Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Film noir/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 20:21, 28 February 2010.

Film noir

 * Nominator(s): DCGeist (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Genre? Not-a-genre? Either way, it sure is purty. Deepest thanks to maclean for a wonderfully productive GA review.—DCGeist (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * DAB/EL/ALT text check: No dabs or broken links, but none of the images besides the top one have alt text. Please see WP:ALT for directions on how to write this. -- Pres N  17:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Image check: 18 images; the first is PubDomain, and needs to be deleted in favor of the commons version. Of the remainder, 10 are public domain due to some odd "prior to 1978 with no copyright notice" tag, though several should be moved to Commons, and the others are fair-use. Of these, the first one in "Problems of definition", the top-left one in "Film noir outside the United States", and the one in "2000's" have no commentary on the image itself in the caption or in the text; rather, they mention the movie as being noir and the image is simply used as decoration, as opposed to, say, the blade runner image where the caption discusses the elements in the image and how they relate to noir. Many of the free images have this issue as well, but as they are public domain, it's an editorial issue that I will leave up to other reviewers. -- Pres N  17:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion done. Ucucha 22:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alt text complete.—DCGeist (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This is good stuff. I wish I had more time and willpower to go through it. Anyway, one thing that struck me on a quick read-through was this image caption: "Pursued (1947): A Western adopting noir style, or a film noir set in the Wild West?" I don't think such an open-ended question, though thought-provoking, is particularly encyclopedic in tone. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Caption rewritten, with cite.—DCGeist (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: I'm an inexperienced FA reviewer but... BRAVO! I think the article is absolutely fabulous. One that genuinely inspires me and makes me feel proud to be a Wikipedian. And, no, I haven't made a single edit or contribution to its discussions.


 * Some observations: the article ends with discussion of the themes/devices/tropes/etc of the form... I wonder whether that would be best-placed near the start before the historical overview? Perhaps there is precedent for the way these things are best done, if so I am ignorant of them. Although I do seem to recall that one suggested way of presenting an article is to increase in detail as one reads through an article, starting with the broader strokes and then digging down further. If that recollection is correct then that would support my view.


 * The other thing I would say is that the blistering journey through a very large number of films comes to be somewhat overwhelming. However, the very brief descriptions of the films strike me as exceptionally good and I wouldn't really like to see films taken out merely for reasons of length, so I'm not sure whether there's any remedy for the "problem" that would not actually diminish the article.


 * I think it's a great piece of work, though. The prose style is tremendous. I haven't looked at the article history to trace contributors but it comes across very much as "the work of one man"; it feels unified and polished. No mean feat for a wiki article of any kind. I'm still learning the ropes here but I would definitely support it being an FA (if this is the right place to say so). --bodnotbod (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. Here is the primary logic behind the current structure: Both the Problems of definition and Precursors sections at the top of the article summarize, from different perspectives, the basic themes/devices/tropes/etc of the form. To move the detailed Approaches to defining noir section up from the bottom would create too great a sense of redundancy at the beginning of the article. As a secondary matter, the detailed Approaches to defining noir section draws on many specific films as examples. In terms of narrative flow, that works much more smoothly when many of those films have already been introduced in the preceding survey of the history.—DCGeist (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Just a placeholder for now, will do a full review soon. Some MOS wonkery: Sasata (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ellipses should be spaced (with non-breaking spaces if necessary)
 * current refs 19, 42, 74, 132 have the letter n, does this mean "note"?
 * ref 89 should be p. not pp.; reverse for ref 107
 * refs 97, 120 needs page range format tweaked
 * ref 104 need external link fixed
 * Wondering about ref 59 (Hayde, Michael J., My Name's Friday...) ; why isn't this listed in the sources? How about publisher, location, and ISBN?


 * Ellipses: Addressed.
 * The letter "n": Yes, in each case it is used as an abbreviation for "note". I've adjusted to CMS style by spacing each "n" and adding a period after it.
 * Other ref concerns: All addressed.—DCGeist (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments I have so far read the first three sections. I'll read the rest later today or tomorrow. I should acknowledge I'm not into films, so take it as comments of an outsider. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Problems of definition" -- I haven't read §7 ("Approaches to defining noir") yet, but having two section titles that similar calls for restructuring.
 * Latter section retitled.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that is discussed below.


 * The section starts out enjoyably poetic, but I would prefer a clear (and sober) one-phrase summary of the section at its beginning. The very last phrase of the section would, somewhat adapted, do a good job in this respect.
 * Lead sentence added.—DCGeist (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Though film noir is often identified with a visual style" -- what does visual style mean?
 * Here is the phrase in context: "Though film noir is often identified with a visual style, unconventional within a Hollywood context, that emphasizes low-key lighting and unbalanced compositions..." The locution is perfectly standard, and it is hard to see how the meaning could be more plain.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have been blind then. Sorry.


 * In general the article looks well-referenced, but the first section of "Precursors" could do with some references, I think.
 * More refs added.—DCGeist (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "contemporaneous" could perhaps be "then-cont."?
 * Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * German expressionism involves a number of arts at equal footing but the current wording implies that cinema is its main feature
 * Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A general comment: be sure to explain technical terms to the readers. For example "chiaroscuro"
 * Technical terms explicated.—DCGeist (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the footnote? As far as I can see, there is currently no explanation of "chiaroscuro". We do have the blue link, but I think just a few words here would be fine, since this terms appears several times in the article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Recently did a bit more with this. Took out the term from the early section. Now introduced in the Identifying characteristics section, where it's fully explained.—DCGeist (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "M was also the occasion ..." -- to me, it seems off-topic in that section
 * Passage cut. Essential information moved.—DCGeist (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A nother general thing: the article is long, if not too long. As a consequence, I suggest removing details that are not directly important to the article topic. E.g. "directed by Englishman James Whale" could well go without the Englishman.
 * In context, the indication that Whale and his film had no intimate connection with Germany or the Expressionist movement is significant.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm not going to dig my heels in with such little points, but as a general direction I think the article would benefit from more summary-stylish writing. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would remove the parentheses around "The movement's sensibility..."
 * Done.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason why "German Expressionism" is capital, but "Italian neorealism" is not?
 * That is the prevailing orthography for the respective terms in the fields of art and film history.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I just did not know that. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In what sense (if any) is Henry Hathaway linked to Italian neorealism? Same for the following lines. If there is no link, I suggest reworking the first sentence of that section.
 * Restructured for clarity.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "It also exemplifies ..." seems to belong to the 1st section?
 * It references the discourse of the previous section, continuing the narrative thread.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I probably still would put it elsewhere, but that's no problem.


 * In general I find the heading "Precursors" slightly inadequate, especially given that it contains "Literary sources". Perhaps something like "Background" etc. would be better?
 * Section retitled.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "hardboiled" -- this appears a couple of times, so maybe you could spend a sentence on explaining it here. (At the beginning of "Literary sources")
 * Described as a school of crime and detective fiction; primary figures identified; specific character focus of writers specified in next graf; term itself conveys characteristic tone of style.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "classic era" is not defined nor explained in that section
 * Defined in lede. Added definition above this point in main text.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite generally, the language is enjoyably ample, but (to me) is (close to being) unencyclopedic quite often. E.g. "into the famous Philip Marlow". Famous according to whom? "They take pains ..." (1st section), this simply does not belong in an encycl. Likewise with "But the accountants [...] where not happy". The more I read the more concerned I get about this. Another example: "a romantic obsessive on a one-way road to ruin"
 * Passages edited for tone (except for the simply factual, noncontroversial reference to the fame of Marlowe). Several other comparable passages have also been edited for tone.—DCGeist (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I strike it out here and respond to that point below.


 * "Classic period" section: "Hungarian emigre Peter Lorre..." -- I don't see why this is mentioned here.
 * Continuing theme of the central role émigrés played in the emergence of Hollywood noir.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I didn't get that this theme is a thread throughout the article. Now you are pointing to it I see it more clearly. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Indeed, even though ..." -- I think the conjunction "Indeed" should be reworked. In fact, the recognition of a beginning trend is, I believe, largely unconnected to public acclaim.
 * Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "either literally or in spirit" -- what does this mean?
 * "... filmmaking as a whole: ..." I don't understand/it's not clear to me what the unusual degree of experimentation has to do with Expressionism vs. semidocumentary.
 * As stated, both represent experimental tendencies within the context of Hollywood filmmaking.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Must have been tired. Sorry. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "... more pliable" -- than what?
 * Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "in some cases, still are" -- this is one of the many occurrences of pretty vague language. Please make more precise or omit it.
 * Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Double Indemnity (1944) -- this film shows up quite many times above, too. So you could remove the 1944 here. Perhaps you could even concentrate the material belonging to that film in one spot.
 * Date repetition cut.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Filmakers" probably misses an "m"
 * "The Filmakers" is the correct company name..—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the relevance of the sentence "Dalton Trumbo ..." in connection to what has been said before?
 * References to the Hollywood blacklist are threaded through this historical section.—DCGeist (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A general comment: being a reader not acquainted with these things, practically all film titles are unknown to me. (Imagine replacing them by Chinese characters). I would therefore suggest to trim down mentioning the movie titles, in particular so when a title is only given once in the whole article. More concentration on the most important films (I realize that this may be difficult to decide) would also help reducing the length of the article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not surprising that a reader unfamiliar with the field would be unfamiliar with most of the titles of films in the field. One of the purposes of an article on an artistic genre is, as you suggest, to direct readers to a corpus of work from which to establish a strong base of knowledge of the entire field. In the present instance, the historical section mentions approximately 60 noirs from the classic era. That's already just a focused, relatively small sampling from the entire field, which comprises hundreds of films; without belaboring the point, the article also suggests which are the "most" important films by their inclusion in the lead narrative of the Classic period section and, of course, the National Film Registry list.
 * Right. For my own amusement, I counted wikilinks in italics, eliminated doubles and tried to eliminate non-film links. Left are 250+ links. That's huge. We have List of film noirs, which could give a more list-like feeling of what the corpus is. In any case, the depth of coverage here suggests creating subarticles such as Neo noir. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now read the rest of the article (based on a printed copy from last weekend, but I hope not too much has changed since). First some more nitpicking.
 * Parodies section: "what appears to be". Sounds vague. Is this vagueness implied by the reference? If not, it would be good to sharpen the statement.
 * It's not so much vagueness, as intellectual honesty. Intention is a significant art-historical matter, but ultimately hard to prove definitively in most cases. The language follows the source, indicating that a historical appraisal suggests that this is the first deliberate cinematic parody of noir, while acknowledging that an earlier one might one day be identified.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thx for reassuring me. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "...after studio owner H.H. demanded rewrites" -- seems overly detailed/off-topic to me.
 * Necessary for historically accurate description of often-misdescribed film.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * same with "an eighty-one-minute-long deadpan..."?
 * Cut.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "it certainly seems" sounds like a logical contradiction
 * Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "funny, but it smarts" -- I'm not a native speaker, but again this strikes me as flowery, unency. language.
 * Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * same with "anything else available"
 * Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What does the citation in the image caption of Taxi driver add to the text? (This is just meaning I don't see it.)
 * Not sure I understand the question.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to suggest to trim down that caption (esp. "Loneliness has followed me my whole life, everywhere. In bars, in cars, sidewalks, stores, everywhere. There's no escape. I'm God's lonely man"), because I did not understand why it is there.


 * "Visual style section": Dutch angles could perhaps be explained?
 * Glossed.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Structure and narrational devices" section: what does "meta" mean?
 * Concerned with/referencing its own category (i.e., that of noir).—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is intelligible without what you just explained me. Perhaps a rewording might solve it? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reworded.—DCGeist (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Bold experiments" -- according to whom?
 * Ref added.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Plots ..." section: "fall guys" unencyclopedic?
 * Quite standard in serious literature on the topic.—DCGeist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "may seem virtually mandatory" sounds like a mixture of definiteness and vagueness. Perhaps reword.
 * Reworded.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * most famously" -- according to whom?
 * Ref added.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what "to corrosive effect" means.
 * Reworded.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "better rendered elsewhere" -- according to whom?
 * Reworded.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Nicholas Christopher's opinion is representative" -- again, I have some stomach-ache. (I certainly don't doubt that the article author(s) are qualified enough to have an overview on critics etc., but given that this seems to be a field where many even basic questions are controversial, I think an article like this should be very careful calling somebody "representative" or (below, about Foster Hirsch) "leading". If you can bring a (ideally itself representative) reference calling XY "leading" and such, I'm fine, of course.
 * Passages edited.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "the conclusions of Chinatown and The Hot Spot provide two very different examples" -- Unless the endings were talked about before (which I may well have forgotten), this phrase conveys little meaning to somebody who does not know these films.
 * Passage edited.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The caption of the last image: who says what?
 * Bogart, then Bacall--i.e., in both the sequence in which they are seen (left to right) and the sequence in which their names appear after the quotes.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead: "Hollywood" is mentioned twice in a row. Perhaps one time suffices?
 * Both instances are necessary for accuracy (and, secondarily, brevity).—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "defined the noir canon" -- I may well be mistaken, but from the article I get the impression there is no such thing as a canon for noir?
 * There is a canon of films scholars agree on, and then there are disagreements about many other films that some would include in the canon, and others would not.—DCGeist (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead does not mention the parodies section. (According to some guideline, the lead should summarize the article adequately.)
 * In the amount of space that might be devoted to it in the lede, little significant information could be conveyed. The lede is more focused and informative without diverting into a summary of the relatively small parodies section.—DCGeist (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Currently the last paragraph affords mentioning 6 films, one of which (The Big Heat) is never again mentioned.
 * Film noirs encompass a range of plots—the central figure may be a private eye (The Big Sleep), a plainclothes  policeman (The Big Heat), an aging boxer (The Set-Up), a hapless grifter (Night and the City), a law-abiding citizen lured into  a life of crime (Gun Crazy), or simply a victim of circumstance  (D.O.A.) Though the noir mode was  originally identified among American productions, films now customarily  described as noir have been made around the world. From the 1960s  onward, many pictures have come out that share attributes with film  noirs of the classic period, often treating noir conventions in a self-reflexive manner. Such latter-day works  in a noir mode are often referred to as neo-noirs.
 * How about the following first attempt towards fulfilling "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the  article." (WP:LEAD)?
 * Film noirs encompass a range of plots, often centering around a private eye (The Big Sleep), a plainclothes  policeman (The Big Heat), an aging boxer (The Set-Up), a hapless grifter (Night and the City), a law-abiding citizen lured into  a life of crime (Gun Crazy), or simply a victim of circumstance  (D.O.A.) Though the noir mode was  originally identified among American productions, films now customarily  described as noir have been made around the world. The classic era of film noir inspired many pictures treating noir conventions in a self-reflexive manner now referred to as neo noirs. The characteristics of noir have also been parodied as early as 1945.

I realize many of my comments above are a bit picky and I'm sure they will be/are already adressed. To conclude, I think many readers will benefit from this well-polished, mostly well-written and also often very thoroughly referenced article. (I certainly did, even if at times I lost steam...) However, what makes made me worry (I'm leaning to oppose if these issues don't change) is was the following:
 * My main concern is that the language is often far from encyclopedic. I've pointed out a number of examples. Beyond the wording, it is also not immediately clear at a number of occasions whether flowery language is hiding underneath personal views etc. By the article's own admission, the field is characterized by many controversies in scholar work etc., so this issue is really central, I think.
 * I've edited the specific passages you mentioned and identified and edited several others of their ilk.—DCGeist (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reread some sections. At least I can't see any further obvious problems with that. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is really long, and (I realize this may not be a 100% actionable problem), much of it seems adressing an audience who has seen many noir films. I can only suggest to remove long listing of examples of films, and trying (which the article successfully does at a number of places, too) to focus more on characteristics that can be understood without watching all of these movies.
 * I thought again... I think the article is at, but not beyond the limit of reasonable length. With a second read everything is already much clearer (to me). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The biggest structural weakness of the article, to me, is the section formerly called "Approaches to defining noir"/now "Identifying charactiristics". (A mere section renaming is not going to make this work). To be honest (and hopefully not rude), the section reads like a paper written for some university course. "Four large questions may be identified" is an example. Something like "Scholarly research identifies the following four questions concerning the characteristics of film noir" would be a replacement that could be verified or falsified by a reader looking at some reference. Whether or not the article is only a modest survey does not belong here. I appreciate the article being frank about its limitations, but implicitly this suggests that there is something to improve, since FA should be comprehensive. My critique may be ill-posed, but I, for one, wonder what is the difference between "What defines film noir?" and "What are the identifying characteristics of film noir?" Also, given any answer to this, why is "Which movies qualify as film noirs" then still an open question? I think giving such a clearly cut list of four questions is only doable if (most) scholars agree that these exact questions are the ones to talk about. Otherwise it reads like original research by synthesis. Finally, the "visual style" subsection copies quite much of the very first section. This redundance should also be reduced, given that the article is quite long already.
 * The introduction of the section has been entirely reworked for brevity, tone, and most importantly, to focus on verifiable/falsifiable matters. (Necessary book-page references will be added shortly). Further editing has been done on the section to reduce the sense of redundancy while still facilitating the ability of readers unfamiliar with the field to comprehend the section without repeated backward reference.—DCGeist (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a tremendous leap! A lot better, I think. (A nice addition (but by no means a must) would perhaps be to add a screenshot of the scene of Kiss Me Deadly that is discussed in the "Visual style" section.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * About the redundancy/global structure issue. I guess you have thought about that, but what about merging the "Identifying characteristics" and "Problems of definition" into one an putting it at the beginning of the article? As far as I see, the article has to start off with some (whatever vague, controversial etc.) explanation of what the topic is about, so putting both at the end won't work well. But both at the beginning strikes me as better as the material of the two being split up. Just one example of blatant redundancy is
 * "Similarly, while the private eye and the femme  fatale are character types conventionally identified with noir, the  majority of film noirs feature neither; so there is no character basis  for genre designation as with the gangster film." (top section)

vs.
 * "the private eye and the femme fatale are the character types with which film noir has come to be most identified, but only a minority of movies  now regarded as classic noir feature either" (bottom section).

Except for the notion of "classic period" (which can be understood without prior reading of the corresponding section), it seems that the material of the "Identifying char." section does not depend on the intermediate sections. However, both sections are about the same question, namely "What is noir?" (=What defines noir, what characterizes noir). Here is my (unsolicited ;) suggestion for a structure of that merged section:
 * 1. "The notion of film noir"
 * 1.1 "Problems of definition": Make an introductory statement that it is hard to define. Mention what characteristics could be taken to identify an individual film as noir. Deduce different canons from disagreement about that question.
 * 1.2. -- 1.5. Elaborate the characteristics (i.e., just put the 4 sections which are now at the very end)
 * 1.6. More global view. Deduce from the difficulty of deciding whether individual films are noir the difficulty to assess the topic as a whole, i.e., whether noir is a genre etc. (Here it is vital that notions such as "genre", "style" and whatever else is proposed are delineated against each other as clearly as possible. Otherwise it is just words unintelligible to non-cineasts). Compare to screwball/musical etc. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on structure from another reviewer: I believe you're right to say of Problems of definition and Identifying characteristics, "both sections are about the same question, namely, what is noir?" At the same time, I believe the current structure is effective. It's of course quite natural for an article to begin with a Background section; by definition, the role of that section is to provide context for what follows. In the current case, however, the nature of the topic makes it necessary to establish from the start that the subject matter addressed by the Background section is not a, er, black and white matter. Problems of definition, a mere three paragraphs, does not come close to the detail of Identifying characteristics, a section four times its length with four of its own subsections, but provides enough to enable the reader to interpret the remainder of the article in the light of this key fact. It provides the most fundamental context within which even the subject matter of Background needs to be understood. For this reason I feel current sequence is effective. One possibility, however, would be to make Problems of definition the first subsection of Background. This would not alter the sequence but could help with perception of the structure. PL290 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm. I'm not convinced. OK, that merged section would be long, but not longer than the "Classical period" section. The merge would actually slightly reduce the total length! The most important plus, to me, is that it would be the most organic order. Anyway, my idea seems to be a minority opinion, so I probably should not insist. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Should "Lady in the Lake, ... the face of star (and director) Robert Montgomery is seen only in  mirrors." go into the "Visual style" section? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's routinely treated in the literature as a distinctive narrational device, rather than as a manifestation of visual style.—DCGeist (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Related to the above: "what constitutes the set of noir's identifying characteristics is another source of controversy" -- isn't this the (i.e., the one and only--as opposed to "another") source of controversy? I mean, if that would be clear, I guess it must be clear whether a given film displays these characteristics? Or is that too simplistic? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The question of whether noir constitutes a genre is also a basic source of controversy. However, you're right to suggest that this matter of what constitutes the set of identifying characteristics is a more fundamental question than whether film X or Y is labeled a noir. (Though that, not surprisingly given the field, remains a partially independent source of controversy. For instance, Night of the Hunter exhibits almost all of the traits associated with the classic noir, yet is still excluded from the category by some critics.) I've eliminated "another" and reworded the sentence.—DCGeist (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pending the improvement of the lead along the above comment, I'm ready to support the article becoming FA. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not sure to which comment you're referring here.—DCGeist (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The one above (The lead does not mention the parodies section etc.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.—DCGeist (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm now happy to support the FAC. I think on behalf of the WP community and its readers (we just got 2M $ donated), we owe many thanks to for such hard work (and also the swift, responsive mode here; I hope I wasn't straining your nerves too much)! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I did the GA review. It is a long article but I patiently went over it with DCGeist. The quality far surpasses GA requirements and in my opinion meets the FA requirements, including being well-researched, comprehensive, and well-written. --maclean (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * I found this article actually very well-written and impressively detailed and researched, and quite interesting. I wrote the Mulholland Dr. article, and have an affinity for pulp literature. My oppose is based more on the conventions of writing for an encyclopedia; this article seems to be stylized outside the Manual of Style.
 * I have problems with an encyclopedia article being self-referential as in the Identifying characteristics section: Two of them addressed at the beginning of this article and This article refers to movies from the classic period as "film noir". I also feel that the questions in this section should not stand alone as they do. If they are subjects of controversies that are wide-ranging, there are ways to address these discussions in prose.
 * The self-referential material has been cut and the introduction to the section completely reworked.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Who says this? "We'd be oversimplifying things in calling film noir oneiric, strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel"
 * Borde and Chaumeton (specified in the sentence following). KellenT 15:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why not state so in the same sentence as the quote? The first paragraph, for instance, does not explain with efficiency that the categorization of film noir is debated. Combined sentences in bold, and commentary about statements in brackets:


 * The passage has been tweaked to improve clarity and tone.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The writing in this article is esoteric and abstract, when it should be concrete writing addressing abstract and esoteric concepts. It reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Combined with the self-references, the article has its own personality. The article draws attention to itself instead of directing all attention to the topic. While brilliant writing is an integral part of a featured article, it should still be encyclopedic in tone. --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Edits have been made throughout to address tone.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Briefly explain chiaroscuro and take caution that too much jargon is not being used. Film studies have a language all their own that can be as difficult to understand as medical or other technical subjects.
 * Chiaroscuro's introduction has been moved down in oder to make the early passage more accessible. It and several other terms are now glossed.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Background section, I feel, should appear before the Problems of definition section, and the Problems of definition section should probably immediately precede the Identifying characteristics section.
 * Another editor felt that the Identifying characteristics section should be moved all the way up before the Background section. The consensus, however, appears to be in favor of the current structure. In addition, beginning with "Problems of definition" is, I believe, crucial for explaining to readers the fundamental ambiguity of the term--everything else that follows must be understood in that light. Beginning in this way also accurately reflects the way many encyclopedic and quasi-encyclopedic works in the field begin.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There has been an effort among FAC delegates not to list all the things wrong with an article for an oppose or comments, so I'm going to keep this short. However, I am so far impressed with the quality of writing, think it will not take much to support it, but the obstacles I find are significant ones. I will assist as I can. Please let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Followup: The self-references are gone, which is good. I'm enthusiastic about this article and I wish very much to support it. However, I am unable to reconcile that, as an encyclopedia article that should be conveying basic answers to readers, the Problems of definition section addresses "all five attributes in equal measure" yet does not identify which attributes these are. Am I missing something? I read the section several times. Primary components to Film noir appear at the end of the article, following an extensive and interesting discussion of film history. This creates a chasm of prose that gives readers no connection to what they are trying to grasp: film noir is difficult to define; this is its history; these are films considered noir; these are the characteristics of noir. It would be much clearer to arrange the article as: film noir is difficult to define; these are the characteristics of noir; this is its history; these are films considered noir, so readers can understand why films are considered to be within the noir genre. You said someone else suggested moving the Problems of definition up, and I understand that it's difficult to please the disparate suggestions you get at FAC, but the structure of the article appears illogical and frustrating to a reader that knows nothing about noir. I hope I'm being helpful, really. --Moni3 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you're having such trouble, but in the sentence that immediately precedes the one that refers to "five attributes", five attributes are named: "oneiric, strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel". Among the many people who have read the article, you are the only one who's expressed the slightest difficulty with making a connection I think most would describe as plain and obvious. I tweaked the passage a little bit after your earlier comment, but I don't see that more can profitably be done here.


 * As for the structure, strong, logical cases have been made for both the current sequence and the one you favor. (And the fact is, the notion of noir historically developed in the opposite direction from your assumption: critics (a) labeled films as noir and then (b) generated a set of characteristics. Furthermore, as the article describes, those characteristics are far more debatable and debated than are the historically relevant antecedents to noir and the group of core films and directors—a compelling reason not to structurally prioritize the detailed discussion of characteristics.) Obviously, we can't wind up with both structural sequences. And it seems just as obvious that either respects the FA criteria. If you find yourself unable to support because the article is not sequenced as you prefer, that's a shame. So it goes. At any rate, thank you for prompting the rewrite of the intro to the characteristics section: I think all are agreed that led to a significant improvement.—DCGeist (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * you are the only one who's expressed the slightest difficulty with making a connection I think most would describe as plain and obvious. Well, I can't hear that enough. I was always the kid in class who asked the question; sometimes I got a "no duh" response, and sometimes the kids around me said, "Thank God someone asked." Lest I become an example of the Asch conformity experiments, I approach articles as I do the presentation of any material that would be unfamiliar to a reader. A concept, a definition, an example, a non-example, development of concept, analysis and discussion of concept. Starting with the basic and getting more cognitively complex. You seem to feel pretty strongly that the way the article is in its current form is the best way to convey information to readers. I think you're confusing the vagaries about film noir with the construction of an encyclopedic article. If you are certain that this is the absolute best way to convey this information, the compromise I can make is removing my oppose with the hope that after the article is promoted and some time follows you might reconsider. But I have significant reservations about the way the article is presented and I would not feel good about supporting. Sometimes that happens. Let me know your thoughts. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * By no means do I feel you should support if you don't feel good about supporting. We have a legitimate difference of opinion over structure, and each of our respective positions has been backed by other readers, with well-reasoned arguments raised on both sides. One of the great things that working on Wikipedia teaches is the value of remaining open-minded—something it is possible to do while remaining true to one's well-considered beliefs. The article has only improved because of the perspective that you've brought to it, as well as that brought by J.S., who also had significant concerns. If we've arrived at a point where complete agreement is not possible at present, so long as the disagreement is thoughtful on both sides—which it certainly is—that's a valuable part of the process as well, from which we'll both likely learn. I've certainly learned better than to close myself to the possibility of reconsideration.


 * Speaking of open-mindedness and reconsideration, I was impressed by your reference to "the kid in class who asked the question". Just because I couldn't see how there might be any remaining confusion about the "five attributes", doesn't mean it wasn't worth revisiting. I've edited the passage again in a way that I hope further improves its clarity. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've struck my oppose. Best of luck with it, truly. --Moni3 (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Support (subject to satisfactory media and source reviews) - broad, deep, thoughtfully structured, its prose shined to perfection throughout, this is, quite simply, a stunning article. Highly commendable and without question deserving of FA status. It seems almost churlish to make a few small observations: PL290 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a couple of lone subsections; consider adding a subsection heading for the initial body of text in each case.
 * Narrative structures sometimes involving convoluted flashbacks uncommon in non-noir commercial productions. - appears to be an incomplete sentence.
 * Per MOS:EMDASH, we should avoid having more than two em dashes in a sentence. A couple of sentences have four. Although it's done well such that there is no problem of ambiguity, the guideline is prescriptive in limiting us to two so this should really be reworked, perhaps using parentheses instead or recasting to remove the issue. EDIT: however, this is currently under discussion.
 * Walsh had no great name recognition during his half-century as a working director, but his noirs—White Heat (1949) and The Enforcer (1951) would follow—had A-list stars and are seen as important examples of the cycle. - the two words "would follow" appear to be incongruous with the rest of the sentence.
 * It was in this way that accomplished noir actress Ida Lupino became the sole female director in Hollywood during the late 1940s and much of the 1950s. - "become" is usually (and, presumably, was in this case) a one-off event; perhaps "... and remained so for much of the 1950s" etc.
 * It is one of the seven classic film noirs produced largely outside of the major studios that have been chosen to date for the United States National Film Registry. - can't find the relevant guideline just now, but I think "to date" is not encyclopedic; perhaps simply delete those two words.
 * As can be observed in many movies of an overtly neo-noir nature, the private eye and the femme fatale are the character types with which film noir has come to be most identified, but only a minority of movies now regarded as classic noir feature either. For example, of the twenty-three National Film Registry noirs, in only four does the star play a private eye: The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, Out of the Past, and Kiss Me Deadly. Just four others readily qualify as detective stories: Laura, The Killers, The Naked City, and Touch of Evil. - "For example" produces an expectation that the second sentence will deal with both private eye and femme fatale, whereaas it only deals with the former.
 * The climaxes of a substantial number of film noirs take place in visually complex, often industrial settings, such as refineries, factories, trainyards, power plants—most famously the explosive conclusion of White Heat. - would benefit from not presuming the reader is familiar with White Heat, and hence identifying the setting.
 * All of these points have now been addressed.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Source review A lot of trees died to make this article possible. The sourcing overall is superb. The two borderline web sources--SoundtrackNet and Thrilling Detective--both fall on the right side of the line. While it appears that most contributors to the former are unpaid, it is evidently professionalized in every other regard. The latter is evidently well-recognized in its field. Nonetheless, given Chandler's fame, surely there is a higher-quality source available for referencing the "Finger Man"–Marlowe connection?
 * There is, and I added it. I retained the Thrilling Detective cite in the ref's second position because it does offer a helpful summary of the matter.—DCGeist (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of other observations:
 * I agree with PL that the current structure is most effective. In addition to PL's superbly articulated argument, there's also the point that DCGeist raised earlier: the "Identifying characteristics" are not presented purely abstractly, but--very helpfully, I think--often accompanied by references to specific films to which the interested reader may refer. The narrative appears to work best and most naturally when these films are introduced in the history, then touched upon again here (rather than the reverse). That said, Jakob did identify an instance where the phrasing of a particular point was excessively repetitive--I see that Mr. Geist has addressed this. PL's idea of making "Problems of definition" the lead subsec of "Background" is interesting and certainly worthy of consideration.
 * As an overall read, the article is highly enjoyable and endlessly informative and enlightening. I do feel that the "Directors and the business of noir" subsection does get a bit dense with film titles. I certainly don't believe any should be cut, but perhaps a little breathing room could be introduced by adding a descriptive sentence or so on some of the more important directors for whom little detail is currently provided. Looking over the structure of the subsec and considering who's a sufficiently recognized auteur, I think a bit could be added on Ray, Fuller, Lewis, and Karlson without disrupting the focus or flow here. DocKino (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.—DCGeist (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Support A shining example of what can be achieved on Wikipedia. DocKino (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor comment - Last sentence of the last paragraph needs a citation please. Skinny87 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.—DCGeist (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.