Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive5

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 User:SandyGeorgia 03:25, 13 January 2009 [1].

---

Ralph Bakshi

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk)

I am renominating this article because its previous FAC had received very little attention in spite of it only requiring minor improvements which were quickly made following inquiry. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• File:Ralph Bakshi.jpg - It is my understanding that all email communication regarding image permissions needs to go through OTRS. Therefore, I think Rachel Moore needs to send an email releasing the rights to this image to permissions AT wikimedia.org
  • This is not necessary, as Moore has already allowed the use of the image. (06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
    • It is necessary. Anyone could type this information into the file's history. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I contacted Moore. You should get a response. Being that I was the one who uploaded the image, I can personally confirm the correspondence with Moore. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
• File:Fritz the Cat (UK poster).JPG - I can't find the image at the source link. The fair use rationale also needs to list who owns the image.
  • Corrected. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
    • This has not been corrected: "The source of the image is irrelevant" - The source of the image is relevant as it establishes WP:NFCC #4. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Added a source on this poster, and added a different poster to the main article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
• File:Coonskin screenshot.png - I've added more to the fair use rationale, however more work needs to be done. The purpose of use is too vague. Please describe in detail why this particular scene is included in the article. Why does the reader need to see this image? It seems to me that there has to be some information here about the satirization of African-American stereotypes and such. The rationale also needs to indicate who owns the copyright to the film.
  • Corrected. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
    • None of the questions I asked above have been answered in the fair use rationale. It is still far too vague. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it's pretty clear. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
• File:Ralph Bakshi The Lord of the Rings.jpg - The description for this image just says "A scene from The Lord of the Rings" - could we have a more specific description? Is this a scene between Frodo and Gandalf or Bilbo and Gandalf, for example? I'm unsure. We also need a stronger "purpose of use" (note that it is almost identical to the purpose for the Coonskin image). Again, the purpose of use needs to detail why this particular image is necessary for the article. Finally, we need to list the copyright holder for the film.
  • Corrected. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
    • The purpose of use is still too vague. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't. It's very clear. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

You might find this dispatch on non-free images helpful, particularly the section at the end about writing purposes of use. I look forward to resolving these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone working on these issues? Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No edits to the article or the FAC for a week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the nominator is frustrated. This is his fifth nomination, and really the article is in great shape. There are just some minor things here and there that could be improved. I really think we should do whatever we can do make this article meet the FAC requirements.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Still no response from the nominator: is anyone working on the image and sourcing issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8744784132440773336&hl=en Also, is this a copyright violation?
    • The video seems to have been uploaded by the copyright owner. It is an interview with the subject of the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
  • http://www.dvdverdict.com/interviews/ralphbakshi.php
    • Another interview with the subject of the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
  • http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/ralph-bakshi-on-the-fritz/2454

    Isn't this one a no-brainer? I converted the citation to cite news and linked in the magazine's wiki article.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

    • Is it a magazine then? It's not apparant that it's a mainstream magazine, at least not at first glance to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

      It's a reliable source definitely.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Magazine/newspaper titles in the references should be in italics. Please note I brought this up at the last FAC.

  Any easy way to fix this is simply to use the work= parameter rather than the publisher= parameter. Unless you want to do something like BlackBook magazine, then just use the publisher= parameter. But this is a minor quibble. Why hasn't anyone fixed it yet? Anyhow, this article is impressive.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 8 (Maltin) is lacking a page number

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Hi Ibaranoff24. You should contact Variety or figure some way of finding out exactly the article title of "'Article unknown', Variety, (December 19, 1973). As cited by Karl F. Cohen in Forbidden Animation: Censored Cartoons and Blacklisted Animators in America." Then read the entire article. It could be of no real additional importance, but you never know. Maybe has some interesting stuff to say.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Also, in the lede I would explain what a "cel polisher" or a "cel painter" is: Bakshi started his career as a cel polisher at the Terrytoons studio, working his way up from cel painter to inker, then animator, and eventually he began to direct animated television shows for the studio. Sure there is the wikilink, but it just has to be explained. I have no idea how he started his career if I don't know that cel is celluloid, and whatever does working with celluloid mean?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  I would write something like: Bakshi started his career as a cel polisher—a now uncommon material thingy that was used for animation and film production up until the late 20th century—at the Terrytoons studio, working his way up from cel painter to inker, then animator, and eventually he began to direct animated television shows for the studio. Just put something quickly in there within emdashes to explain it. It will make the reader a little more comfortable about this weird thing they don't know about.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  I went ahead and made a copyedit. Change accordingly.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  I'm worried that I may have messed up the lede. I changed it to: Bakshi started his career at the Terrytoons studio as a cel polisher and then a cel painter—jobs which involved delineating objects on celluloid, a material that was used for animation and film production up until the late 20th century. He worked his way up to inker, then animator, and eventually began to direct animated television shows for the studio. I'm now thinking that inker, means cel inker? But you can see what I'm trying to do. Give a little explanation about what working with cel means.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Support This is an outstanding article on an important figure and easily worthy of FA status. The only improvement I could find to make was to add a single wiki-link. I am expecting that the image copyright issues raised by a previous comment will be easily resolved. The use of a single frame of an animated film in an article on the animator should be classic fair use, and can easily be justified as being needed to give the reader a visual impression of the animation style used for the film. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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