Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jud Süß (1940 film)/archive1

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 not promoted by Ucucha 11:38, 1 January 2012 [1].

Jud Süß (1940 film)

Featured article candidates/Jud Süß (1940 film)/archive1

Nominator(s): Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this as a featured article because, after a couple of months of work, I think it's ready. This is an important film as it is one of the two or three most famous and studied antisemitic films of the Nazi era. It has been the subject of at least three documentary films in recent years and, unfortunately, seems to have been revived in neo-Nazi and white supremacist circles. Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave spaces between footnotes and the punctuation they follow
"Even these characters and their actions are distorted to support the film's antisemitic message." - source?
- Almost every source supports the assertion that the film distorts the historical characters; some sources support the assertion that the film does not closely track the historical record. However, the specific wording of this sentence is my own summary of what is written (and supported) in the rest of the article. Thus, there is no one source that makes the specific assertion in the sentence. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additions or changes to quoted material should be made using square brackets; punctuation things like dashes should be silently addressed
- I've started working on finding and fixing these. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ranges should use endashes
- I've started working on finding and fixing these. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources should appear after footnotes
- Resolved --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods, italicization errors, etc
Why does the Nelson listing have a retrieval date but no URL?
- Resolved --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mix templated and untemplated sources
- In progress.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved - Mooted by the removal of the "Sources" section per recommendation below. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting for Sources should be internally consistent and the same as that used for footnotes
- In progress.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved - Mooted by the removal of the "Sources" section per recommendation below. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't duplicate full bibliographic info between footnotes and Sources
- What should be left out of the sources? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing. Usually when one includes a sources section listing sources used in footnotes, it's because one is using shortened citations, {{sfn}}, {{harvnb}} or similar. Thus, as a footnote, you might have "Fox, p. 4" (or however you wanted to format that) and the full bibliographic info in Sources. Alternatively, you could ditch the sources section altogether and just have full bibliographic info in footnotes. It's up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Resolved - I chose to ditch the sources section altogether and commented out the "Sources" section since all the bibliographic information is already in the "References" section. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
- Fixed.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FN 7: formatting
- Fixed.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Web sources need publisher and retrieval date
- Mostly fixed. Reviewing to see if I got all of these. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, as there are a lot of formatting issues to deal with in citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Many of the issues mentioned above have been addressed. I'm still working on some of them. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question I was just wondering why the cast section is needed if they are inline the plot section and there is a casting section. Also why is it in a table? --Peppage ^ಠ_ಠ 22:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... I dunno. It seems de rigeur for articles on films to have a "Cast" section that provides a concise listing of the cast. I'm not wedded to having it but, when the article went through peer review, Brianboulton seemed to think that the Plot, Analysis and Cast sections were standard for most FA-quality articles about films and so should be presented first in the article rather than last so I moved them up to the top. The "Plot" section mentions the key actors but, because the article is already quite long, it does not cover all the action of the film or even all the actors. Similarly, the "Casting" section covers only the casting of the four lead actors because several sources cover the story of their reluctance to accept the parts offered to them.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at MOS:FILM#Cast for the answer. Perhaps it would be best to take the names out of the plot and leave the section? I think the table is the real issue anyway, I don't see the need for it. --Peppage ^ಠ_ಠ 03:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me about MOS:FILM. I didn't know that existed. I will look it over and see if there are any other issues that need addressing. As for the "Cast" section, I will de-tableize the info immediately and see if anybody else objects to the section remaining. I will also compare the list in the "Cast" section against the summary in the "Plot" section. If all the important actors are mentioned in the "Plot" section, it might make sense to dump the "Cast" section altogether. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved - I took a look and there are no actors mentioned in the "Cast" section that weren't being mentioned in the "Plot" section so I commented out the "Cast" section altogether. Thank you for your suggestion. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to get your thoughts on a possible page title of "Jud Süss (1940 film)" ... although after the ß (ess-zed) is explained in the text, I don't have a preference in whether to use it in the text. It's a somewhat thorny issue ... 20 years ago, serious copyeditors were generally adamant about allowing only a few accent marks, no other non-English diacritics and characters, generally in text but especially in titles and headlines. Chicago has loosened up a bit recently ... but I can't figure out yet how far this new tolerance for strange letters (strange to most English-speakers) has progressed; different guides say different things. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh... this whole question about "ss" vs. "ß" is a can of worms. I have opened this can, eaten the worms and now have an upset stomach. Earlier versions of this article had a mish-mash of inconsistent usage wrt ß and umlauts. As I worked to regularize the usage, I had some doubts about the best way to handle some issues so I posted a query on WT:GERMANY. The discussion can be found here. In brief, I was given specific advice regarding the spelling of the names Malte Jaeger and Werner Krauss (no umlaut, no ß). I was also informed that there is no consensus and indeed a fairly gnarly difference of opinion regarding the use of diacritical marks in article titles. I was advised not to try to form a consensus regarding "ss" vs. "ß" in article titles because it would just increase the already existing disruption. Note that, if we were to get rid of both the umlaut and the ß, we would wind up with "Jud Suess" which is really the least used of the various ways to spell this name. If there is a strong opinion that this article should be titled "Jud Süss" instead of "Jud Süß", I could accede to it although I think I would want to get the opinion of editors at WP:GERMANY first before finalizing anything. For what it's worth, my rationale for the current article title is that "Jew Süss" is the title of the 1934 British film and "Jud Süß" is the title of the 1940 film that is the subject of this article. This more or less reflects usage in the sources although there is not always a consistent usage and "Jud Süss" does appear although not as frequently as "Jud Süß". Had enough? Have the worms given you an upset stomach as well? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a tough one. Here are a few ngrams from books.google.com: Jud Süß (no hits!) vs. Jud Suss vs. Jud Suess, dass vs. daß, heißt vs. heisst. ß seems to be losing, despite the inevitable presence of German text in some of those hits. My sense is that most copyeditors are still opposed to characters that many English-speakers won't even be able to guess at, but characters where they're likely to guess the wrong pronunciation (such as Ł and Ř) are now okay. So ... is ß now okay because it might be mispronounced as a B? Not sure, but the ngrams seem to suggest we're not there yet. (ü is fine btw, AP Stylebook and Chicago have supported it for a long time.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... it seems that my memory did not serve me well. A quick glance at the first few pages of results from a Google Books search suggests that "Jud Süss" does in fact appear more frequently in English-language sources than "Jud Süß". (Google converts a search for "Jud Süß" into a search for both ""Jud Süß" and ""Jud Süss". I suspect I was confusing English-language sources with German-language sources. Based on this, I am more open to the idea of renaming both the article and the name of the title role throughout the article. If no one else puts an oar in, I will do this in the next few days. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. (WP:DISAMBIG#Usage_guidelines) --Z 20:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When we have a quoted text in another one, single quotation (') should be used for the former (footnotes #57, 77, and 87); Example: "quoted text... 'inner quoted text' ...". --Z 20:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect these titles (if necessary[?]): Jud Süss (1940 film), Jud Süss (1940), Jew Süss (1940), Jew Suss (1940 film), Jud Suss (1940), Jew Suss (1940). --Z 20:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is still another unsourced statement, it would be good if you can fix that. --Z 20:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see '(in German)' somewhere and '(German)' somewhere else. Article should follow a consistent style. --Z 20:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using footnotes in footnote is wrong. (minor issue though) --Z 20:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if you use citation templates in "Further reading" section. --Z 20:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation templates are neither mandatory nor desirable; consistent format is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. I doubt this article is readily intelligible to anybody who doesn't already know about the subject. Let us have this article in a comprehensible order before we expose it to the public.
Immediately after the plot summary, we have:
Some of these departures were based on the Feuchtwanger novel and the Mendes' film adaptation of it; others were introduced by Goebbels and Harlan

Feuchtwanger has not been mentioned before, and his novel is described far below.

This is followed by:
Although Lion Feuchtwanger believed that Harlan's film relied heavily on his novel, Bergfelder and Cargnelli characterize the film as "based primarily on Wilhelm Hauff's novella" and assert that it only uses a few characters from Feuchtwanger's novel

Who are Bergfelder and Cargnelli? why should the reader care about their opinion (which contradicts the sentence above)?

More importantly, Hauff's novella and its plot is not described at all, as far as I can see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

File:Jud Süß.jpeg meets WP:NFCC
File:Feuchtwanger Jud Süß 1925.JPG needs a description in English
So does File:Joseph-Süß-1.jpg
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1968-101-20A, Joseph Goebbels.jpg should have a date
No problems with File:WP Leni Riefenstahl.jpg
File:DoraGerson.jpg is OK, but if you can be bothered then adapt the summary to {{Information}}
Perhaps crop off the side caption of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H09160, Heinrich George.jpg?
File:Ferdinand Marian.jpg is completely lacking in summary and licensing info
File:Werner Krauss.jpg is OK
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2007-1022-508, Hamburg, Prozess gegen Veit Harlan.jpg needs English description

Oppose for now on these issues. —Andrew_stalk 23:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your review. I confess I know very little about how to edit the metadata of image files. In particular, I need some help with figuring out how to add an English description to {{information}} of an image when there is already a German description. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, for this one, click on the

icon on the topright corner, then go to the edit page (login before that) and add {{en|Description in English}} just before the German one:

{{Information

| Description = {{en|in English}} {{de|in German}}

...

--Z 09:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.