Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hotel Chevalier/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:51, 20 August 2010 [1].

Hotel Chevalier

Featured article candidates/Hotel Chevalier/archive1

Nominator(s): Skomorokh 15:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a topic of minor significance and accordingly modest reliable coverage, but I believe our article is close to its full potential development. It had a peer review in which the prose was checked by Finetooth and the referencing by Ealdgyth, and has been updated accordingly. Thank you for your consideration, Skomorokh 15:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, ~~but the external link to http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119059131017936814.html is dead.~~ Ucucha 16:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment, Ucucha. I wasn't sure what to do with that link; the wayback machine is inoperable on wsj.com, presumably because of the paywall. Skomorokh 17:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Found and replaced. Skomorokh 00:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Ucucha 08:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment:

Ref 14: It seems to me that the title should be "Hotel Chevalier by Wes Anderson", the work is "Zoetrobe All-story Back issues" and the publisher is "American Zoetrope". Otherwise, all references look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment, Brian. I agree that the website citation was a little messy; I've replaced it with {{cite journal}} whilst retaining the link for now. Skomorokh 10:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great article. Having read it, I can't really find anything to comment on or complain about. The article is a bit short, but given the available sources, I think that it is reasonable. (Here is a profile on Anderson in the New Yorker from 2009. In it he speaks a bit about Hotel Chevalier, it might be useful.) —P. S. Burton (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for the review and the interesting article, P. S.; although the section that covers Chevalier is focused on Darjeeling I've added it as a source for useful context. Thanks! Skomorokh 16:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections? Skomorokh 14:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ Looks good, just a few comments: Sasata (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

when in 2007 was it filmed? Is the short a prologue or a prequel? The article says prologue, but some sources describe it as a prequel (eg. the Jess-Cooke book)
- The New Oxford American Dictionary says that a prequel is "a story or movie containing events that precede those of an existing work" while a prologue is "a separate introductory section of a literary or musical work", if I understand it correctly, I would say that Chevalier is a prologue. Compare with the Star Wars prequels, which were made after the original Star Wars movies, and contains events that precede those of an existing work [the original trilogy]. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would agree with P. S. here; one imagines a "prequel" to be a work made after and of comparable length to the original. As for filming period, I'm not aware of a definitive source, though it can be deduced from the above-linked The New Yorker piece that it was filmed sometime between 2005 and March 2006. Skomorokh 11:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's what I thought too, but was confused as to why some sources used prequel when prologue seemed more accurate. Was wondering about the filming dates as it's of interest to me to know how long a small project like this can go from filming to release (filming-2.5 days, editing-a weeks on a guys laptop!). Sasata (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, it's a little frustrating not having the extensive background details for what is a somewhat unusual project for a major director, but I suppose we are sutck with the sources we've got. Skomorokh 17:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
page # for current ref 15 (Zoetrope: All-story) should be 76, no?
- One could infer that from the photograph perhaps, but it would be at best a guess, and the story might span multiple pages. I don't imagine interested readers of our article would have a hard time finding the story if they had access to the magazine. Skomorokh 11:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I looked around for the complete page range but came up empty-handed. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of source titles is inconsistent
- Not sure quite what you mean by this – I've tried to follow the capitalisation of the source publication. Are you suggesting that the article be switched to one standard irrespective of the source capitalisation? I haven't encountered that norm before, and can't find guidelines/policy that seem to directly address this point (MOS:CAPS#Composition_titles?), but any guidance appreciated. Thanks also for your comments here thus far. Skomorokh 11:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a guideline that deals with this explicitly, but am instead using the general guidelines suggested in WP:References under section "Consistent style". Granted, this guideline may have been written intending to apply to consistent use of citation styles (e.g. avoiding the use of APA and MLA style in a single article),but I think it makes sense to have case formatting consistent within the Wikipedia article. After all, it does not change the meaning of a title nor make it more difficult to find if it's switched from title case to sentence case, or vice-versa. In some of the articles I work on for example, I use older sources that have titles in all-capitals; I always change the case so that the style in Wikipedia are consistent. That said, it's not a big deal to me, just something to think about. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see where you are coming from now (re:consistent style). I think I was operating under the principle invoked in WP:QUOTE about respecting the stylistic/grammatical conventions of the source material. I'm still not sure what the best approach to this issue is, so I defer to your judgement and have converted the titles to sentence case. Skomorokh 17:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with two comments. The images check out, in my opinion. The second is about the above comments regarding reference formatting. My reading of MOS:CAPS#Composition titles suggests that the titles of works should be rendered in Title Case, not Sentence case. It's a minor quibble, but I agree with the idea that formatting of minor tyopgraphical elements like casing or specific dashes should be harmonized with the style of the overall article, regardless of the source material. Otherwise, this article draws no issues from me. Imzadi 1979 → 12:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Imzadi, appreciate the review. The reference formatting issue looks to be one that needs to be settled one way or the other (or no way, even); might be worth starting a discussion at the MOS pages. Skomorokh 23:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - can't think of anything else to add to or change it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Cas. Fingers crossed, though you never know! Skomorokh 23:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please locate an image reviewer . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Imzadi 1979 has commented on the images in their support, and all issues raised in the image review by Finetooth during the PR have been addressed. I'll drop Finetooth a line to see if he can take another look, but I don't see much in the way of potential objections as the only non-free image use is very standard. Regards, Skomorokh 23:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review. The article has two images. One is free use, and its own-photo license is fine. The other, the lead image, has a fair-use license that looks fine to me except that the image appears to be a cropped version of the full Fox Searchlight poster here. You might add to the image description that the original poster version was cropped to produce the licensed version, and add the link to the full poster as well. Finetooth (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the image here, it would seem that the full promotional image that was used to distribute the film through iTunes was this or similar, notably sans naked Natalie. I've updated the file description page accordingly. Thanks very much for the review, Finetooth, and thank you Sandy for your patience. Skomorokh 01:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Hôtel Raphaël. Bad memories. Everything I need to know in life I learned on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITALICS in the sources may need attention, but please ask around. Italics are for periodicals, journals, books, and hard-print newspapers. I'm not sure that salon.com, guardian.co.uk and others are actually periodicals-- are they only websites? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 20 August 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.