Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Into Temptation (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 not promoted by Laser brain 17:31, 29 December 2010.

Into Temptation (film)

 * Nominator(s): —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a short one, but I believe it is comprehensive and exhausts all sources out there about this independent film. It has passed as a good article and has gone through a peer review. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - I noticed that South Park (season 13) is at FAC and you are a co-nominator for that article. Did you get an O.K to make another FAC from a delegate? GamerPro64 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:FAC states an editor "may have two nominations active if they are a conominator on at least one of them", so I was under the impression it was acceptable for me to nominate this one even though that one remains open. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  23:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * query What efforts were made to get the publisher to release File:Into Temptation movie poster.jpg under a free license? Fasach Nua (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * None, yet. Is the fair use rationale insufficient? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  00:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC requires that non-free content is only used if there is no free alternative, and I was wondering what efforts had been made to get a free alternative Fasach Nua (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can't get in touch with the filmmaker via email in the next few days. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  00:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a reasonable essay at WP:PERMISSION Fasach Nua (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My inquiries to the filmmaker have so far yielded no results. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  07:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I heard back from the director and got permission to use the poster, as well as two other images I've now added to the article. These have been archived and verified through Wikimedia Commons. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs, 1 dead external link- the lavender magazine one (ref 16) is timing out, but it's okay since it's part of a cite of the actual print magazine article; you also had 4 links redirecting at varying levels of importance, but I fixed them. -- Pres N  03:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to deal with this dead link (which is this one). The site can for now be seen in Google cache, but when I tried to use WebCite] to archive to Google cache page, it didn't work. Is there any way of archiving it beside Google cache? Or should I just drop the link from the citation? (Since it's also a print source, I think it would still pass WP:V without the link.) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  07:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you tried the Internet Archive? It can be quite useful alongside WebCite.-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 20:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like this particular page is in the Archive. Perhaps it would just be best to remove the link altogether? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  01:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it may have to come to that.-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 15:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've dropped it for now, but I'll keep working to see if I can find another way to archive the Google cache page. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources Review
 * Ref 17: What information in the cited sentence is being verified by this source?
 * I guess the name of the production company, but since another source already provides that information, I dropped ref 17 altogether. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 24: What makes Blogcritics a high-quality reliable source?
 * I was under the impression Blogcritics was generally considered an RS, since it has won several awards, is owned by a corporation, received recognition from Forbes, is recognized as an accredited news source by Google and Yahoo, etc. etc. In any event, for this particular article I only use it as a source for analytical information, like Reception and Themes, not for production information where the factual accuracy could be brought into question. But, if you don't think it's reliable, I can drop it. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Production Notes": these notes, from the film's official website, read like mutual congratulations among the production team. I wonder about the value of this page as a reliable, neutral source.
 * I believe production notes are usually considered acceptable sources, although I agree with you about the self-congratulatory tone in this case. However, for what I use them for as a source in this article, I feel it is acceptable. For the most part, I use this to verify factual items that are not particularly questionable or contestable: Ann Luster was involved in it from early stages, Larry Percy was editor, Anne Marie Gillen was executive producer, Brian Baumgartner was offered the script between seasons of The Office, etc. etc. And, in the few cases where some of that self-congratulatory tone starts to seep in (Baumgartner saying he liked the script, Gillen saying it was her favorite script since Fried Green Tomatoes), those statements are specifically attributed to the person saying them (i.e., "Baumgartner said" he liked the script, "Gillen said" it was her favorite script since..., etc. etc.). So I really feel the use of these notes are acceptable in this case. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Spotchecks: A little random spotchecking has produced one query, Ref 1b: I can't see where the source supports the statement in the text.
 * I think the relevant part in the source is the sentence, "Forced to choose between following official policy and doing nothing or trying to help the woman, the priest selects the latter..." If you feel that's doesn't uphold the article text, however, I can remove the source, as that statement is cited by an additional source as well. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. No dead links Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly about it. I'll look over the article more as I get the time. I'm out of town right now.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Questions - I haven't read the page, just done a quick glance and had a couple of questions. What is the reasoning behind the image in the plot section? I know it's free, but I'm curious as to its purpose, because if it's just to display actors then you could probably just as easly place it in another section. Second, why is there a cast list section if you have the cast in the lead, infobox, plot summary, and a "Casting" section? It just seems unnecessary. If it's just to list everyone in the film, then IMDb can usually take care of that. The Film MOS provides for his exception, but the question becomes why is this an exception? Is it actually necessary since it's just a list of names? Lastly, why is the Variety review quote so special its gets its own quote box. I've start to see these more and more and for some reason they always seem like we're just cherry picking reviews. What makes that review better to use than say a Richard Roeper review, or a New York Daily News review, etc? Just curious about these things. I have no doubt the article is concise, well written, well sourced, and comprehensive because I know your work...so I'll review those things later.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in, Bignole! With the image, I thought it would be helpful to illustrate both Chenoweth's character and the director of the film, but wasn't sure where it really fit other than the plot section. (It could have worked in "Casting", but there is already a photo there.) Do you feel it should be moved somewhere else, or removed altogether? As far as the cast section, in past movie articles I've worked on (like Tender Mercies and The Brute Man) I didn't use a cast section if most of the cast is reflected (in parentheses) in the plot summary. However, in this case, there are a substantial amount of actors who played reasonably important supporting roles who are in neither the plot summary nor the infobox/lead, so I felt it was appropriate to include an entire cast section, as supported by WP:MOSFILM. With regard to the quote box, I usually just try to find a quote that I feel is reflective of the average consensus of the film, plus in this case I think Variety is the most prestigious of all the publications that reviewed the film. I could remove it though if you don't like it. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  06:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would assume that if the image in the plot is necessary another section could probably hold it. Is the current image in the casting section more important than the one sitting in the plot section? As for the cast list. Per WP:MOSFILM, if there are such important characters that are not mentioned in the plot then some basic description of the characters needs to be placed next to them. Otherwise, they're just a name and no one would be able to tell that they were anything other than a extra that just happened to be a named character. Are "Bartender" and "Exotic Dancer" really important to the film? If they are, and they aren't in the plot summary then it might be good to indicate the role they had in the film. Otherwise, I'd just as soon believe they were merely background characters based on their identifying names. Also, is there a reason Lisa Kennedy of the Denver Post isn't cited in the reception section. The more I look over it the more it kind of just falls in love with the film, but that apparently wasn't the case for Lisa Kennedy. She doesn't flat out dismiss it, but she apparently has more critiques about the story. Might be good to try and include some additional opposing views (if at least one view, given that the film doesn't appear to have a lot of reviews at Rotten Tomatoes to pull from). That's why I wonder about the Variety quote box. The reception section isn't that large to begin with (through no fault of yours, the film just didn't get a lot of reviews that are easily tracked down), and it's largely positive reception. Given it's shortness, do we need a quotebox "summarizing" the general opinion of something that would take the average person about 2 or 3 minutes to read without trouble? BTW, I changed some "movie" words to "film", as we typically use "film" as a more professional form when writing. If it's quoted it doesn't matter, but I guess "movie" comes across as more "slang" or something.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  06:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I dropped the reception quotebox and the cast section, and added the Denver Post review (which I simply must have missed earlier). As for the image, I'd really rather not move the Chenoweth/Coyle one down to "Casting" section because it would entail losing the Brian Baumgartner picture, which I think is helpful to the reader. I also feel like it works rather well where it is in the "Plot" section because it is embedded in the paragraph where that very scene happens, and where Coyle's character was introduced. If you really feel strongly about it I'll swap the images out, but I'd rather not. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Apparently, the producers did not re-register the domain name for the official website and all sources being used for "Production Notes" are not dead links that redirect to a page that is apparently considered "Spam", as I attempted to include the link in a previous message (which is now lost) and the edit screen told me that it couldn't publish my comment because the website is blacklisted. Don't know how that will affect the article, though I know there are multiple places using the "Production Notes".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn it. lol. Linkrot strikes again. Yeah, this link was available when this FAC started, but now the site has gone down, and Internet Archive doesn't seem to have an archived link. For now, I've removed the URLs but kept the Production Notes citations in. My understanding is that, per WP:LINKROT, an article and citation does not get condemned simply because a link was deleted, so I believe having the citations without the URLs should be OK, but if I'm wrong about that let me know. I can also try to find other avenues that these Production Notes are available, but I'm not sure there is one... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you had to keep the urls and put a tab next to it so that it is clear that the information, at one time, did exist.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. I've restored the dead link templates. Will look to see if these notes are available anywhere else... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


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