Talk:The Writing on the Wall (film)

The Writing on the Wall (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: March 10, 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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish this within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Although the lead is short, it does summarise the article (a requirement for GA) as the article itself is short and is comprehensive as can be for a 115 year old lost film
"a surviving synopsis of the film was published in the The Moving Picture World on June 11, 1910" - this part needs a citation. Is it in the only source given in the plot section?

Yep. The source at the end of the paragraph covers the official source. Bowers' cites it as "SYNOPSIS, The Moving Picture World, June 11, 1910:" which is a copy of the original source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Lonergan was an experienced newspaperman" - is this an old meaning for journalist?

Eh... I'm not too big on Lonergan's roles in the paper, but it was his main job. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Film historian Q. David Bowers" - why not just Quentin Bowers?

WP:COMMONNAME. It is also every citation and credit in the Encyclopedia. In the database documents (which I've used to double check numerous films) it is used and so is "QDB" for short. Though QDB won't be in issue unless we have a surviving film you review. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"but the cast may have included the leading players of the Thanhouser productions, Anna Rosemond and Frank H. Crane" - this part would need a citation given

Let's go with the whole - The cast for the production is also unknown, but the cast may have included the leading players of the Thanhouser productions, Anna Rosemond and Frank H. Crane. The cast is unknown. I am not crediting Rosemond or Crane - but both were the main players. Citations for their roles and designations follow independently with their biography citations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last sentence of the Release section sounds like conjecture, but it should be fine to leave in if it's plausable

"Given this absence, it is possible that additional details or commentary can be obtained from advertisements or local newspapers outside of typical trade publications." - While it is speculative, I had recently found several key citations in publication missed by Bowers simply due to the inability to search media such as what was then. I could remove it, but searching for this title is a nightmare. The Lead Daily Call has a minor praise, but its an advertisement type. That's a new one that popped up since I last checked. To be perfectly frank - I keep getting reviews that are for Nethersole's performance in the Writing on the Wall instead of the wall and such. I cannot identify them without ambiguity either... so I used this in a rare case. I can remove it if you wish. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, please do what you think it is best. It's very impressive that any information can be found regarding a old lost film, let alone the publications you found! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

References are all good

On hold

Looks like a decent article and very comprehensive for a 115 year old film that nobody alive has ever seen! Very deserving of becoming GA, so I'll put this on hold until everything is out of the way. It should all be very minor ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: I'm not exactly thrilled with the amount of unknowns on this film, but I doubt anyone has seen the film since 1925. The title overlaps the play and the names are shot on most of these works, making searching in a database a pain. If something pops up, I'll snag it and add it. At this time - this is all that is known, and I couldn't even get a film still for this work. There is a massive effort to uncover the history of the silent films, but who knows - something might be found to fill the gaps in. Thanks for reviewing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thank you for addressing them, once again this is an impressive article given the amount of information that can be found about it. This is among the most scarcely topics than can be covered on the internet - so promoting these to GA is a true accomplishment. I'm interested in very old films, especially lost ones and it would be great if somebody can find a still image of it! Maybe one day... ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]