Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mystery Train (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 SandyGeorgia 20:24, 30 January 2010.

Mystery Train (film)

 * Nominator(s):  Skomorokh   03:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

After having passed its recent GA review by Casliber, this article I feel is ready for a shot at the shiny FA star. It's been nearly two years since my last nomination, so though I've had a stab at this alt text business the kids are so crazy about these days, please don't be shy if the article is not aligned with contemporary FAC norms. Mahalo,  Skomorokh   03:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is mostly present (thanks), except it's missing for File:Jim Jarmusch.jpg. Please fix this by editing Jim Jarmusch filmography. Eubulides (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. I wasn't sure if "looking at the camera" or "looking at the viewer" were appropriate, but I've gone with the former. Cheers,  Skomorokh   15:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks good. Eubulides (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support (square-eyed and fatigued) I reviewed this for GA and tried to nitpick as much as possible. There's been some buffing since and I honestly can't see what else to improve (however I might have been staring at it too much so await further opinions :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Looks complete but the prose in the 'Plot' section needs a lot of work (the rest of the prose is fine). The prose in this section is jerky, doesn't flow well, and is often unclear. For example, 'the basis for Madonna and ....', makes little sense since Madonna is a real person. Do you mean to say a model for Madonna's persona? (Also, was that an exhaustive or exhausting trip to Sun Records - it's been over 10 years since I saw the film!) Also, is it generally acceptable for the plot section to be unreferenced? Finally, I assume that the US release date is the 'commercial release date' because it was shown in the festival in September 1989. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC) (Addendum: Canby writes: 'Mitzuko idolizes Elvis and keeps a scrapbook of pictures that prove Presley's mystical connection, through facial likeness, to Buddha, Madonna and the Statue of Liberty.' Mystical connection is not the same as basis so perhaps this should be rephrased. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Ciao, RegentsPark, and thanks for the helpful comments. It's conventional not to cite outside sources in the plot section (see MOS:FILM or other film FAs). Not being much of a fiction editor I haven't done a great deal with the plot section; it's a holdover from the stub version of the article for the most part. I'd rather someone more experienced in writing such summaries had a stab at it, but if that's not forthcoming I'll try.


 * The Sun Records trip was exhaustive in the sense that the guide gave a rather needlessly thorough yet incomprehensible spiel; this could be reworded. The US release date is theatrical, yes; I don't think it's conventional in Infobox film to distinguish between theatrical and festival releases – I would have thought where dates are given for countries, it is presumed to refer to the theatrical release. Cheers,  Skomorokh   03:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comments What makes these reliable?
 * http://www.reverseshot.com/legacy/dogdays05/mysterytrain.html
 * http://www.jim-jarmusch.net/films/unmaderumored_films/one_night_in_memphis.html
 * Remove all links from the above for reproduced articles, as I doubt it has permission to put them up.

RB88 (T) 04:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 8 needs more detail, i.e. specific date and page.
 * Remove italics on online-only publishers.
 * If you're going to include both work and publisher in refs, do it all for all or none. As it is, there is no uniformity.
 * Thanks for your review, Rafablu88.
 * Reverse Shot is a published film journal with editorial oversight whose articles are syndicated on indieWIRE. It's been around since 2003 and has a solid reputation for veracity.
 * Jim-Jarmusch.net is without doubt the most comprehensive and accurate resource on director Jim Jarmusch. It is curated by Ludvig Hertzberg (the author of the piece in question), a Jarmusch scholar and author of Jim Jarmusch: Interviews, published in 2001 by University Press of Mississippi.
 * Please provide reputable third-party links to back up these claims, especially for the fansite which definitely fails Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. RB88 (T) 00:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hertzberg's reliability is really not in doubt; he is the pre-eminent authority on the topic, not some random fan on the internet.  Skomorokh   06:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LINKVIO, links are only prohibited on copyright grounds to works known to be copyright violations. If you know that any of the links in questions are in violation of copyright, please point them out.
 * www.jim-jarmusch.net is a fansite, hence does not have permission to reproduce content. The links to such material need to be removed. I don't see any copyright info in each case that says they're allowed to publish material and under what license. RB88 (T) 00:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand how that follows; if you can't find copyright info on the material, how are you sure it's a copyright violation? Regards,  Skomorokh   06:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the info was published elsewhere, then the republisher must in all instances include the copyright material. As I don't see any, the conclusion any court of law will take is that the material is published illegally. The Wikimedia Foundation always takes a harsh stance on such cases to save its bacon. We simply cannot let FA potential articles to include links to illegally published material, implicit or explicit. RB88 (T) 06:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take your word on this and have removed the links.  Skomorokh   01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have expanded ref 8 to include volume, publisher, url and accessdate.
 * I aim for consistency in the references, hence the italicisation of works. Where publishers are existent and known, they are included. If I have missed any, please do let me know. I appreciate your review and hope we can improve the sourcing. Regards,  Skomorokh   18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Consistency would actually mean removing the italics from web-only publishers, which under MOS must not have them. RB88 (T) 00:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to find a MOS page that addressed the italicisation of websites but could not. Could you link me to the page you had in mind? Appreciate it,  Skomorokh   06:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Simples: WP:ITALICS. Web-based sources not allowed italics. RB88 (T) 06:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right – that page does not mention web-based sources, nor does it exclude them by default. It seems intuitive to me that Salon.com is a work whose publisher is Salon Media Group just as The New York Times is a work whose publisher is The New York Times Company...  Skomorokh   01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we could go in circles here or you could oblige. You can ask any experienced FAC editor and they'll say online-based sourced cannot be in italics. RB88 (T) 20:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend excluding Rotten Tomatoes for this film. The film preceded the website, so the aggregation of reviews is not "live" like it is for current films and generally not accurate.  (The sample size is also too small and thus not a good indicator, either.)  Also, the Cinema of Japan and Cinema of the United States in the infobox are WP:EGG links and should be removed.  It looks like the links would lead to the countries' articles, but they don't.  As for the language field in the infobox, are all listed languages significantly used in the film?  I could understand if English and Japanese both qualify, but I think Italian may be too minor to list.  Article appears comprehensive—pleased to see that you followed up on resources I found in a film-related index—but I am wondering why the Bright Lights Film Journal is not incorporated?  Publications longer than that essay have been incorporated in summary form, and this article is small enough to accommodate.  Erik (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ciao Erik, and thanks for the helpful comments. Although I like that the RT source gives an overview of the critical reception I haven't been able to find elsewhere, I take your points about it's worth in this instance and have removed the citation. Judging from the infobox instructions you are right about Italian not being significant enough to include. I've also removed the Easter Egg links; I thought I had been following film article conventions, but in light of your comments you might want to nominate and its component templates for deletion. I haven't included the Bright Lights article as a reference because I am not sure it is reliable – what do you think?   Skomorokh   18:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is discussion at WT:FILM about how to handle "Cinema of..." articles and other kinds of general linking in the lead sentence and infobox. I think there could be some value in using such links, but we have to determine the best placement.  Feel free to share your thoughts!  As for Bright Lights, it is definitely reliable.  It is a published periodical, and the website is based on it; see this.  It's  a worthwhile source to implement. Erik (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by Binksternet. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:DASH, it seems that the em dash is only to be used if the spaced en dash is not used. The article uses spaced en dashes for sentence interruption, and uses em dashes after two quotes, to connect the quoted persons with the quotes. Is my understanding of WP:DASH too limited? Is the em dash allowed to live in the same article as the spaced en dash?
 * Space needed between $1.5 and million.
 * "Johnny brandishes a gun and attempts to rob it"... Johnny robs the gun?
 * "The trio retire..." I had to go back and tally who was hanging out together. The last person mentioned before "trio" was the wounded liquor store owner, so I thought he might be in the trio. Maybe the sentence could instead begin "The three young men retire" or similar.
 * "The idea for first segment" => "The idea for the first segment". That, or the larger sentence "The idea for first segment – "Far From Yokohama" – he took from a one-act play..." could be rewritten without the spaced en dashes as there are more en dashes further down the paragraph. Such a strikingly visual element of writing should be used sparingly. I suggest "He took the idea for "Far From Yokohama", the first segment, from a one-act play..." or similar.
 * "The play – which was unrelated to Elvis or Memphis – concerned a constantly argumentative..." This could be trimmed to either of the following choices: "The play – unrelated to Elvis or Memphis – concerned a constantly argumentative..." or "Unrelated to Elvis or Memphis, the play concerned a constantly argumentative..."
 * "As with his other films though, Jarmusch's starting point for writing Mystery Train was the actors and characters he had foremost in mind, the great number of whom contributed to it being 'the most complicated film to write and execute' according to the director." Isn't this awkward? The word "though" could be dropped, or the "though" concept of "nevertheless" could be introduced by rewording. The sentence begs for a split into two thoughts.
 * The phrase "recount of the experience" should be "recount the experience."
 * The phrase "rather than their black-and-white" fails to tell the reader that "their" refers back to the director's previous films. Something like "The film was shot in bright, primary colors rather than the black-and-white of the director's previous features, but it retained his usual languid pacing" might work, followed by "Jarmusch characterized the color choice..."
 * The phrase "many scenes that did not feature in the script" could be trimmed to "many scenes not in the script".
 * The phrase "thereby emulating" is too much—"emulate" means "imitate or strive to equal". This movie did not strive to equal the two previous ones in the way that they were premiered; it actually equaled them. How about replacing the phrase with "in the same manner as"?
 * You need the word "an" in "under a R-rating": "under an R-rating".
 * What is Dolby Digital 5.1/2 surround sound? Why the slash between one and two?
 * "1989 Independent Spirit Awards – Best Picture" should use a colon, to become "1989 Independent Spirit Awards: Best Picture".
 * According to Manual_of_Style, a direct quote which ends with a full stop (period) should have the full stop inside the quotation marks, if the quote is placed at the end of the sentence. You need to correct this one: "offbeat characters, fine cinematography, and novel structure make for entertaining viewing". The word viewing should be followed by a period, then by the quotation mark. Same with "smoke and air, but it's not insubstantial". Another: "bohemian posturing actually becomes an irritant". Please check for other instances of this.
 * "He praised both Jarmusch's..." I see no need for the word "both". Let the reader come across both fields of praise as they play out in the sentence.
 * I don't know why, but I don't like "who found that the film did not stray far stylistically from the director's earlier work". How about "who found that, stylistically, the film did not stray far from the director's earlier work"?
 * The phrase "a critical backlash that would amplify" could be clarified by becoming "a critical backlash that later would be amplified" or "a critical backlash that would resurface two years later" or similar.
 * The phrase "few examples of the challenging and subversion of blackness in American film" could be clarified: "few examples in American film of the challenging of blackness as well as its subversion".
 * <3 Binksternet, thank you so much for catching these. At a quick glance I agree with most of the copyediting suggestions. The two MOS points will need some further examination; I'll comment back here once I'm done. Mahalo,  Skomorokh   14:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've addressed many of the copyediting suggestions (whether for better or worse ought to be reviewed). On the other points:
 * My reading of MOS:DASH is that when using spaced en dashes as a stylistic alternative to em dashes, use is exclusive i.e. you cannot use both systems to perform the same function in an article. The body of this article as far as I can see uses spaced en dashes consistently. The only em dash use is within the two quote box2 templates, a quite distinct use not governed by the MOS as far as I can tell. I think the guideline is trying to avoid inconsistency, to avoid needlessly confusing or distracting the reader; I don't think that is likely to be the case here.
 * Regarding MOS:QUOTE, I am not sure your interpretation is supported by the guideline: the relevant line to me is "When quoting a sentence fragment that ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence." The convention I am using is that where full sentences are quoted, the punctuation is included in the quotation, whereas sentence fragments are incorporated into the prose without their surrounding punctuation. In none of the three cases you cite are complete sentences quoted, so original punctuation ought not to be retained.
 * I am not sure what the "5.1/2" refers to in the surround sound description, but it was picked out as one of the important details in the reference and I gather that that is the standard way of referring to DVD sound quality. I tried to look for an article to link to in order to give some context, but there does not seem to be one. Thanks again for all your helpful comments,  Skomorokh   22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A recent edit put in the phrase "Johnny gets further more drunk." I think the word "more" should be deleted.
 * I have struck the comments of mine that you have addressed. There is no Dolby 5.1/2. My sense of the reference which lists sound on the DVD as "5.1/2" is that the phrase "5.1 and 5.2" will be suitable to describe it.
 * About quotes and punctuation, I'm holding to my concerns. I think that because the quoted phrase "entertaining viewing" originally came at the end of a sentence, your use of it at the end of the sentence should give it the full-stop inside the quotation mark. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the "further more" was a typo. On the quotes, I think it is clear that the MOS discourages the practice you're proposing, given that we are not dealing with full sentences; "if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside". MOS aside, I would maintain that logical quotation is superior in clarity and flow to the alternative. I will ask at the Film project if there is some standard way of describing the sound info. Cheers,  Skomorokh   01:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * About quotes, the selected "fragment communicates a complete sentence" in the case of "offbeat characters, fine cinematography, and novel structure make for entertaining viewing" as well as for "bohemian posturing actually becomes an irritant." Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. My concerns have been addressed. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, did you have a chance to review my concerns below? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. Sorry! The film has most certainly been the focus of scholarly works, and none are mentioned in the article about the film. A significant gap. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose, 1b and 1c. It's a good starting point, but the article is completely lacking any survey of academic literature discussing style and themes of the film, of which there is plenty. Jarmusch's work is frequently the topic of academic inquiry—the entire body of scholarly work about this film has been neglected. Please withdraw this and come back when it's been properly researched. See for example (this is just from the first page of results searching academic databases such as JSTOR and Academic Search Premier:
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can pull all of these, Skomorokh. Let me know if you want to collaborate. Erik (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be fantastic Erik. These are important and my support would be conditional upon these being looked at and added as necessary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can pull all of these, Skomorokh. Let me know if you want to collaborate. Erik (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be fantastic Erik. These are important and my support would be conditional upon these being looked at and added as necessary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can pull all of these, Skomorokh. Let me know if you want to collaborate. Erik (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be fantastic Erik. These are important and my support would be conditional upon these being looked at and added as necessary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


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