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 Karanacs 17:01, 18 May 2010 [1].

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film)[edit]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Steve T • C 14:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly the most contentious subject I've brought to FAC—I can't imagine anyone's getting upset at the rather staid American Beauty—so it's with some trepidation that I present The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (aka Chávez: Inside the Coup), a rather ... polarising ... documentary film, let's say. :-) But whichever way you look at it, this is a substantial improvement on how it looked a few months ago; significant expansion and extensive talk page negotiation has resulted in something that I think both sides of the debate can be satisfied with. Given recent ructions over Venezuela-related articles, that's a fine achievement for everyone involved.

Note: this article does not include any alt text with its images; I'd like to have it, but the guideline is still in flux, so I don't want to add anything until they've thrashed out over there exactly what it should look like. Otherwise, fire at will! Steve T • C 14:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images File:The_Revolution_will_not_be_Televised.gif, No FU rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; I was sure I'd crossed all the t's and whatnot. Never even thought to check that. Now updated. Steve T • C 20:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the "See also" section really necessary? To list the topic of Venezualan films seems like a fairly "broad topic". Thats almost like having a hollywood film with a 'See also' section listing "American films". Also, in the dialogue box, it lists it from the country of Ireland. Is the film production credited as an Irish or Venezuelan film? Wouldn't it also be better to organize the Release section after the Analysis section? The analysis is more closely related to the film's Production section while the release section is more related to the critical reception part. Theatrickal (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't too sure about the "see also" item, to be honest. I usually try to include such a link in the prose; in this case, there wasn't anywhere suitable. Which I guess means the link isn't necessary. Fair enough; I'll remove that. On the other point, the ordering of sections, I think the analysis section is fine where it is because the release section provides vital context. Only when the film was disseminated did it began to draw heat—note the protests at various theatrical showings, the complaints after the television broadcasts. Narratively, it makes sense. As a by-product, the critical reception section feels a little adrift, but that was a trade-off I was satisfied with, and it at least provides a nice capstone. Thanks for your comments, Steve T • C 22:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - Sure, Steve. Just a couple of other quick comments. The Critical Reception part looks good, but a little sparse on content. The quotebox seems to take up a lot of space of potential reviews that could be added. After a run-through, it looks like there are only two negative reviews in the paragraphs. The rest are positive. Can there be a minor expansion of the negative reviews for the film? I'm not saying you should remove the quotebox and fill the empty space with reviews, but rather just add more negative feedback to supplement the positive reviews. Also, the way its formatted in direction; is that correct? Like for instance, you have positive reviews one after another, and then you bunch up the negative reviews. Wouldn't it be better to mix the negative reviews in all paragraphs to give it a more balanced feeling? And last thing, the Categories piece at the bottom of the article seems almost empty. For starters, wouldn't the film fit into these categories as well? *English-language films *2000s Drama films *Irish films *Political drama films *Films set in the 2000s Theatrickal (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the categories need to be fleshed out; by the time you read this, I'll have done that. I disagree with your reading of the reception section, though. I think you need to take another look at it; every paragraph already includes positive and negative commentary. The critical consensus is more important than individual reviews; once the former is in place, all the latter need to do is give some flavour of the sorts of things reviewers picked up on. In my other film FAs, I've done that by intertwining reviewers' comments on specific aspects of production. For example, a paragraph on the acting/characters, one on the writing/story; another might be on the production design or direction (it depends on what sources are available, really). I've organised the reviews here as much as I could along these lines, but with documentaries, we don't have as much variety in terms of what different aspects critics focused on. The general consensus among mainstream critics was that the film was biased, but a gripping watch. Very few say anything different. The reviews I've included are only intended to give a flavour of that; incorporating others would just be more of the same, making the section repetitive. The reason I've taken space up with the quote box is because I felt that particular quote was an excellent, representative summary of what the rest of them said—ideal for quick-reference. All the best, Steve T • C 07:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Steve, perhaps I misspoke, or maybe I didn't express myself correctly, but I looked over the reviews once more and here is what I see. When you say there are already reviews that provide "positive and negative commentary." ; that is technically true. But from the way I see it, almost all those reviews generally have near entirely positive sentiment with perhaps a single selective negative nitpick amongst each critic. What that essentially means is; Scheck, Ebert, Foundas, Hoberman, Holden, Burr, Thomson, Sokol and Jenkins each thought the film was fantastic but each of them had maybe 1 selective negative nitpick. Now thats completely different from having say, a bunch of critics who each thought the film sucked but added minor positive nitpicks to be fair. I could be wrong, but actually, the way I view it, is that in this particular paragraph, there isn't even a single entirely negative review!!! They are all entirely positive, but each critic was helpful enough to add a minor negative point of contention to balance their own individual reviews. You don't have to if you don't want to, but could you add entirely negative reviews? Not just positive ones with hints of negativity? Let me know if I'm in error. Thanks. Theatrickal (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This, this, and this have only negative things to say about the film, but 1) Steve has covered all the points made in these articles, and 2) they are (or will be) more fully developed in X-Ray of a Lie. How can these sources be used in a way in this article that will satisfy you (the scholarly sources make the same points, and Steve attempted to keep his writing neutral and balanced)? I can translate as needed, but the points are covered from these wholly negative reviews, which are more about the Documentary that revealed the discrepancies in this film, hence covered in its article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Hahah Ha HAh haha Hahah.........Well Sandy, first of all, I don't speak spanish; So link number 1 and 2; I have no clue what they say. I understand what your saying when you mention how the bases were already covered in the article; but the bases weren't covered in that particular paragraph. If thats the way it's supposed to be, then fine.......lOl......Theatrickal (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read X-Ray of a Lie, you can get the gist from my translations of what those articles have to say. Can you suggest a better way to incorporate some of that into this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Well, I'd have to look more into it to figure a way to better incorporate those negative viewpoints. Maybe merge the X-Ray of a Lie into the Critical review part. I have to see how that can be properly done. But getting back to what I said, I just did a quick search and found a critic who thought the movie sucked. Here it is: http://www.toptenreviews.com/scripts/eframe/url.htm?u=http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/reviews/The-Revolution-Will-Not-Be-Televised I'd have to do additional searches to find more, but I think I can. I inserted that link because you said you wanted ideas. Theatrickal (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything there that Steve's scholarly sources didn't already cover, but they covered it better and more neutrally ("opposition mob"?). If you can see a way to add more detail, I'm sure Steve will make it happen, with his exemplary neutrality, but that is a particularly poor review in relation to those used. In fact, it's not wholly negative-- it spouts some of the same pro-Chavez points that are disputed by more scholarly reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have to step out for a few hours. When I have another chance, I can search again for more entirely negative feedback. But from this article, the following quotes are pretty strong in content: "And by painting Chavez as a Bolivarian saint, when he's really more of a demagogue (benevolent, true, but still more of a rockstar than a politician), the filmmakers end up more as propagandists then documentarians." ........ "Potentially fascinating subjects like the likelihood of U.S. support (or at least tacit approval) for the opposition coup is barely touched upon" ........... "It cannot be questioned that the resulting footage which comprises The Revolution Will Not Be Televised provides quite a few thrills and jolts, but while there is a story to be told about the 2002 coup, this is definitely not the documentary to tell it." Theatrickal (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Response Before I go, here is one more: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700003452/Revolution-Will-Not-Be-Televised-The.html Here are some selected quotes: "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised makes no pretense about being a balanced documentary." .......... "And it certainly would be more excusable if the film didn't do so many things that put into question the film's veracity. For example, the camera is always there to capture the most crucial and pivotal moments from the attempted coup that forced Chavez from office for a handful of days in 2001." .............. "There's a lot of potentially fascinating material here, and yet Bartley and O'Briain's film is frustratingly unfocused. (Their attempt to tie the U.S. government to the Venezuelan coup is cursory at best.)" Theatrickal (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theatrickal, thanks for popping back in. I see where you're coming from, but let me explain my thinking here. The selection of quotes in a critical reception section should try to reflect the consensus in some way. There are a couple of ways we can do this. We can draw mainly from reviews that back up that cited accord (in this case, the near-universal repetition of the "engrossing but biased" line). Alternatively, we can choose a representative mix of quotes from the more extreme ends—those that are mainly positive, and those that are mainly negative (for example, if the Rotten Tomatoes score for a film is 60 percent, you might go for a roughly equivalent ratio). This option, which you seem to be advocating, is an absolutely valid choice; indeed, it's one I've used myself elsewhere. But given the sensitivities around this subject, and the fact we have a lot more negative material in the analysis section, I chose box number one. Steve T • C 08:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Ok, fair enough. Theatrickal (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Hello, again. Just doing a minor review, I noticed in the Release section the film's theatrical release schedule in the U.S. is only touched up in one or two sentences. Its not really developed for a play-by-play weekend summary. Have you consulted these links for additions to the content in perhaps providing a more detailed weekend analysis? The Numbers, Box Office Mojo. Also, how about adding at least one of those links to the External links section for a general reference. Theatrickal (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea. The reason I haven't included a play-by-play so far is because many of the sources contradict each other on this point. They're all in the same ballpark, but don't quite tie up. This evening, I'll root through them to see if I can make better sense of it. If there's no reconciling them, perhaps the best I'll be able to do is include something as a footnote. Steve T • C 15:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Theatrickal (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ADDITIONAL COMMENT One quick comment. Would it be helpful to rename the X-Ray of a Lie paragraph to identify it as a film sequel or prequel? Like perhaps add a new section entitled Post production with one paragraph identified as a Sequel and another paragraph titled Marketing to include the chavez book by stoneman right after it? Its very easy for readers to skim through the article or overlook certain sections as being political jargon. This way, people will know of direct media responses to the film. Theatrickal (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
X-Ray of a Lie is not a sequel and Stoneman's book is not a marketing tie-in. As the article says, they are (either wholly or in part) analyses of the documentary and its claims. Where else would they go but the analysis section? Steve T • C 20:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth making more explicit in the lede the fact that the documentary includes footage of events inside and around the palace, benefiting from the filmmakers' (including the press office camerman's) exceptional degree of access. Presently we hint at this fact at the end of the first para, and at the end of the second; at the beginning of the third para, we mention that critics highlighted the "filmmakers' unprecedented proximity to key events". I feel the way this information arrives in the reader's mind could be tightened a little, so that by the time the third para starts, the reader already has a more definite idea of what this "unprecedented proximity" consisted of. --JN466 21:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can swing that; the "at Miraflores" was consciously chosen to encompass events inside and out, as a space-saver more than anything. But now you mention it, I can see that making text as concise as it can be sometimes comes at the expense of focus. I'll reword a little later. Thanks, Steve T • C 21:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Variations of "inside and outside Miraflores" simply didn't work, so I instead strengthened the focus in the preceding sentences, adding a mention of the "direct access" and broadening "violence" to "events". Cheers, Steve T • C 21:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that they weren't present for key events inside the palace early on, and that needs to be clear (as it is later in the text). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much fine detail we should be putting in the lead; at some point, it becomes a back-and-forth to rival that of the article proper. Still, I've made it more explicit here, primarily because (as Jayen466 says), some readers might need context for subsequent passages. Best, Steve T • C 22:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well done, that does it. --JN466 14:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, I believe those are all newspaper sources, and someone somewhere for reasons I didn't keep up with on a guideline page (the ever-changing cite templates) decided that accessdates weren't need for hardprint sources with online courtesy links (personally, I prefer them, but they were done away with somewhere). Not sure on Nelson-- will leave that to Steve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, pretty much what Sandy said for the newspaper sources; it was a deliberate choice based on recent guideline changes (somewhere). For the Nelson book, that was deliberate too; it's cited just once, and to one page at that. I included in the bibliography only those sources I drew upon multiple times from multiple pages/chapters. For the single-use or single-page cites, doing that is a pointless extra step for the reader. Thanks, Steve T • C 08:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept Sandy's advice on access dates & your comment re Nelson. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Pity that title case is used: clunky.
  2. "Fly on the wall" I'd thought was a dictionary item and not worth linking. The link-target is disgraceful (it could ... um ... give a list of examples, and technical traits).
  3. "BSE and several European broadcasters". Don't we know how many? And BSE is a European broadcaster, isn't it?
  4. I've edited this bit, but still: "editing focused on identifying footage that would make the film entertaining and drive the plot"—doesn't editing always do that? Oh, I suppose fly on the wall makes it a particular requirement, but ...
  5. I was in a fly on the wall doco (against my wishes) that hit the cinemas back in 2001. It's a genre that can be overused, and I thought the film-makers in that case were disingenuous in their line that their presence didn't significantly change the "real life" they were observing. Oh well ... Tony (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the comments. On #1 I agree; I assume the MOS says we stick with the case used by the subject. Makes sense, I suppose. #2 The term seems to be less common in some English-speaking countries than others, so I'm going to keep it in. However, in the absence of a good source for listing examples of the genre, I've pointed the link to here instead. Still not ideal, but the wider context helps somewhat. #3 BSÉ isn't a broadcaster as such. It's probably closer to your now defunct Film Finance Corporation Australia. The wording "BSÉ and several European broadcasters" was chosen specifically to reflect that separation. #4 I know what you mean; it's a seemingly strange and trivial point to make, yet the "Editing" section reveals its importance. I'll see if I can come up with better phrasing. #5 Don't they all? I can barely sit through any modern documentaries without calling them out for their dramatic concessions at the expense of verisimilitude. Maybe they think we're too stupid to notice. Ah well. Thanks again, Steve T • C 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few comments.

Good read, overall. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for taking a look. In turn then:
  • Agreed; replaced semi-colon with period.
  • It just seemed like in this case the source had chosen the best wording to describe the situation; my paraphrase attempts were weaker by comparison. I'll have a think about it for a while and see if I can come up with a good replacement.
  • As above, really. It's just a list of those involved; the best that replacing the list could do would be to re-order them. Again though, I'll see what I can come up with.
  • I've reworded to "After the pair visit Washington, D.C., the CIA and the State Department express concern about Chávez's rule and stress the importance of Venezuela's oil." Do you think my expanding the capital's name to "Washington, D.C." is enough to make it clear? I'm reluctant to lose the detail here, as my intention was to reflect the film's implication that Carmona and Ortega somehow dealt with those agencies before they made their statements. Without mentioning the seat of government, that point is lost and the sentence might as well come out.
  • Not sure. According to the MoS, "U.S." is more common inside the country, but most other national forms of English omit the periods. Perhaps Sandy can weigh in on usage in Venezuela.
  • David Power, of Power Pictures, introduced above that point somewhere. Still, if it's ambiguous for one person, it will be for others, so I added his first name to the sentence.
Thanks again, Steve T • C 22:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the quick response. Yea, "Washington, D.C." works great there. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:40, 14 May 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.
More