Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Film Booking Offices of America
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 17:04, 10 June 2007.
Film Booking Offices of America[edit]
Self-nomination. Stable article on Hollywood studio of the late silent film era. Predecessor of RKO Pictures, it played a pivotal role in the conversion to sound film. Owned during crucial period by Joseph P. Kennedy, father of the future president. Thanks to Quadell and WesleyDodds for a very productive peer review.—DCGeist 18:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some early comments, I'll look it over in detail more later. Why no infobox? If articles like RKO Pictures have one this article should too for consistency. Also, the logo should be in the top right for consistency sake too, I don't see why a movie poster is in the top right and not the company logo. Quadzilla99 13:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added one cn tag. Also, this sentence seems uncomfortable to read "In its earlier years, the studio did not hesitate to take advantage of scandal sheet–worthy events for movie conception and promotion" --Dweller 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence edited per comment. Citation tag removed--specific cost description, comparison, and citation given in preceding section.—DCGeist 01:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed on the citation, however, I now wonder why that sentence is in the section at all? What's its relevance? --Dweller 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was meant to suggest that, as a low-budget studio, even less money and attention was spent on film preservation at FBO than at the larger studios during the silent era. This is evident to me anecdotally, but in fact no authoritative source states it plainly. I've cut the phrase and consolidated the relevant sentences.—DCGeist 08:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, one comment: The black and white logo in the infobox is kind of drab, maybe it could be replaced with one of the color logos? If there's some reason to use that one it's fine. Otherwise the article is well written, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. I've even gotten used to some of the Hollwood lingo and adjectives you occasionally throw in there. I'm going to assume it's comprehensive although I'm no expert, it looks like you've studied this extensively. Quadzilla99 20:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I would usually go for one of the color logos for superior aesthetics, as well. In this case, I've gone with the draber one for two reasons: (a) the descending diagonal "FBO" appears to have been the most typical studio logo and as close as it ever got to a memorable visual trademark; (b) given the repeated errors in spelling the company's name—even in highly reputable sources—I thought it would be helpful to go with a logo that clearly illustrates the correct spelling.—DCGeist 21:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Correcting self. I checked every FBO poster or other logo-bearing image I have access to, and that diagonal trademark is in fact not especially common—it just stuck in my mind for whatever reason. Logo substituted; spelling issue dealt with clearly and sufficiently in notes.—DCGeist 21:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose until the whole article is properly copy-edited by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Here are examples.
- Are you sure they used an en dash in "Robertson–Cole"? It would normally be a hyphen (indeed, I see one instance where it is in the article, spelt out and as R-C too). Whereas "import-export" should have an en dash.
- "Thomson was just one of numerous screen cowboys with which FBO became identified." Whom, not which, unless he was a robot.
- I suppose you'll insist on retaining the ungainly U dot S dot, in the face of all of the other initialisms in the article that are unencumbered with this old-fashioned format. Like: "U.S.-based". Hmmmph.
- "acre"? Metric equivalents please.
- "a banner under which R-C had previously released"—Spot the redundant word.
- Consider giving a modern equivalent of the dollar values expressed here (at least the first one to occur), and the true magnitude will be conveyed.
- I have considered this in working on other film articles, but the differences in the industry and the amount of money involved, especially at the top end, are so great that an objective inflator in fact doesn't express the true magnitude. For instance, The Jazz Singer made $2.6 million in 1927, the equivalent of about $27.5 million in present-day dollars. But it was one of the top three movies of the year, all three of which were far ahead of the rest of the pack; so its commercial impact was arguably more like that of a $250 or even $300 million movie today. Fred Thomson's $10,000 a week contract in 1925 was the equivalent of an annual salary of about $5.7 million today. He made five features that year, so he was paid about $1.14 million a picture in 2007 dollars. But he was one of the highest paid performers in the industry, with a ranking equivalent to a performer today who gets paid $18 or $20 million per film. Given the constraints of an encyclopedia article not focused on movie finance, the existing narrative description conveys the magnitude of the dollar values more accurately than would modern numerical equivalents.—DCGeist 19:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Really well written. Terrific sourcing--we need to upgrade all the other film studio articles to this level of sourcing and verifiability. (I found a major error in just a quick look at the Universal article, for instance.) One question: Is the P.A. Powers mentioned in an early note the same as the Pat Powers whose studio was part of the merger that created Universal Pictures the previous decade?DocKino 22:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The current image sizes are a little overpowering for my taste, but I'll overlook this for such a highly detailed, researched, and well written article. Just this once, mind. I read the text on nom, and had some ce concerns, but there has been a lot of work since. Ceoil 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.