Jump to content

Talk:Seven (1995 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateSeven (1995 film) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleSeven (1995 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 20, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 29, 2023Good article nomineeListed
March 9, 2024Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 14, 2023.
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: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Spacey - infobox or no.

[edit]

Should we list Kevin Spacey in the infobox, despite him not being on the billing block on the poster? So many editors think so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_film says to use the billing block. $chnauzer 16:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Seven (1995 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lankyant (talk · contribs) 19:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will conduct this review. Lankyant (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. 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
Cast
Development
Style and set design
Critical reassement
  • ' "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
  1. b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    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]
You're correct under Indicating stylizations, my bad Lankyant (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[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.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
  • Reference section looks good and detailed
  1. b. (citations to reliable sources):
  • Sources all look good and appropriate. Spot check of 10 of them all check out. No dead links.
  1. c. (OR):
  • Points are all backed up by citations.
  • 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.
  1. d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  • Copyright vio's are all quotes so all good.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
  • Good
  1. b. (focused):

All good

  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  • All good
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  • All good
  1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  • 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.
    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]
  1. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
1969 composite sketch of the Zodiac Killer
1969 composite sketch of the Zodiac Killer

Improved to Good Article status by Lankyant (talk), Darkwarriorblake (talk), Chalksergeant (talk), and DatGuy (talk). Nominated by Lankyant (talk) at 23:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Seven (1995 film); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - other
QPQ: None required.

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]

@Onegreatjoke: Is this better?

That's better. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seven_(1995_film)&oldid=1212875197"