Talk:The Medico of Painted Springs

The Medico of Painted Springs 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: November 6, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Film: 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 American cinema task force.

Westerns: Film Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Film task force.

A fact from The Medico of Painted Springs appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that The Medico of Painted Springs (1941), the first of a three-film series by Columbia Pictures, was Charles Starrett's favorite film?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Medico of Painted Springs.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Medico of Painted Springs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonkers, I'll be glad to take this one. Thanks in advance for your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it covers the main aspects of a rather obscure topic, but a check of the sources does raise some issues I'd like to discuss. Let me know your thoughts on the below. Thanks again for your work here! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" Rubel never got to see it." -- this phrasing is a bit odd, suggesting he wasn't allowed to see it or something prevented him from doing so. Could you simply say "Rubel never saw it"?

Done.

Is it possible to expand the plot section a bit, giving a touch of context on who Fred Burns and Ed Gordon are? I don't quite understand the plot from the summary as given here. Also, as the second-billed character, what role does Nancy Richards play in the plot? (It looks like the Blottner has more information on this.)

Doesn't the current plot read coherent enough? Nancy Richards doesn't directly affect the plot in any way, I get that after reading Blottner's plot. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little bit. Let me know if you have any objections. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment from uninvolved editor) I have this article on my watchlist for some reason (maybe because I did the DYK review) and wanted to also point out that I think the plot section is a bit too short. Turner Classic Movies has a long plot summary that may be of use: [1] Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a habit of mis-paraphrasing plots if I don't actually watch it myself. In this case, I admittedly have not watched the film, so I did not pretend to know it all and wrote a short plot instead. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Then-recruit actor" -- "recruit" is an unusual adjective for an actor--do you mean it in the sense of "novice"?

Done.

"one of the earliest films he starred in" -- if he was uncredited, I'm not sure it can really be said that he "starred" in this film--how about "appeared"?

Fixed.

"James L. Rubel never got to see the film due to unspecified reasons." -- what's the source for this? Blottner is the next footnote, and he says the premiere was near Rubel's house, though he doesn't specify whether Rubel was actually there.

Blottner does write that Rubel never saw it. See last sentence of 256.

Odd--we may be looking at slightly different editions here. The last sentence of 256 using the edition linked in the references is "Summation: The picture was not available for viewing by the author", and 257 starts discussion of "Thunder Over the Prairie". As for Rubel, what this edition says is: "James Rubel was living in Newport Beach, California, when the film was completed. A local movie house, the Lido Theater, was the site of the film's premiere. the Medico of Painted Springs was the only one of Rubel's novels to be made into a movie." What does yours say? I don't have any problem taking this as AGF, but just wanted to make sure it's not an error.

Incidentally, there's some discussion on p 11 here (search for "Rubel") indicating that the franchise was stopped because Rubel was angry about the changes to his books. Seems worth adding. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh! Silly me, I thought "the author" referred to Rubel! Ah, now I realise it refers to Blotnner. I think we can just ditto the sentence altogether. Also, your link does not quite show what it is supposed to show. I get incomplete snippet views with no mention of Rubel. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The following two films in the series were Trouble in the Prairie" -- the source actually appears to give a title of "Thunder of the Prairie"--is this an alternate title?

I wonder how I got that wrong. Changed.

Sorry, now I'm miswriting it myself. The source says "Thunder over the Prairie". Changed again. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The running time in the infobox should have an inline citation to an RS as (arguably) a statistic. One author I saw gives the running time as 59 min. [2]

Referenced with a hidden citation to Blottner.

I have addressed all issues brought up. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that does it. I agree with Taylor that the plot section is still a bit thin--between Blottner and TCM, you can probably put something more extensive together--but it's good enough to cover it in a basic way for GA. Spotchecks show no sign of copyright issues, and the article passes in all other areas as well. So that's a pass --thanks for your work on this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]