Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tenebrae (film)/archive1

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

The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Tenebrae (film)

Notified: Zzzzz, Hal Raglan, WP Horror, WP Film

URFA nom

Review section

This is a 2006 promotion that has fallen below standard. Although Dr. Blofeld and others have put significant work into attempting to restore it to standard, there are still unaddressed concerns raised on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC - unresolved concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review mostly concern referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I've addressed most of the unresolved issues identified here by SandyGeorgia and Dr. Blofeld (who did most of the initial pruning). A marginal entry even in the giallo subgenre, this film will never have the depth of sources necessary for us to be able to turn this into something that can stand alongside our very best film articles. Nevertheless, enough work has been carried out that I think it's close to being the best article on Tenebrae we can likely produce (it's a weak "keep" for sure). So the inconsistent reference styles have been fixed, information added (page numbers, dates, etc), the more unreliable-looking sources swapped out, and uncited text either sourced or removed. As with many horror sources, some have been left in that at first glance look dubious. For example, hysteria-lives.co.uk, which looked ripe for removal, but whose owner is a published author on horror films whom Bloody Disgusting explicitly cited as an "expert" on the genre. Anyway, I hope this is enough to bring it over the line; if not, feel free to ping me on any specific issues and I'll see what else can be done. Steve ^T • C 22:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's looking quite good, thanks to the efforts by Steve and Dr. Blofeld. We do, however, have a possible comprehensiveness problem because Arrow Films released a dual-audio Steelbook blu-ray in 2013 that's not discussed in the article. It's supposedly a new transfer (the previous blu-ray was heavily criticized) and it also features commentary tracks. The article needs updating with details about the processes for both blu-ray releases, and someone needs to listen to the commentary tracks on the new release for further material to use in this article. --Laser brain (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; I'd forgotten all about the new commentaries and whatnot. I'll see if I can get hold of it over the next few days, and include more information about the home media releases in general. Steve ^T • C 06:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve and Laser brain. I did find all I could in google books. I did replace many of the dodgy sources, but given the lack of real coverage I left in those horror site sources, which would worsen the article if you remove the info. I think a fair few of them as Steve says are acceptable. even if on the surface look like non RS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! I have the steelbook—please let me know if I can be of any assistance. --Laser brain (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be OK. I've picked up a cheap second-hand copy of Arrow's 2011 DVD release; it should be here in a few days. From what I can tell, it has the same commentaries and writings of note as the Blu-ray, save perhaps for an interview with McDonagh that I might ask you to skim once I've added added the rest. Steve ^T • C 20:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: so, a couple of weeks later and I think it's in much better shape than when I posted that silly, jumping-the-gun 'keep' comment above. Since then, I've researched and added nearly 34K of new info, re-ordered and re-written much of the rest, and hopefully this has gone some way to addressing Laser brain's (utterly correct) comprehensiveness concerns. There's still stuff that in an ideal world I'd want to get around to (I barely touched "Later reception", which only just passes muster), but I think I'm all Tenebrae-ed out right now. We're at the stage that it would benefit from a read-through from someone else anyway; I might be too close and be skipping over the remaining issues. Just let me know and I'll be more than happy to do the necessary. Steve ^T • C ~~21:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)~~ Edited: 20:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks okay to me now. Great job! It's like a completely different article now. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Casliber (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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