Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 05:06, 10 June 2008 [1].

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre[edit]

previous FAC (19:18, 1 June 2008)


Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has reached at least Good Article status, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA, including relevant images, and has clear well-written layout, and reliable references. I also believe I've done the necessary cleanup from the previous nomination in order to make this one more successful. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Simply too many reasons. Poor prose, poor references, lack of information, poor layout, and so on. Please check the FA criteria and withdraw this to work on it. To be more specific, Google Books lists 225 books with limited preview (meaning you can freely read them online) that mention "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre'. For such an important film, you need to do lots of research using books. You can't rely on online sources for this type of topic. Since the movie is usually spelled "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", there are 630 books listed with preview. New York Times, one of the best sources available, has 114 results. There are many other sources you can use to expand this into what it should be. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The following images need correct fair use information: Image:TheTexasChainSawMassacre-poster.jpg and Image:Leatherfacenumber1.jpg
  • "by critics, [1] which" — space
    The above happens several times. Remove spaces before references.
  • "$83,532[7]" — missing a period?
  • "brutality" [11]." — reference goes after punctuation
  • An extra line before "Box office" section

This was rushed quickly back to FAC after it was withdrawn. Take your time and work on it. Gary King (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I'd like to see the article featured, but at the moment, it is not cut out for FA status, if only for the reason that it is too short. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose I say this reluctantly, as I'm a big fan of TCM and I'd like to see it become featured, but there is still a lot of work to be done. I recommend you look at the article for Halloween (1978 film), a featured article, and maybe you can try basing your work off this.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article has been re-nominated too soon and the comments made and advice given at its previous FAC have not been fully reflected on. GrahamColmTalk 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was this re-nominated only five days after it was archived? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - too little was changed from the previous nomination. --Moni3 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Surely there's loads more info not in the article. The prose isn't very good. Wackymacs pretty much said it all. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not saying that this article meets FA status, can some of the above voters please clarify their reasons for opposing? Voters are meant to clearly identify why an article doesn't meet FA status, and only some have done so. I count four votes above I deem invalid, given their vagueness. To clarify;

  1. "I'd like to see the article featured, but at the moment, it is not cut out for FA status, if only for the reason that it is too short" - This vote is simply invalid at the moment. "Too short" has never been a valid reason to oppose an article, and it'd be great if FAC voters began to realise this. If we're judging merely by length, then both the songs I got to FA ("Eyes of the Insane" and "Jihad (song)") are "too short". The only reference to length in the FAC criteria is criterion 4, which states "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". To make this vote valid, it'd have to reference criterion 1b which says "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details", and then clearly identify which facts or details have been neglected.
  2. "There is still a lot of work to be done." - What work? What specific problems need to be addressed? What aspects of the criteria have yet to be met, and why?
  3. "The article has been re-nominated too soon and the comments made and advice given at its previous FAC have not been fully reflected on." - I'm not aware of any FAC criteria saying that an article being renominated too soon can be opposed for that reason. Also, this is a separate FAC, so which advice from the last FAC wasn't addressed? Prose issues? Comprehensiveness issues? Please be specific.
  4. "Too little was changed from the previous nomination" - And in making your oppose, which criteria are you referring to here? None whatsoever. In making your oppose, please state which specific criteria isn't met and why.

In future, can the above FAC voters please be specific, and actually say specifically what is wrong? You wouldn't want such vague comments at your FAC nominations, so please don't be so vague in other FACs. For FAC nominators, this can be rather tiring. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was, I thought, specific during the first FAC. It seems rather a waste of time to be even more specific if nothing is going to be changed and my requests ignored. But let me go into more detail now. This film is the first widely released, and perhaps most famous "splatter" film, one of the most influential horror films of all time. Though it had a shoestring budget and was panned when released, its impact on the history of moviemaking has proven to be influential by its use of shocking gratuitous violence, which allowed other horror films with bigger budgets to come after.
I just improved a film article to FA status: Mulholland Dr. I would say that Mulholland Dr. has a much more ambiguous meaning than Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but as of yet, not as great an impact. Therefore the majority of discussion in the article I edited is about the meaning of the film. The areas you would have to expand would be production, a full character description of Leatherface, and an entire section on the film's impact or legacy. Trips to the library are going to have to be made. Reading scholarly film journals will have to be done. Like I said in the previous FAC if you love the film, that shouldn't be a chore. --Moni3 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for all you comments, you've been a great help. I'm basically doing work on this article on my own, and nobody really seems interested in helping me, so excuse me if one person cannot make all the difference. I'm trying my best to make it a great article, and hardly anybody seems to want to help me. If you want to remove this FAC again, go ahead. I will not dispute the fact that it could still use some work, but if it's only one person doing the work, I doubt it'll ever reach FA status. It would be nice if somebody could help me out. I've asked around, but nobody seems to be responding. Maybe I'll stick with the GA class, probably for the best. Who am I to give my opinion? Anyway thanks, for your comments, I'm sorry I renominated so quicky, I just thought I did a lot during that time. Obviously I didn't. Well, thanks anyway guys, --EclipseSSD (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can find useful tips for how to locate volunteer help at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Texas_Chain_Saw_Massacre/archive2&oldid=1138473590"