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


 * 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:51, 26 April 2009.

Changeling (film)

 * Nominator(s): Steve  T • C 12:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! I'm happy to present my first FAC submission—Changeling (film)—for your appraisal, believing it meets all the featured article criteria. It's a shame the film itself will likely be remembered as a marginal one as far as Clint Eastwood's career goes, but its atypical development and the forthrightness of several people involved in the production provided more than enough information to craft a fascinating article. I hope you enjoy reading it. also made significant contributions that should not go unrecognised, and the advice of has been invaluable. To pre-empt the question, "what makes the following sources reliable?" I've taken the time to provide rationales for those most likely to attract attention:
 * www.moviemaker.com
 * Interview with the film's writer by MovieMaker magazine. The publication is referenced by, among many others, the Chicago Tribune, BusinessWeek, MTV, the Boston Globe, and The Washington Post—the latter of which specifically cites an interview.
 * news:rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
 * Primary source statement by the film's writer, J. Michael Straczynski, who is acknowledged by several reliable sources to have been posting to the newsgroup for several years; indeed, our own article on the group exists purely due to the notability his participation confers. The statement it's used to cite is attributed specifically to Straczynski in the article. The link will show up as missing an accessdate when parsed by the linkchecker tool; this is because I've had to place it outside the cite newsgroup template to avoid date linking.
 * newsblaze.com
 * Prairie Miller is a film critic and broadcaster who has written for CounterPunch, NY Rock , and the Long Island Press among others (see sidebar). She's a member of the Women Film Critics Circle, is cited by The New York Times, and has conducted literally hundreds of actor interviews. She is also a film critic for WBAI Radio and is a host and producer of The WBAI Arts Magazine.
 * aafca.com
 * Primary source: website of the African-American Film Critics Association, used to verify that Jolie won the organisation's award for Best Actress.
 * www.ifta.ie
 * Primary source: website of the Irish Film and Television Awards, used to verify that Jolie was nominated for the organisation's award for Best International Actress.
 * www.comicbookresources.com
 * Comic Book Resources is described by the University of Buffalo as "the premiere comics-related site on the Web", and is frequently cited by organisations such as the BBC, The Guardian, and USA Today.
 * www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com
 * Website of journalist Nikki Finke, originally set up as an online version of her LA Weekly column, but which has since become notable in its own right. The site does carry gossip, but in this case is used to cite facts and figures.
 * www.huffingtonpost.com
 * The Huffington Post, while unsuitable for some types of information, is being used here for its interview with Eastwood. The site has an editorial board and its interviews have been cited by sources such as United Press International and The Independent.
 * www.filmmusicmag.com
 * The magazine has been cited numerous times in sources such as NashvillePost.com, industry magazine Stereophile , and the Los Angeles Times . Set up by Film Music Media Group, cited by sources such as Wired and the Chicago Tribune . Owned by media company Global Media Online.
 * cgsociety.org
 * The CG Society article is being used to cite information about the film's visual effects. The article's writer, Renee Dunlop, is a visual effects artist who in addition to The CG Society has written for VFXWorld  and Fxguide, so is qualified to report on the subject. The CG Society is recognised by Gamasutra , Animation Magazine , the Game Developers Conference , Cinematical , and has partnered with Nvidia . It is a division of Ballistic Media.
 * For ease of reference, here is a link to the only non-free image used in the article. The image illustrates computer-generated streetcars, tracks, power lines, extras, motor cars and buildings—all of which are described and cited in the corresponding section. I believe the image adds to the reader's understanding in a way that a description alone would not.
 * I'm not so naïve as to expect this FAC to go completely without a hitch—after all, it is my first—but I believe I've prepared it well enough that any issues that do come to light will be resolvable in the timeframe available. Thanks for your attention, Steve  T • C 12:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return.
 * You've covered all the sites I would have questioned above, but I'll point out I am on the fence about the news:ref.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, www.huffingtonpost.com, and the www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com sites, but willing to let other reviewers decide for themselves.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it became a sticking point for others, the newsgroup could probably go without any great loss to the article; the section already states something about looking for other directors after Howard stepped down. The others would be a bigger loss, but I'm happy to see what kind of response they get. Thanks, Steve  T • C 16:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the abbreviation point, at first I thought you meant those in the article body, but you mean the references, right? The only ones I can find are BAFTA, AMC, BBC, MTV and EMAP. All these appear to be the names by which these organisations are most commonly known. I've expanded BAFTA, but do you think the others require the same? Steve  T • C 00:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd at least go with AMC network. MTV and BBC are pretty well known under those names, but most folks aren't going to recognize EMAP, so it should probably be expanded also. The idea is to keep from forcing your readers to click through to another article just to figure out what the ref's publisher is. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Thanks, Steve  T • C 00:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

images In the main, a great job getting non-free content, in what is a particularly difficult genre. I would however I oppose the use of File:Changeling_closing_sequence.png in the article, per WP:NFCC#8 and FAC#3 Fasach Nua (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Mind if I ask why you feel it fails those criteria particularly? If it just needs a stronger rationale, please let me know. If it's totally irredeemable, I need to know that too. Thanks again, Steve  T • C 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The text beside it is well written, the significance of the scene is explained well, I just dont think the image is needed to understand what the text is referring to, failing WP:NFCC#8. I give you 10/10 for effort, it's well worked into the article, it was obviously a considered desciion to include it, I just dont think it can ever be justified in terms of nfcc, no matter how hard you try. The free images are great but this non-free component lets down the article, having said that I wouldn't be heart broken if I was over-ruled, but the oppose stands, but this is not a !vote, and I could be wrong Fasach Nua (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve wrote the "Closing sequence" section some time before including the screenshot, and I had no real impression of the scene in reading the section at the time. When he included the screenshot, I found myself re-reading the section and looking back and forth between the text and the image.  I found the image to be significant as a visual aid for the section.  Readers, unlike you, will not have the image locked in their heads, so what can they really envision in their mind's eye?  The section describes different aspects of the shot, including filming, visual effects, and themes (Chinatown), and I think the image's omission would be detrimental. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 20:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Erik has provided a shorter and clearer explanation of the image's usefulness than I was going to (thanks!), so I'll limit myself to saying that I've decided not to remove the image for now, unless significant further opposition presents itself. Thanks for your comments and for taking the time to provide a full answer to my request for clarification. All the best, Steve  T • C 08:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Like Fasach Nua, I do not think the image is needed; it is either showing something that needs no further illustration, or failing to help visualize what could need better explanation. The failings of this imagery could probably be blamed on the film's setting.  Based on its FUR, caption, and text, the image is to illustrate "specific visual effects described in the article", which I take to mean special effects.  Unfortunately, such effects these days are of photo-realistic standards, and people these days (let alone the future) readily know what these effects entail (seamless replacement of on-screen elements with digital effects); as the effects are of "real-life" structures (unlike non-fictional settings that require a different mindset to imagine), readers do not need further illustration (they have a fair idea of how old buildings and cars look like).  Regarding the Chinatown comparison, unless the reader has watched the older film or has seen a similar screenshot from it, how do they gain further understanding from this Changeling screenshot (and I for one have not watched Chinatown)?  It would be akin to telling someone that car A resembles car B, when the listener has seen neither car.  What perks me as a possible FUR is the mention of what the scene should convey (although I feel this image would still be lacking in this aspect): "scene should allow room for emotional reflection."  However, it is Michael Owens's (what is his exact role?) idea, and does not seem to be earning any notable comments or critiques from reviewers; hence such a purpose and accompanying rationale would be of insignificance.  On its own, the image is just a photo of a street.  Jappalang (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I'm going to think about it for a little while, and if I can't think of an adequate rebuttal, or provide good secondary sources (Owens was the VFX supervisor) that go to the "emotional reflection" point, I'll likely go ahead and remove it. Thanks again, Steve  T • C 10:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An entire section is devoted to the design of the specific closing shot of this particular film, and the stringency that denies the visual aid for the section is appalling. It is easy to shrug off the screenshot once you are exposed to it; are you telling me that if you never saw an image for this section, you'd be okay with the lack of an illustration?  I saw the section before and after the image, and it helps this particular reader to see it.  Please remember that your claim of familiarity with "old buildings" is very American-centric; this film made its splash in territories outside the United States.  In addition, the section breaks down the details of the particular shot.  If readers saw the shot by themselves, your "photorealistic" argument is exactly why it benefits them to see what is computer generated (streetcars) and what is not (downtown set extension).  There are very few film articles on Wikipedia that have such an intricate breakdown of a film's visual effects (they are instead riddled with "fun" screenshots like here), so as someone who proposed and drafted WP:FILMNFI to improve standards, I am amazed that this screenshot still cannot meet them. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chipping in with such eloquent defences for the image's inclusion. The application of fair-use use for images is an area I'm not that familiar with, which is why I've been keen to defer to the judgement of others in this particular case, and probably why I've been hesitant to mount a determined defence myself. Everyone in this discussion has made coherent points, both pro- and anti-inclusion. The main issue seems to be that whatever is in the image may already have been adequately explained in the text, i.e. that it doesn't aid our readers' understanding. This seems to be a bit of a judgement call; after all, doesn't a strict interpretation essentially prevent the inclusion of any fair use image? I would think it difficult to find any that can't be described via the text in some way, and where we draw the line does seem to be rather fuzzily-defined, largely down to individual preference. So perhaps only someone with the experience of reading the article before and after the image's inclusion is able to say for certain whether it enhanced their understanding. I'm wondering if either of the two editors who don’t believe the image is necessary would be able to point me in the direction of one they've come across recently (preferably in a film, or related media, article) that they feel does meet the criteria; this might give me better understanding of the issues related to this image. Many thanks, Steve  T • C 11:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect that ones perspective on whether to include the image is driven by whether they are primarily a Visual learning or audio learner. I believe that Wikipedia articles should in generally address both styles of learning and thus favor the inclusion of the image. --Dan Dassow (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Illustrating old buildings is not what the picture was meant for as fair use. A public domain picture of such buildings would be in a better position to do so.  (As pointed above, the image page specifically states "specific visual effects described in the article".)  American-centric?  I am not an American, but there have been enough TV documentaries, books, films, and school lessons (history, geography) that I have at least a passing familiarity with 18th-20th century local, American and European architecture.  It is not unreasonable to expect that other readers would have similar qualifications (we are certainly not asking readers to visualize Byzantine architecture).  Steve, you are right in that it is a judgment call (as most of what FAC is when subjective measurements are called into question).  I can only say that based on the rationale (and purpose) given, the picture fails to present a strong case for fair use in my opinion.  On what images I think are qualify for fair use, these are a few of the most recent I have seen: File:Lion Turtle Sage02d.jpg in Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle (key: art style), File:Bigissue.jpg in Street newspaper (key: definition of "professional" quality that brought dissension).  You can also read Featured article candidates/Noël Coward and Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek: The_Motion Picture/archive1 for my opinions on their fair use images.  Jappalang (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Though the decision might ultimately be to remove the image, what I do recognise is that the "Purpose of use" is very poorly described. I've rewritten this with two specific points in mind: #1 The filmmakers' introducing the shot to create an atmosphere of "emotional reflection" for audiences, an intent that I don't think can be easily conveyed with words alone. #2 The provision of specific reference points for readers when studying the corresponding article text, which breaks down the details of how the shot was imagined, constructed, which elements are computer-generated, etc. Steve  T • C 11:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: out-of-date.  Steve  T • C 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A better, more comprehensive FUR is forthcoming. I'll drop a note here after I've had a chance to write it up and add the required text to the article and image page. Steve  T • C 15:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both the accompanying text and the "purpose of use" have now been substantially rewritten; I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Many thanks, Steve  T • C 22:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the rationale is better; I suggest noting that the emotional intent is guided by the use of perspective and activity (human and vehicular) in the image. By the way, what do you mean by "to add Massive extras."?  Note that the oppose is Fasach Nua's and is his to strike; my comments here are to explain why the image could fail the criteria for fair-use.  Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Massive is right, though you're not the first to question it, so I'll have a stab at making it clearer that these are digital extras; I'll also do as you suggest and add a little more to the purpose of use before contacting Fasach Nua for reappraisal. Many thanks for your help, Steve  T • C 07:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Linked Massive in the section; it's a little close to the previous instance of the link, but I think that's acceptable to resolve the ambiguity.  Steve  T • C 21:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fasach Nua contacted. Steve  T • C 07:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Ref formatting (checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script), and the disambiguation and external links (checked with the dab finder tool and links checker tool, respectively).--Best,  T RU  C  O  01:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Support Providing the issues are dealt with above and minor edits are made I really think this is a brilliant film article. 've had my eye on this for some time and it has now been developed to the level I knew it would reach. I read this earlier - it is very well written and detailed covering the aspects of the film according to our guidelines in a balanced way and is well referenced. Congratulations on this article. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 21:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 *  Conditional Support - I'm going to go ahead and put in my conditional support (since these FACs seem to be closing faster), on the condition that the above comments are addressed (whether by action or rebuttle). Steve has done well so far with addressing all concerns, in a rather timely manner, so I have no problem with giving my conditional support (full upon completion). Cheers.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC) (Amended to fully support    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Support A terrific film article. It needs a very light copyedit, which I've started to do, but it's already of a writing standard superior to many FAs. One thing you need to do, Steve: pick a consistent numbering style and apply it throughout the article. You can express every number ten or higher as a figure (10, 14, 25, 250), or you can express every number ten or higher in words if two words or less (ten, fourteen, twenty-five, but 250). What you can't have is what you currently have, which is complete inconsistency. Please see MOS. On the specific matter of the fair use image from the closing sequence, I'm surprised that this is contentious at all (though I haven't tracked the substance of the article and the image's rationale for that long). The use of the image completely follows both the spirit and the letter of our non-free content policy: its selection and specific nature of employment is unquestionably judicious and a clear aid to understanding. Far from "letting down" the side, this is model NFC use in a model Wikipedia article.DocKino (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your kind words, and support. On the inconsistent figures/words issue, I went through the article before nomination to ensure all numbers ten or below were spelled out, that all those above ten were rendered as figures, all comparable quantities were consistent (1,000 theaters / 5 theaters), and that non-comparable adjacent quantities were in different formats ("Changeling was released in 15 theaters in nine markets..."). I've just been through it again and have corrected just two I'd missed in the "Development" section one in the "Historical context" section, and my mistaken assumption that the guideline recommended "one to ten" rather than "one to nine", but I can't see any other instances where the article doesn't comply; please feel free to slap me with any I've missed! Thanks again, Steve  T • C 07:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 *  Comment Support - Great article. Mostly minor comments: I feel some of the captions might be on the long side - I've also not seen citations used in captions before.  What's the significance of the film types and filters selected?  Is there a hyphen missing in "motion capture performers"? Is there any background information about the composition of the promotional poster? "he carried out some research, and wrote a spec." - is the comma correctly used? "West European" or "Western European"?    Socrates2008 ( Talk )   13:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your comments. In turn, then:
 * With two exceptions the captions are single sentences. The first exception uses two—one that says replica streetcars were used, the second that CGI ones complemented these. This I feel gives the reader the a brief, but good, overview of their use in the film. Either sentence alone feels like an incomplete description. The second exception is that used in the "Closing sequence" section. It is long, but as seen above, there were questions over the image's compliance with WP:NFCC. The long caption was intended to bolster the rationale for the image's inclusion beyond reasonable doubt. The citations are there because I don't like seeing any uncited statement; I don't want to force the reader to have to look in the article text to make sure what they're reading is sourced.
 * The "Cinematography" section details the film types, filters, etc. on a pretty technical level, I accept; this has been commented-upon before. However, I feel that while we're aiming at the "general" reader, the article should also be useful to those with an interest in the mechanics of filmmaking.
 * There is no information available about the composition of the poster; it's rare to get that level of coverage, save for when the poster is controversial, groundbreaking or significant in some other way.
 * "Motion capture" (sans hyphen) I believe is the correct term; plenty of sources throw it up as the one most commonly used.
 * Using a comma before "and" is a judgement call; often it's not required, but sometimes is useful (as in this case) when the intent is to make a clear break in the flow of the sentence.
 * You're right; "Western European" is the more commonly used term, so I've swapped it in.
 * Again, thanks for your comments, and if you spot anything else that requires clarification, please don't hesitate to say so. All the best, Steve  T • C 15:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the captions, I guess take the same view as the introduction, where the refs are typically in the body text (unless controversial), as there's not new information presented. I don't have a strong view on this though. For the choice of film ("Stern shot Changeling in the anamorphic format on 35mm film using Kodak Vision 500T 5279 film stock.") - pardon my ignorance, but is this an older type of film e.g. used instead of more modern digital photography, in order to achieve a particular artistic or aged effect?  No issues with the other points.  Thanks    Socrates2008 ( Talk )   21:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The stock is a relatively common one, from what I gather; it wasn't chosen due to any particular "aging" characteristics, but I did include until recently the fact that Stern chose 500T 5279 because it provided more "informed" blacks. It wasn't clear what he meant by "informed", and the American Cinematographer article to which it was cited didn't expand on that, so I took it out. Steve  T • C 22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The writing looks good at a glance. I can't comment on the other criteria. Tony   (talk)  16:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's a big help; thanks for taking a look. The best I was hoping for was "passable" :) Steve  T • C 19:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Numbering looks good now. Caught something in the Music section: It begins, "Eastwood composed Changeling's jazz- and bebop-influenced score..." Bebop is a form of jazz. Do you mean, perhaps, "swing- and bebop-"? Or just "bebop-"? Or simply "jazz-"? Also, in the Visual Effects-Overview, there's this sentence: "Owens only used bluescreen where it was reasonable to, such as at the ends of backlot streets where it would not impact the lighting." Um, "reasonable to"? (The "only" is also out of place.) You've already explained the logic of avoiding bluescreen in this film, so perhaps something like "Owens used bluescreen in only a few locations, such as..."


 * Oh, Mr. Socrates, the use of citations in captions is definitely a best practice. Many editors seem to believe that caption text is somehow less significant (even less valid) than the rest of article text, that it is not subject to the same standards of verifiability and does not carry the same weight. This is hardly the case. Indeed, as readers apparently often turn to images first, there is a case to be made that the standard should, if anything, be higher. In sum, caption text is just as important to the article as any sentence in running text—any claim of the sort that you would cite in the latter should be cited in the former.DocKino (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, both here and on the article page. To answer the above, the main source says, "the music sometimes leans more toward [bebop] than traditional jazz"; others largely say one or the other. I'll reword to make that clearer, as well as the bit in the visual effects section. Thanks, Steve  T • C 19:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.