Talk:Mother (1910 film)

Mother (1910 film) 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: June 14, 2015. (Reviewed version).

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.

Cast

I've decided to make an editorial decision to not list Harry Benham and Maude Fealy in the cast section for a few reasons. The Morning Telegraph advertisement clearly states the three prominent players are Anna Rosemond, Frank Crane, Carey L. Hastings. Benham joined in 1910, but this is very early... too early I think. Secondly, Fealy's credit would be about a year prior... which also seems a bit dubious. Towards the end of 1910 Thanhouser listed the key members of the cast to be "G.W. Abbe, Justus D. Barnes, Frank H. Crane, Irene Crane, Marie Eline (the Thanhouser Kid), Violet Heming, Martin J. Faust, Thomas Fortune, George Middleton, Grace Moore, John W. Noble, and Mrs. George Walters." Now... Anna Rosemond is believed to have left in December 1910 - but other than that, each entry makes sense. I left the possibility in the production section, but I do not think Silent Era is correct here. Though, IMDb does not appear to be the source for the information - Sherlock Holmes on the Screen seems to be. Unfortunately, I do not have the book from 1977 and verification of the claim being made may not help much if it is in error anyways. For all these reasons, I've decided to leave Benham and Fealy out of the cast section. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mother (1910 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 11:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Give me a couple days. Freikorp (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The only issue I can see here is the lead. First why not two paragraphs instead of one large one? Also the sentence "The film is a melodrama that focuses with Will Allen who runs away from home after being violently abused by his stepfather and his mother keeps a candle lit for him to return home" strikes me as a bit run-off ish (starting from the information about his mother), and just doesn't read well. Suggest breaking into at least two sentences. The plot summary in the lead seems more detailed than any other i've read before, but i'm still happy to pass the article on that alone.

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
The article relies extremely heavily on the official website of the film's production company, but given the the age of the film, I think that is acceptable.

Q. David Bowers is not working directly for the Thanhouser Company - which went defunct 97 years ago - though the historical preservation one does have a family connection. The key point of Bowers use is that it pulls all the very difficult to get sources from the contemporary era directly together for easy use. Otherwise I would have been pulling from the other sources directly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@ChrisGualtieri: Very close. Have a look at my suggestions and tell me what you think. I'm sure I will be passing this shortly. Freikorp (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay @Freikorp: - I answered both the questions and split the lead, but then chopped it down because it was too detailed. So its back to one paragraph, but it is much shorter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. I'm passing it. :) Freikorp (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]