Talk:Brokeback Mountain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Skip to table of contents    

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brokeback Mountain article.

Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Brokeback Mountain is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
To-do list for Brokeback Mountain:

[edit] IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED FOR WP:GA

Well written

  • Passed.
    • Further improve: Make subheads under Controversy section parallel; rethink wordy/awkward/redundant/verb-tense phrases such as "not yet twenty, "marries his fiancée," "critics have heaped praise," use of "over" instead of the more accurate "more than." Additionally, the Awards section could use a little more prose other than "Some of the most significant awards and nominations for Brokeback Mountain are listed below," maybe by including part of the lead from Brokeback Mountain awards

Factually Accurate

  • Passed. Good citations.
    • Further improve: Expand film's status as being one of the first major films to be released for legal Internet downloads.

Broad Coverage

  • Passed.
    • Further improve: More on international reception.

NPOV

  • Passed. Good cites.
    • Further improve: In-line cite the Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine homophobia claim.

Stable

  • Failed.
    • Major changes to prose within the last seven days. Please re-nominate when the article is more stable.

Appropriate Images

  • Passed.

Real-world context for articles dealing with fiction

  • Passed
Archive
Archives
  1. November — December 2005
  2. January 2006
  3. January — February 2006
  4. February 2006 — May 2006
  5. May 2006 — September 2007

Contents


[edit] The Bighorn mountains are not in eastern South Dakota

That's all I got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.145.54 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


I changed the location to Wyoming where it really was set. A careful examination of any map will show you that not only are the Big Horn Mountains not in eastern South Dakota; there are no real mountains at all in the whole state. There are the Black Hills in Western South Dakota, but they could never be confused with the Big Horns. And there are obviously no mountains of any kind on the Great Plains of eastern South Dakota. The Big Horns are in Wyoming and southern Montana

MStrike32 (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary

The plot summary had been tagged as overlong, which at nearly 1600 words was a bit of an understatement. I've trimmed back by effectively reverting to a much earlier version [1] which describes the plot without getting sucked into detail. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You made the plot too short, I disagree with your edit entirely. I check wikipedia for movies plots all the time, especially in this case, when the movie is popular and about a controversial topic. I'm never going to watch it myself, so a long summary is fine. Smooth0707 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The current version is now about 900 words. Thanks, that's pretty good work. --Tony Sidaway 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the tag you placed on Plot Summary, i'm just not convinced its neccessary. There are lots of articles with long movie plots and even less in the article. I count about 880 words here, while for example Back to the Future has about 840 and X-men (film) has well over 1,000. Another movie I just picked at random is The Big Lebowski, with almost 1,000 words as well. It seems the me that this tag is used poorly on wikipedia, and often indiscriminately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooth0707 (talkcontribs) 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: The plot length was updated by MovieMadness, to roughly 710 words, which works for me. Smooth0707 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can count words and say "this one is too long, that one is too short", but there is a level of unnecessary detail to longer summaries. For instance on The Big Lebowski which you mention there is a lot about what happens to the rug and its replacement. This does actually feature in the film but is really only a mcguffin for the plot. In fact the correct way to treat the rug in the Wikipedia plot summary of that film would be to simply state something like "Damage to Jeffrey 'The Dude' Lebowski's rug and his subsequent attempts to obtain a replacement are the mcguffin that brings The Dude and his two bowling buddies, Walter and Donny, into contact with his namesake." The rug doesn't need to be mentioned again. Not even the fact that Maude steals it back. Various subplots can be ditched or compressed. The point is to capture the essence of the plot rather than to give a scene-by-scene account of what happens (which is unfortunately what most of our articles about works of fiction do at present). --Tony Sidaway 06:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary - style revision

In the 4th paragraph of the plot summary, could the "Although Ennis hadn't realized it..." be changed to "Unbeknownst to Ennis..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.220.154 (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's usually better to use plain language. "Unbeknownst" is an archaism often used by journalists but hardly ever encountered in real life. --Tony Sidaway 04:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larry H. Miller incident

In addition to the photo I cropped and uploaded for the Larry H. Miller article, the same photographer has released a a handful of other related photos of Miller and the pro-Brokeback protesters (most of which are dressed in appropriate costume). All of these are available under the creative commons attribution 2.0 license, so take your pick. — CharlotteWebb 13:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Turner lawsuit

Will anyone object if I remove this? It seems a very minor issue of minimal relevance to the movie itself particular since it involved one single incident, and one lawsuit basically by one defendent. Nil Einne (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it, I agree, I don't think it meets Wiki's notability criteria. Unless the case receives significant media attention, it doesn't belong here. smooth0707 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)