This is certainly a shorter article than the existing feature film FAs. But this isn't a summer blockbuster or even an independent art house film. The Carpet from Bagdad is a silent film, released in 1915, and now all but lost -- save for a few frames of viewable film teased from a single ruined reel, salvaged from the wreck of the Lusitania! The modern niceties like box office returns may be absent, but I'm quite convinced that criteria 1b and 1c are met; I've surveyed everything from period film periodicals and daily newspapers to modern journals and books. Hopefully, the article rises to the challenge of the other FA expectations as well. Thanks to everyone who helped out with the sourcing on this, and thanks likewise in advance to the reviewers here for taking a look at this forgotten bit of film. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Comments from Chris857
Release date and running time - source, maybe  for date? why only in infobox?
 has a second scene from the film showing the titular carpet, any reason it isn't included?
Existing film FAs were somewhat split over whether the release date is mentioned solely in the infobox or in the text. Mentioned that in the prose, cited to AFI (although I could have picked any number of period sources, too). Cited runtime in the infobox to AFI as well (again, runtimes don't tend to get referenced in most film FAs... but I'll agree that it probably needs one here, since readers cannot confirm the runtime by viewing the film!). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
There are several stills extant, of vastly varying quality. I agree that I probably should include a shot that, well, actually shows the carpet. I'll see about cleaning up that second Motography-published image. Other image from Motography now included. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
No video exists, nor is it likely to become so. While the sources aren't explicit about the restoration work on the Lusitania reel, it's my understanding that there are only a few seconds of viewable footage, and even that is badly damaged and without perfs. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Added explicit reference that the film cannot be restored sufficiently for video. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Support Comments from Eric Corbett
I generally like this article, but there are still a few too many rough edges:
The lead needs to about twice as long as it is to properly summarise the article.
"Upon its release, the film also received a special, invitation-only showing at the art gallery of the Bobbs-Merrill Company". How can a film be given anything? Where would it keep it?
"However, in 1982, an Oceaneering International diving expedition salvaged a number of artifacts from the wreck of the RMS Lusitania ..." Sentences ought not to start withhowever, don't be afraid of But.
"... this was an early example of the sponsored exhibition of a feature film outside of a theater". So the exhibition was outside (we'll let the "outside of" slip by) a theater?
"Despite the acclaim from many period reviewers, the British Film Institute's Clyde Jeavons thinks it unlikely that The Carpet from Bagdad is a lost masterpiece." Why does he think that?
Attended to most of these, although I'll need to take a crack at a longer lead later tonight (lead-writing is my admitted Achilles heel). Not sure I'm happy with my fix to "outside of", though. As for Jeavons, no further context in the source I've been working from, but there's some 1983 material that may have more. Also, thanks for the round of copy editing, it's much appreciated! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Many editors seem to find writing leads difficult, but a good rule of thumb is to include something from every section. EricCorbett 22:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I've made a suggestion for your "outside of" fix, do with it as you will. EricCorbett 23:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Taken a stab at a better lead. I also tracked down the 1983 issue of Sight & Sound that discussed the recovery; this was itself the main source for the Bottomore material (including the statement attributed to Jeavons). Much to my surprise, he didn't do a particularly accurate job of relaying the content: he would have failed a source-use spotcheck here, for certain! Accordingly, I've minimized the use of Bottomore and expanded the appropriate sections with the better material. Most of the other sources Bottomore cites are redundant, but I am trying to track down the appropriate issue of long-defunct American Classic Screen to see if there's any more to say about modern scholarly opinion of the film's quality. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim Looks pretty good, but a few quibbles Jimfbleak -talk to me? 18:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The Arab characters' clothing was genuine, and the actors portraying them...—as written, they are portraying the clothing
them as "a gem of..,—something not quite right "a gem" can't be "them"
many period reviewers—"contemporary"?
Your short form refs don't end with a full stop, unlike the others (my only excuse for a comment as trivial as this is that I've been on the receiving end)
Well, Eric Corbett got to many of these before I could, which I certainly appreciate. Eric, my especial thanks for the better short form reference template. So glad that I learned that now before I wrote too many more of these silent film articles! As to the rest, I've linked a little more liberally, and reworded the grammatical number mismatch. Also adjusted the clothing/actors sentence by substituting a noun reference in place of the disorderly pronoun; does that make it read more correctly for you? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Quick comment (may be back for a proper review, given how many similar articles I've written): I think marketing (a very short section as it is now) could be merged into the release and reception section below. I've done this with such articles as Asmara Moerni (my next FAC, once I've run it through PR) and Sorga Ka Toedjoe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I created it as a separate section more trying to follow the Wikiproject Film section outline that for any personal preferences. That said, perhaps here it would be better to merge it into the Production section above (to discuss, broadly, things the studio did), rather than into the one below, which would wind up covering quite a bit of territory? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I actually just went ahead and did this. The Production section already mentioned distribution, so it was an easy merge, to the benefit of the article's structure, I think. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. We have promoted several silent film articles like Si Tjonat or Gagak Item. I don't really want to support this, given that it's kind of short and like the nominator says it's missing a lot of info, but I guess it isn't the nominator's fault. Its comprehensive enough I suppose. And I don't feel that I missed anything. Sources look reliable. Beerest 2talk 20:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Gagak Item wasn't silent, though it's nice to mention it here simply as an example of how a film article can be comprehensive and still short. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
antique dealer George Jones (Oakman), conspirator Horace Wadsworth (Oliver), and Fortune Chedsoye (Williams), the innocent daughter of a co-conspirator, - any way to keep the position of descriptors consistent? (You have before, before, after here)
Out of sympathy, Jones gives them a two-hour lead before notifying the police, - Sympathy for what?
What was the point of stealing the carpet?
Perhaps some information about the novel, which could hint at why it was chosen for adaptation? (Aside from the fact that people from that era loved adapting novels even more than they do now)
Lead largely rewritten to take care of the two unwieldy sentences. Hopefully I didn't cause more problems in the process!
Plot also clarified, somewhat. To a modern reader, there are clearly some plot holes (Your gang travels halfway around the world and back to ... make enough money to tunnel into a bank? Did you really think that through all the way?). But my sources don't address them and, frankly, adventure stories of the period weren't ever really intended to hold up to careful scrutiny.
I'll go back over the sources and see if there's any reason in particular this novel was chosen, or anything meaningful to say about it. MacGrath was a prolific author and Selig Polyscope drew from that well fairly often for film adaptations. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The Moving Picture World's James McQuade considered the film a "close second" to Campbell's 1914 film The Spoilers, praising its acting and special effects, although he felt that a Cairo scene, present in the novel but not the film, would have made Mohamed's motivations easier to understand. - a bit of a run-on here. I'd split this.
Despite the acclaim from many contemporary reviewers, modern scholars of the silent film era do not consider The Carpet from Bagdad a lost masterpiece, according to the British Film Institute's Clyde Jeavons. - Any substantiation? Right now this is so ambiguous that it could not be "a lost masterpiece" if only because it isn't entirely lost.
Images are all fine - PD 1923 both (screenshots). No poster seems available online. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Notes -- Doesn't look like we've had a formal source review so I had a look myself: main thing that stuck out is that we seem to have retrieval dates for some online sources but not others; also it's nice to format dates in a more readable form than yyyy-mm-dd, although from memory it may not be an absolute requirement... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks like the nominator hasn't been around for a while so given these are minor formatting points I won't delay promotion any further; hopefully Squeamish will be back online soon and can reiew then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Squeamish Ossifrage. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)