Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 22:42, 31 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Seven (1995 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months

	Seven (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.
	Seven (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.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 18, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 20, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted March 29, 2023 Good article nominee Listed March 9, 2024 Featured article candidate Not promoted A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages'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

This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: Los Angeles / Southern California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance). Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Horror Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Spacey - infobox or no.

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/Template:Infobox_film says to use the billing block. $chnauzer 16:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

GA Review

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)

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

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

• Change 'Somerset fails to get himself and Mills reassigned to another case, believing it is too extreme for his last investigation.' I find this sentence a bit janky. Maybe 'Somerset, believing the case is too extreme for his last investigation, tries to get himself and Mills reassigned but fails.'?
  • Reworded it but possibly still iffy, would like a 2O. DatGuy_Contribs 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Link pederast to Pederasty
  •  Done. DatGuy_Contribs 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• 'the ubiquity of and apathy toward sin.' add commas to 'the ubiquity of, and apathy toward, sin.'
  •  Done. DatGuy_Contribs 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Cast

• 'Doe's victims include: Bob Mack appears as Gluttony' remove the 'appears'
  •  Done along with a few other instances in the same sentence. DatGuy_Contribs 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Development

• Change 'helm' to 'lead'
  •  Done. DatGuy_Contribs 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• 'which tasked him with' to 'which saw him'
  •  Done. DatGuy_Contribs 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Style and set design

• 'film within the confined of the sets,' should be 'confines'
  •  Done DatGuy_Contribs 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• link 'wrangler' to Wrangler (profession)
  •  Done DatGuy_Contribs 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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
  •  Done DatGuy_Contribs 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Article titles § Special characters.)

• use: Macy's, Skate, Yellow Tail, Seven, Alien 3, Toys "R" Us
• avoid: macys, skate., , Se7en, Alien, Toys Я Us"

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. DatGuy_Contribs 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You're correct under Indicating stylizations, my bad Lankyant (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• 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.
  •  Done + removed commas. DatGuy_Contribs 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Done. DatGuy_Contribs 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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.
  • Replaced with Beatty. I considered removing Spacey's photo entirely as there are quite a few images but I think it's a useful context for the article, so moved it off to the right. DatGuy_Contribs 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yea I much prefer it that way and I agree the Spacey photo is still useful. Lankyant (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

• I've also uncapitalised the sins, as I don't see why they should be considered proper nouns. DatGuy_Contribs 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Cheers, yea I was going to mention this but was pondering it some more. Was wondering if they are used as character names maybe... but probably better to just uncapitalise Lankyant (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm happy for this article to go to GA. It's a great read and very informative and I'd say well on its way to being Featured. Thanks for the work! Lankyant (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Comment or view
• Article history

• ... that Ned Beatty was originally wanted to play the villain John Doe in Seven because of his resemblance to a 1969 composite sketch of the Zodiac Killer (pictured)? Source: https://www.indiewire.com/2014/09/david-fincher-originally-wanted-ned-beatty-to-play-john-doe-in-se7en-talks-unmarketable-fight-club-and-more-272026/
  • ALT1: ... that the actress who played the lust victim in Seven was cast in the role after the director's assistant said she had the personality and body to portray a "dead hooker"? Source: https://ew.com/article/1995/10/06/corpse-stars-seven/
  • ALT2: ... that Ned Beatty turned down the role of John Doe in the film Seven because the script was the most evil thing he'd ever read? Source: https://www.indiewire.com/2014/09/david-fincher-originally-wanted-ned-beatty-to-play-john-doe-in-se7en-talks-unmarketable-fight-club-and-more-272026/
  • ALT3: ... that director David Fincher made the film Seven even though after his debut film Alien 3 he had said "I'd rather die of colon cancer than make another movie"? Source: https://www.nme.com/features/seven-brad-pitt-morgan-freeman-david-fincher-2759534
  • Reviewed:

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.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - other

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)

@Onegreatjoke: Is this better?

• ... that Ned Beatty was offered the role of serial killer John Doe in Seven because of his resemblance to a 1969 composite sketch of the Zodiac Killer (pictured)? Lankyant (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That's better. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

Minor Actors

Does the article really need to list every single actor in the movie..? I mean, "greasy FBI agent"..? ElleBlair (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

They all get billing in the opening credits, so yes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Media and drama good articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• GA-Class California articles
• Low-importance California articles
• GA-Class Los Angeles articles
• Low-importance Los Angeles articles
• Los Angeles area task force articles
• GA-Class Southern California articles
• Low-importance Southern California articles
• Southern California task force articles
• WikiProject California articles
• GA-Class film articles
• GA-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• GA-Class horror articles
• Low-importance horror articles
• WikiProject Horror articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Low-importance American cinema articles
• WikiProject United States articles