Talk:Greed (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Greed (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 4, 2014.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 12, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
January 17, 2013 Peer review Reviewed
March 15, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted
April 22, 2013 Peer review Reviewed
July 23, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted
June 6, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article


No discussion of the original version of the film having been 10+ hours long? And the numerous re-edits? This was a big deal. And the longer version are partially lost. If anyone has the urge, there is a lot more info to be included here. I'll see if I can't get around to it eventually... --MalignantMouse (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Unlike the 10-hour Greed, I restored an older edition of this article, with much more information. Yosy (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it really a "lost film"?[edit]

Is Greed really a "lost film"? It is well known the TCM (Turner Classic Movies) has a copy, AND it was selected for preservation by the National Film Registry. Obviously, it cannot be preserved if there are no copies of it left. Therefore, because there are existing copies of it, it is not a lost film, but a Partially lost film. (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Stroheim or von Stroheim[edit]

Just curious about people's opinions on whether to use Stroheim or von Stroheim in the body of the article. The Lennig biography consistently refers to him as Stroheim, probably due to the "von" being added by him later in life, but the Koszarski biography uses von Stroheim. I've been writing Stroheim, but was curious about other opinions on the matter.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

von Stroheim getting fired - dates[edit]

There seems to be some inconsistency in the dates of von Stroheim's firing and hiring. The "Background and writing" section says that "In 1923 von Stroheim had been fired from Universal Studios"; however it then later says "He met with producers at the Goldwyn Company on September 14, 1922 and signed a contract with the company in late November; Thalberg had fired him on October 6". This latter sentence implies that the October and November dates were both in 1922. So was he fired in 1922, or 1923? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, its a typo that I've overlooked. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! Great to see this nominated for GA now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Greed (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do this review--as it happens, I've both read this book and seen the movie. I hope to begin tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


Some minor prose issues to clarify--my apologies in advance that some of these are nitpicky.

  • "This is the beginning of a lifelong rift between the pair" --clarify the "pair" here--you mean Schouler and McT, yes?
  • " later claims to have found still water in their basement" --in the basement of their apartment building? Or in the home they inspect? The "their" is ambiguous here.
  • "This begins to be an issue for McTeague" --a vague sentence that could be clarified.
  • "Norris once stated "Fiction is what seems real, not what is real."" --This sentence seems out of place in this paragraph. Was he speaking specifically about McTeague? If not, why is the sentence relevant to understanding McTeague, or Stroheim's adapation of it? I'd suggest either giving more context or cutting out the line.
  • "many former friends of Frank Norris" leaves it unclear if Norris is dead or simply unpopular.
  • "ZaSu Pitts" is spelled three different ways in the course of the article (ZaSu, Zasu, Zazu)
  • Linking of actors' names seems excessive; Hersholt, Gowland, and others are linked repeatedly.
  • "in appalling conditions" is slightly POV; this could probably be expressed without the judgement. ("harsh"?) -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I took care of all these. I never noticed that ZaSu Pitts was spelled differently. I just got rid of that quote, I agree that it didn't go anywhere. Great suggestions, thank you. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for getting to those so fast! I've got only one more for you:
  • "10 Greatest Films ever made" and "The Most Important and Misappreciated American Films of all time" --capitalization seems irregular on these--is it correct that only part of the list titles be capitalized?
I've completed my first close read-through, and it looks good. I never realized what a funny guy von Stroheim was. I'll start the checklist in a bit. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is clear and straightforward, and spelling and grammar are correct ; only remaining issue is the capitalization of two lists (noted above). Sources are almost all off-line, but spot checks against Google Book snippets, and checks of the few Internet sources, reveal no issues.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Yes.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Article is thoroughly sourced to scholars in the field.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. Citation is excellent and consistent.
2c. it contains no original research. See 2a.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yes.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Yes.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Yes. The article balances the film's claims to greatness with its harsher critics, and clearly sources each to critics or scholars.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Yes.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are relevant and well-chosen. but the captions require a bit of wikilinking for concepts, places, etc.
7. Overall assessment. Congratulations on a solid Good Article. This one was a pleasure to review.
Done and done, great ideas. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

copyedit for FA[edit]

I've boldly asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests for a copyedit by an FA-experienced copyeditor, with a view to an FA nomination in the future. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I think that's great. I think that what this article could still use is section on Style and Themes, although aspects of both of these topics are already mentioned. I was about to move on to a few other films- Last Tango in Paris was next on my list, but I could work on this page again if you think its almost ready to be a Featured article. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Some drive-by comments[edit]

Just a few observations, while browsing - as editors seem to work on improving this article:

  • Finler (1983) and Koszarski (1972) are missing a full entry in "Bibliography".
    • I'm not sure what you mean, will have to look this up.
    •  Done, I think.
  • The cast list is quite long. Consider trimming it to the main, plot-driving characters. Especially "Others" is certainly too much detail.
    •  Done
  • No citation expert, but i have never seen "pp." for single page citations. "p." is common for single- and "pp." for multi-page and mixed citations.
    • I've been told that pp. is always the correct format, but I haven't read the actual rule. Will look this up.
    •  Done
  • In citations and "Bibliography", use consistent ISBN-formatting (ISBN13 preferred).
    • I'll look this up as well.
    •  Done
  • I really like the images, nice selection. The Von Stroheim caption is a bit long, consider trimming it (the part "the year he first expressed" could be shortened to focus on the script info).
    •  Done
  • I'd merge the sub-plots in one section with separate paragraphs for each. It's the only level 3-header in the article, and the intro and sections are quite small.
    •  Done
  • The end of "Difference" lacks a source.
    •  Done
  • Cite 67, 88 and 89 lack "cite web" templates (online sources should never be formatted as raw link) and additional info for online sources like accessdate (if this article is planned to go to FA, all citations should be double-checked for possible MOS-problems and consistent formatting).
    • I'll look into this. Thanks for the comments. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    •  Done

Not a complete, thorough check - only some random comments. Overall a nice and interesting article. GermanJoe (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I've got the ISBN correct now. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Nice improvements. But there are still 2 minor problems with inconsistent references:
  • Ref #22 points to a source called Finler 1983, but there is no such source (from 1983) in the bibliography list, only a Finler 1972 und 1968. A similar problem is with ref #68, which points to Koszarski 1972, but the only listed Koszarski source is from 1983. So either the year in the short citations is wrong and can be easily fixed. Or detailed information for sources from the missing years needs to be added to "bibliography" (all inline citations need bibliographic details, either immediately in the reference or in a bibliography section). I would fix the problem myself, but don't have any of the sources to check.
  • "Bibliography" has sources for Curtiss 1971 and Finler 1968, which are -currently- not used for inline citations. If those sources are no longer used, their list entry should be moved to a separate "Further reading" section (or deleted, if they contain no interesting content for the topic). Again i have not enough information, or i would fix this myself of course.
If you need any further help with citations, just leave me a note on my talkpage. I'll be glad to help. GermanJoe (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Temperature in Death Valley[edit]

It's unlikely the temperature in Death Valley was 161 degrees since the highest temperature ever recorded in Death Valley was 134 degrees (in 1913). Even if the source claims this, it should not be reported as fact due to its extreme unlikeliness. Kaldari (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, I was wondering if anyone would say anything. However I was simply adding content from a reliable source....which itself was sourced from a group of people notorious for exaggeration and melodrama. What would you recommend?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
So, I did some research, and the highest temperature officially recorded in Death Valley over the months of June through August of 1923 was 123 degrees F in July of 1923. There was no rain over the course of those three months as well, and the lowest temperature over those three months officially recorded was 49 degrees F sometime in June of 1923.

Is it possible that an unofficial reading above 123F was recorded at the actual filming location (wherever that specifically was?) during the period of filming? Sure, but I don't know much about the original source that's being used here. I'll add some of this info (including the above reference link) to the article in a bit. BTW, I'm a meteorologist by trade.  ;) Guy1890 (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


(Taken from my Talk Page) Hello Deoliveirafan, i have had another look at the article. Some additional points and suggestions to consider:

  • The plot description seems too detailed, both in the lead and the main article body. For the lead aim for a very broad, general summary - just 1-2 sentences to describe the movie's topic and main plot should suffice. Try to trim the main plot section a little bit more. Especially check every detail and side-event of the story - does the reader need this detail to understand the overall plot? If not, that detail should probably be trimmed or even removed, if it adds nothing essential.
    • Will work on this.
  • Avoid too emotional terms like "holy grail" and "hate", replace them with more encyclopedic, neutral terms.
    •  Done or now in quotes.
  • "bête humaine" - could this term be explained, maybe in parentheses, for the ignorant reader (like me)?
    •  Done
  • Quotes and possibly contentious statements need immediate citation, even in the lead., for example:
    • "Greed is unique due to its original, unreleased version being as famous (if not more so) than the existing released version." - strong, somewhat subjective statement could use a citation. Who makes this judgement?
    •  Done
    • "Von Stroheim called Greed his most fully realized work and was hurt both professionally and personally by the film's re-editing." needs citation (especially the "personal" part).
    •  Done
  • "Thalberg and von Stroheim had fought over the production of Merry-Go-Round a few years earlier at Universal Pictures, which had resulted in the unprecedented decision of Thalberg to fire von Stroheim—asserting the authority of the producer over the director for the first time in Hollywood culture." is far too detailed and slightly out of focus for the lead. Briefly mention, that the two had some "history" in the past, but leave the details to the main article body.
    •  Done
  • In section "Editing" the detailed "reel" explanation as separate box is distracting (and not really part of the main text). Suggestion: use the template:efn to create an explanatory footnote (which are usually placed before the list of citations).
    •  Done, thanks I like this better.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not really that knowledgable about cinematic history, but hopefully those points will be helpful. You might want to contact WP:WikiProject Film and start a peer review. There is already a lot of great content in the article and you had some very helpful suggestions on talk, but i think the article could use even more input from other subject experts to progress before FA. Nice work so far, i enjoyed reading the article. GermanJoe (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


Per request, edited this. Feedback encourage! Comments:

  • The plot summary describes the amputation, but later that is described as cut. Please clarify.
    • The plot includes the full uncut plot of the film. In the MGM version they cut out the scene where a doctor tells Trins her fingers must be amputated. Later on in bother versions Trina makes reference to Mac having bitten her and points to her bandaged hand, BUT it is not totally clear that her fingers are missing in the MGM its a little tricky but it seems like it would be a bit convoluted to explain all that in specifics.
  • It would be interesting to know more about the editing. How many scenes were in the VS version, how many in the final, and how many scenes were simply shortened. The cuts amount to over 75% of the original. Also, the article talks about the theory that the 42 reel version was not a real version. If not, why would VS film so much stuff? Did any of the unreleased footage survive?
    • Oh boy, I'd have to re-order all those library books for a third time. I mean it does go into detail about what was cut and the amount of footage that was cut. As far the cut footage, as of 2013 it has never been found (which I think is clear in the Myths and Misconceptions section. Von Stroheim filmed so much because he was von Stroheim. I don't know what else to say.:)
  • Few of the review comments mention anything other than the story. If there are such comments, it would be good to include some.
    • I could try to find more reviews but they are all from quotes in the books used as sources.

Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

    • Thank you. I'm just going to nominate it now and see what happens.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Maria in the plot[edit]

The shortened version of the plot summary introduces Maria extremely abruptly and then doesn't mention her again until the mention of her and Zerkow's sub-plot. ("As they wait for an opening, Trina buys a lottery ticket from Maria.") Is this a bit abrupt - the reader is left wondering who Maria is and why she's named at this point in the plot?

It would be infeasible to remove mention of Maria from the plot altogether, as she's discussed by name later in the article. (Although, there are some tricksy ways round that, such as explaining her relevance later in the article but not mentioning her at all in the plot summary.) However, if the sub-plot summary is staying, the sentence could perhaps be re-written as "As they wait for an opening, Trina buys a lottery ticket." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Greed (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)