readings of several other films as well). Now, on th other side (i.e. the non-Cream) the UK has 189 reviews total, which is the same as the US, but I do note that there are some different reviews (with some UK specific reviews present in the UK one). That is a more up-to-date number, which is 61%, and given that most films continue to grow in reviewer numbers will into their third and fourth weeks sometimes (I just recently updated Friday the 13th with another couple of reviews and it's been out since February), I think in the least the 83% was an early, now outdated number. But, I'm just throwing that out there. You've satisfied all my concerns, so I struck the "conditional" part of my support and have relabled this section "Resolved (2)". Great work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”.. —Amy Ryan's excepted—...” Probably easier to just say “except Amy Ryan”.
    • It's the character that Honeycutt is referring to, rather than Ryan. I considered "Carol Dexter excepted" (or "except Carol Dexter"), but being so far from the "Cast" section I thought it might lead to unnecessary back-tracking by the reader to remember who she is. Steve T • C 22:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is there a reason you chose to only use 5 critics’ view points (excluding the onetime usage of Wise at the end) to discussed the critical reception of the film? Don’t get me wrong, I like how you tackled just about every aspect of the film, it just felt like these were the only people that had any thoughts about the movie.
    • Any critics' summary section can only be a sampling; the important part is the consensus, IMO. All the individual critics' remarks are there for are to provide a flavour of the reaction to certain elements. In constructing the section I attempted to include those comments that seemed to represent the reception as a whole to those aspects described. Five main critics, with a couple of individual remarks from others, seemed sufficient for that. Steve T • C 22:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's cool. It's certainly a unique way of approaching it (i.e. first time I've seen it that way).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank concludes my review of the article. I think that was the longest article I have ever read from top to bottom. :D It was rather enjoyable reading everything that they did, so huge applause for that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • A huge thanks for the review; it's helped a lot, and given truth the old FAC cliché about uninvolved parties' being able to spot issues that the primary editor will miss. All the best, Steve T • C 22:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: When I saw a problem with the article I either made the correction or consulted with Steve. I have not actively participated in editing the article since February 23, 2009. I will look through the article in detail and make suggestions as appropriate. --Dan Dassow (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support Providing the issues are dealt with above and minor edits are made I really think this is a brilliant film article. 've had my eye on this for some time and it has now been developed to the level I knew it would reach. I read this earlier - it is very well written and detailed covering the aspects of the film according to our guidelines in a balanced way and is well referenced. Congratulations on this article. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support - I'm going to go ahead and put in my conditional support (since these FACs seem to be closing faster), on the condition that the above comments are addressed (whether by action or rebuttle). Steve has done well so far with addressing all concerns, in a rather timely manner, so I have no problem with giving my conditional support (full upon completion). Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC) (Amended to fully support  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Support A terrific film article. It needs a very light copyedit, which I've started to do, but it's already of a writing standard superior to many FAs. One thing you need to do, Steve: pick a consistent numbering style and apply it throughout the article. You can express every number ten or higher as a figure (10, 14, 25, 250), or you can express every number ten or higher in words if two words or less (ten, fourteen, twenty-five, but 250). What you can't have is what you currently have, which is complete inconsistency. Please see Wikipedia:MOS#Numbers as figures or words. On the specific matter of the fair use image from the closing sequence, I'm surprised that this is contentious at all (though I haven't tracked the substance of the article and the image's rationale for that long). The use of the image completely follows both the spirit and the letter of our non-free content policy: its selection and specific nature of employment is unquestionably judicious and a clear aid to understanding. Far from "letting down" the side, this is model NFC use in a model Wikipedia article.DocKino (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind words, and support. On the inconsistent figures/words issue, I went through the article before nomination to ensure all numbers ten or below were spelled out, that all those above ten were rendered as figures, all comparable quantities were consistent (1,000 theaters / 5 theaters), and that non-comparable adjacent quantities were in different formats ("Changeling was released in 15 theaters in nine markets..."). I've just been through it again and have corrected just two I'd missed in the "Development" section one in the "Historical context" section, and my mistaken assumption that the guideline recommended "one to ten" rather than "one to nine", but I can't see any other instances where the article doesn't comply; please feel free to slap me with any I've missed! Thanks again, Steve T • C 07:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport - Great article. Mostly minor comments: I feel some of the captions might be on the long side - I've also not seen citations used in captions before. What's the significance of the film types and filters selected? Is there a hyphen missing in "motion capture performers"? Is there any background information about the composition of the promotional poster? "he carried out some research, and wrote a spec." - is the comma correctly used? "West European" or "Western European"? Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, thanks for your comments. In turn, then:
      • With two exceptions the captions are single sentences. The first exception uses two—one that says replica streetcars were used, the second that CGI ones complemented these. This I feel gives the reader the a brief, but good, overview of their use in the film. Either sentence alone feels like an incomplete description. The second exception is that used in the "Closing sequence" section. It is long, but as seen above, there were questions over the image's compliance with WP:NFCC. The long caption was intended to bolster the rationale for the image's inclusion beyond reasonable doubt. The citations are there because I don't like seeing any uncited statement; I don't want to force the reader to have to look in the article text to make sure what they're reading is sourced.
      • The "Cinematography" section details the film types, filters, etc. on a pretty technical level, I accept; this has been commented-upon before. However, I feel that while we're aiming at the "general" reader, the article should also be useful to those with an interest in the mechanics of filmmaking.
      • There is no information available about the composition of the poster; it's rare to get that level of coverage, save for when the poster is controversial, groundbreaking or significant in some other way.
      • "Motion capture" (sans hyphen) I believe is the correct term; plenty of sources throw it up as the one most commonly used.
      • Using a comma before "and" is a judgement call; often it's not required, but sometimes is useful (as in this case) when the intent is to make a clear break in the flow of the sentence.
      • You're right; "Western European" is the more commonly used term, so I've swapped it in.
    • Again, thanks for your comments, and if you spot anything else that requires clarification, please don't hesitate to say so. All the best, Steve T • C 15:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding the captions, I guess take the same view as the introduction, where the refs are typically in the body text (unless controversial), as there's not new information presented. I don't have a strong view on this though. For the choice of film ("Stern shot Changeling in the anamorphic format on 35mm film using Kodak Vision 500T 5279 film stock.") - pardon my ignorance, but is this an older type of film e.g. used instead of more modern digital photography, in order to achieve a particular artistic or aged effect? No issues with the other points. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The stock is a relatively common one, from what I gather; it wasn't chosen due to any particular "aging" characteristics, but I did include until recently the fact that Stern chose 500T 5279 because it provided more "informed" blacks. It wasn't clear what he meant by "informed", and the American Cinematographer article to which it was cited didn't expand on that, so I took it out. Steve T • C 22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The writing looks good at a glance. I can't comment on the other criteria. Tony (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's a big help; thanks for taking a look. The best I was hoping for was "passable" :) Steve T • C 19:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numbering looks good now. Caught something in the Music section: It begins, "Eastwood composed Changeling's jazz- and bebop-influenced score..." Bebop is a form of jazz. Do you mean, perhaps, "swing- and bebop-"? Or just "bebop-"? Or simply "jazz-"? Also, in the Visual Effects-Overview, there's this sentence: "Owens only used bluescreen where it was reasonable to, such as at the ends of backlot streets where it would not impact the lighting." Um, "reasonable to"? (The "only" is also out of place.) You've already explained the logic of avoiding bluescreen in this film, so perhaps something like "Owens used bluescreen in only a few locations, such as..."
  • Oh, Mr. Socrates, the use of citations in captions is definitely a best practice. Many editors seem to believe that caption text is somehow less significant (even less valid) than the rest of article text, that it is not subject to the same standards of verifiability and does not carry the same weight. This is hardly the case. Indeed, as readers apparently often turn to images first, there is a case to be made that the standard should, if anything, be higher. In sum, caption text is just as important to the article as any sentence in running text—any claim of the sort that you would cite in the latter should be cited in the former.DocKino (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the input, both here and on the article page. To answer the above, the main source says, "the music sometimes leans more toward [bebop] than traditional jazz"; others largely say one or the other. I'll reword to make that clearer, as well as the bit in the visual effects section. Thanks, Steve T • C 19:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference cg was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Changeling_(film)/archive1&oldid=1126593575"