Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2018

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Archived nominations
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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2018 [1].

Fôrça Bruta

edit
Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1970 album by the Brazilian singer-songwriter Jorge Ben, accompanied by the Trio Mocotó band. It was a musical and thematic departure from Ben's previous work, a successful work in the contemporaneous Tropicália artistic movement, and pioneering of what later became known as samba-rock. It received retrospective critical acclaim and attention from North American publications after a re-release in 2007. I exhausted both English and Portuguese-language sources online, including GoogleBooks and searches with alternate spellings of the album title ("o" and "c" with and without the accents), so I am confident the article is comprehensive of its topic. Dan56 (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

edit
Review by Aoba47
*The following is more of a clarification question, rather than a suggestion. Is there any information on the exact release date (i.e. day) or is the month and the year the only things that can be sourced? Just want to make sure.
  • For this sentence (His lyrics for the songs explored themes of romantic passion, melancholy, sensuality, and to a lesser extent postmodern and political values, also a departure from the carefree sensibility of past releases.), I do not think that “for the songs” part is needed.
  • Please use Ben’s full name when you mention him for the first time in the body of the article, and wikilink him, as the lead and the body of the article are treated separately from one another.
  • For the audio sample, I would expand the caption to justify its inclusion. I have been repeatedly told to keep the use of non-free media to a minimum in article, so please clarify how the audio sample represent the album beyond the prose.
  • For this sentence (The singer's busy schedule surrounding the success of his previous record led music critic John Bush to believe it may have led to a mellower recording of samba soul for this album.), I think that either “following” or “during” would be better word choices than “surrounding”, which sounds somewhat odd to me in this context.
  • I am a little confused by this sentence (During the session, Trio Mocotó improvised with Ben on acoustic guitar; he played the viola caipira for the songs "Aparece Aparecida" and "Mulher Brasileira”.). What do you mean by “the session”? Was the entire album completed in one recording session? If not, then I would say “During a recording session”?
    • According to Parahybe, they recorded the songs in one nighttime session (1st paragraph)
  • I would a “Release history” section, as I believe it is a required section for album articles.
    • The language of MOS:ALBUM#Release history ("can be included in a table") appears not to make it a requirement. Personally, I would like to, but reliable sources do not have any more information than what is in the body about its release history, and I don't believe it would be enough to fill out a consistent table, for "different dates, on different labels, and on different formats in different regions". I placed a link to Discogs at the bottom of the article, which is unreliable here but offers a possible overview to readers of the release history. Dan56 (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the explanation and the link to the style guide. That makes perfect sense to me. I honestly was not aware of the style guide in the WikiProject, so I will definitely read it in the near future as I semi-regularly work on articles about albums (though none of them are nearly as influential or remembered as this one lol). Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the article. Once this is addressed, I will be more than happy to support. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, good luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Aoba47:. I responded to the more complicated points and edited the article to address the rest. Dan56 (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for responding to everything. This was an interesting read, and I hope that it receives more attention from reviewers in the future. I support this for promotion based on the prose (I have not looked at anything regarding sources or images). If possible, again, I would greatly appreciate any help with my FAC, but it is not required. Have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
Image review by Nikkimaria
*File:Jorge_Ben_e_o_Trio_Mocotó_no_Teatro_da_Lagoa,_1971.tif: why is this believed to be a government work?
Under Brazilian law (according to the Brazil URAA template, which I'm relying on), this photo counts as a "Photographic work[] not considered to be 'artistic creations' produced before 19 June 1998." Note that Brazilian law's standard to meet the threshold of "originality" is higher than the standard for same in US law. In the US, there must be "at least some minimal degree of creativity" for a work to be copyrightable, which is a pretty low bar that covers most photography. The relevant Brazilian standard (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil#URAA: Uruguay Round Agreements Act) states that a photo must be an "artistic creation" to be protected by copyright law. "Mere documental, descriptive photographs in general" are not considered artistic creations under this standard. When Brazilian law describes "artistic creations", it's contemplating something like Dali Atomicus that is the distinct work of an identifiable artist and is the kind of thing that's intended for artistic appreciation in a gallery/museum setting, not an ordinary photo portrait such as this one (even if, under the US standard, it has features that we would regard as "minimal degree of creativity" like the dynamic poses of the musicians, their arrangement in the frame, the decision to capture the motion of the tambourine player as a blur, etc.) The fact that this image was produced for a newspaper, Correio da Manhã, also serves as evidence that it is merely a "documentary" image, a visual recording of the appearance of these people for informational purposes, not an "artistic" statement in and of itself. —BLZ · talk 04:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Length of File:Oba,_Lá_Vem_Ela.ogg exceeds 10% of the original
    • I've reduced it by a second, making it 10%.

Support from magiciandude

edit
Comments from magiciandude
First let me say, thank you very much for putting so much effort into this article. I can tell a lot of thought was put into this and it's not very often a Latin album will be nominated for FA. I'm not an expert on prose, but there's nothing that stands out that needs major copy editing to me. There are only a few things I want to point out: The first one, , to echo on Aoba47, is that the sample could use a source. At least, I would use a critical commentary on the sample to help justify its usage (see Romance (Luis Miguel album), an article I worked on as an example). The second being that one of the links is dead. This is a more suggestion, but for the durations, there's a {{duration}} template. Erick (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comments and the kind words; this article was an impulsive labor of love for me. I have found an archive of the dead link. The caption for the audio sample is based on what is verified within the article already, specifically commentary attributed to McKean and Sanches in the musical style section; similar to citations in the lead, a summary in the caption would not require citations in this case, unless the statements are contentious. I made note of this in the file description, too. Also, I do not want to distract readers too much with supplementary pieces like samples and images; rather the caption be concise and suggestive of what can be found in the body of the article. Dan56 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, that makes sense to me. I'll go ahead and support this article. Good luck with the nomination! Erick (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) Dan56 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

I've added this to the urgents list—looks like we've stalled a bit and need help pushing it the rest of the way up the hill. --Laser brain (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brandt Luke Zorn

edit

Dan56 requested that I review this article. I'm going to start reading it now, although there's a good chance I'll be interrupted by some real life events today. If I'm unable to leave comments today, I should be able to get started at some point this weekend or, at the latest, by this coming Monday, Nov. 12 (I'm on PST). Just wanted to give some notice to watchers on my intention to review and my timing, given the stagnation in comments and coordination attention. —BLZ · talk 23:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining myself: I started my review by making edits to the page itself, many of which have been reverted by Dan56. That's completely fine. If anything, I apologize for not explaining those edits here or in edit summaries. I originally intended to provide my in-depth comments here only after I'd combed through the whole article once, but I'll go back and start doing that now. For reviews, I prefer to edit the page itself because it forces me to carefully consider the text line-by-line and as a whole. I know that method probably feels a bit like an affront, like I'm barging in and bulldozing something you've worked hard on without even explaining myself—I know the feeling, believe me—but please don't take it that way. I'm making these edits more for my own sake because I find it's an easier way to engage with the text, not because I mean to insist absolutely on my changes. If anything, part of the reason I like making radical revisions is that it helps me to return later and reconsider the original text with fresh eyes to see its merits, to see where it's superior to a rewritten alternative that I'd considered. Consider my edits as temporary alt drafts and feel free to revert or push back on literally any of it at all. It's just part of the process. I will bring up substantive comments here as I go. I'm still gonna edit the page too, for my own sake, but feel free to revert immediately (or heck, I'll even revert myself).

Something else I should clear up: the reason I'm popping in and out, then disappearing for long stretches, is that a family member has been in the hospital for an emergency surgery since Friday. They're fine now and I'm not the only family member with them, but I'm spending a lot of time driving, waiting on results, communicating with nurses, etc. Reviewing this article is a welcome distraction during the long periods of waiting and downtime, but (naturally) it keeps me from being as responsive as I'd like to be if I'd had this weekend off like I planned. I'm gonna keep plugging along, but it won't necessarily be super fast.

Comments that have been resolved
Infobox
  • The alt text for the album cover mentions the color of Ben's skin, which is not germane. Wikipedia's alt text for images policy doesn't offer specific guidance on this, but if you search online for the subject of alt text for images and race/ethnicity/skin color, many advise to avoid describing it unless skin color itself is the subject matter of the image/what the image is primarily intended to convey. For example, it would be appropriate to describe skin color/race in the alt text for most of the images at human skin color or the painting The Problem We All Live With. By analogy, the same principle is generally observed by editors in journalism w/r/t mentioning race in photo captions.
    • Okay. I've removed it.
  • Genres seem fine. I'd consider adding "samba rock", since it's mentioned in the lead (and everything in Category:Jorge Ben albums is included in Category:Samba rock albums). I don't see any issue with listing both "samba rock" and "samba soul" together, they seem distinct enough to merit including separately. Música popular brasileira is another option, but as a parent genre of samba rock and Tropicália it's probably fine to omit.
    • "Samba rock" and "samba soul" are synonymous, according to what I researched for the samba rock article; I chose "samba soul" for this article's infobox because it outnumbers "samba rock" in reference to the album.
      • I'll defer to your judgment.
  • I wondered whether it should be Negro É Lindo or Negro é Lindo, since the title of the article differs from the capitalization in that article's lead. "É" is "Is," which is typically capitalized in title case in English, and most external sources (and Portuguese Wikipedia) capitalize "É". So this seems correct; I've fixed the capitalization in that album's article and in the infobox of the album that follows it.
    • Yes, this makes sense.
Lead
  • For reference, here's the original draft, my edit, and Dan56's modified reversion.
  • I think the first paragraph in your latest version is much better than the original and my edit. It's more simply stated.
  • "Brazilian singer-songwriter and guitarist Jorge Ben": why "singer-songwriter and guitarist"? Compare The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan, Highway 61 Revisited, and Blonde on Blonde, all of which introduce Bob Dylan as "singer-songwriter" even though he also played guitar on those albums.
    • Ben's guitar playing (two different guitars) is given some nuanced discussion in the article, which in my mind makes it a more independent and complex role than how singer-songwriters like Dylan use the guitar. Which merited defining him as a guitarist, in my mind. Also, some singer-songwriters use the piano instead as an accompaniment for composing/singing; Dylan has, for instance; Ben does not, just guitar.
      • That's reasonable enough.
  • "groove-oriented"; I know the word "groovy" is somewhat tainted by its association with the worst tie-dye cliches of hippiedom, but this sentence is a rare example of when it can and should be used. Using "groove-oriented" instead of "groovy" is an awkward dodge, it's like saying "speed-oriented" instead of "speedy" or "fast". The piped link to "Groove (music)" clears up any ambiguity.
    • The dictionary definition of this word is trendy/exiciting; yes, hippiedom too. I found it a little awkward at first too, but looked up some expert usages of the phrase and found it, including in our own (Wikipedia) article on "groove (music)" and in the accompanying source, an academic article. Its use elsewhere justified using it here, for me.
      • Thanks for finding this, you're right. I felt "groove-oriented" might be a bit awkward but since it pops up elsewhere (and "groovy" has its own issues) I'm OK with it.
  • I think you should mention in the lead that Ben and the band finished their recording for the album in a single night. It's an interesting and notable fact. I was working on a rewrite of my own edit before I saw you'd reverted and had caught the same error you had, that technically the strings and horns were recorded later. I was going to revise it to "Ben and Trio Mocotó recorded their performances in a single nighttime session."
    • I added "nighttime"; I think "Its largely unrehearsed, nighttime recording session" suggests this to the reader without getting technical about extra session(s) for the strings and horns.
  • At first I thought the first two sentences of the second paragraph needed revising. I thought it would be more logical to link the genre ideas together within the same sentence, and I thought the second sentence was probably overlong. At second glance, I think it's probably fine. While the second sentence is a tad long, it does flow well.
  • "His lyrics explored themes of romantic passion, melancholy, sensuality, and to a lesser extent postmodern and political values, also a departure from the carefree sensibility of past releases." — I found this sentence very confusing, even after comparing it to the "Themes" section it summarizes. Part of the problem is ambiguity and wording, and the other part is structure (which I think is more easily resolved).
  • Part of the problem I had when trying to revise it is that the source for some of its important ideas, the Sanches book, does not seem to be accessible online (and it's in Portuguese, a language I don't speak, although I'd at least be able to use machine translation together with my rudimentary Spanish to get a sense of it). The Sanches book is only available in "snippet" view from Google Books, which is virtually unsearchable, and it's not available to preview on Amazon. How did you access this book? If you still have access to the book (or can quickly regain access), would you mind sending me a link or scans/photos of the pages cited in the article? To be clear, I don't doubt that your citations to the book are accurate, and the book is certainly acceptable as a good-faith offline source by any normal standard; it's just hard to evaluate the writing without comparing it to the source, and it'll help when I get to the later sections. If you need to send scans, you can send it to me by enabling email in preferences, then sending me an email with any content at all. I'll reply back, and after that you can send attachments.
      • It was occasionally burdensome and tedious, but I mostly used the Google Books search engine previews, manipulating them to show me sections of text further along past the original searched piece of quoted sentence(s); guessing Portuguese words and phrases or song titles in my search, for instance. I pasted large sections of quoted material from such search previews onto the Typepad app on my computer, before running them through Google's translator, or another translator to double check trickier sentences. Example --> [2], followed by [3]. I used this same process for the Veja magazine source.
  • Your reversion edit summary provided some clarity and gave me a better idea of what you meant to convey: "'postmodernism' is not a theme here, romantic and sensuality themes were present on his less moodier previous releases and not departures." First, "postmodern and political values". For now, I'll set that phrase aside and accept it as is. I quibble with it because it seems nonspecific. "Postmodern" is of course a notoriously slippery word and "values" doesn't harmoniously link "postmodern" and "political". I can sorta see now that you mean to distinguish these elements from the "themes," but the difference between "themes" and "values" is not intuitive here; I didn't even understand that they were intended to convey a categorically different aspect of the lyrics, let alone what that difference might be. But this is an issue that will probably be better evaluated while I'm reviewing the "Themes" section in-depth, since similar phrasing pops up there as well, plus I'll need to look over the pages from Sanches to better understand what the source says vs. how it's being conveyed.
      • Here is one of Sanches' discussions of "valores pos-modernos" (postmodern values) on the album, regarding the self-referential element of "Charles Jr.". Another, as I recall, is the sense of irony on some songs, which is a value in postmodern art, as I understand.
  • The structure of the sentence is confusing. The final clause ("also a departure from the carefree sensibility of past releases") seems to be describing all of the themes and "values", rather than just the "values". It seems to say the lyrics were all one big departure, not that just the postmodern and political elements are a departure. Your edit summary was very clarifying here; it's obvious in retrospect that themes of love and sensuality would have been found in his earlier releases as well, but that's not obvious from the sentence itself. After all, "romantic passion" and "sensuality" are themes that can be discussed in dark or sad moods that would be a departure from an earlier "carefree" mood. Now that I understand this part at least, I'd suggest restructuring it into something like this: "His lyrics explored themes of romantic passion, melancholy, sensuality, and—in a departure from the carefree sensibility of past releases–postmodern and political values."
      • Yes, your suggestion is an improvement; I will add this change to the sentence.
  • Now to the third paragraph. "while pioneering" —> "and pioneered" seems like a straightforward change and it looks like you've retained it. It simplifies the sentence structure and improves readability.
  • I understand what you meant in the edit summary when you said you prefer for the album to be "referred to directly as the main clause of sentences". The problem is that this can result in a lot of passive voice and tends to remove agency from the human beings involved. I'm not absolutely anti-passive voice here though because, as you said, sometimes it is better to center the album itself as the subject rather than bend over backwards to avoid passive voice. For example, I left in the passive "It was recorded with ... and released by", because that's the simplest way to express those actions and it makes perfect sense to center the album in terms of its recording and release. I also left in the (active-tense) "Fôrça Bruta ... pioneered a unique sound later known as samba rock," even though it's a little strange to say an album "pioneered" a sound, rather than the musicians.
  • That said, the last two sentences of the lead are where the use of passive voice is the least necessary. "[I]t was ranked" and "the album was released" are not very exciting subject-verb constructions. Since we've moved onto the album's long-term legacy by this point, it's not as necessary or compelling to center it. The album is no longer "doing" things in the present tense, and it's more interesting to center the actions of the entities that have honored and revived the album. I'd recommend: "In 2007, Rolling Stone Brazil named it the 61st greatest Brazilian album. That same year, the specialty label Dusty Groove America released the album in the United States for the first time, attracting further critical recognition." (My draft used the ambiguous/confusing "released for the first time in the United States" rather than the clearer "released the album in the United States for the first time". My mistake.) It could also improve readability if you split off the last clause into a sentence like "The reissue attracted further critical recognition."
      • You make a good point. I've revised the Rolling Stone sentence to your version. The reissue sentence, however, stresses the record label in releasing the album in the US for the first time, which rubs me the wrong way; as if it was a first for the label to do this rather than a first for the album to experience this (release in the US). If you catch my drift.
  • Rolling Stone Brazil or Rolling Stone Brasil? Why? (I don't know the right answer, just wondering.)
      • With "s"; I've corrected it.

I'm saving my review progress for now so you can get started on responding to what I've written so far. Preparing notes on the "Recording and production" section in the meantime. —BLZ · talk 00:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and production
  • This is a situation where active voice/centering humans makes more sense than passive voice/centering the album. We are arriving midstream in Ben's life; Fôrça Bruta as such does not exist yet. Why center it? Ben (and the band) took action to make Fôrça Bruta.
      • Yes, but the article is not about Ben, and the section is not about Ben's life; we are arriving at the creation of the album.
  • Good opportunity to introduce Trio Mocotó as a backing band, which is what they are.
      • Done.
  • Trio Mocotó did not just accompany Ben on his self-titled album; they accompanied him for the first time (am I mistaken?), in a creative collaboration that spanned many years and multiple albums. Say so! It's only one extra word but it does so much to set the scene and provide context.
      • According to Sanches, they appeared on some of that album's songs. There was also an independent single called "Cosa Nostra" in 1969 that saw the two recording acts record together, according to Revive. Neither source says which was the first time.
        • Fair point, thanks for checking that out. Is it worth noting that this is their first album-length collaboration? Up to you, if you think it's worth mentioning and can be easily cited/integrated into the text.
  • You spelled "Parahyba" as "Parahybe" half the time.
      • Fixed.
  • How to introduce the members of Trio Mocotó? The original draft went "They were composed of"; I tried "The members of Trio Mocotó were"; and now it's "Their members were". I generally try to avoid "composed/comprised", and I'm not satisfied with the most recent draft which seems somewhat circular. Maybe "the band's members were" or "the band members were"?
      • Yes, "the band's members were."
  • I rearranged the order of the sentences a lot and added some new text. Right now, the order is a little all over the place. To give a partial example of the sequencing problems, here's the original draft's order for paragraph 1:
  • Paragraph 1
  • Background info [who the musicians are, noting they worked together before on 1969 album]
  • Background info [who the musicians are — names]
  • The recording [recording in one night, intention in doing so—"musical mood"]
  • Background info, recording/musical content [jumping back in time to describe their previous "hectic" work promoting the 1969 album, then describing a critic's interpretation of how that "hectic" past influenced the "mellow" sound of the recording, which in the text has already commenced. this is all squished into one sentence]
Here's my paragraph 1:
  • Paragraph 1
  • Background info [who the musicians are, noting they worked together before on 1969 album]
  • Background info [who the musicians are — names]
  • Background info ["hectic" work promoting 1969 album]
  • Background info, recording/musical content [critic's interpretation of how that "hectic" pace influenced the "mellow" sound during the recording]
  • Recording [recording in one night]
  • Recording [intention in doing so—"musical mood"]
My order is strictly chronological and splits several overly long sentences into shorter sentences. Background leads to present, and cause leads to effect, rather than zigzagging in time and causality.
  • I also think it makes more sense to group all the notes on instrumentation into a single paragraph, too.
  • I'd go more into the order, but at this point a lot of problems stem from interpretation of sources. I'll admit I became a little confused attempting to reconcile the article text with the source text; the edit I saved reflects my best attempt to understand what was described, and admittedly contains some inaccuracies. The most-cited source is "Uma Noite Ben Jor" ("One Night Ben Jor"), a one-paragraph recollection by Parahyba. To help reach consensus and clarify possible errors, I've prepared a translation of Parahyba's article below, with some [bracketed] notes on possible points of ambiguity or alternate translations. I used Google Translate, but went through the text word for word to check for ambiguities and to ensure it flows naturally in English.
  • "The legendary Força Bruta, by Jorge Ben, recorded in 1970, is a very special record ['disco', closer to 'record/LP' than 'album'] for most musicians and fans of Babulina (his nickname during that era). The LP was made all in just one night, in order to give an idea of the mood ['clima', lit. 'climate'] that was rolling ['que estava rolando']. [While 'the mood that was rolling' is the most literal translation, the phrase 'clima que estava rolando' could also be translated for connotative meaning as 'the energy of the moment' or even 'the vibe'.] The mix ['entrosamento,' lit. 'mesh'] of Ben’s trio (myself included) was so special that a majority of the songs ['músicas'] had not even been rehearsed. Jorge would sing ['cantava' – imperfect indicative tense] once and, after that, we would record on the improvisation ('e, em seguida, saíamos gravando no improviso', lit. 'and, then, we were recording on the improvisation'). The idea was to make a characteristic groove with a beat that combined ['combinasse', alt. translation 'matched'] with his guitar playing, [which was] considered more like rock music ['mais roqueira', lit. 'more rockstar'] or iê-iê-iê [Brazilian rock]. And it was from this fusion ['fusão'] that was born the trademark ['marca registrada', lit. 'registered mark'] of a Brazilian style, much later considered by critics and musicians as samba-rock. I feel privileged to have participated in that moment that, besides giving me much pleasure, also gave me the nickname Comanche, because of a joke ['brincadeira'] of Jorge’s — recorded ['registrada'] in the track "Charles Jr." Ahh, the train whistle that appears on the record was from a little train of my sister, which I destroyed ['destruí'] to use as an instrument.'" If part of this translation seems inaccurate, please let me know and we can modify the translation if necessary.
  • Using this translation as a guide, I found some errors in the text. The article originally said the lack of rehearsal was meant to give an "impression of Ben's musical mood at the time", but nothing in the text suggests that it was Ben's mood in particular. Your newest wording, "impression of the mood that developed as they played," works well.
  • "For 'Charles Jr.' and other tracks, Parahybe [sic] used the whistle of his sister's electric toy train as a horn instrument, damaging it in the process." — does the other source ("O super-ritmo") provide more info here? Does the other source support saying he played it "as a horn instrument"? According to Parahyba's recollection, the toy was not merely damaged but destroyed.
      • "Destroy", in its foremost definition, means put an end to something's existence; I don't see how he could have done that, so I have to believe he was exaggerating; either way, "damage" is a close alternative and more sensible an understanding. Yes, the Veja article says he played it as a horn instrument ([4])
        • I understood his use of "destroy" not to mean that he completely obliterated the toy's physical form and left nothing behind, but rather, that he broke or ruined the toy as a toy. Whatever condition it was left in, his sister could no longer use it or enjoy it as a toy train. Maybe "break" would be a better word. "Damage" implies harming something without quite destroying it, while "break" can be harming or destroying, so it would be an accurate translation whether Parahyba meant to exaggerate or not. "Break" also feels closer to the word a child would use to describe the condition of a toy.
          • Done
  • "This incident [Parahyba's using the train whistle] encouraged Ben to nickname the drummer "Comanche", and the singer can be heard throughout the album imploring him by this name." — Parahyba's article does not explicitly connect the "Comanche" nickname with the train whistle, he just says it was a "joke" of Jorge's that appeared on the album. Does the Sanches source connect the two? Is this a reference to the Comanche flute?
      • My mistake; the sentences about the nickname and the electric train got jumbled together (missing characters, punctuation?) during the process, so I mistook them as being related. In the "Musical style" section's last sentences, I added further explanation of the nickname, according to Sanches.
        • Thanks, this makes a lot more sense now.
  • I'm very of confused about how the album was recorded. This is an overarching concern, but here are a few puzzle pieces I'm trying to fit together.
  • "Ben performed only one take of vocals for each song, which were recorded over the improvised instrumental." The jumbled order of this section have left me very confused about how, exactly, the album was recorded. Parahyba's article is the only source for this sentence, and the precise source seems to be the sentence that I've translated as "Jorge would sing once and, after that, we would record on the improvisation." Wait... Does Ben record his singing over the instrumental, or does the band record the instrumental over Ben's singing? According to Parahyba, Ben's singing seems to come first. Was the instrumental improvised, or is Ben's vocal improvised?
      • Yes, the singing appears to come first; Parahyba's description of "improvisation" originally had me believe it was an existing instrumental.
  • "During the session, Trio Mocotó improvised with Ben on acoustic guitar; he played the viola caipira for the songs "Aparece Aparecida" and "Mulher Brasileira"." Obviously, my preference is to split this sentence and move the part about Ben's guitars into its own paragraph. But as for the first part of this disjunctive sentence: is it saying the same thing as the sentence above—which appears a paragraph later—or is it saying something else? Whether it's saying something new or something that's the same, why is it so far apart from the other, very closely related sentence? This sentence says "Trio Mocotó improvised with Ben," but the sentence I quoted above says "we would record on the improvisation [after Ben sang]". Was the band improvising, or was Ben's vocal the improvisation?
      • I've gone back and restructured it a bit, rephrased it; more faithful to Parahyba's wording, more straightforward.
  • "The band attempted to develop a distinctive groove with a rhythm that would harmonize with Ben's guitar, which had more of a rock feel, or 'iê-iê-iê' as Parahybe [sic] called it." Is it Ben's guitar playing that had a rock feel, or is it the band's collective groove that had a rock feel? Overall, it's not clear when Ben is playing before (or after?) Trio Mocotó, and when he's playing with Trio Mocotó. "Harmonize" is a poor choice of word here; you're using it metaphorically as a synonym for "combined with" or "matched," which may work in other contexts, but on a literal level "harmonize" is about harmony and the sentence is explicitly about rhythm. It'd a strange mixed metaphor. You don't have to say "'iê-iê-iê' as Parahybe [sic] called it" because "iê-iê-iê" is a well-known term for Brazilian rock. Here, it sounds like a phrase Parahyba came up with.
      • Yes, I've rephrased it. There is nothing about when Ben played in the sources; I assume with the band. But I wrote it in a way that this is not touched on directly.
  • "Estúdio C.B.D. in Rio de Janeiro and Scatena in São Paulo were credited as the recording locations for Fôrça Bruta, which was named after the Portuguese for the phrase 'brute force'." – How are these two ideas (studio locations and album title) related? Would it make more sense to say where the album was recorded closer to the top of this section? Do we know which studio Ben and Trio Mocotó used, and which the strings and horns used? —BLZ · talk 03:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No idea about the specifics of the recording locations; because of this, I handled the available information as an observation of the packaging credits/post-production/titling of the album, thus the third paragraph.
  • Thanks for all your work on this section. The writing, ordering and clarity are much improved. I have a few follow-up comments above, but at this point I'm very satisfied with the overall quality of this section. I think adding the short "Background" section was a good idea, too. I'm about to move onto the next few sections. —BLZ · talk 21:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Musical style
  • "Greg Caz ... wrote ... that Fôrça Bruta departed from the carefree, silly sensibility that had been the singer's trademark." – This is a paraphrase, primarily, of this segment from the review:
"[Forca Bruta] represented a bit of a departure from Jorge’s by-now-patented happy-go-lucky style. The music was the same, but had now taken on a slightly darker and moodier quality."
Paraphrases of critics can be tough because we're trying to convey their opinion, which may depend very precisely on the words they selected. It's easy to imagine a critic reading even a close paraphrase of an adjective from their writing and saying "that's not what I meant, I meant the word I chose." The original source says "happy-go-lucky"; I feel like "carefree" can probably stand on its own as a paraphrase of Caz's description of the musical mood, since I see it as virtually synonymous with "happy-go-lucky" and I don't see much risk of misrepresentation or misunderstanding. You could also add "upbeat". I originally thought you should cut "silly" altogether, because I didn't see how "happy-go-lucky" in the quoted portion above would suggest Ben's earlier work was outright "silly". That word can also mean trivial or clownish and I thought it probably went too far; "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head" is carefree, but "Bananaphone" is silly. However, after reading more into the Revive article—particularly, this bit below explaining Ben's earlier lyrics (and especially, their reception by the young Brazilian middle-class)—"silly" seems more apt. However, the word "silly" doesn't capture Caz's account of Ben's musical shift so much as his lyrical shift.
"No one denies that [Ben] belongs in that [MPB] establishment, but his style and MO have always set him apart. For starters, his lyrics have long come in for a bit of derision from the aforementioned earnest college-campus lyricists. For Jorge, it's not so much about the meaning of the words as it is about their sound. Instead of writing 20 lines, Jorge often preferred to write two that sound very cool and repeat them ten times. And his subject matter revolved around a handful of subjects: a woman whose name he would repeat constantly while singing her praises; soccer, or more specifically Rio's Flamengo team, the Yankees of Carioca football; or quirky observations of banal everyday life replete with made-up words."
So it's not that Ben's early lyrics were intrinsically silly, or even that Caz thinks they were silly. Rather, the carefree nature of the lyrics, their light subject matters, and Ben's penchant for nonsense words led literate, middle-class MPB listeners to not take his words very seriously, to see them as silly or frivolous. But that changed with Fôrça Bruta.
I think you should cut "silly" from the sentence it's currently in, but I'd like to see a bit more in the "Themes" section about Ben's earlier lyrics, the way they were derided by some MPB listeners, and the departure/step up in seriousness that Fôrça Bruta represents. Basically, an introductory portion that summarizes Ben's departure the same way the first paragraph of the "Musical style" section does.
      • The passage you are citing is Caz in part describing "a devastatingly effective formula which, with the odd tweak here and there, was to carry [Ben] through a string of masterpiece albums over the next decade", including Forca Bruta, so this is not clear or significant enough to use as background, as it is not discussing Ben's earlier 1960s music. The change (Caz: "the lyrics at times"; not a major shift) was a political one evident on "Charles Jr" (and more in subsequent records); the rest of the songs on this album are still mostly about romance and women; only Sanches explicitly makes the connection that they are "serious", about romantic passion, pain.
  • "Songs such as the drum-cadenced 'Zé Canjica'" — I was initially a little confused here, since drum cadence describes a work that's exclusively for percussion and "Zé Canjica" has more than percussion. In listening to the song again, I understand that this is meant to refer to the drum solo about 2/3 of the way through, but "drum-cadenced" as an adjective kinda makes it sound like the entire song is this way. I don't have any particular suggestion, but I'd consider rewording this.
      • I reworded it.
  • "resulting in contrasts between Trio Mocotó and Ben's instruments" — contrasting in what way, exactly?
      • Rhythmically; I added "rhythmic".
  • "the more uptempo rhythms of "Charles Jr." and "Pulo, Pulo" were given counterpoint by more relaxed string melodies" — The "counterpoint" article is about the formal term "counterpoint" in music theory about harmony, but Shapiro's review used the word "counterpoint" in a more general sense of "contrast". Rather than saying the strings provided a harmonic counterpoint in the formal sense, he says the strings' "languid" "swoon[ing]" "provide counterpoint" to otherwise "rhythmically upbeat" tracks–a contrast in pace and mood, not a complex relationship of harmonic development. To avoid misunderstanding, I'd paraphrase differently and avoid the word "counterpoint".
      • I replaced it with "contrast"
  • "Ben's singing provided further contrast and funk/soul qualities to the music." – this is a bit awkwardly phrased. Contrast with what? Why does it contrast?
      • Textural contrast (wails, croons, raspy voice; different voices); rhythmic contrast (the vocalise/improvised phrases as rhythmic accompaniment)
  • "typically languorous and nasal vocal" — "languid" is probably better than "languorous" to describe vocal quality.
      • Replaced.
  • "during parts of the song when there were no verses to be sung" — could probably be simplified to "during otherwise instrumental parts of these songs" (it should be "songs" not "song" since the sentence is about two tracks).
      • Okay.
  • Lots of repetition of the word "also" or close equivalents like "further", "additional", etc. In the current draft, "provided" is also used twice.
      • I've reduced it a bit.
Themes
  • I'd consider retitling this section "Lyrics" or "Lyrical themes".
      • The section isn't exclusive to lyrics; there are also titles of the songs and Ben's manner of singing (as on "Terezinha", expressing irony) that are suggestive of or related to the subject matter (themes).
  • As I said above, this section would be well-served by a more general introductory paragraph on the shift in lyrical style. Right now, it dives right into
  • "referring to the philosophical concept proposing a body that can submit to passionate chaos and suffering before overcoming itself" — Slightly awkward wording, in particular "proposing" isn't quite right. I see you cited an entirely different source for background on the phrase "Dionysian body". Are we sure Sanches meant to be so precise as to cite Nietzsche/Nietzschean scholarship? "Dionysian" is often used as a generic substitute for "passionate" or "sensual". We can probably leave it at using the word and linking to Apollonian and Dionysian.
      • I removed "proposing". Sanches appears to, yes; he discusses the romantic disappointments and pain before concluding with it being overcome in "Aparecida Aparecida". He uses a very specific phrase ("corpo dionisíaco"), not by happenstance I believe. There are other references to philosophical ties in Ben's music elsewhere in Sanches' book.
  • "this led Sanches to conclude that Ben sang of hedonism in a concentrated state." — should be reworded. Is the hedonism concentrated, or is Ben singing in a focused state?
      • This is translated verbatim: "Jorge canta hedonismo em estado concentrado". He was quoting the lyrics before this sentence, so I chose to word it this way, as opposed to "Ben sang in a concentrated/focused state about hedonism".
  • "Other songs feature expressions of postmodern and political values." – what does Sanches say in particular about postmodernism? You link to Sanches for support on the word "postmodern," but the word is not used in the other sources—which is a bit misleading, since "postmodern" is used as the first sentence of the paragraph, suggesting to a reader that everything that follows is on the same page about Ben's lyrics being "postmodern". Lemos, if anything, is calling Ben a modern, not postmodern, artist. I feel like these disparate sources are better united under a theme of "racial identity" or something similar.
      • I've placed "political" ahead of "postmodern", to emphasize the political content of the paragraph, specifically Charles Jr. I think Ben's rejection of the narrative in his time, of Brazilian blacks as free people and still disenfranchised, might make him postmodern. But the postmodern values Sanches gives an example of is the self-referential element in Charles Jr. and irony, such as with "Terezinha". Earlier in Sanches' book, he discusses post-modernism when introducing the content of his book: "Scattered concepts of these authors will be kidnapped here, such as: a) the end of 'meta-narratives' (the great narratives that subordinate, organize and explain other narratives, the great centralizing and legitimating narratives of human knowledge) propounded by Lyotard; b) postmodern passion for pastiche, postmodern man's inability to relate to time and history..." The latter especially appears to be in the lyrics of Charles Jr.
I'm still pretty unconvinced by the current uses of the word "postmodern" in the article lead and the beginning of this section. As it stands now, the use of this word in the lead suggests that the identification of "postmodern" themes is a point of general consensus among critics (as this section is written in summary style). I'm bothered by the repeated linking of "political", which is a point of broad critical agreement, and "postmodern", which is only a single critic's perspective. The current introductory sentence of the paragraph on Ben's political content—"Other songs feature expressions of political and postmodern values"—also suggests a consensus that doesn't exist on "postmodern" content. This isn't to say Sanches is wrong or that his insight on postmodernism isn't useful, but his thoughts are smuggled into declarative summary-style sentences, which is misleading. Another reason this choice of word is surprising is that Ben's emergent theme of racial consciousness is a point of fairly broad consensus, as most of the critics discuss Ben's more serious approach to racial issues on the album.
I've separated the two. But Sanches is not alone in interpreting Ben's music as post-modern. According to this academic paper, "Jorge Ben is something typical of the post-modern subject, since the hybrid character of his work as an artist of various identities which are even contradictory (HALL, 2006, p.12)." An example of this is the Charles character, originated as a Robin Hood character, then here as an embodiment of the black identity politics; an "angel too".
I'm not unsympathetic to the idea of Ben as postmodernist, I'm just left wondering whether postmodern readings reflect broad consensus. That paper you just linked is interesting, although so far as I can tell it cites neither Fôrça Bruta nor any song on Fôrça Bruta. On the other hand, here's a paper that discusses the political call for racial equality in "Charles Jr." in more depth, while this paper discusses racial/political themes in "Mulher Brasileira" and "Charles Jr.".
A single source + a single sentence puts "postmodernism" in the lead, while racial themes—which are discussed far more in "Themes" and even recur in "Release and reception" in terms of their relation to Ben's later work—are not mentioned in the lead. On the article's own terms, the album's racial themes are more significant and more frequently discussed than its postmodernism—and that's even if you don't incorporate those two academic papers I just found. —BLZ · talk 22:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Post-modern qualities are connected to that song and others. I have found a (reliable/cite-able) source to include commentary on "Mulher Brasileira"'s celebration of Brazilian women; this along with what is associated with "Charles Jr" convince me to specify in the lead "identity politics", as a theme.
It would be more fair to Sanches to attribute and elaborate on his critical perspective in its own sentence. Reading your response, it's now much more clear which are the specific qualities that Fôrça Bruta shares with literary postmodernism, such as techniques like irony and self-reference. I wouldn't exactly call these traits "values" in and of themselves, because "postmodern values" suggests a moral/ethical perspective. It's one thing to use postmodern literary techniques or to confront historical themes of postmodernity/the postmodern condition, as these are value-neutral tools that have been employed by many writers who confront postmodernity without themselves being "postmodernists". It's a different thing to advocate for postmodernism outright. As an adjective, "postmodern" can be understood to mean that a work is "about nihilism" or "about an era with nihilistic values," which is very different than saying a work is itself "nihilistic". The word "values" is at best imprecise and pushes us closer to the suggestion that Ben has a nihilistic outlook. "Postmodern qualities," "techniques associated with postmodernism", "elements of postmodernism", "perspectives on postmodernity", or another neutral phrasing would be more clear.
For all the reasons above, I'd suggest a rewording something like this this:
Other songs feature expressions of political values, particularly Ben's perspective on issues of racial identity. Unlike postmodernism, "politics" and "racial identity" are both subject to broad consensus, not just a single critic's interpretation. "Postmodern" should also be cut ffrom the lead; there is no justifiable reason to include a critical perspective like that in the lead without attribution, because it's not summary sstyle. According to Sanches, Ben's lyrics incorporated literary techniques associated with postmodernism such as irony and self-reference. This, finally, would resolve the problem of "postmodern" being such a charged yet ambiguous term. We would know what it is about the album that is postmodern, what is meant by postmodern, who exactly has said that, and why they think that, rather than accepting "postmodern" as a conclusory word and then moving on without any further exploration.
  • "Caz believed the lyrics on this album betrayed deeper concerns than the singer's previous recordings, shown most notably by the self-referential 'Charles Jr.', in which Ben explored his identity as an artist and as a black man." — the footnote here cites Caz and Sanches, so it's not clear what's being attributed to Caz and what's being synthesized from Sanches.
      • Caz does not explicitly say the song is self-referential but touches on Ben's self-reference "obsession" in the article; the Sanches source only verifies "self-referential" (I've made a note of the quote in the footnote.
I think this is also characteristic of the need to disentangle various critics' perspectives. The structure of the sentence leads us to believe that everything in it is Caz's thought. Even with a citation to both authors (which a passive reader shouldn't have to check to disentangle in-text attribution), it's not intuitive where Caz ends and Sanches begins. Was it Caz's idea to cite the example of "Charles Jr.", or is that where Sanches starts? It should be split and reworded like this: "Caz said the lyrics on this album reveal deeper concerns than were found in the singer's previous recordings, shown most notably by the 'Charles Jr.'[CAZ] In that song, Ben explores his identity as an artist and as a black man.[SANCHES]" I would omit "self-reference" unless you can explain what it means for "Charles Jr." to be "self-referential": does it mean that Ben sings from a first-person perspective, that he is the character "Charles Jr." in an allegorical sense, something else? Another change: throughout, any time a critic refers to the contents of the lyrics, we should describe those qualities in the present tense, because the text still exists so whatever qualities it has, or which it was once said to have, are still existent. For example, "in which Ben explored his identity" should be "in which Ben explores". You have correctly used the present tense elsewhere: "the song demonstrates", "the narrator proclaims". There are reasons for the other changes ("believed" —> "said", "than were found in", "betray" —> "reveal"), which I will explain if necessary. —BLZ · talk 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too much to respond to; I've revised the text in question, though. Also, a writer expresses his belief in his writing. Unless I am saying "in the magazine/review, he believed..." (one believes in their mind, not in a piece of writing), I think it is an acceptable synonym for state, argue, claim, etc. We are attributing an opinion to the writer, under the assumption they believe what they express in the writing rather than lying about what their belief is.

Now I see; if Sanches was only verifying a single word that has now been removed from the sentence, it can be merged back into a single sentence. I misunderstood and thought everything that followed "in which" was also borrowed from Sanches. The necessity of splitting into two sentences was to disentangle where one author's thought ended and the other began. My mistake, you can put them back together.
  • I can't help but feel that the quoted song would be rendered better with line breaks, not slashes. I feel like the slashes are being used to disguise the length of the quoted passage, but they just make it harder to read. I'm actually OK with the length of the quote and I find its inclusion very defensible. It's not unusual for articles to quote copyrighted poems of similar length in their entirety. The fact that this song is originally in a different language gives even more reason to quote it in its entirety here; a complete translation gives readers a quick idea of Ben's lyrical "feel" that wouldn't be conveyed by shorter, out-of-context quotations from a translation. The song also doesn't have any obviously repetitive elements like a chorus that's repeated verbatim.
      • Done.
  • "The latter was sung by Ben" — passive voice that would be better as active, since Ben's vocals are the key focus of this sentence.
      • Done.

That leaves just one main section left, which I will get to soon, hopefully later today. —BLZ · talk 23:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Release and reception
  • The critical paraphrase problem returns. "It was received favorably in Veja magazine, whose reviewer found it incredibly rhythmic, full of musical surprises and suspense, and comparable to a comic book in the way familiar fantasies and characters are reformulated in strange yet delightful directions." Some of this needs specific justification, both because we're paraphrasing an opinion and because we need to check that the translation is faithful. What parts of the source text correspond to "incredibly", which means "extremely" or "unbelievably" or "preposterously", rather than another adverb like "remarkably", which just means the rhythm was prominent enough to remark upon?
    • "Como nos capítulos de uma mesma história em quadrinhos, os personagens se repetem e desdobra-se ainda o enrêdo original. Mas, abusiva ou irreverentemente, algumas figuras reaparecem traves- tidas, com o visível objetivo de manter o interesse despertado pelas primeiras sequências. Embora editado em disco, o cantor, compositor e violonista Jorge Ben parece objetivo de manter o interesse despertado pelas primeiras sequências. Embora editado em disco, o cantor, compositor e violonista Jorge Ben parece guiar-se musicalmente por algumas regras básicas das histórias em quadrinhos, apesar de alterar outras tantas. Em seu novo LP, "FÔRÇA BRUTA" (lançado esta semana), estranhos e agradáveis fatos acontecem, continuando ou reformulando fantasias de suas primeiras gravações." Further on, there is something about the rhythmic nature of the music, but Google is not behaving for me at the moment. From memory, the title of the review was "super ritmo", and the reviewer said something to the effect of, Ben's thirst for rhythm cannot be satiated, among other things.
  • I don't see much difference between "rhythmic" and "incredibly rhythmic". If he's praising the album as "rhythmic", that implies by itself that it has a lot of rhythm. Especially because "incredibly" here is virtually the same as "very". No need for a modifying adverb. —BLZ · talk 22:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"rhythmic" does not capture the appraisal, and most popular music is rhythmic (which means it has a rhythm of some kind), so it is not anything special to mention this alone. He found it "super", which translates to "super", so I'll replace "incredibly" with "impressively".
  • "it was a top-10 chart success in Brazil while producing the hit singles" — I'd recommend "and produced"
    • Done.
  • "the black identity politics of 'Charles Jr.'" — probably should be "the black identity politics present in 'Charles Jr.'" or "the black identity politics found in 'Charles Jr.'"
  • "It was also one of recording artist Beck's favorite albums." — Passive voice. I understand that you prefer making the album the subject of sentences when possible, but doing so here hurts more than it helps. First, "Beck" is a more compelling subject than the pronoun "it". More importantly, "It was" suggests that the album used to be one of Beck's favorites, but no longer is. We don't know anything about Beck's current preferences, nor do we need to; what we do know is that Beck named the album among his favorites at one time in the past.
    • Done.
  • "This marked the first time the album had seen release in the United States." — "this" is usually a bad choice of pronoun for a subject, I'd go with "The reissue". Don't be afraid to repeat nouns!
    • Okay.
  • "Later that year, it was ranked 61st on Rolling Stone Brasil's list of the 100 greatest Brazilian albums;" — Another pronoun problem. This sentence directly follows two sentences about the reissue, not the album as such, so "it" is an ambiguous pronoun. Say "the album" or Fôrça Bruta.
  • "In a retrospective review for AllMusic, Bush gave" — In most circumstances it's fine to refer to someone by just their last name after their first mention, but it can be confusing to do so for people who are not directly related to the historical narrative of the article subject. Remember that Wikipedia readers often jump to particular sections that they want to read. Even if they've read it straight through, I don't expect readers to recall who "Bush" is, the way they would recall (or could reasonably be expected to recall) "Ben" or the last name of a band member. You don't have to completely reintroduce John Bush, but you should use his first name here.
    • Okay.
  • "... and regarded it as one of Ben's best records; 'a wonderful album because it kept everyone's plentiful musical skills intact while simply sailing along on a wonderful acoustic groove that may have varied little but was all the better for its agreeable evenness.'" — Incorrect use of a semicolon, because the second part of the sentence is an incomplete sentences. Consider splitting it in two and starting the second sentence with "Bush called it 'a wonderful album because...'"
    • Okay.
  • "NOW Magazine's Tim Perlich called it a "samba-soul heater"; while Matthew Hickey from Turntable Kitchen deemed it 'one of the most buoyantly textured and warmly melodic LPs ever recorded', and 'Oba, Lá Vem Ela' among its 'loveliest tunes'." — Another misuse of a semicolon, this time for two reasons: first, the second part of the sentence can't stand by itself as a complete sentence (check it carefully, it's one long dependent clause), and second, there's no obvious reason to connect Perlich and Hickey. The syntactical connection suggests that there's some meaningful link between these critics and their reviews—suggesting that Hickey may have been directly responding to Perlich or something—or at least that their perspectives on the album are in opposition, but not even that is true since they both praised it.
    • No semicolon; revised.
  • Several issues with the sentences on the Impose review:
  • "In Impose, McKean believed" — I touched on this earlier but since it's popped up twice, I'll explain. The word "believed" is not an appropriate substitute for "said". "Believed" is not a synonym or neutral substitute for "opined". Belief is a state of mind, not a statement. On a literal level, the verb-action a critic takes in a review isn't believing, but saying, stating, expressing something. It would be better to say "professed a belief that" or "expressed a belief that", but even those would be wedging in an unnecessary attempt to read the critics' mind. "Said" is fine.
  • "... Trio Mocotó were incomparable in their backing performance for Ben and also highlighted" — Structural problem. By the time my eyes get to "and also", it's not obvious whether the next verb is going to be an action taken by the critic or by Trio Mocotó.
  • "incomparable" — he said "matchless," so let's just say "'matchless'". Again, a brief but exact quotation is better than a paraphrase when you're conveying a written opinion.
    • Done.
  • Several words are redundant: "backing performance for Ben" (surely we should already know their performance was for Ben by now), "found 'Zé Canjica' in particular to be" (if he's drawing our attention to an individual track, of course he's identifying that track "in particular")
    • Quote: "This album also starts off with a couple of winners in “Oba, La Vem Ela” and “Ze Canjica,” which set the somewhat crunchy, folksy tone; “Ze Canjica” especially is arrestingly gorgeous..." I think "in particular" is justified in this case.
  • No compelling reason for a semicolon here. It forces the sentence to drag on far too long. You stuff in extra words that aren't ultimately necessary, other than to provide a reason for why these sentences should be linked by a semicolon.
    • Okay.
  • "most memorable" — Paraphrase problem. The critic said "catchiest". "Catchiness" is a quality that relates to and overlaps with memorability, but the two aren't synonymous. Some melodies are memorable, but would not be called "catchy" (think of the DUN-DUN-DUN-DUUUN DUN-DUN-DUN-DUUUN intro to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony: everyone knows it, but few people would get just that opening motif stuck in their head all day long). Some songs are catchy but not memorable (think of cheesy pop songs that worm their way into your head and torture you, but are instantly forgotten as soon as they're off the radio).
    • Okay.
  • "Overall, the album was an elegant and exquisite listen in his opinion" — Weird and unnecessary tense issue here, akin to the problem in the Beck sentence above. Sticking on "in his opinion" at the end is clumsy, and "was" is a boring passive verb and an inaccurate, confusing application of past tense. The past tense comes in because his opinion was something, not because the album was something in his opinion.
  • "elegant and exquisite" — Paraphrase problem. A reader should be able to jump into a review and instantly find the textual support for excerpts or paraphrases from reviews. I don't find "elegant," and like most readers I don't have the time to read the whole review to find out if that's accurate. I do find "exquisite" in the word "exquisitely," except in context that word isn't describing the album overall, but rather the pacing of one of the individual songs he singled out for praise.
  • "unusual singing on 'Terezinha'" — one of the paraphrases that jumps out at me as strange and non-obvious in its meaning. "Unusual", how? Did he have a sore throat that day? Did he inhale helium for that song? Is that song the only one on the album where Ben switches to Tuvan throat singing? I go to the source and find "oddly nasal". Let's go with that.
  • "and what he deemed "Muhler Brasileira"'s slightly overused string section" — "deemed" is an awkward verb here. You usually "deem" something with a title or name, not a description or a partial quality. Also, "slightly overused" doesn't correlate with the source text, where he says that song "overplays the strings just a touch". Something can be overplayed when the actor is more confident in their powers than can be justified; something can be overused when it is repeated beyond reason or crammed into every part of something. You can overplay a hand in Poker, but it doesn't mean the same thing to say that you "overuse" a hand in Poker. If someone in a band is a terrible guitar player, they'd be overplaying their guitar abilities if they attempted a solo more difficult than they could credibly pull off, but they'd be overusing the guitar if they played it nonstop even during sections of a song when there's no guitar part.
    • I don't want to risk this section becoming a quotefarm. I'll revise it.
  • The risks described in WP:QUOTEFARM are not about critical opinion but rather descriptions. Remember that it's a guide for all of Wikipedia covering every possible topic, not just albums/works of art that have been critically reviewed. If a scientific paper says "Many species of cricket lack the ability to fly," the Wikipedia article Cricket (insect) shouldn't say "Although many crickets fly, some species 'lack the ability to fly'." That exact quote is not at all necessary, because the source's precise wording is not necessary to convey the underlying idea, which is mere reportage of a fact. In the words of WP:QUOTEFARM, it would be use of a quote "to explain a point that can also be paraphrased". Instead, Wikipedia should say "Some species of cricket are flightless," and then appropriately cite the source. On the other hand, in the "In human culture" section of Cricket (insect), let's imagine a notable scientist—just to make it clear that this scientist is so famous that his opinion would merit inclusion, let's say it's Darwin—said "Crickets are the most beautiful among all insects, surpassing even the majesty of butterflies". We shouldn't paraphrase that as "In Darwin's estimation, crickets are the prettiest bug and are even more nice-looking than butterflies." That doesn't convey the same idea! We can't paraphrase that thought because the language matters; even synonyms that are exact in many contexts ("bug" for "insect", "pretty" and "nice-looking" for "beautiful") are inadequate. Instead, Wikipedia should say "In Darwin's estimation, crickets 'are the most beautiful among all insects, surpassing even the majesty of butterflies'."
Where would an album article become a WP:QUOTEFARM? Where we quote description, not opinion. For instance, Shapiro's review says "Firmly grounded in samba (with backing from the great Trio Mocotó) but with tips of the hat to bossa nova and subtle touches of funk and soul, Força Bruta is emblematic of Brazil’s seemingly national gift for weaving beguiling syncretic music from practically any cloth." It would be inappropriate to say, in the "Musical style" section, Forca Bruta contains "tips of the hat to bossa nova and subtle touches of funk and soul". There's no reason not to paraphrase that description. We can just report the fact that Forca Bruta is influenced by funk and soul as a paraphrase, relying upon Shapiro's description as a factual report of musical content and citing his review accordingly. Although WP:QUOTEFARM warns against "quotes dominat[ing] the article or section", that's not the case where a "Reception" section incorporates multiple quotes, even if those quotes are a sentence or two in length. That would only happen if a "Reception" section were merely a bullet-point list of copy-pasted quotes. Remember that QUOTEFARM is cautioning against overuse, not use. Trust me, this article is far from becoming a QUOTEFARM; right now it's bordering on stingy with quotes, even where they would be helpful or necessary. Above all else: Readers are interested in what a critic said, not what a Wikipedia editor said they said.
On the other hand... Pretending to paraphrase when we are using a critic's exact language—even a single word, like "overplay"—risks appearing as plagiarism, even with attribution via a footnote, because we're representing their text as "our" text. Quotation marks signal where we're relying on a critic's exact language verbatim. I've edited the article to put quotation marks around McKean's exact language where we derive "overplay", since that is his exact word and we should show the reader that that is the case. Note that I did this even though the source article said "overplays" rather than "overplayed", which is the verb-form necessary for our mostly paraphrased sentence to be grammatically correct. Why did I do that? Because the word "overplay" was precisely chosen, we are taking it, and we can easily modify it with brackets to "overplay[ed]" so that it fits our sentence without stealing from McKean. I also added back in "'oddly nasal'", rather than the paraphrase "unusually," because we can't know that McKean meant "unusually". Unusually, compared to what? Ben's normal singing? Singing in the samba genre? The ideal human singing voice? When McKean said "oddly", did he mean that the nasal quality was unusual as in rare, or did he mean that it sounded weird, strange, uncomfortable—all of which it could have been, without being unusual? Rather than speculating, we should just accurately report McKean's language. —BLZ · talk 22:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all those reasons, let's try something like this:
  • In Impose, McKean praised Trio Mocotó's "matchless" backing performance. Highlighting the opening two songs, McKean called "Zé Canjica" an "arrestingly gorgeous" song and said that "Apareceu Aparecida" featured the album's "catchiest hook". Although he criticized ""Muhler Brasileira"—which he said "overplays the strings just a touch"—and Ben's "oddly nasal" vocals on "Terezinha", McKean concluded that Fôrça Bruta is a "graceful, lovely album" overall.
      • I revised it but think the negative points should be at the end, to transition to Shapiro's hypothetical.
Sources
  • Important!!! There's a misattribution. The Time article cited was not written by Richard Corliss. From what I can tell from Google Books—the only place this source appears online, as it was only published in print—it appears to be a guest column by the musician Andrew Bird titled "Andrew Bird's Short List". Check this Google Books snippet view with the title and intro, then this one with the blurb about Forca Bruta (another snippet in-between can be seen here).
    • Okay. I've revised it.
  • Is it possible to prove, with that snippet, that the "Andrew Bird's Short List" article was from the April 20, 2009 issue of Time?
    • A section of the preceding page says vol. 173, no. 16, which is the April 20, 2009 issue.
  • Since the Time excerpt is a musician's opinion of the record, not a critic's opinion of the reissue release in particular, it should be moved elsewhere, probably just after the Beck sentence.
    • It's a critical opinion; he's being a critic here. Beck and Kallman are just naming favorites. The section isn't exclusive to the reissue, although it is more likely to have encountered Western/American critical opinion in light of the reissue.
  • This strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Bird's not "being a critic" in the sense that he regularly evaluates quality of musical products, and we happen to quote him where his evaluation of a particular album is praise; he is literally "naming favorites" in various media, because he was asked to do so. On the other hand, if being a music critic means being an appreciator of music who can articulate their opinions, how is Beck not playing a music-critic role when he names a favorite album? There's no intuitive reason Bird is "being a critic" and Beck is not. How do we know Andrew Bird didn't first encounter the album before the reissue, and if we don't know, why should we speculate? Even if we could somehow know he encountered it after the reissue, that on its own doesn't strike me as a good reason not to move it up. —BLZ · talk 22:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He introduces the review (published in 2009) with "I'm just discovering this guy". Both Beck and Kallman (in interviews) had named it among their (all-time) favorites before it was released in the US (rare-record collectors); neither offered a critique. Naming it a personal favorite is not giving it a judgment of its merits, which is what a critic does, specifically in written form ([5]). More importantly, in my opinion, Bird's characterization reads better following Shapiro and his mention of Tropicalica, better than it would in the second paragraph.
  • Check the Rolling Stone Brasil citation. The archival link goes to a webcitation.org link that never loads (for me at least), while the "Archived from the original" URL goes to... an Internet Archive link, which does work. The Internet Archive link should go in archive-url= and the regular, now-dead rollingstone.uol.com.br link should go in url=.
    • Internet Archive capture will one day expire permanently. It is best to have it this way. WebCite is back up again, by the way.
  • Is the Library of Congress citation there for the sole purpose of proving that the title of Fôrça Bruta is Fôrça Bruta? That's not necessary, for the same reason that formatted citations are not necessary for plot summaries of films. —BLZ · talk 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. It verifies the studio locations.
  • I see. Since the attribution is non-obvious, why not instead cite it like this: "It credited Estúdio C.B.D. in Rio de Janeiro and Scatena in São Paulo as the recording locations for Fôrça Bruta,[LoC CITE] which was named after the Portuguese for the phrase "brute force".[SHETTY CITE]"
  • That's a bit tacky, including a citation mid-sentence. I don't see how this instance is any more or less obvious than the other instances of combined citations.
  • That seems worth following up on! Can you email WOMEX or Amoeba? Surely one of them or the other borrowed it, or maybe there's an underlying source not available/no longer available on the web which they both republished. Assuming Amoeba's attribution of an individual grauthor by name is accurate—and I don't see a reason not to do so—Amoeba is (at least provisionally) the superior source. We can't say "According to WOMEX (World Music Expo)" if we can't be 100% certain that WOMEX is the original author. —BLZ · talk 22:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll replace it with Leaver/Amoeba. The site appears to have a writing staff, not just Leaver (example). But I'll see if I can email Womex too, out of curiosity.

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I made a couple of minor copyedits as I read through; please revert if you don't agree with them.

  • I don't think you need the wiktionary link for "brute force"; it's a common term. Similarly for "rolling stone", later in the article.
    • Unlinked.
  • Suggest "A largely unrehearsed..." in the lead; the current wording made me think for a moment that the whole album had been recorded in a single session.
    • The bulk of it was recorded in that session; there were additional strings and horns recorded, presumably elsewhere but not enough information is available to make it clear. "Its largely unrehearsed, nighttime recording session..." does not necessarily imply there was only one session.
  • Optional, but I think you could combine the "Background" and "Recording and production" sections; "Background" is introductory/scene setting material and there's a straightforward glide from that material to the first sentence of "Recording and production".
  • I'd move Bush's comment to the reception section, though I'm not sure I understand it; why would a hectic period lead to a mellower sound?
    • I think it connects well to the concluding sentence of the next short paragraph: that the session reflected their mood; perhaps an exhaustion from the workload encouraging them to take it easier. And it comments directly on the background.
  • It's a pity about the markings on the 1971 photo. I can see it would be an ideal picture without the markings, but they make the picture look unprofessional. Is there any alternative? We do have the album cover, and this isn't the article about Ben himself, so I don't think it's necessary to have this.
    • No alternative I know of. It is the only one of Trio Mocoto with the original members. I will add the original newspaper (and later Brazilian National Archives) credit to give the quality of the photo some context for readers.
  • He also repurposed a tuning fork; traditionally used by musicians to maintain musical tuning among instruments, the singer instead stimulated the device with his mouth to generate sounds that resembled a harmonica. This isn't quite right -- the semicolon means that "traditionally used" modifies "singer" instead of "device". Suggest "He also repurposed a tuning fork, a device used by musicians to maintain musical tuning among instruments; the singer instead stimulated it with his mouth to generate sounds that resembled a harmonica".
    • Done.
  • Since you only mention WOMEX once I wouldn't bother introducing the acronym.
    • They appear to be known primarily by the acronym; Brandt above suggested the parenthetical note.
  • Suggest "...considering the political tension [or "heightened political tension"] in dictatorial Brazil at the time, and the gentleness of Ben's music on the album"; "gentler" doesn't seem right, as the comparison isn't between two kinds of music, and "atmosphere" is vague.
    • Revised.
  • I don't know what a "devilish" guitar figure is; I would guess "difficult to play", but that doesn't seem to imply melancholy, which is the point of that sentence. If we keep devilish I think it should be clearer that it's in Sanches' voice.
    • I put quotation marks around it; the first three sentences are already framed around Sanches' voice.
  • What does the wiktionary link to "banzo" add? The noun definition is given as "deep depression" or "intense nostalgia", but the usage in the article seems to imply that a "banzo" is music in a particular style.
    • I'll put quotation marks around it. From other literature commenting on samba, by Portuguese writers, it appears to be a linguistic quirk: "samba-lamento" "samba-banzo", "samba feliz" (samba-happy). "Samba-depression" or "samba-nostalgia" does not have a good ring to it, when translated.
  • Do we need to mention Revive when giving Greg Caz's opinion? It's in the citation and doesn't help the reader. Or is Revive a major publication in this field? I'm also not keen on the phrasing of the second sentence cited to Caz; the "melancholic" comparison belongs with the first sentence and isn't related to the comment about his guitar playing that follows the "while". I assume "greater facility" means that Caz felt Ben's playing had improved? If so, how about: "According to Greg Caz, a disc jockey specializing in Brazilian music, Fôrça Bruta possessed a melancholic, mysterious quality that was a departure from the carefree sensibility that had been the singer's trademark. Caz also considered Ben's idiosyncratic guitar playing to have improved"?
    • Revised.
  • Ben can be heard imploring the name "Comanche": I don't think you can implore a name; do you mean he sings it in an imploring tone?
    • Revised as "imploring the name of".
  • this led Sanches to conclude that Ben sang of hedonism in a concentrated state: I don't know what this means.
    • I imagine it means Ben's hedonistic impulse is directed wholly at the romantic subject in the song.
  • Brazilian music academic Rafael Lemos believed the song demonstrated how Ben discovered a process to "place black heritage into modernity": the concatenated verbs ("believed/demonstrated/discovered/place") make this hard to read. How about 'Brazilian music academic Rafael Lemos believed the song demonstrates Ben placing "black heritage into modernity"'?
    • Revised.
  • I can see why the extended quote is relevant to Lemos' commentary, but does Lemos specifically mention that song, even if he doesn't quote that translation? Some direct reference to those lyrics seems necessary to justify extended fair use.
  • I don't think "insatiably rhythmic" works; it's not the rhythm that is insatiable. If this is a direct translation of what the reviewer wrote, then I'd put it in quotes, even though it's a translation.
    • Revised as "incredibly rhythmic".
  • Do we care where Kallman was interviewed? Cutting the mention of the source from the text would let you combine that sentence with the next, about Beck.
    • I think it establishes the credibility/notability of Kallman, since people in the business side of the music industry are less identifiable to the average reader than popular musicians like Beck. It also establishes some chronological context for what the paragraph covers (decades later, in the 2000s). Also, it would not be an easy combination; Kallman specifies "15 favorites", while the source for Beck does not indicate a ranking or degree of favoritism.

-- Generally the article is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK on most points now. The remaining issues:
  • I'm still uncomfortable with using a scarred image in a featured article. I don't think a professional publication would do this without some evidence that it was the only available copy, and I don't think we should do it when the image does not directly illustrate the subject of the article, as it was taken the year after the album was released.
  • @Mike Christie: @Dan56: Given that the image was originally published in a newspaper, and the version of the image uploaded to Commons is the same one found in The Brazilian National Archives, it's highly unlikely that a superior/unscarred image exists or is at all probable to be found. Most copies of that newspaper have long been destroyed, and I would imagine the Brazilian National Archives chose to scan the best-preserved possible version of that photo. In any case, the image is a very high quality scan, and although that scan replicates the scar on the photo, the scar does not mar any significant features: all the subjects' faces are clearly seen, for example.
As to the image being a year later than the album: I thought about this myself, and I came to the following conclusion. For famous American or British artists from the same period, we would usually expect for photos have a fine grain of contemporaneousness with the article subject. This is especially true where either 1) there are many free photos to choose from, and/or 2) a small passage of time made a dramatic difference, such that the visual representation no longer accurately reflects the historical understanding of the musicians as they existed at that time. For example, major changes would include if an artist (say, David Bowie) completely reinvented their "look" in a short time period (it would be inappropriate to use a picture of Bowie as Ziggy Stardust (June 1972–1973) in the article for Hunky Dory (December 1971), even though that's only six months apart), or if the members of a band changed.
Here, we've got a photo of all the same band members only a year apart. That isn't perfectly contemporaneous, but it's pretty close, and there's no reason that I know of to believe the Jorge Ben and Trio Mocotó of 1970 were radically different than the same of 1971. The only other image of Jorge Ben available at Commons is File:Jorge Ben, 1972.tif, which shows only Ben without the band and is even later in time. Most general readers in the English-speaking world are probably not already familiar with Jorge Ben, or if they did know Ben they may still be ignorant of Trio Mocotó (as I was). The caption gives the year, so the image is not misleading the readers, who will probably understand that this is the best-available image and appreciate the illustration. Given all of this, I think it's useful to include the image: there's no significant reason to believe it seriously misrepresents the band, and no major reason that excluding it would be more helpful than including it. —BLZ · talk 00:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't understand "Ben sang of hedonism in a concentrated state". Your suggestion is not implausible but it sounds like you can't be certain of your interpretation either. Is there more context in the source that would clarify this?
  • I wanna weigh in here to say that I share the same concern about that sentence. This perfectly sums up my feeling: "Your suggestion is not implausible but it sounds like you can't be certain of your interpretation either." Whatever was meant in the original text, and however close the translation is, the meaning of the "hedonism" sentence as it stands in English is confusing and imprecise. Is there any way to dig a little deeper into the context to arrive at a translation that is not just accurate in a literal sense, but also intuitively meaningful in English? —BLZ · talk 00:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is not included in the article. Sanches is translated verbatim. And on further reflection, considering "hedonism" means pleasure-seeking and Ben directs this impulse exclusively at one woman (as in the song), I feel more confident in my previous elucidation of Sanches' opinion. But to answer your question: Sanches prefaces his conclusion by saying "it does not need to be explained". So, no. He does not expand on this idea beyond quoting the lyrics, explaining the story of the song, beforehand.
  • The comment from Bush that the hectic period led to a mellower sound still makes no sense to me.
  • This is the relevant source text from AllMusic: "Ben's self-titled album of the year before had reeled off a succession of Brazilian hits, including "País Tropical" and "Cadê Teresa," and made the four musicians very busy as a result. Força Bruta was a slightly different album, a slice of mellow samba soul that may perhaps have been the result of such a hectic schedule during 1969." Bush's obvious implication is that they were stressed out by their performing schedule and wanted to relax, so their music got mellower in turn. There is probably a better way to reflect that in the text. The words "stressed" and "relax" are between-the-lines, but barely. They're hardly misreads of Bush, and they would make the overall idea clearer in the article's paraphrasing. —BLZ · talk 00:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't oppose on any of these points, but I don't feel comfortable supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a considerable amount of time and doesn't have consensus for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you still keep it open? @Laser brain:. It is on the verge of a third support from @Brandt Luke Zorn:, whose last suggestions for improvement I have addressed in the past few days; his latest comments are just a few days old. Can you at least let them conclude their review, as they were doing? As they noted here, there was only one section of the article left to be reviewed, and I have resolved their actionable objections in the past few days. All is left is for the reviewer to return and respond to the nomination page; they've been pinged. This would be the most extensive review for this candidate. What is the point of closing it just as there has been renewed activity here, activity leading closer to a consensus? Dan56 (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: just want to second Dan56's comment here. As he said, I'm close to finishing my review and also close to offering a support. I especially want to reinforce that latter point; although I've had a mountain of comments, I do want to make clear that his characterization is accurate and I'm much, much closer to a support than to an abstention or an oppose. It would help to have a modest extension of the candidacy if at all possible. I'm going to take another look at the article and his comments starting now. Dan56, if this candidacy gets closed anyway, I'll follow up with you on your talk page regardless. —BLZ · talk 19:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandt Luke Zorn:, I am trying to argue at WP:FAC's talk page for an exemption from the two-week wait after closing. Dan56 (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2018 [6].

Birmingham

edit
Nominator(s): IWI (chat) 18:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Birmingham, the United Kingdom's second largest city. It has been at good article status for a while and appears to meet all of the criteria. A peer reviewer stated only one issue, which is now fixed. IWI (chat) 18:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- As well as the points Iridescent makes, I note that there are several uncited statements/paragraphs under Religion and Culture, to name two sections. All statements need to be sourced at FA-level (at GA-level too for that matter, but especially at FA). I'll therefore be archiving this shortly and ask that the points above be addressed outside the FAC process. The gap between GA and FA is quite significant, and I'd recommend re-submitting for Peer Review after making improvements; alternatively you'd be eligible to try the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2018 [7].

Inspired (song)

edit
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. The above article is about a song recorded by American singer Miley Cyrus. It was released on June 9, 2017, as a promotional single from her sixth studio album Younger Now (2017). It was inspired by Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, and also includes references to Cyrus' father Billy Ray and her childhood in Tennessee. Cyrus donated the song's profits to her Happy Hippie Foundation. Critical response to "Inspired" was mixed; some praised its message and Cyrus' vocals, while others felt it was disingenuous. The song charted in Australia, Russia, and Spain. Cyrus promoted the track with live performances, including at the One Love Manchester benefit concert.

I believe that the article meets the criteria for a featured article. For those interested, this is what the article looked like prior to my expansion. It received a edit from the Guild of Copy Editors, and was further improved during its GA review. I am looking forward to any comments/suggestions for improvement. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Aoba, I sincerely hope you won't get overly discouraged by this review, but I just think you can do better than this. As I hinted at in my "When You Get a Little Lonely" review, I'd really love to see you take on something meatier with more substance. Of course you're free to take on subjects as you like, but if you chose something that lots and lots has been written about, it'd be all the more likely you could have enough details to work with to write a really compelling story. As it is, this article feels like a bunch of semi-related details without a real interesting narrative behind them. The points in the first paragraph of Composition and lyrics, and the Reception section, seem particularly random. There are also too many quotations and the sentence structure and length is not as varied in places as could be (but in the past I've seen you fix these last kinds of issues in a short amount of time, so I think they are less of an issue).

But Aoba, I know you're very motivated, and if you can not get discouraged, and you dig deep, I wouldn't be surprised if you can turn this article around. I haven't read any of the sources, but have another look through them. Maybe there's more details in them that you can do something with. Maybe there are stronger patterns to be found in what different reviewers and writers have said, patterns that you can use to form a really cohesive story about this song. Different editors work in different ways, but I'll tell you if I was working on this, I would print off every one of the articles and scour them with a pencil in hand, and try to find the hidden heart and soul of the article there in places that may have been missed. And I see all your sources are online—have you tried the library? It's a recent single so there may not be much in books, but maybe there's stuff in offline magazines and various cities' newspapers? And I assume you've already scoured lots online, but maybe scour one or two more times with different search words. Get creative, and there may be other sources out there to build up the article with. Good luck, I wish you the best on this! Moisejp (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comments. I believe I have exhausted a majority of online resources about this song, and I would argue any additional sources would present the same or similar information. I highly doubt any book covers this song, as it is not a subject traditionally documented or analyzed there. While I appreciate the following bit of advice ("I would print off every one of the articles and scour them with a pencil in hand, and try to find the hidden heart and soul of the article there in places that may have been missed."), I have no interest in doing that for any article. I must admit that I am disappointed, as a large part of the review boils down to a level of personal interest, in a similar vein as your comments on the When You Get a Little Lonely nomination. I am uncertain on how to make an article have a "really compelling story" as that appears to me to purely a matter of personal interest. Not everything is going to "really compelling" for everyone, but whether or not a reviewer has a personal interest in the subject matter should not be a factor in a FAC review. However, that is just my perspective, and it does not hold much weight. An oppose vote this early in the nomination pretty much destroys any chances for this, so I see no reason to continue this further. I am going to ping the FAC coordinates (@Ian Rose:, @Laser brain:, @Sarastro1:) as I would like this FAC withdrawn. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2018 [8].

Call Me by Your Name (film)

edit
Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me by Your Name is a coming-of-age film directed by Luca Guadagnino and written by James Ivory, starring Timothée Chalamet and Armie Hammer. It is based on André Aciman's novel of the same name. I have been working on the article since October 2017; it underwent a copy-edit in May 2018 and has passed for GA two months later. I believe that it is ready for FA now. Any additional help would be greatly appreciated! Damian Vo (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • Please include ALT text for the infobox image.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (his professor father's 24-year-old graduate-student assistant), I have never seen “graduate student” with a hyphen before. I have always seen it spell out as two separate words. I am American though so that could be why.
It's already gone when I revised the article. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment/concern about this sentence (James Ivory was initially set to co-direct the film but became the screenwriter and co-producer.). It could read that Ivory was set to co-direct the film, and then he wrote the screenplay and became a co-producer only after he dropped out as a co-director. I would assume that his decision to not direct the film is not directly connection to his role as a screenwriter and a co-producer, which the current wording in the lead suggests.
I gave it a little tweak. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (At the 90th Academy Awards it received four nominations), there should be a comma after “Academy Awards”.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (In response to a note from Elio, Oliver leaves a note on Elio's desk telling Elio to meet him at midnight.), I would avoid the repetition of the word “note”.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a personal preference, but in the “Cast” section, I would place the note (Credits are adapted from Fandango.[6]) before the cast listing.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the note, I am assuming that you want the Fandango wikilink to go somewhere else.
Oops. I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (Call Me by Your Name is the final installment in Guadagnino's thematic Desire trilogy), please use the director’s full name and wikilink him as it is the first time that you mention him in the body of the article.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (The film is a departure from his previous work because he took a simple, "non-aggressive" approach; he said this is the calmest movie he has made), could you clarify what he meant by “non-aggressive” and “calmest” as it sounds rather vague?
Those are the words he refered to during interviews. I added another opinion in paragraph. Damian Vo (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by this part (Despite being a literary adaptation, many scenes are wordless. "Words are part of what's going on, but it's not necessarily what's going on underneath. I think this film celebrates the underneath", he said.) as it has an underlying assumption that all literary adaptations rely on words (or I am assuming in this sense dialogue). I would instead include a part on how Guadagnino removed dialogue during the adaptation of scenes from the book to the film. This may seem picky, but I do not think that such a bold assumption/claim (Despite being a literary adaptation, many scenes are wordless.) should be made.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (As someone who considers sex in film a representation of the characters' behavior and identity,[17] Guadagnino was not interested in including explicit sex scenes in the film, to keep the tone as planned, saying, "I wanted the audience to completely rely on the emotional travel of these people and feel first love... It was important to me to create this powerful universality, because the whole idea of the movie is that the other person makes you beautiful—enlightens you, elevates you".[18]), I would make the quote part into its own sentence as the flow reads awkwardly to me.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (and described it as “devine”;), I am assuming you mean “divine”?
Another silly mistake. Yup I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if this quote ("the need to make this into a movie”) is really needed. I think you can paraphrase this.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (During negotiations, the production's budget was reduced from $12 million to $3.5 million.), is there any information on why the budget was reduced? It seems like a rather sizable decrease.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was confused by this part (In 2016, Ivory stepped down from directing to avoid conflicts,) when I first read it. Conflicts with what? You explain it somewhat in the next sentence, but it should be clarified here.
I removed the conflicts part, since such content is explained in the next sentences. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading this sentence (Guadagnino dedicated the film to his friend Bill Paxton, who died in February 2017.), I was wondering if there was any information out there on why he dedicated this particular film to his friend?
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence (Guadagnino was tempted to remove the scene from the novel in which Elio masturbates into a pitted peach, which he thought was a metaphor for "sexual impulses and energy", and that it was too explicit.) is awkwardly worded/constructed. The last part (and that it was too explicit) is not fully connected with the rest of the sentence. I understand that you want it to connect with the verb “thought”, but the way that the commas are placed, it really connects with the beginning of the sentence and does not make sense. I would revise this.
I fixed the sentence. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (describing it as "a metamorphosis of some of the strongest ideas in the movie" and the key to illuminating the character's "overabundant sexual energy”.), the references should in sequential order. Check the rest of the article to make sure that the references are in the correct order as I see a few other instances of this.
I revised and fixed the other references. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (LaBeouf had read for the film in New York City but the production company later felt he was unsuitable because of his "various troubles”;), I would add a comma after “New York City”.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about the relevance of this sentence (Chalamet has acted since he was a child and co-starred in Showtime's Homeland (2012).) for this article.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by this part (Chalamet, who can speak fluent French and had played piano for years, arrived in Italy five weeks early to learn Italian, piano, and guitar.). You say that he had played piano for years, and then he had to learn it again?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what you mean by this sentence (Guadagnino did not want the film to "look like a reflection on the 80s ... when it becomes period.”) or what the quote even means to be honest. So Guadagnino did not want this movie to look like a period piece? Is that what he means? I am confused by this.
I fixed the quote. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence (Elio's polo shirt and Fido Dido T-shirt came from her husband's closet) reads strangely as the “her” does not match the subject “Elio”. I revise this to avoid it.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (The pre-production in Crema was fast;), could you clarify how it was “fast”?
The director vaguely mentioned it the interview. I removed it out of the paragraph. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two comments for this sentence (Post-production with regular editor Fasano in June and July took only a month;[9] the fastest Guadagnino had edited.[66]). What do you mean by “regular editor”? Do you mean that he has frequently collaborated with Guadagnino? Also, you imply that Fasano edited the film, and then later say that Guadagnino did it, so I was a little confused here.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the Sufjan Stevens image to the right as he is look down and to the left, which makes it look like he is looking away from the article (which is normally discouraged).
I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is a separate section on a potential sequel, I would include a sentence or a bit on it in the lead.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with this article. I would imagine that this would be a difficult article to work on given the amount of coverage devoted to the film. I still have not seen this film, but I enjoyed reading about it. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you once again for your helpful review! Good luck with your current FAC and your upcoming projects! Damian Vo (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

edit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in when you include publication locations and publishers
  • FN38: Graduate Center is not a work
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 48 and 63 are to the same source but are formatted differently. Same with 199 and 200
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed sources from Badtaste. As for AD I replaced with a link from Attitude. Damian Vo (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

edit
  • In the "Plot" section, we mention Hanukkah celebrations in the last paragraph but have not previously ascertained in the section that the family is Jewish. Perhaps that could be placed into the first sentence. Similarly, when referring to "a 24-year-old graduate student, Oliver," we make no mention of his American nationality. These are pertinent pieces of information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One reviewer asked me to remove them out of the Plot during the GA nomination :( Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Damian Vo: I would definitely recommend adding them back in! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "need to make it into a film, which later became the first feature film"; here we have the word "film" repeated in quick succession. How about "need for a cinematic adaptation, which later became the first feature film"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ivory hardly met Guadagnino during the process; Guadagnino was making A Bigger Splash (2015)." - a little clunky, perhaps. How about something like "Ivory hardly met Guadagnino during the process for the latter was preoccupied making A Bigger Splash (2015)."? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aciman felt the place was not familiar with the town square he pictured in the novel"; again, I find this wording a little unclear. Perhaps something like "Aciman felt that the town square selected for filming differed from that he had pictured in his novel"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He described the scene in which Elio conveys his feelings to Oliver as one of the story's most important moments that captures the "euphoric passion and nervousness" of their first love" - there needs to be some change around "moments that captures" to make this sentence flow properly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it better now? Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guadagnino was tempted to remove the scene from the novel in which Elio masturbates into a pitted peach, which he thought it was too explicit". Bit clunky. Guadagnino wasn't removing a scene from the novel itself (as an editor might); he simply considered not using it in the film. Also, "thich he thought it was too explicit" should be "which he thought too explicit". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revised. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, some excellent work has gone into this article and once these prose issues are addressed I would be very happy to support its promotion to FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, are you able to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to offer my support for this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Damian Vo (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bilorv

edit
Delinked. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seductive courtship" – I'm not sure whether they're trying to seduce other people or each other at this point. Each other? But it doesn't look like either of them are deliberately trying to seduce the other. If it's a topic sentence, I don't think it's needed, and I think it would sound fine as "Elio and Oliver they swim together, go for long walks ..."
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gay" movie seems like an inappropriate/Easter egg link. From the link, the term "New Queer Cinema" is used to "define and describe a movement in queer-themed independent filmmaking in the early 1990s". That's more than just "this is a contemporary film about queer people", and neither of the sources use the phrase "New Queer Cinema" (unless I missed something), so I think the link should be removed.
Delinked. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ivory hardly met Guadagnino during the process for the latter was preoccupied" – Took me a moment to parse. A comma between "process" and "for" might help.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guadagnino was "talking about how he would do" the scenes with nudity involved" – I don't think the direct quote adds much. Maybe "Guadagnino discussed how to film the scenes involving nudity".
Revised. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The director did not like the idea of having the main character tell the story retrospectively, stating that "it kills the surprise"." – Does this sentence not belong in the beginning of first paragraph of Adaptation?
The first two paragraphs are supposed to reflect the changes from Aciman's book. The last two are about Ivory's original script. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The production section needs to make clearer what languages the film is in. The infobox says English and Italian, so what exactly does that mean? The characters switch between English and Italian, or scenes in some locations are in Italian and others are in English?
Added in the Casting section (fifth paragraph). Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His character, 17-year-old Elio, is fluent in three languages" – And these three languages are? Only French and Italian are mentioned in the rest of the sentence. Is English the other one?
Yes. Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Capriolo, who is not an actor" – I'd say being cast in a film makes you an actor. Maybe "was not an actor".
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "even if it meant increasing a production's budget" – Should this not be "increasing the production budget"?
Oops. I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "earned 29 million on-demand audio streams" – It's not really something "earned". Maybe "garnered" would be better.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reportedly made due to the government's "consistent stance of intolerance toward gay content"" – Who is reporting this and where does the quote come from?
Added writer and publisher. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The website's critical consensus reads; "Call Me by Your Name" – Shouldn't the semi-colon be a comma or a colon?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hammer confirmed about the sequel" – Not sure if the "about" should be here, but this isn't official confirmation, right? So maybe just "Hammer said about the sequel".
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A sequel to the film was announced in January 2018." – Either this is too matter-of-fact or the body isn't clear enough. I'd say "planned sequel" if it's not actually been optioned/announced by a production company.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is an absolutely outstanding article, thoroughly comprehensive and with brilliant prose and sourcing throughout (the minor details above being exceptions). It brings to life what sounds like an excellent movie, and is easily understandable even to someone with no familiarity with the subject. I'll be very happy to support once the points above have been addressed. By the way, the website parameters in the references are not consistently linked or not linked, and I don't think Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are needed as External links since they're mentioned in the body, but I don't consider these relevant to the FA criteria. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Vo, I'd like to move this review along, are you ready to respond to Bilorv comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like they already fixed the issues yesterday, just without commenting here. I've made one small edit, and one of my comments has been unaddressed, maybe for a good reason ("Does this sentence not belong in the beginning of first paragraph of Adaptation?"), but I'm now very happy to support. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just had the craziest first week in college, and fortunately I saved all my edits based on your review right before the server switch yesterday. I addressed all your comments above—as for the website parameters in the references, I just linked all the available publishers. A big fat THANK YOU for your patience towards the nomination. Damian Vo (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

edit

I think we still need an image review -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Damian Vo: I started looking at this to see if it's ready for promotion, and errors in the writing are easily spotted: "It was originally scheduled to be shown on Beijing International Film Festival" in the Release section. Please give it a careful reading for obvious typos and grammatical issues. --Laser brain (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that. Damian Vo (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Laser brain, in fact I started to do a quick scan of the lead and main body to see if it was ready for promotion and ended up copyediting more than I expected to before stopping to do other things. I wouldn't necessarily say the prose can't be improved enough for promotion during this nomination, but it will need someone going through it top to bottom and very soon -- if I have time I'll recuse as coord and do it myself, but no promises. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
OK ALT Text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Since I'm not sure about the copyright in those two images, I could remove them if necessary. Damian Vo (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed both pictures from the article. Damian Vo (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pandino, monumento ai caduti.jpg is fine. The statue's copyright had expired in Italy before the URAA, meaning it has also entered the public domain in the US. The sculptor, Pietro Küfferle, died in 1942 (see the pdf linked to the entry at the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities General Catalog of Cultural Heritage). According to WP:URAA, the term of copyright protection for a statue in Italy prior to 1996 was 50 years after the death of the author. 50 years after Pietro's death was 1992, so copyright on the statue had expired prior to the date of restoration. It is in the public domain in both Italy and the US. I've updated the information on the image page at Commons accordingly. —BLZ · talk 20:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian

edit

Per my comment above, I decided to recuse and do a full copyedit/review. I applaud the effort that's gone into this article, but the ce was heavy going, and the thing should have gone through Peer Review before FAC. My concern now is that even after the copyedit, there are still outstanding points that need to be dealt with:

  • Ivory was "very much involved" – not clear who said this, pls attribute inline.
Removed the quote. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • a "much more efficient" solution, to help the audience understand the characters and "reflect the essence of the book" – again, quotes should be attributed inline.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the arid climate and "spookily deserted" nature in Crema – what exactly does "nature" mean here, the landscape?
Yes, I fixed that. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the production company later felt he was unsuitable because of his "various troubles" – per above, exactly who said "various troubles"? If the production company, was it a named representative? TBH I’m dubious about including the quote anyway, as the question immediately arises for the uninitiated: "what troubles?"
Removed the quote. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casting director Stella Savino met Vanda Capriolo when she was bicycling in the countryside. – not immediately clear who was bicycling...
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guadagnino usually selects the music for his films himself. – perhaps I’m too familiar with people like Stanley Kubrick but is it so unusual for directors to choose music?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was also screened at the Berlin International Film Festival on February 13, 2017. – I assume “It” is the promo reel rather than the film itself, since the promo was mentioned in the previous sentence? If not, replace “It” with “The film” and drop “also”.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • largely because of Sony Pictures' "misleading" use of an image – should attribute “misleading”.
Removed the quote. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • an under-performance compared to "some of its competition with similar theater counts" – according to...?
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, and putting my coord hat back on for a minute, it appears that this would be nominator's first FA if successful, so we'd want to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing. This will add to the nom's already long duration, and in any case I'm afraid I've invested all the time in it that I can spare. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also a bit surprised by the withdrawal. It looks like the article is close to passing—I think it certainly deserves to—and I'll volunteer to do a source review if the nomination remains open. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm back. Damian Vo (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting, I appreciate that the nominator has made changes based on my comments above but, checking diffs, a lot of text has changed since then, improving some areas but introducing further prose issues. As I said earlier, I can't spare the time to go through it again top the bottom, but I think somebody needs to -- in all conscience I can't support promotion as things stand, so must reluctantly oppose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tony1

edit

Why has this been here for so long?

  • "35-mm" – MOS and ISO breach: no hyphen when symbol is used.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elio, an introspective bibliophile and musical prodigy, initially finds little in common with Oliver, who has a contrastingly carefree and exuberant personality. Elio resents having to give up his bedroom for Oliver for the duration of his stay. He spends much of the ...". "He" is who?
It's Elio. Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guadagnino took note of Armie Hammer upon seeing his performance in The Social Network (2010)." Not a good sentence.
I gave it a little tweak. Damian Vo (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the "Principal photography" crowded with obstructive ref-tags? Is it contentious? "Principal photography on Call Me by Your Name lasted around 33 days.[58][68] It began on May 9, 2016,[69] and was completed in June 2016.[48][70] The process was unobstrusive,[71] reports only appearing after filming had been underway for two weeks.[72][73] The film was shot primarily in Crema[8][11] and the province of Cremona.[74][75]"—This is a weird sentence: "The process was unobstrusive, reports only appearing after filming had been underway for two weeks."
I moved the tags and fixed the sentence. Damian Vo (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has "a publicity campaign" got to do with "Principal photography"?
It's included in the production budget in Crema. Damian Vo (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several historical locations in the streets of Crema and Pandino, including the arch of Torrazzo at Crema Cathedral, were chosen during production." Re-do the order of this sentence.
Is it better now? Damian Vo (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1a: The lead is ok. I've not looked at most of it. Nothing to write home about, but I won't oppose. Tony (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • By coincidence, I've just watched half of this film. The 17yo is not a "musical prodigy". I wonder whether this was a loose indulgence by a critic. "a talented musician" might be OK. Is the Jewish identity given undue emphasis in the article? Any outsider symbolism is hard to find. Tony (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone seems to have different opinions about the characters' Jewish background. Maybe you should read the comments from Midnightblueowl right above, or from the GA nomination in July. I fixed the "musical prodigy" part. Damian Vo (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Undue emphasis. After TWO mentions toward the top of the article I was all prepared for it to be a meaningful part of the plot. Can you explain how it is that? Tony (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: @Damian Vo: The Jewish identity of the characters is an important thematic element of the film and, at the very least, it's far from undue to mention the fact. I agree with Midnightblueowl's comments above. It's not the crux of the entire movie, but it is significant to the identity of the characters and the overall meaning of the story: in an early scene, Elio is shocked to see Oliver openly wearing a Star of David necklace in public, which is a clear symbolic parallel between LGBT people remaining closeted for fear of persecution and Jews assimilating, passing, and hiding their identity for fear of persecution. Remember that Italy is a deeply Catholic country. A general reader unfamiliar with the film may mistakenly assume the characters are Catholic, which carries a very different cultural context. It's worth including the fact to avoid that misunderstanding alone. Sure, a general reader would probably figure it out by the time they get to the word "Hanukkah" in the final paragraph, but at that point a mistaken assumption would have colored their entire reading. Introducing the characters' Jewish identity is also useful for casual readers who may use the Wikipedia page as a quick reference to remember that aspect of the movie. For what it's worth, it's trivially easy to find examples of critics remarking on the significance of the characters' Jewishness, including several from Jewish or Israeli outlets:
In short: the fact of Elio and Oliver's Jewishness is not a Chekhov's gun upon which the plot pivots, sure, but it's worth noting in the article because it carries important contextual and thematic significance (not to mention usefulness for Wikipedia as an encyclopedic reference point). Perhaps including the Star of David necklace scene in the plot summary as well will provide additional weight. —BLZ · talk 21:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal; but two mentions of Jewish identity at the top seemed one too many. I've asked a friend who's read the book whether the Jewish identity plays out more there. He said there's a little more detail, but it's still not important to the plot or characterisation, symbolically or otherwise. I don't understand why "encycopedic reference point" (whatever that is) is relevant. Tony (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I said about serving as an encyclopedic reference point, I just mean we should try to include facts that are reasonably notable that someone would use Wikipedia to look up for reference. It's easy to imagine a reader recalling the movie, wondering "I can't remember what religion those characters were" (or any other number of thoughts that might spark curiosity about this fact) and using Wikipedia to check. This just speaks to the way people ordinarily use the site; sometimes we sit down and read full pages, sure, but other times—most of the time, let's be honest—there's one or two facts we want to recall. The identity of the two main characters is a conspicuous-enough fact that it's easy to imagine readers would reasonably be curious about this fact, or indeed that their whole purpose of searching out the page in the first place could have been to check this one fact.
I've edited the plot summary to include the fact that they are both Jewish-American again—I hadn't realized earlier that removing the fact that they are Jewish also removed their nationality, which is similarly important and nonintuitive without prior knowledge (if someone lives in Italy, you don't presume that means they are expats, and even if you do, expats can be from anywhere; similarly, graduate students studying abroad can be from anywhere.)
Another point about all of this: most of the film's actual events are omitted from plot summary. I discussed the peach scene below with Damian Vo, and decided that (despite the scene's fame) a literal description of the events of that scene is probably not necessary as the meaning is subtextual. At the moment, the plot summary does not include the Star of David scene, either (which is actually more significant than I remembered; several writers online have pointed out that Elio is seen wearing a Star of David necklace later in the film, and it is implied that Oliver gives Elio his Star of David at the end of their visit to Bergamo). It also doesn't include other scenes that aren't directly relevant to these themes, like their visit to the archeological site, the dance, etc. It's OK that these scenes are omitted, because the summary doesn't have to recount every scene since it captures the arc of the relationship in summary style. That said, because events like the scene concerning the Star of David are not included in the summary, the full subtextual significance is not going to be apparent to someone who only reads the Wikipedia summary. CMBYN is a movie built on subtext, but it's not necessary (or possible) to fully convey the subtextual significance of every major thematic element. Nonetheless, several facts about them both being Jewish-American are significant even without a full subtextual understanding and wouldn't be evident otherwise, including that the characters are in a non-native land and share a common religion—the minority in the country they are living in—and a common national background. And unlike the interpretation required to see the full significance of the peach scene, the fact that they are Jewish-American is a simple true-or-false proposition that is easily contained in sentences introducing the characters. —BLZ · talk 17:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Tony (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC) And I support for cr. 1a. You might trim a few of those "upon"s to plain "on"s. Tony (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Bilorv

edit

Spotchecks done and no issues found for: FN3, FN7, FN19, FN26, FN30, FN33, FN48, FN111, FN118, FN132, FN148, FN157, FN182, FN236, FN243. Other spotchecks:

  • FN61 is a blog somehow associated with the University of Liverpool. It's not clear to me that this is reliable, but it seems like removal is best as the prose it sources is also covered by FN60 (and, really, the primary source of the film itself).
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN76 and FN77 don't really source the statement "A search for extras in Crema began in March–April." They are both just calls for extras; there's no evidence that they were the first or last calls.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only read machine-translated versions of FN83 and FN84 but it looks like it was the City of Crema that were reportedly paying €18,000, not the production company. Am I misunderstanding something?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see a part of FN208 which can be summarised as "Ken Eisner of The Georgia Straight questioned the film's central message". Rather, it seems that Eisner criticises that certain details are not central to the story.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

  • Publication locations are used for some sources and not others—why?
Because those locations are listed explicitly in the sources. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN24 translates the title as "Call me with your name: because Luca Guadagnino likes Americans". Would "Call me by your name" not be a more accurate translation, since the title is referring to the film name? Same thing in FN63.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The budget is given variously as $3 million, $3.4 million and $3.5 million. Presumably the exact figure is $3.4 million and the other sources are rounding, but the article uses $3.5 million when it seems like $3.4 million would be a bit more precise.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN71 does indeed say filming happened "quietly", but this is just an informal description by a journalist. I don't think it's a strong enough source for the article to claim "The process occurred quietly". Perhaps remove this and leave the description that reports only began after two weeks into filming.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN92 should have its website (Interview) as a parameter.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN178 should link "Box Office Mojo".
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Gardanotizie a reliable source? Rappler (which describes itself as "citizen journalism")? Washington Blade (a tabloid)?

— Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on sourcing, I guess, though I've already supported above. Thanks for the quick responses. All the problems I found have been fixed, I am confident that sources used are reliable and spotchecking didn't reveal any systematic problem in the article's sourcing (in particular, there was no close paraphrasing or plagiarism and only occasional minor inconsistency between the prose and the sources). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Damian Vo (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brandt Luke Zorn

edit

Excellent article about a wonderful film. I've began making some copyedits throughout. I'm writing pretty thorough edit summaries to explain my reasoning in most cases; most of my changes aren't radical rewrites on a textual level, but they sometimes make a substantive difference in meaning. If you disagree with my edits there, feel free to bring them up here. I'm still reading through the article closely, but here's a few preliminary thoughts on topics that ought to be addressed here:

  • The plot summary is concise, even—appropriately, I feel—spare. It adequately covers the film's arc without giving too much away. You've done well to summarize without belaboring or tediously lingering on any plot points. That said, I think you should reconsider the omission of the "call me by your name and I'll call you by mine" line of dialogue, not just because it's the source of the title, but because it is echoed in the final telephone conversation.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think the "peach" scene should probably be included in the plot summary since it is so famous... but I'm conflicted here, because I also understand why it's missing. "As the end of Oliver's stay approaches, the couple find themselves overcome by uncertainty and longing." In a single sentence, you've done justice to that part of the film in terms of the emotion, which is the true through-line of the film. Personally, I know I don't have the skill to write down a literal description of what takes place in that scene that would convey the actual emotional effect of the scene, let alone avoid diminishing it. Idk, tbh. It might be worth giving it a shot if you haven't, but it's tricky, and you came up with an elegant solution. I'd like to hear your thoughts. It might be a worthy addition, but maybe it's better left out—the peach scene is addressed elsewhere, anyway.
I agree that the scene is one crucial piece in the plot but I think it is already well-addressed in the "Adaptation" section. Damian Vo (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'd already talked myself out of it more or less, but I wanted to put the thought down for the record anyway. —BLZ · talk 09:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You include this article, but you've omitted some of the most fascinating parts of Ivory's criticism. You did include the "phoney" quote elsewhere, but I think you should take a bit more from here. First, it's interesting that Ivory feels that Guadagnino was self-serving and duplicitous in his decisions about the depiction of nudity to the press. Ivory called it "bullshit," a strong word, and said Guadagnino told the press something other than what actually transpired in development. Additionally, Ivory expresses a strong aesthetic preference for depicting male sex and even makes the case for why it's preferable. "To me, that's a more natural way of doing things than to hide them, or to do what Luca did, which is to pan the camera out of the window toward some trees"—in the context of queer storytelling, "to hide" seems like significant, almost political language that goes far beyond ordinary considerations of whether to include sexual content or not. Most versions of "should we include nudity?" in filmmaking center on familiar retreadings of issues like gratuitousness or marketability, so I don't think a general reader is likely to intuit these hidden stakes. These are important insights into the process, the thinking, and the conflict of the two most important contributors to the film, and including more of Ivory's reasoning could make this aspect more vivid. The sentence here feels too dry: "According to Ivory, Guadagnino discussed how to film the scenes involving nudity, but later dropped it." It misses a lot of the conflict and the reasons for the difference of opinion between writer and director.
I made some changes to the "Adaptation" section based on your suggestions. Damian Vo (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised this section again, as I thought there were some things that were worth clarifying:
  • It's not quite accurate to say Ivory thought the film depicted a "'phoney' version of a same-sex relationship". The comment he made to the Guardian in which he used the word "phoney" was not about onscreen same-sex relationships in particular. He merely thought it was phoney that films contrive ways to hide post-sex nudity, when it's more realistic to expect that people of any sex will probably walk around naked for a while after having sex in most cases as long as they're still alone and in private. Either way, Ivory's perception of "phoney"-ness is narrowly about nudity and intimacy, not about an overall failure to depict a realistic gay couple. It overstates his criticism to say he felt the lack of nudity rendered the entire relationship between the characters inauthentic or "phoney", he just felt the lack of nudity itself was "phoney".
  • "Ivory also criticized the film's lack of nudity, due to the director's 'aesthetic decision'" — the sentence that this quote comes from is: "He sat in this very room where I am sitting now, talking about how he would do it, so when he says that it was a conscious aesthetic decision not to – well, that’s just bullshit." It's inaccurate to say Ivory thought the film's lack of nudity was due to the director's "aesthetic decision". What he said is the director's own statements that the lack of nudity was due to a "conscious aesthetic decision" were false or misleading. In Ivory's account, it sounds like the filmmakers had made a conscious aesthetic decision in their pre-production discussions, but it had been to include nudity, not to omit it, and the subsequent decision to omit nudity was mostly due to nonaesthetic considerations (such as the actors' no-nudity contract terms.) In other words, Ivory's problem here is not so much the decision itself (although he disagrees with that too, for other reasons); his problem is Guadagnino's statements that the decision had always been conscious (intentional, deliberative, implying that even Ivory himself intended or approved it) and aesthetic (strictly about artistic vision, not a compromise to other external considerations), which in Ivory's view is not true.
  • "To me, that's a more natural way of doing things than to hide them, or to do what Luca did" — Ivory was comparing CMBYN to his earlier film Maurice. Without this context, it's unclear what "that" refers to. —BLZ · talk 09:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just scrolling through, one of my favorite parts of the article is the gallery of photos from filming locations. This is an exceptional visual feature for the article, the kind of thing I'd like to see more of on Wikipedia. Have you considered bumping the image height up slightly? I've played around with it a few ways in preview and 200px seems like it could work. You get two rows in most window widths that way, but I think that only enhances the gallery without detracting from the article flow. Compared to the web design you find on most other modern sites, I think Wikipedia's default design elements squish and encourage the squishing of images too much, but that's just me.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is something I say whenever I can: major kudos for archiving every link in the references. It can be a pain and it's not strictly required by the FA criteria, but it's essential. If Wikipedia exists decades from now—and hopefully it does!—archived links will help preserve the site's best work.
Thank you :> Damian Vo (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some copyediting on punctuation placement for quotations. See MOS:INOROUT. However in my rush I think I actually messed up a few of these. Gonna revisit tomorrow or the next day, my comments above are enough to start on anyway. —BLZ · talk 07:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I've finished copyediting. Some changes were as minor as fixing punctuation to MOS standards, other times I dug back into sources to see if I could clarify unclear wording or expand quotes to make more sense of them. Let me know if you disagree with any of my revisions. I've also added a map of the filming locations, which seemed like a fun challenge. I'm not 100% confident that the way I formatted those templates will work (or look good) 100% of the time—on my mobile device, it looks like the two maps may stack vertically. I'm still willing to tinker with it if you like the addition, or maybe someone better at CSS than me will weigh in; it's also possible to remove the map of Italy, although for an average (non-Italian) person the map of Lombardy may be cropped too closely to get a sense of the region's location within Italy. Overall, superb work. This is an excellent, comprehensive article. —BLZ · talk 09:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I see Ian requested an additional copyedit/prose review; I should be able to complete a review today. I'll copyedit as I go rather than post queries unless I think something requires input from the nominator. Please revert if I screw anything up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see Aoba47 recommended that you mention Fandango in the introductory sentence of the cast section. Aoba47, you said this was personal preference -- is there more to it than that? I'd prefer to cut it, since it immediately made me think that either the cast list was very hard to source (which is unlikely) or that the Fandango cast list differs from other sources. It's a minor point, either way.
    I simply suggested that the Fandango reference and sentence be placed before the section as opposed to below as that is how I have seen it normally done. I would imagine that the cast list should have a reference though to support the actors/characters credited (as seen in Margarita with a Straw. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then I'd suggest cutting it -- there seems no need to explain to the reader where we got the citation from; they can click on the footnote if they're interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I think it should just be the reference. I have looked through other FAs on film, and I have seen a mixture of those citing the cast section and those that do not. I personally think that it should be cited to explain why these particular actors are including in the cast list and to avoid the addition of very minor characters or extras, but it is up to the editor's preference there. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the process, Ivory put together more than 100 pages of notes on Aciman's book.": suggest cutting this -- what screenwriter doesn't make notes?
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a few direct quotes, which would be nice to avoid. Here's one: 'According to Guadagnino, the filmmakers set the movie entirely in the present timeline, a "much more efficient" solution to help the audience understand the characters and "reflect the essence of the book".' Can we make this "The filmmakers set the movie entirely in the present timeline to help the audience understand the characters, believing that this approach would still allow them to remain true to the spirit of the book." There's a slight shift in meaning here, in that the source does not say the timeline setting would help reflect the essence of the book; they say only that they don't think it gets in the way.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'He said that explicit nudity was "absolutely irrelevant" to his vision for the film,[44] and that he did not like the idea of having the main character tell the story retrospectively, stating that "it kills the surprise".' These are two independent points, and the one about the timeline is covered earlier in this section. I'd move that half of the sentence up and merge it with the earlier discussion.
These two are about the voice-over narration and the nudity from the previous sentence. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many of the changes to Ivory's screenplay were made during the filming; the screenwriter was not present at the shooting set, as is typical in filmmaking." Suggest "Many of the changes to Ivory's screenplay were made during the filming; Ivory was not on set during shooting" with a footnote explaining that this is typical.
Removed the last part. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Speaking about this disagreement with Ivory, Guadagnino had said: "I understand that for James [explicit nudity] would have been relevant but that is his vision, what is clear is that we had no limitations on what we wanted to do."' Suggest 'Guadagnino said that he understood Ivory's position, but that it was clear that there were "no limitations on what we wanted to do".'
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest cutting the sentence about Hammer changing his mind while on the phone; it's trivia -- we're already saying he considered passing.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Call Me by Your Name became the third film in which Hammer played an LGBT character, following his roles in J. Edgar (2011) and Final Portrait (2017)." Suggest "Hammer had previously played LGBT characters, in J. Edgar (2011) and Final Portrait (2017)"; the fact that it's the third film isn't worth calling out, and the reader can count to three anyway.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Guadagnino said he did not want the film to "look like a reflection on the 80s, the way cinema usually does when it becomes [a period piece]," as he believes it is "very difficult to resist the temptation of thinking of a period from our perspective, our idea of the 80s."' I think this is more than we need of Guadagnino's words. How about 'Guadagnino did not want the film to be a period piece, and tried to resist making a film that would reflect "our idea of the 80s". His goal was an accurate recreation of the period that was invisible to the viewer.'
Fixed.
  • 'Reports on the filming only appeared after the process had already been underway for two weeks.[70][71][72]' Can we cut this? I don't see why the reader would care (nor why there are three citations for it).
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rephrased the sentence on the heavy rains, but I noticed some interesting discussion in the source about how the cinematography had to adapt. Not necessary for FAC, but afterwards you might consider incorporating some of that material.
  • "Scenes set in the nearby villages Pandino and Moscazzano were filmed between May 17 and 19 before moving to Crema on June 1": the scenes didn't move to Crema on June 1, the shooting did. Will the sources support "Scenes set in the nearby villages Pandino and Moscazzano were filmed between May 17 and 19, and shooting in Crema began on June 1"?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'which allowed the filmmakers to "witness the onscreen maturity of both protagonist and actor".' I'd cut this; you might reintroduce it in the critical reception section. If you want to keep it it needs to be paraphrased, or else you need to attribute it to Fasano in the text.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That whole paragraph is almost entirely constructed from quotes; it needs to be narrated in the encyclopedia's voice. We shouldn't use quotes to tell the story; quotes are for illustration.
  • Why do we care what the Piazza Vittoria Emanuele memorializes?
It's one infamous scene in the film. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we care that Aciman saw that scene, let alone that it was his first day on set?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, because I can see from the comments above that this has plenty of support for promotion, but at this point I have to Oppose. There's some trivia, which I'm either cutting as I find it or asking you to cut in the bullet list above. There are problems with the writing -- mostly with a lack of concision, but occasionally more than that. The worst issue is the overuse of quotes. I haven't reached it yet in the review, but the critical response section also needs work; see WP:RECEPTION for some suggestions. I'm out of time but can continue with the copyedit and review tomorrow or Monday if this is not archived. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Damian Vo: What's the status here? This is at the bottom of the list and we have open comments more than a week old. I see you have been active editing. --Laser brain (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed most of the problems mentioned above. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination has been dragging on for months and I couldn't keep track of all the comments toward the article. Maybe it's time to close this. Damian Vo (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laser brain, I have a little time tonight, and may have some more during the week, but can't commit to more than an hour or two until Saturday. I will take a look at the fixes Damian has made above later this evening if you haven't closed this by then, but I can't guarantee I'll be able to finish reading the article until the weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike Christie, no worries at all. Damian Vo, I'd hate to close this when so much progress has been made—let's hang on tight. --Laser brain (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll see what I can get done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a shame to see this archived after so much work but I also opposed above, not long before Mike, largely because I think too much work has been done. Several people, including me, have made extensive copyedits or requested many changes, some decent work along the way has I think been undone (not through the fault of the nominator) and it's become a dog's breakfast. Obviously I'm speaking purely as a reviewer here, but I would've thought it best for the next copyedit to be away from FAC, because even after that people like me will want to go through it again to see that it finally comes together. I reiterate though that that's just me as a reviewer, I don't have to make a judgement on closure... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damian, I came here to post a follow-up and saw Ian's comment. I was about to post the comment below, but I'll add here that I think the article would benefit from some work away from FAC. I would be willing to work on it with you and I think it's likely it would get through FAC fairly easily if we did that.

Here's what I was going to post. The biggest remaining issue for me is the critical response section, so let's start there. Take a look at WP:RECEPTION; I won't repeat the advice it gives, but the section suffers badly from the "A said B" problem. This is fixable but it requires dismantling the section and rebuilding it in a different way. If you want to take a stab at it, go ahead; I would suggest looking at the "True Detective" example given in the essay as an example of how it could be done. If you're not clear what I'm asking for I can be more specific. Or, as I said above, I'll work with you on it away from FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - OK, it looks as though the best thing for all involved will be to work this up outside of FAC and then renominate when it's ready. @Damian Vo:, when it's ready, you can definitely ping those who have already reviewed the article and ask them to comment again. --Laser brain (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2018 [9].

Flag of the Yakut Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic

edit
Nominator(s): Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the state flag of the Yakut ASSR. It has a lot of citations about the documents and laws.Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This isn't ready for FAC yet, so I suggest you withdraw and go through PR after having worked on it a little more. A quick list of problems for me that you need to work on outside FAC:
  • The lead is too short and does not cover the main points of the article;
  • The Background section is also too short - I'd expect to see a little more about where the region is, when it came into being, etc
  • There are several unsupported paragraphs or sentences;
  • The text needs working on. Problems include too many paras opening "On January 1, 2019..."; too many stubby one-sentence paras; too many grammatical errors ("The first constitution did not mentioned any design of flag" by way of example.
This needs quite a bit of work before it's ready for consideration. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I'm going to treat the nominator's removal of this page from the FAC list as a withdrawal, which I'll action shortly. After making improvements to the article, a Peer Review would be the next step before considering another FAC nomination. Pls note that per FAC instructions, you will need to refrain from re-nominating this article or nominating any other article for a minimum of two weeks. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2018 [10].

Halo Wars 2

edit
Nominator(s): The1337gamer (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Halo Wars 2, a military science faction RTS video game, part of the Halo franchise. I created the article and rewrote it entirely following the game's release last year to get it to GA-status. Recently David Fuchs suggested that it was in a good place to improve for FAC. After working on it some more, I would like to nominate it for FA-status. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

edit

1a: not bad, but needs work. Comma usage, redundant wording, etc.

  • "On the Ark, the UNSC crew encounters a mercenary alien faction known as the Banished and a war ensues." Comma after "the Banished" would help the reader to apprehend the sequence of events.
  • Opposite issue, in a way: "In Halo Wars 2, players construct a base of operations, accumulate resources to deploy infantry and vehicle units, and then command their armies from a bird's-eye view of the battlefield." The sequencing is obvious; can we do without "then"?
  • The listing technique here suggests there are three equal components. But I think you intend the first to be primary, from which the next two are causal spinoffs: "This led them to set the game 28 years after the events of the original Halo Wars to fit it in with the current timeline of series' main story arc, and to set the game on a familiar location featured previously in the series." To to to is the problem. So ... "... Wars, fitting it in with ... , and setting the game ..."? "synchroniz/sing" might be better for the first one.
  • Unnecessary Latinism, and awkard ellipsis of "was": "and was showcased at a number of video gaming conventions prior to before release"
  • There are 61 occurrences of "that". Can you get rid of, say, a third? Like this one: "Two open betas ran during the final year of the game's production so that the development team could make". Use the finder box.
  • "Reviewers found the game to be very approachable to beginners but felt that it was in need of more strategic depth to gain popularity amongst experienced RTS players."—dump three words and dump one word, and add a comma. AmongST?
  • "Several nuisances present in the game's keyboard and mouse controls left some critics disappointed."—dump one word. "However, enhancements made to the gamepad control scheme from the first Halo Wars were praised." -> "... disappointed; but ...". Then dump yet another word.
  • "The game was supported with additional content and updates such as support for cross-platform play and a campaign expansion, Awakening the Nightmare." So is the "such as" additional content or updates? Comma needed after the appropriate item.

That's just the lead. The rest needs going through by you and your collaborators. Tony (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: Thanks for the feedback. I think I've addressed these issues. I've done copyedit on the whole article. Tried to remove a lot of the the repetitive language and unnecessary wording. Hopefully it reads better now. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a solid month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2018 [11].

SM U-1 (Austria-Hungary)

edit
Nominator(s): White Shadows Let’s Talk 02:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back at it with another submarine article. This time, it's the lead ship of the U-1 class, U-1. The main article dealing with her class was just promoted to FA-status about a day ago, and this article recently passed an A-class review late last month. I've incorporated some of the recommendations I received during the U-1-class FAC into this article since the ACR closed, and I think it's now ready to be taken to FAC.

Now, about the submarine itself. U-1 was the first U-boat build for and commissioned into the Austro-Hungarian Navy. Her design included several unique features mechanics that you don't often see on many other submarines, such as a diving chamber to enter and exit the submarine while it was underwater. Perhaps most bizarrely, she was also equipped with wheels (yes, you read that right...wheels) to "travel" along the seafloor. This was largely because she was an experimental design intended to evaluate competing proposals from three different foreign firms.

Throughout her career, U-1 was used mostly for training purposes, though she was briefly mobilized during the First Balkan War, and she was occasionally assigned recon missions out of Trieste and Pola during World War I. However, she never sank or damaged any enemy vessels during the war. Declared obsolete in January 1918, she was again relegated to training missions before being put up at Pola near the end of the war. After a brief period of chaos regarding who owned the submarine following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (as was the case with literally every single ship in the Austro-Hungarian fleet at the end of the war), U-1 was seized by, and later granted to, Italy. The Italians decided to ultimately scrap the submarine in Pola in 1920.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 02:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

edit

Lead, 1a:

  • "as part of a competitive evaluation of foreign submarine designs after domestic proposals were rejected by the Navy"—why not active voice? "as part of a competitive evaluation of foreign submarine designs after the Navy had rejected domestic proposals" (I added "had" ... please check)
  • This is historically accurate. The Navy did not reach out to foreign firms until after rejecting the domestic proposals presented to them.
"after domestic proposals were rejected by the Navy"—"the Navy" is still well and truly the actor; active/passive makes utterly no difference to that. But passive is unnecessarily complex grammar. This is nothing to do with historical accuracy. Tony (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hiccup every time I see "she" and "her". If you must use sexist language—as the MilHist males have successfully fought tooth and nail to be allowed to persist with—could we not at least ration it a little? Many of them are redundant, anyway: why two "she"s in one sentence? "She was 30.48 meters (100 ft 0 in) long and, depending on whether she was surfaced or submerged, displaced between 229.7 and 248.9 metric tons (226–245 long tons; 253–274 short tons)." Note that range typography is not permitted after "between" or "from". In the end, it's not easy to know exactly what you mean: so surfaced, the tests were lower in that range, and submerged they were toward 248.9? Are those averages?
  • I took this article to FAC to expect serious inquires regarding the quality of the article's content, research, and coverage, not to have to address petty politics and flimsy accusations of latent sexism in my writing. If your objection is word repetition in a sentence (one of my personal pet peeves), I'm with you. However, I am not here to re-litigate conventional naming practices, and this FAC has nothing to do with such a thing.
There's nothing "latent" about your sexist language, and if you want to refer to it in terms of "petty politics", it makes you look worse. If you'd read my comment properly, you'd understand that I know better than to ask for it to be eradicated. All I'm asking is for references to the submarine to be rotated with more skill, to avoid, for example, two shes in one sentence. That's like avoiding words such as "this" too often. The bonus is that it's less offensive to female readers, and to male readers who care. The article is not for you and your mates: it's for our readers. Tony (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know better than to ask for it to be eradicated...you just don't know better than to insult someone for no reason at all.
  • If the unsigned preceding comment makes its author feel better, sure, he can ventilate all he likes. If he regards what I said as a personal "insult", he's the one with the problem. Now, let's see if we can get the whole article up to scratch. Tony (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar and fluff problems:

    "Originally powered by gasoline engines for surface running, it was discovered during her sea trials throughout 1909 and 1910 that these engines were found to be incapable of reaching the submarine's contracted speed and posed a risk of poisoning the ship's crew." ->

    "Originally powered by gasoline engines for surface running, sea trials throughout 1909 and 1910 showed these engines to be incapable of reaching the submarine's contracted speed and to pose a risk of poisoning the crew."

  • Done
  • "Despite these criticisms, tests of her design provided information which the Navy used to construct subsequent submarines." -> "Despite these criticisms, design tests provided information the Navy used to improve submarine construction." (That's some guesswork by me.)
  • Done
  • "in order to". No.
  • Fixed
  • "but was at Pola at the end of the war"—the "but" means the training role was no longer at Pola? Bit hard to work it out.
  • Sources are uncertain if she was still in a training role after her re-location to Pola. Austria-Hungary was already starting to collapse by October, so while she may officially have been listed as a training vessel, it's probable that she was no longer actually conducting training operations. I'd prefer to avoid pure speculation however. All we know for certain is that she was relocated to Pola in the final months of the war.
  • "to avoid having to hand its ships over"—why not "to avoid handing its ships over"?
  • Done
  • "Following the Armistice of Villa Giusti in November 1918 however, U-1 was seized by Italian forces and subsequently granted to the Kingdom of Italy under the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1920. Italy chose to scrap the submarine, and she was broken up at Pola later that same year without ever having sunk or damaged any vessels during her career."—The "however" needs a prior comma, but using it in afterthought position is very unusual. Why do we need it at all? "... which was broken up at Pola ...".
  • Change made

Glancing further down, I see lots of things to fix. Needs a thorough audit. Tony (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Later comment: I think the practice of nominating and then vanishing should be discouraged. This has occupied a place on the list for five days without nominator activity. Could it be removed, please? Tony (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you took a look at the article activity, you’d see I am addressing your points. I’d appreciate it if you’d operate a bit more in good faith.—White Shadows Let’s Talk 12:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, like your good faith, on disply above? I hope I do better than that. Tony (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling the lead image rather than used fixed pixel size

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

G'day, I had a look at this over the past couple of days while travelling. I had tired eyes from that, so apologies if I've missed anything. Thanks for you efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox: late 1914–early 1915 -- > "Late 1914 – early 1915" (spaces and caps)
  • the image in the infobox appears to lack alt text -- for consistency with the other images, I'd suggest adding it in;
  • preferring to instead observe other navies experiment with the relatively new type of ship.[2] In early 1904, after allowing the navies of other countries to pioneer submarine developments, Constructor General -- there is a little repetition here. I think this might work better: "...preferring to allow other countries to pioneer the relatively new type of vessel.[2] In early 1904, Constructor General..."
  • draught --> "draft" (the article appears to use US English variation, I think)
  • These including --> "included"
  • After observing the MTK design submitted in early 1905... --> "After reviewing the MTK design submitted in early 1905
  • in the Design section, Although --> not sure about this construction, grammatically speaking. Being experimental isn't a juxtaposition with being the first submarines in the Navy. I would suggest mentioning the designations of U-1 and U-2 in the last sentence of the Background section, then would reduce the first sentence of the Design section as follows: "Intended as an experimental design when ordered, both U-1 and U-2 would prove to be a disappointment. U-1 and..."
  • Not sure about the value of including the point about Lake praising the boats, and the block quote from the designer, to be honest
  • ships -- or "boats"? Not sure, to be honest. I am not a sailor myself, but I have spent a little time on board naval vessels, and at least in the RAN, it seems submarines are usually called "boats" not "ships". Certainly only a minor point, and I'm am happy for you to ignore it if you disagree
  • U-1 was constructed in line with Austro-Hungarian naval policy at the time, which stressed coastal defense and patrolling of the Adriatic Sea --> "U-1 was constructed in line with Austro-Hungarian naval strategy at the time, which focused upon coastal defense and patrol operations in the Adriatic Sea"?
  • Pola Navy Yard (German: Seearsenal) in Pola.[18][15][4] -- suggest ordering the refs so they are in numerical order
  • Because of the problems, the Austro-Hungarian Navy considered the engines to be unsuitable for wartime use and paid only for the hulls and armament of U-1. --> "Because of this, the Navy deemed the engines unsuitable for wartime use and only paid for the vessel's hulls and armament."?
  • In order to correct this problem, the --> "To correct this, the"
  • For underwater steering, her design featured four pairs of diving planes --> " For underwater steering, there were four pairs of diving planes."
  • By December 1912, the Austro-Hungarian Navy... Is this sentence really necessary to this article?
  • The outbreak of World War I found U-1 in drydock --> "At the outbreak of World War I, U-1 was in a drydock..."
  • It would not be until 1920 that the final distribution of the ships was settled among the Allied powers under the terms of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye --> "The final distribution of the ships among the Allied powers was settled under the terms of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1920"?
  • On 29 October the --> probably needs an introductory comma
  • lacked the men and officers to hold the fleet as most sailors --> "lacked the crews needed to hold the fleet as most sailors "?
  • Due to the training and reconnaissance missions she engaged in throughout the war, U-1 did not sink or damage any ships during her career --> "Due to only being assigned training and reconnaissance missions throughout the war, U-1 did not sink or damage any ships during her career"
  • Citation 1: should have endashes before and after Kaiserliche Marine;
  • Citation 23: Vego 1996, pp. 144-145, 153 --> should have an endash;
  • in the References, there is inconsistency in how you present states, e.g compare Annapolis, MD v. Annapolis, Maryland
  • in the References, move the link for Annapolis and Naval Institute Press to the first mention
  • this needs a citation: Lake's design also called for two retractable wheels that, in theory, could allow travel over the seabed. The design also placed the diving tanks above the waterline of the cylindrical hull, which necessitated a heavy ballast keel for vertical stability. The location of the diving tanks also necessitated flooding to be done by pumps.
  • in terms of sourcing, most seemed ok to me on face value, but I wasn't really sure about whether "Mushroom Models" would be considered a high quality publisher. Can you tell us something about its reputation, or if there are any reviews of their work etc?
  • same same for "Arbeitsgemeinschaft fu¨r O¨sterreichische Marinegeschichte", publisher of Marine—Gestern, Heute?

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/November_2018&oldid=871356592"