Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Tales of Frankenstein

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Tales of Frankenstein

[edit]
(
)

Created/expanded by Inkwell765 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC).

  • @Inkwell765: If I ignore the plot summary and the substantive quote then there is not much new text here.... although its an interesting subject and there is a lot of interesting detail of how Hammer lost control to Hollywood etc. Could we beef this up? I note that another editor may be happy to tick this so feel free to ask for another reviewer. Could you also add a page number for the hook fact as I could not find that particular fact in the book although I don't doubt that its there Victuallers (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Victuallers: Pages 58-59 give the plots of several stories, two of which are clearly Evil of Frankenstein and Frankenstein Created Woman. Page 139 Shows Evil used Tales of Frankenstein scripts. I can't find anything specific about Created, unfortunately, but I'm certain it used the "soul-less woman" story. I expanded the production troubles some...hard when you have to cite every sneeze! If you need a different hook, I can come up with something else. Inkwell765 (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I think we do need another hook if the sources dont actually say what you have spotted. Theres lots here Victuallers (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Victuallers: I have been struggling with this. @Inkwell765: I shortened the hook so it only refers to The Evil of Frankenstein, and added two more to choose from. I would love to write one about Hammer being disgusted with their lack of control, but that would be hard to tell in a single sentance . Inkwell765 (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • There are some some good hooks here, and some of the hooks are explicitly stated in the article and some are explicitly stated in the sources and some of the facts have references. But I've been looking around for 40 minutes and I can only find one combination where we have a fact that is in the article with a ref that leads to an explicit statement of the facts. So approval for Alt3 only. No image used. Neutral. Similar phrasing that was found was changed. Victuallers (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The third hook in the list, ALT2, is really not hooky. Yoninah (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I put in another hook, though I really thought hook 4 was well covered. Inkwell765 (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • ALT6 is not in the source given, so I struck it and removed the cite. ALT5 is as straightforward and boring as the previous alternatives. Why don't you write this with the same flair that you use in the article?
  • ALT7: ... that Columbia Pictures and Hammer Film Productions squabbled over whose version of Frankenstein should be used in the unsold 1958 TV pilot Tales of Frankenstein? Yoninah (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Yoninah: That looks good to me. I'm having trouble distilling my hooks into a single sentence I guess. Now...where did I see a ref about Don Megowan? I found a Tom Weaver interview with Megowan's daughter than I used on his article. Maybe that's where I saw it... Inkwell765 (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • ALT6 has a good cite now. Tom Weaver mentions both films in the same sentence! Inkwell765 (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I just looked at ALT7. I cannot find a ref after a sentence in the article with this factoid is in and I have just read pages 59 to 61 of ref1 which is the presumed source and I cannot see this factoid explicitly stated. I can see that it says that "Universal got their way" but nothing about a squabble over whose version to use. Could you tell me the quotes and the page numbers as I'm finding it too tricky to follow the trail. Do ask for another reviewer if I am really missing the obvious. Victuallers (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The main image is taken from a "public domain" youtube... but I cannot find one with a PD license. "Fair Use" would apply for one key image from the video but I cannot see the evidence that the copyright owners have given their rights away as required here. Victuallers (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You're right, @Victuallers: that footnote 1 source really does a lot of talking without saying anything. I've struck ALT7. Inkwell765 has just added a source for the Megowan information, which I think also works well as a hook. The image is pd:

The hook is fine. Well done and it is cited because I added one of the refs. The only works for Alt8 without the image. I don't agree that the image is PD apart from the fact that commons says it is. I cannot see any evidence for it and US images after 1923 need a strong rational. (I understand that Hammer had to pay serious money to use the Karloff image in their movies - myPOV). If a rationale can be supplied for the image then great - ping me. Victuallers (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • That book did imply more than it said. I'm afraid I read between the lines more than I thought I did. It is clear that Columbia, owning the tv rights to the Universal series, wasn't about to film a series about anything else.
  • Tales of Frankenstein is also on the Internet Archive, where I linked the video from. I bevieve they have rules about running only PD. But I have seen mistakes (Flying Disc Man from Mars). I have no idea how else to show its PD. Inkwell765 (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Tales_of_Frankenstein&oldid=921945627"