Talk:Bertie's Brainstorm/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking the new Thanhouser batch for a "test run". I'll finish the review tomorrow but I'll wait a while for when there are more Thanhouser articles complete, if that's OK? JAGUAR 20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

"a dim-witted fop" - what is a fop? An early 20th century term?

Linked. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bertie chances upon the letter and sets off to make a living" - I'm not sure if the average reader (including myself) would understand would this is trying to say, I think "chances" needs to be rephrased

Disagree - chances upon is still very common. It is better to stay true in this case because he didn't stumble upon it outright and it sort preserves the sense. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"that William Russell played in an unknown role" - no need for the extra "in"

Fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk)

"The foppish character of Bertie" - again, fop?

Linked as before. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"may have been inspired by Edwin Thanhouser's role as Bertie Nizril in Thoroughbred" - optional, but is it possible to find the release year of Thoroughbred? Was it 1896? As the production section states "In 1896, Edwin Thanhouser played the role of the foppish character in the play"

I'll expand on the subject of "Bertie" in this aspect. The production started on August 17, 1896 at the Garrick Theatre in New York City and Edwin Thanhouser took over the role on Saturday afternoon, August 29, 1896. Though not covered by Bowers text, Lumley's work was first produced on February 13 under Mr. Toole.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to expand the reception, ie. critics reviews? If not, don't worry, the GA requirement is that an article can only make use of all the sources there are out there. This is impressive enough for a 114 year old lost film!

I can and will, but its basically very limited. Comedies in general got very little in reviews which will prove to be the undoing of many of the Princess/Falstaffs. This film just had a very fun and interesting back-story. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

This is serving as a "test run" before I might start reviewing most of the Thanhouser and/or any other lost films of the early 20th century that comes up. Overall this article is well researched, once all of the above are clarified then this should have no problem passing. JAGUAR 16:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are a bit sparse, I'll be trying to focus on some more of the bigger works. I'm going through my notes on Universal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thanks for addressing them! This article meets the GA criteria now. The "chances" phrase should be fine. Everything else has been addressed, so this should be the first of many. I'll be happy to help out in the future, other than reviewing Universal articles }