Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Human Centipede (First Sequence)/archive2

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:16, 2 July 2011 [1].

The Human Centipede (First Sequence)[edit]

Nominator(s): Coolug (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after reaching GA and having a thorough peer review I believe this article may now meet the featured standard. This article was previously nominated as a FAC about a month ago, however, the nomination was closed because there weren't enough comments from editors as to make a decision, however, those constructive criticisms that were made were very useful and acted upon to further improve the article. The first FA review can be viewed here. If there is anything else the article needs doing to it to improve I would very much appreciate any comments. The article is currently receiving a great deal of page views (over 60k on each of the last two days!) due to its rather infamous sequel. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't repeat cited sources in External links
Don't notate titles in all-caps
Ref 29: why the different formatting here?
Make sure you avoid notating publishers as works or vice-versa
What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for doing this source review. I've removed the all-caps writing from the BBFC sources and fixed the different formatting with ref 29. I've also removed the Rotten Tomatoes and other cited sources from the external links. With regard to the two sources where the reliability is questioned; I've removed the first one (this) and the fact it stated entirely because I don't think it was expecially important anyway, with the second source (this), which quotes the review consensus from Rotten Tomatoes, I have amended the text so that it no longer quotes the opinion of the un-named RT writer, but instead only gives the facts - that is the aggregate score and the number of reviews.; I'm pretty sure I have all the sources listed correctly as works, however, I'll have a look through and make sure that wherever possible I can stick a publisher in too. This won't be possible for all the sources, but it should be for quite a few.; Thanks! Coolug (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Erik

Could the "Sequel" section be shortened, perhaps to be similar to the lead section of the sequel article? I would recommend writing a solid lead section for the sequel article then copying it to the first film's article with some tweaks as a kind of summary section.
Can it be more upfront what the critics' consensus of the film is? The "Critical" section starts with the Empire review, and I think we should cite retrospective coverage that reports what critics thought of the film. This way, we can set the tone of the section. For example, if a film is universally acclaimed, we would explain that in the beginning, and the reader will acknowledge the sampled positive reviews as illustrative of that consensus.
It may also help to be more upfront about the theatrical detail. Try to treat the section as stand-alone as if readers did not look at the lead section or the infobox. For example, when was the film first screened? And it may help to mention the April 2010 dates closer to the beginning.
I notice that most of the references are online. Is it fair to assume that was the extent of your research? There may be some articles printed in periodicals that will not be available online, and a featured article needs to be well-researched.
While not a big thing, I also recommend converting the dates to something more readable. For example, instead of 2010-05-05, you could write 5 May 2010. I also recommend using the {{nowrap}} template to ensure that the day and month are always together.

Let me know if you have any questions! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these comments, I shall get to work on them in the next 24 hours and if I have any questions I will let you know. cya Coolug (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be able to use Wikipedia:Datescript (if you can figure out) so you don't have to convert dates manually. Or ask someone to convert them for you. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Lightmouse (who apparently created that script) if he could convert the dates for us. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for arranging for the dates on the references to be sorted out (and as a Brit I much prefer this format myself too). I have made changes to the sequel and theatrical details in line with your suggestions. I've also stuck the Rotten Tomato and Metacritic scores at the beginning of the critics section in order to set the tone. Finding more retrospective reviews is a bit of a tough one though, as let's face it, this film is the human centipede, not star wars, and I haven't yet found much in the way of reviews beyond ones published at the time. I think the same applies to finding good quality sources outside of the internet, however, I'll see what I can do. Thanks again for all your help. Coolug (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely all the discussion about the sequel will bring up the first film and possibly mention how critics responded to that one? It doesn't have to be an actual review, it could be a news article that talks about the sequel and mention that its predecessor was not well-received by critics. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Thanks. I've therefore just spent far too long googling around and found a source about the second film that retrospectively refers to the reviews the first film had. It's quite difficult to find a source that isn't just ripping off this very wikipedia article, but I think what I have should be okay. Coolug (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kaguya-chan

Why is truck driver capitalized in the cast section?
Run-on sentence: "Laser also accidentally kicked Kitamuro (Katsuro) during filming, this led to a fight on set between the actors, however contributed to the tension and anger throughout the scene where Heiter sits at his dining table eating whilst the centipede eats dog food from the floor alongside him"
"Whilst promoting The Human centipede Six stated..." -->"Whilst promoting The Human Centipede, Six stated..."

Hope the comments help! Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for these helpful comments, I've made corrections for all three of the points you address. If there's anything else you have noticed on the article please let me know. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Comments by Hunter Kahn (Struck oppose for now, see below) Very sorry to have to vote oppose, and obviously if the article improves enough I'd strike it, but after a read-through I honestly think there are enough problems that you'd be better off bringing this article back to FAC at a later date than trying to address everything in this review. Below are some of my comments... — Hun ter Ka hn 18:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few grammatical/presentational problems I noticed, some of which I fixed myself; some are as simple as the film not being italicized. There are also at least one run-on sentence, ("However, other effects were relatively simple to create, for example, Heiter's three-dog was created by photoshopping an image...") and some sentences that really don't say anything at all ("Among horror blogs the film also received attention.") The names of the actors are wikilinked several times. And there are parts of the article written in an unencyclopedic way, like "... contain the blood and shit...".
The "Critical" subsection of the "Reception" section should identify the names of the critics you cite. In other words, it should be "Variety Magazine writer Peter DeBurge criticised the film..." instead of just "Variety Magazine criticised the film...". These magazines/newspapers didn't "say" anything, the people who wrote for them did. Also, there is at least one item here that is factually incorrect as stated: Entertainment Weekly did not declare, "This is the most disgusting horror film of all time." The headline asks, "Is this the most disgusting horror film of all-time?" and the writer wrote "It is without question one of the most disgusting horror films ever made." The latter is a bold enough statement in itself, but the way you've written isn't correct and is a misquote.
- This is mostly better, but you have newly written, "However, Collis asked "Is the most disgusting horror film of all-time?" I know this sounds like nitpicking, but this isn't really correct either. This quote is from the headline, and the writers hardly ever write their own headlines. You should simply say that Collins said it was "without question one of the most disgusting horror films ever made". — Hun ter Ka hn 02:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. Thanks for pointing out, have corrected. Coolug (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with the References, including a few references that have glaring red cite errors right in the article. I assume this is the result of you having made changes due to other reviewers' comments, but this is an FAC, and easy stuff like this should have been addressed by now.
The biggest problem I have (the above stuff I think could be addressed fairly easily) is it seems to me that there is information about this film in the very sources you are already using that has not been worked into the article. An FA should be as comprehensive as possible, and I think you really need to go through your sources and mine them for new info as much as possible. For example, you use this source only to cite that one of the star's auditions took place in NYC, and that she was given a storyboard rather than a script. However, that interview also shows that the special effects were created by a father-son team of effects artists, Erik and Rob Hillenbrink, who used prosthetics to create the centipede. It also has other interesting info, like stuff on the difficulties of filming the centipede scenes, and how they tried to pair her with other girls to find the right chemistry in her audition. Likewise, you use this article only to cite that it was Ashlynn Yennie's first role. There's a lot more stuff here, like how the film was shot almost entirely in sequence, or how the crew (even the costume lady!) wasn't allowed to know what the "centipede" looked like and didn't see it until the first day those shots were filmed. There's also stuff about how Yennie auditioned via tape and didn't meet the director until she took the part. I also think you could take from this interview more details about why the centipede concept would medically not work, which is something I'd be interested to read more about. And these are only three of the sources, so I feel you really need to take a thorough look through all of them.

— Hun ter Ka hn 18:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for this review. Obviously I don't like the oppose, but I do like the suggestions which are incredibly helpful. Couple of things first, the red links appear to have turned up after this edit, made earlier this morning. I have no idea why this is because the editor doesn't appear to have been messing around with the references, but anyway that's something fixable. Also, the unencyclopedic content such as "blood and shit" is direct quotes from sources, but I understand they are not suitable so I'll improve the wording. Finally, I'm not too sure about going into how unrealistic the human centipede actually is in too much depth, I think it adds undue weight to the 'controversy' when really it's only a silly horror film and the article only says Tom Six 'claims' accuracy, which he certainly does a lot.

Anyway, that's my desperate plea bit. However, you make some excellent points about using the sources better. To be honest these are sources that were put in years ago when the article was but a stub, and I suppose I more or less forgot about looking further into them as the article was being developed, but that's not really much of an excuse, so I'll be having a proper read of them all when I get the chance and sticking that stuff in. I don't know if I can do all this before this FAC gets closed, but I'll have a go anyway. Thanks! cya Coolug (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I think I've made the changes you suggest to the appropriate standard, but I'd certainly appreciate any feedback on the improvements (I hope they're improvements!) I've made. I've also mined more information from the sources you mention, plus some more. I'll continue to look through more of the sources to see what I can get from them. cya Coolug (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely seems to have been improvement, and I'm happy to see that you've added some content from these sources beyond my specific suggestions. I've struck the "Oppose" for now and will take a closer look hopefully tomorrow. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One of my earlier concerns was that there was information in existing sources that had not been incorporated into the article. But I've now also conducted a search for sources that are not presently included in this article, and I've found quite a few with just a minimum amount of looking: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Have your reviewed these sources? This makes me wonder if perhaps there are others out there? Also, I notice most of your sources (besides the DVD ones) are online sources. Have you tried using any database services to look for offline news articles, magazine articles or journals about this film? Something like NewsBank or Lexis Nexis? If you check your local library, most of them allow access to a service like that, and I think you might be surprised how much more is out there. I'm not reinstating my oppose yet because I want to hear what you have to say, but between this and my earlier comments, I still think you'd be better off working on the article a bit more outside of the FAC and then bringing it back later... — Hun ter Ka hn 22:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for suggesting these sources. I shall read through them shortly and see if they have anything that can be added to the article. I'm concious however that I don't want to put new sources in for the sake of it, but only if they say something new that isn't already there. Googling "human Centipede" and looking through the news items gives hundreds and hundreds of sources; many of them just rip off this very Wikipedia article, a lot more of them just say the same thing over and over.

With regard to finding off-line sources, I have two concerns; the first, with regard to finding the kind of journal articles or research papers that might be somewhere like Lexis Nexis is that I haven't found any and very much doubt there are any. The article is about The Human Centipede and to there best of my knowledge there hasn't been a great deal of serious academic research or analysis into the subject that I can draw ideas from. I also don't know of any books that have been published that talk about The Human Centipede in any great length. (this appears to mention the film but I have no idea what it will say, it seems to simply be a list of dutch films)

Secondly, regarding news items from printed sources, well I'm a little unsure how why it is that Wikipedia seems to think if a major newspaper prints something and we source it with the page number and date etc then that is a high quality source, but if a major newspaper like The Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Daily Telegraph or the Chicago Sun-Times prints something and also makes the piece available online, the online piece is of lower quality that the very same article in it's physical form. At the moment the article has sources from all of these newspapers but links to their online copies. Would finding out their physical publication dates and page numbers make the sources any better? If so then I can try and find these details out. However, it won't actually make any difference to what the source says or the overall reliability of the source because it will still be exactly the same, with presumably a link to the existing online version so readers can still check it out. cya Coolug (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey look, I've found the films production notes here, I'm going to stick some stuff in from this in since it appears to have a few interesting bits. Coolug (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not suggesting you just added sources for the sake of it, and I'm not suggesting The Human Centipede has attracted much attention from scholars and that there are tons of journals and books written about it. My concern is whether the full scope of sources about this film have been reviewed and whether this article can truly be considered comprehensive. I think this article has great potential, and you are obviously an editor dedicated to improving it, so I have no doubt it'll make FA one day. But at this point I'm not convinced it's reached that point of comprehensiveness yet. Already in this FAC review we've identified items in the existing sources that should have been part of the article in the first place, and you're now finding new sources altogether (the production notes). Nearly three weeks into an FAC nomination is way too late for this to be happening. And I'm not suggesting off-line sources are better than online, but they need to be reviewed; how would we otherwise know whether they have something worth adding to the article? I'm not trying to be difficult here by any means, but your comments above do sort of indicate to me that that is another area that may not have been fully explored yet. — Hun ter Ka hn 20:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I appreciate an FAC isn't really the best place for new sources or content to be added, however, it seems an FAC is one of the few times when I've ever had much in the way of any constructive comments with regard to the article, so it is unfortunately going to be a time when changes may well take place. Which ultimately is good (for me at least) because I want to improve this article. I would content however that the addition of the production notes hasn't actually led to the addition of any new content, instead I've used them as a different kind of source to cite some stuff that was previously cited with a load of different web only sources. cya Coolug (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

← I'd be inclined to agree with Hunter Kahn's comments above. Coolug, as we have discussed in person, I know you're keen to finish writing about this horrible film, so that Mrs. Coolug will talk to you again ;-) I know there has been a chronic lack of feedback for the article, so it's great that we've finally received some very constructive criticism. However, mid-FAC isn't really the time to make major changes to the article contents... unintentional style/spelling/grammatical errors are inevitably introduced whenever this happens. I think it might be a good idea to step back from the FAC again for a little while, just so that we have the time and space to ensure that the improved article contents are well-written. Papa November (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! Right, ok, before this FAC dies, are there any last comments from any other editors? Coolug (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors might disagree with me about this, but I wouldn't mind seeing a more fully-formed "Parodies" section. Not huge sprawling paragraphs, mind you, but maybe just two sentences or so about what exactly the South Park parody was, and another two sentences about what the SNL parody was. Stuff like that. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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