Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1

Fuck (film)

Fuck (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1

Nominator(s): — Cirt (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuck (film) is a WP:GA quality article on a documentary about freedom of speech and censorship.

After being promoted to WP:GA status by Khazar2, the article went through Peer Review where useful feedback was received from Red Phoenix, Piotrus, and Rejectwater. Subsequently WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors member Miniapolis provided helpful copy-editing.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration, — Cirt (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Fuck, Talk:The finger, User talk:Rejectwater, User talk:Piotrus, User talk:Red Phoenix, User talk:Miniapolis, User talk:Khazar2, User talk:Cirt, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Comments from Lugnuts (addressed)

Addressed comments from Lugnuts moved to talk per agreement with user, see diff.

Comments from Rejectwater (addressed)

Addressed comments by Rejectwater moved to talk page, per agreement with Rejecwater, see diff.

• Support Great article, well referenced, very informative. I believe it meets all the criteria. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the Support! — Cirt (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Red Phoenix (addressed)

• Support per my comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1. I did find and still find this to be quite an excellent article, and any concerns I had were addressed during the peer review. Congratulations to the editors who worked on this article; it's very well done. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your Support! — Cirt (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Taylor Trescott (addressed)

• Support This is an excellent article on a very interesting and educational film. I especially like all the OTRS free images. Well-cited to reliable sources, feels very complete, and was a nice read. Good work, easily deserves the star. Just one quick question: Citation #7 is the DVD Verdict review which is used to source some quotes in the Contents summary. Any reason why this review is not summarized in the Reception section? Regards, Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the Support. Also, Done. -- I've gone ahead and added DVD Verdict to the Reception section, per your suggestion. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Source check and comments from Gen. Quon (addressed)

• Random Source Check - Ref 11. is correctly used to cite how many times the word 'fuck' is used and to back up a point about how the director feels that other directors should fight against censorship. Ref. 31 accurately backs up the claim that the word gained its current meaning during the world wars and how its flippancy is beneficial. Ref. 34 correctly backs up info regarding Apollo 16. Ref. 56 correctly cites that the AFI festival is at the ArcLight Hollywood on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood, California. Ref. 60 cites that the film was shown at the Florida Film Festival. These were all randomly picked, and were all completely accurate. The prose is excellent (I fixed a few boo-boos) and the images are wonderful. Thus, I see no reason other than to Support this article's promotion.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the Source Check and the Support. I really appreciate your comments, particularly, "The prose is excellent ... and the images are wonderful.". Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt (addressed)

Addressed comments from Wehwalt moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff.

• Support Good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your Support. — Cirt (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jimfbleak (addressed)

Addressed comments by Jimfbleak moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff.

• Support and comments from Jim. Nice work and meets the standard, just a couple of very minor things you might want to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your Support. — Cirt (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Image check from GermanJoe (addressed)

Image check - all OK (CC, own work, OTRS). Sources and authors provided (agree, nice work with the OTRS-tickets). Just 1 nitpick (Done):

• File:Tera_Patrick_in_Fuck_film.jpg - The longer statement in the main text probably needs 3 sources, but does the short caption (looks uncontroversial and simple) need all of them aswell? Remove some cites in caption, if possible. GermanJoe (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Trimmed to one citation for the Tera Patrick image caption, per above recommendation from GermanJoe. And thank you for the Image check ! — Cirt (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell (addressed)

Addressed comments from Quadell moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff.

No further objections. Also, the lead, images, and sourcing all seem satisfactory. Note that this is not a full review, but it doesn't look like this nomination will suffer from a lack of reviews. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Your comments, "Also, the lead, images, and sourcing all seem satisfactory.", are most kind! :) — Cirt (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Indopug

strongly oppose the lead

The lead is largely unreadable, thanks to excessive name-dropping—of disciplines, celebrities, scholars, songs and media outlets—contributing to a "sea of blue" effect thanks to the wikilinks (overlong book names don't help). Instead of going on in such detail about who participated in the film, you should concentrate on what the film is about. Apart from "a defence of free speech" the reader really doesn't glean much.

Also, by expunging the names and details, you could build an engaging narrative—what was the idea behind the film, how it was made, what's it about, was it well received, was it a hit, how did scholars see the film, was it controversial—much more clearly than now.—(self-locked-out User:Indopug)122.164.151.173 (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these helpful comments, User:Indopug, I shall get on addressing them right now. — Cirt (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Response to comments from Indopug

1. Done. Reduced number of disciplines mentioned in the lead.
2. Done. Trimmed number of celebrities name-dropped in the lead.
3. Done. Copy-edited lead to reflect more actual information from film's contents, rather than simply listing celebrities.
4. Done. Removed mention of the songs from the lead.
5. Done. Removed wikilinks and "sea of blue" from the lead.
6. Done. Trimmed overlong book name in the lead.

Thank you very much, User:Indopug, I think the lead now looks much better. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, I realise you've pinged Indopug to check over the changes and he hasn't as returned here as yet. Failing that I'd like to see someone else take another look over the lead as it is, indeed the entire article from a purely prose point of view (John perhaps?). The plot summary, as an example, seems a bit choppy to me and I think could use another set of eyes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)