Talk:Skin & Bone (film)

GA Review

I do not believe that this article currently satisfies the GA criteria, but am putting this article on hold for seven days so that it can be improved. Here is my rationale, tied to the Good Article criteria:

1. It is well written. In this respect: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Fail. This article is one of those that (by nature) is going to be fairly skimpy, simply because there is probably not that much information about it out there. As such, it has to compensate by being particularly well-written. But there are numerous problems with the prose, which is choppy and often ambiguous. Some examples (and they are examples rather than an exhaustive list):

• "Each of the three" You've just mentioned four characters. I know that in context you are talking about the three hustlers alone, but this could be written with more fluency.

• now reads "Each of the three men..."

Grand. NB again that the specific points I've raised are examples, but I'm pleased that you've addressed them so speedily. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• "financed almost the entire film himself" Presumably he almost entirely financed the film, rather than financed almost the entire film (in which case, which parts did he not finance?).

• now reads "financed the film almost entirely by himself"

• "Originally intended to be an entirely improvisational piece, Lewis..." Grammar. Presumably it was not Lewis who was "originally intended" to be an improvisational piece.

• now reads "While the film was originally intended to be an entirely improvisational piece, Lewis..."

• "The film features shifts between black and white and color to mark shifts." Repetition of "shifts," confusingly once as a verb and then as a noun.

• not sure I agree with this but I will ruminate on it.

• I fixed this myself. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• "useful only for its titillation factor." Useful? Is this the right word?

• the quote from the review is "doesn't really offer much to justify its existence beyond the obvious titillation" so "useful" seemed to summarize that. any alternate suggestions?

• Interesting? Likely to be popular? Worth watching? Heh, call me a Puritan, but I wouldn't normally describe titillation as "useful." --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Now reads "offering little beyond its titillation factor" Otto4711 (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• The plot summary is confusing and disjointed, with many short paragraphs. This may of course be because the film itself is confusing and disjointed, but (even) if so, it should be clearer. There really a numerous problems in this section.

• I have tinkered with this section a bit. Maybe it's because I know the film and wrote the summary but it doesn't seem confusing to me. Can you offer some more specific feedback?

• And I've done further tinkering. Perhaps the thing is just to cut it right down. Even as is, and despite my addition of a section on themes, the summary still threatens to dominate this article. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've now cut it somewhat; it could still be improved. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• The "Cast" section is for the most part repetitive and un-necessary. Where it is not repetitive, the information could go elsewhere.

• Cast section has been integrated into the plot summary where actors were not already identified.

• "Lewis became interested in making a film about hustlers because he had never seen one." Ambiguous. Presumably the intent is to say that he had never seen a film about a hustler, rather than that he had never seen a hustler. But this is unclear.

• now reads "such a film."

• The paragraph on the shifts between B&W and colour is confusing; again, this may in part be because the film itself is confusing, but there's no need to replicate that confusion here.

• Similar to the plot section, perhaps because I am too close to it, I'm not seeing the confusion. Any more specific feedback would be greatly appreciated.

• I've now looked at the various reviews you cite, and note also that there are other aspects of the film's style that seem worth commenting on. I think it would be good to do this. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• The final two paragraphs of the "Production" section are under-developed and perhaps out of place.

• I agree and will work on integrating them.

• One paragraph has been integrated to the top of the section and the other has been expanded to include the Arquette cameo. Otto4711 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've changed it to "Production and style." The last paragraph is still rather unintegrated. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Should there not be a "Themes" section?

• Don't really know there are sources that discuss the themes. I will look further.

• I've gone to the sources and rearranged some of the existing information to create one. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;[2] (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and (c) contains no original research.

Weak Pass. I say "weak" because ideally there should be more sources; I say "pass" because I recognize that they may not exist. But please take a look out there, in case. Perhaps this can be addressed by an examination of the film's place within LGB cinema more generally (see below).

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

Fail. Given that what importance this film has relates to its position as one of the first "hustler" movies, it would be good to have more context on this genre, and on how this film contributed (or otherwise) to shaping the genre.

• This isn't one of the first hustler movies, though. Male prostitution in the arts gives an overview of some of the many films that came before it, dating back over three decades.

• Ah, OK. Perhaps all the more reason for some context. The impression I had gleaned from that paragraph was that this would have in fact been the first such film, were it not for the time it took to make, which meant that two other such films got there before it. What is the significance of this film, then?
• Meanwhile, I note that Male prostitution in the arts, though interesting and informative, is mostly an unreferenced list. Hustler films must have been discussed in scholarly/critical literature. (This is not my area, though I do know something of the vast scholarly literature on pornography more generally.) Again, even though this particular film may not rate a mention (though maybe it does), it would help to contextualize it by looking to that literature. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed the sentence that discusses the other two films released the same year so as to not create the impression that these were the first three such films.

• While the specific problem has been eliminated, I still think some context would be good. Even the reviews cited make gestures in that direction. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Pass.

5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

Pass.

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect: (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]

Pass.

NB is the image really of the film poster? It looks as though it's probably the DVD or video cover, in fact. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So congratulations on getting the article to this point, and good luck with further development and improvement. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have interspersed some comments in response to yours, as most of the reviewers I've worked with prefer this style. If you don't, let me know. Thanks for your feedback and please let me know what you think so far. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Interspersed comments are fine. NB I won't always have the time to respond quite as speedily as I have done just now. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I understand what you're saying regarding the relationship of this film to the overall collection of films that are about or concern male prostitution. I wonder, though, whether a discussion of such relationship is required under the "broad" coverage that is required under GA standards vs "comprehensive" as is required for FA. Otto4711 (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it's a make or break for me, but I really do think it's advisable. I feel bad in that I don't know the literature: if I did, at least I'd hope to point you in the right direction. I think it's worth a look, especially on the possibility that there's some mention of this film in any recent accounts. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have done some preliminary searching and I am just not finding the sourcing to support a discussion of the relationship of this film to others of the type or genre. I guess man-whore films are just not that attractive as the topic of dissertations (although I can't imagine why as I find them fascinating). I agree that it would be nice to have but I hope that in combination with the improvements you've suggested and any additional feedback you can offer that its absence won't turn out to be a breaking point. Please let me know what you think. Otto4711 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• There would seem to be something in The Bent Lens: A World Guide to Gay and Lesbian Film, by Lisa Daniel and Claire Jackson. NB there, as on IMDB, the title is given as Skin and Bone, rather than Skin & Bone. IMDB are usually quite particular on title (and they do have a Skin & Bone), so it might be worth double-checking. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have restored a little bit of detail to the plot summary and clarified some factual errors you inadvertantly introduced. As for the title, I am going by the credits and the poster, both of which use "&". As far as I know that is the film poster. There is a different image on the director's website but that looks more like DVD art than the current image does. Otto4711 (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What were the factual errors? It'd be good to be clear, rather than simply reverting. Again, maybe the plot itself is confusing, but it'd be better not to reproduce that confusion. The detail does seem rather extraneous to me. I'm surprised about the title: perhaps you could double-check the opening credits. The sources have it both ways. In my experience, IMDB is quite meticulous about these things. Their rules on titles are here: "We use the original title of a movie/show in its original language as it appears on screen in the opening credits. So all alternative titles found on posters, DVD boxes, reference books, trailers, websites, re-releases, etc. are irrelevant. They do NOT define what the primary title should look like." And, again, the image doesn't look like a poster to me; indeed, the URL itself suggests it's a DVD or video cover.

• One of the factual errors was that you had Harry returning to the casting director who initially rejected him when it was in fact two different casting directors. I think perhaps some of the detail seems extraneous because you haven't seen the film, which is a very complex intertwining of the stories of the four main characters along with extensive blurring of the lines between fantasy and reality. The details I restored help clarify the relationships between the characters and do not IMHO, especially with the further stripped down summary, threaten to overwhelm the rest of the article. For instance, Harry's being raped is very important to understanding his willingness to allow himself to be used by the second casting director and explains why he becomes so much more protective of fellow rape victim Dean. The title is confirmed by a repeat viewing of the film, which uses the &. It was that repeat viewing of the film that led me to move the article in the first place. If it truly bothers you that the artwork is labeled as a "poster" then change the caption to "original artwork" or something. I think it's a poster but I've already put far more energy into the topic than I care too. Otto4711 (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Once more, however, these are details compared to 1) a better account of the style, of which the reviews make much, and 2) providing a better contextualization using reliable sources. If you're unable to do the former, then I can try to dig something out of the reviews as I did with the "Themes" section; I'm not going to do the off-line research myself, however, especially as this would seem to be a topic in which you're fairly well-versed in the first place. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Given the amount of work that you've done on the article, I think it would be a good idea for you to ask for a second opinion on the review. Otto4711 (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:GAR's probably the better location if you have a problem with the review. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

This remains a failing article, although a marginal one, as per the comments above. Though there has been improvement over the past seven days, it remains the case that the writing could be significantly improved, and the discussion of the film could benefit from some contextualization, which would also draw upon more substantial sources than the online versions of newspaper and magazine reviews. I also believe (from consulting those reviews in the interim) that more could and should be done to describe the film's style, which is clearly notable; the effect of this would also to counterbalance the plot summary, which still at present dominates. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Skin & Bone (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090501020539/http://www.calendarlive.com:80/movies/reviews/cl-movie981216-1,0,5416316.story to http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-movie981216-1,0,5416316.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Skin & Bone (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130123054703/http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000698440 to http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000698440

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)