Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive3


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 23:13, 26 August 2008.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

 * Nominator(s): EclipseSSD (talk)
 * previous FAC (05:06, 10 June 2008)

Self-Nomination: I am nominating The Texas Chain Saw Massacre for FA status, because between this nomination and the previous one, I believe that I and other editors have significantly improved and expanded this article enough for it to reach FA status. It is my opinion that the article explains all the relevant points in a good amount of detail, and has valid references to back up the statements made, where necessary.--EclipseSSD (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images
 * Image:TheTexasChainSawMassacre-poster.jpg - This needs to indicate who owns the copyright - all fair use images must indicate who owns the copyright.
 * Image:Groupshot.jpg - This fair use rationale makes no sense and is not applied to the Texas Chainsaw article.
 * The source link does not work. Listing who the main characters are and who played them would make this a better rationale. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The link seems to work for me, but I've changed it to the main website with the screenshots, so most people should be able to access it now. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who owns the copyright to this film, by the way? That needs to be included in the fair use rationale.


 * Image:Leatherface1974.jpg - There is no fair use rationale for the Texas Chainsaw article.
 * Image:Tope Hooper TCM.JPG - I am not convinced that we need a fair use image of the director making the movie. What is an image of this necessary for the article?
 * Image:Leatherfacenumber1.jpg - This is an insufficient fair use rationale. Please expand upon the reasoning for why this image must be included in the article to significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the film (see WP:NFCC). Also, there must be a separate fair use rationale for each article in which the image is used.
 * Illustration alone is not a sufficient reason to use a non-free image. We have to have a compelling reason to use this particular comic book cover. I would suggest removing this image unless we can find a good reason to include it. Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the purpose for the image on the film's article. Let me know if I should expand upon that one.--EclipseSSD (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think "first comic" is enough. Awadewit (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope these comments help! Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am addressing these issues right now.--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (for the Tobe Hooper image) I just thought the way the film was shot would be relevant to the production section of the film. --EclipseSSD (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to include if it were free, yes, but I don't see why this particular image is necessary to the article. The moment in the image is not discussed in the article. I would suggest removing the image. Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think this Hooper image has to go. Awadewit (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues Addressed. Feel free to go over and correct, if corrections need to be made. --EclipseSSD (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Once again, I support this article. If there's anything that I can do, let me know.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * What makes the following sources reliable?
 * http://www.refused-classification.com/
 * http://www.terrortrap.com/
 * http://www.houseofhorrors.com/
 * http://www.moovees.com/index.html
 * http://sci-fishock.com/default.aspx
 * http://www.texaschainsawmassacre.net/TCMMain.html (the fact that they begged me for a donation between an intro screen and the main page doesn't help it's reliability scale)
 * http://www.x-entertainment.com/
 * http://www.anecdotage.com/
 * http://www.texasnationalpress.com/texlog/index.php
 * http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/index.php3
 * http://www.dreadcentral.com/index.php
 * http://bavatuesdays.com/classic-horror-movies-on-the-atari-2600/ (blog?)
 * http://www.atariguide.com/4/468.htm
 * http://www.roguecinema.com/index.php
 * http://www.iconsoffright.com/index.htm
 * http://comicsworthreading.com/
 * http://www.comicbookdb.com/index.php (Says "Best of all, ComicBookDB.com is build by anyone and everyone who wants to help")
 * Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Examples include BBFC, OFLC, etc. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return.
 * Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We're trying to sort the referencing out. Any help would be greatly appreciated. --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. I've got my usual FAC sourcing load, my own FAC up, and a class tonight. Sorry, can't really help (and would be hopeless anyway, I don't follow movies at all). If you want some suggestions, I strongly suggestion contacting who has worked on some film FACs and is in better touch with good sources for movies. I do bishops and horses, they don't work so well for movie sources! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Any suggestions on how we can improve the sources? I don't want the article to fail again. --EclipseSSD (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you tried searching Google Scholar? I see a few things that look good right off the bat. There is an entire book on the movie entitled The Texas Chain Saw Companion. Awadewit (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Plot section is too long. The image in the plot section doesn't meet fair-use criteria. There is no critical commentary on it. The image of Leatherface in the cast section seems obligatory, and unnecessary. Heck, the cast section seems completely unncessary itself. You might as well get rid of it and list the actors in the plot section, because the only thing in the cast section is a brief description of who that character is in the film (something the plot section covers). Leave the sequal information for the film series page, there's no need to go into such detail when the film series page should already cover that. It seems the "Adaptations" section covers the adaptations and continuation of the other films into the comic book medium....not something for this page. If it isn't directly related to this film, the film series page probably should cover it since that page covers the film series as a whole. I don't think this page is close to FA status right now. I would probably also challenge how it met some of the GA criteria, because a lot of the article seems to be choppy in the prose. I would personally withdraw this nomination so that the article can go through a thorough cleaning. I think a peer review would be in better order, as you don't have to worry about trying to get things done in time (and I think there is too much to do to get this in FA shape in a relatively decent amount of time), and you can get more suggestions for improvement. I would be more able to help if this was under PR, as I don't have the time to rush to clean up the article for an FAC.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: - This is the last nomination of the article from me personally. I've done a great deal of work on the article, however, I don't think any of that really mattered at all. If anybody wants to nominate the article without mentioning my contributions, that's okay. It's been an honour to work on this article and nominate it, however, I think there is more to learn, so I shall leave it up to the people to decide the fate of this nomination. I probably will continue to edit the article, but won't feel up to nominating it. So, hope to see somebody elses' name by the nominator's place next time. Thanks to all who contributed in the last 2 and this discussion. I've learnt a lot. --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments: Hi, Eclipse. You really need some good references for this article. I think I mentioned the same in the previous FACs for Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It seems obvious that are you passionate about this topic, so reading about this film should not be a chore for you. It might be difficult to get some of the references necessary if you don't live close to a large library, but you should check out the Interlibrary Loan department in your local public library. If you do live close to a college or university, you can visit their library and use their materials while you're in the building. You would have access to film journals, and articles on culture and media. Some of them might let you check some stuff out - you should ask. But I think as of now, your biggest impediment is the lack of good sources. This article could be not just a companion to other informative articles, but among the best and most comprehensive pieces of writing available anywhere. You should not stop working on it until you know it is. I know that working on FACs is arduous and often does not ever seem productive. It can be brutal. But this article of yours here is honoring the subject. This is the "batshit insanity" comment on my userpage. Don't stop. Keep going, looking, searching for more information. When you can "Boo-ya!" at commenters at FAC who may cast aspersions on your sources, you know you've got enough. --Moni3 (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

comment - Image:Tope Hooper TCM.JPG seems to be replaceable Fasach Nua (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Any suggestions for a suitable replaceable image? --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Is it? The photo isn't just of Tobe Hooper, it's Tobe Hooper working on a film thirty years ago, so I don't know how many free use pictures with that particular intention could be found.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it isn't replaceable, it need to be clearly stated in the rationale how the use of a thirty year old picture significantlyincreases the understanding of the subject "texas chain saw masacre" by the reader in a way that cannot be achieved using a contemporary picture. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

question' - The article title is "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", yet the poster is "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", various other internet source are with and without the space, could you supply a ref for the name? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The film itself & the DVDs, videos of it have two words for Chainsaw. So it spells Chain Saw instead. The 2003 remake spells it out as one word. The original 1974 movie poster does have the one word, but most DVDs & covers go for 2 words now, and is also in the beginning of the film. I'm not sure references would really help it alot. Any thoughts? --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Update - I've contacted several members of the former LoCE to request a copyedit of the article, and am currently awaiting a reply.--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Per a request I've gone through most of the article and gave it a good copyedit&mdash;not the best, but something to work off of. As I worked my way through the text, I had a couple comments and questions:
 * The lead seems quite a bit sparse for an article of this length.
 * The Plot section seems unusually long and detailed for film articles. I would trim it down myself, but I wanted to hear what the nominator thinks.
 * That image of Leatherface in the Cast section doesn't add much.
 * I'm concerned about comprehensiveness; some of the sections&mdash;Legacy and Release in particular&mdash;seem to have potential for massive expansion if you really did some good research. I agree with Moni3 about this.

Comment - I agree with what you're saying. The plot section should be trimmed down a bit. I'm gonna see if I can do a lot more research about this film to make this article truly deserving of FA status. I give the go ahead for anybody willing to trim the plot section to a more appropriate length. If The Texas Chainsaw Massacre task force is created, it should be a lot easier to bring this article up to coat, because more people will be contributing. For anybody who's interested in helping out with this film franchise, see the task force proposal link on the talk page of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre article. --EclipseSSD (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I trimmed the plot section down to 563 words - for a movie that is only 80 minutes and rather simple...that's probably pretty good. Not saying it's perfect, I'm sure it could be tightened up more...but it's certainly a start. I added the rest of the actor names and removed the cast section, which served no real purpose since there was no real world information there, only the same plot info that's in the plot section. I also removed the image from the plot section and the cast section. Neither image had critical commentary to support why it was lending to a greater understanding of the section it was placed in. I think, if the info could be found, that the Leatherface image could be replaced in the article, but somewhere in the production section.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll return to review this properly, but to start with, please see WP:CONTEXT about the linking of the names of commonly known countries, especially English-speaking ones, and of common words such as "sledgehammer" and "cannibals", among many others not even piped. Please weed them out. Tony   (talk)  10:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've removed all of the comic information. As I read it and was cleaning it up, I realized that none of it had to do with this film. They didn't start publishing till 20 years later (well after two sequels had come and gone). They had not adapted a version of the original film (just the third film). That info had no place on this article, so I moved it to the film series article where it is more appropriate.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.