Talk:Chapter 27

Sources

Include mtv.com [1] and The Movie Insider [2]. RadioKirk 22:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ice cream as a weight gain is from the June 15th, 2006 episode of Loveline with guest 30 Seconds to Mars. There are many behind the scene stories told about halfway through the episode, if anybody would like to add to this entry. 69.162.59.13 09:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Leto as David

I read that plays John Lennon not the killer. --Kingforaday1620 21:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Leto plays Mark David Chapman. Michaelh2001 16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I've moved this article from Chapter 27 (film) to Chapter 27, per a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. There was a non-trivial edit history at Chapter 27 already, as well as some talk page content, so I've swapped the two pages, and the history that was previously at Chapter 27 can now be found at Chapter 27 (film). The talk page that used to be Talk:Chapter 27 is now at Talk:Chapter 27 (film). -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Mark Lindsey Chapman" plays John Lennon?

That statement in the trivia section contradicts the actual cast list in the article. Which one's the correct one? --Foot Dragoon 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

References

I think those "boycott Chapter 27" links should be removed. I insist on it. relation of contnet of those sites to topic is very odd, plus one of those sites is blog. Sthow 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

what is the movie about

I just want a synopsis all of this background info is not telling me much

Trivia??

The following content was earlier removed as uncited (which it was). I restored it with a citation, and it has now been removed as trivia.

Prior to playing Lennon in this film, actor Mark Lindsay Chapman (then employing a different name because of another actor named Mark Chapman) had been rejected for the role of John Lennon for the film John and Yoko: A Love Story because of the similarity of his name to Lennon's killer.

This doesn't really strike me as all that trivial. (Incidentally, he was initially using the name Mark Lindsay) MLC was vetoed from the first film by Yoko Ono herself, over which she had some creative control, but got to play Lennon here in a film she didn't approve of making to begin. It seems to me this is of broad interest. MLChapman's initial rejection from the Lennon role in Ballad of John and Yoko got a great deal of press attention, though his recasting as Lennon in this film got relatively little.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

About a week ago, I restored this material in vastly expanded form and no one has objected.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the actual material is good. Now it is not so trivial.--Earthh (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chapter 27/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 23:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead needs some work. It's not quite a full summary of the article, could maybe mention the film's plot and production in more detail, and could definitely ditch the paragraph about the similar film.
   The plot section reads too much like a blurb or teaser - granted, I haven't seen the film, but I would have to assume it contains a retelling of the killing, which should be summarised as an unfolding plot. Have a look at WP:FILMPLOT for a good guide.
   "The film received substantial accolades from critics who viewed the depiction of the mental state of Mark David Chapman, in the days leading up the murder of John Lennon in December 1980." -> Do you mean "who viewed the depiction..." as in those that watched it, or do you mean they viewed it as being something? This seems like there's something missing here.

   I appreciate the difficulty of putting together a plot summary without having the film to hand, so I'll see if I can find a few summaries online that a better plot outline can be based on for this article. GRAPPLE X 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Is there a better replacement for ref 11? Sourcing to a forum isn't really reliable, unfortunately. Refs are used well otherwise, though.

   If no replacement source for this material exists, I think it's better to just drop it. Perhaps comment it out (put <!-- before the text, and --> after it) so it's hidden until something reliable turns up. There's still a solid amount of information without the stuff attributed to the forum.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Barring the aforementioned need to work on the plot, the scope is fine.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrality is fine.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stability seems fine.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are used well. One is commons, one is non-free with a suitable fair-use rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Although I think this does need a good bit of work, it's still perfectly doable. I'm going to put this one on hold for now, and if you need a hand with some of it just let me know. I'll be of no use to you with the plot, though, is the only thing. GRAPPLE X 23:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   Still a few issues, but after I get back from work tonight I'll help with coming up with a better plot summary to get this going. GRAPPLE X 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• What's going on here? Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  Oh fuck, I dropped the ball on this one. Forgot clean about it. I've had a search, couldn't find any plot summaries for it online, and since neither I nor the author own the film, writing it without aid is out of the question. I've removed the unreliable information, and based on the article as it stands I think this should be alright for a pass. It's not exactly beefy but it puts a tick in more than enough boxes. Sorry again about the wait. GRAPPLE X 00:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• IMO, since the forum-sourced material involves an actual verbatim sit-down interview with the film's director, it is allowable and it's important info, not easily accessible in other places.

Also, I have actually seen the film. For a while, the whole thing was on YouTube, but I think it's been taken down now. One might also look for a transcript of the script online. If the forum-sourced material is really going to block this from GA status, I guess we can let it go.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Film still online.

A Spanish user on YouTube has uploaded a copy with Spanish subtitles and English dialogue under the name "(capítulo 27) legendado". Part 1 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHd1B2lDQEE

--WickerGuy (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)