Talk:The Silent Command

The Silent Command 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: March 5, 2019. (Reviewed version).

A fact from The Silent Command appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 November 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Theodore Roosevelt was quoted in advertising for Bela Lugosi's first American film, The Silent Command?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Silent Command.

Wikipedia

Film: Canadian / 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 Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Silent films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Silent Command/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 19:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This may take a day or two for me to get through. If I raise an issue, feel free to address it immediately.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I've made a few copyedits to the prose. Please review for accuracy and revise anything you disagree with.

The plot is very succinct for a film that runs between 1.5 and 2 hours. I'm fine with it as is if you are, but there's plenty of room for expansion if you want to include more detail.
I've grown accustomed to depending on contemporary capsule summaries for the plots of lost films. In this case, since the film is both extant and readily available, there's really no reason to do so. Accordingly, I agree with your assessment (this is well below the MOS recommendation for a plot length), but it'll be a little while until I can write a replacement based on the film itself. I'll leave it up to you whether this meets the GA standard before I can get that done (although I'll clearly need to do so before considering this one for FAC). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it. Sometimes shorter is better.

I assume the cast is divided by the lead and supporting roles, but it's not clear from the list as it is now. The placement of the divcol template without a subheader just makes it look poorly formatted.
This was trendy in film articles for a (very) brief period of time. I've gone ahead and converted this to normal divcols, and am not the least bit sad about it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"These shots may have been intended " - this sounds speculative. The person guessing should be named inline so readers know Wikipedia isn't the one doing it.
Repulling sources so that I can make the connections here clearer. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should be fixed now, and provides a little better context as to the connection from Trilby to German cinema to The Silent Command. Hopefully. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
no concern per Earwig
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
nothing obvious has been omitted

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This is in good shape, but a few points need to be addressed before I can pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been satisfied. I'm happy to pass this. If/when you go for FAC, I'd be happy to contribute to the discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]