Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Brute Man/archive1

Add links
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 archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 2 December 2020 [1].

The Brute Man

[edit]
Nominator(s): GamerPro64 21:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC), Hunter Kahn[reply]

Rondo Hatton IS The Brute Man! Or actually, he is The Creeper. Or is The Creeper actually The Brute Man? Whatever the case, this 1946 movie was Hatton's swan song as he died from complications caused by his acromegaly. It is believed that, fearing the film would be considered exploiting the actors deformity, Universal Pictures sold off the movie to Poverty Row. For a few decades it was considered a lost film until it resurfaced in 1982, where it was mass distributed for everyone to see how bad of a movie it was.

This is a co-nominator with me and Hunter Kahn, as explained in this discussion. We have previously done this with the nomination of Phantasmagoria (video game). And I believe that the article meets the standards of Wikipedia. GamerPro64 21:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aoba47

[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder, and I will post my review when I am done commenting on the Overdrawn at the Memory Bank peer review. Just so you know, I have not seen this movie or the MST3K episode. I have a few quick comments:

  • The TV Tropes page on this MST3K episode (here) mentions that Mary Jo Pehl was also uncertain about featuring the film on the series due to how it represents Rondo Hatton's illness. TV Tropes is obviously not a reliable source, but it does attribute Pehl's statements to an interview on the DVD release. If you have access to the interview and (this information is indeed true), it would be helpful to include in the article to further represent how multiple people in the show's production were uncomfortable with the film choice.
  • For this part, Jane Adams also starred as a blind pianist, I believe it should be stars since the previous sentence uses present tense and not past tense.
  • I would ALT text to the infobox image. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would reword this sentence, The film was produced by Universal Pictures near the end of their horror film period, to avoid the passive tense. I think something like, Universal Pictures produced the film near the end of their horror film period, would be preferable since the focus is really on the film studio anyway.
  • In the lead, I would link Poverty Row as it is a relatively niche phrase. The Wikipedia article on the phrase capitalizes the phrase (and it is capitalized in the body of the article), while it is not capitalized here. Which way is correct?
  • There are a few times in the lead and in the article that you alternate between Universal Pictures and Universal. I would be consistent with one way or use Universal Pictures for the first instance in both and then shorten it to Universal for each of the subsequent uses.
  • For this part, Universal released at least one B-western following the merger, would it be helpful to link Western? I have also primarily seen Western capitalized so it should be done that way here too. If Western is linked here, then make sure to link it in the body of the article as well.
  • Would it be worthwhile to mention in the lead that even people associated with MST3K expressed discomfort about the film's representation of Hatton's illness? It forms a rather substantial part of that subsection, and contributes to the overall narrative of how the film represents this and the critical response to it.
  • Jan Wiley should be linked in the plot summary.
  • Is there a reason Jimmy/Jack Parker is not included in the "Cast" section? I have the same question for the pawnbroker/Charles Wagenheim?
    • Added them in.
  • For some reason, the link on citation 12 is not working correctly for me. I try clicking on it, but it does not take me down to the "Bibliography" subsection like the other citations do.
  • For the sentence about this being one of Wiley's final roles, it may be helpful to add a brief explanation that this was because she retired from acting after marrying a year after the film's release.
  • For this part, The Brute Man was filmed in 13 days, I would move the citation to the end of the sentence as I think it awkwardly cuts up the sentence and interferes with its readability.
  • Link Vera West in the "Filming" subsection.
  • In the "Distribution" section, I would put (PRC) after Producers Releasing Corporation since I was initially confused on what the acronym stood for on my first read-through until I read it again.
  • I am uncertain if the quote box is entirely necessary in the "Reception" section, especially since it can be seen as putting undue weight on one critical opinion over the rest.
  • For this part, The review stated most audiences, I would say The reviewer instead.
  • I would remove this sentence: Film reviewer Leonard Maltin gave the film one-and-a-half out of four stars. Unless more can be added about the review, I do not find the star rating alone to be particularly useful.
  • For this part, contemporary reviews of The Brute Man were similarly negative, I think you mean retrospective reviews as the reviews being discussed here were not released contemporaneously to the film's release.
  • I am uncertain about the third paragraph in the "Reception" subsection. The Willis sentence seems to be more of a negative review, while the Keith Brown parts are more of an analysis since it does not really work having them in the same paragraph as they are not particularly connected to each other. I would put the Willis part in the second paragraph as it is another example of a negative retrospective review, and I would live the Keith Brown analysis as its own paragraph.
  • Please add ALT text to the Lothar image.
  • I am uncertain about the MST3K screenshot. You have not used a similar screenshot for Squirm or Soultaker, and I am not sure there is a strong enough justification to include a piece of non-free media.
    • That was added by Hunter Khan and I would see the use of the shot from the show as to show how the film was presented in the series. I thought of doing that for Soultaker initially but decided not to at the end of the day. GamerPro64 05:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the explanation, and that makes sense. Since MST3K has a rather substantial subsection (appropriately so), then I can now understand how the screenshot would help a reader who has never heard of or seen MST3K and would not understand how the riffing is done. You have convinced me that it is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, the satirical TV series, spell out TV as television.
  • I would link to Mike Nelson (character) in this part, Michael J. Nelson, the show's head writer who also plays the character of the same name.
  • I would not the year that Nelson and Chaplin made these remarks as I think it helps the reader to better understand that one was around the time of the episode's release and the other was retrospective.
  • I would remove the Variety review from the "External links" section and instead incorporate information from the review into the prose.
  • "The Perfect Neanderthal Man": Rondo Hatton as The Creeper and the Cultural Economy of 1940s B-Films has some useful analysis on the film. I would pair it with the Keith Brown parts.
  • This SyFy Wire (here) can be useful in two respects. It offers another negative retrospective review of the film, and provides a review of the MST3K episode, specifically saying "the episode lets Hatton be and focuses instead on the awful script and bizarre side characters, most notably the incredibly angry grocery store clerk".
  • As you have done for Squirm, include information on how the MST3K episode was released.
  • There are a few books put in the "Notes" subsection rather than the "Bibliography" subsection. They are Jaworzyn, the American Film Institute, Rigby, and Friedmann. It is also confusing how citation 13 looks like it would the "Bibliography" subsection, but instead links to the Rigby book citation in the same subsection. I'd move all of the books down to the "Bibliography" subsection for consistency.

Overall, good work with the article. I will read through the article again once the above comments are addressed to make sure I catch everything. I hope you both are having a wonderful end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

image review

[edit]

Comment from Spicy

[edit]

Sorry, just a passing comment, but I keep tripping over this sentence in the lead: Most experts tend to believe that Universal simply found the exploitation of the deceased Hatton and his deformity for the third time, in his last film (in which evidence of his impending demise may be foreshadowed in his acting), and of a poorly-developed story, to be detrimental to its corporate image but did not want to take a financial loss by simply shelving the film permanently. There are too many clauses here and it's very hard to follow (for example, "the exploitation of... a poorly developed story"? and I had to go back and read over the sentence again to figure out exactly what "its" refers to...) This could be split up into two or three sentences. Spicy (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain

[edit]

Nice subject! An initial inquiry before I leave more comments:

  • Can you describe the decision-making process for whether or not to include a section on Themes? I've been noticing a trend in film articles of omitting what I would consider to be a critical piece of writing about a work of fiction. --Laser brain (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly I do not think people have looked into the themes in this movie and and looked more into how bad of a movie it was. But I do not see anything about the movies themes. GamerPro64 00:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

I can't promise I have time for a full review, but I'm always happy to chip in for an article on an old horror film.

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the bibliography, as noted above, the following jumped out at me:

  • Inconsistent use of locations. I would recommend them for books, but definitely not for periodicals. I'd advise against linking locations. I'd also advise against providing publishers of periodicals, but courtesy links to the articles themselves would definitely be appreciated.
  • GOLEM looks like a real (albeit small) academic journal, though it appears to have dropped off the internet (which is worrying). Luckily, the article you're citing is here; may be some more content that can be pulled from it, but, at the very least, you can tidy up the bibliography a little.
  • At least a few of the books you're citing appear to be encyclopedias, handbooks, edited collections, etc. You should cite the particular chapter, rather than the book as a whole.
  • On the other hand, you do this wrong when it comes to the Legassic paper. If you don't know how to do this, see Template:Cite book#Examples.
  • You need page numbers for particular chapters/entries; you don't need page numbers when you're citing the whole book. Page numbers are provided in the footnotes.
  • Lulu is a self-publishing service. Is John Howard Reid a recognised expert in something relevant (e.g., history of film)? If not, I think that source will have to go.
  • The Forum is a postgrad journal, which I'd normally recommend against, but the author gained a doctorate on the topic of "terror films" and appears to have worked as a film critic, so I'm not completely opposed to it in this case.
  • I'm not sure how I feel about "Harbor Electronic Publishing" and Doug Pratt's DVD: Movies, Television, Music, Art, Adult, and More!. Why do you think this is reliable?

There may be other issues, too -- these are just some that jumped out at me. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, with regret. I'm afraid there are enough issues with sourcing, images, and comprehensiveness for me to oppose right now. I'll be happy to withdraw the oppose if the sourcing and image issues are resolved. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Brute_Man/archive1&oldid=991901547"