Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Human Centipede (First Sequence)/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011 [1].

The Human Centipede (First Sequence)[edit]

Nominator(s): Coolug (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is GA at present, and after a thorough Peer Review I have been able to make further improvements to the article bringing it to what I feel is featured standard. If there is anything more the article needs doing to it please let me know and I will act to fix it as soon as possible. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

You're notating publishers as authors sometimes - use a consistent formatting
MrDisgusting or Mr Disgusting?
What makes this a reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? This?
All websites need publishers, foreign-language sources need to be noted as such, reference formatting needs some cleaning up. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for this source review. I have made sure that publishers are not listed as authors in any of the references. I have sorted out the name of'Mr Disgusting'. I've also removed all of the unreliable sources you have mentioned and either used a more reliable source to prove the statement, or if the statement isn't actually all that important removed it entirely. I've removed the foreign language source and the fact it stated as I don't really think it's that vital for the article to tell us about that the film won some award in Italy once (no offence intended to any editors who are Italian film festival organisers). Finally, I've made sure all of the websites have a publisher.

Regarding the reference formatting, I'm not 100% sure what's wrong with the formatting as it is, if you could give me any further suggestions I'd really appreciate it. Thanks Coolug (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be much more consistent. For example: "Retrieved April 13, 2011." vs "retrieved 2010-07-14", "The Human Centipede (First Sequence) at Rotten Tomatoes" (missing retrieval date altogether), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted these out. Format consistent and Rotten Tomatoes has a date now. Coolug (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

"The heavy use of bandages in The Human Centipede allowed the filmmakers to imply a much more graphic and disturbing idea than is actually shown on screen." - source? Also, phrasing could be tighter
File:10.1.10HumanCentipedeByLuigiNovi.jpg - "This photo may be used, modified and published for any purpose, only if a easily visible credit to the photographer is placed near the photo in each instance in which it is used". Also, the image contains copyrighted photo art. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source added to statement. Regarding the picture, I have looked for a suitable image with free use on Flickr, but can't find anything as good as this one. Therefore I've added a credit to the photographer. If this is unsuitable for a FA then I will just remove the picture from the article entirely. As for the copyrighted photo art, I'm of the mind that there is justifiable fair use for this to be in the article. The photo art is in the background and not the focus of the picture, the photo art is of very low quality and in fact the same image is already available on the page in much higher quality as a fair use image of the films cover art. Also, the photo art is in that background precisely as an advertisement for the film, so I doubt the copyright holders would have any realistic grounds to object. However, I'm far from an expert on image use on wikipedia, so I might be wrong here. Any other editors have an opinion on this? Coolug (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that the picture is actually quite large, if it were resized in order to keep the resolution low would this help to keep its use fair? Coolug (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coolug, here are my thoughts for now...

Attribution: Normally, picture captions should not contain photographer credits, because the image description page usually provides sufficient attribution to satisfy the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license (see WP:Captions#Credits). You may consider sending the photographer a message to see if he would consider removing the photo caption requirement in this individual case. Politely explain that we are unable to satisfy the requirement in this case because it does not fit in to the established style guidelines, but that he can keep the filename and description page attributions. Also, by continuing to use his work in a featured article, he will gain a great deal of exposure.
Non-free components: A non-free use rationale is not the way to go here. I think that in this case, we can simply argue that the non-free artwork is a de minimis violation. The fact is that the non-free components are coincidental to the image, and are neither its focus nor its subject... i.e. the posters just "happened to be there" when the image was taken. I have created a derivative of the image, using a tighter crop so that even less non-free material remains. Hopefully, this should fix it. Papa November (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent the user a message asking that they might consider removing this requirement. I agree with regard to the de minimis justification, but have replaced the image with the new cropped one just to make sure. I think therefore that as long as the user allows us to remove his name from the picture this should be fine for the article. Coolug (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder has replied to my message and said that it's ok to have the picture on the page without a credit in the caption (here). They only require that they receive a credit on the image description page which the image has got. Therefore I've removed the credit from the article. I presume this now means there are no further issues with using this image on the article. Coolug (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Essentially, the format of this article is bad, it's a lot of short sections that seem to indicate more is to be written under each subheading. It doesn't look at all like a finished product. It needs extensive rewriting, getting rid of two-sentence paragraphs and so forth, to look like one of our featured articles. Shii (tock) 11:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Tom Six stated that he wanted the film to be 100% medically accurate[17] and claims to have consulted a Dutch surgeon during the creation and filming process.[9]" etc and little, hidden "A physician and critics have dismissed Tom Six's claim that the film is "100% medically accurate" as "rubbish" and "ludicrous".". It is violating wp:undue Bulwersator (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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