Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dustbin Baby (film)/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 promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010.

Dustbin Baby (film)

 * Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Second time lucky. Everything from last time was/has been resolved, and I've added some little titbits/tidbits. To copy from my original nomination- I feel I have gone above and beyond on this article for a number of reasons. Firstly, I bought the DVD, and watched the film several times. This isn't my normal choice of film. I wrote several pages of notes after watching the making-of feature. I managed to successfully request the release of some high-quality images to illustrate the article, one of which is now a featured picture. I wrote a good number of articles about topics related to this article, including some of decent quality. I've nurtured this article from creation on a sleepy afternoon after watching the film because I was bored, through DYK and GA, to where it is now, and I now feel it is ready for featured article status. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - no dab links, no dead external links.Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - The plot summary should be shorter. This is a relatively straightforward drama, so the summary shouldn't be much more than 600 words. &mdash;Coder Dan (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are you plucking that number from? I was told 700 words last time, so cut it down. (It's actually not wildly simple, due to the backing-and-forthing, but yeah, it's no spy drama). J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments:
 * WorldScreen articles need a subscription to access, this should be noted. Also what makes this a high quality, reliable source?
 * The archives do- subscription wasn't needed when I first used them. Noted. It's run by World Screen Network, who also publish The International Emmy Almanac, which is the official publication for the International Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. I thought that showed it was a reliable source for information on awards at least. J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Current ref 31 (Powerplay Direct) http://www.powerplaydirect.com/asp/itemdetails.asp?prodID=1783752&currsec=dv gives an error page.
 * Switched to LoveFilm. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time! J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving the other out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments : I actually watched this on YouTube last time it was at FAC, intending to give a review (is that reviewer dedication or what?), but got distracted with other things and it was archived before I had a chance. Although I think WIAFA criteria 1b and 1c are fine, I think the prose needs some polish; here's some specific comments/suggestions : Sasata (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: Read through it again, the prose seems fine now; consider all my comments below struck. I think the article meets the FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Dustbin Baby is a BBC television film directed by Juliet May first broadcast on 21 December 2008, based on Jacqueline Wilson's novel of the same name." The lead sentence seems a bit awkward to me. Perhaps splice out the broadcast date to the following sentence. Isn't that that link Easter eggish?
 * Split, changed link. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * maybe link flashback, as it such an important device in this film (I see it's linked later in the Plot section)
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "…for her screenplay for the film" ->screenplay of ?
 * Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "On April's fourteenth birthday, she argues with Marion, her adoptive mother, after receiving earrings instead of a mobile phone as a gift." maybe make it more explicit that she wanted the phone, which led to the argument (rather than assuming the reader will figure it out)
 * Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Meanwhile, Marion talks to April's friends, and realises that April has lied." about what? Also, I'm assuming she telephones April's friends, as the next sentence says she leaves Pat's home (or were April's friends at Pat's home?)
 * Rephrased to make it clear that it is April at Pat's, and that Marion is at April's school. I've also expanded the earlier mention of the lies. I am gonna have to cut down the plot section again, so I'll do that after working through your suggestions. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "In a flashback, an eight-year old April's time at the children's home is recounted." awkward construction
 * Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mo introduces April to a girl of her own age called Pearl" whose own age, Mo's or April's?
 * Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ….Pearl attacks April, holding her head under water, and then tears up April's paper dolls." might want to mention the emotional attachment she has to these paper dolls
 * "beloved"- strong, but I'd say I'm justified in using the word. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "April confronts Pearl, and pushes her down a flight of stairs, and is told off by Mo." doesn't look elegant to string these clauses together with "and"
 * Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "moved on" sounds like a British expression. If I hadn't seen the film I wouldn't know what it meant.
 * It's a direct quote, I'd imagine it was in the book. The connotations are clear. I've stuck it in quote marks- that enough? J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Resedential ->fix spelling
 * Oh dear... J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Students are writing their family tree and April fights with Marion." This doesn't imply the causality… she was fighting because of the family tree assignment
 * Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Marion reads April's records, and, after a lesson, apologises to her." do we need to know it was after a lesson? Again, can we fill in more of the cause effect with something like "Marion reads April's records, and, after learning of her past history, apologises to her."
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "… and was written by Helen Blakeman, who had previously worked on Pleasureland." why is this particular work so significant as to warrant mention here?
 * Similar themes? Claim to fame? Only other TV work? Any source that mentions her mentions Pleasureland, I thought it was worth a mention here. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "a production company specialised in children's television." specialised=past tense, do they no longer do children's TV?
 * Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Juliet Stevenson said she was attracted to the part of Marion as "it's very boring playing versions of yourself", and the fact that she does have a 14-year-old daughter." the connector after the comma doesn't match the first part of the sentence; maybe swap "and the fact that" with "because", and since here daughter is no longer 14 (I'm assuming) change to past tense.
 * Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "…to earn money to help support his family…" is this vital info? Don't most people with families earn incomes so they can support them?
 * I kind of like it- it's very "real". Appearing in DB was his 9-5 (for the wife and kids) while he got on with stuff he actually cared about. I guess the implication is that if he didn't have a family to support, he wouldn't have done it. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wilson discussed the central theme of adoption, saying that "lots and lots of people will identify with" it." that preposition tagged at the end of the quote looks awkward
 * Reordered. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "She explains this by saying that at fourteen" here the perfect tense is used, but next paragraph "Stevenson described the character of Marion" past tense. I think it would flow better if it stuck to one tense in this section.
 * Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "This view was a reflection of producer Anne Brogan's view." reword to remove a repetitious "view"
 * Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * implausabilities ->fix spelling
 * That was a direct quote... I have no idea how, firstly, I managed to do that, and, secondly, that no one noticed... J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ""Stevenson played her part as a kind of updated Jean Brodie"." Links in quote are to be avoided, and I don't know who this character is, and hovering over the link doesn't help much.
 * Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Dustbin Baby was watched by 2.3 million viewers, giving it a 15.4% share of the audience." I'm sure that the way this is written is standard for these types of articles, but does this mean 15% of the viewers watching TV at that time slot in the UK?
 * I believe so, yeah. Do you think it should be rephrased? J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, just wanted to make sure I understood it correctly. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your comments. I have given the plot a further polish/trim, and it may need to go down a little further yet... J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support and comments The current version of the plot seems about right to me; I haven't seen this drama, and if it were any shorter I think I would lose the plot... I can't comment on the sources, this isn't an area I know well, but the prose reads well now. Only one quibble, do you really need to link London?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delinked. Thanks for taking the time to take a look! J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Reads well, seems comprehensive, no problems that I noticed. Ucucha 12:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Image review: Photographs and logo from Kindle Entertainment have been previously processed with the OTRS ticket (amazing work in getting them by the way). The photograph of Jacqueline Wilson has been released into the public domain by its author.  No issues.  Jappalang (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Looked good after the first nomination, and after a few fixes, the article still reads as FA quality this time around. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.