Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tender Mercies/archive2


 * 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 Karanacs 19:22, 19 May 2009.

Tender Mercies

 * Nominator(s): —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  05:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated this for FAC before, and I believe those objections have mainly been addressed now. Namely, a lot of unnecessary detail was removed from the article, and about the disputed fair use images have been removed. There is one remaining (under Casting), which I think/hope is appropriate for the article, but as the FAC review touches upon it we'll go from there. Other than those now-addressed objections, however, I don't think there was much of a problem with most of the content of the article itself, and I think it's about ready for FA now. Looking forward to any comments and suggestions! —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  05:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced all the Template:Citations with Template:Cite news's. Does that fix it? —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose on criteria 1b, 1c and 3 . This is very good in the main. On first reading, the prose, while not faultless, probably only needs a brush-up here and there to meet 1a. There are just a few areas that let the rest of the article down:
 * 1c. A very minor point, but the statement "Tender Mercies received mostly positive reviews" is uncited. I know it's true, but because most major productions receive hundreds of reviews, we need to avoid the potential charge that the reception section is selectively choosing largely positive reviews to quote. After all, such selective quoting could be used to give the impression that even a critically-panned film is well liked, as even those are likely to have received half a dozen positive notices amongst the derision.
 * 3: The image File:Tender mercies.jpg currently has an unresolved Non-free reduce on it, which should just be a case of uploading a smaller copy over the existing version. The image File:Robert duvall in tender mercies.jpg also has such a tag, but in addition I'm not sure the rationale is quite strong enough as it stands. For straight identification, the character—despite being in country music garb—is recognisably Duvall, and as such a free equivalent could conceivably be sourced to simply illustrate the character. The rationale also speaks of the image's necessity for showing "Duvall's attire, the stage setting and the American flag in the background" which "illustrate the spirit of the character and the country music genre". The accompanying text does indeed explain that Duvall spent a great deal of time researching the genre to capture its spirit for the part, but the article body only cites such things as Duvall's researching accents and mannerisms, not his appearance. In short, there is a tinge of original research about both the caption and the rationale. At the very least a secondary source should be found that specifically cites the character's look, or even this specific image (with Old Glory in the background), as evoking the flavour and spirit of a country singer.
 * 1b: This is perhaps the main stumbling block. The article does not include any analysis from scholarly sources that could go towards a comprehensive "Themes" section or similar. I accept that it might not be appropriate for all film articles, but it's generally accepted that a film article of this type should have some form of analysis. For example, the last three film articles that passed FAC (IIRC) were Bride of Frankenstein, Star Trek VI and Changeling, each of which contains an "interpretations" or "themes" section. Tender Mercies has been examined extensively, as even a surface skim of the available book sources reveals. There seems to be scope especially for including something of the film's religious themes; the very first hit contains 10 pages on this film alone. In addition, have you thoroughly searched other print literature for sources? There are potentially dozens of magazine and journal articles that may have discussed interpretations of the film, as well as different aspects of the production. A random example is American Cinematographer, which in my experience often contains almost too much useful information; I would be very surprised if it had never published an article on Tender Mercies. None of this is meant to disparage your efforts; the information the article does cover is largely excellent, but it still feels that even with your seemingly-thorough treatment, we've barely touched the surface.
 * (I was about to post this but then got hung up by edit conflict.) I did do a print literature search, but obviously not thoroughly enough as I didn't come up with the books you guys have found me, let alone journal articles. (I guess I must not have even done a thorough Google Books search!) I'm going to delve into that and update the article as I go along. If I don't finish in time for this FAC nom, maybe third time will be the charm! —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  15:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)=
 * As I say, I think it's this last point that will be the biggest bar. A search of the academic databases might yield more than you thought was possible. Don't worry, if you think this is disheartening, just take a look at my American Beauty reading list and laugh. And all that said, I did enjoy reading the article. Nice work so far. Steve  T • C 11:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing that's disheartening is that I wasn't pointed in this direction during my first FAC, so I could have done it before I renominated it! lol. But nah, I much appreciate your feedback and the helpful direction you've pointed me in! —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  15:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent; I was worried you'd be upset/annoyed :) I'll keep this page and the article page watchlisted, so I'll know when to revisit. Good luck! Steve  T • C 15:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like this will take a bit of time, especially as some of these books are on Google Books and it seems I'll have to order them. I'm guessing this won't be finished in time for this FAC review, so hopefully it won't be too much of a deterrent if I nominate it a third time later. :) —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a shame; in all other respects, the article seems complete (though I recommend looking at that screenwriting source Erik mentioned). Shall I go ahead and process the withdrawal? Steve  T • C 17:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, give me a day or two to see if I can get a grasp on how long this will take me. I want to take a more thorough look too at any other print sources I could get that you and Erik haven't already listed too. If I decide it should be withdrawn and renominated later, I'll shoot you a message to go ahead and start processing it. Thanks! —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  18:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck two resolved by recent edits to the article, and one sentence due to Erik's comments below. Steve  T • C 15:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've created a "Themes and Analyses" section with a few subsections. Please keep in mind that this is only the start of this section, and as such it right now only has two main sources (with a minor reference to another in passing). I am as we speak getting and going through additional print resources and plan to add more, and reinforce what is already there with additional sources. However, I was hoping you could take a look at how it is started and let me know if this is what you had in mind, and if you had any suggestions or criticisms? —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  18:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. Great work so far. The only comment I'd make—and this is completely down to personal preference, and would have no impact on any potential change in my vote—is that attribution probably isn't as necessary in a "Themes" section as it is in, say, the "Reviews" section, save where contrasting points of view, or controversial ones, are presented. Recent examples include Changeling (film) and Apt Pupil (film). A film's meaning is derived from its audience, each interpretation as valid as the next. Steve  T • C 19:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose similarly to Steve due to lack of thematic coverage, failing the comprehensiveness criteria. While it looks like you cover other aspects of the topic very well, themes are pretty critical in how a film is looked back upon and interpreted.  It takes some sleuthing to dig up such coverage, but I found some useful resources listed below:


 * WorldCat.org has a couple more thematic resources, plus screenwriting resources that could be used for a pretty solid "Writing" subsection. I looked at British Film International, Film Literature Index, and International Index to Film Periodicals, but it did not provide anything too useful (no American Cinematographer, Steve). — Erik  (talk • contrib) 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Erik. As I said above, I'm going to jump onto these... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  15:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment So far, I've copyedited the lead and "Plot" sections and the "Development" subsection. The process has been painless and I have yet to come up with a substantive query. These are terrific signs. I look forward to supporting once the issues Steve and Erik raised have been addressed. Whether there is sufficient time for that to happen during this candidacy period or not is a relatively minor matter, I hope we can agree. The nominator is clearly committed to raising the article to FA standard. Tender Mercies is starbound.DocKino (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be very helpful to know what Harper (who, I gather, has the second largest role) looks like in the film. If you can find a screenshot or publicity still that shows her and Duvall--or, ideally, her, Duvall, and Hubbard--that would be a very informative addition to the article.DocKino (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a shame the image of Duvall couldn't quite be justified; perhaps once the "Themes" section is written that will point the way towards a possible fair-use claim on a screenshot. Another way of prettifying the article would be to find an image on Commons of one or more of the filming locations. The current "Filming" section is a little light on the specifics, preferring instead to focus on the Duvall–Beresford spat, but if other locations could be sourced, I'm sure something free could be found. See State of Play (film) for an example of Commons images used in this way. Steve  T • C 07:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.