Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fight Club (film)/archive3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:48, 28 July 2009 [1].

---

Fight Club (film)

Nominator(s): —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Fight Club (film)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Fight Club (film)/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Fight Club (film)/archive3

I am nominating this for featured article because it is the most comprehensive source of information about David Fincher's 1999 film, based on Chuck Palahniuk's novel, to be found anywhere. The article details the making of the film, the filmmakers' themes, the marketing, the film's release in theaters and on DVD, and its cultural impact since. Please note that the film received extensive academic coverage, which is in development at Interpretations of Fight Club. I consider this sub-article a topic in its own right; extrapolation of the academic resources would overwhelm the rest of the main article.

I addressed disambiguation links and checked links to fix URLs or replace citations entirely. The only problematic URL is to the Academy Awards database since it is dynamic and expires in time. If anyone has a suggestion on how to better present the citation, since it's the most ideal for checking on the film's nomination for sound editing, let me know! Most references are from periodicals, and I used {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} templates for them. The more comprehensive references are in "Bibliography". References that may be challenged are two from MrShowbiz.com; they were published by ABC News Internet Ventures but the website is no longer in existence. (URLs were recovered from the Internet Archive.)

As a film, Fight Club is copyrighted in nature, so there were limited free images available. Per WP:NFC, The poster image qualifies as "cover art" in identifying the film in context of critical commentary. The free image of Helena Bonham Carter helps add illustration (since Pitt and Norton are already portrayed in the poster image). The bathtub image illustrates an example of the film's homoerotic overtones as part of the director's intent to distract audiences. The title sequence image illustrates a major thematic opening and the heavily technical achievement involved. The image of the DVD packaging is backed by commentary about the purpose of its design, which is relevant to its success as a highly acclaimed DVD.

Lastly, I introduced a "See also" section to introduce readers to similar films (impartially listed using an Allmovie reference). It helps improve navigation through topics that may otherwise not get attention. If reviewers are unsure or disagree, we can discuss the benefit of this section. I hope this introduction covers upfront any observations or questions that reviewers may have. I also hope that reviewers can provide constructive criticism to help shape this article to establish it as one of Wikipedia's best. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC) [Note: The first FAC took place before the article ever saw any true work done, and the second FAC was closed early since a visitor nominated the article before it was ready. So please consider this its first true candidacy! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

• Oppose for now on criterion 1a. The research appears solid, and the structure is great—but enough attention has not been paid to the quality of the prose. This could have used a thorough peer review for prose quality or independent copyedit before being listed here. I'd love to see this pass! Let's work on getting a copyedit and I'll list out more issues soon. In the mean time, these are just from the lead and first section:
  • "feels trapped with his ... position" In or within, surely?
  • "The narrator gets involved in a fight club with soap salesman Tyler Durden" doesn't seem entirely accurate. "The narrator forms a fight club with soap salesman Tyler Durden" perhaps.
  • "Several directors were sought" sounds as if they were looking to hire multiple directors.
  • "... as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict." "Feeling" as a noun here is quite awkward; normally people use the plural form, but another word altogether might be better.
  • Avoid the repetition in "The director carried homoerotic overtones over" by moving "over" next to "carried".
  • "for its visual style in cinema and presaging a new mood" Needs parallel structure.
  • "They have new fights outside the bar, which attracts" The fights attracts?
  • "The fighting moves to the bar's basement with the men forming a fight club." The noun +ing construction (men forming) and "with" connector don't work here. Why not "The fighting moves to the bar's basement where the men form a fight club"?

--Laser brain (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed these examples, and I will try to address any similarly weird language in the rest of the article body. Let me see what I can do on my own and get back to you. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support

After reading this article I'm truly impressed with how well it reads and the in-depth and relevant use of information. The only objection i would have is that the 'plot summary' section is weak in relation to the rest of the article and would question the necessity of the links to other films. Other than this, very well written and covered film. --Flappychappy 02:18, 16 July 2009 (GMT)

Comment I don't think the See also section helps much. Readers are left to wonder why the films mentioned are similar to Fight club. Is it the themes, the directing, etc. I would vote to remove that section. Remember (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a source, albeit not a good one. Does allmovies have regular editors and vetted content? I'd like for there to be some way to include a list like this. --Laser brain (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

First, to respond to Flappychappy, I've tried to improve the plot summary a little bit more, but I was trying to keep it fairly condensed and to avoid getting into the whole anti-consumerist message. It's the kind of film where a lot could be mentioned to continue improving a reader's understanding of the film, but at some point, it's too much. For the "See also" section, it is an admittedly new kind of addition, partially because a side goal of mine is to phase out Allmovie as an external link, and the stand-out benefit of that website were the "similar works" sections. I could not find how the website lists similar works, but my theory is that they cross-reference the details from the left column of a film's page (keywords, themes, tones, etc). Allmovie is also "powered by" AMG Data Solutions and published by Macrovision Corporation, which seems fairly credible. No end user involvement like IMDb might have. When I compared similar works to Fight Club, I could recognize how they relate. Since Allmovie doesn't explicitly explain why they're similar, it would be original research to deduce a conclusion. Laserbrain, a better use of the "See also" section may be stemmed in academic sources, like how I listed "Nazi Next Door films" at Apt Pupil (film)#See also using one. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OpposeComments: I agree with Laser brain, above; the prose needs a lot of attention before it is of featured standard. I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the article, but it needs thorough copyediting. I have only looked in detail at the lead, and have picked up the following:

• "Norton plays a nameless protagonist who is an everyman and an unreliable narrator." This sentence is enigmatic; the reader can't understand it without using two wikilinks – and even then might still be puzzled. Is there not a more direct way of describing the protagonist's character?
• "Producers sought several directors to hire one to film Fight Club;" The words "to hire one" are redundant
• This sentence needs attention; it has four "ands" in it at present: ""The director and the cast compared the film to the 1955 film Rebel Without a Cause and the 1967 film The Graduate and said the theme was the conflict between a generation of young people and the value system of advertising."
• "...that applied heavy satire to avoid a potentially sinister nature." Present tense should be used. The word "avoid" is wrong here; I think "disguise" is what is meant. Thus: "...that applies heavy satire to disguise a potentially sinister nature."
• "Filmmakers intended for the film's violence in the fight clubs to serve as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict." I am really struggling with this sentence. In my dictionary "film-maker" is a hyphenated term, but maybe there is an Am-Eng variant. However, starting the sentence "Filmmakers..." is confusing; is this all filmmakers, or does it mean the makers of this film? This must be clarified. The word "for" after "intended" is redundant. And I simply can't make sense of "a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict." What does it mean?
• "perceived" losses? Perhaps "anticipated" would be better?
• "Fight Club failed to meet the studio's expectations at the box office, and the film received polarized reactions from film critics upon its debut." The words "the film" are unncessary. And is "debut" the word normally used to refer to a film's premiere?
• "It was perceived as ground-breaking..." State by whom it was thus perceived.

Note that these points all arise from the lead section; there may well be similar problems in the remainder of the prose. Hence the need for copyediting by a skilled prose editor. One final unrelated point: Helen Bonham Carter's surname is "Bonham Carter", and she should not be referred to as just "Carter". I hope you won't be discouraged by the work still needed. I will check back later for signs of progress with the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The everyman theme is explained in depth in the "Themes" section; it is too much extrapolation in the lead section to explain the term "everyman". Your second suggestion contradicts Laserbrain's suggestion -- without mentioning "to hire one", it sounds like the studio wanted multiple directors. I broke up the particularly long sentence. "Filmmakers" is used as a general grouping of people who produce the film, since it's not always clear who did what. If there is an alternate way to use active verbs, I'm open to suggestions. :) I think "perceived" was the word choice in the citation, but I replaced it with "anticipated". I also think "the film" is needed because the related noun is succeeded by two nouns ("expectations" and "box office"); clarifying re-focuses the noun usage. Let me know if you disagree. "Debut" is synonymous with "premiere". Thanks for pointing out the "Carter" surname; thankfully, only two instances to fix. I ask you to look at at least one other section since the lead section tends to be more of a challenge adequately summarizing the entire article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Your various rephrasings in the lead have lagely dealt with the issues I raised, although I think "everyman" should be in quotes, to indicate that it is a figure of speech. I also have some problem with the clarity of the sentence "Fincher intended for the film's violence in the fight clubs to serve as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict" – I'm not clear what "feeling" means here. However, I am striking my oppose, and will try to get to the rest of the prose in the next few days. I have looked at the Plot section and have a few suggestions:-

• "disrupts his relief": slightly odd phrasing – and could there be a brief indication of how she does this?
• "...Tyler disappears from the narrator's life." Since he reappears, it might be best to end the sentence "Tyler disappears."
• "When a member of Project Mayhem dies, the narrator tries to shut down the project by following evidence of Tyler's national travels." It is clear how, by following evidence of Tyler's travels, the narrator can shut down the project.
• Suggest a slight rephrasing to avoid the "...Tyler. Tyler..." combination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs) 07:35, July 18, 2009

I made changes per your suggestions. Please let me know if the "Tyler" combination is ideally addressed now... I could not see a very easy solution to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I've made a small change myself (see edit summary) Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Support: I note the great work which Graham has done on checking the prose, and since I trust his judgement I am happy to switch to full support. I must say I have enjoyed working on this article, and the ready, positive response to issues has been refreshing. There is one image query (not what's immediately below) that needs to be sorted out - see lower down. Brianboulton (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The image query has been answered. Thank you for your help. It was my first FA nomination, and the constructive criticism really helped improve the article. Next time, though, I'll likely do a peer review focused majorly on copy-editing! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

oppose massive copyright abuse FAC#3 Fasach Nua (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Two days ago, you added the {{NFimageoveruse}} template without providing an edit summary and inappropriately marking the edit as minor. I waited for a statement justifying its addition on the talk page or the FAC page; there was not one. When I contacted you asking for an explanation of why you considered it overuse, you blanked my message without any response whatsoever. Non-free images were carefully considered for this article per WP:NFC and are equipped with fair use rationales. I ask you to review their rationales and explain why each one cannot belong. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This comment might as well be ignored. I see only three fair-use images outside of the infobox, and they are more or less justified. I could do without the image of the cardboard-like packaging, but both the bathtub scene image and the opening credits image are perfectly within NFCC. Fasach Nua has a long history of opposing FACs that have any fair-use images in them and often doesn't follow up on his comments. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I removed the image of the DVD cover since another editor opposed because of it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Subject to a successful review of sources and images. Oppose - for now, there are too many problems with the prose.

• Here; Fincher intended for the film's violence in the fight clubs to serve as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict. - what does "feeling based on the generation's conflict" mean?
• The director implemented homoerotic overtones from Palahniuk's novel - "implemented" doesn't seem to be quite the right word.
• Here; Studio executives were not receptive to the film - how about "were not impressed by" or even "did not like"?
• Another impostor, Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter), disrupts his relief - doesn't sound idiomatic to me.
• There is a possible fused participle here, Their conversation about materialism leads to Tyler inviting the narrator to stay at his place
• Here They have new fights outside the bar - "new fights"?

"fight leisurely" still doesn't sound right.

• This lacks logical flow, When the narrator ignores a phone call from Marla, who has overdosed on pills, Tyler rescues her from her flat
• The narrator complains to Tyler about not being involved in the organization - it is not clear who is not involved.
• This lacks logical flow, When a member of Project Mayhem dies, the narrator tries to shut down the project by following evidence of Tyler's national travels.
• "Police....its"?
• This sounds odd; The illusion of Tyler collapses with an exit wound to the back of his head
• "Afterward" -> "Afterwards"
• the reader discouraged an adaptation of the material - "adapting it"?
• McCormick then forwarded the proof to producers Lawrence Bender and Art Linson, who also rejected adapting it, but producers Josh Donen and Ross Bell saw potential and expressed an interest in adapting Fight Club
• This lacks logical flow, The producers cut out sections to reduce the running time and to record the dialogue.
• Here; finding Fight Club similar to the 1967 film The Graduate, which Henry adapted. - it should be "had adapted".
• This sentence is clumsy, A new screenwriter, Jim Uhls, lobbied Donen and Bell to be hired to adapt the screenplay, and the producers chose Uhls over Henry.
• Here; Bell explored four candidates to hire as director - I don't think people can be "explored".
• since he had an unpleasant experience -> "because he had", there is another misused "since" later on.
• There is something missing here, Producer Art Linson, who boarded the project late, met with another candidate, Brad Pitt, for the same role.
• Since Linson was the senior producer of the two, the studio sought Pitt over Crowe. - "sought Pitt over Crowe"?
• Here, The studio signed Pitt with a $17.5 million salary. - "and offered him"?
• Pitt sought a new film after the failure of his 1998 film Meet Joe Black, - in this context "was looking for" would be better.
• As much as I like Matt Damon how would he "increase awareness of the film"?
• it also considered Sean Penn as a possibility - "as a possibility" is redundant.
• Fincher instead considered Edward Norton a candidate for the role based on the actor's performance in the 1996 film The People vs. Larry Flynt. - needs a comma.
• This sounds odd; Pitt shaped the cosmetics of his role.
• Here; Fincher and Uhls revised the script for six to seven months, by 1997 having a third draft that reordered the story and left out several major elements. - "and by 1997 had.."?
• Here; Palahniuk recalled how the writers contended if film audiences would believe the plot twist from the novel. - is "contended" the right verb?
• The section on napalm seems completely out of place and breaks the logical flow of the paragraph.
• the budget was adjusted to $50 million - "increased to"?
• Here; and in the course of filming - would "but" be better than "and"?
• There is some overlinking as with "having the wind knocked out of themselves."
• What on earth is "straight water"?

How about "neat" or "pure" or "unadulterated"?

• Here; The director sought various approaches to the lighting setups in the film's scenes - "in the film's scenes" is redundant.
• What's a "practical" location?
• Do prosthetics really depict? Yes, on refection they do. Graham.
• "On a microscope level" - should be "at a microscopic level".
• Here; The final scene of demolishing the credit card office buildings - should be "of the demolition of".
• I am not sure what "stepped all over means" in this context.

I still don't know if this is literal, but I can live with it. Graham

• Here, David Fincher supervised the composition of the DVD packaging, being one of the first directors to participate in a film's transition to home media - "and was one of the" would be better.
• More overlinking: "word of mouth", "cult film", and Palahniuk linked right at the end of the article.The film's success also heightened the profile of the novel's author Chuck Palahniuk to global renown. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the list of items to fix! It's rather shocking to find out what still can be fixed, even after all the times I've read through the article. :P Some notes: "Afterward" and "Afterwards" are both acceptable. "Practical location" means a preexisting location, not one built on a soundstage; it's common terminology in the film industry. Does it need to be defined? As for prostheses, I was not sure of the best verb to use here; "depicting" seemed closest but admittedly not spot-on. Suggestions in this context? I've fixed the other items to reduce redundancy and improve flow. If there are any other items to be found, please let me know! —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To follow up, for the "stepped" item, this is the sentence from the citation: "When we processed it, we stretched the contrast to make it kind of ugly, a little bit of underexposure, a little bit resilvering, and using new high-contrast print socks and stepping all over it so it has a dirty patina." It's technical jargon, so I'm not clear about how else to explain it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to add my support now, given the caveat above. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support: The article prose is amazing, as well as the sources, so I have to say I support this. One issue, though - in themes, it states "Edward Norton said," [...] followed by "Brad Pitt said,"[...] A bit redundant and can be reworded. Other than that, excellent work. The Flash ^{talk} 00:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! I actually reworded these quotes to start with "said" to make it more basic. :) Do you think "Pitt explained" would be a better way to word it? Appreciate the support, and if you see anything else amiss, feel free to share or fix yourself! —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds better. The Flash ^{talk} 00:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Further comments - The prose is looking good, so I have stricken my 1a opposition above. However, on examining the Themes section, I can't help wondering if we need to be a bit more thorough. There is not much serious academic discussion. There is almost nothing about the split personality theme, which is a major element of the film. You mention it here and there (like how the narrator is referred to as Jack in the script) but I would expect its own para in Themes. You could discuss the clues given in the film that the narrator and Tyler are the same person, what the split allowed the narrator to do, and so on. Are there no works that discuss this theme? The soap was also a theme. You mention that Tyler is a soap salesman, but there was a whole thing around how he was using human fat to make it, and later the lye figured into the hand-burning scene, explosives, etc. And that reminds me.. you don't discuss the hand-burning scene at all, which I think is a cathartic moment in the film that also figures into the split personality theme. I know you are working on a separate Interpretations article, but these aren't really interpretations, they are themes and plot elements. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I have only just watched the movie on DVD—to date, I have been concentrating on the prose, but there is much more to this film than the article describes. People are complex, and Norton's "everyman" character is no exception. I am left thinking that this contribution is rather superficial, lacks depth, and will leave readers dissatisfied. This article gets 1,000s of hits a day—we have to be 100% sure that it is worthy of promotion.Graham Colm ^Talk 22:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Themes" used to be longer, but I cut it down to be more concise. I was thinking that the "Interpretations" sub-article would be more important (intentional fallacy and all that). I don't disagree with the points you make, though, so perhaps look at the section as it existed before? Anything that you think could be recovered? —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I also added some new quotes at Talk:Fight Club (film)#Expanding themes. Are you both thinking of themes as intended by the filmmakers, or to go beyond that and include academic coverage? Interpretations are largely thematic; there are some resources that do not quite address themes, hence the "Interpretations" sub-article (see its "Further reading" section). —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The old version of the Themes section is an improvement, in my view. The difference between Themes and Interpretations is that the Themes section discusses the motifs and patterns in the film without going into critical discussion of what they mean. That is where we cross into Interpretation territory—that is, experts conjecturing on the meaning of the themes. Bear in mind summary style as well—whatever you cover in depth in the interpretations article should be at least mentioned here. Does anyone object to going back to the cited version of the Themes section as a starting point? --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I will retrieve the missing material from the old "Themes" section and restore it to the current one. It's been shuffled and copy-edited, so we'll have to be surgical about the restoration. I also elaborated on existing themes with examples like the Volkswagen Beetle. I can also create an "Interpretations" section and place the link to the sub-article there with the {{main}} template. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on themes. Unasked, I've had a look at several of the articles that were on Erik's comprehensive reading list for developing this article. There's a lot of information out there, as one might expect, but while I can see where Andy (née Laser brain) is coming from, I don't think there's a massive amount that could be added on the split personality theme that wouldn't come across as a potentially trivial list of "clues" for the audience. Most of the real meat is pretty much already included, though it might not be immediately obvious; Erik appears to have made an editorial judgement to spread the split personality material throughout the article rather than include it explicitly and exclusively in the themes section. That way, we can see how the idea informed the writing, filming and editing—real world context that to me is more relevant than telling the reader what the split meant for the plot and the character. YMMV. :-) On this and the other issues (such as the hand-burning scene) it may be that they haven't received a comparative amount of academic coverage because they're more apparent conceits that are instead more intently focused upon in non-academic sources, such as mainstream reviews. I think that if Erik can include a little more from the sources he originally discarded (and I see he's already begun this), the section should by the end be comprehensive enough to pass muster. (Though I do agree that it may also be beneficial to at least look at the interpretations sub-article to see if there's anything useful to summarise from it.) Steve ^T • C 13:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you make good points. I'm thinking that it wasn't a long way off, but I wanted to make sure our bases our covered. This is a film that, after first viewing, audiences tend to go, "What did I just see?" They will likely come here to read more about the film. I'd really like to make sure what we build here is the gold standard for complicated films, comparable to Mulholland Drive. Do you prefer the old or the new version of the Themes section? --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I was directed to the Mulholland Dr. article a couple of days ago; it really is excellent, though light on the production material that forms the bread and butter of a film article. Themes and interpretations are all very good, but they shouldn't come at the expense of the more traditional encyclopedic content, and for that article I might encourage an expansion of the latter while farming the former out to an analysis sub-article that someone could go even more to town on. The Fight Club article has production material in spades, and looking at just some of the available sources, I believe Erik made a legitimate decision that there was absolutely no way in which the main article could host the reams of analysis in addition to that and stay even close to article size limits. For that reason, he created the—admittedly incomplete—spin-off article. Its existence means the main article will host less analysis than that seen at Mulholland Dr. and Barton Fink (another good one); even using summary style it will inevitably not cover every intended and unintended theme. So how to tell what to include in the main article? Arguably, the split personality theme, the hand-burning scene, etc. haven't received more—or even equal—weight in academic sources than anything else, so what criteria should be used to determine those themes that are the most prominent? Still, as it stands now the Themes section is in better shape than it was pre-expansion, though I didn't really prefer either that or the old(er) version; had I come along to this FAC before the issue came up, I probably would have recommended to Erik that he put some of it back in, as he has now done, along with a little more from the sub-article. The wider issue—on how much is enough to include for films that have had hundreds of pages written about them—is perhaps a separate discussion outside the scope of this FAC, as I'm sure Erik won't want me to put other potential reviewers off by bloating the page with my inevitably-longwinded witterings on that subject. :-) All the best, Steve ^T • C 09:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I fully expect a film by someone like Fincher to have far more production information than one by Lynch, who is notoriously tight-lipped about his production methods. To this day, he won't reveal the true nature of the baby in Eraserhead, something I'm waist-deep in right now. As for the Themes section... well, it's really a judgment call, isn't it? It's going to be different for each film. For complex films that confuse audiences, we have a responsibility to explain things like the split personality to them. We also have to consider how much weight the various themes had in the relevant literature. I think what's there now is looking great. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support now. I think the Themes section is vastly improved, and it presents reasonable weight to explaining intended themes and introducing academic analysis. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Comment – On my monitor, the alt text for the poster image is cutting off in the middle. Anyone else see this on their computers? Giants2008 (17–14) 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• If this is Firefox, don't worry about it. For example, if you visit the article with Firefox, right-click on the image, and select "Properties", you'll get an "Element Properties" window that lists "Alternate text:" with the text apparently truncated (it scrolls, actually, though there's no scrollbar). There's nothing wrong with that, except perhaps with Firefox's implementation. The intended use of alt text is assistive technology such as JAWS and Orca and the main limit there is the listener's patience.

• (ec) The use that your browser makes of alt text depends entirely on your operating system, your browser, and their settings. The HTML in the page served is exactly what is expected (an <img> tag with the alt= parameter containing the alt text provided for that image). By default, windows users with IE8 or Firefox don't see the alt text; they see the contents of the <title> tag when hovering over the image (set to the filename, for inexplicable reasons). If you could tell us what os, browser and addons you are using to display the alt text, it would help in trying to resolve the problem. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• What about IE7? I'm using it with Vista and am not so knowledgeable about the add-ons. It's not a big deal for me; I just wanted to know if anybody here had a similar issue. It probably has to do with settings that I don't understand. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with brevity if it can be done without losing information; also, some of the details in that alt text were not about visual appearance and thus didn't belong there, so I managed to trim it down a bit.

Eubulides (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Found this in Plot: "He uncovers Tyler's plans to destroy buildings housing credit card records so civilization's debt is reset." Through about half the article, that's the only real problem area I've seen in the prose. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• You can thank Laser brain (a.k.a. Andy Walsh), Brianboulton, and GrahamColm for all their copy-editing work and suggestions! :) I rewrote the sentence. Does it read any better now? I'm only concerned that it sounds like "He uncovers... by destroying buildings"; is this a big deal or not? Also, I'm not sure what happened with the alternative text. I messaged someone who might be able to answer your question. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's clear enough that the plans are Durden's and not the narrator's. The only thing I'm waiting on before offering support is an image review. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Further comments - and probably my last. I have reinstated my support, but hope that the extraordinary amount of work that has been put in since its nomination is not taken as a precedent for other candidates. I have just re-read Richard Dyer's British Film Institute monograph on Se7en, looking for parallels in structure and style, and given that this article is for an encyclopedia and not a book, I feel that a superb job has been done here. The Themes section is a great improvement. I have tweaked the prose here a little, and, despite the expression "negativist prospect" (which I can live with), I think it is up to standard. With regard to the alt texts, they look OK in my browser, but some are a little too long—there is no need to describe colours I think. I hope this article is promoted—it deserves to be. Have the images been reviewed yet? Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Fight Club DVD cover.jpg - The text easily conveys what this image depicts, so I don't see the need for this non-free image. Otherwise, all images are adequately described, have verifiable licenses, and, if necessary, meet WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. I removed the image, and I also added more descriptive text so readers don't merely visualize a plain cover that looks like cardboard wrapper. If there is anything else to address in the article, please let me know. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All image issues addressed. Awadewit (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. I have some very minor queries remaining:
  • Are you happy with leaving the release date out of the lead? It's a valid editorial choice—seeing as the full date is given in the infobox—but I just thought I'd check.
  • "She designed an extra's ear to have cartilage missing, citing Mike Tyson's bite as inspiration."—seeing as Holyfield–Tyson II was twelve years ago, some of our readers might not have the necessary familiarity with this to understand what "Mike Tyson's bite" is referring to without leaving this article. That's fine, that's what the link is there for, but if there's a way of wording it that avoids even this—without bloating the section—that could be pursued. Perhaps, "She designed an extra's ear to have cartilage missing, citing as inspiration the boxing match in which Mike Tyson bit off part of Evander Holyfield's ear." The only difficulty I can see with that is working out the best position for a piped link.
  • "... the studio later paid for the sequence following Fincher's expert direction of the film"—this is cited to the DVD commentary, so I'm not sure that Fincher and the cast are the most unbiased sources for the "Fincher's expert direction" statement; it's an opinion, so I'm thinking attribution might be required ("Fincher claimed/said"). Alternatively, the wording could be toned down, or perhaps putting quotes around "expert" (or whatever word they use in the commentary) would suffice.
  • I'm perfectly willing to believe I'm misremembering something I've seen a bunch of times, but "an early scene in which the camera flashes past city streets to survey Project Mayhem's destructive equipment" wasn't really that early in the film. Would it lose anything to remove the word? So I misremembered. :-) Steve ^T • C
  • "Midway through the film, Tyler Durden points out the cue mark, nicknamed "cigarette burn" in the film, to film audiences."—this might need input from someone less familiar with the subject, but are we happy that this makes it clear that Durden is breaking the fourth wall? Something along the lines of: "Midway through the film, Tyler Durden breaks the fourth wall to point out the cue mark—nicknamed "cigarette burn" in the film—to the audience." Per summary. Steve ^T • C
• Otherwise, good to see that most of the major concerns have been either fixed or successfully rebutted. All the best, Steve ^T • C 08:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the full release date is necessary for the lead section; release year seems enough. Full release date seems best when the date is truly relevant to the film, such as studios trying to get out of the film before year's end to qualify for awards. I've amended the bite fight sentence and put the link in "the boxing match". And just to clarify, the "early" scene takes place before the flashback to the rest of the film. This is the full quote, "We have front row seats for this theater of mass destruction. The demolitions committee of Project Mayhem wrapped the foundation columns of a dozen buildings with blasting gelatin. In two minutes primary charges will blow base charges and a few square blocks will be reduced to smoldering rubble. I know this, because Tyler knows this." The "cigarette burn" scene issue seems amended. Lastly, you have a good point about citing the commentary. I think I tried to mean "expert" as in "technically proficient". In any case, I referenced Cinefex instead, which had this sentence: "Though the director had always intended to open the film in this fashion, budgetary concerns had kept the title sequence from being awarded until January 1999." So I revised the wording to be more in line with that. Thanks for the observations! —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

All struck. Steve ^T • C 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I've watched this article for a long time, impressed enough with the way in which Erik has developed it that I've consciously emulated his approach at some of the film articles I've contributed to. This article could easily have been a collection of trivia and fancruft, but Erik has instead crafted one that focuses on relevant real-world production material and critical analysis—genuinely encyclopedic content that elevates the material to the standard he's always wanted for it. Nice work. (Full disclosure for closing delegate: Erik is an editor with whom I've worked a lot elsewhere.) Steve ^T • C 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.