Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Latter Days

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Latter Days

Article has been peer reviewed here, and I think it's worthy of FA now. If there are any small prose problems you can see however, I ask that you correct them yourself, as, although it has already been copyedited, my prose writing is not brilliant and I find I am unable to spot minor problems myself. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Conditional Support. You have a good start to a Featured Article, but this is not there yet. As it is, I think it could be considered GA class. I know this film quite well and the article adequately covers the basics, but I think there is still much more that could be said. Here are some areas that could use work:
    • I'm not a big fan of long plot sections and I think the plot section is a bit too long, it is almost as long as the rest of the article. I would try reducing it to 2 or 3 paragraphs. If you hit the basic plot points, I think that will work. Cut out much of the detail.
    • A background section is needed. This isn't the first film to discuss religion and homosexuality (you mention Trembling Before G-D), but what are some of its predecessors? Have other fictional films portrayed the subject with the seriousness as it is portrayed here? Did any other films influence the making of this one? You might also discuss Cox's scriptwriting here.
    • Part of the development section can be included in the background section. Development should include some information on the artistic decisions made during the filming, but also the development of the script. I know that certain scenes were deleted (Aaron's sister finding him after the suicide attempt), why? Look at the "Development" and "Initial stages" stages sections of Gremlins for some ideas.
    • The characters section can be written in prose. Take a look at the Casting sections for FA's such as Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) and Gremlins. Both sections are in prose with explanations of why certain actors were cast and information on the actors.
    • The critical reception section should be expanded. You used a few reviews in the article, but they all appear to come from internet sources. What about highly respected sources such as The New York Times, The L.A. Times, Washington Post, Rolling Stone or even Roger Ebert? IMDB may have links to some of these and others. If you run into problems getting any of these, let me know and I'll see what I can do to help you. There could also be expansion on the controversy in Utah. Was there controversy anywhere else? Additionally, the themes section could be expanded using these reviews and relevant film criticism if available.
    • I know this film is quite recent, but has it influenced any other films?
Again, this is a great article, but I think it could be much better. Take a look at the plethora of film articles that are Featured and compare this to them. Please let me know if you need help on this, I'll be more than willing to help as I am familiar with this film, though film, as a subject, is not a strong point of mine. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, much of the stuff you've mentioned, such as turning the cast list into prose, is purely personal preference. I based mine on V for Vendetta (film), you like Gremlins, and there's yet another variation at Dog Day Afternoon. Personally, I prefer the vendetta version, so I won't change that. I've checked the plot against those of other FA films, and it is of an appropriate size and detail, so I don't think I should do anything to that. I've gone through a good 80% of the FA films now and I cannot find a previous similar films section like you want - as I have my own doubts about the appropriateness of such a section (it seems kinda sidetracky from the film itself), I'm reluctant to put one in. So far as I know, Latter Days has yet to influence another film, no LGBT film in recent years has had a similar plotline that I know of - however, you're absolutely right about my lack of "hard sources", and while I'm looking out for some of them to replace the others with, I'll see if any similar films are out. So basically, I'll go and see what I can find, but I think many of your objections are purely based on personal preferences and not because the sections as they stand need to be improved (I'll see if I can expand the themes section), but I'll definitely get on with the rest of them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation. Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) and Gremlins both use "Casting" as the section header, and "casting" is a process, so therefore writing in prose to describe the process, is acceptable. You've used "Cast" as the header (same as the examples you gave) and so the way you've done it is fine, IMO. Rossrs 20:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I added reviews from Roger Ebert and the Los Angeles Times, but I didn't find any film influences. I tapped a rich seam of information at affirmation.org, the gay Mormon website, so I added everything I found there. The Utah controversy has been expanded and cited, the rique French release has been added, and a little has been added to the Development section. I'll see if I can find any more interviews with c. Jay Cox. That OK? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
On the other films thing, Cox says in this interview that he can't think of any similar film - and if he can't, there probably isnt one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The criticism section looks much better! One thing I do think should be included: why did the movie make so little money at the box office? I would presume that it had a fairly limited release, but I'm just assuming. As for the Background section, I think you really still need one. Imagine if this article is read by someone fifty years from now who is not familiar with the controversy over homosexuality and religion, there should be something said about the Mormon approach to homosexuality and the controversy in general. In this you might include Cox's own experience and how the movie come from that. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Box office stuff has been added and Ganymead has agreed to write the background section himself, as he knows what should be in one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the lead says the film "was popular with ordinary fans", which is a problem for many reasons. First, it is at odds with the low box office take. Second, it's unsupported by any citations or by any later (cited) statements in the article. Third, what are "ordinary fans"? Fans of what? Ordinary, how? Andrew Levine 11:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It was popular with ordinary fans because the Rotten Tomatoes user rating is 75%, as opposed to the critics' 42%. It won several Audience Best Film Awards (which are listed in the article) when it played at sold out film festivals, and the cast were given standing ovations by the audience at several other screenings (not just as film festivals). This is all in the article. What I mean by ordinary is just that: people who aren't critics, who don't specialise in reviewing. The low box office is partly explained by the fact that it was never given a full release, and at its peak was only screened on 19 screens at any one time. I will see if I can find an average take per showing - this might resolve the issue. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I found statistical data at http://the-numbers.com but I'm finding it hard to interpret at the moment. However, thsi article implies that per theatre, it didn't do badly - http://www.the-numbers.com/interactive/newsStory.php?newsID=600 Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have reviewed the article and the entire first paragraph of the reception section is devoted to discussing the ordinary fan reception, in addition to the awards section (all of which are audience awards). I think this objection has been addressed, but Andrew Levine is not responding to his messages from both me and another user asking him to review his objections on our respective FACs. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It still reads "popular with fans." Obviously any movie is popular with its fans. This is still not good, and it gives no idea of the scope of its popularity. How about "popular with film-festival attendees" or soemthing? Andrew Levine 04:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Have replaced with more accurate "most of those who saw the film". Because it is. That Ok? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. This was indeed a wonderful film, and you've written a beautiful article about it, quite comprehensive and detailed. I've just taken the liberty of copyediting it for you again--I have some expertise in that--but feel free to revert anything you don't like. I can't see how the article could be improved much, but I will throw out just a couple of small points for you to consider:
1. At the end of the opening paragraph, perhaps add something like ". . . with strong supporting performances by Jacqueline Bisset and Mary Kay Place"--? Their appearance in this low-budget indie was an unexpected pleasure for many viewers, I suspect.
2. I like the way you list the performers/characters; to do that in prose would make it nearly unreadable for me. But the description of Mary Kay's character might be expanded just a tiny wee bit: perhaps "strictly religious, controlling" would be appropriate? (That's the nicest way I can put it. Ha.)
3. One more tiny point: you do say that Aaron's mom is the one who tells him about the $50 bet, but could you add in a couple of words or so how she knew about the bet? (Heard it from his missionary buddies, I think I remember). But this may not be important enough to worry about.
But these are just minor quibbles from a big fan of the film. Overall, I think you did a fantastic job! Hope you get FA status! Textorus 06:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I changed one bit of your copyedit, and put in the stuff you recommended (though I didn't say "strong" supporting roles, or call Aaron's mother controlling - potentially on the wrong side of POV, I thought). There's only one person I know of who has seen this film and disliked it, and she's doesn't know what she's talking about. Everyone else just falls in love with it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. 1a. Here are examples of what you find throughout. Please don't just fix these.
    • Is it US spelling? Seems to be a mixture.
    • "Some while later" ... What does this add, exactly?
    • "Christian admits that he initially just wanted to win a bet, but "it's not about that" anymore." Direct quote not well integrated.
    • "Ryder relents enough to tell him"—"Relent" is binary, isn't it? Either you relent or you don't.
    • A few stubby paragraphs.

The film looks like right trash. For this reason, it's hard (although not impossible) for the writing to be "compelling", as required. I just wonder why an increasing proportion of our FAs is taken up with storylines. If not engagingly written and more interesting than monotonous suburbia, they reduce the object they describe. Can someone tell me why such a story is worth telling in dissociation from the film itself? Is this "among our best"?

For example:

"Christian confesses his love, and despite his profound misgivings, Aaron admits his own feelings of love. With all flights cancelled due to a snowstorm, Christian and Aaron are able to spend a loving and intimate night together in a nearby motel. However, when Christian awakes in the morning, he finds Aaron has gone. Sadly, he is forced to return to his former life in Los Angeles."

Fascinating. Tony 14:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to be US spelling, because it's an American film. However, I am English, so it's possible there are American spellings I am unaware of. "Some while later" is supposed to indicate that there is another ten minutes of the film between scenes that is not mentioned because it isn't vital to the plot. I've added to the quote and changed my choice of verbs. Why you don't want me to fix these I don't know. Your objection to this FA on the grounds that you think the film is crap is silly. If you're reading an article on a film, do you not want to know what the film is about? Is it not part of our mission to be comprehensive to explain what the content of the film/book/album is , not just how it was conceived and received? Just because you personally do not find an article interesting doesn't mean that it's not FA standard. If every Article on Wikipedia should have the potential to reach FA, that should include every notable film, whether rubbish to watch or not. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article and reduced three stubby paragraghs. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If it's supposed to be US spelling, then make it US spelling throughout. Your comments aren't a fix for the poor writing. Tony 15:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a look. If I can't convert it though, would it be OK to convert it all to british spelling? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any British spellings, so I don't know what you mean there. However, it would seem I trusted my copyeditors too much - some bits of this article are badly written, you're absolutely right there. I'm going to quickly go through it on paper and tidy it - I'll be done in about an hour, so check back then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. What's it like now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - 1a. References don't use a consistent style (some have website before, others after, the title) - please use a consistent bibliographic style in the refs. The prose is tortured. The paragraph I glanced at towards the bottom of the article is a sample of the extensive problems throughout:
    • In 2004, the Latter Days screenplay was adapted into a novel, written by T. Fabris, and published by Alyson Publications. The book was mainly faithful to the film, but added several extra scenes that explained confusing aspects of the film and gave more about the characters' backgrounds. For example, the reason Ryder tells Christian where to find Aaron is as a result of his own broken heart over a girl he fell in love with at his mission training. It also added dialogue that had been cut out of the film: finishing, for example Christian's cry of "That's the hand I use to..." in the film with "masturbate with".
  • Needs a thorough copy edit by an uninvolved editor, and the prose needs something to make it compelling and interesting. Sandy (Talk) 16:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've copyedited it, you might liek to comment again. The references issue you mention is where I have added the website first in the reference, I cannot find an author - I read it in one of the referencing guidelines, though I cannot find where at the moment. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
As explained on her talkpage, Sandy is having trouble editing Wikipedia. Request FAC not closed until she has a chance to respond to my improvements to the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay - still have problems. I've converted all of your references to a standard style - Author last name, author first name. Title. Source, (publication date). Last access date. Please go through and doublecheck my work, and wikilink all full dates.
Real problem with the term "ordinary fans": I changed it.
I made some changes so you can see the need to fix the tense and choppy sentences: I changed an it's to its, which shows the copy edit needs are still there. I eliminated a redundancy "all funding" equals "funding", linked to subsequent sentence about funding. These are examples of the work you still need to do throughout - the prose still needs work. Since the article is well referenced, you should be able to make FA if someone will run through the prose Sandy (Talk) 23:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've wikilinked the dates, someonelse has copyedited it but I have fixed the comments they had, and I've dropped a line to another editor to take a look at the article. Does it look OK now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's getting better, but the prose is still not compelling. Here are some random examples:

  • Nevertheless, a major theme of Latter Days is that there is an underlying spirituality in the world that goes beyond the rituals and dogmas of religion.[15] This can be particularly seen in the scene where, after a day of making phone calls, Christian finally traces Aaron, writes down his phone number, and then discovers he has already idly drawn it on the previous page. (I can't see the connection between the first sentence and the second - and since it's not sourced, it sounds like OR.)
You can't see the connection between an underlying spirituality in the world and Christian mysteriously coincidentally doodling the very phone number he's been searching eight hours for? You haven't seen the scene, so you're going to have to trust me on this, but the message is so unsubtle Cox may as well have hit you with a two by four inscribed with "There's an underlying spirituality in the world". You don't need to reference the blatently obvious, I recall.
  • A total of three songs were written by C. Jay Cox for Julie to sing: "Another beautiful day," "More," and "Tuesday 3 AM." Allaman was very impressed with C. Jay Cox's musical ability, and both men composed more songs as background music. (I'm not sure what this means - other songs? Songs that were or weren't used? Are songs usually in quotes or italics? What impressed Allaman about Cox's ability?)
I don't know, it's on the featurette, which is referenced. No other explanation was given, and to speculate would be OR on my part.
  • For contractual reasons, Rebekah Johnson did not appear on the album, and her character's songs were performed by Nita Whitaker instead. (What contractual reasons? Why was Whitaker chosen? Who is she?)
I don't know, it's on the featurette, which is referenced. No other explanation was given, and to speculate would be OR on my part.
  • (This is unreferenced). In 2004, the Latter Days screenplay was adapted into a novel by T. Fabris and published by Alyson Publications. The book was faithful to the film, but added several extra scenes that explained confusing aspects of the film and gave more about the characters' backgrounds. For example, the reason Ryder tells Christian where to find Aaron is his own broken heart over a girl he fell in love with while on his mission training. The novel also added dialogue that had been cut out of the film: finishing, for example Christian's cry of "That's the hand I use to..." in the film with "masturbate with".
What, you want page numbers?
Ok, I've added page numbers. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (Aggressive attitude to the script?) Gordon-Levitt originally auditioned to play Aaron, but his aggressive attitude to the script but good sense of humor made the producers decide he was a perfect Ryder.
I don't know, it's on the featurette, which is referenced. No other explanation was given, and to speculate would be OR on my part.
  • Full dates in refs are not yet completely wikilinked.
Yes, they are. I am not going to wikilink 2006, it bears no relevance at all to the article, and the only reason I'm wikilinking the dates in my references at all is because you want me to, there's absolutely no reason to otherwise do so.
Ok, I looked up WP:DATES, and get why wikilinking is needed. But years, according to the policy are only to be dated according to personal preference, and I prefer as few blue links as possible, especially in the footnotes. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy (Talk) 23:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I will dig up a Amazon link for the novel, but the rest is unnecessary. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've dug up the relevant part about tracking down Aaron on YouTube here. The bit where Christian says "That's the hand I use to..." is around the one minute mark, but the scene where Christian is tracking Aaron is 6:18 onwards. You should see what I mean. And obviously, if you have the time, I recommend watching the entire film, which has been uploaded in twelve parts. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added page numbers, and explained everything above. Is that all OK now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Striking my object - everything looks in order now, and Dev920 has been persistent in improving the article - I think s/he's done the best that can be done with a really sappy, cliché storyline. Sandy (Talk) 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You just need to watch it Sandy... :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of the double-Ls, s instead of z. Paste into Word, put Word on US English, and spellcheck. Paste back again. Simple. Tony 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've run this article through three US English spellcheckers, and they changed two spellings, one of which was in the footnotes. What on Earth are you seeing that I, two copyeditors and three spellcheckers are not? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Bless your heart, Dev, all these sugggestions and counter-suggestions to deal with. That's why I will never propose an FAC myself!  :-) Hang in there, you'll make it. Textorus 20:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, Dev920 contacted me asking for help in regards to the oppose votes above, I read the article and genuinely agree with this article becoming featured. - Tutmosis 22:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The nominator has worked with commendable vigour to make this FA-worthy. To a certain extent the article is never going to be stellar because the plot is so tired, cliched and frankly dull but on its own terms this is FA quality. Moreschi Deletion! 15:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Disclosure: I've completely skipped the synopsis in order not to be coloured by any weakness of the plot. The article seems fairly complete and readable, and I note fair use rationales have been written for the three images. Seems like a fair candidate for the main page some day, so I'm not objecting. Gimmetrow 05:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "This can be particulary seen..." Apparently he unknowingly wrote a number which is coincidentally the number he's trying to get. Perhaps add another sentence explaining how this relates to an "underlying spirituality in the world", or at least making it sound more dramatic? (I'm guessing this is a key dramatic moment in the film, but it's not obvious to someone who has not seen it.)
    • I don't really understand the 42% and 75% ratings with rottentomatoes. I thought all rottentomatoes raters were "critics". If "critics" means a distinct type of rottentomatoes user, perhaps that can be explained slightly better.
    • The partial wikilinking of the "retrieved" dates looks a little unorthodox. WP:DATES says that "The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present."