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).  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 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 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 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)

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)