Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive6


 * 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 18:52, 20 September 2011.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

 * Nominator(s): Tærkast  (Discuss) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it's possible to pass this time round. This article has gone through a substantial amount of edits towards improving it so that it can reach FAC status. Tærkast (Discuss) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FN 12: are we missing a title here? Also, compare formatting to FN 11
 * FN 15, 37, 38: page(s)?
 * Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for magazines
 * This site's FAQ page seems to be down, so can you tell me about the author's and site's credentials?
 * Check formatting of quotes within quotes
 * Jump Cut should be italicized
 * McFarland & Company or just McFarland? Greenwood Publishing Group or just Greenwood? Use consistent naming
 * Don't include cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thanks, -- Tærkast (Discuss) 12:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done most of them. Again, per the last FAC, the author Christopher Null is a noted film critic, has written for numerous publications. Site is owned by AMC. Can remove if you want it. For the other refs, I don't really have access to them, so I doubt I'll be able to get pages. Apart from that, I think everything's taken care of.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 12:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I dealt with it, only that newspaper one needs a page now, but if its unsatisfactory in its state, the ref can be removed.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 13:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Media Review is all good.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I supported it before and I still believe that is FA material. GamerPro64  22:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I believe I supported the article in a couple of the most recent FACs. The article has continued to improve since then, which is the case with all articles (including already established FA articles). So, I still support the article for FA status.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - well sourced and comprehensive, I would support this article being promoted. Well done. Coolug (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've asked User:Dweller and User:DCGeist, who had some concerns at the last FAC, to comment on this article. Ucucha (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Earlier this week, I did a top-to-bottom readthrough and copyedit of the article. Overall, it is in excellent shape—far, far better shape than it has been in previous FACs. However, in the course of this latest copyediting (I also provided copyediting services in the interim between the last FAC and this one), I was prompted to eyeball five sources. Among those five, I discovered problems relating to four—three sourcing errors (one misdating and mistitling, one entirely unsupported claim, one misquotation) and one case of inadvertent plagiarism. (I addressed all of them.) That may sound like an extraordinarily high ratio, and indeed, the primary issue I raised in previous FACs was with sourcing. On the other hand, in every case this time around, I was prompted to eyeball the source in question by some blatantly problematic expression or another in the article. There were few of those, and the ones that caught my eye have now all been corrected.

In sum, my guess is that this very informative, well-researched, competently written article is now good to go. But I do have a lingering concern about sourcing. I don't feel comfortable offering my support until a party who has not been substantially involved in the article's development does a sourcing spot-check. If it passes that vetting, I'll be more than happy to support.—DCGeist (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that is quite reasonable. And thanks for all your work on the article, too.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 09:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As a Brit, I was interested in the film's UK ban. The article says "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was banned on the authority of British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) Secretary James Ferman". I was quite shocked when I clicked on the source for this, which makes it clear that it was banned by Ferman's predecessor in March 1975, some months before Ferman took office. On top of DCGeist's comments, I am worried about the accuracy of the article/source. --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe it can be sorted.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reworded it to a perhaps more accurate reflection of the sources. I hope it does pass this time round, I may not have time otherwise in the near future, and doubt anybody else will take it to FAC.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 11:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

My objection on grounds of prose is removed. It's much improved. However, I'd like someone to thoroughly check the sourcing before it gets a star. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked to take a look at the aritcle, perhaps others could be recommended.-- Tærkast  (Discuss) 12:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks
 * "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre premiered on October 1, 1974, in Austin, Texas, almost a year after filming concluded. It screened nationally in the United States as a Saturday afternoon matinée and its false marketing as a "true story" helped it attract a broad audience.[3]" - AFAICS none of this information is in FN 3
 * FN 29 requires subscription to access and should be notated as such
 * FN 37: author's name is misspelled
 * "as violent and brutal as its title suggests" is a bit close to "as violent and gruesome and blood-soaked as the title promises" - perhaps make this a direct quote?
 * "the most purely horrifying horror film ever made" in article vs "The most purely horrifying horror movie ever made" is inappropriate, near-verbatim - should be quoted or rephrased
 * "admired the film's style and atmosphere...one of the most influential horror films ever" vs "triumph of style and atmosphere...one of the most influential horror films of all time. 							" in source. Also, you credit this opinion to Ben Cobb in article text, but that name does not appear in the source or in the citation
 * "set a new standard for slasher films" vs "set a new standard for the slasher genre"; "one of the most disturbing characters in horror" vs "one of the most disturbing characters in the horror genre" - check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will take care of them. I appreciate it.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 14:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For the Ben Cobb review, his name used to appear in an older online Channel 4 source, but it's disappeared. I'll just change it to Channel 4, as the Internet Archive is having trouble retrieving the original ref.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 15:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've taken care of most of those.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 16:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Support and no issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - very nicely researched article. Prose are pretty smooth. Hope sixth time is the charm!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   21:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment from Steve  T • C. I don't have time for a full review, or even a full source check, but given the previous concerns over sourcing I decided to check out a few at random. What I found may or may not give subsequent reviewers pause. From the five passages/paragraphs I checked, two were fine. These are a little more problematic, in decreasing order of significance:
 * "Reviews for the release were largely positive with critics praising the sound and picture quality of the restoration." The source does not support the statement, either about the sound/picture quality, or that reviews were positive (this is just one review, and a capsule one at that).
 * "The Australian Classification Board first viewed the film in June 1975 and refused to classify the 83-minute print. The distributor appealed to the Review Board, which upheld the decision in August. The distributor prepared a 77-minute version, only to see it banned again in December. When the film was resubmitted to the censors five years later, it was banned again, and Greater Union Organization Film Distributors were refused registration for an 83-minute print in 1981. It was later submitted by Filmways Australia and approved for an "R" rating in 1984."—I'm a little uncomfortable at the use of primary sources to cite the majority of this passage, as those used, , and  are only really useful for telling us the dates of the submissions and their running times, not some of the additional detail the author has extrapolated. Should a secondary source not be forthcoming, I think at best these sources can only really be used to support something more stripped down, along the lines of, "The Australian Classification Board refused to classify the 83-minute version of the film in June 1975; the board similarly refused classification of a 77-minute print in December that year. In 1981, an 83-minute version submitted by Greater Union Organization Film Distributor was again refused registration. It was later submitted by Filmways Australia and approved with an "R" rating in 1984."
 * I don't particularly like the placing of "Channel 4 proclaimed it to be 'one of the most influential horror films of all time so prominently at the beginning of the "Cultural impact" section; for a start, it isn't Channel 4 that made the claim, it was merely one of their Film4 web reviewers (i.e. it's not an editorial stance of the organisation)—and despite the channel's relatively good programming reputation, its website doesn't have any journalistic reputation, or history of film analysis, of note. So to give such prominence to a statement by one less-than-notable person on a website not given over to high-level analysis/reviews of popular culture items doesn't seem like it meets the high-quality of sourcing required. (That's not to say the site isn't reliable for other matters; I hope you see the distinction.) However, it is a subjective statement, so I would not be totally opposed to its inclusion with a few tweaks and with less prominent a role in imparting the film's significance to the reader (though I'm surprised you can't replace it with something better).
 * None of these issues are huge, and again, this is just a sampling. I would merely urge reviewers to be comfortable in their own minds as to the proper representation of sources before declaring one way or the other. All the best, Steve  T • C 22:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 09:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've taken care of those issues. Time is an important factor, and if this FAC goes on any longer, I won't have a lot of time to do anything.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 09:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the number of issues with sourcing revealed by several independent checks, I'm hesitant to promote this article until a more comprehensive check of the sources is done and all issues that arise are addressed. Ucucha (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


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