Jump to content

Talk:Coonskin (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

older entries

To the person who created this page:

Thanks for your work getting this article going! It sounds like an interesting film.

Please note that there is a really easy way to create internal link within Wikipedia -- just add two brackets, not one, on either side of the word you want to link.

Good luck with future editing.

DVD

The DVD is mentioned on one of the listings on the Bakshi Productions eBay store. I am reluctant to include this link in the main article, because I don't want to be accused of advertising. In any case, here's the link, if anyone needs proof that the DVD announcement is real -

Here are Brother Bear and Pearl at the Club in Harlem. These three very rare, original, handpainted, one of a kind animation production cels (cells) from the 1975 animated film Coonskin, aka Streetfight, starring Barry White, Philip Michael Thomas, Charles Gordone and Scatman Crothers, come from writer/director/producer Ralph Bakshi's personal collection. The two glasses are on one separate cel. He will sign this production art, if you wish. Artwork size: 11x13". This art comes with a copy of an original animation background. Buyer prepays with MO, Paypal, or check for the winning bid plus $6.50 for s&h. Satisfaction guaranteed. A Coonskin DVD is in process. Please visit our other auctions, and more great production art at the NEW ralphbakshi site. If you'll be at THE COMIC-CON in San Diego, come and see us at Booth #5003.

Source: http://cgi.ebay.com/COONSKIN-ART-ORIGINAL-RALPH-BAKSHI-ANIMATION-CELS_W0QQitemZ110007746704QQihZ001QQcategoryZ1532QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

- Ibaranoff24 21:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

GA passed

I passed this as a Good Article (GA). Couldn't find any outstanding flaws of the article. It appears to be well referenced, the prose is comprehensible and flows well. The images illustrate the article well... and there are no major omissions. Nice work.

Fred-Chess 17:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliability

I am concerned about the reliability of this article. It appears to have been primarily written and nominated for featured status about seven years ago by an editor who has since been blocked from editing. The poster for this film on IMDb pictures a female character, but all the characters listed in the "Cast" section are male, and that section contains no citations. Further search reveals that the female character is called "Miss America" and she is discussed in many sources that cover the film (for example, [1], [2], [3]). This character also appears in most of the images that one finds in a Google Images search for "Coonskin", which suggests that she is an important character in the film, but she is not clearly mentioned in this Wikipedia article. The facts that 1) this article's primary contributor has been blocked from editing, 2) there is no mention of one of the film's characters who seems to have received a lot of media coverage, and 3) this article has not undergone a featured article review in the past seven years, makes me question whether this article's content is reliable. I would appreciate other editors' thoughts on whether or not a featured article review is now in order. Neelix (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(1) The block / community ban was for disruption/socking, not unreliable edits: archive link. This is not the only FA by this author, and checking his talk page I see that other FAs written by him were scheduled as TFAs by my predecessor(s) after his block/ban i.e. The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) and Body Count (album). So I'd suggest that the fact that the primary editor was banned some years after this article reached FA status is irrelevant to its reliability. (2) If you want to add material about a character in the film, please do so. You don't need to start an FAR to do that. (3) An FAR is not needed simply because it's been a certain number of years since promotion. Some old FAs are in excellent condition without ever having had an FAR; some newer ones are not. FARs are not started in order to find problems with an article, but where problems have been found that have not been addressed through normal editing and which have the effect of showing that the article no longer complies with the FA criteria. BencherliteTalk 02:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about this article

I am going through some featured articles on movies and have noticed that this one is decidedly substandard. It seems to have been pushed through in 2007, with by an editor who is now permanently banned for sockpuppeting. It has changed little since 2008, despite Wikipedia's Featured Article standards improving immensely through that time. Specifically, using the current Featured article criteria, I note that:

  • 1b: There is only one paragraph of critical reception, compared to seven paragraphs and four quotes in The Care Bears Movie, which is only a Good Article. This is despite that theoretically there should be much more to write about. The article is very short compared to other film featured articles as well such as The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) and Fritz the Cat (film), other Bakshi works written by that same banned author.
  • 1c: There are only 22 sources. Compare this to the 233 citations in The Care Bears Movie, which was prepared for Featured Article status in 2011 but never nominated. Of those sources, six are heavily relied on and cited multiple times. Why is Care Bears 10 times more scholarly and thoughtful? Speaking of that reception paragraph, every single citation is to one source; the original reviews are not cited. There are no citations at all to the cast section.
  • 1d: The section on Controversy is not neutral at all: it verges into total approval of Bakshi's views by repeatedly quoting him on how stupid the protesters were, what sellouts they were, how much smarter he is, etc. In one short paragraph alone: "Bakshi asked", "Bakshi stated", "According to Bakshi", "says Bakshi", and "Bakshi states". The subtext of this is that (the articles says) they clearly were wrong and Bakshi was right. This obviously is POV. The black activist perspective is mocked and only gets a buried paragraph to barely speak for itself. The actual reason the activists cared about the movie, e.g. what they took issue with, which should be the whole reason the controversy happened, is never explained, and the impression the article gives is that the boorish thugs of frequent political punching bag Al Sharpton (the only evidence for Sharpton being present is Bakshi's later claims) came from nowhere and nothing on the day of the screening. The author is known to be pro-Bakshi as he had already promoted two of his movies and tried desparately to get the main Ralph Bakshi article promoted to FA nine separate times over two years.

The original Featured Article candiacy, in 2007, barely had any discussion and the few reviewers did not notice these problems then, but they are quite glaring. I believe this will need to undergo FAR if these issues are not addressed. --Dagko (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It's been one week with no response. I'll wait another for responses. --Dagko (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm placing my concerns on the FAR page, please look there for discussion. --Dagko (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coonskin (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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coonskin (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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coonskin_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=716783676"