Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive5


 * 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 00:24, 16 April 2011.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

 * Nominator(s):  Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I bring you one of the most controversial films of all time, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. "Who will survive and what will be left of them?" I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it stands a good chance of passing this time round, however, should this prove not to be possible, it's OK, because I will work at it until it does.  Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Images check out, copyright/NFCC-wise. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Restart, article revamped while at FAC, unclear if issues are resolved, previous comments. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - I've watched all of the changes to the article since the FAC started. I don't believe that there were any real significant changes, and what was changed (even if you view it as significant or not) was for the better anyway. My support still stands.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Source review - IIRC correctly a source review was done before the restart; I haven't checked the particulars of that review, and am only evaluating the article as it stands. Also, spotchecks not done
 * Why include only one author for a work that only has two?
 * Multiple problems with reference formatting and consistency. Examples: page ranges must use ndashes always; be consistent in whether "p." is spaced or not (ie. "p.1" vs "p. 1"); be consistent in what is wikilinked when
 * Should provide page numbers for non-weblinked newspaper articles
 * Make sure you're using the right kind of cite template, or at least choose consistently. For example, one reference to Texas Monthly uses citebook, while another uses citejournal
 * Find some way to distinguish visually between citations to the two Muir 2002s
 * Don't duplicate cited sources in External links
 * When citing to a video/audio source, it's generally a good idea to cite a specific time or time range to make verification easier
 * Be consistent in whether second authors are listed first name or last name first
 * Page number(s) for Farley?
 * Be consistent in what you call things. For example, is news.bbc.co.uk "BBC News" or "BBC News Online"?
 * Ref 96: don't repeat volume number
 * What is IGN? Spell out or link potentially unfamiliar acronyms
 * Was this originally from another source? Who is the author?
 * This should be cited to the original source
 * What makes this a reliable source? This? This? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will deal with it. IGN doesn't stand for anything. The last couple of refs aren't of paramount importance, should I use Vendorsites for DVD releases? And a Film Threat is notable-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 11:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the Halloween ref, it's the official Halloween site, there doesn't appear tobe any author. For Film Critic.com, author is notable, the site is owned by AMC, and Film Threat is also a notable site, owned by Hamster Stampede, but I could remove it. I could also remove the Kim Newman Film Reference, but it is a useful site. For the home video releases, they are only there for talking about release and stuff, don't know what other reliable sites could be used.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 12:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Notability" and "reliability" aren't (necessarily) the same. Could you justify your use of these sites with reference to WP:RS and related policies/guidelines, or cite a previous FAC or RS/N discussion where these sources were accepted as reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine I'll remove most of those sources, and replace the DVD sources with Amazon or whatever. Don't really know what reliable sources to use for home video releases. I'm sure the current other sources will suffice, will try and find some more-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 13:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Copy still looks buggy to me. I'll be back later to elaborate. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No need for an apology. Duly noted-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 13:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've given it a go, with Reception, Themes and Post-Release still pending. I request the nominator to consider trimming down the Post-release section to about three tight, interesting paragraphs; right now it excessively details home-video release dates and comic-book publication info (redundant to the TCSM comics article). It also repetitively discusses all the sequels and remake ever produced when, surely, a couple of summarising sentences would suffice?
 * Another idea: how about making it another sub-section of Reception, by discussing the ensuing TCSM franchise in a couple of paragraphs?—indopug (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not too bad. I'll see what I can do.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that if it does not directly relate to this film then it should be cut and put on the franchise page (if it's not already there). Comics that are based on Part 3 have no place here. I think the reviews of the other sequels are better left for the franchise page as well. I think that a lot of times these older films with sequels get their pages turned into mini franchise articles because the actual franchise articles suck and don't cover the information well. That is no longer the case with Friday the 13th, Halloween, or A Nightmare on Elm Street and that is slowly not being the case with the TCM franchise page. So, things that occur in 2005 that are a better relationship with the remake than to this page should be removed. It helps to trim the fat off of this page and move things to a more appropriate location.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cut it down some, but I'm wondering if I cut too much? Thoughts Taerkast and Indopug?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine, next thing to tackle is home video. What we need to do then is decide the structure of the post-release section.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 18:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bignole, the complete removal of comics info means the reader get no idea that the film spawned off a multimedia franchise (unless there's something about that elsewhere that I missed). Sequels: I don't think naming all the sequels chronologically is useful either (and redundant to the TCSM navbox below). Instead, with the help sourced critical analysis, could you write something more general and over-arching about the five sequels: "Starting with TCSM 2 (1986), the film spawned three sequels in the 1980s and 90s. Each of these featured ever-increasing amounts of gore and horror, but received a critical mauling and far lesser commercial success than the original. 'Snarky quote by critic'. ."
 * Unrelated: the Australian Classification Board paragraph, can you confirm that all the info is backed by the cited sources?—indopug (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, all the info is backed by the Classification Board as per the sources.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 19:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not find "frequent and gratuitous violence of high intensity" in the sources (which are all ACB certificates in that paragraph—or have I overlooked something?).—indopug (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, the ACB does not appear to state it. Removed, I wish it did though, the BBFC usually does theirs, but that's the UK film board.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 13:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The question becomes, "What spawned the other media?" Obviously, all these derived come back to this first film, but that does not mean that this film directly spawned any of those comic books. In this case, from what I can see, this film did not spawn any of that. We have talked about, in the lead, how this film spawned a franchise, but no comic book directly relates to this film.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it appears that all of that information will need to be removed because whatever was sourcing it is now gone. The sources for each individual citation are all reverting to a single overview page on that website and not providing any of that information anymore. So, unless it can be refound, it's going to have to go.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Some sample idiosyncracies I've found: --Dweller (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Roger Ebert is notable. Wikilink him.
 * Why omit the name of Ebert's journal, but include all the other critics' publication names?
 * Why mention the lead actors of just one of the five subsequent films?
 * Why wikilink second incidence of "remake" in the space of seven words, but not the first?
 * What's the difference between a remake and an official remake?
 * Was there no book version of the film?
 * Slightly bothered by US-centric approach to box office takings, per WORLDVIEW. Are there no statistics for worldwide box office for films from the mid 70s?
 * First use of "MPAA" in both Lead and body copy (not just former) should be explained
 * PG and R should be wikilinked. I've never heard of an R rating.
 * Was the limited cinema release in the UK during that initial year or, as the text seems to flow (but makes less sense logically) after the BBFC ban?
 * Why explain an 18 certificate, but not PG and R?
 * "the word "chainsaw" became outlawed in titles" Just in the UK?
 * "splats of real animal blood" is "splats" a quote? If not, it's awfully colloquial for an encyclopedia article. If it is, put it in quote marks.


 * Will deal with those. As for the question of the book, no, there isn't a book version of the film. It's not based on anything. The word chainsaw did become outlawed just in the UK yeah. As far as I'm aware, there are no worldwide box office statistics for this film at all. PG rating is linked in the lead. I don't think the ratings are of ultimate paramount importance, and the overlinking of such things should also be considered.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 15:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dealt with most of thse issues, but perhaps archiving might be a good idea now? I mean, I don't want it to happen, but my time will be taken up with RL quite soon, so that might be something to think about.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - Like I said before, I think its about time the article deserves the Featured Article status. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments, leaning support. Steve  T • C This is a fine article, into which a lot of effort has obviously gone, and I hope you can get it over the line. While giving the article a light copy-edit yesterday evening I began listing issues in my sandbox, but it looks like someone spotted that and has resolved at least a few of them. Only a few items remain:
 * The "Filming" section doesn't get off to a gripping start, with two pieces of information that don't seem all that relevant (my emphasis): "The primary filming location was an early 1900s farmhouse located on Quick Hill Road near Round Rock, Texas, where the La Frontera development is currently located. The house was later moved to Kingsland, Texas, restored, and turned into a restaurant as part of the Antlers Hotel." Or if they are relevant, they're certainly less important that what follows about principal photography, which should be the focus. Might these work better relegated to the "Notes" section?
 * In "Post-production: "David Foster, producer of the 1982 horror film The Thing, arranged for a private screening for some of Bryanston Pictures' West Coast executives, and received 1.5 percent of Vortex's profits and a deferred fee of $500."—I may be wrong, but that seems to be saying that Foster received a 1.5 percent stake and $500 just because he arranged that screening?
 * In "Critical response": "In his 1976 article ... Stephen Koch mentioned that he felt the sadistic violence in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to be extreme and still unimaginative."—I'm not sure what the "still" is indicating here, as it implies a return or reconsideration of opinion. Is that the case? If so, perhaps beginning, "Revisiting the film in a 1976 article ..."?
 * "Later, critics began to praise the film for its artistic qualities and effectiveness."—its effectiveness at what?
 * The second paragraph in particular has a couple of quotes that feel more like what you would see on a poster than an in-depth summary of what these critics thought about the film: "a punishing assault on the senses"; "a backwoods masterpiece of fear and loathing, Texas style". I'm not saying they should be removed, but perhaps the last one at least could be trimmed or paraphrased?
 * "Noted reviewer Rex Reed"—as opposed to the other, non-notable reviewers, such as, er, Ebert? Seems weird to single him out. The fact he has a link should be enough to indicate his notability.
 * "The film currently has a 90% overall approval rating from critics on film aggregate review website Rotten Tomatoes, with an average score of 7.7 out of 10. This is based on 40 reviews collected between the years 2000 and 2009."—OK, so hands up, I was going to scream blue murder at your use of Rotten Tomatoes, as it does not offer an accurate reflection of the critical reception of films released before 2000, per WP:ROTTEN. Then I spotted that last sentence, and all was right with the world. If I have a suggestion, it's that you should perhaps explain what a "90% approval rating" is, as well as how the average score is arrived at. Perhaps, "Review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes reports that 90% of critics give the film a positive review, with an average score of 7.7 out of 10" or something along those lines?
 * In "Cultural Impact": "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, considered one of the greatest and most controversial horror films of all time ..."—do you think it might be helpful to say by whom here, and when? I had to click down to the cites to see that this is long after the film's release. The first cite is a 2011 poll of the public by the BBC, and that's probably fine, but I'm wondering what the second, See No Evil: Banned Films and Video Controversy (2000), says exactly. Are Kerekes and Slater reporting on a critical re-evaluation, or again on public opinion?
 * "Ben Cobb of British public service Channel 4"—a likely jarring description of the service for any UK readers. You already introduce Channel 4 in a previous section, with a link, so it's probably unnecessary to say exactly what it is.
 * "Bill Nichols commented, '[it] achieves the force of authentic art, profoundly disturbing' and was 'far more than personal, as the general response it has envoked demonstrates.—this doesn't work grammatically; however I can't figure out what it's supposed to be saying, especially the last part, so I'm not sure how to fix it.
 * "Christopher Null of Filmcritic.com said, 'In our collective consciousness, Leatherface and his chainsaw have become as iconic as Freddy and his razors or Jason and his hockey mask.—it may be useful to link to those characters' articles for those readers unfamiliar with them. It's frowned on a little to link within quotes, but is permitted in the MOS for instances of necessary clarification.
 * And that's all the weather! Feel free to ignore or rebut my issues/suggestions. I have this page watchlisted, so no need to ping. All the best, Steve  T • C 21:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Steve. Will deal with those in due course.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 22:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Think I've taken care of most of them. As for Forster, yes, it's true, he did get a 1.5% share just for screening the film.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 12:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry about the delay in responding; I plum forgot to check back in on this, even though I know how frustratingly slowly a FAC can sometimes seem to proceed. I'll look over your changes and revisit my comments tomorrow evening (UK time). All the best, Steve  T • C 22:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck some. Back shortly after another read through. Steve  T • C 20:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Think it's OK now? I'm off on the 10th, will be back on the 30th, anything could happen between now and then, which is what worries me.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 20:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The change to the Bill Nichols bit is better, but it's still not quite right. The second half of the statement doesn't link very well with the first. Essentially, it's saying, "Bill Nichols commented ... and was 'far more than personal, as the general response [to the film] demonstrates. How about something along the lines of, "Bill Nichols commented, '[it] achieves the force of authentic art, [is] profoundly disturbing and far more than personal, as the general response [to the film] demonstrates."—which more explicitly links the statement to the first. Steve  T • C 20:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, and thanks so much for your comments.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 20:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 20:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've struck the last. I'll give it another read and see if I'm happy to support yet. Steve  T • C 21:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I can see a considerable amount of thoughtful work has gone into this since the previous nomination, but the number of prose problems I found in the lede alone makes me concerned. I'll just address those for the moment:


 * "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a 1974 American independent horror film directed by Tobe Hooper, who co-wrote with Kim Henkel."

That last verb needs an object: "it", or "its screenplay", or "the screenplay".


 * "It stars Marilyn Burns, Edwin Neal, Paul A. Partain, Jim Siedow, and Gunnar Hansen, who respectively portray Sally Hardesty, Franklin Hardesty, the Hitchhiker, the proprietor, and the main antagonist, Leatherface."

I assume (i.e., hope) there is some good reason that "Hitchhiker" is capped while "proprietor" is not, but whatever it is, it's not good enough to justify this glaring stylistic inconsistency.


 * "Although it was marketed as a true story to attract a wider audience and to provide subtle commentary on the political climate at the time..."

The grammatically logical connection between the sentence's first clause and its last is not conceptually logical: "It was marketed as a true story to provide subtle commentary on the political climate at the time." The connection made between the marketing and the intention (I presume Hooper's intention) to make a subtle comment about the era's political climate is both unclear and unsound.


 * "...its overall premise is entirely fictional."

"Overall premise" is redundant and "premise" appears to be the wrong word. "Plot" or (since "plot" appears in the next sentence) "story" or "narrative" seems to be what was meant.


 * "PG" is unquoted and glossed with its unabbreviated form. "R" is enquoted and glossed with its official definition.

Appearing in the same sentence, these are, again, rather glaring stylistic inconsistencies.


 * "...numerous theaters later withdrew the film from release after concerns from viewers regarding its violent content."

Doesn't parse. Could go with "...from release after viewers voiced concerns about its..." Or with "...from release in response to complaints from viewers about its..." Or with "...from release after viewers complained about its..."

Given all the attention that's been paid to the article, I was expecting that the lede--the section that almost always receives the most attention--would be virtually flawless at this point. It is far from that, raising serious questions about the prose quality of the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCGeist (talk • contribs)


 * Just archive this nom. Please. I'll be going on holiday, and don't have time to fix all this stuff. One problem after the other, with differing opinions amongst editors. There's no satisfying everyone, but it seems I'd have to in order for this article to ever pass. Archive, please. -- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 09:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And I've also taken into account the nearly 3 month time period of this FAC, so it may be best to archive now. -- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 09:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Scrap that, I'll see what I can do in the time I've left.-- Tærkast  ( Communicate ) 12:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Noting that it's two months, not three :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Two months, you say? Ah, it is correct. Thanks Sandy.--TaerkastUA (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I've been working my way through the rest of the article, and (for the most part) the prose is in much better shape than I anticipated after reading the lede—just light copyediting needed, which I've been doing. The math here doesn't add up:


 * [Post-production:] "A film production group, Pie in the Sky, donated $23,532 in exchange for 19 percent of Vortex's half of the profits. This left Henkel and Hooper with a 23.5 percent stake, and the remaining 18 percent was divided among 20 cast and crew members."

Nineteen percent of 50 percent equals 9.5 percent. That leaves a total of 40.5 percent for the Henkel-Hooper partnership and the cast and crew members. What you have—23.5 percent and 18 percent—adds up to 41.5 percent. I do not have access to the two sources from which the data derives, so I don't know if the information in one or the other was mistranscribed in the composition of the Wikipedia article or if their numbers do not add up due to an error in one or the other. Please double-check the sources and emend the data or gloss the mathematical discrepancy as appropriate.—DCGeist (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I remember working on this section back in October . MAB owned 50% and Vortex 22.5% and Pie in the Sky 9.5% and the cast and crew 18%. So the only thing wrong is Vortex did not own 23.5 as you say but 22.5.  -- Diannaa  (Talk) 17:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * [Release (caption box):] "The film which you are about to see is an account of the tragedy which befell a group of five youths, in particularly Sally Hardesty and her invalid brother, Franklin..."

Does it actually say "in particular" or "particularly"? If the error is in the original, it needs a [sic] here.—DCGeist (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * [Release:] "After the initial release, including a one-year theatrical run in London, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was banned in Britain, largely on the authority of British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) Secretary James Ferman. It saw limited cinema release due to the actions of various city councils, and later received an 18 certificate (indicating that it should not be seen or purchased by a person under 18) by the BBFC.... The BBFC passed The Texas Chain Saw Massacre for release in 1999 with no cuts."

Very confusing. What does "largely on the authority" mean? Did someone higher up have to approve his decision? How did it see "limited cinema release due to the actions of various city councils" if it was banned? (The "cinema" there is, of course, redundant.) Was it, in fact, not exactly banned? When precisely did it receive an "18 certificate" and how does that relate to the 1999 development when the BBFC passed it "with no cuts"? Did the version that received an 18 certificate have cuts? What certificate did it receive in 1999?—DCGeist (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * City councils don't actually have to listen to the BBFC, which is why it was given a limited release. The BBFC rated the film "18" when it passed it in 1999. I'll make that clear. Thanks, -- Tærkast ( Discuss ) 09:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The edits didn't make clear why the text was mentioning twice that it received a BBFC certificate. So I looked at the source for the first instance—not only did I discover that the BBFC gave it an 18 certificate just once, in 1999, which shouldn't have been difficult to make clear, I also discovered that the claim that it "saw limited cinema release due to the actions of various city councils" was unfounded. One city council granted it a license...in 1998. I've made that correction.


 * A problem remains:


 * "Censors attempted to edit the film for the purposes of a wider release in 1977 but were unsuccessful."


 * This is unclear and dubious. Who are these "censors" who failed to make a cut that satisfied (presumably their own) censorship board? Do you mean the filmmakers or the film's British distributor? We wouldn't refer to either of those parties as "censors". And what is meant by "wider" release? We've established that after the ban, there was no release in Britain for over 20 years, right? The source for this claim (Ruth Petrie's Film and Censorship: The Index Reader) is not available for viewing on Amazon and has only snippet views available on Google Books—I did try to verify, at least, that the book included a reference to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and found none. Unless you (or another editor) actually have this book in your possession and can edit the line in question as needed based on the supposed text of the cited page (p. 156), the line should be eliminated entirely.—DCGeist (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Important Just to say. I'm off tomorrow (the 10th) for 3 weeks, so I will probably not be able to check in. I sincerely hope this FAC ends well. Thanks, -- Tærkast (Discuss) 19:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Regretfully. I just checked the source for another claim that seemed oddly phrased, and found that the information there was wildly misrepresented in our article. I made the correction, but that's two sources eyeballed, two major errors found—and a third "source" looking very shaky. All in just one section. I wrote in the last FAC that "rigorous vetting of all the cites and the claims based on them" needed to happen. It clearly hasn't.—DCGeist (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you point out the sources in question? I'm sure a few could be removed, which shouldn't be enough to stop this FAC from passing.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 09:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think generalising one section to the entire article makes it representative of the rest of the sources. Misinformation can be a problem yes, but not of such that it needs to fail. It can be easily fixed, but as it's up to me, unfortunately, I don't have time to fix it up. 3 guesses this will be closed by the time I return.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 09:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


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