Jump to content

Talk:The Millionaire Milkman/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Seattle (talk · contribs) 06:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • File checks out in terms of copyright, no DAB links, no dead links
  • having the newspapers announce the ruin of his mind and his fortune. I'm not sure "the" is needed here
Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk)
  • May Dustin, the orphan girl who Clara's family treats as a servant expresses sympathy for Jack. a comma would work well after "servant"
Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk)
  • becomes the milkman I think the nonspecific "a" would work better here, as with the "newspapers" above
Not done. He becomes the milkman not a milkman - focusing on the fact he takes over a singular role to see her everyday. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cast and production credits are unknown, but the film synopsis makes use of "Jack and May" period needed; what's "Jack and May"?
Removed. It is not important. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The writer of the scenario is unknown, but it was most likely Lloyd Lonergan. do you have a citation for this? It seems like original research
By definition... the writer is unknown and Bowers notes Lloyd F. Lonergan probably wrote nearly all the scripts for films released in 1910... Lonergan also had a flair for the character names because he liked those names - but the details on the credit are not absolute so I did not put them as absolute. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any of the cameramen really notable? They're cameramen...
They don't need to meet "N" to be in the article, but yes - these cameramen will get their own articles. The cameraman turned the crank to make the film and the speed at which they did so was the exposure rate...the cameras that Thanhouser was using was probably not Bianchi cameras (got to love that aspect) though even if they were Pathe cameras the role of the cameraman was very different than today.
Sure, I wondered if they should be linked if they're articles would never be created. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In late 1910, the Thanhouser company released a list of the important personalities in their films. The list includes... why not combine with a "which"? "Important" is a WP:PEACOCK term.
I am not a fan of the over use of "which" since I use it in the following line. "Important" is not a WP:PEACOCK term and its usage is entirely appropriate because it distinguishes which players were "key players"... Many players are not identified (or want to be) and they worked intermittently or only once for a single film. The list here identifies the major players and this is pre-star system. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This film was another early example of the use of the character names Jack and May, which were be repeatedly used by Lonergan in various productions "were be"? "Another" seems repetitious to "repeatedly used".
Tweak. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • An unrelated comedy film with the same title would be released by Pathé Frères on December 25, 1912 why not just simple past here?
Anyone researching or reading about this film needs to know that another film with the exact same name was released while the film was still in circulation and that this film is completely different than the Thanhouser one. Let's just say... it is very common that these releases get crossed in references. The 1910 Thanhouser version of Rip Van Winkle was picked up with a confusing reference to Frank McQuade, Sr. (McWade) who actually in the 1912 Vitagraph film. Readers need to be aware of such things because errors in book sources are very persistent and cannot be corrected... don't get me started on the Theodore Marston references... I've had to fix probably half a dozen cases of that alone.
That's fine, but why would the article use future conditional tense for a film released in 1912? Why shouldn't "was" be used instead? Seattle (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh!... Fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Bowers, and what gives him credibility to speak on the subject?
Introduced as film historian and linked to his own article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some theaters would advertise the film as a comedy instead of a drama one theater doesn't make some; you mix tenses in this section, past is appropriate.
Fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third sentence in first paragraph of the "Release and reception" section requires cleanup
Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is American silent film... so America. More specifically, New Rochelle, New York. Prior to the Townsend Amendment of 1912 copyright did not protect motion pictures. When registered it protected works for 28 years with the ability to extend once more. Thanhouser was defunct and the silent era was long over by that point, so it is very unlikely that it would have been renewed. Many silent films were purposely destroyed by the companies which held them after the "talkies" took hold. That and events like the 1937 Fox vault fire result in probably 90+% of silent films and 70% of feature-length silent films having been lost forever. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Seattle: All set, I think. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film would be shown in Singapore in 1913. Why would the article use future conditional tense for a film screened in 1913? Why shouldn't "was" be used instead?
Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 7 subsection (f) of Wikimedia's terms of use states that "When you contribute content that is in the public domain, you warrant that the material is actually in the public domain, and you agree to label it appropriately" (emphasis mine). The quote from the "Plot" section needs such attribution, as does the quote from The New York Dramatic Mirror in the "Release and reception" section. For the "Plot" quote, if other articles use The Moving Picture World plot summaries as well, a template should be created, probably based around Template:Include-USGov. I can help with that, if needed. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the Mirror quote down, but if you know of a way to handle the Moving Picture World aspect, I'd be happy since the most complete and nuanced details are often in the official published synopsis. I've been told different things by different people, but I sometimes rewrite the content if multiple reviews and sources (or an extant film) exists. For this film... more damage to the details of the film would result. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Seattle: I've made a template to deal with the plot citation. It is not fancy and it is not grand, but if you support it I'll be adding it to several others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made Template:PD-The Moving Picture World, which allows for a URL to be attached to the specific article quoted, and allows for different sources (i. e. The New York Dramatic Mirror) to be added from the same URL. I'm not opposed to inclusion of the entire The New York Dramatic Mirror quote. Seattle (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I am not a fan of using the whole Mirror quote since it isn't really useful. Is everything all set though? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The template looks good. If you use more than one PD source, be sure to properly attribute. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seattle: is anything holding this up? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence from the quote from Q David Bowers can be cut and replaced with ellipses, adjust capitalization as appropriate. That text falls under copyright, and I think that excerpt can be trimmed a bit. Seattle (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The excuse "copyright" for a short quote like that is not valid at all, but fine I cut out the inside joke part. I wanted that because there certainly was evidence that such an observation as well as marking it... but fine. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely valid; the quote was trimmed after I made the comment, which might have led to confusion. Either way, passing. Seattle (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Millionaire_Milkman/GA1&oldid=653930081"