This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Seven (1995 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Ned Beatty turned down the role of John Doe in the film Seven because the script was the "most evil thing" he had ever read?
Current status: Good article
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The billing block was intentionally deceptive, because Spacey's participation was kept secret until the film's initial release. I don't pay much attention to film infoboxes, but should we be repeating information from deceptive sources? Dimadick (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cute how you worded that... perhaps giving pause on the reliablility of a source that might be viewed as "deceptive". Anyway, (imho) no... we don't add Spacey to the infobox, we go with the original billing block, then list Spacey in the "Cast" section. That's how it's been done for years, supported by the infobox guidance and years of implied consensus. - wolf 05:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
1a. The prose is clear and concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; the spelling and grammar are correct.
Plot
Change 'Somerset fails to get himself and Mills reassigned to another case, believing it is too extreme for his last investigation.' I find this sentence a bit janky. Maybe 'Somerset, believing the case is too extreme for his last investigation, tries to get himself and Mills reassigned but fails.'?
' "I know a lot of people hate Seven and think it's just garbage, so it's good to be humbled in that way. I'm really proud of it ... Looking back at the time that's passed, I feel extremely lucky that they never managed to make a sequel to it ... I've been lucky that they've not managed to make a prequel to it, which, in my opinion, sucks all of the kind of meaning and energy out of who and what John Doe represents. I love that it's still a standalone piece' Speech marks need to be added at the end to close the quote
1b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Remove '(stylized as Se7en)' from the lead, I would remove it as it goes against the MOS Guideline MOS:TMRULES, here's a reproduction of the relevant section:
"Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words or letters (e.g., "♥" used for "love", "!" used for "i") or for normal punctuation, unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name. Similarly, avoid special stylization, such as superscripting or boldface, in an attempt to emulate a trademark. (See also Wikipedia:Article titles § Special characters.)
As Se7en is included in the example I think it should be removed.
My understanding of TMRULES is for the primary usage, not a note including the stylisation. DatGuyTalkContribs 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're correct under Indicating stylizations, my bad Lankyant (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accolades section, could we include a table/list of its accolades as well as the prose? How come you deleted the table? Happy to proceed without but would like to know your thoughts.
I would add reference 11 to the end of the sentence 'Set decorator, Cat Mueller, portrayed the lust victim after Fincher's assistant said she had the personality and body to portray a "dead hooker." She received $500 for six hours of filming over two days, but described being nude in front of Pitt as a perk.' under casting.
Last sentence of Title credits doesn't need reference 61 at the end as it doesn't mention the 'disquieting' or barks or screams or the 50,000 cost so is redundant there.
In casting, the picture of Kevin Spacey next to the zodiac picture is confusing as I would expect it to be that Spacey was cast based on similarities to Zodiac. I would split them. Spacey standalone, and I would put Zodiac and a photo of Ned Beatty together.
Replaced with Beatty. I considered removing Spacey's photo entirely as there are quite a few images but I think it's a useful context for the article, so moved it off to the right. DatGuyTalkContribs 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yea I much prefer it that way and I agree the Spacey photo is still useful. Lankyant (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overall:
Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
I've also uncapitalised the sins, as I don't see why they should be considered proper nouns. DatGuyTalkContribs 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers, yea I was going to mention this but was pondering it some more. Was wondering if they are used as character names maybe... but probably better to just uncapitalise Lankyant (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy for this article to go to GA. It's a great read and very informative and I'd say well on its way to being Featured. Thanks for the work! Lankyant (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Overall: @Lankyant: Good article. Though, "that Ned Beatty was originally wanted to play the villain John Doe" looks to have some grammar errors that I'd like fixed before I approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will promote. Great movie and good article. The image is a bit too tangential so I will promote without it. Bruxton (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]