Talk:Beyond the Sea (2004 film)

Strive for GA-status

I've been working extensively on this article, but the Plot section needs to be drastically rewritten. We also need Cast descriptions for the actors/actresses. Wildroot (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed everything. Wildroot (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I rearranged the sections according to film project guidelines (production notes before cast list, for example) and created separate sections for marketing, critical reception, box office, awards, and DVD release, since all that information was lumped together rather haphazardly in one area. LiteraryMaven (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Formats

Isn't it customary to link a film's year of release and specify its country of origin in the beginning of the article? An editor has removed that information twice, and if I'm understanding his rationale correctly, it's because the information is in the infobox. Isn't the infobox supposed to be a quick reference guide, with most of the data in it repeated within the article itself? LiteraryMaven (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, nothing in the lead section of this article is referenced, although references are provided when the information is repeated later in the article. Shouldn't references be cited the first time a statement is made in an article? LiteraryMaven (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this. First, I agree that it is appropriate to link to the film's year of release (2004 in film) in the opening sentence. Can it be explained why this is overlinking? As for mentioning the United Kingdom and Germany, I am not sure if it is necessary because Beyond the Sea seems to be primarily an American film (see relevant discussion: Template talk:Infobox Film#Description of "country" parameter). I think it would be best to exclude these countries in short form. Lastly, the lead section is intended as a concise overview of the article body, so citations are redundant. WP:LEAD#Citations says, "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." For example, at Valkyrie (film), there is one citation in the lead section for how the film has been received by Germany since that is something I thought might be challenged more so than the other details. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my recent edits, I do not see how it is detrimental to link to 2004 in film in the opening sentence. However, I am fine with excluding the countries from that same sentence because it feels like an overload of detail. Perhaps the countries can be mentioned later in the lead section, explaining their relationship with each other. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already mentioned later in the lead that filming largely took place at studios in England and Germany; it is also mentioned that Spacey had to find investors from those two countries. Wildroot (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that works. What about "2004 in film"? Why do you think it does not need to be linked? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I use to wiki-link the year in film part of the lead for every article I worked on. I don't do it anymore over WP:OVERLINK standards. Also, the == == or === === structure looks good at the moment, so I don't see why the other editor has to keep interfering with it. Wildroot (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think "2004 in film" is overlinking? It provides context for the film's release in addition to the links about the film's subject matter. As for the sectioning, I don't really have an opinion about it. Feel free to address LiteraryMaven directly to see what would work out for the best. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wildroot, since a discussion was initiated by me here, and Erik suggested you address me about the issues I raised, I'm not sure why you decided to revert the article to your formatting as opposed to those found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines without continuing the discussion on this page. I also don't appreciate the fact you have accused me of "interfering" with the article when the changes I made were constructive.

Plot and production traditionally follow the article's lead, yet you keep placing the cast list between them. Chronologically, a DVD release comes last, yet you're putting information about it with box office data, where it clearly doesn't belong. And what comes first, the reviews or the box office totals? Chronologically, the reviews, so why put them last?

I also fixed some grammatical errors and clumsy sentence structuring and you reverted my changes. For example, the statement "Supporting roles are portrayed by Kate Bosworth as Sandra Dee, Bob Hoskins and John Goodman" makers it sound like Bosworth portrayed three people in the film. I edited it to make the meaning clear and you reverted it without any justification. You also have a tendency to repeat the title of the film excessively throughout the article. It appears no less than five times in the lead alone in your version.

Rather than point out why this article didn't qualify for good article status I tried to improve it so it would. I'm sorry you don't appreciate my effort, but please keep in mind you don't own this article. Also, everyone knows if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

Finally, I find it interesting that the person who edited this article is the one who upgraded it from Start to B class. Surely this should be done by a more objective individual, shouldn't it? LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

LiteraryMaven and Wildroot, let's focus on the content and not the contributors. We can assume good faith all around. To avoid any head-butting, let me try to share my perspective here. First of all, regarding the lead section, five paragraphs is too much, especially for a fairly short article like this. WP:LEAD says, "The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should be no more than four paragraphs." So I suggest keeping it to three based on the amount of content and discussing with each other what points need to be clarified. Just remember that the "Lead" section at the article guidelines is not the most well-written (I have it on my to-do list to rewrite that section). In addition, there is no specific order that sections have to go. The layout of the article guidelines' sections is not an arbiter of how it should go. So the "Cast" section could really be in either location, and I encourage assumption of good faith to stay with the status quo. I would recommend this, though... boldface could be removed from the "Cast" section because it should usually be reserved for multi-line items, of which this section barely has any.

Secondly, I've compared both section layouts, and I am not sure if either are optimal layouts. In both layouts, there are fairly short paragraphs under sections or subsections. Would a possible solution be to combine everything into a "Release" section and work on transition sentences from one sub-topic to the next? We can start off with the marketing, detail the theatrical run, explain what critics thought of it, how it did with awards and honors, and when it came out on home media.

I don't want an edit war to take place here, so how about this. For either of you, do not worry about the immediate appearance of the article. Either way, information is still available to readers, whether or not the presentation is optimal. Go through the different parts of the article together, one by one. For example, work on the wording of the lead section first. Then figure out what you can agree on about the "Cast" section and so forth. We don't need any attitude being exchanged. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To avoid an edit war (during the GAN phase), I'll just have Erik and LiteraryMaven sort this issue out (summarizing the Lead, etc). Despite the fact that I'm the main contributor to this article, I will instead turn the other cheek and not start a head-butt conflict with LiteracyMaven because I do not intend to make enemies on Wikipedia. I wish you two good luck on improving Beyond the Sea (film). On a final note, just remember that Erik is a project coordinator and a very experienced editor. Wildroot (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Eric, I have followed some of your suggestions and streamlined the lead and eliminated the boldface type in the cast section. Previously I had not paid attention to the plot synopsis, and when I read it I found it to be a little more detailed than necessary. Also, it placed the Copacabana in Las Vegas instead of New York City, and the last sentence had a tinge of POV to it. I rewrote it slightly and hope readers will find it provides a good overview without providing blow-by-blow details.

I always assumed the order in which article sections are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines was the order in which they were supposed to appear in an article. I believe keeping things in chronological order makes sense. A film is developed, then cast. Upon completion it is marketed, and when it's released the critics have their say. Eventually it may or may not earn nominations and win awards, and ultimately it is released on DVD. That is the sequence I have seen in many articles and have followed in those I have created or expanded.

Wildroot, I understand and appreciate the fact you contributed a great deal to this article. However, if nothing else, the fact it misidentified the location of the Copa in the plot synopsis meant it wasn't quite ready to be deemed a good article. I'm here to be as constructive as I can, and I'm sorry if you resent the contributions I have made. However, I do believe the article is closer to good article status because of them. Instead of adopting the attitude you need to "turn the other cheek and not start a head-butt conflict," please feel free to engage in a dialogue with me here or on my discussion page. When it comes to Wikipedia, I believe we share the same goals. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Great work! Thanks for summarizing the Lead section. Wildroot (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Beyond the Sea (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

A good article is:

1. Well-written: Prose is fine and the manual of style guidelines are good.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: No original research and sources look good. Just need to add for Awards section (see below).
3. Broad in its coverage: Addresses the main aspects of the topic and stays focused.
4. Neutral: Check.
5. Stable: No edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Check.

• The article looked good. The most significant change I made was removing most of the long quote about Kevin Spacey's publicity tour and incorporating the info into the article instead; most of the information in there could be told better in the prose than in the quote.

A few suggestions...

• One thing that's missing are citations for the Awards section. If you add those sources, this one's practically ready for GA status.
• There should also be a mention of other actors who were rumored to be in the running to play Bobby Darin, which according to this source include Leonardo DiCaprio, Bruce Willis] and Tom Cruise. (Cruise is mentioned in the source I list below, too.)
• The above source from Sydney Morning Herald mentions it went through 20 producers before it got to Spacey (and six writers, but I think this is covered in the article). Maybe toss that in?
• This New York Times story starts off with an interesting anecdote about Spacey landing the part/producer role by singing "Beyond the Sea" during a 1999 meeting with independent producer Arthur Friedman. This should really be included in the article. It also says he used the Darin performances and impersonation to woo the financing by performing six songs last year at the American Film Market, an annual film distribution convention in Santa Monica.
• Finally, there's a good deal of information in this article that might warrant a mention, including...
  • Spacey's thoughts on Darin: "Bobby was a man I found very compelling, driven, ambitious and complicated. He challenged himself and never sat back on his laurels. It's sad that he didn't live longer, but I don't think his life was tragic. I view his life as inspiring." (among other quotes, which you can look at and decide for yourself if they warrant inclusion)
  • The fact that Darin could identify with Darin's decisions to follow his own heart in making professional decisions, based on Spacey's own career decisions following American Beauty.
  • The fact that Spacey's two Oscar wins gave him the heft he needed (and lacked in his previous attempt) to realize Beyond the Sea
  • The fact that Dodd Darin and Kevin Spacey both see parallels between Darin's and Spacey's life; a quote from Dodd Darin: "A lot of people doubted my dad's abilities, and Kevin's had doubters and naysayers. But both [men] were willing to take risks, and both were very resilient. My dad would always try new things. You could never pin him down. Kevin's career is similar." (There's quores from Darin biographer David Evanier on this matter too)
  • Evanier also mentions that Spacey's mother wanted him to make the movie, which Evanier draws as a parallel between the belief Darin's mother had in him. I'll leave it up to your judgment on whether to include this.

Thanks, and nice job! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I addressed your concerns and I think this article is ready. However, I didn't include The Sydney Morning Herald because it looked like the reviewer just went on the IMDb trivia page for Beyond the Sea and just copy and pasted. Thus, I did not include the Bruce Willis rumor. But the Tom Cruise and Leonardo DiCaprio stuff is in, because I found their involvement with other citations. Other than that, thanks for reviewing. Notice the differences for my GAN edits LOL! That's almost eight kilobytes of additional information. Wildroot (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice job, you really went the extra mile in responding to these objections. That's a pass. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A good article is:

1. Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
4. Neutral: Yes.
5. Stable: Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Unbalanced Criticism

Criticism section is overly unbalanced "one of the most embarrassing spectacles of 2004" and "jaw-droppingly awful, a misbegotten and ill-conceived vanity project." are heavily critical, while you try to revert some of the good RS critic additions. Rest of the criticism also has negative comments in them. I properly source critic, newspaper, per RS, you try to subtract it everytime why exactly. If comments like extreme criticism is added, some good RS high reviews should also be added. Kasaalan (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Before edit warring explain rationale. Why I can't add positive criticism per positive source. Second you added big comment box for family yourself. Third why his family comment is related to the criticism section about critics. You try to subtract positive comments. You do not own the article. Kasaalan (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/beyondthesea/

• 80 LA Weekly Scott Foundas "Put simply, the film is a dazzling and fearless piece of showmanship."

• 80 Chicago Reader Jonathan Rosenbaum "As long as Spacey is singing, the movie soars"

• 75 Chicago Sun-Times Roger Ebert "It is also probably relevant that Spacey, in preparing the project, knew something we could not guess: He is a superb pop singer."

• 70 Washington Post Ann Hornaday "Artfully structured, combining old-school MGM-type musical numbers with occasional postmodern flourishes to keep the narrative moving."

Criticism section needs to be expanded. Kasaalan (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

While personal criticism can't be used in the article, I think this film's recording session footage was less believable compared to "Ray". In the Ray Charles biopic, the Atlantic recording studio was closer to reality with the funky surroundings. The Darin biopic's version of the 'Atco recording studio' looked like a palace by comparison. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)