Wikipedia:Peer review/Boys Don't Cry (film)/archive1

Boys Don't Cry (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the relevance of the film itself as well as the life of Brandon Teena. I have spent about a month or more editing the article, expanding it in all areas neccessary, transforming it from what it was previously (full of repetitive inacurate, un-sourced and poorly writen information) and adding further information. There may be a few spelling errors and typos because I have been unable to edit the article on Microsoft Word since my laptop is being fixed. I think as the article progresses further it may become Good Article and once it improves from there I hope to modify it into Featured Article shape. I would like some constructive information and what not on how to improve the current state of the article and fix it wherever applicable.

Thanks in advance, Ashton 29 (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Belovedfreak

First of all, well done for the work you've done so far. It's an important article and it would be great to see this featured. I enjoyed reading it, but I think it still needs some work before it gets to GA-level. One big problem I can see is the prose. Apart from typos which you've explained above, the structure of sentences and flow could use some work. I would recommend asking someone uninvolved with the article to go through the whole thing and give it a good copyedit. I'll make some recommendations here, but these are not exhaustive:

Lead *"the film stars Hilary Swank as a transgender man who pursues a relationship with a young woman ... only to be raped and murdered weeks later by male acquaintances after discovering Teena had female genitalia." - the structure of the sentence here implies that Teena was murdered after Teena discovered Teena had female genitalia. I hope you see what I mean; that "after discovering" applies to the transgender man who is raped and murdered, not the male acquaintances. *You have both transgender and transgendered (as adjectives) in the article. Other than in quotes, pick one and stick to it for consistency.

• "...the film is somewhat dramatized..." - somewhat is unnecessary here. It's either dramatized or it's not.

I used this because parts of the film were dramatized, such as the fact that Lana and Brandon continued dating after Lana discovered he was actually biologically a female. In the film, their relationship is actually stregnethed after this is discovered, arguably while the real Lana only continued seeing Brandon as a friends and strictly that. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but the way I see it, you've already established that it's based on a true story, so we know it's not completely fictional.--BelovedFreak 10:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

*"After reading about the murder of Brandon Teena while in college, director Kimberly Peirce pursued and researched the case as well as Teena's life intently and worked on a screenplay for the film for almost five years." - this sentence is awkward, particularly as well as Teena's life intently. "as well as Teena's life" should be separated with commas, paretheses, dashes or whatever. It's still a little awkward though. How did she pursue the case exactly? Presumably she wasn't investigating it? *"Jones' book initially inspired the screenplay" - this is a little unclear. My first instinct is that it inspired it or it didn't, you shouldn't need initially. I'm not sure though. Was there a significant change in the script? In which case, you could say that Jones' book inspired the original screenplay, or the first draft or something.

Yes, Peirce based idea's for a movie on Jones' book and the two were going to film it however they parted ways and Peirce began writing her own script.Ashton 29 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

*"however Peirce chose to film her vision of the story" - this bit is unclear too. What exactly does it mean by "her vision"? Did she disagree with Jones' take on things? Did she consciously decide to add fictional elements to make a better story?

As above.Ashton 29 (talk)

*"Most of the characters were based on the real life people" could probably just be Most of the characters were based on real people *"Swank was awarded the 1999 Academy Awards for Best Actress" - presumably this should not be plural. Also, try to avoid the repetition ("awarded the award") *"Amongst the praise, the film has since been cited as one of the most controversial and talked-about films of 1999..." - I'm not quite sure what "amongst the praise" means here. Are you saying that being cited as controversial is also praise? Or that it's in contrast to the praise? I'm not sure that being controversial & talked-about is inherently good or bad.

Changed to "in contrast to..."Ashton 29 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

*"The film's title coincides with the song of the same name..." - strange way of putting it. Was it named after the song? If so, say so. If not (or we don't know) you could say it shares the name of the song, which is featured on the soundtrack. Coincides makes it sound random, but I'm sure it wasn't completely random since the song is used.

Plot *"After receiving physical threats for dating a person's sister..." - this sounds awkward. I'm not sure how you could reword it, but presumably he didn't receive threats for dating a person's sister. Presumably it was because he was found out to be female and had deceived either said sister or said person. However, I don't think you need to go into this much detail. It's been a while since I saw the film and I can't remember this bit too well, so I'm not sure what to suggest.

This is correct. I did not write any of the plot section so most of these issues have gone undetected my me. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

.*"Brandon becomes romantically involved with Lana, who is unaware of his situation." - this is a little vague. I'm guessing you mean unaware that he is in fact female, but it should probably be more explicit. "His situation" could also mean the fact that he's been kicked out of his home, or involved in fights.

Brandon grew up as a very rebellious person and his rebellion had gotten him into trouble (stealing cars, forging checks, etc.) so I changed situation to "rebellious past". Ashton 29 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Brandon is detained for charges..." - what charges? (I don't know if this is clear in the film, but if it is, it would be nice to know here.)

Brandon was forging checks I believe, however I will have to clarify this by re-watching that part of the film. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

*"Lotter, Nissen, and Candace..." - why are some of them referred to by surname and some by first name? Is this how they are known in the film?

Like I said, I didn't write any of the plot, so I have fixed this and just used their first names as opposed to their last. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

*"Lotter, Nissen, and Candace discover Brandon has female genitalia and tell Lana after forcing him to remove his pants." - how do they discover this? Why do they force him to remove his pants? Is that part of the discovery, or is it to humiliate him after the fact?

• Perhaps you could make it clearer what Lana's initial reaction is when they tell her?

• "...then beat and violently rape him..." - as opposed to gently raping him? I don't mean to be facetious, I remember the scene, but I don't think violently is really necessary. They rape him and beat him, so I think we can assume it's violent.

I think what the author of the plot section was trying to convey was that while every rape is violent and unpleasent, Brandon's rape was especially horrible.Ashton 29 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. If you're taking this to GA though, you need to be 100% comfortable with what's here, not just the previous authors. An article like this attracts a lot of different editors, so it's hard to keep the prose cohesive and flowing well. I won't change this part, I'll leave it up to you, but just be vary of interpreting things too much or straying too much from just stating the facts (in an engaging, readable way, of course!).--BelovedFreak 10:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

*"...in an isolated lot..." - is this a parking lot? If this was just for a US readership, I wouldn't ask, but lot is not a familiar word in this context for many readers outside the US.

I don't think it was a parking lot anyway, so I changed it to "isolated location", the area was pressumably in the middle of nowhere. I'm not sure where it occured in real life but the film is a movie, a work of fiction BASED on an actual occurance and exactly that.Ashton 29 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Though injured, Brandon escapes through a bathroom window." - This is ok, but I was thinking "well, why shouldn't he escape, just because he's injured?" It's not a complete non sequitur (I guess it depends on his injuries), but seemed a little strange to me.

*"All the while, Lana and Brandon dream..." - so they dream at the same time that Brandon is discovered to be female, raped, beaten, escapes through the window and files a police report? *"One evening, Nissen and Lotter get drunk, and despite Lana's warnings, decide to kill Brandon..." - what is meant by Lana's warnings? How does she warn them? *"...Brandon, who is hiding in a shed on Candace's property" - the timescale is not clear. How long after the attack is this? Is he hiding in a shed that night? Or has he been hiding out since the attack? Or since filing the police report?

If you remember in the film, Brandon had been at Lana's in her room while Lana was packing for Memphis (I think). Lana heard someone arrive and told Brandon to hide, so he left by jumping out of her window. Lana then goes to see who it is and runs back into her bedroom when finding out that it's John.Ashton 29 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, could be clearer in the article.--BelovedFreak 10:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

*"...but is stopped by John" - why the sudden switch to using his first name? *"...Lana wakes up on Brandon's dead body, then falls into her mother's arms" - "falls into her arms" is a little romanticised; also, how does she fall into her arms when she's presumably lying on the floor/on Brandon's body?

Background *"Kimberly Peirce's interest in Brandon Teena's ordeal ..." - ordeal is not totally neutral. Don't get me wrong, it clearly was a horrific ordeal, but we have to be careful to not be too emotional. Perhaps call it the "case"? Or just "Brandon Teena's murder"? Or even just "KP's interest in Brandon Teena"?

• "Teena's life and her eventual murder" - through most of the article you refer to Teena with male pronouns. This really needs to be consistent as it will already be confusing for some reason. I know some of the quotes differ, but outside quotes it should be consistent. I also realise this is controversial, and I'm not saying you should use him or her, but just that it needs to be consistent.

I still need to fix a lot of this. *This first sentence is perhaps a bit unwieldy - maybe it could be split? Or just shortened a bit (eg. you could lose "that had been published in", if you rearrange it slightly) *Is "re-calls" an acceptable spelling in US English? Not recalls? *"Peirce became considerably engrossed" - engrossed doesn't really need an adverb like considerably *pro-longed? Not prolonged? *"pro-longed her attentiveness further" - is a bit... wordy. *"Teena was a trans man whom had been brutally raped " - should be who surely. Also, I'm not sure about brutally for neutrality. It's probably ok. However, I would start the section with this sentence, that would be more logical. Otherwise, Peirce is reading about Teena's murder before you've actually said he was murdered. *"murdered by two former acquaintances" - why former? They still knew each other. *You have a repetition of "brutal" - while it's probably ok to use the word, best to to repeat it in such quick succession. *"Pierce acknowledged she looked beyond the brutality..." - acknowledged is not strictly WP:NPOV here, it implies that it is an indisputable fact that she looked beyond the brutality, and that she is affirming that fact. Actually, it's her opinion that she did so. I would just have "Pierce said she looked beyond the brutality..." *"admiring her "audacity"" - again, watch the use of pronouns. I know she uses female pronouns to refer to Teena, but this is not a quote here. *While we're at it, also check your spelling of Pierce. You have both Pierce and Peirce (whole article will need checking!)

*"Teena's outright search for freedom rather than capatalize on his sexual transgender," - is this the right use of transgender (ie. as a noun?)

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Should it be changed to sexual identity crisis? Ashton 29 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, I'm not familiar with the use of transgender as a noun, ie. "his transgender". I'm buy no means an expert here, so by all means correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounded strange to me. I'm not sure what I'd change it to, I'll have a think.--BelovedFreak 20:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

*"...including meeting the real Lana Tisdel ..." - the real Lana? As opposed to the fake one? The fictional one? (I'd just have including meeting Lana Tisdel :) )

Yes, my mistake, there's so many people and then so many characters based on these real life people that I confuse myself! Ashton 29 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

*Towards the end of this section you use the first names of real people (as opposed to characters), which is inconsistent

Casting

*"The interest from the LGBT..." - the LGBT? LGBT community?

Not too sure what the problem was here. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard the use of "the LGBT", as if LGBT is a noun. I've only heard it as an adjective (LGBT people, the LGBT community etc) To me (and maybe it's just me) The interest from the LGBT sounds a bit like The interest from the gays.--BelovedFreak 20:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

*"High profile actors were drawn away at the request of their agents because of the on-slaught of stigma surrounding the role" - this comes across a bit more strongly than it does in the source. I'm not sure there was an on-slaught (onslaught?) of stigma, or even whether or not you can have an onslaught of stigma. The source also says that some performers were not sent to audition, not that high profile actors were kept away.

• It would be interesting to know how old Swank was when she auditioned - to give context to the lie that she told about being 21.

*"Swank's anonymity persuaded Peirce to cast her, because she expressed..." - this is a bit awkward *When discussing Swank's preparations, you could perhaps link to Breast binding; not a great article, but it would give a little context. *"Swank had earned only $75 per day for her work on Boys Don't Cry, culminating in a total of $3,000" - does this need to be had earned rather than earned? Also, does it need three citations? If a source is reliable, it should be enough on its own.

I think the three citations are worthy because some are more informative than others. And I think one article only mentions what she earned rather than the total. I'm not sure, but I think three would suffice.Ashton 29 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

*"Lana Tisdel, Teena's 19-year-old love interest." - "love interest" sounds a bit Hollywood. What about "girlfriend"? *It might be interesting to say how old Sevigny was when she auditioned, to add context to the fact that Peirce thought she was too young.

Sevigny was 22 in 1996. I find it strange that Peirce had considered her "too old" when Lana was actually 19 while dating Brandon. Perhaps Peirce thought she needed a more mature actress, professionally. In 1996, Sevigny only had two film credits: Trees Lounge and Kids. Sevigny looks a lot younger than she actually is as well(especially in Kids, she was a 21-year-old playing a teenager around only 16 or 17). Ashton 29 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

*"Peirce then decided that Sevigny would be suited playing Lana Tisdel, having looked old enough before filming began." - awkward sentence *"Peter Sarsgaard, who plays John Lotter, the violent charismatic ex-convict, former boyfriend..." - this is a bit awkward, also, I'm not sure whose description that is of him. I think "former boyfriend" would suffice *You have "Sarsgaard" repeated 4 times in 3 sentences, try to avoid this *"Sarsgaard later commented in regards to his character, as how Sarsgaard made him "likeable, sympathetic even" was because he wanted the audience..." - this is not good grammar *"Peirce had cast Alicia Goranson..." - why Peirce had cast rather than Peirce cast? <S.*"Like Sevigny, Goranson..." - is there a source for this sentence? If it's supported by the previous citation, I'd move it to the end of this sentence. Principal photography *"The budget acquired dictated some of the filming process..." - this long sentence could be clearer. I'm not sure what "coincide with the films budget" means. *"The most notable omission..." - most notable according to whom?Also, how is it an omission, and also an inaccurate portrayal? If something's been portrayed, it's not been omitted *"...when in actuality a third African American male, Phillip DeVine..." - "in actuality"'s not necessary here. Is it relevant that he was African American? Was he the third African American male to be killed? Or the third person (after Brandon and Lisa?) *"These locations—outside of Nebraska—(where most of the authentic locations in which the real-life incidents occurred) were used mainly due to budget constraints." - this is awkward. I'm not sure the dashes help. .*"...techniques that saw the audiences delve into Brandon's situation" - could be worded better *"Initially, the budget allowed Boys Don't Cry for ten weeks of editing..." - allowed for? *"This granted the project an additional twenty-two weeks..." - I think this should be part of the previous sentence; the previous one doesn't make sense on its own. *Was it really 10 weeks editing? Not filming? *"Brandon's sex change surgery ... the sex reassignment procedure." - I wouldn't link both of these terms. I'd maybe link the first one to Sex reassignment surgery (female-to-male) and leave the second one unlinked. There's no need to link to Sex reassignment surgery also. Cinematography *"...particularly when the dimly lit Nebraska landscape." - something missing here? *"Although many scenes filmed occur mostly at night..." - this is a long sentence and is awkwardly worded towards the end. *"Peirce also used visual inspiration from older films..." - this sentence is also a bit unwieldy, I had to read it a couple of times to get it to make sense. *"Peirce used the camera to transform Brandon's experience onto the cohesive film." - Not really sure what this means *"Time lapse photography is used in several sequences, but more significantly in the scene right before Brandon is stripped naked when him and Lana discuss..." - think there could be some commas here. Also, "he and Lana"?

Music *Is kareoke an acceptable US spelling, or is that a typo?

• "where it appears subtly in the background" - subtly sounds like WP:OR

Themes *I think you need to be a bit more specific when talking about academics and critics; state who exactly thinks these things. Also, try to avoid making quite sweeping statements which are then supported by a single article or review. *"...validating the academic view that the film is about..." - I'm not sure about this. You're saying the marketing of the film validated academics' opinions about the themes? *"...and the lines "who are you?" are even uttered..." - that's just one line, not multiple *"Peirce's film has "captured the mystique and eerie loneliness" " - quotes like this, and others soon afterwards, need attribution. Who is saying this? Critical reception *Strings of several citations disrupt the flow visually. This can be avoided by linking with a single citation to a footnote that then holds the relevant source citations. (see Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009 for an example.)

I'm not sure what you mean, well I know what you mean I think, however I am still unsure how to do this. Do you mean remove citations that aren't at the end of a sentance to increase the overall flow? Ashton 29 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

*"Some critics declared ... One reviewer considered..." - it's ok to summarise like this because you then go into detail with specific critics, but here you have quotes again, without attribution. *"...mostly due to its intensified subject matter..." - what's intensified subject matter? Controversy *"...the critical and commercial praise showered upon Boys Don't Cry..." - showered upon is a bit over-enthusiastic

Other than the prose, here are a few more things I noticed:

*Check for links to dismbiguation pages. You can use the link in the toolbox on this page. Whenever I click those links, it tells me my access is "disabled". I pressume it has something to do with my internet server, Mozilla. When I get my laptop (hopefully within the next week) back I will be able to use these links thoroughly.Ashton 29 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

*Try to avoid overlinking common words. Some of the words to consider not linking are: gay, sensational, mythologize, American public, college. Those are just a few I picked out. Look at all the links and decide whether or not they are helpful to the reader. When checking links, check out where pastime goes to.

*In the infobox you have seven people listed as "stars". Are they all really stars of the film? The theatrical poster, for example, only lists Swank, Sevigny and Sarsgaard. *Some sections could use some more citations, eg. Music, Themes, Response Added a few more, still a fair bit to go in regards to themes. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC) *In the "see also" section, I don't think there's any need to link to Peirce's next film. Queer Cinema redirects to New Queer Cinema so you might want to consider if that's appropriate. I wouldn't, personally. There's a connection to NQC, but the film's not even mentioned at the NQC article. You could add a link to the LGBT portal as well as the film one.

Just adding to this: do you want to link to New Queer Cinema? From what I've read of NQC, Boys Don't Cry has been linked to it, although not definitively. Many readers (even LGBT ones) won't realise what NQC is about, and when they get to that article, there is no mention of Boys Don't Cry. If you're sure you want to link to it in the "see also" section, link to the full New Queer Cinema rather than Queer Cinema, as that's a little confusing.--BelovedFreak 11:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've not gone through the references with a fine toothed comb, but you'll need to check that all of the sources adhere to WP:RS.
• Check citations to make sure formatting is consistent and that there is enough information for verifiability (eg. dates, accessdates for web sources, page numbers, authors)

*There is one dead link marked, this will need to be addressed before a GA nomination. Check the others using the tool in the toolbox above. I can't find a sufficent website that mentions this article, but I do know it's page number in the actual newspaper. Could we just use the issue of the newspaper itself and the page number as a citation instead? Ashton 29 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, I've unstricken one comment because the citations still need work. I can help with that. Yes, if a source is from an offline source like a newspaper, as long as there's enough information for it to be verified, you don't need a link to an online version.--BelovedFreak 11:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope these comments help. I know there's quite a lot here, but don't be put off. The article's really looking good, but needs a bit more work before GA. Let me know if you have any questions and good luck with further developing the article.--BelovedFreak 21:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as the citations go, I can do some work there with the templates to make sure they're all consistent and neat & tidy and fill in any missing bits I find. WOuld you like me to do that? There's no one "correct" way of doing it for GA, or even FA, so I don't want to just go in there and unilaterally change things around, but if you want me to, I will. Consistency and adherence to the WP:MOS is picked up on at FAC although it's not as important at GAN.--BelovedFreak 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

References comments from Belovedfreak

Ok, I've tidied up the citations, they're fairly consistent now. You may want to remove publisher details if you think they add too much clutter for little gain. I've also moved citations down to the references section (when you're in the edit box; see also WP:LDR). I apologise if this is confusing at first glance, but it removes the citation details from the main part of the text and makes it easier to see what you're editing. All the citations are then in a list at the end. A few queries about refs:

• The legal citation, currently No. 2 could use some more details. I'm unfamiliar with how these things work and did the best I could, but there are some empty fields in the citations template that could be filled, by someone in the know.

*Reference currently at No. 12, the Boston Herald one, could either do with a web link or a page number

• Reference currently at No. 22, The Last Days of Disco DVD - I don't see the point of this reference. it doesn't support the statement preceding it (ie. that Peirce cast Sevigny on the basis of that performance). The Last Days of Disco article is already linked, so the reference doesn't add anything.

On the DVD commentary, it is mentioned that Chloe's performance had impressed director Kimberly Peirce so much that she wanted to cast Chloe in Boys. So I think it's suffice to stay. Ashton 29 (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Reference currently at No. 23, Gay Today, could either do with a web link or a page number
• Reference currently at No. 33, Herald Journal, could either do with a web link or a page number

*Currently ref no. 39 is the Seattle Post. Is that the full name of the newspaper? I tried to find it but we don't have an article on a paper with that title. Should it be the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or the Seattle Post Globe maybe? This one could also do with either a web link or a page number I just searched for this article. It's the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, so I've added that as well as a link.

• What is currently ref No. 41 doesn't go anywhere or give any details. To the reader, it displays "2004, p. 117", with a link that goes nowhere. In the code, it says <ref name="Hausmann 117">{{harvnb|2004|p=117}}</ref>, but there is no Hausmann referred to elsewhere. I think perhaps a reference was removed somewhere along the line.
• I changed the Entertainment Weekly link and date (Gleiberman, currently no. 50). The link that was there was dead or broken so I searched for the review and came up with one from October 15 1999, which I presume is the correct one as it is Gleiberman, and he calls Swank a "revelation". Please amend this if I've got it wrong.

With the following sources, I'm concerned about their reliability. If I was reviewing this at GAN, I'd ask you, what makes the following reliable:

*Films101.com

• Filmsite.org (is owned by AMC, which is a start, but I'm still concerned) Kept this one because it's owned by AMC, in the mean time, however, I will look for something to replace it, if it's really a problem.
  • I personally don't know of any particular problem with Filmsite. Just be aware that sometimes sources are questioned even if they are owned by "reliable" publishers it the source itself has been demonstrated as unreliable. As I say, I don't know of any problems with this one. Another way to demonstrate reliablility is if you can show that your source has been cited by other reliable sources.--BelovedFreak 11:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

*Chasing the Frog That's it for the moment. :) --BelovedFreak 20:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS says, "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." For filmsite.org, I think that AMC's ownership of the website indicates a reliable publication process. I cannot say the same for films101.com and chasingthefrog.com, which do not appear to have any reliable publishers. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Erik

Hello, the article looks great so far! It is definitely a well-explored topic for Wikipedia's readers. You said that you want to continue the push toward Featured Article status, which I heartily encourage. It may be worth delving into publications to find chapters about this film. The way I've researched this is to go to WorldCat.org and search for 'Boys Don't Cry" under "Books". So if the phrase is in the book's title or one of its listed chapters, the books will be listed. Here are a few references I found using this approach: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. There are probably more, but I decided to stop there. :P I do not have time to look at the article critically now, but I will find some later today. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)