Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Persuasion (1995 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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2015.

Persuasion (1995 film)

 * Nominator(s):  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! I present to you the 1995 film Persuasion, an adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. This is easily one of my favorite films, and it consistently scores high on lists of the best Austen adaptations. The article attained GA status in 2011, and since then I've largely rewritten it, modeling its structure after two other FAs I've written (Sense and Sensibility and Pride & Prejudice). Unlike those films, sourcing was difficult to find, especially on its production. A recently closed PR review was very helpful, thanks to J Milburn. I hope the article is near the level of FA status, and leave it to you fine reviewers to decide if I am correct. So that said, thank you all in advance for reviewing! I plan to help with reviews on this page as well. Disclosure: this is a Wikicup nomination.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Drive by comments As a war nerd, the details on HMS Victory are a bit inaccurate. The ship technically isn't "retired": she's still (incredibly enough) a commissioned Royal Navy warship. Saying that her role is "entertaining tourists" is a bit awkward as she's the centrepiece of a large maritime museum and an important historic artefact - this is a bit like saying that the role of the Elgin Marbles is to entertain tourists. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment and correction, Nick-D. I have now addressed this, by removing "retired" and clarifying that the vessel was just busy entertaining tourists at the time the filmmakers wished to use it. This was definitely an oversight, something I must have introduced when first writing the article in 2011 (the HMS Victory was one of the few pieces of information that I had not rewritten recently). Let me know if you notice anything else, naval or otherwise.  Ruby  2010/  2013  02:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't think that "then busy entertaining tourists" is accurate: 'then' is wrong as the ship is permanently on display, and 'entertaining' makes it sound like its a fun-ride rather than a museum (I've toured the ship, which I highly recommend, and it wasn't really a lot of laughs). I'd suggest tweaking this to something like "It was dry docked as part of a museum in Portsmouth, and filming was only possible during short periods when the vessel was closed to the public" Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have employed your suggested language, Nick-D.  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:NorthangerPersuasionTitlePage.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the tag.  Ruby   2010/  2013  21:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Only have a couple of minutes, so two initial quick comments- I'll be back for a full review later. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "of other 19th-century depictions" It's not a 19th century depictions. How about something like "most other costume dramas set in the 19th century" or "most other Austen adaptations"?
 * The source says "Most of all, Michell wanted to create a film without the glossy, artificial feel of most portrayals of 19th-century life." Could you clarify why you don't feel the film is a 19th-century depiction?  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This film is a 20th century depiction of the 19th century. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for clarifying what you meant! I have rewritten this to "...artificial feel of other period dramas set in the 19th-century."  Ruby  2010/  2013  16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "debts owed by the" Ambiguous- are the debts owed by, or are they accosted by?
 * I'm not sure I understand your query? The debts are owed by Sir Walter, and his lawyer is accosted by others as he travels to Kellynch Hall.  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Shepherd and Clay are accosted for debts owed by the residence's owner" It is unclear from this whether "the residence's owner" is accosting "Shepard and Clay" for "debts owed", or whether "debts owed by the residence's owner" lead to "Shepherd and Clay" being accosted. Is my concern clearer? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for clarifying (it always helps to have another pair of eyes!). I kept rereading it and couldn't figure out what was wrong with it. I have rephrased this to "Shepherd and Clay are accosted for debts that are owed by the residence's owner..."  Ruby  2010/  2013  16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still ambiguous! "Shepherd and Clay are accosted for debts that are owed by the residence's owner"- this could mean 1) that debts are owed by Shepherd and Clay, and are therefore accosted by the residence's owner, or 2) that debts are owed by the residence's owner and thus a nameless someone accosts Shepherd and Clay. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Damn, you're right. Is this clearer? "Shepherd and Clay are accosted by creditors due to the debts owed by the residence's owner..."?  Ruby  2010/  2013  18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Dear first suggested they try two of Austen's other works—Sense and Sensibility or Pride and Prejudice—but agreed to adapt Persuasion after reading it." There's some ambiguity here- both, or either but not both?
 * Have added "either" to clarify.  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "I just had to keep looking at the book and then somehow radiate the feelings" What book is she talking about, here?
 * I assume she means the novel here. I have added [novel] to help clarify.  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "other 19th-century depictions" As above!
 * " Louise Watson, writing for Screenonline," Two things- firstly, why the italics? Second, is Watson a scholar? The previous line implies that she is, but Screenonline isn't a particularly scholarly source. Do you even need the opening line?
 * I thought websites were italicized? Or maybe not? I assumed that Screenonline was reliable because it was established by the British Film Institute, but I had difficulty discovering much on Watson. Surely if she was included on this list (page 2), that must mean she has appropriate credentials, right? She has written many articles on other adaptations as well on the website. I am fine removing the opening line to avoid any implication of her being a scholar, however.  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that the source is reliable, I just wonder whether it could be considered "scholarly". (I recall, actually, that I've argued with others about italicising websites. Personally, I really dislike it- we don't italicise "Wikipedia", for example. However, the MOS is ambiguous.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have un-italicized the website and removed the mention of scholarly sources. Let me know if anything else is needed here!  Ruby  2010/  2013  16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "naval ship HMS Victory" Given that HMS stands for His/Her Majesty's Ship, you effectively say "naval ship His Majesty's Ship". This may or may not be standard- you'll have to ask a ship person.
 * As a war nerd, I agree: I'd suggest tweaking this to "The film's final scene was shot on HMS Victory". Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed as well, I have removed "naval ship".  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "This decision further increased funding to £1,000,000, and Persuasion was shot on 35 mm film." This is still jarring to me- it's simply not clear what the relationship between these two claims are.
 * I've decided to just removed "35 mm film" from the statement, as the source isn't clear on this either.  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Mobil Oil Corporation, as a sponsor of Masterpiece Theatre, also contributed to the film." As a sponsor of Masterpiece Theatre? Do you mean to say that in their capacity as a sponsor to the other work, they contributed to the funding of this project? How does that work?
 * The source notes they are a sponsor of Masterpiece Theatre and specifically says they co-produced the film. I've had difficulty finding more details on the company's particular role with Persuasion apart from being a funding source.  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine that they contributed to the film- this should be included. I'm just not clear on what it means that they contributed "as" a sponsor of MT. Perhaps you could just say something like "Mobil Oil Corporation, who had sponsored [or "who also sponsored"] Masterpiece Theatre, further contributed to the film." Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Mobil Oil Corporation, a major sponsor of Masterpiece Theatre, co-produced the film".  Ruby  2010/  2013  16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is "Lyme" really a common abbreviation for "Lyme Regis"? I've never heard it, but I am from the other end of the country...
 * In the film, they all say they're going to "Lyme". Being an American, I'm not positive on the correct usage (you or another Brit would know better than I!)  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "For example, in the novel during an early party Anne offers to play the pianoforte like usual; she is slightly tearful but also "extremely glad to be employed" and "unobserved". Conversely, Dear's screenplay has Wentworth quickly giving up his seat to Anne and then dancing with the Musgrove sisters, furthering the contrast between the two groups.[41]" I struggle to follow this.
 * Yeah, this was a difficult one to write. I've rewritten parts, so let me know if this helps: "For example, in the novel during an early party Anne offers to play the pianoforte like usual; while doing so, she is slightly tearful but also "extremely glad to be employed" and "unobserved". Conversely, Dear's screenplay has Wentworth quickly giving up his seat to Anne and then immediately dancing with the Musgrove sisters, furthering the contrast between Anne and the others."


 * "to film at many on-site locations" Why not "to frequently film on-location"?
 * Done.  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "the camera focuses on their faces and expressions, personifying them" It's not clear who the "they" is, here.
 * Changed to "...focuses on the faces and expressions of servants and working people."  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Root described Anne as a "feminist in a prefeminist period" and a "strong, independent character", to whom modern viewers can relate despite the story's period setting.[15]" Could this line perhaps replace "The film's theme of gender has also attracted scholarly attention."?
 * Sure thing, removed that sentence.  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a great article, and I'd really like to see it get to FA status, but the writing's still a little short of stellar in a couple of places. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for taking the time to review, Josh! I have addressed or responded to your concerns above. Incidentally, I've been meaning to review your FAC nom of "A Quiet Night In" for a while, and hope to get to it very soon. Kind regards,  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Support. I've fiddled long enough- great work! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help getting the article (nearly) there!  Ruby  2010/  2013  04:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments from Crisco
 * Dear and Root were forced to translate the character's emotions using comparatively little dialogue. - They weren't forced; they could have added other dialogue, for instance. "Felt compelled" or something similar would work better.
 * Originally just a BBC production - Just strikes me as non-formal in this situation. I'd refactor the sentence to use another wording. Also, this sentence feels like it could be trimmed a bit (a BBC production ... British broadcaster is rather redundant)
 * Anne visits her other sister, the hypochondriac Mary (Sophie Thompson), who has married into a local farming family, the Musgroves. - any way to avoid so many commas?
 * Mary later tells Anne that Wentworth thought Anne so altered he "would not have known [her] again". - any way to avoid two "Anne"s? Also, direct quotes need citations.
 * By her own admission, "every actress in England" read for the part. - "Her own admission" doesn't strike me as encyclopedic.
 * WGBH Boston, the American company co-producing the film, had wanted a better known actress for the part but agreed to Root's casting after seeing Root's screen test - wouldn't it be better to mention how they joined on earlier, so that this doesn't come out of nowhere?
 * Ref nytimesbuddha; I believe they reuse information from Allmovie; there's no actual editorial control there.
 * The American ending is reflected on the international poster, which shows the two protagonists embracing. - if we don't actually have the poster for comparison, rather hard to see for ourselves; isn't there a digital version online, instead of the DVD cover? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Crisco 1492, thank you so much for reviewing! I believe I have finished addressing your concerns about the article's prose and use of the NYT source (you can view my changes here – let me know if anything still needs work). The only thing I did not implement was the suggestion about the poster – are you suggesting I add both posters and include them in that section, side by side?  Ruby  2010/  2013  02:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be possible, though not side by side. Ultimately it's up to you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I guess I'm just not sure the British poster would be necessary or add much to the article. Plus I'm having trouble finding a decent version of it online, since I do not own a copy. (There's this but it's not great). Let me know if you feel strongly about it.  Ruby  2010/  2013  02:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine if you don't want to make the change. — Crisco 1492 (talk)


 * Link proto-feminist to Protofeminism?
 * Done!  Ruby  2010/  2013  15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Why do you state that the air dates were Easter and Christmas, respectively?
 * That is how the source characterizes them. I thought it was relevant to provide context for the reader, but I'm fine removing them if you feel strongly.  Ruby  2010/  2013  15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Avoid repeating "format" when talking about home releases
 * Rewritten.  Ruby  2010/  2013  15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Isn't the British style to use Mr and not Mr. (with a full stop)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed to Mr and Mrs per British style.  Ruby  2010/  2013  15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on prose. Really good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Crisco!  Ruby  2010/  2013  16:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: The article is very interesting and was a pleasure to read. Good work. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 13:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ssven!  Ruby  2010/  2013  14:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Page for FN12, 22, 33?
 * Per MOS:FOOTERS, don't use semicolons to create pseudoheadings - use regular bold or regular heading markup. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the newspaper citations for those three citations back in 2011 and can no longer find them online in any archives I currently have access to. As a result, I couldn't find page numbers for the first two footnotes so I just replaced them with accessible citations (the content being sourced wasn't difficult to find elsewhere). For FN 33 (The Guardian), someone at the Resource Request forum helpfully tracked down a copy for me. Based on the copy, I believe the article is found on page 8 of the newspaper and have edited accordingly. I've also corrected the footer issue. Let me know if there is anything else! Regards,  Ruby  2010/  2013  00:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks by Cas Liber

Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows some false positives triggered by cast list etc. I didn't see any copied chunks of text.


 * Brownstein p.18 faithful and not paraphrased closely.
 * Dole 2001 and 2007, both faithful and not paraphrased closely.
 * Morrison checked, faithful and not paraphrased closely.

i.e. what I seen is all good. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Ruby  2010/  2013  15:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.