Talk:Uncle Tom's Cabin (1910 Thanhouser film)

Uncle Tom's Cabin (1910 Thanhouser 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: February 13, 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:Uncle Tom's Cabin (1910 Thanhouser film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 16:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisGualtieri, I will be performing in a comprehensive and thorough review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. -- Caponer (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only minor note - given the extensive publication errors surrounding this film (most of which are rectified in the article) - please include the source if you find any errors and the surrounding text if it is a book source. The sheer amount of misinformation and confusion between the Vitagraph and Thanhouser production spans decades since the film was lost. I have not gotten around to creating the Vitagraph or the very obscure (almost lost to history) Pathé production. As far as I know, this Wikipedia article represents the most complete information on the lost film and should stand high above just about any single source you encounter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

ChrisGualtieri, you've done an excellent job explaining the extensive publication errors surrounding this film, and your citation notes adequately explain this. I find that the article meets the criteria for Good Article status, but I do have some comments and questions that need to be addressed prior to its passage. Thank you! -- Caponer (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, adequately defines the film, establishes context for the film, explains why the film is notable, and and summarizes the most important points from all the sections.
The film still from Uncle Tom's Cabin has been released into the public domain in the US, and is therefore available to use in this article.
The lede is well-written, its content is internally cited below in the prose and is verifiable, and I have no suggestions or comments for this section.

Plot

While the plot from The Moving Picture World is quite long, it is sourced and meets the guidelines set forth in Wikipedia:Quotations. I suggest paraphrasing portions of the quote, or breaking up the quote to provide context. Would it also be possible to split the second paragraph of "Plot" into two paragraphs? I was unable to find other Wikipedia recommended guidelines for film plots to support or not support including quotes of this excessive length.

I decided to keep the entire synopsis because the film differs from the actual book in a number of ways, but doing this results in original research. Namely - Uncle Tom is an active participant in the escape. The reason why I use the full public domain synopsis is actually for multiple reasons: The film is lost, it cannot be recovered - seen or expanded on by any living person under 110~ years of age. The film may have been destroyed in 1913 during the studio fire, but this was probably unlikely. There were probably >25 prints created, but that is a bit of OR on my end. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

Were other cast members in the movie, but are unknown today? If so, a statement should be provided declaring so above the listing of the known cast members.

In 1910 - it was rare to announce the cast players at all, but contemporary publications announced the players in their review. At this point, it was still stigmatized to be in film and the credits were not important at all. None of the films thus far in the Thanhouser productions have been full in cast credits - even the extant films lack numerous credits, and I'm not talking about "extras" either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisGualtieri, thank you for your timely responses to my questions and comments! Everything looks good, especially keeping in mind your valid reasons for crafting this article with the information available to you. Is there a source that states what you've said about the casts? If there is a book or journal out there that has made this assessment, I would suggest adding in a sentence above the cast listing explaining why it's so small, and sourcing that reference. If such a reference does not exist, the cast listing is good as is. Thanks again for all your hard work on this article! -- Caponer (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer - Bower's notes state: In 1910, Thanhouser identified very few personalities in its advertisements and news releases, thus the identities of players, directors, and others are taken mainly from news articles, reviews, and trade journal commentaries. ... In instances in the following filmographies where just one, two, or several players are listed, there may have been other cast members, and they may have been just as important as those listed. Information concerning players in Thanhouser films for the first several years is fragmentary. [1] I know for a fact (because I have seen all the extant films up to this point except The Girl of the Northern Woods. That film is incomplete and was buried for half a century, but that is another story... I'll go ahead and add the note. Perhaps the reference to additional uncredited roles in the article is inadequate here. Anything else? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisGualtieri, that is more than appropriate, so I hereby pass this article to GA status. Congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Production

The surviving film still has been released into the public domain in the US, and is therefore available to use in this article.
The Moving Picture World in the second paragraph should be written and italicized as such.

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is otherwise well-written, its content is internally cited below in the prose and is verifiable, and I have no other suggestions or comments for this section.

Release and reception

The Moving Picture World can be de-linked twice in the first paragraph and once in the second paragraph as it is already wiki-linked above in the main prose.

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph, "the Independent producers" should be rewritten "independent producers."

It is intentional because this relates to an unproduced article yet on the Independents - essentially all members not in the Motion Picture Patents Company / Edison Trust. This is inherently complex, but this is not an error, but there is no article for it yet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed company shouldn't be capitalized.

This one... probably should be linked to Motion Picture Patents Company... but that was outside the Edison licensing system... Biograph only got into it by purchasing the patent to Latham loop, beat a legal challenge and negotiated its way in, but this gets into the complex matter of the one reel limitation enforced by the Edison Trust. For lack of a better article and section... I'm sorry to say that I disagree, but I want to follow Q. David Bowers here by using "Licensed" and "Independent" as they were contemporary and accurate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Mirror would commend the film" should be reworded: "The Mirror commended the film"

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps reword "Among the errors highlighted by the Mirror was Eliza's ice scene and one of the black male laborers wearing a fine shirt and necktie and some of the black girl's were wearing corsets." as "Among the errors highlighted by the Mirror was Eliza's ice scene where one of the black male laborers wore a fine shirt and necktie and some of the black girls wore corsets."

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph can probably stand to be split into two paragraphs.

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Caponer: - I did the fixes and highlighted a couple of points with the Licensed and Independents. Anything else? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]