Wikipedia:Peer review/Boys Don't Cry (film)/archive2

Boys Don't Cry (film)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review to get some more comments before I re-nominate this article for FAC. I've already fixed the problems with the article that people mentioned at the last FAC, so I'm just looking for some comments.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, BenLinus  1214 talk 21:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! BenLinus 1214 talk 18:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I've had limited experience in FAs and even lesser in films so I think we both will learn something in its next FA nom. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Great that you got it copy-edited. Now that it's over, let's continue.
 * Plot: "female-to-male non-operative transgender" there are three different links here and WP:SEAOFBLUE comes to mind. Try to fix this as how they've advised there. I've did some minor ce and this section looks fine otherwise.
 * done replaced with one link to trans man.
 * Background:
 * "Peirce stated she" opinion needs a backing inline cite. You know what? Be on the safe side, add inline cites at the end of almost everything likely to be challenged, quotes/stated opinons, figures etc.
 * done
 * Use the {{further| header template for a link to Brandon Teena
 * Why in "She admired Brandon's.." two words are with quote marks and the others are not? Either do all or none otherwise it'll look like scarequotes -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * done The Sragow source doesn't actually support that sentence--I changed it.
 * "Drew Barrymore was an early candidate to star." as lead role, right? why isn't this in the Casting section?
 * done put it in the casting section.
 * " search for freedom rather than capitalize on his sexual identity crisis." would need a backing inline as I said above. Would you like me to find more like these, or you could just add them by checking all the statements without any and judge whether their non-controversial enough to be remain like that.
 * done removed.
 * Casting: Notice the text sandwich between both the images? try to avoid that. See WP:IMGLOC
 * done Moved image one paragraph down. This was better with the text anyways.
 * ""She's not one ..never catch her acting." onwards seems to be an unnecessary addition. Have a good enough reason to keep it?
 * done No. I removed it.
 * " Lana's charismatic former boyfriend" Can't say such a subjective thing in the paedia's voice. Of course, he was in the movie but here I think you're referring to the real person.
 * Removed non-neutral "charismatic"
 * "Peirce used filming techniques that allowed the audience to explore Brandon's perspective and imagination" What is this referring to? Can it be replaced with something less subjective?
 * done
 * "A flood gave the cast and crew a "mud bath"; " what is the relevance of this sentence? it's already mentioned that they got stuck in mud. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * done I also just condensed this part of the paragraph.
 * Here are the sentences which need backing inline cites.
 * "She described the mood she was trying ..."
 * done
 * ". In addition, she took visual inspiration ..."
 * done I've had to reformat this section a lot, and I just did again. :)
 * This para"Many scenes were shot at night to give..." has two cites to a single source.
 * I removed that because I'm not sure where that came from.
 * "Peirce drew inspiration from the ..."
 * done
 * "which one critic said was " shouldn't this be in a reception-like section
 * This long quote isn't necessary, but I kept the "eerily lit" part.
 * "most of whom focused primarily on the adult-themed..." and be wary, there's a cn tag in the next statement.
 * done with both.
 * "Before the film's theatrical release, Lana Tisdel sued ..."
 * done
 * ". She said the film depicted her as ..." -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * done
 * Controversy section: WP:CSECTION says that such sections focusing on negative content should be avoided. It should be integrated with the rest of the article. Titling it as just "Controversy" too makes it sound very vague as to what it covers (just a place to club all the negative material?). If this was about just a specific incident you could retitle it to "X incident" like say (Acceptance speech controversy or something) but I see three separate incidents covered here: The speech, the graphic scene and accuracy. So perhaps the scene part could be merged with Home media and be called Rating and home media. The speech incident could be added as a subsection to Awards and nominations. The accuracy part and Tisdel reaction could be merged to the first mention of her reaction para in the Critical reception section.
 * done
 * Here are some FA case studies Blackrock, But I'm a Cheerleader and American Beauty. They maybe long, but read the part about formatting the references. I think now the only obstacle left would be that, the prose (it's good but not exceptional), and the research and factual accuracy. There's not much I can do more now and good luck. I'll be watching its developments.  -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Ugog Nizdast}} I've looked through them, but I don't see anything about reference formatting… I'll look through the prose myself one time before renominating. What research and factual accuracy things are you talking about? :) BenLinus  1214 talk 16:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * They don't? first one I think had a slight mention about it. I'll find a better one, reference formatting even I'm not sure of. Anyway, there would have been something to learn from those reviews.
 * I meant that those are those two things I haven't checked, they might be something that might pop up in the future review. I don't see any thing prominent which will make it a quick-fail or something, most of the problems you will be able to solve during the review itself (provided you know the article and refs in and out). {{nbhyph}}Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Around 8 dead links have been found and ref 43 only has the name field, why so? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed all of that! :) Almost all of them could be found in archive services, and I removed stuff cited to the other ones. As for then-ref 43, I removed it. I have no idea what that was--I didn't put it in the article. Thanks! BenLinus  1214 talk 23:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc
Dear Mr.,

I thank you for your work about this important film. Detailed information are provided in this current work. However, it can be developed by involving more misconsidered details... You can talk about the expenses and the incomes of the film and how it has been published worldwide.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi! It's actually Ms. :) Anyways, expenses, income, and international release are already discussed. Please see the Background and the first paragraph of the Release sections for that information. BenLinus  1214 talk 00:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for this fault Ms. and I congratulate you for your excellent work. --Csisc (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's okay and you're welcome! :) BenLinus  1214 talk 01:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM

 * If you're going to include who's based on who to the cast list, you're going to need to cite sources.
 * I removed it. I definitely could have cited sources, but I don't think it was necessary in the cast section. BenLinus  1214 talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Peirce became engrossed in Brandon's life and death; he said," Pierce is a "she"? Or am I wrong? (Also, could you check that quote? Grammatically, it's not great.
 * Yeah, Peirce is a she. That was just a mistake. That quote is correct. BenLinus  1214 talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "The leap of imagination that this person took was completely overwhelming to me."[11] The sensationalist publicity generated by the case prolonged her interest.[9] Peirce said she looked beyond the brutality of the case and instead viewed the positive aspects of Brandon's life as a "leap of imagination" that eventually causes his death" Repetition
 * done


 * "The leap of imagination that this person took was completely overwhelming to me."[11] The sensationalist publicity generated by the case prolonged her interest.[9] Peirce said she looked beyond the brutality of the case and instead viewed the positive aspects of Brandon's life as a "leap of imagination" that eventually causes his death" What's the "also" doing in this sentence?
 * Removed BenLinus  1214 talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Initially, the film was to be largely based on Aphrodite Jones' 1996 true crime book All She Wanted, which told the story of Brandon's final few weeks.[15] Rather than focusing on Brandon's early life and background, the screenplay was later modified"Vachon and Eva Kolodner's production company, Killer Films as well as Hart Sharp Entertainment and IFC Films provided financing for the project to be closer to Peirce's vision." How was Pierce's vision different from Jones's book?
 * I just reframed the whole first part of that paragraph. BenLinus  1214 talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Vachon and Eva Kolodner's production company, Killer Films as well as Hart Sharp Entertainment and IFC Films provided financing for the project" Clumsy
 * done


 * "Prior to filming, Peirce conducted extensive research into the case, which lasted almost five-and-a-half years." Again, this seems to repeat what was said earlier
 * changed


 * "The filmmakers retained the names of most of the case's real-life protagonists, but the names of several supporting characters, including Candace's character who in real-life was named Lisa Lambert, were changed." Complex
 * done and sourced. BenLinus  1214 talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Sevigny had auditioned for the role of Brandon,[33][34] but Peirce decided Sevigny would be more suited to playing Tisdel. Peirce could not see Sevigny as a man and thought she would be perfect for Lana.[32][34]" Again, this is a little repetitive.
 * done BenLinus  1214 talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Peirce cast Alicia Goranson, known for playing Becky on the sitcom Roseanne, as Candace because of her likeness to Lisa Lambert, who was 24 when Lotter shot her" Is this the first mention of the shooting?
 * No, this is the same shooting that kills Brandon. However, I don't think her age at the time of death is necessary.


 * There seems to be slightly contradictory information about where the film was "originally" going to be shot.
 * fixed


 * I think the whole paragraph beginning "Some scenes in Boys Don't Cry required emotional and physical intensity" needs to be looked at closely. For example, I'm unclear on what "The bumper-skiing scene" is- it's not in the plot section, I don't think?
 * I clarified that and one other thing. I don't really know what else to do, so tell me if it's good. BenLinus  1214 talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "The use of low natural light and heavy artificial light is illustrated early in the film–in the opening roller rink scene in which Brandon pursues his first relationship with a young woman, Peirce used a similar three-shot method to that used in a scene in The Wizard of Oz (1939) in which Dorothy leaves her house and enters Oz.[9] The scene consists of a three-shot sequence meant to symbolize Brandon's metaphorical "entrance to manhood"." I'm not clear what this means.
 * clarified


 * "the sequence in which Lana has an orgasm" Again, this hasn't been introduced- you seem to be assuming readers are already familiar with the film.
 * done BenLinus  1214 talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "and incorporated neo-realism techniques" neo-realist?
 * done


 * You seem to be inconsistent on whether you list the date of films you mention.
 * I decided to put dates after all of them. BenLinus  1214 talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * " the scene in which the two have sex in a car" Again
 * done


 * ""The Bluest Eyes in Texas" was played when Hilary Swank went onstage to receive her Academy Award for Best Actress in 2000.[50][51]" If this really matters, could we incorporate it into the former paragraph?
 * Yeah, sure. BenLinus  1214 talk 20:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Boys Don't Cry has been regarded academically as a thematically rich love story between two ill-fated lovers, not unlike Romeo and Juliet or Bonnie and Clyde." Is that claim you've made on the basis of one source, or is that a conclusion reached in the cited source?
 * After fixing that ref, I checked and fixed it.


 * "in the scene in the barn," Again
 * done


 * "Boys Don't Cry was the subject of an essay, Psychoanalysis and Film, written by Donald Moss and Lynne Zeavin, and edited by Glen Gabbard under the supervision of The International Journal of Psychoanalysis." Is this really necessary? Also, that's not the same of the essay, and it's hard to see how a journal can supervise anything.
 * done


 * "Its strategy is comparable, perhaps, to using the particulars of the For a case not for what they might reveal about female hysteria" Huh?
 * done


 * "The film received a limited release theatrically on October 22, 1999, in the U.S.,[65] where it was distributed by Fox Searchlight Pictures, a subsidiary of Twentieth Century Fox that specializes in independent films.[66] The film grossed $73,720 in its opening week. By December 5, the film had grossed in excess of $2 million. By May 2000, it had a U.S. total gross of $11,540,607—more than three times its production budget.[67] Initially, many viewers complained via email to Peirce that the film was not being shown near them, as the film initially was only being shown on 25 screens across the country. However, this number increased to nearly 200 by March 2000.[68]" It'd be good if everything about the limited release could be together
 * done


 * Source for the UK release?
 * I don't know how I missed this. Done. BenLinus  1214 talk 22:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "he performances of Swank and Sevigny were selected as two of the film's strongest elements; Rolling Stone said the pair "give performances that burn in the memory",[76] and The Film Stage called Swank's performance "one of the greatest" Best Actress Oscar-winning performances.[77]" Avoid personification. Publications and websites don't say anything; people writing for them do.
 * done


 * Just a thought- it may be worth trying to arrange the reception section thematically, rather than by review.
 * Question the problem is that the reviews are thematically very similar, with praise going towards acting, directing, and writing. Am I missing your point?
 * Great- so have a think about (say) having a paragraph about the acting, then the directing, then the writing. Have a look at how I did it on The Turn of the Screw (2009 film), for instance. I'm not saying this is how you have to do it, just something to think on. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "In 2007, Premiere ranked the film on its list of the "The 25 Most Dangerous Movies".[85]" I'm unclear on the point of this; is this positive? Negative? Neutral?
 * I can see how it would seem negative because of its placement, but it was meant to be neutral. Moved to a different paragraph.
 * Well, if my my mother called something "dangerous", she probably wouldn't be complimenting it! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "the truth about Brandon's gender," Sex?
 * done


 * "Tisdel said the film falsely portrayed her continuing her relationship with Teena after she discovered Teena was anatomically and chromosomally female" Repetition. Also, think about MOS:LQ for that paragraph.
 * done


 * "Boys Don't Cry‍ '​s release was concurrent with the murder of a homosexual teenager, Matthew Shepard, on October 12, 1998, almost a year before the film's premiere" Self-contradictory? Also, what's this doing in the awards section?
 * I have no idea what it's doing in the awards section. Moved it and fixed the sentence. BenLinus  1214 talk 22:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your referencing style is inconsistent; look at accessdates, for instance. This needs to be cleaned up before FAC! You probably don't need publishers/locations for periodicals, but be consistent either way. Check your italics (eg, Political Film Society and CNN shouldn't be italicised). Page numbers for offline periodicals, and volume and issue numbers for magazines/journals, should be included, and included consistently. Check your Genders link. Is Soundtracks.net reliable? Your Movies and the Meaning of Life reference is incomplete- you're citing the edited collection, when you should be citing the chapter in the edited collection (as you do with the Moss/Zeavin source). And so on- you should go through these sources with a fine-toothed comb.
 * I will—I can already see things that need improvement. However, I do not know how to put sources not in italics in the cite web template…?
 * You could pull it out of the cite web template, or perhaps switch between "work" and "publisher". The template's just a tool; don't panic too much about using it "right". Josh Milburn (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but I think there's still a moderate amount of work to do before it's ready for FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was able to fix it--you ironically put italics around the work. BenLinus  1214 talk 22:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, it looks like there's a lot of scholarly literature out there which you should have a look at. Your Movies and the Meaning of Life source may have more worth citing, then there's, , , , , two articles in this issue, two more in this, one in this and this article (which was reprinted in an edited collection). There seems to be real cross-disciplinary interest in the film, and I am not sure the high-quality (judging from a glance at the journals' publishers) research that's going on is being reflected in this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll take a look at this quite soon. BenLinus  1214 talk 16:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've responded to all your comments. I would love to take a look at the sources you mentioned, but I don't know how I would get my hands on them. They do seem quite good though. Never mind, I'll incorporate things from those as well. Just a question--after this, do you think I could go to FAC? BenLinus  1214 talk 22:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it'll be closer to FAC ready, but I couldn't say for sure. I can help with access to some of the sources if you need it; WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (and other places) can also help. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The things that I can't access are all the DOIs except the first one as well as the connection.ebscohost.com article. If you could get them for me, that would be greatly appreciated! Otherwise, I'll just go to Resource Request. BenLinus  1214 talk 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm on a poor internet connection at the moment, so I'd rather not download any PDFs, but I'll get back to you on this soon. I suspect I'll have access to at least some of them. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've got a load of PDFs- email me! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sent- let me know if there's any issue. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! I believe that I've incorporated everything into the article. When you get a chance, could you take another quick look? That would be much appreciated. :) BenLinus  1214 talk 02:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)