Talk:The Bold Bank Robbery

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Bold Bank Robbery article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The Bold Bank Robbery has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 22, 2013. (Reviewed version).

A fact from The Bold Bank Robbery appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 November 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that 1904's The Bold Bank Robbery was the first film to be advertised in Billboard?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Bold Bank Robbery.

Wikipedia

Film: Silent / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Silent films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Bold Bank Robbery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 21:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Taylor Trescott

Hi there. I will begin this review in the next few days. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noooo!!! You've got me! Heh, looking forward to it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Quadell, my life has been very busy and I will have limited time for article writing. This might mean it will take a bit before I can respond to your concerns. Sorry for the inconvenience. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it can be finished up in either December or January, then it will still count for the GAN Drive, and it's fine. (But if you drag this out into February, then I'll have to concede that you're sneakier than me...

) Seriously though, I'll review the article shortly and leave it open for longer than usual, no problem. Enjoy whatever holidays and joys life brings you in late December! – Quadell ^(talk) 14:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I have made some rather bold copy-edits. If you disagree with any of them, feel free to revert and discuss. Included were same spelling corrections that I'm not 100% sure on; if these are regional spelling variations, my apologies, feel free to change those back.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead follows MOS:LEAD, and the article is organized well according to MOS:LAYOUT. The plot summary follows WP:MOSFICT, and the whole thing avoids WP:W2W.
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.	The references and bibliography are fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Everything that needs to be cited, is. I even checked some of the sources for plagiarism and was pleased (though not surprised) to find everything rewritten in your own words.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article says, "He often devised the stories for their films". The source says "Frawley apparently made all Lubin's films", but "devised the stories" goes beyond the source a bit. (Other Lubin films like Fun on the Farm seemed to have no real story at all.) You could say he often constructed the films or assembled them, but I'd be careful calling them "stories". All issues have been resolved.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There really isn't that much info available. I think this covers the important aspects.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems with bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	An edit war on this article would be... unexpected.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I'm pretty sure the image of Lubin is free. (He died in 1923, and he's clearly younger than 70 in the photo.) I do wish some publication history were provided for the photo though. The ad is certainly free, and all required information is present.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Since the film is PD, it's a shame we don't have the entire film on Commons, like we do for File:Winsor McCay (1912) How a Mosquito Operates.webm. ~~Even the Billboard ad would make an excellent addition.~~ But that's not required for GA status.
	7. Overall assessment.	This fulfills all our GA criteria, and I'm pleased to promote it.

I'll put this nomination on hold. If you address the above issues in a reasonable period of time, I'm sure it will pass. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I used the wrong source for that "He often devised" bit - the Niver source says that. I'll try to fix this as soon as I can. Thanks for the review. (BTW, I can upload the Billboard ad to Commons.) Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great if you could include that ad in this article! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Billboard advertisement. Updated the Lubin photo's publication history. The "devised stories" cite is corrected. Any other concerns? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great additions. It's all fine now. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]