Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lost in Translation (film)/archive1

Lost in Translation (film)

 * Nominator(s): NTox · talk 23:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Lost in Translation is a 2003 film written and directed by Sofia Coppola. It stars Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson. This article has just undergone a peer review. Thanks to all for any feedback offered. NTox · talk 23:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by MaranoFan

 * "befriends another estranged American named Charlotte" - It might be beneficial to readers to mention here that Charlotte is a woman.
 * Done. NTox · talk


 * Might also be good to introduce The Virgin Suicides as a drama film.
 * Done. NTox · talk


 * "After 10 weeks of editing, the production sold distribution rights for the United States and Canada to Focus Features" - "the production" seems a bit vague, does this mean a production house, Ross Katz or Coppola? Mention them instead.
 * Clarified. NTox · talk


 * "Lost in Translation was nominated for four Academy Awards, including" - Not sure if the word "including" is necessary considering all four nominations have been listed. "Lost in Translation was nominated for four Academy Awards, Best Picture, Best Actor for Murray, and Best Director and Best Original Screenplay for Coppola; it won the latter." sounds right as well.
 * Good catch. I went ahead and removed "including" and used a colon in this case. NTox · talk


 * The opening sentence of the "Themes" section is a description of it given by Coppola, after that it's a bit unclear whose opinion is being expressed. Are these critics or Coppola? This should be clarified like you've done for Professor Geoff King's comments.
 * Good point. For this material, anything not attributed in text are widespread views of critics and scholars. To bridge the gap between them and Coppola, I specified that the director's description is a perspective shared by commentators. NTox · talk


 * The words "the shot" are repeated four times in the Narrative section, could be substituted with "the scene", etc. to decrease repetition.
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I alternated this a bit with "image" to reinforce the visual focus of the commentary by sources. NTox · talk


 * "She described the story as "very personal" from the beginning" - "the beginning" could be clarified, did she give this description before she finished writing the story?
 * Good catch. For clarification, I removed the "very personal" piece and reworked that sentence a bit, especially since the later parts of the section already discuss the personal components of the film for the director. NTox · talk


 * "Among the first images included was her friend Fumihiro Hayashi's karaoke rendition of the Sex Pistols' "God Save the Queen" - This should probably be rephrased, something to the effect of "Among the first images she included was of her friend Fumihiro Hayashi performing a karaoke rendition of the Sex Pistols' "God Save the Queen".
 * Done. NTox · talk


 * The first sentence of the Development section seems to reiterate information better presented in the prior section.
 * Removed reiterated content. NTox · talk


 * Is there a reason Murray refused to sign a contract?
 * Good question. No reason has been definitively given in the literature. In all, it's not so much that he 'refused', but the impression is that he is simply reticent to sign contracts. He has been reported to have not signed for roles in other films as well. NTox · talk


 * "Johansson accepted the role without an audition" - I think what's noteworthy is that she was given the role without an audition, there's no reason Johansson would want to audition when she could get it without one. Might be more effective if changed to "Coppola offered Johansson the role without an audition, which she accepted".
 * Done. NTox · talk

--NØ 11:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for taking the time to read the article. I appreciate your comments and have made improvements based on your suggestions. I hope you're having an excellent week. NTox · talk 06:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Support - With all of my comments being addressed and other improvements. I don't have access to any of the book sources used but I will assume good faith about them; A source review will probably take care of any concerns there. I would like to invite you to my current FAC if you feel like commenting there later. Good luck!--NØ 07:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM
I saw this film for the first time recently (and then went on to take a look through this article!) so I am pleased to see this here, and hope to be able to find time for a proper look through. Right now (as when I first looked at the article a few weeks ago) I am pleased to see some good engagement with scholarly work. I note that it is not standard to include chapter titles in references unless you are citing an edited collection of some kind (as is, for example, your Acord source). The Lucy Bolton source, for example, seems to be a monograph, so you should just cite the book as a whole in the bibliography, noting the pages in the individual citations. The chapter title isn't needed anywhere. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your comments about the article. I appreciate your attention to the scholarly dimensions of the content and greatly look forward to your feedback after another read-through. I also appreciate your advice about the book chapters; I have just removed a couple of those that are not part of collections. Thanks again and I hope to see further of your thoughts soon. NTox · talk 00:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "tried to recruit him for up to a year," Why "up to a year"?
 * Good question. Coppola has given conflicting numbers in interviews. She has said it took her five months, eight months, and also a year to recruit him. Let me know if you recommend a better way to tackle this. NTox · talk
 * Ok, understood. Let's see if other reviewers pick up on it. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I note a few quotes in the lead. Quotes without citations always make my eyes twitch, but WP:REFLEAD is perhaps not completely clear on this. I leave it to you.
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Since WP:REFLEAD seems to indicate that there is no clear rule and the use of citations here should rely on consensus, I'll leave those quotations as is for now but am not opposed to adding the references in if others feel it would be better. NTox · talk
 * That's fair. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "many actual places of business" Odd phrase. I was initially just going to remove "actual", but I realised this might not work for you. I wonder if it should be rephrased?
 * Deleted 'actual'. NTox · talk


 * "Lost in Translation was nominated for four Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Director for Coppola, Best Actor for Murray, and Coppola won for Best Original Screenplay." This doesn't quite work. If you're going to list the four, you need to list the four and separately talk about the winning one, or put a note about the one that is won in brackets.
 * I reworded this sentence a bit. Feel free to let me know if you think any further copyedits are necessary. NTox · talk
 * I made some tweaks.


 * Perhaps the plot section could make a bit clearer the age difference between the two of them. Is it worth mentioning Charlotte's husband's friend?
 * I added a bit more context to the plot section, especially about Kelly. I agree it is best to mention her there. In terms of Bob and Charlotte's age difference, I did try to communicate that by referring to Bob's 25-year marriage and to Charlotte as a young college graduate, but let me know if you think there is a stronger way to say this. NTox · talk


 * "Like her performance on screen, Coppola saw" Coppola is like her performance on screen? This needs rephrasing.
 * Good catch. Rephrased. NTox · talk


 * "the identity of which he is already defined" Do you mean by which? I'm not sure this makes sense. A couple of lines later there is "as a frenetic environment of which he is overwhelmed". Can you be overwhelmed of an environment?
 * 'By which', yes. Fixed. Thanks for catching that. NTox · talk


 * " In the short days they have between them" What does this mean?
 * Changed to "In the little time they have together". NTox · talk
 * Better! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "Professor Geoff King of Brunel University London" I'd say we're probably more interested in his expertise than the university he currently works in/worked in when he published the book. Do we use titles? WP:CREDENTIAL seems to suggest not.
 * Good call. I removed the university reference and briefly described him as a film scholar who wrote a book about the film. Let me know if you think this works. NTox · talk


 * "University of Vermont professor Todd McGowan" Ditto. "Lucy Bolton of Queen Mary University of London" (no job title); "Professor Steve Vineberg" (no university). "Wendy Haslem of the University of Melbourne"; "professor Maria San Filippo"; "Todd Kennedy of Nicholls State University"; "feminist Laura Mulvey" (she's a famous scholar of film studies and a professor -- but here she's only "feminist"!); "Nicholas Y.B. Wong of The Education University of Hong Kong"
 * Thanks for pointing to WP:CREDENTIAL above. I went ahead and removed the 'professor' titles and the references to universities and colleges. I gave more description to Mulvey and Luce Irigaray, as well as Geoff King, as stated above. For the remaining academics who don't have quite as much prominence in this context, would you recommend adding descriptions for them in text, or do you believe their names alone are acceptable, combined with the existing footnotes of their work? NTox · talk
 * I would lean towards introducing them. "the film historian", "the literary critic", whatever. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "its slightness of plot action" What does this mean?
 * Rephrased. NTox · talk


 * "evoke [their] impressions" I assume the "their" refers to Bob and Charlotte, but I initially assumed you were talking about the obstacles.
 * Clarified. NTox · talk


 * We don't say "panties" this side of the Atlantic -- is it not a little informal? If not, no objection.
 * That does seem to be the standard term in the U.S. (I note that Wikipedia's article also refers to them as 'panties'). However, I can understand how it may sound informal. Let me know if you have further thoughts here. NTox · talk


 * "has often been compared to" Says who? It isn't obvious what your source is for this claim.
 * I added a note with citations of commentators who have made this point. NTox · talk

Ok, that's all for now. Please double-check my edits; you had a few commas that worried me a little! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for taking the time to read the article; I greatly appreciate your comments. I made some edits based on your suggestions and responded to a few points above. Thanks also for the copyedits you made to the page itself. I want to note that I did tweak slightly as to emphasize the connection between the short script and the improvisation Coppola allowed . Also, I modified  a bit to reinforce that Coppola saw the karaoke performance of her friend in real life previously . Don't hesitate to report if you believe there is a still a stronger way to communicate these. One question about : since the period is in the original text of the source, should it not be inside the quotation marks? Let me know if I'm misunderstanding the MOS. Thanks again for your feedback and I hope you are having an excellent start of the weekend. NTox · talk 07:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to post that that part of the MOS is widely misunderstood, but I now see that it's been updated since last time I read it. Nonetheless (looking for the first time at the updated version) I think it still calls for punctuation inside quotemarks much less than lots of people think. Here's a crucial sentence: "If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark." So it's not just a matter of whether the punctuation is in the original source; it needs to be in the original source and you need to be quoting "a full sentence" rather than a "sentence fragment" or "single word". So If I am quoting my own comment above, it would be I said "that's all for now". or I said "Thanks, that's all for now." Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I've finished reading through the article now, and I think it reads really well. I did make some more changes which I invite you to review. I had a very quick look at Google Scholar, are there seem to be a good few articles that are 1) Primarily about LIT; 2) Widely cited and/or in journals from major publishers; 3) Not cited in this article. As such, I wonder if there may be a few more things to pull in. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments about the article and your copyedits to it. I also appreciate your advice about punctuation around quotations. In relation to your comment about Google Scholar, I did conduct a reasonably exhaustive review of the literature about the film before writing the article, during which I read the academic articles you are referring to. It is my evaluation that the points being made in those articles (which were excluded from the Wikipedia page), while in my personal view are very interesting and valid, are generally not representative of the broader focus and discussion about the film in the total literature. While Google lists a fair number of cites for a couple of them, those cites seem to appear in articles that are primarily about such topics as general film theory rather than about LIT itself (the excluded pieces are broadly uncited in the articles that explore the film directly, or they were published later). Overall, there was therefore a concern about giving them undue weight. In relation to the other points you brought above, I think I have addressed everything you mentioned, including now adding descriptions for the commentators cited throughout the article. Thank you for your advice and feel free to let me know about any further thoughts you have about the article's current state. NTox · talk 00:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's great. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Support. I think this is a very compelling article. I'm watching the page to see if other reviewers identify any problems I may have missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Some details in the infobox/lead need sourcing - eg the Japanese release date and the direct quotes
 * Done. NTox · talk


 * "In the bonus features of the film's 2004 DVD" - can we have a full citation for this?
 * I believe you're referring to a citation of the DVD itself, where folks can verify the bonus features. Added. Let me know if this is not what we are looking for. NTox · talk


 * FN3: what makes this a high-quality reliable source? FN4? FN46?
 * Thanks for the questions. About FN3 (now FN8), this was a source I found cited by several academics in scholarly journals. Effectively, it is a transcription of an interview with the film's director, so the reliability of course is more simply contingent upon whether or not we believe the director's words were transcribed faithfully (the source also indicates the author was permitted in the interview with a group of journalists). I wouldn't use it to support any kind of research or commentary. Feel free to let me know what you think. About FN4 (now FN9), I did check WP:RSP prior to including it and saw that the publisher is effectively listed as reliable depending upon context. I decided to include it because the source indicates that the author is listed as a member of the San Diego Film Critics Society and the source is also effectively a transcription of an interview and is not used to support any other commentary. Replaced FN46 with a stronger source already used in the article (FN33). NTox · talk
 * For FN3, what do we know about the author's background? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The author is described by an art store where his work was sold as a filmmaker who has screened at various film festivals including Palm Springs IFF. He is also characterized as a contributor to The New York Times and a contemporary artist who has curated or shown work at various museums including the Walker Art Center. NTox · talk


 * FN7: page? Ditto FN26, check for others
 * Unfortunately, I only have HTML text copies of those sources (now FN12 and FN31), so I do not have page numbers. I note that academics who have also cited these sources have also omitted page numbers in their bibliographies, so I cannot piggy-back from there. The same applies to the other stories by The Hollywood Reporter. It is possible they were never published in print (only online). NTox · talk
 * Where did you get these HTML copies from? Are they available online? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Many years ago, I added some material to this article and I had downloaded the HTML text of the Hollywood Reporter articles when they were accessible online. There now doesn't appear to be any record of them. I have searched extensively in search engines, on the Hollywood Reporter website, and at the Internet archive services, and have come up with nothing. NTox · talk


 * Be consistent in whether you include publishers and ISSNs for periodicals
 * Good call. In truth, I would prefer to remove the ISSNs as they don't seem to be necessary. Would it be acceptable if I went ahead and removed them? NTox · talk
 * Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed. NTox · talk


 * FN41 is returning an error
 * (Now FN44) Unfortunately, I am unable to reproduce the error on my end, or at least I don't see it. NTox · talk


 * FN59 is missing publication date, and the link provided matches the publication details of FN60
 * Thanks. Added the date for FN60 (now FN61). For FN59 (now FN60), the article does not contain a date, but it does appear on the same web page as the former article. Since the two articles are written by different people and appear to be distinct, I have kept the date out, as I am not sure it was published at the same time as the former article. Let me know if you have a thought here. NTox · talk


 * FN79 is missing publication date. Ditto FN80, check for others
 * Added dates for FN79 (now FN80) and FN80 (now FN81), as well as a couple others found. NTox · talk


 * Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed repeated sources. NTox · talk


 * Thanks so much for your comments. I made some corrections and responded to a few points above. I appreciate your time greatly. NTox · talk 02:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from HĐ
Kudos for improving the article--it looks much more informative and in shape than the last time I checked out the article less than a year ago when I first saw the movie. Will be happy to give my support after I've checked for any remaining issues with the article, HĐ (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your initial kind words. I look forward to any feedback you provide. NTox · talk 00:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here are some prose issues that I've found so far after reading up to the "Production" section:
 * I think it's better to explain "run-and-gun" because it's a strange term for the common, non-enthusiast person
 * Ditto with "indie-style"
 * Thanks for the advice. I should note that these are quotations of the filmmakers ("run-and-gun") and an indie film scholar ("indie-style"), so I suppose the idea was to convey their own characterizations of the situations they describe. Do you think it would be more effective if we described those situations in our own words? NTox · talk
 * I think it's okay to replace the quotations i.e. "indie style" → "promoted largely through word of mouth before its theatrical release" or something like that. In my opinion, the lead should usually avoid quotes, with a few exceptions like iconic/historic statements, which is not the case here. HĐ (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that feedback. Replaced. NTox · talk


 * "One such reading is made by Todd McGowan"; "Another reading is posited from a feminist perspective by Lucy Bolton" Can these be changed into something like "... is from Todd McGowan", because as far as I know passive voice is often discourged?
 * Good call. I made a change to active voice for those statements here Let me know if you have any thoughts. NTox · talk
 * Sorry to butt in, but can you make or posit a reading? You can offer or defend one, certainly. propose perhaps. I'm not certain, but those are certainly not words I would use. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I have seen 'posit' used in this way before, but I am not opposed to modifying it. See or feel free to make an edit there if you prefer. NTox · talk 16:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "which offers an empty promise of gratification" I'm not sure what this means
 * For this scholar, the idea is that all of the "excess" attractions of Tokyo profess to offer folks like Bob and Charlotte all of this fulfillment and satisfaction, but that is all essentially nonsense. NTox · talk
 * Thanks for the explanation. HĐ (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The rest is fine writing. I really enjoyed reading the "Narrative" subsection. HĐ (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement and your thoughts on the article so far. NTox · talk 05:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "Coppola spent many years traveling to Tokyo" Does this mean that Coppola travelled to Tokyo on many occasions, or she spent many years living in Tokyo?
 * Interviews indicate that she traveled to the city on many occasions. Clarified. NTox · talk


 * "Among the first images she included was of her friend Fumihiro Hayashi performing a karaoke rendition of the Sex Pistols' "God Save the Queen", which Coppola saw him perform earlier" → by "earlier" do you mean around the time she was writing the script, or the time when she felt lost wondering around Tokyo? Also I think non-notable person names should be omitted (I'm not sure though), and it can be replaced with "a Japanese friend of hers"
 * Thanks for the tips. She saw the karaoke performance during the period in which she worked in Japan. Clarified. I did leave Fumihiro Hayashi's name in as I believe in this context he is somewhat significant--he is one of the few actors in the film, previously listed in the article's Cast section, with enough significance to have been given 'billing' status by the production (reserved for prominent actors of a film) on the film's poster. NTox · talk


 * Full names and wikilinks to Coppola, Murray and Johansson can be included in the caption (not a case of overlink imo)
 * Added. NTox · talk

I've finished reading through the article, and the prose is great! I can see someone will express concerns over the lack of scholarly sources, but that's not a major problem to me, since I also personally find items on Google Scholars not really helpful in adding substance. Well done and good luck with the FAC, HĐ (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments and your support. I made some revisions and responded to some of your points above. I should note that most of the Analysis section actually is based on scholarly sources--overall, the goal was to provide the appropriate balance between all of the commentary and types of sources that discussed this film. I appreciate your time and thank you again for your feedback. NTox · talk 21:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Coord note
I've added this to the image review list to get one... --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Damien Linnane
I was a little nervous taking on this review, noting the current 'C' class status of the article. But I think you've really hammered home the fact you technically don't need an article to be a GA before it is nominated for FAC. I'm really impressed with the writing, especially the Themes section, and also your utilisation of notes. Here are my concerns. Feel free to discuss instead of making changes if you disagree.
 * "The screenplay was short and the director ..." Usually I actually like elevar but I don't think it works here. I'd just use her last name instead of 'the director'.
 * Done. NTox · talk


 * 'she described it as "a huge relief"' - I'm not sure if this needs to be a direct quote. It's not an unusual or unexpected reaction. Personally I'd considered just wording it in a manner that doesn't require quoting at all.
 * Done. Let me know if you think a further change would be better. NTox · talk


 * "Coppola whispered names in the photographer's ear—such as "Roger Moore"—and Murray improvised reactions" - can you make this clearer? You've lost me. Why is she whispering actors names? Is it supposed to be an example of a completely random things to whisper? Or in this instance is it a prompt for him to imitate that actor?
 * That is a compelling point. I rephrased the sentence for clarification. NTox · talk


 * "but it prompted the restaurant owner to feel disrespected and disconnect the crew's lights" - this needs rewording. How about "but it prompted the restaurant owner to feel disrespected; he subsequently disconnect the crew's lights
 * Done. NTox · talk


 * "had numerous discussions about shooting on video" - is there a good wikilink for 'video' in this context? Personally I have no idea what the difference is between shooting in film and video, so I find this confusing.
 * Good point. I wikilinked to Digital cinematography. The difference essentially refers to the medium to which the content is recorded. Shooting on film means the content is recorded to a film strip, whereas shooting on video means it's recorded to storage like a hard drive. NTox · talk


 * "rating the stock at ISO 1200" - what does that mean? Is it customary to talk about cameras and film using terms the average person would probably not understand? That question isn't rhetorical; I'm honesty curios.
 * On reflection, I believe this is unnecessary technical detail. It is now removed. 'Rating' film stock basically refers to the extent to which you consider its sensitivity to light. If you rate it high, you consider it to be sensitive, so you will shoot with less light. If you rate it low, you consider it to be insensitive, so you will shoot with more light. NTox · talk


 * "challenge he felt in songwriting for a movie" - would 'film' be more appropriate than 'movie' here?
 * Thanks for catching that. Changed. NTox · talk


 * "and then it was expanded again" - would "though it was expanded again" work better here?
 * Done. NTox · talk

Very close to supporting. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for evaluating the article and for your kind words and suggestions. I have made changes to the article and left responses above. Let me know what you think and feel free to make an edit to the page directly if you feel it necessary. Thanks again for your comments. NTox · talk 07:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Changes look good; happy to support. Well done. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest scaling up the graph. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. The graph is now scaled up a bit more. Let me know if that and the rest of the images now pass your review. NTox · talk 05:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)