Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scarface (1932 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2018 [1].

Scarface (1932 film)

Nominator(s): Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original film version of Scarface made by Howard Hawks and Howard Hughes in 1932 was based on the life of Al Capone. Al Capone himself reportedly liked the film and was rumored to own a copy of it. As one of the first and most important gangster films, this film significantly influenced the future of the gangster genre including the 1983 version Brian de Palma version of Scarface starring Al Pacino. The film battled with censors over its excessive violence, sympathetic portrayal of criminals, and undertones of incest between the main character and his younger sister. Due to censorship, the film has three different endings, two of which were released and can be found currently on the DVD box sets. Upset that he did not make money on the film, Howard Hughes took the film out of circulation after its release and hid it in his vault until it was discovered after his death in 1979. The most violent gangster film of its time, Scarface depicts the violent life of a prohibition-era Chicago gangster through murder, betrayal, lawlessness, and Thompson sub-machine guns.Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Scar2.gif needs a more extensive FUR. Same with File:The_world_is_yours_scarface_1932.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikkimaria, in response to your comment, I deleted the image File:The_world_is_yours_scarface_1932.jpg., because after more consideration, I felt that it was difficult to justify the use of the image in the article, because I believe the understanding of the topic was not greatly augmented with the use of the image and could easily be understood by words alone. File:Scar2.gif on the other hand is necessary for identification and comprehension of the subject and I attempted to update the fair use rationale for that image, using a template for more organization. Please let me know whether my changes were adequate, because I am definitely not an expert on FUR. Thank you. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Definitely better, but we should generally have content for each of the criteria represented by that template. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- This nom has been open a couple of weeks without attracting any comprehensive commentary, a bit surprising considering it's such a classic and has the connection to the infamous Pacino version. On a procedural note, I see that there's a Peer Review that's still open -- per FAC instructions, articles shouldn't be appearing at PR and FAC simultaneously. We could close the PR, but I think we'd be better off if we close this and you actively try and scare up some commentary from film/crime-related projects and editors at PR, then renominate here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ian Rose, thanks for your response. I am willing to remove my nomination; however, the only reason I decided to nominate my article, was because I was having a difficult time finding help for the improvement of my article. It has been on peer review since August with no response. Considering the backlog of articles on peer review, it is hard for me to know whether the article will be reviewed any time soon. I have also directly asked mentors for help with my article with no response. I decided to nominate my article for FA, hoping to actually get a response and some suggestions for improvement. I was as surprised as you were for the lack of response here as well. Considering what I have already tried, do you think it would be better if I keep it nominated here or remove my nomination and wait for a peer review? Thank you. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not getting back to you earlier, Skyes, had a busy couple of days... I think Tony has helped answer the question, there's a few things you could be going on with there as far as improvements go but let's make it in Peer Review, not FAC. I might try and get a few people along to the PR myself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

1a: Oppose. Not good enough on the basis of the first half of the lead.

"It was produced by Howard Hughes and Howard Hawks. As well as producing, Hawks also directed the film." Repetition. Something like: "It was produced by Howard Hawkes and Howard Hughes; Hawkes also directed the film."
"Written by Ben Hecht, the screenplay is based on Armitage Trail's 1929 novel of the same title, which is loosely depicts the rise and fall of Al Capone." Fluffy, and what is "is loosely depicts"? "The screenplay, by Ben Hecht, is based on Armitage Trail's 1929 novel of the same title, which loosely depicts the rise and fall of Al Capone."
So we reverse apprehend that Dvorak didn't just "feature", but was a "star". "The film features Ann Dvorak as Camonte's sister, and also stars Karen Morley, Osgood Perkins, George Raft, and Boris Karloff." Why not: "The film stars Ann Dvorak (as Camonte's sister), and Karen Morley, Osgood Perkins, George Raft, and Boris Karloff."
Contextual redundancy: "A version of the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre is represented in a scene from the film." Not from the film, surely. "A version of the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre is represented in one scene."
There are 99 instances of "that". Chop about a third of them. Like here: "Believing ~~that~~ the film was too violent and ~~that it~~ glorified the illegal acts of the gangster, Hollywood censorship offices called for major alterations of the film, including an alternate ending that would more clearly condemn and shame Tony Camonte." Consider "the gangster's illegal acts. Tony (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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