The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 21:21, 3 November 2010 [1].

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre[edit]

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): The Taerkasten (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film whose article is currently an FA candidate is an account of the tragedy which befell a group of young friends. This film was to become one of the most notorious and controversial films of all time. This is the legend of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. I am nominating this for featured article because after many copyedits, and more than two years of work, I believe the article now meets FA criteria. The Taerkasten (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved questions and comments

Removed.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, replaced.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]
This is just information on the home media release of the film. It is not a review.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you to put your replies on separate lines .. so it doesn't look like I made those comments after the sites? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry abou that. No problem--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was actually planning on making a subarticle about the themes and analysis, considering the article's current length and content, although I suppose it could be expanded. I hope this won't fail because of that particular section. --The Taerkasten (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I misinterpreted the "legacy" section for themes and analysis, although I still believe it is quite comphrehensive. But again, it can be expanded, possibly, however, I do hope the FA won't fail because of it.--The Taerkasten (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if that section is to be expanded, it should be done in a sub-article. If you take a look at FA films like Halloween (1978 film), the length of this article is already much longer. – S Masters (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you rephrase that please? I don't understand what you're trying to say.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the license it is copyrighted, but are only words, that is no original enough for a copyright, see ((pd-text)) TbhotchTalk C. 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a screenshot from the film, which is copyrighted. That's why it's under a fair-use license.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could theoretically just write up the narration into a quote box and present it that way. It would eliminate any confusion over the copyright status. But, what Tbhotch is saying is that regardless of it being a screenshot, the shot itself is just of text on a plain black background. There isn't anything original about that image, thus it would fall under "public domain" for that particular shot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, what should be done? Can it be left there? --The Taerkasten (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either change the copyright tag to PD, or if you question if that's right change it to a quote box.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which PD tag would be most appropriate? --The Taerkasten (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
((pd-text)) or ((pd-ineligible)) TbhotchTalk C. 21:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will work on it tomorrow.--The Taerkasten (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed this to ((pd-text)). – S Masters (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's greatly appreciated.--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello. I don't believe it's necessary to include the sub-section of Cultural impact. That section should be merged into the Critical response section for a couple of big reasons. First, the Cultural impact 's section is nearly entirely filled with critical viewpoints. It's contains almost the exact same content as the Critical response section. Second, the Critical response section seems quite a bit light on content by itself. It actually requires the other section's content to make it more complete when taking into consideration status for an FA Article. One other issue; is there a play-by-play weekly readout available for the box office information for when the film came out in 1974? For instance, if a reader would like to know in what place did the film end up in it's 3rd week of release and which film topped the charts beating it out if it didn't end up in 1st place; etc. I checked on Box Office Mojo and The-Numbers.com , and was unable to find any. But if it is available on other sites, such as the Hollywood Reporter, then maybe you should insert that and re-create that Box office sub-section. DeWaine (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there isn't really a lot of box office info on the film, and I didn't see a play-by-play readout of its box office performance. But I could be wrong. I think the merging of the cultural impact and Critical reponse section wouldn't be a good idea. The response section is about the initial reaction to the film, and then also discusses later reviews. The impact section discusses more the legacy and influence of the film, although it does share similarities. Although, I'm willing to compromise on a merged section, without losing too much detail, but I feel they should be kept seperate.--The Taerkasten (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response Well, it's a tough call. Indeed certain elements of the Cultural impact section are not reviewing critique, so I suppose you could leave it. But certain individual sentences containing the following content:

Mark Olsen of the Los Angeles Times described the film as being "cheap, grubby and out of control", and that the film "both defines and entirely supersedes the very notion of the exploitation picture".[147] Don Sumner called the film "classic 1970s horror that influenced an entire generation of film and introduced to the world an iconic villain."[154] Tony Magistrale believes the film "...opened up the possibilities for viewing horror as a vehicle for articulating twentieth-century pessimism." Scott Von Doviak of Hick Flicks called it "one of the rare horror movies to make effective use of daylight, right from the gruesome opening shot of a decaying corpse splayed across a cemetery tombstone".[158] In the book Horror Films, one critic's opinion of the film was that it was "the most affecting gore thriller of all and, in a broader view, among the most effective horror films ever made", and that "the driving force of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is something far more horrible than aberrant sexuality: total insanity.”[160] Christopher Null of Filmcritic.com said, "In our collective consciousness, Leatherface and his chainsaw have become as iconic as Freddy and his razors or Jason and his hockey mask."[161]

should probably be merged into the Critical response section. They are identical to film critic reviews from someone say, as Roger Ebert. DeWaine (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK will work on those sometime tomorrow. I appreciate it--The Taerkasten (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeWaine is right. I will help to move some of these as well. – S Masters (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just re-read this section. Would changing the heading from "Cultural impact" to "Genre impact" fix this? It might make more sense, and then we probably do not need to move anything. – S Masters (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I think that's a close call. But it's really just a simple copy and paste job. Besides, as I noted earlier, the Critical response section is just a little short on overall content. Let's wait for TaerkastUA. DeWaine (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the copy and pasting, but the point of the section. The film has certainly had an impact on the genre. OK, will wait for TaerkastUA. – S Masters (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ok, I did some moves from the Impact section into the Response section along with some pertinent box office sentences into the Release section; as well as those accolades to the more relevant Impact part. I think the information is now correctly displayed in their proper categories. DeWaine (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I don't have much time at the moment, I'll have more later today. But you can move some things around, if you wish. It is important to distinguish between critical reception of the film, and discussion of it's legacy and influence. The Christopher Null quote seems to me more like an influence one, than simply critical response, as does the Horror Films, Mark Olsen and Don Sumner one, to me. But there are things in there which can be moved to (and possibly from) the critical response section.--The Taerkasten (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments for BIGNOLE - Hello. I see some of the changes you've made, and I just have a few quick comments about that. First, in regards to the image resizing; I can't say I exactly understand what you mean, or what the issue is. Indeed, I resized those images because they appeared too large for the page. When you say: "then you have to question whether it's necessary for the section" - I don't see why I have to do that. I resized the image to properly outline the paragraph. The Gunnar Actor image looks a bit large and awkward. It looked fine before you changed it. Also, the image with the Black Screen piece; I wasn't the one who inserted it to begin with. I think that one looked fine before too. As far as the See also section is concerned, I'm sure the Massacre Franchise page is linked, but should a reader who's viewing the page for the first time have to search for it throughout the article to find it? It's much easier organized in that section. And the 1974 in film link; I raised a similar issue about that myself in a previous FA nominee for Saw VI. It was noted that recently, some FA articles list that type of a link. I'm sure there were hundreds if not over a thousand films that came out in 1974, and none of them would appear to be relevant. You could leave that one out if you'd like. It's questionable. But lastly, the film portal which you also ended up deleting belongs in the See also section too. You should revert some of those changes. DeWaine (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ImageSize, by fixing an image size you are restricting the image to a particular size that suits your monitor resolution layout. That layout may or may not coorespond to the layout of the average reader. By leaving images as "thumb" or say "upright" you get a size that defaults to whatever the pre-selected size is. For you and me, it's whatever we set, for non-registered users it's a static size. The question would be, "Why did you want to shrink the image down to a 145px size?" If it was to fit in the section it's being used, then you have to question if the image was necessary to begin with (i.e., was there enough text to support the need for an image?). If an image needs to be bigger to see, a reader can click it to make it full sized.
With regard to the "See also" section. You're right, a reader shouldn't have to search for the link because it should technically be in the lead. I didn't notice this before, but the lead doesn't link the mentioning of the franchise article. I have corrected this issue so it's now very visible in the first paragraph of the lead. The film portal link was a mistake. I didn't realize I deleted it. I have replaced it and the proper place for portal links when there is not an appropriate "See Also" section in existence is the External Links section. You wouldn't create a "See also" section simply for a portal link.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response - Well BIGNOLE, it appears I stand corrected. I suppose I might have forgotten some of the technicalities when it comes to page viewing. The image does look odd on my screen. For me it's not a static size, it's a setting which was set on my computer. I guess it's the same when formatting the references section. It could be set as one of the following:

As far as everything else is concerned, I suppose it'll do. DeWaine (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following the comment above-- references cannot be in a scrolling box (nor should anything else be). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, DeWaine was just commenting about about how different settings (our discussion was about image layout, but DeWaine likened it to the reflist) appear differently to each user based on their monitor settings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Additional Response - Well I was going to say Sandy, unlike BIGNOLE's reply, this time I don't stand corrected. I believe References can be in a scrolling box. I had an edit which was reverted on The Revolution Will Not Be Televised page. It was changed, as was a similar edit I believe at one time in the past on the Avatar page. Here is a link to that edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised_(film)&diff=380838929&oldid=379947241 DeWaine (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can do anything you like, but this article won't pass FAC if the article uses collapseboxes or scrollboxes, because FACs have to comply with MOS. See MOS:SCROLL. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any other issues? --The Taerkasten (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response - I'm lending a Support, but just a couple of quick things. First, in the Plot section; in the first paragraph, it states: Franklin tells Kirk and Pam about a local swimming hole, and the couple head off to find it. Is there a detail missing with that statement? I'm not sure I see what the connection is to the story. I thought they were going to visit a home and a cemetary. And just one last thing, in the Release section, shouldn't the sub-section titles be changed to Comics and the next one to Sequels and adaptations? Because the adaptations section contains only comics and not other media like books or magazines and the other section for sequels contains sequels but also film Re-make content too. It's not just the sequels in order following the original film. The Re-make in 2003 is also a bit of a departure from the 1974 film. It doesn't contain many of the same details. It's a slightly new take on the film. DeWaine (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it should say the group arrives at the house first, where Franklin tells Kirk and Pam about the swimming hole. If you'll look in the first paragraph of the "adaptations section", it mentions the video game adaptation for the Atari 2600. It would probably be best to classify the 2003 film as a "reimagining" or a "loose remake".--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I sort of clarified it, they arrived at the old Hardesty house where Franklin tells them about a local swimming hole, and they instead find another house nearby.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Response - Ok, I think it makes more sense now. Just one thought however; there was an edit which you made, please click on this link: she didn't really argue against it, rewrote, one of the words that were changed was spelled as the following: aruges. I'm guessing the word was supposed to be argues. Was that a fairly recent change? And if not, how did the article pass a copyedit if that content was in the article from a long time ago? DeWaine (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a fairly recent addition, long after major copyediting was done, I added it during this FA, in fact, it was a typo.--The Taerkasten (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any other comments, or support or opposes? --The Taerkasten (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - I can't say I entirely agree with that assesment. Personally, right off the bat, I think the biggest problem the article had was the placement of content within it's relevant category and subject matter. Basically, a large portion of the content concerning Reviews, Accolades, Box office stats and the film's Lasting legacy on media were all mixed up in those categories. They were not organized at all. As an example, the sentence with the 36 years can be fixed by just placing it in the Cultural impact section. That's where it belongs to begin with. The same way as I pointed out earlier, a general critic's review doesn't belong in the Cultural impact section. It's belongs in the Critical response section. Originally, as I looked at the Critical response section, I thought the content was well short of an FA article in terms of comprehensiveness. But then, I had a look at the Cultural impact section and saw that all the content was there instead of in the Critical response section. It was a matter of transferring the info to the correct category. But as far as the snippets subject, I think many FA promoted film articles contain just that. General quotes from critics. The purpose of the article is not to give a paragraph-by-paragraph review from every film critic. The reader just needs the Highlight point of the review. Granted it may come off as being a snippet from say a DVD cover, but the article would be well too long for a standard sitting. DeWaine (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the only thing you disagree about is my assessment of the "snippets", because I'm not saying that anything in the criticism section needs to be removed just better organized so that it isn't making it out to be 3 different eras of critical response when there's really only 2 eras. As for the snippets, I don't now what "recent FAs" you're referring to, but any 4 different editors can have a page promoted when it may or may not meet standards. If we're writing an encyclopedic article why are we simply quoting all our text from other people? We're suppposed to paraphrase what they say. I don't know where you get that the reader just needs the "highlight" from the review, as that is not stated anywhere on the film project that I'm aware of. In fact, who is to gauge what said "highlight" is when you just quote some random text. Paraphrasing overall opinions of the film is better. I don't understand this "paragraph-by-paragraph" logic you're referring to. You can see Friday the 13th (2009 film), A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film), or even The Dark Knight (film) for how paraphrasing is not "paragraph-by-paragraph" reviews. Paraphrasing is also far more professional than simply acting as a mirror and copy/pasting info to our pages. You get a far more well rounded understanding of the opinion someone had for the film that way as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not optimistic about this FAC, and I had my doubts whether it would ever pass it. Thanks to everyone who helped improve this article.--The Taerkasten (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what the state of this FA is atm, or whether it'll pass. As for the critical response section, I'm not sure what to make of it. It might need improvement, I think it's OK but that's only my view. It'll probably I'm not sure whether it should stop it from passing this FAC, though.--The Taerkasten (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The simple rewording you did has helped a lot, but the quick quotes that dominate the critical reception are the issues I have with it. It's not difficult to read a review and paraphrase what they say in a couple of sentences. You can still quote, but it looks and reads better when you quote less and paraphrase more. It shows you put in a lot of work (which you already have in the rest of the article) to make that section stand out. Anyone can copy/paste. For example, the TV Guide source. The first sentence in the review is what is CP'd into the article, yet when reading this very short review I find the information about, "examine the darker impulses, fears, taboos, and repressed desires found in human beings and to purge them from our collective subconscious" far more informative. It looks deeper at the film than simply "it's intelligent and violent". If you could take the former statement and paraphrase that for readers (you can even tack on...."also thought it was an 'intelligent' film in its 'bloodless depiction of violence'") it would strengthen the article so much more. I'm sure that's the same for the other reviews. If you look at the examples I provided above, when you read their critical response section you get much more knowledge about what a critic feels about the film. It's usually far more than just quotes to grab attention like you would if you were trying to sell it. I love the article. I think it's definitely right there at FA. It's comprehensive. It's well sourced. The writing is good, but it could be better in some areas. One of those areas is the Critical Reception. I think that section doesn't do the page itself justice. Even the Cultural Impact section has far more parphrasing of information (BTW, just noticed that there were some inappropriate positioning of quote marks and punctuation...remember, if it's not a complete statement then the periods/commas go on the outside).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, I'll try and clear it up, although I don't know how much longer this FAC will go on, I hope long enough to let me clean up those sections, other FACs also seem to be going on for weeks.--The Taerkasten (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm determined for this article to pass FAC this time round.--The Taerkasten (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know what is needed, I will try to work on the paraphrasing this week. – S Masters (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, --The Taerkasten (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll see what happens.--The Taerkasten (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm concerned about now is that this might fail, and I have to wait a long time before nominating it again. I'm really determined to do everything to make it pass this time.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - I'll reiterate a support. I saw your last message with that copy-edit response. It would appear the article is limping towards the finish line on two crutches, but the overall improvement in the past 10 days are noteworthy. DeWaine (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the instructions at WT:FAC; debolding second support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick question. In the Plot section, is there any particular reason to link the following phrases: straight razor, desiccated and slaughter house? For those who can read and speak English, I don't believe it's necessary. For the same reason, you also wouldn't link other words in that section like: gas station, freezer or chainsaw which appear too. DeWaine (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delink all by "disiccated". Not a common term, so most people wouldn't know what it was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any other queries for us to try and address? Or support/oppose?--The Taerkasten (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure there are no other unnecessary words. For instance, I removed a few "that", which you typically don't need in the ways they were being used as the sentence doesn't change and it's grammatically correct. I didn't notice a lot of this when I first reviewed (honestly, I forgot to look for them cause I'm guilty of doing it a lot), but I just did the critical response section because I assumed I might find some in there with the new paraphrasing. Just keep an eye out. If you can read a sentence without a particular word and not lose any meaning, it probably doesn't need to be there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have re-read this article again and it is now in a much better shape, especially when I first copy edited it. I'm giving this my support. – S Masters (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that although I am quite busy at work at the moment, I am watching this page and will try to help fix any other issues that crop up. – S Masters (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You guys did a commendable job on the article. SMasters, BIGNOLE and Taerkasten; you deserve credit for your tireless effort and work. DeWaine (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you do. I'd like to thank everyone who helped for their tireless contributions to this article. If it passes, it's certain that without your help, it would've taken even longer for it to reach this stage. No matter where it goes from here, I'd just like to thank everyone involved. This was a collaborative effort, everyone deserves praise.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for all your input and hard work. I am pleased that all issues have been resolved, and that now we now have consensus. Cheers! – S Masters (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image of serial killer Ed Gein is fair use, and the subject is deceased; the picture of Hansen is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported; and the picture of the text on screen is not eligible for copyright because it is not original enough, and is considered to be in the public domain. So, there are no image issues in this article. Hope this clarifies. – S Masters (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Reviewing free images and Reviewing non-free images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding a lot of prose redundancy, awkward phrasing, passive voice, repetitive phrasing; unless someone else gets to it, I will give examples tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this article isn't meant to be FA. It doesn't seem like its problems will end. But tough scrutiny is needed for the article to be perfect.--The Taerkasten (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review concerns:

The first can be improved with rephrasing of the fair use rationales. The second does not qualify for inclusion in this article unless contextual significance is established. The last has to be deleted. The second and third should be resolved before any promotion of the article to FA can be considered. Jappalang (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second and third have been taken care off. Any suggestions on the first? This FAC appears to be hopeless, and in a week's time I will be too busy with real life stuff to thoroughly work on the article, which makes it likely that the article, if it fails FAC, will remain a GA for the indefinite future.--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at rewriting the rationale for the first image, but feel free to improve upon it as you wish.--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns are usually the last to be looked at since we are so short on knowledgeable image reviewers at FAC, and it's not a productive use of their time to review images before other issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a general point of view, where does this FAC currently stand, consensus-wise and other?--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns must be addressed, and see my comments above-- unless someone else gets to the prose issues before I can, I will have to dig in and list them myself. A tighter ce is needed. Also, I usually like to see some content experts with experience at FAC weigh in; Steve (talk · contribs) is long absent, Erik (talk · contribs) hasn't weighed in, and you might ping DCGeist (talk · contribs) or David Fuchs (talk · contribs), or ask Tony1 (talk · contribs) or Laser brain (talk · contribs) to look at the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on Erik's talk page, and I can see you already informed him of the FAC too. The best thing to do would probably notify the others.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two more problematic images have been removed. The poster's rationale has been improved (although I think could be further improved) but I guess it is sufficient for its identification purpose. Aside from the poster and the "free" camcorder shot, there are no other images, so all seems okay on the image front. Jappalang (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the help. Thanks, I'll take care of that query.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he meets notability, he should be redlinked: see WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind: found and linked William Vail (but even if he didn't have an article, he should have been redinked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to this, if you put in bbcnewsamerica.com, the domain was created in February 2010, making it eight months ago. (Compare this to bbc.co.uk, which was created 14 years ago.) It's reasonable to assume that the website and its related pages were created after the diff, but a double check is welcome. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An admirable amount of research has gone into this article. As Sandy suggests, the language needs to be tightened throughout. I can go through and give it a copyedit over the coming week. Six queries so far:

This claim that the film cost $140,000 is cited to a single source: Joe Gross's "Movie News" column in the November 2003 issue of SPIN magazine. However, we find in Adam Rockoff's major history of the slasher genre, Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, 1978–1986 (2002), "[C]onflicting reports place The Texas Chainsaw Massacre's final budget anywhere from $93,000 to just under $250,000" (p. 42). Do you have any reason to believe that the number Gross offers should be considered definitive, rather than one example of those "conflicting reports"? It appears the article's coverage of this matter would benefit from some more research.

OK, you are right about that. Since the budget of the film varies from source to source, it would probably be best if the budget paramater was removed from the infobox, and instead explained in the development section. Thoughts?--The Taerkasten (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the matter would indeed bear being treated in some detail in the Production section. If you can track down a couple more of those "conflicting reports", it would help flesh things out. You mention the Development (sub-)section, which actually currently combines into one narrative elements that might better be split on the basis of chronology: say, the first three paragraphs in their current position as Development and the last two (with the addition of the discussion of the film's ultimate cost) as Post-production and distribution, following the Filming sub-section.
As for the infobox, I wouldn't cut the parameter, but rather put "Less than $250,000". Similar phrasing could be used in the lede.—DCGeist (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to put that in the infobox though, as it might look a bit messy. $140,000 seems to be the most stable figure of the final budget. So perhaps, "generally accepted" or otherwise? --The Taerkasten (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see nearly enough evidence to find the claim that it is a "generally accepted" figure credible. I looked at the Halberstam source you added. The figure evidently comes from an interview by John McCarty with an actor—notoriously unreliable sources for such movie production data. In the context of what Halberstam provides, it is entirely unclear if the actor is providing his or her impression of the film's original budget (which is what they are likely to have heard about when they signed on) or its final cost. Our article currently says, "The crew exceeded the original $60,000 budget for the film during the editing process". How plausible is it that this particular actor was keeping track of things during the editing process? So...Halberstam picks up this figure from what an actor told McCarty, and then Gross—who I'm guessing did no original research on a 19-year-old film for his SPIN "Movie News" column—picks it up from one or the other. OK, it passes our verifiability standard for inclusion, but how much weight should be given to it? And again, how do we know it even refers to final cost, rather than nominal budget?
Here's a figure I find substantially more credible: "under $300,000." That's from the March 1974 issue of Texas Monthly (p. 9). The lead item of Richard West's five-page-long "Texas Monthly Reporter" is devoted to TCSM. West interviewed Hooper and Henkel. Given the timing of the interview, the reference is clearly to the final cost. Does anyone else use this figure, or something like it? Yes. I can see in Google snippet view that Karl French and Philip French in Cult Movies (2000) write that TCSM "was produced around Austin, Texas, for a mere $300,000."
In sum, it simply appears incorrect to prioritize $140,000. (I disagree that adding an English word or two to the infobox budget line would "look a bit messy", but that's a minor point.) Do Farley and William Knoedelseder, who clearly did a lot of research on the film's finances, offer nothing pertaining to its production cost?—DCGeist (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we'll go with the less than $300,000 figure.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I just did the same for the B movie FA. However, I assume this is not your final edit on the matter. None of the three sources you now have actually mentions the $300,000 figure. You plan to add the West, right? And, oddly, you cut the Halberstam cite, which clearly explicates the origin of the $140,000 figure, in favor of the derivative SPIN cite. I'm not clear on the logic there.—DCGeist (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the solution you just came up with for the infobox is excellent.—DCGeist (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I'll fix the other budget stuff in a moment.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two claims here (TCSM originated the use of power tools as murder weapons in the slasher genre; TCSM originated the characterization of the killer as a large, hulking, faceless figure in the slasher genre), both of which are dubious and neither of which is supported by sourced discussion in the main text. Claims that any given cinematic trope "originated" in a particular film are usually (though not always) overstated and must be strongly sourced; it is usually easier to source a claim that a certain film "popularized" or "established" a trope. Aside from that, as I said, it appears that there is no discussion, let alone sourced discussion, in the main text of the influence of TCSM's use of these particular tropes.—DCGeist (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added the supporting statements, as [5] in this diff. It's in the cultural impact section.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:ITALICS, the wiki-universal style for films is italics. Posters are not going to matter, I think, since most posters do not italicize anyway. That would not mean we would avoid them in the article body. In addition, the article just follows WP:ITALICTITLE for overall consistency. I think it would be amiss for this film, which is conventional in structure, to avoid italics. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I should have been clearer. The question does not concern the use of italics, which is of course appropriate. The concern is the orthographical variation between the two-word Chain Saw favored by the article and the one-word Chainsaw seen in the poster and many of the cited sources.—DCGeist (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! :) You're right; that's a tricky situation. I would support a note, perhaps in the lead sentence, that said something like "Also commonly known as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Erik (talk | contribs) 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DC, is this what you're wanting?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I added a supporting reference to the film's copyright registration.—DCGeist (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source for this, Barry Keith Grant's The Dread of Difference: Gender and the Horror Film, does not purport to represent a consensus critical view—Grant appears to be speaking for himself. I would not be surprised at all to learn that critics plural share this view, but the source does not support that claim. Either the claim must be recast or more research performed.—DCGeist (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've added two sources for this, which is great, but you eliminated the Grant cite here, which further supported it. Why?—DCGeist (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logic behind the infobox listing is evident: it exactly matches that of the original theatrical release poster. What is the logic behind the different selection and sequencing of names in the lede?—DCGeist (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention, sourced or otherwise, of Blue Dolphin in the main text, nor a direct citation of the claim in the infobox. Please source the claim one way or the other.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably came from here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I imagine so. And as we all (should) know, that's not an acceptable source.—DCGeist (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly, the first issue you pointed out has since been dealt with. The second issue could use some rewording possibly, yes, as for the third issue, it means exactly what it says. They were equal partners in the corporation (Vortex).--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply—I'm glad to see the 2a issue cleared up. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to make that part clearer. But in actuality, MAB owned half the picture and half the profits. This section details how the other half is to be split up. So perhaps these numbers should not add up to 100% but to 50%? (MAB actually owned 50% and Vortex 22.5% and Pie in the Sky 9.5% and the cast and crew 18%). What do you think? --Diannaa (Talk) 19:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're right. That should be the correct figure. And I will work on the second issue Andy raised, the quotes. It only serves to improve this article further.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went cross-eyed after the first mention of 50%. I'm sure whatever you work out will be fine. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, so did I. And like I'll said, I'll try and take care of the writing stuff tomorrow. Thanks for your comments, it really helps.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They also later sold part of Vortex to Skaaren and he got part of the Vortex share plus 3% right off the top. Don't forget David Foster took 1.5%. My brain hurts. If no one objects, I think we should leave it as it now stands. I am going to do some more work on paraphrasing the quotes and then I have to go out. The two sections will also need a tightening up once we are done paraphrasing. See you in a few hours. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. See you. Hard to believe this FAC is almost as long as the article. Longest film FAC, perhaps? And thanks to everyone, I honestly didn't expect this level of support for the article. Thank you so much.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image of actor Gunnar Hansen is squashed, can we get this fixed?--Tempest429 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, it is what it is.--The Taerkasten (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Tempest that the image is not great. I would recommend including this specific picture from the film article and looking for a new picture that could be licensed to Creative Commons. There are quite a few pictures of Gunnar Hansen at Flickr, and you can make a request for the photographer to freely license it; see WP:FILMSHOT#Images. For example, File:Alex Tse.jpg was acquired this way and is being used at Alex Tse. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really the best quality, I agree. It wouldn't stop it from passing FAC, though would it? I should hope not. I'm not the best person to deal with sorting such licensing stuff out.--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found an image on Flickr with an acceptable license, uploaded it to Commons, and put it in the article. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I really appreciate it. As I said before, I honestly didn't expect the level of support this article has been receiving. It's just so amazing. Thank you, everybody.--The Taerkasten (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five queries:

There is no page ref for the 25-page-long article by Robin Wood cited as the source for this claim, so it is not possible to verify it. Please provide the ref so we can check it.

Added page.

This falls flat, as the film's violence has already been described earlier in the paragraph as "sadistic", which conveys its sexual dimension. Assuming that earlier line is retained in substantially its current form, this line should either be recast or simply cut.

Removed the line.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the source adduced does not satisfactorily support the claim that "some critics argue X", merely that one specific critic—Sharrett—does. The passage must be recast or properly sourced. In addition, the ref must be renamed—it currently looks as if Grant is being quoted. Grant is merely the editor of the anthology. Sharrett is the source, and his name must appear in the cite.

Add Sharrett, but his name is being quoted in Grant's book, and it's being cited multiple times.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple problems: Yet again, the source does not support the claim about "some film historians and critics". This is the same misnamed ref as the previous; in addition, the pagination of the ref ("300") is incorrect—the information overlaps pp. 300–1 (indeed, the actual quoted phrase appears on 301). Finally, Sharrett does not mention Night of the Living Dead in this passage—or, for that matter on either page 300 or page 301.

Fixed, add Sharratt as being quoted. Add 301, as page ref, too.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A professor of what?

Ah. I have accessed the putative source. It does not support a single element of the sentence for which it is cited.

Replaced source, he was actually an assistant film director at the University.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request:

When you resolve an issue, could you please make a note of that here? And when the correction involves a change in a different spot in the article (like providing main text support for a claim in the lede), providing the diff here makes the verification process a lot more efficient. Thanks.—DCGeist (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: While a lot of work has gone in to this article, it seems very clear that the requisite FA-level scrutiny was not applied to the citations and sources before its nomination. I'm finding way too many serious sourcing errors (a few of which I resolved directly, without even mentioning them here). I'm going to stop work where I am—about 30 percent of the way through the article—until I see that rigorous vetting of all the cites and the claims based on them has taken place, whether that happens during this FAC (if time permits) or after.—DCGeist (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate to say it, I give up. Could somebody close this FA please? --The Taerkasten (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, if this were to fail, it will remain GA for the indefinite future, as my time will severely limited after this. It's OK, though, I was expecting this. This article will never be FA.--The Taerkasten (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anymore, I hope it passes, because in my view, the article has been significantly improved since it came to this FAC, and that's what should count alongside other things. I am trying my best here, with a very short amount of time left, and I don't know if that matters to anybody.--The Taerkasten (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your time and effort surely matter to everyone—this project would be nothing without the time and effort of editors. However, the FA criteria unfortunately don't include measures of time, effort, and the delta between its nominated and current states. If problems have been found with the sourcing, that is a serious hurdle. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll see how this pans out. I'm trying to sort out the problems, and I don't think there should be any concerns in the Reception or possibly the Release sections. I'll go over the article again.--The Taerkasten (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I guess this is good for the article, really. I mean, if it fails now, it may be easier 5th time round.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you have nothing to apologise for, nobody has except for me. I'm sorry for making somewhat pessimistic comments towards the later part of these FAC (as apparent in my struck-out comments). I know that they will only better the article, and it shouldn't matter if this fails. So thank you to all. I am determined this one day becomes FA, be it on its 5th or 100th nomination. Thank you to everyone, once again, your comments will contribute towards making this article great.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up on one matter that Bignole and I discussed directly and that the Taerkasten partially addressed:

I see this was changed from the previous "There were few or no previous acting credits among many of the cast members". So...there's been some improvement, but aside from the still-awkward locution, the fact remains that the cited source simply does not support the claim.

The source in this case is Screen Memories: Hollywood Cinema on the Psychoanalytic Couch (1994), by Harvey Roy Greenberg. Here is the relevant passage (p. 149), quoted at length:

Shot on low budgets, employing unknown actors and waning Hollywood luminaries, many cruel films piled up fortunes on the drive-in/exploitation circuit. The best — or most notorious — of these frightful cheapies are Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Night of the Living Dead (1968), The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Last House on the Left (1972), and, more recently Halloween (1978), Friday the 13th (1980), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1985), and sequels.

First, let's point out that the passing mention of TCSM in this sort of list is not exactly a model for high-quality sourcing of production information on a specific film.

Second, the passage does not even say that the TCSM cast was limited to "unknown actors" to the exclusion of "waning Hollywood luminaries", who, of course, would have many film acting credits.

Third, even if one argues that we may otherwise conclude from the context that TCSM's cast was limited to "unknown actors", that does not mean they had "few or no previous film acting credits". An actor can have played major roles in a dozen independently produced, poorly distributed B movies and remain "unknown." An actor can have played bit parts in two dozen Hollywood studio films and remain "unknown."

Conclusion: The article can not claim that the TCSM cast members had "few or no previous film acting credits" unless a source is found that says that...or says that most of the cast had little onscreen experience...or says that it was the first feature film appearance for most of the actors...or language in the source that actually supports the claim.—DCGeist (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be best to remove that particular passage entirely.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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