Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive9

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 not promoted by Karanacs 18:00, 24 November 2009 [1].

Ralph Bakshi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because the current revision addresses all issues brought up during the previous FAC. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline: Date consistency, citing chapters in books without separate chapter authors, provision of appropriate bibliographic information for a text (2c). 2c citation consistency Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The chapters cited were written by the authors of the book. In the cases in which this is not true, the editors' names are provided, as well as the authors of the chapters. There is no citation inconsistency. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Could you supply a volume and issue number, if such exist. Supplying an article title, and indicating Staff author, [Staff author] (for no byline, or the byline ^ Television/radio Age. Television Editorial Corp. 1969. p. 13.
No, I cannot. Found the citation on Google Books. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This is unacceptable. I suggest using Worldcat to find full bibliographic information on the edition you cite.
This particular book does not appear on Woldcat. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Does Variety not credit authors in the 1970s? ^ "Fritz the Cat". Variety. 1972. Retrieved 2009-08-13.
The Variety website does not credit any author. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Date inconsistency, 3 styles used: eg, "^ Canby, Vincent (October 1, 1982). "Bakshi's 'Good Lookin'". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-08-13." and "^ King, Susan (April 24, 2005). "Bakshi's game of cat and mouse; He took heat when he addressed adult themes in animation, a realm thought to belong to kids. Now it's kudos.". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 4 March 2009." and "^ Gibson, John M.; McDonnell, Chris (April 1, 2008). Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi. Universe. ISBN 0789316846." pick one style and stick with it throughout.
I'm not sure where there is a problem, as the style is automatically generated by the cite templates. Could you look at how the templates are formatted to see if you can fix it yourself? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This is unacceptable. Its an actionable consistency complaint, and readily rectified by human editing, the fact that there are two retrieval date styles indicates that human beings manually entered retrieval date data at least once. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the styles consistently reflect the formatting guidelines for each type of citation (book, newspaper). If you honestly feel that there really is a problem, fix it yourself. If you cannot fix the "problem", there is no problem. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I believe I have addressed this issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dabomb87! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chapters in edited collections generally also indicate the book editor, as the books are indexed under book editors, "^ a b c d Grant, John (2001). "Ralph Bakshi". Masters of Animation. Watson-Guptill. pp. 28–29. ISBN 0823030415."
In most cases, there is only one author for each of the books. In instances where multiple authors contributed to a book, I've tried to credit the editors where possible, although I was not able to find the names for every book. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
If a book does not have specifically authored chapters (ie, "Chapter 3: Dancing under the stars. Rosa Luxemburg"), you cite the book, not the chapter. If chapters are specifically authored you cite the chapter as the item, as such, Luxemburg, Rosa (1915). "Dancing under the stars." The Big Book of Dancing Marxists, Engels, Frederick (ed.) Place: Publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the book citations are formatted correctly. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Where authors of chapters are also authors of the book, it is uncommon to cite chapters specifically. You seem to do it consistently, is this a style matter? see also "^ a b Gibson, Jon M.; McDonnell, Chris (2008). "Ups & Downs". Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi. Universe Publishing. pp. 210-211. ISBN 0789316846."
Cleaned up these cites. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Guardian often names its authors, did they not name an author for this work? ^ "Who flamed Roger Rabbit?". The Guardian. August 11, 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
Must have been removed by a copyeditor by mistake. I restored it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Chapter in a larger work, quotation within a title? Title quotations if on a single line generally end with a comma, not a full-stop (US English: period). ^ Beck, Jerry (2005). "Cool World". The Animated Movie Guide. Chicago Review Press. p. 58. ISBN 9781556525919.
Chapter headers are presented as they appear in the book. Please explain the exact problem. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
See above about correct citation of Authored books without specifically authored chapters. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Author? Staff? [Staff]? Volume, Issue, Page numbers if released on paper? ^ "Main Street Pictures Teams Up With Top Hollywood Creators". Animation World. September 12, 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-26.
Fixed citation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose Nominator's claim that "the current revision addresses all issues brought up during the previous FAC" is false, blatantly so. Here are two issues that were raised not just once, but multiple times during the previous FAC, which have not been addressed in any way. I can repeat my text virtually verbatim from that last FAC:

  • A major structural concern. There is great inconsistency in how the critical reception of Bakshi's feature films is treated. For instance, four contemporary reviews of Coonskin are quoted; similarly, four contemporary reviews of The Lord of the Rings are quoted. As for Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice, not a single critical opinion from the time of their respective releases is cited. The balance does not have to be exact, but for a Featured Article it has to be significantly better than this.
    • All sources have been exhausted for critical opinion, and everything that could be found is in the article. You may believe that it is not "balanced", but the fact is that the cited opinions of the films do reflect opinions from the release of the films. Jerry Beck wrote the reviews of these films when they were released, and they appeared in various animation journals. The reviews in his book, I would assume, more or less, reflect the same opinions. I believe that the overall presentation is balanced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • "All sources have been exhausted for critical opinion": this is patently false. DocKino (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it is not false. It is 100% true. It is completely lazy to not look at the article and make an opinion based on the fact that I'm saying it. If fifty people tell you that I am correct, are they wrong? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
          • Contemporary reviews of Heavy Traffic are quoted from Newsweek, The Hollywood Reporter, and The New York Times. Contemporary reviews of Coonskin are quoted from Playboy, The New York Times, Variety, and the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. Contemporary reviews of The Lord of the Rings are quoted from Newsday, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New York Times, and New York. It is patently false to claim that not even one of these publications, nor any of the hundreds of other newspapers and general-interest magazines around the country reviewed Wizards, or American Pop, or Fire and Ice. Talk about lazy. DocKino (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are no reviews of Fire and Ice on Rotten Tomatoes. The reviews presented for that film are the best I could find. I added a couple of additional reviews for Wizards and American Pop. Fire and Ice had an extremely limited release. The Beck commentary was the best I could find. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • The "Return to television" section gives two very different interpretations of Bakshi's experience with Nickelodeon, which many readers are likely not to realize refer to the exact same production. Paragraph 4 refers to Christmas in Tattertown and quotes Bakshi to the effect that the projected series for which it was originally intended as a pilot "didn't make sense. It just didn't work." Paragraph 6 informs us that though "Nickelodeon had initially been willing to greenlight 39 episodes of Junktown, the Wildmon controversy led the project to be renamed and eventually abandoned." I was able to add a bit to paragraph 4 to make matters clearer, but my access to relevant sources is limited. The rest is up to you. Please recast this section as appropriate so the discussion of the Nickelodeon project is coherent and clear. In particular, we need to be clear about this: Was the series abandoned because "it just didn't work"? Or because of the Wildmon controversy? Or is that an unresolved question?
    • Clipped. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Please explain via a detailed description of your sources, why you chose to "clip" Bakshi's quote--"We were trying something different [...] but a series didn't make sense. It just didn't work"--rather than, say, "clip" the claim that the Wildmon controversy led the project to be "abandoned", or continue to provide both statements while explaining how they were either equal factors or how the explanation for the abandonment is unresolved.
      • Also, despite your "clip", this passage remains confusing and unclear. The change in title from Junktown to Christmas in Tattertown is introduced as if it was an unremarkable decision; then, two paragraphs later, after reading about the Wildmon controversy, we encounter the claim that the controversy led to the renaming. This is very poor structure. Please consolidate the discussion of Christmas in Tattertown into one paragraph or rewrite the section to be much clearer about the chronology. DocKino (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rewrote. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
          • And yet, confusion remains. The first passage now reads: "The same year, he began production on a series pilot loosely adapted from his Junktown comic strips. According to Bakshi, 'Tattertown was going to be a revitalization of cartoon style from the '20s and '30s. It was gonna have Duke Ellington and Fats Waller jazzing up the soundtrack.' Nickelodeon was initially willing to greenlight 39 episodes of Junktown." Do you see the problem? What was the title of the planned Nickelodeon series intended to be--Junktown or Tattertown? Also, you have yet to explain your rationale for deleting Bakshi's comment that the series concept "just didn't work". DocKino (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I raised these issues in the last FAC, I reiterated them there when they were not addressed after a week, and Steve in his reviews also indicated that they were significant concerns. In the interim, nothing has been done to address these concerns.

  • In addition, it seems clear that virtually nothing has been done to address the overreliance on one source, Gibson and McDonnell's Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi, that Steve addressed--again, repeatedly--in the last FAC. As Steve took the lead on that issue before, I hope he'll return here and give us his sense of whether there's been any progress or not. DocKino (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfiltered is used largely in sourcing biographical information which cannot be better sourced elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with the book. It's the only biography to focus entirely on Bakshi's work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • As Steve, Ottava Rima, and mattisse detailed in the last FAC, this is not a standard biography and is perhaps better described as a tribute volume. Steve also noted that a review of the book in the Los Angles Times, described it as "a sloppily written paean that reads like the product of a vanity press" and "a superficial apologia". The L.A. Times reviewer is Charles Solomon, a well-established scholar of cinematic animation history, whose books include Enchanted Drawings: The History of Animation and Disney Lost and Found: Exploring the Hidden Artwork from Never-Produced Animation. Despite all this, none of us argued that the book should not be used as a reference, simply that a greater effort needs to be made to access additional sources to ensure that a balanced view of Bakshi's career has been provided. There is little evidence that any such effort has been undertaken. DocKino (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I previously stated, the book is used primarily to source biographical information, not to state an opinion of Bakshi's works. Anyone who took a look at the article could tell that the book is being used in a neutral manner. Additionally, the book is, in fact, a standard biography, not a tribute volume, and Solomon is incorrect in describing the book as vanity or apologia. Many sources are used within the article to create the overall body. It's not a repeat of information stated in Unfiltered. And it's not "sloppily written". Don't take a California writer's opinion of a book about a New Yorker. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Ibaranoff, this article is approaching a record number of FACs. Unless you can quickly address these recurring issues, I feel obligated to archive this FAC and ask that you not re-submit it until you have gotten permission from Raul, Karanacs or me. I'll give it a few days to see how this evolves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly, there are no further issues that need to be addressed. DocKino is clearly nitpicking. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Being the editor who originally raised the issue of too many references coming from the primary source,[2] that is Unfiltered co edited by Ralph Bakshi, I still count something like 110 references to Unfiltered in the footnotes section. I personally think that is too many. But it is up to you all. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The footnotes are presented this way in order to clarify which sections of the book are being cited, because it's a large book with many sections of art, and reviewers have found it difficult to find the pages cited based on the previous order. Again, the book is used primarily to cite biographical information. As the only book to cover Bakshi's life and work, it's necessary for it to play so heavily in researching a biography of Ralph Bakshi. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • You mention above that Fire and Ice had an "extremely limited release", but this is not made clear in the article. Please add what you can about the circumstances of the film's release.
  • I just read through the entire article and feel that it's in quite strong shape. The reliance on Unfiltered gives it at times a somewhat more personal tone than we might expect if sources more distant from Bakshi were referenced, but I don't necessarily see that as a problem. I don't feel the article reads like a hagiography--the inclusion of negative reviews of the films where appropriate certainly contributes to an overall sense of balance. Mattisse has weighed in, above. I'll contact Steve and Ottava Rima to see if they're interested in returning for another look. DocKino (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose for now. The first thing that needs to be said is that this is a strong article, and has been for at least the last few nominations. The issues that let it down during previous FACs have mostly been minor in the scheme of things; they could and should have been resolved long before now. Instead of bringing this back with few changes between nominations, I would have liked to have seen some of the time since August being spent on thoroughly researching offline contemporary sources of comment on Bakshi's films and periods of his life. The only new sources are reviews from The Chicago Reader and The New York Times, plus the Ocala Star-Banner article I found during the last nomination. That's a good start, but each of these is available online, which makes me think that there may be more out there if the attempt is made to find them. Even the Star-Banner article hasn’t had its full scope utilised—it's a reasonably large profile piece on Bakshi and yet is used to source just the one line that Fire and Ice "was given a limited release and was financially unsuccessful". What about Bakshi's views of the animation industry, analyses and perceptions of his work by himself, critics and the public; what about about his rescinded pledge to abandon animation for live action because of the difficulties he faced? This is just one profile piece that I found almost by accident, so I'm a little wary about proclaiming this article as comprehensive as it can be. That said ... I am open to the possibility that there isn't much else available—I haven't a foolproof way of knowing. With that in mind, if the Star Banner article is used to its full potential I'll withdraw this part of my "oppose" and consider supporting based on the other featured article criteria. I don’t think I can be fairer than that. Now, on the heavy use of Unfiltered—something we've established as possibly not the most neutral source—the nominator asserts that it is used "primarily to source biographical information, not to state opinion of Bakshi's works". For the most part, I'm content to go along with this (for the record, I've examined every statement sourced to the book), but there are exceptions. For example, "Bakshi won praise from his peers and a pay rise"; "praise from Rolling Stone and The New York Times and its acceptance into the 1972 Cannes Film Festival altered perceptions"; "Priscilla Anne Reuel ... told him that [Tolkien] would be proud of his approach to the story"; "As a result of his reputation as an innovator of adult animation"; "It became a major hit, grossing over $100 million worldwide, and was the most successful independent animated feature of all time"; the blame for Cool World's critical and commercial failure resting largely on the shoulders of the studio. If the exceptions could be looked into and ideally backed up by another source, I think the only remaining issue some might have with Unfiltered is that selective anecdotes tend to paint Bakshi in an attractively rebellious light. As more neutral sources seem to confirm that aspect of his personality, I'm willing to let that slide. Others might not, and I recommend that subsequent reviewers consider the point. All the best, Steve T • C 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I clipped the bits you mentioned, and added additional sources regarding Cool World. The Ocala Star piece isn't about Bakshi's career, but the state of animation in general. I didn't include Bakshi's analysis of how he and others perceive his own work because it doesn't fit into the biography scope. I haven't seen enough verifying any "rescinded pledge to abandon animation for live action" from reliable sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Sorry, my fault. I didn't post the link: [4] (note for others, this is a different Star Banner article than the longer profile piece). I'll take a look at your other changes shortly. Steve T • C 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wait, I think there's been a minor misunderstanding here. The Ocala Star-Banner piece I reference in my "oppose" comment above is this one, which I thought you were aware of; however, the one you've used in the article is the smaller piece I've linked immediately above (at [3]). Take a look at the longer article, see what you think about its usefulness. Steve T • C 22:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I added one citation from the article you posted. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
              • With the Star-Banner piece, I didn't mean that it merely should be added as a citation for pre-existing material, but that it should be used as a source for new content. Is there really nothing in the article that you think would be of use here? Steve T • C 09:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I didn't see any new information there. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
                  • Do you really not see a place in this article for things such as Bakshi's assertion that he planned to give up animation for live-action after the commercial and critical failure of Fire and Ice (even though, as our article does say, he went instead into semi-retirement to focus on painting); Bakshi's analysis of his own work, e.g. that they're all "satiric looks at [jerks]" informed by his own anger with society; Bakshi's difficulties with and opinions on being the only person making adult animation; Bakshi's shifting place in the animation industry over the years, e.g. pre- and post-Coonskin ("boy wonder", genius and innovator, to a pariah whose career was forever tainted by the controversy)? These are just examples snatched from a look at random paragraphs. I mean, if you think that none of it is relevant to this article, then fair enough, give me a counterargument and I'll honestly consider it. Steve T • C 11:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't think Bakshi's opinions of his own work are relevant here because this is a biography, not a analysis of his works. He never actually wanted to give up animation for live-action, so that's irrelevant as well. And his reputation was not hurt by Coonskin. The movie wasn't even as controversial as many newspapers made it out to be. Bakshi himself said that the "controversy" was exaggerated. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • What purpose does the L.A. photo serve? It shows old and new Downtown L.A. Do we have a source that says Bakshi's studio was located in either area? If so, please state so in the primary text and specify the depicted area in the caption. If not, the image should be cut--an essentially random, and unattractive, shot of L.A. hardly does the reader much of a service. Given the attention paid to its innovative visual style, there is certainly a strong fair use case to be made for the inclusion of a thoughtfully selected still from Fritz the Cat. I'd look in that direction to improve the quality of the article's visual information content. DocKino (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2009 (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/Ralph_Bakshi/archive9&oldid=1138469642"