Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greed (film)/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Greed (film)

[edit]

Greed (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1924 film Greed. It has been nominated twice before and got some great feedback. Alot of the unfinish feedback from the last nomination has been addressed, but I would like fresh suggestions before I or anyone else goes forward. Also, please give me more than four days between an oppose and closing the nomination.Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Laser brain was spot-on in his review during the last FAC, "the article is very good but needs some work on fit and finish".:

  • There are several awkward constructions. For eg, the word use is awkwardly employed to describe the director's stylistic choices: "von Stroheim used this ... von Stroheim used that".
  • The word film is overused, often several times in the same sentence. Replace some of these with "Greed" or "it".
I think this is taken care of. let me know if you think it needs more.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you have time go through the writing tutorials at this page, especially the redundancy-removal exercises. Eg: "Robert E. Sherwood also defended MGM's cutting of the film" and "The studio ordered June Mathis to cut it down further;[95] she assigned the job to an editor named Joseph Farnham, Farnham was a well-known "titles editor" who patched scenes together using title cards to keep continuity."
  • Cast: is this section necessary? There's also the Casting section, and you could just mention the relevant actor names in brackets after the characters in the Plot summary. Also, it isn't really Wikipedia's job to mention every last bit-part role and actor.
I'm looking through some FA film articles. Some have simple cast lists, others don't and include the cast in paragraph form. Personally I don't see what's wrong with the cast list, and I'm not totally sure what the official standards are.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Box office: the two-decimal-place dollar figures are far too detailed. In fact you could round it off to the nearest thousand to improve readability.
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Myths and misconceptions: I don't think you should compile the myths surrounding the movie into one big section like this. Better would be a section/subsection for the different (real and mythic) versions of the films. Probably under the Release section. The Turner stuff from Legacy also belongs there. Further, von Stroheim's adaptation of McTeague and June Mathis's undeserved writing credit is neither myth nor misconception. The former belongs somewhere in Production, and the latter with the rest of Mathis's involvement in the Editing section. The sam
I just completely disagree.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy: this is really the only disappointing section in a excellent article. It has a list of several directors and films influenced by this film, but it doesn't say why it was so great. Or how it inspired these filmmakers. Also, we know that initial reception was poor, when and why did later critics change their mind? ("by the 1950s it began to be regarded as one of the greatest films ever made" is not really expanded upon) What exactly did retrospective reviewers, such as Ebert (and Kael, Siskel, Maltin etc?), say about the film?
There's a lot of stuff already in the article about how innovative Greed was—the use of deep focus 17 years before Kane comes to mind—that could be compiled here to make a strong case for how seminal it was.
  • References: you don't need a ref at the end of every sentence. You can often club them like this or also as recommended by WP:CITEBUNDLE.

That's it for me for now.—indopug (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can work on some of these by this weekend. I strongly disagree with your comment on the Myths and Misconceptions section. One of the most notable aspects of Greed is the mystery of its lost footage. I can search for some more comtemporary (as in from the 1950s and 1960s) reviews. That's a great idea. But I'll work on this in a few days. Thanks for the comments.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue working on this through the week, I just need more time.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to go over it very carefully tonight and add a Copy Edit tommorrow. I think that the legacy section is improved now. After I add the CE tommorrow I would love some feedback about the progress so far.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I'm only about halfway through, to the "Themes" section.
  • There are few things in articles about artistic works that I appreciate more than proper background that runs a little before the creation of the work itself, because it anchors the reader in context about the artist. However, parts of the "Background and writing" leave me wondering what would be left to expand in von Stroheim's own biographical article. I'm thinking in particular of the extensive detail about his transferring studios. I feel that parts of the first three paragraphs could be condensed into one or two, although the full writing could be preserved on von Stroheim's own page.
  • I agree with you that separate casting and cast sections are fine. The text with full historical information has a different value than a systematic list, and different readers would have different purposes and could jump to either section depending on their interest.
  • I think certain sentences could be condensed or split for clarity. I would double-check for sentences that use semi-colons, passive voice or lots of dependent clauses because they can become difficult to follow. I don't have time right now to comb for these examples, but I may be able to perform a more thorough copyedit if you'd like. To take one example:
  • "Another point where von Stroheim conceded his initial vision came during shooting of the bar confrontation between McTeague and Schouler; there, the director's desire for authenticity in having a knife thrower actually throw a real knife at Gibson Gowland's head was overruled by Gowland himself, who refused to allow such a dangerous stunt, and so a special-effect shot was used instead."
  • Could become...:
  • Von Stroheim also conceded his original vision when shooting the bar confrontation between McTeague and Schouler. The director insisted on authenticity, and wanted to have a knife thrower actually throw a real knife at Gibson Gowland's head. Von Stroheim was overruled by Gowland himself, who refused to allow such a dangerous stunt. A special-effect shot was used instead.
  • "He later said that he considered it the best role of his career." This sentence is ambiguous in its positioning within the paragraph and content, it needs a little more. Was the actor saying that the filming was fun? That the role was worthwhile despite the struggle? That the final result was excellent and/or he was proud of his performance? That he felt that von Stroheim's unconventional artistic direction was a fascinating experience?
  • The use of "feet" and "reels" to refer to the length of the film is confusing. That said, I like that you do it, because in historical terms you make it clear that this a historically accurate way to depict the contemporaneous terms that were used. However, I think that you probably need to reuse "note B" more often throughout and be consistent with conversions. For example:
  • "Despite his original contract stipulating that all films made by von Stroheim be under 8,500 feet, von Stroheim shot a total of 446,103 feet of footage for the film—running approximately 85 hours." We know how long the 446k reels runs, but about how long is the 8.5k?

I'll return to finish soon, hopefully by Friday. In the meantime, I have my own nomination up here that I don't feel bad about shamelessly plugging for critique. Give it a look if you can! Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've done a lot of work on this page and taken both of the contributing editors suggestions, although I still do not agree with changing the Cast or Myths and Misconceptions sections. It still may need anothe Copy Edit, but otherwise I'm open to more suggestions.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of those pre-date any edits I've made. I'm fine with them being removed if requested.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Greed3.jpg: FUR could be more specific - compare infobox images from other FA film articles for ideas
  • File:Erich_Von_Stroheim_1_Motion_Picture_Classic_1920.png: can we be more specific on the source? Is this a book...?
  • Taking a screenshot does not make the resultant image "own work" - the source is the film, so cite that instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- This review has been open almost two months. I haven't closed it because the article's already had a couple of shots here and the nominator has worked diligently to deal with comments as they've arisen. OTOH, I do need reviewers to declare if they in fact support promotion -- or conversely oppose it -- otherwise we're really just engaging in a de facto Peer Review. I'll add this to the list of FACs requiring urgent attention, and see in the next few days if any consensus either way looks like developing, otherwise we'll just have to archive it anyway and try again some other time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Infantile as it may seem I'm beginning to take the lack of interest in promoting the article personally. May I ask, would it be easier for everyone if someone else nominated it? I's be fine with not being attributed wikicredit for this article and just want to see it promoted. I think its a great article that a lot of people other than myself have worked hard on and that its basically ready after some tweaks.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Hamiltonstone, beginning from 'Production' section. I don't know what the issue is. I did find some repetition of words in the article, and I think prose problems are always a challenge to reviewers of longer articles. But I thought it was pretty good, and it is an absolutely rivetting story (not the plot - I mean the story of the making of the movie and its fate).

  • "A thinly disguised ZaSu Pitts to portrayed the woman"...?
  • Have changed this phrase to " A thinly disguised ZaSu Pitts portrayed the woman so that the audience would see a resemblance to Trina," - there are a couple of extra changes of my own in there, what do you think? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a knife thrower" should this be hyphenated? I'm not sure
  • "silhouettes in darkness". Is that right? An outline can only be a silhouette if the subject is in darkness, while if one tried to see a silhouette in darkness, one would see nothing at all...
  • not sure about the use of dashes in all instances of describing the films length. "the 10-reel version" - yes, but "the original version of Greed was 70-reels"?
  • I think you're right here; I'm amazed I missed this after going over this section so many times and it being the one of the most important points about the development and significance of the movie. I think I have it correct now. (Basically, lots of - replaced with space characters.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very good. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points, thanks for spotting these. I think I've fixed three of the four points now. Need feedback from a grammar expert on the knife-throwing thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has the phrase without a hyphen, so I'm going to take a guess that the nonp-hyphenated construction is the one favored by the knife throwing hobbyists. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useless Comment - Does anyone remember that episode of Cheers when Fraser tries to read A Tale of Two Cities out loud to everyone and all the other characters are bored to death so Fraser starts adding grotesque Stephen King and action movie elements to the book and suddenly everyone is riveted? Would it be alright with everyone if I added an appearance by Pennywise to the plot section?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you mean "I'm Getting My Act Together and Sticking It In Your Face" [2]? Um, considering this might be, based on the kinda limited information on your user page, your first FA, are we supposed to take the title of that episode as being maybe significant here? Tim Curry woulda made an awesome guest star though, maybe for the second season "Homicidal Ham" episode. here John Carter (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Support I believe the article meets WP:FA? now. FYI Deoliveirafan, I would've (remembered and) returned sooner if you had pinged me when my comments were addressed.—indopug (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support (except 1a and 1c) As in the previous two FACs, I support this article. However, I do not possess professional level of English skills, so I am not commenting on 1a. For an user with advanced level of English, the article is quite engaging, and lucid. I did not verify the references; so unable to comment on criterion 1c. Otherwise, the article is very nice, has a fascinating lead. It aroused in me a real interest in this exceptional film. The plot section has been appropriately trimmed. Nice work, regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I supported it last time. I believe that it should be promoted this time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- It seems appropriate that one of the longest films ever made should have generated one of the longest FACs ever... ;-) FTR, given the last one had a source review and spotcheck I'm happy to bypass those this time round. Couple of things: I spelt out California a couple of places it was CA, so pls check for similar instances re. any other states mentioned, and I think it's more conventional to put the Notes section ahead of the References. I'm not going to delay promotion for those, however. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Greed_(film)/archive3&oldid=1073193652"