Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gertie the Dinosaur/archive1

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 Ian Rose 00:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Gertie the Dinosaur[edit]

Featured article candidates/Gertie the Dinosaur/archive1

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the 100th anniversary is coming up for Winsor McCay's most famous animated film, and the most significant of the pre-Disney era. The article's a well-illustrated GA with comprehensive background and contextual information; also, the film and it's unfinished sequel are in the Public Domain, so we get a couple of nice film files to boot (although higher-quality ones would be nice).

When Google made a doodle of McCay's Little Nemo, McCay's article was hit with more than 3 million page views. Unfortunately, the article was garbage at the time (I'm in the process of fixing it). I don't expect lightning to strike twice, but animation does get more press than comic strips do. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it looks like you have the topic well-covered here! I've read through the article, and I have various comments to make:
1. In the lead section, the sentence starting with "It influenced the next generation..." is rather long. Maybe break it into two?
  Do you mean by replacing the semicolon with a period? If so, done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. In "Background", you link to a couple of files directly. Is this standard practice? In addition, I think that these file links do not satisfy WP:EGG because it looks like it is the date that is linked. If it really is acceptable to link to a file directly, maybe do so in parentheses?
  No, it's not standard; in fact, I've never seen anyone do it before. I wanted to see what kind of objections people had to doing it, and I guess WP:EGG is a pretty good one. I'd still lke to find a good way to direct readers to the files (they're way too big to cram onto the page, and I don't want to shunt them out of context into the "External links" section). Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  I think I've come up with a better solution to this by moving the links to endnotes. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. In "Content", would it be worth mentioning the length of the film in any way, either as a general characteristic or in historical context of film lengths, especially animated ones?
  I'm not sure how this would work. The length in the infobox is the length of the film as it is available today with the added live-action sequences and intertitles. There is no surviving version without the live-action sequences and intertitles. It might take some creative calculation to determine the original length, and I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be appropriate on Wikipedia.
  
  As for historical context of film lengths, I'm not an expert on historical films (I came to McCay from the angle of the comic strip world). If you have something you could add here, I'd much appreciate it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. In "McCay and animation after Gertie", the first sentence is also long. Can you break it up?
  Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. "Release" hits the ground running. I think it helps to write a section that can be read on its own. Would it be possible to be more introductory, such as establishing the historical period? Maybe something as simple as mentioning "1914" for Gertie as a kind of reminder.
  Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. "Reception and legacy" starts with, "Gertie pleased audiences and reviewers." In footnote 59, Crafton 1993 does not mention reception (I assume it was used to locate the premiere in Chicago), and I cannot access Canemaker 2005. I wanted to ask what the latter said to make sure that the opening statement is directly attributable.
  It's a bit long to quote, but Canmemaker goes through some of the reviews in Chicago, from the Examiner and the Telegram, and then two reviews in the New York American and one from the Evening Journal. I guess "Gertie pleased audiences and reviewers." was meant to sum up what came later in the paragraph; I've added a cite to it: Canmaker 2005 pp. 177, 181. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you have any questions! I'd like to give this another read later now that I have a sense of the structure and content. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Page(s) for Heer?
- Unfortunately, Questia won't provide the page numbers for this one (they display the article in one page). They do this frustratingly often. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Need endash in Merkl title
- Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you include publishers for journals
- Done. Added publishers to all. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page for Syracuse Herald?
- Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

——— Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

Comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Image review:

Image review moved to talk

Images are okay now, I'll be moving the image review to the talk page later. Just a couple prose comments left. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and images. Way to go! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry to follow up so late. I copy-edited the lead section a little, and I'm reading through the article, which looks great so far. In the "Release" section, it mentions that Gertie "appeared in an edition for movie theaters". I don't know what this means, and I don't think general knowledge of just the word "edition" helps here. What does it mean, and can different wording be used? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworded it to "extended edition"—later in the section it explains how McCay added a live-action sequence and intertitles to the theartical version. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in "McCay and animation after Gertie", it mentions that in 1921, McCay was made to give up animation after what Hearst learned. It seems like McCay got in trouble earlier already. Would it be better to say something like Hearst learned that McCay continued to work more in animation than in illustrations? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
McCay was earlier made to give up most of his vaudeville performances, but no mention was made of giving up animation, which he did in his spare time at home. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support promoting Gertie the Dinosaur to Featured status. I found the article engaging to read and the content to be well-referenced, especially for a film of this age. The age also helps provide lots of great images, which all check out with ease. I hope to see this article on the Main Page for the film's 100th anniversary! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 00:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A truly engaging read. Meets criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Being interested in the history of film I decided to recuse my delegate duties and comment directly. Prose still needed a few tweaks but nothing terminal, and structure, coverage, referencing and supporting materials appear sound (deferring to Crisco for the image check) -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.