Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Cure for Pokeritis/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 23:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
A Cure for Pokeritis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead actors of this short, silent comedy film were among the first comedy film stars, although they are all but unknown today. This representative of their work was selected by the National Film Registry, and (now that I'm back from an unplanned Wikibreak), I'm happy to select it for Featured Article candidacy as well. I believe this is an especially comprehensive treatment of published sources. Most notably, silent films were not always meant to be silent. And with the help of the research library at UCLA, I was able to locate and include Vitagraph's original suggestions of the music to be played alongside screenings of the film. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Curly Turkey
[edit]- "domestic comedy silent film short": I'm pretty sure "comedy" at the very least is overlinking—also, it reads pretty awkwardly (try saying it out loud). How about just "is a short silent film" and call it a "domestic comedy" later in the paragraph when summarizing the plot?
- Agreed. I wanted to say that I cribbed this ugly style from an existing film FA. But since I can't for the life of me find which article that was, I'm going to assume that it was a bad hallucination instead of an actual template for compelling prose. Fixed, I hope. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "with the announced alternative title A Sure Cure for Pokeritis": meaning the alternative title was announced but not used?
- Tweaked this wording a little, because I agree it sounded awkward, but there's no good answer to your question. Vitagraph made a big deal out of these re-releases at the time (and there was some discussion in contemporary media about whether it was ethical to re-release films with a dead star), but I can't find any evidence one way or the other as to whether that actually happened. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "members of his Bible study group dress up as police officers": I wonder if either of these links are worth linking. Also, since they bump into each other, they appear as a single link.
- Cut the police impersonation link; I feel that's a pretty self-evident concept. But Bible study groups are a concept that not all of our readers will necessarily be familiar with, I don't think. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Vitagraph's house organ published": since this is a silent film many readers might assume "house organ" refers to an accompanying musical instrument. Substitute something like "in-house publication"?
- "for all of the studio's films, including A Cure for Pokeritis": you could safely drop "including A Cure for Pokeritis", since it's implied by "all".
- "films were not generally archived": I might rearrange to "films generally were not archived"—I initally read this as having to do with "general archiving" (whatever that might be)
- "range from over 150, to over 200, to over 260": I know you want to get that "200" ref in there, but "range from X to Y to Z" is pretty inelegant. Why not bundle the refs using the "For 150 see...For 200 see..." style?
I'm going to plead ignorance here. I'm normally not a fan of citation bundling, but I agree there's a case to be made for it here. Is there a sane, easy way to combine bundling that needs explanatory notes with shortened footnotes? I see that Template:sfn allows for additional comments via manipulation of the |ps field, and that Template:sfnm allows for bundled shortened references, but the |ps trick doesn't work there (allowing you to append stuff only to the actually end of the reference; there are no |nps fields). If not, perhaps I can simply reword this in a way that doesn't attempt a "from ... to ... to" construction. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)I need to rewrite this passage anyway. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]- I restructured the paragraph entirely, hopefully for the better. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose another way of handling it is to offer a range, and then give the specific numbers and cites within an {{efn}}. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I restructured the paragraph entirely, hopefully for the better. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "This cinematography technique improved": is there really a good reason to have "cinematography" here (aside from a desire to link it)?
- Because that's basically what makes it important. Many of the early silents were basically filmed theatrical performances. This is cinematography in the sense of the art of the motion picture medium, and it was a departure from the way this scene would have been staged on, well, a stage. I'm not sure if that's something I need to reword a bit to make clearer? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "or anthologies of specific songs to use as accompaniment"; "the first American comic film star": I'm pretty sure these links are overlinking.
- Delinked. I considered fighting for the film star link, but if the consensus is that it's well enough understood, I'm not going to quibble. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "painting Sitting up with a Sick Friend": do we have a year (or general timeframe) for this painting?
- Some time between 1903 (when they were commissioned) and 1910 (when Coolidge made a known 'sequel' to the series). A handful of Coolidge's works were known to have been painted in specific years, but this, to the best of my knowledge, isn't one of them. I suspect 1905 or 1906, but that's really well into the realm of original research. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "early 20th century"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Considered that. But I used "20th century" again very shortly afterward. So I opted for the 1903 series date. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "early 20th century"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Some time between 1903 (when they were commissioned) and 1910 (when Coolidge made a known 'sequel' to the series). A handful of Coolidge's works were known to have been painted in specific years, but this, to the best of my knowledge, isn't one of them. I suspect 1905 or 1906, but that's really well into the realm of original research. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there no way to work "General Film Company" into the body of the text & boot that ugly citation out of the infobox?
- "The full public domain film": sounds more like advertising than a caption.
- Changed this caption to simply the title and year, modeling it after the FA The Sinking of the Lusitania. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- An exemplary model. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed this caption to simply the title and year, modeling it after the FA The Sinking of the Lusitania. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
———Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose. Nice job! Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I did the GA review and the article has only improved since then. Also, it's very nice to see you back Squeamish. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File check
[edit]- The three files are all properly tagged PD works. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Source for release date?
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Cut the Murray source (from Adanai). The site appears to have a staff and editorial control, and I could make a claim that it would be reliable for its primary area of expertise. But film history is objectively not its area of expertise, and the cite was redundant to what Harris says -- and he's unquestionably a subject matter expert. I'm going to go out on a limb defending the Nash cite here. I don't think Three Movie Buffs is notable, but third party sources have a positive opinion of their reliability. Rotten Tomatoes includes them in its critic review score composites, and it was treated favorably as an example of citizen journalism in a 2007 Master's dissertation. That's ... not much to go on, I'll admit. I'd much rather be citing one of the more comprehensive treatments of homosexuality in silent era film. Unfortunately, with hundreds upon hundreds of silent films to choose from, all of the more reliable sources only name a select subset as examples, mostly features films and, sadly, never this short. From a non-Wikipedia-editor perspective, I can cite stock character descriptions that are obviously applicable to the character here, but from our perspective, making that claim in the article is novel synthesis. If the consensus is that this source is inadequate for the claim, I'll cut the section, but will do so with regret. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me go back over my notes for a cite for the date. I can trivially cite it to Silentera, but I want to say I have something better around here somewhere also. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Release date cited to Vitagraph Life Portrayals and included in prose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Cut the Murray source (from Adanai). The site appears to have a staff and editorial control, and I could make a claim that it would be reliable for its primary area of expertise. But film history is objectively not its area of expertise, and the cite was redundant to what Harris says -- and he's unquestionably a subject matter expert. I'm going to go out on a limb defending the Nash cite here. I don't think Three Movie Buffs is notable, but third party sources have a positive opinion of their reliability. Rotten Tomatoes includes them in its critic review score composites, and it was treated favorably as an example of citizen journalism in a 2007 Master's dissertation. That's ... not much to go on, I'll admit. I'd much rather be citing one of the more comprehensive treatments of homosexuality in silent era film. Unfortunately, with hundreds upon hundreds of silent films to choose from, all of the more reliable sources only name a select subset as examples, mostly features films and, sadly, never this short. From a non-Wikipedia-editor perspective, I can cite stock character descriptions that are obviously applicable to the character here, but from our perspective, making that claim in the article is novel synthesis. If the consensus is that this source is inadequate for the claim, I'll cut the section, but will do so with regret. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, BUT with one reservation only if it applies. It looks like you have done some very impressive research for this article so I'd trust that all available information has been utilized. However I think that if there is any additional info on the actual production of the film it should be used. OR if there is any basic info about the Bunny/Finch films in general that could be used. For instance, did they follow a script? Did they just find a set and costumes and completely improvise the film? Did they often play the same types of characters and do those characters relate in any way to other films? When and where was it shot? Had they worked with any of the crew members before? I'm sure you know the material well from research but if anything additional can be added I think that it should be. But of course there's a lot of unknowns in very early film history so if none of this info is actually available this is a great article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I know nothing about the topic, but it read well, and I'm happy to support on prose. Also nice to review a non-Indonesian old film for a change (apologies to Crisco) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 22 April 2014 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.