Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uncle David/archive4

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Uncle David

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an experimental independent film produced in Britain in 2010. Engaging with LGBT themes, it stars the performance artist David Hoyle and includes a soundtrack featuring Boy George. A GA since May 2013, it has gone through FAC three times, each time failing due to a lack of interest, perhaps as a result of its niche and controversial subject matter. Fourth time lucky ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm still satisfied with this article, 4 nominations in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

See 3rd nomination, agree with all points, fair-use OK.
2 additional images since last nomination, CC or released into PD with sufficient info - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's well-written and well-presented. It flows nicely and seems comprehensive. It's absolutely not a movie I would ever see, and I'm surprised there is so much about it. Good work. Karanacs (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth

In general, this article seems well-written and well-organised, and I found few things to quibble about. The article is far from my usual type but I suppose I should broaden my mind!

What age is Ryder supposed to be in the film?
- It's not made at all clear; that's part of the ambiguity of the film. He's an adult actor who is behaving like a child. It leaves things enigmatic and disturbing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Over the course of a day, he filmed three shorts starring Hoyle and Reich," - Are you sure this is correct? Or should it be Ryder rather than Reich?
- Well spotted; it has been corrected to Ryder. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... "which had eight people inside of it during filming;" - "inside of it" is offensive to my ear.
- Do you think "inside it" would be an improvement ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - changed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Release", the last third of the paragraph is rather off-topic it seems to me.
- I understand your viewpoint although I am a little loathe to see it removed altogether because I fear that it would erode the otherwise comprehensive nature of the article. I'd be happy to listen to any other users' views on this particular issue, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"... a cast commentary track voiced by Hoyle, Ryder, Reich and Nicholls." - Nicholls has not been mentioned before. Who is he? On further investigation I find he is one of the directors but his name has been mis-spelled in this sentence.
- The extraneous "l" has been removed here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I can find for the time being. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments, Cwmhiraeth. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was suggested at the previous FAC that there was excessive use of "the latter" in the article and I see there are still three instances of its use. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just seen this additional question but am unable to find any instances of "the latter" within the article. A quick look at the revision history of the page reveals that User:Mike Christie was kind enough to make the alteration. Thank you Mike! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I am now happy with the article and the improvements made since this review started, and support the candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

"The next morning, he goes onto the beach to bury the corpse of his nephew in the sand, tearfully kissing the body goodbye before it is swept away by the sea": if it's buried, how can it be swept out to sea?
- In the film, the body is placed in a shallow grave, and then covered in sand, however the outgoing tide is nevertheless powerful enough to take the body away. To hopefully avoid this problem in future, I've changed the text in the article to "The next morning, he goes onto the beach to place his nephew's body in a shallow grave, tearfully kissing the body goodbye before it is swept away by the sea." Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add at least approximate dates to some of the key events in the last two paragraphs of the producton background section?
- I have added one date ("circa 2008") and will look into the possibility of adding more. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  That's useful, but I suspect a little copyediting is now needed; you have "agreed to the request several years later" but it appears the delay was just c. 2008 to 2009. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a tricky one. I suspect that the chronology as articulated by Ryder ("about 3 years ago", "After a couple of years") simply isn't accurate. The interview was posted online in November 2011, although not necessarily conducted at that time. However, assuming that it was conducted at that time, then Ryder and Hoyle would have first met circa 2008. If "a couple of years" then passed that would take us to 2010, yet that cannot be correct given that we know that Uncle David was filmed over five days in October 2009. So I think it best if I remove "circa 2008" altogether, as i really don't think that we can use that reliably. I will do some more investigating and see what I come up with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at the interview conducted with Reich, the director, which was posted online in May 2011, we are given a few further clues. Here he states that the RVT Christmas show took place "2 years ago", by which I presume that he means Christmas 2009. However, if this show was the "genesis of the film" as he states, then Christmas 2009 would make no sense, because the film itself would already have been filmed in October 2009. In that scenario, the original Christmas show would have taken place in 2008. What I think we have here is an interview that was conducted several months before it was posted online; i.e. the interview was conducted with Reich when the film was first released (in 2010) but only posted online when the DVD of it was released (2011). Do you think that I should go ahead and state that the Christmas show took part in 2008 within the article, or would that be stretching our use of reliable sources ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it doesn't look like you can be definite enough to put this in the main text. It's up to you, but one option would be to add a footnote that said something like "the dates for the events leading up to the film are unclear", and give the information you have. I asked for dates because it does seem a bit vague without them, but if the sources aren't helpful there's not much more you can do. My support isn't dependent on this; I'm going to go ahead and support regardless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Sex-Gore-Mutants a reliable source?
- This is a question that was posed during the articles' third FAC. There, User:Hamiltonstone stated that "I had a bit of a hunt. By conventional criteria, it is pretty marginal, but as a source of reviews that can be worth quoting it appears to have a long track record and has even been cited in a scholarly book. So I think it is OK. The few facts (as distinct from reviewer observations) on which the article relies on this source alone (really just the budget number) do not appear in any way dubious, but are consistent with the rest of what we know from other sources. My view is that it's sound." I would echo their comments again this time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  That's helpful -- I think I should probably do some digging myself and try to come up with an opinion; I'll post back here if I find anything useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  I can't find out enough to be sure. Once you've fixed the only remaining issue -- the issue with the dates above -- I'll support with the caveat that I would like to see the source review confirm that that site is reliable for our purposes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a copyediting pass; please revert if I made a mess of anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My only caveat to the coordinators is that I am not sure about the reliability of the Sex-Gore-Mutants website, and whoever does the source review should try to evaluate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hamiltonstone. I thought this was travelling pretty well last time, and as noted above my one source concern was resolved. There has been some copyediting between the close of the last nom and today, and I hope that has improved the prose (though i wasn't concerned about it myself, i know Graham Colm was). I'm happy with this piece. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Laser brain: I'm satisfied with the formatting and overall use of sources, including the commentary track. I spent some time searching and thinking about the Sex Gore Mutants reliability question and ultimately I think it is OK. Film scholar Jay McRoy cites it in his textbook Nightmare Japan: Contemporary Japanese Horror Cinema and once in a peer-reviewed article for Spectator, a film journal published by USC. That's good enough for me, I think. --Laser brain (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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